4 ms·

Actually they are[1]. And if you want to consider things like roads, railways and other infrastructure -- think about how almost every private institution that

Actually they are[1]. And if you want to consider things like roads, railways and other infrastructure -- think about how almost every private institution that built that infrastructure went bankrupt and had to be bailed out by the taxpayers. A lot of the "government is inefficient" talk comes from people who want all regulation to go away for their own benefit. A little searching will also show you a long list of private industries and institutions with equivalent amounts of waste, corruption and poor planning. [1] http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2011/09/20/medicare-is-more-efficient-than-private-insurance/ http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2011/09/20/medicare-is-more-ef...

marknutter 10y ago
Nobody ever argues that roads, railroads, and highways are an unfair tax burden. It's such a ridiculous straw man. The beef that most Libertarians have with government spending is with entitlement programs.
- thebooktocome 10y ago
  Sandy Rios, of American Family Radio, has indeed argued in the past that the Interstate Highway System was and is a waste of taxpayer dollars. So no, it's not a straw man. Some conservatives really do believe this.
  - jessaustin 10y ago
    I'll remember this example the next time some conservative starts ranting about Bill Ayers.
  - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
    > So no, it's not a straw man. Some conservatives really do believe this. Weak man vs. straw man. https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/12/weak-men-are-superweapons/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/12/weak-men-are-superweap...
    - mfringel 10y ago
      You have found a pattern. Do you have a point you want to make?
      - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
        People frequently say "nobody" when they mean "almost nobody" and it doesn't lead anywhere productive to point out the odd counterexample. A handful of extremists are not representative.
        thebooktocome 10y ago
        Exactly what evidence do you require to demonstrate that this is indeed a thing? AFR were extremists a couple years ago, sure, but the Overton Window recently shifted. You may have noticed.
        AnthonyMouse 10y ago
        The point is that it is a thing, but it's not a thing anyone here is defending. There is no point in arguing over the things you already agree about. Here's an example of actual government waste. The ACA provides subsidies for low-deductible health insurance. Those plans are less efficient than high-deductible plans because the plans cost more (to the government and the patient), and because the act of laundering the cost of routine care through an insurance company causes healthcare costs to increase because insurance companies are less price sensitive than patients. The government does this out of regulatory capture. Health insurance companies don't want people using less expensive plans and health provider companies don't want patients to be price sensitive. Do you disagree with that? If so we can have a discussion. There is no discussion to be had about whether there should be public roads.
- Lagged2Death 10y ago
  Why don't roads count as an "entitlement program?"
  - marknutter 10y ago
    Because they are taxed largely based on usage (gas tax).
    - chadgeidel 10y ago
      Gas taxes don't cover highway funds. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_Trust_Fund https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_Trust_Fund * https://taxfoundation.org/gasoline-taxes-and-tolls-pay-only-third-state-local-road-spending/ https://taxfoundation.org/gasoline-taxes-and-tolls-pay-only-...
throwaway2016a 10y ago
> think about how almost every private institution that built that infrastructure went bankrupt and had to be bailed out by the taxpayers. Did they really, though? "Have to be" bailed out I mean. They were bailed out, yes, but... just as a thought experiment... perhaps we should have let them go under? Edit: Going bankrupt implies either mismanagement, failure to lower cost and increase margins, or the market does not value their service. If it is the first two, going bankrupt will potentially allow them to sell off their assets to new management who might do a better job. If it is the last one, then they should be shut down. All the government bailing them out does is prop up bad management and artificially lower prices at the expense of the tax payer having to pay them on the other end. (me paying for half empty train cars even though I haven't ridden a train in years)
- lmm 10y ago
  > Did they really, though? "Have to be" bailed out I mean. They were bailed out, yes, but... just as a thought experiment... perhaps we should have let them go under? Often they weren't bailed out; often their shareholders lost everything or very nearly. Nationalization was more akin to the government picking up the assets in a bankruptcy auction.

marknutter 10y ago

Nobody ever argues that roads, railroads, and highways are an unfair tax burden. It's such a ridiculous straw man. The beef that most Libertarians have with government spending is with entitlement programs.

thebooktocome 10y ago
Sandy Rios, of American Family Radio, has indeed argued in the past that the Interstate Highway System was and is a waste of taxpayer dollars. So no, it's not a straw man. Some conservatives really do believe this.
- jessaustin 10y ago
  I'll remember this example the next time some conservative starts ranting about Bill Ayers.
- AnthonyMouse 10y ago
  > So no, it's not a straw man. Some conservatives really do believe this. Weak man vs. straw man. https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/12/weak-men-are-superweapons/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/12/weak-men-are-superweap...
  - mfringel 10y ago
    You have found a pattern. Do you have a point you want to make?
    - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
      People frequently say "nobody" when they mean "almost nobody" and it doesn't lead anywhere productive to point out the odd counterexample. A handful of extremists are not representative.
      - thebooktocome 10y ago
        Exactly what evidence do you require to demonstrate that this is indeed a thing? AFR were extremists a couple years ago, sure, but the Overton Window recently shifted. You may have noticed.
        AnthonyMouse 10y ago
        The point is that it is a thing, but it's not a thing anyone here is defending. There is no point in arguing over the things you already agree about. Here's an example of actual government waste. The ACA provides subsidies for low-deductible health insurance. Those plans are less efficient than high-deductible plans because the plans cost more (to the government and the patient), and because the act of laundering the cost of routine care through an insurance company causes healthcare costs to increase because insurance companies are less price sensitive than patients. The government does this out of regulatory capture. Health insurance companies don't want people using less expensive plans and health provider companies don't want patients to be price sensitive. Do you disagree with that? If so we can have a discussion. There is no discussion to be had about whether there should be public roads.
Lagged2Death 10y ago
Why don't roads count as an "entitlement program?"
- marknutter 10y ago
  Because they are taxed largely based on usage (gas tax).
  - chadgeidel 10y ago
    Gas taxes don't cover highway funds. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_Trust_Fund https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_Trust_Fund * https://taxfoundation.org/gasoline-taxes-and-tolls-pay-only-third-state-local-road-spending/ https://taxfoundation.org/gasoline-taxes-and-tolls-pay-only-...

throwaway2016a 10y ago

> think about how almost every private institution that built that infrastructure went bankrupt and had to be bailed out by the taxpayers. Did they really, though? "Have to be" bailed out I mean. They were bailed out, yes, but... just as a thought experiment... perhaps we should have let them go under? Edit: Going bankrupt implies either mismanagement, failure to lower cost and increase margins, or the market does not value their service. If it is the first two, going bankrupt will potentially allow them to sell off their assets to new management who might do a better job. If it is the last one, then they should be shut down. All the government bailing them out does is prop up bad management and artificially lower prices at the expense of the tax payer having to pay them on the other end. (me paying for half empty train cars even though I haven't ridden a train in years)

lmm 10y ago
> Did they really, though? "Have to be" bailed out I mean. They were bailed out, yes, but... just as a thought experiment... perhaps we should have let them go under? Often they weren't bailed out; often their shareholders lost everything or very nearly. Nationalization was more akin to the government picking up the assets in a bankruptcy auction.