From: fofp@castle.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes)
Newsgroups: uk.misc
Subject: Re: Transport subsidies - Was: Car Parking
Date: 14 Dec 92 15:20:13 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

snail@lsl.co.uk writes:


[on toll roads..]

>*NEED* to go somewhere, and they haven't the resources (money to you and I) to
>pay for it. Currently they can get in a car (assuming they have one) and drive
>it there. If they have to pay for all the roads they use and they have no money
>to pay they can't get where they *NEED* to go.

If they have no money, they don't have the money to run a car either.
Petrol must be paid for, as does car maintenance.

>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.

There are people in that position now who don't own a car. What good is
owning a slice of every road in the country to them? Will it help them
in the position you've outlined above?

>> However they want, but if they use a resource then they pay for it. When
>> the land or the road they cross belongs to someone else, and they
>> require a fee for the use of it, then it's up to the user whether or not
>> it is worth the fee to use the resource.
>> 
>> Why is it that you believe that the owner should let you have that
>> resource for nothing?

>Roads, you may realise are owned by the government (in the majority of cases)
>and as such I own a bit of them, just like you. You're entitled to use my
>bit and vice versa. Why is it you want to remove my right to this?

What I object to is that these roads being "owned" by the government
means that the government has to remove, by force, the funds to pay for
them. In that way they may make many people too poor to travel. Isn't
that what you'd like to prevent?

>> Is everyone permitted to freely walk through your property?

>Not the same argument. Road is a public right of way, my house (and your flat)
>isn't.

Yes, but a toll road would be a *private* piece of property, just like
your house, and then surely we could agree that someone would have the
right to charge for its usage?

>> If someone figures that the inconvenience of walking is outweighed by
>> the road charge then they're entitled to do that. Most people will
>> probably figure that the cost in their time to do this is more than the
>> road fee and will pay. That's a rational economic decision.

>Unless they have no money, which is what your idea of freedom is based upon.

My idea of freedom is for people to be able to use their own resources
as they see fit and to trade with them as they see fit. 

In the current situation, there are people who can't afford the fare
from Edinburgh to London. I don't see that there's any real difference
between a train fare and a road toll. They're both charges for usage of
travel resources. That some folks can't afford the fare isn't an
argument against it, it's something that's true both before and after.
I'd advocate though, that a free market economy would work better to
make more people better off, so more people would have the resources to
travel if that's what they wanted to do.

>> ~Don't say use
>> ~public transport, because surprise it uses roads (unless it's a train :-) )
>> ~and that will be forcing them to pay the toll because the bus will also
>> ~pay the toll.

At the moment we're all forced to pay the "toll" for the road through
taxes. For the last time, they are not "free", it's just someone else
that's paying.

>Again you miss the point. Of course they already pay bus fares and train
>fares. But if the roads (etc) are toll roads then the bus fare will include
>a toll fare - that is what I was getting at in the post above.

So? Since the people that travle will be paying the tolls directly, they
won't be charge for the tax thus saved. It balances out except that you
also save on the government bureacracy involved in the forcible
collection of the tax.

>In many
>articles you overlook simple little details like this, because it
>helps your argument.

Just as you overlook the fact that these people would in their pockets
the money that is noirmally extorted in tax. It'sd reasonable to
suppose, that since the government takes a hefty slice of tax for
"administration" that on average they'd end up with *more* in their tax
refund than the equivalent road toll would cost.
> 
>> ~Some idea of freedom:- You can only go anywhere by any means as long as you've
>> ~got the toll money.

And your idea is that you can stay out of jail so long as you have your
tax money? Which one seems harsher to you?

>> ~Great, I prefer my current form of freedom.
>> 
>> What you really mean here is that you prefer the current system whereby
>> someone else pays for your "free" road use.

>I pay my taxes....

Just as well, or you'd be in jail. This is the "freedom" you advocate.

>... like evryone else.

like everyone else is forced to do. It's effectively having to pay a
road toll whether you use the road or not and if you don't you go to
jail.

I figure you're the one advocating a more restrictive system.

>I regard toll roads are more selfish, since it removes peoples individual
>freedom (that word again) of movement - unless of course they have that key
>ingredient MONEY.

Taxes remove people's freedom whenever they don't have the money to pay
for them.

>> Strange that I was the one called "greedy and selfish" really.

>If you want to keep all your money and not contribute to society you are, if
>not you are not.

I'd like to contribute to society, but I'd like to do it voluntarily
rather than be forced, and I'd like to choose those parts of society
that are deserving of my support rather than have them chosen for me.

>If you want to advocate systems that restrict peoples freedom
>of movement

Like taxes?

> then yes you are - this I find hard to believe since you have
>said in previous posts that you are a believer of the big brother state rearing
>it ugly head. Implement restriction of movement subtly with toll roads. Nice.

I have never, at any time advocated that the government should be the
institution owning the roads and charging the tolls.

>You are the one who opposes taxes, not me.

Exactly correct. And partly for the freedom of movement proinciple
you've already outlined. People in jail for non-payment of taxes are not
free to move, and people who have to pay under threat of this have had
some freedom removed also.

>Does anyone remember what happened last time taxes were reduced? And only
>reduced by 10% from 50% to 40% / 2% from 27% to 25%. Can you imagine what'd
>happen here if all taxes disappeared?

We'd get richer?

>Do you really believe that vendors of products and services (such as health
>care) wouldn't just push their prices up (out of line with product cost)
>in order to soak up our extra disposable income? Do you really believe that?

If they had competition and no government legislation to protect
them in the market, then raising their prices above those of their
competitors would be business suicide.


>-- 
>snail@lsl.co.uk      

FoFP