Economics Questions

Re: Private Roads Question Numero Dos

mikachusetts — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 03:03:32 GMT

If you think that the iPod statement was ridiculous, thats because it was, and so was Block's statement that driving on government roads is involuntary. His argument was an attempt to justify why the state is ultimately liable for deaths on its roads while Wal Mart isn't liable for deaths in their stores, which is why question of culpability has everything to do with the discussion at hand. I apologize if I wasn't clear somewhere.

Re: Private Roads Question Numero Dos

John James — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 01:50:35 GMT

mikachusetts:

JJ,

Even if there is a violation of rights in general, it doesn't follow that the government is also liable for any incidence that occurs on that road.

Nice subject change. Unfortunately this whole discussion started because you said "we may not conclude the purchase of iPods is voluntary". The question of culpability for incidents has virtually nothing to do with this discussion you started with your ipod comment.

But that's okay. I wouldn't expect you to try to stay on topic and defend such a ridiculous statement anyway.

Re: Private Roads Question Numero Dos

mikachusetts — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 01:45:27 GMT

JJ,

Even if there is a violation of rights in general, it doesn't follow that the government is also liable for any incidence that occurs on that road.

Clayton,

Restricting entry into a market is not the same as imposing a single choice on a consumer. The former commits a tort against would-be producers, while the latter commits a tort against consumers. What the government does, in the case of roads at least, is restrict production and allow consumers free range of existing options. This might have the same effect as imposing a single choice in terms of competition, but it fundamentally changes the way we assess liability.

Just to reiterate my example earlier, even in a free market for roads, any given road is going to be owned by a single legal entity which means there is going to be some level of restricted choice. If one company owns all the roads in my neighborhood fair and square (a reasonable possibilty), I've certainly had a single choice imposed on me, but we wouldn't say that they've committed a tort against me. Now what if they were granted monopoly status over Baltimore? Are you saying that they've then commited a tort against me, even though nothing has changed regarding my relationship to the road owners?

I just think this particular argument of Block's is a huge stretch. There are plenty of valid to be made against the government provision of roads, but this isn't one of them.

Re: Private Roads Question Numero Dos

Clayton — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 23:10:35 GMT

I just don't see any logical connection between torts and monopolies otherwise, except at the level of entering the market.

The connection arises if you assume that humans have a right to act. I have a right to listen to music. I don't have a right to make you sing for me. I don't have a right to blast loud music in the direction of your house (assuming you were there first). But I have the right to listen to music in any way I like that does not interfere with your rights. Hence, if you impose on me a single choice fo music-listening, you are thereby committing a tort (the act of imposing monopoly is tortious if humans have a right to act). Saying that you are therefore liable for any damages that occur in the course of my using your imposed music-listening device choice is just another way to say that your imposition of the monopoly was tortious in the first place.

The problem is that if "you" happen to be "government", you also monopolize the courts which give me no direct recourse to challenge the validity of the government's other monopolies. The government's monopolies are beyond question because its law monopoly will not entertain questions regarding the legitimacy of its other monopolies. But perhaps we can start small and sue the government for deaths that occur on its roads. Who knows, maybe there's an enlightened judge somewhere who's willing to stick his neck out a little and rock the boat. It's a long-shot but it's better than not trying.

Clayton -

Re: Private Roads Question Numero Dos

John James — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 22:51:36 GMT

mikachusetts:
Block, I think, would differentiate between iPod's and roads by pointing out the lack of reasonable alternatives to roads and the level of necessity that roads have compared to iPods (as JJ pointed out). The problem with this, is that it should apply to any important or necessary good regardless of whether force was used to exclude entry into the market.

The issue has nothing to do with "necessity". The issue is with rights...in this case, freedom of movement. You don't have a right to personal listening device. But one does have a right to travel freely. Monopolizing virtually all avenues of travel such that one is essentially beholden to the allowance of an overbearing authority for a basic right is not the same as preventing people from copying an ipod and calling it by that name.

For another thing, there are alternatives to the ipod.

Re: Private Roads Question Numero Dos

mikachusetts — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 22:26:50 GMT

The fact that individuals are prevented from buying a safer iPod doesn't make Apple liable for tortious damages because nothing is preventing individuals from not buying an iPod at all. I just don't see any logical connection between torts and monopolies otherwise, except at the level of entering the market.

Block, I think, would differentiate between iPod's and roads by pointing out the lack of reasonable alternatives to roads and the level of necessity that roads have compared to iPods (as JJ pointed out). The problem with this, is that it should apply to any important or necessary good regardless of whether force was used to exclude entry into the market.

EDIT: Think of it this way, even in a free market, the street that you live on will only be owned by a single person or company (unless we count co-ops). Is this enough to make the company responsible for any and all accidents that occur on the street? Probably not. Now, if they used force to maintain their position as owner, but not against their customers, how would this change the status of their liability?

Re: Private Roads Question Numero Dos

Clayton — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 20:09:13 GMT

This is akin to saying "since IP laws threaten violence against anyone who tries to make and sell iPods (besides Apple), we may not conclude that the purchase of iPods is voluntary."

Block's point is that if the iPod has a defect that damages hearing or something like that, a monopoly on iPod-manufacture converts that defect from merely making iPod a poor product which consumers can avoid by purchasing the alternative, into a tort. By outlawing competition, the State and the iPod manufacturer now ought to bear full liability for any damages caused by use of the product. This argument is extensible to all monopolized and even cartelized goods and services. If you take it upon yourself to wave a gun in everyone's faces and prohibit them from seeking alternatives to the appointed goods and services, then you bear tortious liability for damage caused in the use of those goods and services at every point.

Heather: Thanks for writing Dr. Block, his response clarified the point.

Clayton -

Re: Private Roads Question Numero Dos

John James — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 19:23:34 GMT

mikachusetts:
When government precludes private highways by threatening violence against all those who would provide these services, and as a result the people have little or no alternative but to patronize these death traps, we may not at all conclude that their entrance onto the public streets and highways was a voluntry one.

This is akin to saying "since IP laws threaten violence against anyone who tries to make and sell iPods (besides Apple), we may not conclude that the purchase of iPods is voluntary."

So basically what you're saying is being able to listen to an mp3 player with a picture of a partially-eaten apple on it is the same as being able to travel.

Because the ability to listen to music, on-demand, on a portable device, is a basic human right...and there are literally no alternatives to achieving that outside of the iPod.

Re: Private Roads Question Numero Dos

mikachusetts — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 17:10:39 GMT

When government precludes private highways by threatening violence against all those who would provide these services, and as a result the people have little or no alternative but to patronize these death traps, we may not at all conclude that their entrance onto the public streets and highways was a voluntry one.

This is akin to saying "since IP laws threaten violence against anyone who tries to make and sell iPods (besides Apple), we may not conclude that the purchase of iPods is voluntary."

Re: Private Roads Question Numero Dos

Heather — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 08:17:19 GMT

No contradiction. Now I undertand that the key is whether force was used. People who enter Wal Mart or private roads have the freedom to choose so they enter at their own risk. But if the govt takes over all roads or all stores and doesn't allow for any competition, then they have essentially forced people to make a decision and are therefore fully responsible for anything bad that happens. I just think of it now like a gunman (the government) pointing a gun at my head and telling me where he wants me to drive. It's ultimitately his fault if I die.

Like Dr. Block writes in his chapter attacking Laurance White, "If a gunman forces a victim to jump to his death off the roof of a skyscraper by threatening to shoot him if he does not, [did] the latter voluntarily plunge to the concrete below? No. When government precludes private highways by threatening violence against all those who would provide these services, and as a result the people have little or no alternative but to patronize these death traps, we may not at all conclude that their entrance onto the public streets and highways was a voluntry one.

Very much to the contrary, when you eliminate a safer alternative, "allowing" people to venture onto a very much more dangerous one, you are forcing them to make a decision under duress. So, yes, the government is very much criminally responsible for the deaths they cause, all of them, not just those subtracted by the number who would perish on private roads."

Re: Private Roads Question Numero Dos

DanielMuff — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 07:13:06 GMT

So, what did you conclude; contradiction or no? Or still not sure?

Re: Private Roads Question Numero Dos

Heather — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 05:34:19 GMT

Thanks for the answers, they were super helpful!

Here is what Walter Block said in a message he sent me:

As to the substance of your question, you say: “The first argument is that governments are criminally responsible for all highway deaths because they outlaw safer competing roads.” I don’t think I say exactly that, although I certainly agree with this. I think what I say in the book is that govts are “criminally responsible for all highway deaths” because they run death traps, charnel houses, forcing people onto their monopoly roads (if they want to travel). But, the two statements are not really that far apart. In a similar manner, I would say that the govt is responsible for lots of deaths of innocent people due to their military policies and drug war.

You also state “He also argues that things like drunk drivers, bad weather, and icy roads are only proximately responsible for road deaths. The road managers are ultimately responsible because they have the power to change the conditions that led to the accident.” I agree with you 100% on this.

I would certainly not “hold Wal*Mart liable for a death that occurred in their store that could have been prevented with, say, better security.” Unless Walmart engaged in fraud, of course, let’s stipulate that they did not.

Right now, some 35,000 people die on the nation’s roads. Suppose they were all private. And, now, say, 5000 people die on these private highways. Would I hold these private owners criminally responsible for these 5000 deaths. Assuming, again, no fraud, of course not. People enter these highways at their own risk. So, I’m not exactly sure of where you think I’m contradicting myself. Please try again, so that I can be more clear on your argument.

What did you think of my chapter where I attacked Larry White for saying that the govt, under conditions I just specified, is only responsible for 30,000, not 35,000 deaths?

Re: Private Roads Question Numero Dos

Smiling Dave — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 09:59:03 GMT

I think he means the govt is responsible because they do not allow privatization, where competition would minimize the problems because people would go to the best roads.

In other words, the govt was able to do something about it, but didnt. More importantly, it stopped anyone else from doing something about it.

Wal mart, on the other hand, is not stopping anyone from doing anything. You can avoid going to the store if you think it is unsafe, as I bet some people avoiding certain fast food places because of the violence in them.

Re: Private Roads Question Numero Dos

DanielMuff — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 05:13:40 GMT

Heather Malin:

In Walter Block's book, "The Privatization of Roads and Highways" he makes two arguments that seem to contradict.

The first argument is that governments are criminally responsible for all highway deaths because they outlaw safer competing roads. This I agree with.

He also argues that things like drunk drivers, bad weather, and icy roads are only proximately responsible for road deaths. The road managers are ultimately responsible because they have the power to change the conditions that led to the accident.

My question is whether that holds true if we had a free market in roads. It seems to me if you are responsible, you should be held liable, but would we hold Wal*Mart liable for a death that occurred in their store that could have been prevented with, say, better security? This I don't agree with.

The second argument follows from the first argument; so, the "road managers" in the second argument are the statist road managers. So, when Block says that "drunk drivers, bad weather, and icy roads are only proximately responsible for road deaths," he is saying this under the context of state roads, not non-state roads.

The reason why the statist road managers are the cause is because the state doesn't allow non-statist roads to exists, thus people can only use the state's roads. Whereas non-statist road owners don't force you to into not using non-statist roads.

Re: Private Roads Question Numero Dos

James — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 04:04:41 GMT

Surely you can only be responsible for "causing" harm through negative conduct (i.e. a failure to prevent it) if you'd agreed to protect someone from that harm.

It would depend on the contract you had with the owner of the road... You essentially have to ask what risks a reasonable person would have thought they were subjecting themselves to by using someone else's property, and whether the owner knew, or ought reasonably to have known, of any risks that the plaintiff wouldn't have. If the owner of the property had, or ought to have had, material knowledge of the risk which the plaintiff did not, and if he negligently failed to disclose such knowledge, then he should be liable for harm occasioned by that risk.