From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: uk.misc
Subject: Re: Transport subsidies - Was: Car Parking
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 16:50:22 GMT
Distribution: uk
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

snail@lsl.co.uk writes:
> In article <Ps4TVB21w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
> > Are you suggesting that in a free market, with people paying for resources
> > they use, travel by *all* means will be prohibitively expensive?  More
> > expensive than the cost of running a car now?  More expensive than the mone

> > they won't be being taxed to pay for the roads?  If so, on what reasoning d
> > you base this assertion?
> 
> Well, just looking at the current economic miracle is quite a good
> justification of this.

Ah, yes.  The "yeah, well, it's obvious, innit?" argument.

> >>         If they have to pay for all the roads they use and they have no mo
> >> to pay they can't get where they *NEED* to go.
> > 
> > That's nothing -- I have to pay for all the roads I *don't* use.  I never u
> > motorways, for example.
> 
> But you can get where you need to go.

Yes, by paying per-use tolls, walking, or using my bike.  Maybe I just
don't need to go places as much as some people... although I seem to
remember not too many years ago it was odd for people to travel
outside of their local village.

> >>                                            I'm not saying want to go, I'm
> >> saying *NEED* to go, ie they may be very ill, or pregnant or whatever. No
> >> I'll just let them stay there and die.
> > 
> > You seem to be assuming that ambulances are impossible in a free market.
> 
> Pretty much so, since fofp (and presumably you) says health care will be
> provided by charity. Since the people I'm concerned about are the people who
> have no money or very little money, I think I'm being a lot more realistic
> about the problems such people would face.

The people who have money will presumably have health insurance.
Those who can't afford it are the ones who will need charity or free
health care.

Suppose you have an NHS.  Anyone can "join" by paying the equivalent
of National Insurance.  Members are entitled to free medical
treatment.  Non-members who cannot afford National Insurance payments
are also entitled to free medical treatment, paid for by members.

Do you think that would work?  If not, why not?  (I think I'd choose
to get my healthcare that way.  Would you?)

> >> Why is it that you assume walking or bicycling along a toll road is free?
> > 
> > Why is it you assume you need to have a built road (and therefore pay a tol
> > in order to cycle or walk?
> 
> Ever tried walking across the penines, or across a fen? Or even across a fiel
> in winter?

When have you ever *NEEDED* to travel across (rather than around) the
Penines?  Or the fens?

> >> I regard toll roads are more selfish, since it removes peoples individual
> >> freedom (that word again) of movement - unless of course they have that ke
> >> ingredient MONEY.
> > 
> > Try not having any money for a year.  See how freely you can move.
> 
> Precisely my point. Maybe you do understand the argument. 

In the 'real world', very few people have *no* money.  Even homeless
people have *some* money, just not 'enough'.  Are you really talking
about people with *no* money?

> >> Do you really believe that vendors of products and services (such as healt
> >> care) wouldn't just push their prices up (out of line with product cost)
> >> in order to soak up our extra disposable income?
> > 
> > They wouldn't all do it.  Unless there was a monopoly or a cartel.  And I
> > believe that part of what FoFP is suggesting is that there should be strong
> > action taken against monopolies and cartels.
> 
> I've never seen such suggestions.

I predict you'll see them in followups to this article.

>                                   I have seen him state that company director
> will have not ltd company protection. That doesn't prevent companies behaving
> in a disreputable manner.

Nor does the existing nanny state.

>                           Money is power, and they'll have more power under
> the schemes fofp (and now you) advocate.

Again, I say: only if people give them that power.


mathew
-- 
Lung cancer and arteriosclerosis.
For people who like to smoke.