- 12 Sep 2012 18:28
#14056320
Fair enough. I totally disagree with your assertions regarding the relative efficiency of for-profit, communal and tax-funded roads.
Before going into detail, do you consider roads to be different than other goods in that regard? In other words, do you think government or communal ownership of other means of production are also likely to result in more efficient production, or is there something special about roads? If so, what?
I'll get us started. This, btw, is where Austrian Economics is most valuable - it helps make sense of economic concepts that are normally confused in people's minds.
I'll start by focusing on economic profit (as opposed to accounting or tax profit). Economic profit is broadly the difference between the present value of all the inputs into the production process, and the present value of all its outputs.
Unpaid wages of the business owner, as well as lost interest on the value of the capital of the firm make up part of accounting profits, but not economic profits.
Put differently, economic profit would be equal to accounting profit if the entire capital was borrowed, and the owners were paid fair market wage for their work.
Economic profit is thus equal to the value created by the operations of the business, excluding the value to consumers in having an option which they demonstrably find superior to alternative options.
I am happy to be open-minded, but I think gift economy generally works well only in the context of a close-knit community, or when the products being gifted are felt to be "luxuries". Wikipedia, I assume, is maintained by people who have time to spare after their primary existential needs are taken care of through the more traditional economy.
I can certainly see that working at the local level. Residential streets would best be owned by the residents in common (through a residential owner organisation), with maintenance contracts outsourcing the work to dedicated companies.
This model breaks down (and is also much less essential) as we move to inter-city roads.
I actually view it as part of the definition of ownership, rather than any presumption.
The wealth created by the road corresponds to the fact that people are willing to pay to use it, as opposed to a stretch of unimproved land. Starting on a new continent, creating and paving roads, constructing bridges and tunnels, providing road users with credible monitoring of other users' behaviour (traffic rules), signs and other services, all add significant value to the alternative.
If a road is nothing but a frequently-used path, it can have no owners. Ownership can only be legitimately conveyed on people who:
1. Transform the stretch of land in economically-useful way, e.g. by paving it, and
2. Do so over a stretch of land that wasn't previously used for transportation.
The question of how to handle existing roads is a difficult one. While the first condition can be overcome by making proper payment for the value of existing improvements, the second condition cannot as easily be waved, given that existing government roads are used routinely at the moment. I'd have to think (and would welcome other libertarians' suggestions) as to their proper transition from government hands to a voluntary arrangement.
Less controversial would be the status of newly-created roads. As long as the land over which they lie has been legitimately acquired, I see no reason not to allow them to be privately owned and operated.
Perhaps what will happen is that previously-public roads will fall into disrepair, or be maintained at a lower level with voluntary contributions. Or perhaps a model will emerge whereby private enterprises can take over the road and extract economic value through means that do not include toll collection (e.g. by selling ad-space at the edge of the road).
What about newly-constructed roads alongside existing free-entry ones?
Again, I would distinguish between the status of newly-created cities and that of existing ones. The public does have easement over those spaces it currently occupies, and any private ownership of such spaces would have to respect those easements. Whether that includes sleeping or only using such spaces for movement is not a question I have a categorical answer to.
Newly-created cities or neighbourhoods may choose to restrict entrance or use of their "public" spaces in any way they choose. My guess is that over time, people will tend to migrate towards such controlled environments, as conditions in them could more effectively be controlled to satisfy the needs of residents.
Again, public spaces are likely to be owned by residential neighbourhood associations. Public spaces in city centres are likely to be owned by associations of commercial residents.
I'd like to emphasize the role of government regulations in making being poor much more difficult than it needs to be. In the name of consumer protection, government regulations tend to eliminate low-cost alternatives that would otherwise have been open to consumers. In many cities, for example, building regulations restrict developers' ability to offer truly low-cost housing.
Not a fair example. Eateries make their living selling food. When you go into one with the clear intention of not purchasing their products, you are using up valuable resources that could be used to serve paying customers.
Private camping grounds, for example, have no problem with people bringing their own food. Eateries have no issue with people bringing their own newspapers to read.
The general philosophy is that people who have worked to make a space more pleasant than it would have been "by nature" deserve the right to determine what and how it will be used. Some will choose a very restrictive access policy (as would be appropriate inside your own house, for example). Others will want to offer specific services, and welcome any well-behaved people who wish to patron those services.
It is entirely likely that, absent "public" spaces, privately-owned spaces will emerge that offer similarly-loose access control, with various modes of funding (ads, licensing peripheral businesses, contributions, etc.).
In a sense. Pension funds and other institutional investors are often required (or strongly "encouraged") to hold such bonds as part of their portfolio.
You miss the point, I was refuting your claim that private (and presumably profit-seeking) ownership was required or would be cheaper for road maintenance. I hadn't quite gone as far as to say private roads shouldn't be allowed only that it is an inferior solution and in fact an even more inferior solution than tax funded roads.
Fair enough. I totally disagree with your assertions regarding the relative efficiency of for-profit, communal and tax-funded roads.
Before going into detail, do you consider roads to be different than other goods in that regard? In other words, do you think government or communal ownership of other means of production are also likely to result in more efficient production, or is there something special about roads? If so, what?
Maybe we could broaden this debate to encompass the concept of profit as well as the concept of property. You know profit and property are distinct concepts even if they are often related in some way.
I'll get us started. This, btw, is where Austrian Economics is most valuable - it helps make sense of economic concepts that are normally confused in people's minds.
I'll start by focusing on economic profit (as opposed to accounting or tax profit). Economic profit is broadly the difference between the present value of all the inputs into the production process, and the present value of all its outputs.
Unpaid wages of the business owner, as well as lost interest on the value of the capital of the firm make up part of accounting profits, but not economic profits.
Put differently, economic profit would be equal to accounting profit if the entire capital was borrowed, and the owners were paid fair market wage for their work.
Economic profit is thus equal to the value created by the operations of the business, excluding the value to consumers in having an option which they demonstrably find superior to alternative options.
You know I like the gift economy, well anyone with a non-dysfunctional family or who uses opensource software or 'commons' internet services such as wikipedia, likes the gift economy.
I am happy to be open-minded, but I think gift economy generally works well only in the context of a close-knit community, or when the products being gifted are felt to be "luxuries". Wikipedia, I assume, is maintained by people who have time to spare after their primary existential needs are taken care of through the more traditional economy.
It is quite acceptable that the companies that maintain the road are compensated from funds raised by the consumers of the road 'service' while the road itself remains common property.
I can certainly see that working at the local level. Residential streets would best be owned by the residents in common (through a residential owner organisation), with maintenance contracts outsourcing the work to dedicated companies.
This model breaks down (and is also much less essential) as we move to inter-city roads.
It is the capitalist's presumption that ownership entitles authority and specifically the authority to distribute the wealth created using the owned thing. This may have meaning for a factory but for a road? What is the wealth created by a road?
I actually view it as part of the definition of ownership, rather than any presumption.
The wealth created by the road corresponds to the fact that people are willing to pay to use it, as opposed to a stretch of unimproved land. Starting on a new continent, creating and paving roads, constructing bridges and tunnels, providing road users with credible monitoring of other users' behaviour (traffic rules), signs and other services, all add significant value to the alternative.
If a road is nothing but a frequently-used path, it can have no owners. Ownership can only be legitimately conveyed on people who:
1. Transform the stretch of land in economically-useful way, e.g. by paving it, and
2. Do so over a stretch of land that wasn't previously used for transportation.
The question of how to handle existing roads is a difficult one. While the first condition can be overcome by making proper payment for the value of existing improvements, the second condition cannot as easily be waved, given that existing government roads are used routinely at the moment. I'd have to think (and would welcome other libertarians' suggestions) as to their proper transition from government hands to a voluntary arrangement.
Less controversial would be the status of newly-created roads. As long as the land over which they lie has been legitimately acquired, I see no reason not to allow them to be privately owned and operated.
Perhaps what will happen is that previously-public roads will fall into disrepair, or be maintained at a lower level with voluntary contributions. Or perhaps a model will emerge whereby private enterprises can take over the road and extract economic value through means that do not include toll collection (e.g. by selling ad-space at the edge of the road).
There is a case for private roads only where the owner is the main or only user which pretty much limits private roads to driveways.
What about newly-constructed roads alongside existing free-entry ones?
Do they have that entitlement on private property?
Again, I would distinguish between the status of newly-created cities and that of existing ones. The public does have easement over those spaces it currently occupies, and any private ownership of such spaces would have to respect those easements. Whether that includes sleeping or only using such spaces for movement is not a question I have a categorical answer to.
Newly-created cities or neighbourhoods may choose to restrict entrance or use of their "public" spaces in any way they choose. My guess is that over time, people will tend to migrate towards such controlled environments, as conditions in them could more effectively be controlled to satisfy the needs of residents.
Again, public spaces are likely to be owned by residential neighbourhood associations. Public spaces in city centres are likely to be owned by associations of commercial residents.
I think in the US you are tougher on the destitute. It is generally true that while the rich may be pleased to see the homeless gassed like rabbits if only they could get away with it, working class people are more sympathetic; they know that 'there, but for the grace of god, go I', that they are only a few months of rent arrears away from ending up in the same situation
I'd like to emphasize the role of government regulations in making being poor much more difficult than it needs to be. In the name of consumer protection, government regulations tend to eliminate low-cost alternatives that would otherwise have been open to consumers. In many cities, for example, building regulations restrict developers' ability to offer truly low-cost housing.
As to the psychology try this thought experiment or better do it for real. Dress yourself as well-to-do as you like, Oxford tweeds, gucci handbag whatever then make yourself a really lush sandwich and take it to a town centre. You see a number of private eateries and coffee shops ringed around the public space with its own benches and bins (a typical scene anywhere in europe if not the US). First go into a private eatery and try and eat your sandwich. Not very pleasent was it? The dirty looks, the embarrassment, maybe you were even asked to leave. Now go and sit on a public bench (your bench literally your own property) and eat the rest of your sandwich as relaxed and as entitled as any King in his kingdom. That is the difference between public and private.
Not a fair example. Eateries make their living selling food. When you go into one with the clear intention of not purchasing their products, you are using up valuable resources that could be used to serve paying customers.
Private camping grounds, for example, have no problem with people bringing their own food. Eateries have no issue with people bringing their own newspapers to read.
The general philosophy is that people who have worked to make a space more pleasant than it would have been "by nature" deserve the right to determine what and how it will be used. Some will choose a very restrictive access policy (as would be appropriate inside your own house, for example). Others will want to offer specific services, and welcome any well-behaved people who wish to patron those services.
It is entirely likely that, absent "public" spaces, privately-owned spaces will emerge that offer similarly-loose access control, with various modes of funding (ads, licensing peripheral businesses, contributions, etc.).
Are people forced to buy government bonds?
In a sense. Pension funds and other institutional investors are often required (or strongly "encouraged") to hold such bonds as part of their portfolio.
Free men are not equal and equal men are not free.
Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.
Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.