About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - 11:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
 

With the elections upon us and everyone discussing the political climate of America, I find myself in more arguments for privatization of government controlled monopolies and the virtues of a free - market economy. The question that has been plaguing me is the argument that is made for socialized road ways. It does not seem practical to have every road way tolled it would cause extreme traffic issues along with numerous other problems. I believe that it is the government’s job to uphold contracts (Civil Courts), Domestic Law (Police), and protection from foreign invaders (Military). This is a service provided of the country that you choose to live and work in, and taxes are the payment for these services. I am thinking that a city or township tax for the place you live and drive should be paid upon receiving a license to drive for roadways. This way I am not paying for roads in California (I live in Wisconsin). I believe Taxes should end after paying for military, police, courts, and roads. These are payments made for a service provided. The question is if there is any flaws I my logic. I am interested to know if there is a better way. Thank you for your time, and I apologize for any grammatical or spelling mistakes it is 1 am and I am tired.
   - Rick



Post 1

Wednesday, February 20, 2008 - 4:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Should you pay for the enforcement of laws you oppose? Should you pay for wars that you object to? If you are not entering into contracts, should you be compelled to pay for the enforcement of contracts others enter into?

Bob Kolker


Post 2

Wednesday, February 20, 2008 - 6:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rick E. Andrews asked about funding basic government services.

Welcome aboard, Rick!  You will find that this site has been up and running for about five years now and has a history.  Searching the archives will uncover answers to your questions.  On the homepage, at the left, is a search box for the Top 8 Objectivist Sites or Search This Site.  Click on the radio button for just this one. 

Basically, if you go to New York City or some other places with road tolls, you will find that there are electronic scanners.  Even fifty years ago, this could be handled. About 25 years ago, railroads worked on a color-bar scanning system.  (One road owns the tracks, but many companies own the rolling stock that the engines pull.)  Today, with your car, you pay in advance for the tolls and put a barcode on the inside of your windshield.  If you try to blow past a toll, a camera gets your license plate.  The same technology works with speeding and red lights.  OCR (Optical Character Recognition) could do it.  You could put certain kinds of colored or inked tabs on your plate.

As for police forces and courts of law, that is an old, tired dance we do here as elsewhere.  You find the word "police" in the US Constitution and we can discuss them.  Neither Aristotle nor John Locke justified government in those terms.  The idea that government maintains a legal monopoly on force came from a German socialist named Max Weber.  But, OK, we can go with a good idea, no matter who thought it up... as long as it is a good idea...


Post 3

Wednesday, February 20, 2008 - 6:13amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Realize that even 25 years ago, few people could have foreseen how cell phones would be in place today.  How do you pay for that, when someone with a Sprint phone wants to call a Cingular phone?  Don't the monopolies coercively force you to use only their service?  Of course not and it would be silly if they did.  The point is that you might not have all the answers for privatized this or that.  You don't need to. 

Someone will, just as the nearly unregulated shoe industry does an excellent job.  Imagine what it would be like if the Constitution had promised everyone a new pair of shoes once a year on their birthday.  What would shoes be like today after a 200 year government monopoly?  Then along comes some radical who wants privatized shoes.  Would anyone be able to explain what it would be like?  Would anyone predict Dr. Scholl's gel inserts? Golf shoes?  Running shoes?  Deck shoes?  Sandals... slippers... high heels... cowboy boots... flipflops...  Made all over the world and shipped here to so many competitive stores that you cannot even name them all.  You mean someone would want five pairs of shoes? ... And they would last longer than three months?  And fit right?  But how would you know what size to order if any company could make any shoes in any sizes and call them whatever they wanted?  Who would make socks?  What guarantee would there be that shoe laces would come in the right sizes?  If the government did not regulate shoe polish, how would you know what color you were getting? 

If you ever need to buy steel toed shoes -- and I have had dress shoes, boots and sports shoes with steel toes -- look for the ASTM label:  a private industry association, the American Society for Testing and Materials certifies things for people who pay for the service, like UL (Underwriters Laboratories).  Consumer Reports, of course, accepts no advertising.


Post 4

Wednesday, February 20, 2008 - 5:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Michael,

   Thank you for the welcome. I do respectfully disagree with the statement that I don't need to come up with the answers for privatization. If we are going to say privatization is the best method and I think most on this site will agree that it is the rational solution. Then we must strive to demonstrate at least in sound theory that it is rational and a workable concept. The answer someone else will figure it out may be true but it can be us that figure it out. The New York toll example solves the traffic issue to a degree but there is the problem of traffic patterns and access to less accessed areas that in the United States, but is still important to have viable transportation. Thanks for your response I like discussing the solutions to problems because it stimulates my thought process.

 

Bob,

     I appreciate your response, but I do not consider your response an answer. Your argument seems to be that laws are not needed for a country to work and to be enforced equally. How would you recommend a working legal system? The protection from laws includes theft and murder, and you can not pay for that protection after it happens. Contacts anyone that would pay for the "tax" I suggested would be paying for contractual protection because a job, home, and car are all forms of a contractual agreement made from persons to persons. I have based my Ideas on the belief that there is a reason for a formal government of true elected officials that form those functions alone. If your argument is there is no need for a government then how would that work in a real setting? Also take in account in a perfect world everyone would be rational and laws would be agreed on a followed by men, but we are not in that world because thinking is a choice that some choose not to utilize.


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 5

Thursday, February 21, 2008 - 1:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In his initial post, Rick Andrews questioned the practicality of privatizing the roads and infrastructure, on the grounds that private toll roads would be less efficient than public roads without tolls.

But if roads were privatized, they'd be a lot more efficiently managed than they are today under public ownership. Toll charges would be no problem, because there are now electronic devices, such as transponders, that can be automatically debited as the driver passes a certain point on the road. This is already being done in many cities throughout the world. And since the private owners would find it in their interest to charge tolls, they would set them at the profit maximizing price, which would even out the flow of traffic, making it more efficient.

The reason that charging a profit maximizing toll would even out the flow of traffic is that during peak periods, the owners would raise the toll in response to the increased demand, which would thin the traffic by weeding out those drivers who didn't have to use the roads during that time of day. And during slack periods, such as the middle of the day or late at night, the toll would be lowered in response to a fall in demand, which would encourage people who could use the roads during that time of day to use them in preference to the more crowded times. Thus, you would have a shift in traffic from the more crowded times to the less crowded, which would make it more convenient for people to drive during rush hour. This would put an end to the traffic jams and the long lines of cars moving at a snail's pace. And it would all be due to the operation of the profit motive, which does not exist under publicly owned roads.

The profit motive would also encourage the constructions of alternative arteries and thoroughfares when the demand for driving space reached critical mass. Under public ownership, there is no profit motive to build new roads, which is another reason we have a shortage of road space. Remember the Soviet Union with its long lines of hapless consumers waiting to purchase items that were in short supply? Well, that's the equivalent of what you have today on our publicly owned roads -- long lines of cars waiting to use the roads in order to travel to their destination. You have a shortage of road space, just as you had a shortage of goods and services under Communism. It's the same principle, just a different application. Public ownership never works. It didn't work for bread and shoes in the Soviet Union, and it doesn't work for streets and highways in the United States.

It's time that we turned the roads over to private enterprise. Letting the owners charge what the traffic will bear is the best way to make the traffic more bearable!

- Bill


Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 6

Thursday, February 21, 2008 - 5:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rick E. Andrews wrote:  If we are going to say privatization is the best method and I think most on this site will agree that it is the rational solution. Then we must strive to demonstrate at least in sound theory that it is rational and a workable concept. The answer someone else will figure it out may be true but it can be us that figure it out. 

Again, look at the cell phone and shoes.  If you understand the general principles and have a good counter-example, you do not need to answer everything.  Regarding those two and the roads in particular: Who says we need roads?

The fact is that we have them.  Governments tax people for them.  The automobile manufacturers certainly profit from them because without public roads, cars would be a lot different if we have them at all.  In a world with totally privatized roads, there might be many fewer of them and many fewer cars on them.  We might travel in other ways...  or not at all....   You cannot predict how the open market will work once it is freed.

Some things you might see in retrospect.  When the telephone system was largely a government-granted monopoly, there were faxes and "radio phones."  (The 1960s television detective Mannix had a phone in his car.)  But no one had them because they were expensive and clunky.  As late as the mid-1980s, if you had a computer connected to the phone line, the phone monopoly would charge you for "datalink" service.  The brilliant solutions from Michael Hayes and Ward Christensen were cheap modems (Hayes) and protocols to let them use the voice lines (Xmodem, etc.)  and the phone monopolies tried to stop them with legal actions and tariff charges.

In Michigan, the Bell Company attempted to get the phone regulations re-written to effectively prohibit private BBSes.  Michigan Bell in Lansing hosted a wine and cheese party for the legislators to show them the "public data utility" they could roll out, if they could continue their monopoly. Among many other efforts from other people, I created a lobby (GRiD) and with other people showed the legislators that all of this was in place.  We had a lot of help from Dr. William Sederburg a state rep and state senator from East Lansing who went on to become a college president.  Bill got it right away and formed his own "Political Forum BBS" to let people know about and discuss issues.

The point is that in 1950, "no one" could have seen this, but it was all potentially there, perhaps even from the 1930s in some ways.  Just for instance, you might have a "party line" (shared phone line) but you could not pick your "neighbors."  You shared a line with whoever the phone company assigned to you. Imagine if that had been a service.  But monopolies don't think that way.  So, too, then with roads.  We might not need them at all if automobiles were surface effect, or magnetic levitation.  Or if everyone flew, owning gyrocopters or gyroplanes or zepplins... 

Among the many problems with public education is that our effective intelligence has been reduced to the point where someone says, "Without the government, who would monitor the weather?"  And you are stuck for an answer... as if that particular problem needed some specific solution.   That is just plain orwellian.  One of the strengths of Objectivism is that you learn to think in abstractions and generalities.  These are not "floating abstractions" (like the ones we have to memorize in school), but wider concepts that hold wider truths.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 2/21, 5:22pm)


Post 7

Thursday, February 21, 2008 - 8:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Bill,

   Great answer for privatizing roads, I did not think of the supply and demand of rush hour traffic. I appreciate the response.

Michael,

  Again I am not sure if I can agree completely with you because you said "who says we need roads," and we do not know what the free market will produce. The socialized roadways do not create a monopoly on transportation forms just transportation on roadways so a zeppelin or gyroplane are not effected by the privatization of roads. Cars are created in a free market. A particular problem needs a solution because the way we are going now is wrong. And I do not agree that the strength of Objectivism is the wider truths and generalities. I agree this is a part of Objectivism, but the strength is the ability to take a wider concept and test it against any situation to test that concept's rationality. Thank you for the intellectual conversation.

 


Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.