3 ms·

> (Libertarians') usual position is that roads should be privatized and tolled Do libertarians think this will lead to rich neighborhoods having much better ro

by mundo 8y ago

> (Libertarians') usual position is that roads should be privatized and tolled Do libertarians think this will lead to rich neighborhoods having much better roads than poor people and think that's fine, or is there some reason to think that wouldn't happen? To my mind, the fundamental the difference between a free-market approach and a socialist approach is: if you want something to be cheap more than you want it to be fair, you privatize it and let the free market work its magic, and if you want something to be fair (for some definition of "fair" defined by the legislature) more than you want it to be cheap, you socialize it and put a bunch of inefficient bureaucrats in charge. We as a society use the former system for things like pants and potato chips, and the latter approach for most types of infrastructure, and I wonder if anyone can really predict all of the things we'd lose from abandoning that. If every road I personally drive on were kept in good repair but a lot of the other roads in my town went to shit, I would be adversely affected in a lot of subtle and impossible-to-send-someone-a-bill-for ways.

pdonis 8y ago
> Do libertarians think this will lead to rich neighborhoods having much better roads than poor people and think that's fine, or is there some reason to think that wouldn't happen? Rich neighborhoods often have much better roads than poor neighborhoods under our current system. I don't know that it would be any worse under a system where roads were privatized. Also, you seem to be assuming that rich people and poor people never use the same roads. But they do; most roads are not internal to rich or poor neighborhoods but are connecting different areas, and both rich and poor people (and everyone in between) end up using them to get where they want to go. So the question isn't really whether rich or poor people are using a road; it's a question of how much potential revenue there is from road users overall vs. what it takes to build and maintain the road. > if you want something to be fair (for some definition of "fair" defined by the legislature) more than you want it to be cheap, you socialize it and put a bunch of inefficient bureaucrats in charge. The problem with this is that it doesn't make the thing fair; it just means that the unfairness is based on political power instead of on economic power. And experience strongly suggests that unfairness based on political power is worse than unfairness based on economic power.
- mundo 8y ago
  > Rich neighborhoods often have much better roads than poor neighborhoods under our current system. I don't know that it would be any worse under a system where roads were privatized. Do they? Better how? Maybe they're slightly better in the "potholes get fixed sooner" sense, but I'm worried more about poor/rural roads being abandoned because they're not profitable to maintain. Or worse, shunted back to government in a "privatize the profit, socialize the costs" scenario. I'm curious to see a detailed plan if there's one floating around that has some steam behind it, as a lot of this of course depends on the details of how privatization is implemented. But if the argument starts and ends with "Well, privatizing things is inherently good, why should roads be different?" then I'm strongly against. If you want to up-end a perfectly functional transit system in a radical and poorly-understood way, the upside has to be a lot clearer than "I don't know that it would be any worse under a system where roads were privatized"!

by mundo 8y ago

pdonis 8y ago

> Do libertarians think this will lead to rich neighborhoods having much better roads than poor people and think that's fine, or is there some reason to think that wouldn't happen? Rich neighborhoods often have much better roads than poor neighborhoods under our current system. I don't know that it would be any worse under a system where roads were privatized. Also, you seem to be assuming that rich people and poor people never use the same roads. But they do; most roads are not internal to rich or poor neighborhoods but are connecting different areas, and both rich and poor people (and everyone in between) end up using them to get where they want to go. So the question isn't really whether rich or poor people are using a road; it's a question of how much potential revenue there is from road users overall vs. what it takes to build and maintain the road. > if you want something to be fair (for some definition of "fair" defined by the legislature) more than you want it to be cheap, you socialize it and put a bunch of inefficient bureaucrats in charge. The problem with this is that it doesn't make the thing fair; it just means that the unfairness is based on political power instead of on economic power. And experience strongly suggests that unfairness based on political power is worse than unfairness based on economic power.

mundo 8y ago
> Rich neighborhoods often have much better roads than poor neighborhoods under our current system. I don't know that it would be any worse under a system where roads were privatized. Do they? Better how? Maybe they're slightly better in the "potholes get fixed sooner" sense, but I'm worried more about poor/rural roads being abandoned because they're not profitable to maintain. Or worse, shunted back to government in a "privatize the profit, socialize the costs" scenario. I'm curious to see a detailed plan if there's one floating around that has some steam behind it, as a lot of this of course depends on the details of how privatization is implemented. But if the argument starts and ends with "Well, privatizing things is inherently good, why should roads be different?" then I'm strongly against. If you want to up-end a perfectly functional transit system in a radical and poorly-understood way, the upside has to be a lot clearer than "I don't know that it would be any worse under a system where roads were privatized"!