From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 14:43:25 GMT

In <1992Nov16.170523.41439@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti/100000) writes:

>fred j mccall 575-3539 (mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com) wrote:
>: And what happens if a couple of guys who live at the end of the block
>: don't want to 'chip in'?

>If we can't afford it without their support, then we don't build the road.  If
>we can, and we think it's worth it, then we build it anyway and either charge
>them toll (if it's worth enforcing), or we let them use it for free.

Let me get this straight.  You're going to pave THEIR part of the
street, then force them to pay tolls to use it?  Just how is this
different than what we have now, except that at least the current
system recognizes that the roadway is PUBLIC property; you just
contradicted your own system, what with stealing money from this guy
through use of force (to collect tolls from him for the use of HIS
piece of raodway).

>: 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.

>If people can't afford it, then they settle for a dirt road, or whatever they
>can afford.  Does every neighborhood NEED a paved road?  I doubt it.

No, but more 'need' a paved road than will get one under this sort of
system, for reasons that I covered in another note to someone else.

>: 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?

>Again, if it is cost-effective to collect toll then you collect toll.  If it
>isn't then you put up with the free-riders.  I would think that most
>residential streets are only useful for the people who actually live on those
>streets.

Or who use those streets to get from where they live to something
somewhere else. 

>: 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).

>If you can't justify the INITIAL INVESTMENT, then you don't "need to build a
>road".

You're thinking in strictly monetary investment terms and discounting
things like personal convenience and time savings, which, while they
are certainly worth the money to YOU, are probably not going to be
sufficient incentive for the bank or some third party to make the
initial outlay.

>: >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.

>I have.  The people who want a road all get together and figure out how much
>it costs, and if enough people agree that it's worth it, then they build a road.
>If they expect enough traffic to justify enforcing a toll, then they set up
>toll gates.

That's not a mechanism; that's HANDWAVING.

>Some people sneak into movie theaters.  Does this mean that we should institute
>a tax on all popcorn sales, and provide free-admission movie theaters to
>everybody?  Or does it make more sense to put up with some free-riders as a cost
>of doing business and only charge people who go to the movies?

There is some slight difference in product and user utility there,
John.  The fact that you obviously don't see it seems to indicate that
even trying to discuss this sort of thing with you is a waste of time. 

>: 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?

>You can not make their businesses accessible from your road.

And we're back to the "let their house burn down if they didn't pay
for the fire department" mentality.  What if their business sits
between yours and the main road?  How about if THEY decide not to let
YOUR business be accessible unless you pay to pave their road?
There's another flaw with your reasoning here, of course.  You assume
the roads 'belong' to private individuals (which is why private
individuals have to pay for paving, upkeep, etc.) but you seem to
assume public easements in the process.  Something of a conflict
there. 

>: 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?

>You want a figure in dollars and cents?  It depends on the market price at the
>time of the materials, the labor, and the equipment.  It depends on whether you
>hire contractors to to the work or if you do it yourself.  Every situation is
>going to have a different answer.  I'm not sure what you're looking for here.

Of course I want an answer in dollars and cents.  The claim is that
this method will somehow be 'better' and 'cheaper' than it is now.  If
you don't have numbers, the only 'proof' you have of that is to
attempt to show it logically.  When you examine the economic theory of
the resource allocation, all the bad effects that you fail to mention
fall out on the table.

>: Yes, answer them inadequately, so that you can then go and pick at the
>: 'holes' that any inadequate answer has (by definition).  What's the
>: point, other than debating trickery, John?

>Why are you so defensive?  If what you're saying is valid, then you have nothing
>to worry about.

In *THIS* group?  You have *got* to be kidding!  'Validity' seems to
have very little to do with things here; would you like some examples
of why I say that?

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections