From: bohnert@leland.Stanford.EDU (matthew bohnert)
Subject: Question about Libertarian Idealogy posted to sci.econ
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 01:13:48 GMT

Hello to all...

I plan to vote libertarian in the upcoming election (due to the clear 
lack of any acceptable alternative), but I find myself wrestling with
some of what I perceive, perhaps erroneously, to be `good things' for
society that the Libertarians appear to be against.

The first that is obvious to me is government subsidized mass transit.
I've been to Europe, as well as to several major American ubran centers,
where subsidized mass transit is an essential key to a prosperous,
more liveable urban/rural lifestyle.  It appears to reduce several problems
common to urbanized areas, chief among them smog and traffic congestion.
At this point in time mass transit seems to be unable to pay its own way
purely in terms of a revenues/expenses balance sheet, but provides innumerable
benefits that `trickle down' (I promise I won't use that term again) thru
the economy, and perhaps cannot have a price tag as such.  The Libertarian
ideal would seem to be to `wait' until the inconvenience of traffic and
pollution causes enough discomfort for a private enterprise to provide
a profitable mass transit system.  However, this would require an enormous
amount of capital resources, as well as working through snags involving
property ownership, utility lines, etc.  Is there some Libertarian who
can explain to me why subsidized mass transit is a bad thing?

The other key disagreement I have with the party is on environmental
issues.  Certainly, the stance of suing for violation of property rights
via pollution is something I wholeheartedly agree with.  But what do you
do with money once a PRICELESS natural resource has been adulterated?
If company X pollutes the local drinking supply because `it thinks it
can get away with it', but gets caught, pays damages, and perhaps goes
bankrupt in the process, who loses?  No amount of money awarded to plaintiffs
is going to change the fouled state of the environment.  You can't go to
Sears and `reorder' pristine wilderness... it's gone for good!  It seems
as though the Libertarians rely on the threat of a potential lawsuit as
the basis for disincentive to pollute.  I just don't buy this... the earth
is a finite resource, and one that must be treated accordingly.  If somebody
screws it up, and even if they pay some `cost', you just can't keep moving
on indefinitely to new resources that will satisfy your needs.  At some point
the planet will be exhausted.

Any comments?  I guess the above characterizes me as a heretic in some
hardcore circles, but I would appreciate thoughtful responses just the same.


Matt Bohnert                 | Ron : That's certainly an impressive desk,  
Building 500, Room 501B      |		Mr. Speaker.
Stanford University          | Tip : Why thank you, Mr. President. It was
Stanford, CA    94035        |		used by Grover Cleveland.
415.723.4490                 | Ron : Really? He was a great pitcher. I played
bohnert@leland.stanford.edu  |      	him in a movie once.
			     | Tip : No sir, you're thinking of Grover C.
			     |		Alexander.  I was referring to
			     |		the former President.  --- Jan, 1981





Newsgroups: sci.econ