From: thomasr@cpqhou.compaq.com (Thomas Rush)
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Reply-To: thomasr@cpqhou.compaq.com (Thomas Rush)
Organization: Compaq Computer Corporation
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 16:09:33 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.142212.14448@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <1992Nov12.174739.25513@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti/100000) writes:
>
>>fred j mccall 575-3539 (mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com) wrote:
>>:                                                     Describe a
>>: method that will pave YOUR STREET -- keeping the costs in mind.
>
>>If I want my street paved, I'll get together with my neighbors and if they
>>agree, then we'll chip in and pave it.  Why should YOU have to help pay to
>>pave my street if you never use it?
>
>And what happens if a couple of guys who live at the end of the block
>don't want to 'chip in'?  Anyway, you must live in a very wealthy
>neighborhood, if people can afford to 'chip in' and will collect
>enough money to pave your whole street.

Then their end of the street doesn't get paved.  Or the block has a set
of covenants that include a stipulation that money be set aside in trust
each year in preparation for repaving the street -- much like condominium
associations do today with roofing and common area maintenance.

I never thought I'd see someone so anxious to pay for my street to be
repaved!

>Of course, then there's the problem of the next block, etc., all the
>way to where you work.  Will you let other people from outside your
>block drive on 'your' street?  If so, how will you collect from them
>for using it?

Maybe we do, maybe we don't.  I expect that most people will choose not
to charge, but it certainly is none of my business if they choose to set
up access fees.  I imagine those that do will have a lot fewer door-to-
door salesmen.

>>: Given a choice between breathing the shmutz and having a job and not
>>: breathing the shmutz and not having a job (and hence starving to death
>>: in libertopia), most people would elect to breath the shmutz.
>
>>Then obviously there are more important things to them than whether there's
>>"shmutz" in the air.
>
>Of course there is, John.  Dying of breathing shmutz at the age of 50
>is going to feel a lot more attractive than starving to death next
>week, wouldn't you say?
>>: But
>>: what about the person who DOESN'T work at the factory?  What about the
>>: guy who doesn't consume any of the product of that factory and would
>>: just as soon the factory didn't exist, but has to breath the shmutz
>>: anyway so that those who DO consume the product of the factory get a
>>: cheaper price (because they don't have to pay the costs of the impact
>>: of shmutz on the environment)?
>
>>There are other alternatives.  He can move, for example.  He can organize a 
>>boycott of the factory's products.  He can buy a gas mask :-)  Those of you
>>who don't spew any "shmutz" can cast the first stone.
>
>These are the typical arguments one hears from libertarians on this
>subject.  The amazing thing is that you consider this a 'workable'
>solution.  What it is is a method of getting absolutely the worst
>environment that people will tolerate, and then making it just a BIT
>worse because that still won't spur group action.  Or they can uproot
>their families and be driven from their homes because some
>industrialist wants to poison their neighborhood.  Or they can try
>beating a multi-billion dollar corporation in an overcrowded court
>system, while things deteriorate further in the meantime (good luck
>with that one, sans any laws on your side).

What makes you think there won't be any laws on the neighboring property-
owners' side?  

>It is the preceding sort of thing that makes the whole libertarian
>credo so unattractive to most people.

What?  Misconceptions?

>>: But what if there isn't sufficient traffic to justify the initial
>>: capital investment in the road (in a free market).
>
>>If there isn't sufficient traffic, then why do you need to build a road?
>
>Do the phrases 'startup costs' and 'initial investment' mean anything
>to you?  You can 'need to build a road' and yet not have sufficient
>traffic to justify THE INITIAL INVESTMENT (compared to other, faster
>return projects).
>
>>: Please describe
>>: for me a mechanism where a city (say Dallas) would have roads in the
>>: residential areas so that people could get to work.
>
>>The people who use the road can assume the cost.  
>
>One more time.  Please describe for me A MECHANISM as to how that
>would work.

The builder puts in the roads when the homes are built (for subdivisions).
The cost of those roads is included in the price of the homes.
The homewoners' association charter includes provision for annual dues 
that include money to cover the projected cost of road repair.

In the case of non-subdivision homes, the homeowner is responsible for 
paving the road in front of his home.  Or, he can join with others to 
ensure that a covenant is put in place whereby the road maintenance is
paid for as above.

It's not really such a big deal.  I can count dozens of homes within a 
few miles of mine that are on unpaved roads.  

Roads like county highways and other major roads may see the road 
rights of individual owners sold to someone who would run it as a toll
road in return for agreeing to provide certain access and maintenance
for those who sell their rights.

>>As for thouroughfares,
>>why can't the businesses that are located there assume the cost?  They
>>benefit from making it easier for customers to get to them.
>
>And what about businesses that can't afford 'their share', do not want
>to pay 'their share', since for the business down the road from them
>to get any benefit they will have to have a road to them, too, or
>which move in or out?  How do you propose that this would work?

And what of businesses that can't afford to pay 'their share' of taxes,
or the light bill, or their rent -- or of maintenance on the shopping
center parking lot?  They go out of business.

Remember, though, that in the libertarian society, everyone has a lot 
more money to spend.  We offer you a society where you don't have to 
pay for streets to be paved across town, across the state, or across
the country.  You don't have to pay farm subsidies for crops you 
never consume.  Money you earn is yours to keep; you can spend it as
you choose -- we're betting that most people would choose to spend
some of it to pave their roads.

>>: Also describe
>>: what the resident on the typical block would have to pay.
>
>>I don't know.  Whatever it costs.  The price will of course influence the 
>>decision on whether to build it or not.
>
>Well, 'whatever it costs' is a pretty loose answer.  How do you know
>whether your libertarian proposals are even feasible if you don't
>consider what they cost?

What does it cost now?  The money is coming from your pocket _anyway_.
We propose you have the right to keep your money, and to spend it as
you see fit.  When it comes time to pave your road, you also have the
right to submit the job to a number of firms and have them bid on it.
No more overpaid, underworked, three-supervisors-and-one-guy-with-a-
shovel Roads department.  

I bet we get the job done cheaper.

thomas rush			compaq computer corporation	
thomasr@cpqhou.compaq.com	their employee, not their opinions.
I believe all human interactions should be based on mutual consent.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:24214 alt.politics.clinton:17579