Political Theory

Re: goverment highway deaths

Bostwick — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 04:12:23 GMT

Charles Anthony:
Therefore, I believe it is a mistake to discuss "safer" roads when the only people who have a valid right to determine the level of safety are content.

Are you claiming drivers are content with the way roads are, as evidenced by them choosing to drive on them?

Thats like claiming that car buyers are self evidently content with the cars available for purchase so car companies can stop improving their cars.

A content consumer does not exist, consumer wants are never satisfied.

Re: goverment highway deaths

Charles Anthony — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 16:00:09 GMT

Anonymous Coward:
It's all relative.

Relative to what? I believe it would all be relative to individual preference.

Anonymous Coward:
It would all come down to the individual owners actions which is impossible to really predict.

It would also come down to the individual preference of the drivers.

Thus, a person who travels on a dangerous or a poorly maintained road will have deemed it "safe enough" for his personal preference. Therefore, I believe it is a mistake to discuss "safer" roads when the only people who have a valid right to determine the level of safety are content.

Re: goverment highway deaths

Anonymous Coward — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 12:39:45 GMT

JonBostwick:
You think driving 65 is any safer than 80? Seriously?

It's all relative.

I've been on roads where anything over 5mph is unsafe and have gone 3x the speed limit on my motorcycle. There's no way to generalize.

JonBostwick:
What you said amounts to: You can never prevent every accident, so there is no point in attempting to preventing any of them.

No, my whole arguments is based on the fact it's a non sequitur to blame all the highway deaths on government monopoly ownership. That argument just doesn't hold up.

JonBostwick:
Roads would be better without a monoply.

Perhaps they would. It would all come down to the individual owners actions which is impossible to really predict. There would most likely be a range between those who strive for excellence and those who merely inherited ownership and wish to extract monopoly rent while they spend all their money on wine, women and song and then blow the rest.

There are no absolutes when it comes to human actions.

Re: goverment highway deaths

Bostwick — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 03:55:42 GMT

Anonymous Coward:
You just want to blame the government because you think they're teh debil and refuse to admit that speed limits and other laws are very effective... if they're followed.</mindProbe>

You think driving 65 is any safer than 80? Seriously?

Car companies work to improve safety, which keeps good drivers safer from bad drivers and bad drivers safer from themselves. Monopoly prevents this from happening to roads.

What you said amounts to: You can never prevent every accident, so there is no point in attempting to preventing any of them.

Roads would be better without a monoply.

Re: goverment highway deaths

Anonymous Coward — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 04:04:06 GMT

JonBostwick:
If roads were not monopolized, entrepreneurs would constantly be finding ways to make them safer, for everyone. You do not want to blame the government because you don't think they cause roads to be unsafe. But government keeps people from making them safer, which is the same thing.

You're a mind reader I see.

Just judging by personal observation, if everyone followed the 'rules of the road' there would be far fewer accidents. There are some things that are unavoidable, hence the name 'accident', but mostly driver error is the root cause. Private ownership isn't going to stop things like migrating deer and just plain stupidity.

You just want to blame the government because you think they're teh debil and refuse to admit that speed limits and other laws are very effective... if they're followed.</mindProbe>

There's plenty of blame to go around I just don't think it's fair to place all of it on the government in this particular case.

Re: goverment highway deaths

Kraig Monte Sandoval — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 21:56:23 GMT

The current government has no goals of building ultra conservative highways that will in turn bring down the number of deaths that are attributed to highway conditions. The current "leaders" of the government must first realize that to build and maintain ultra conservative highways one must plan ultra conservatively. An ultra conservative highway is one that is built by taking a geological survey of the minerals in and around the highway and taking the climatical data into consideration. You must then decide what mixture of concrete or whatever will be most durable in that climate. Not only would these highways have less wear and tear on one's vehicle which would keep insurance low but also save the taxpayer money by requiring less maintainence. An ultra conservative highway is planned from Denver to Los Angeles through the Four Corners area by 2013.

Re: goverment highway deaths

Bostwick — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 17:04:16 GMT

Anonymous Coward:
I don't really see it as fair to blame government ownership for highway deaths. There are a *lot* of idiots out there.

I do.

If roads were not monopolized, entrepreneurs would constantly be finding ways to make them safer, for everyone. You do not want to blame the government because you don't think they cause roads to be unsafe. But government keeps people from making them safer, which is the same thing.

Re: goverment highway deaths

Inquisitor — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 14:48:32 GMT

http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/3_2/3_2_7.pdf

Lojpre, that is one of his publications available online on roads. Loads of other articles are available at his website, under the heading of Urban, Rural and Regional Economics:

http://www.walterblock.com/publications.php

Re: goverment highway deaths

Brett_McS — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 04:38:35 GMT

leonidia, good examples. Let's hope that the private expressway is just the thin edge of the wedge. Once people get used to it there won't be quite the shock at an idea which even Adam Smith was dubious about. Of course technology is a key factor also.

Re: goverment highway deaths

misesstudent — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 04:24:53 GMT

why can't i find walter block's 'privatize roads and highways! Now!'? Has it been published?

Re: goverment highway deaths

Inquisitor — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 00:55:10 GMT

Out of curiosity, has any one here read Privatopia or The Voluntary City? I believe both books address the matter of private roads, as do numerous publications by Dr Block.

Re: goverment highway deaths

leonidia — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 15:48:42 GMT

There's no logical reason why a completely privately owned road system wouldn't work. One possible model would be that most highways, outside of city streets and residential areas, would be toll roads. Customers would be required to have a transponder, which would log where and when you entered and left the road owner's network. Billing could be assessed on mileage. Certain highways, might be assessed differently at different times of the day. For example during the rush hour, a road owner might charge more (rather like peak billing for a phone). This would have the effect of maximizing revenue to the road owner, and minimizing delays to the driver (fewer traffic jams). Drivers would then decide whether they want to pay extra for the luxury of driving during peak rush hour or using mass transit systems (also privately owned of course). Presumably, new networks of inexpensive mass transit systems would result. The market would decide. I envisage that the market would come up with innovative methods to maximize the number of drivers who could enter and exit a city efficiently at the lowest cost.

As far as city streets are concerned, one possible model might be that merchants and retailers would own the streets. Or a single street owner might charge merchants and businesses. Drivers would probably not be charged since merchants would want to attract as much business as possible. Think of a shopping mall. The walkways in the mall are like streets. The merchants pay for the upkeep of the mall (including the "streets"). If congestion became a problem, it's possible that drivers might be charged, but again a market solution would come up with a way of satisfying the need for businesses to have lots of customers, and customers being able to enter and exit a downtown area efficiently.

The model for residential areas might be present day homeowners associations. Residents would maintain the streets for their local neighborhood. Each neighborhood would decide whether they wanted to have tolls. Tolls might be good if residents needed a seperate source of revenue to pay for upkeep and wanted to cut down on traffic, or they might not, if the cost of collecting the tolls proved too expensive.

Re: goverment highway deaths

Brett_McS — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 07:08:47 GMT

Private building and running of freeways is eminently viable now, with the advent of video recognition technology and the internet. They are popping up all over the place here. You log your credit card and car registration number into the site of the road owner and then get automatically billed on a per distance basis - No toll booths, no stopping; video recognition cameras are used on the exit ramps. Brilliant! If you are not registered you have 48 hours to pay, but it costs more.

"blocks of steel and rubber traveling and nearly incontrollable speeds, with just a few feet between blocks, and most piloted by a very distracted driver"

Like Dave Barry's example of those little brown things that float around in your vision sometimes, it's something that is best not thought about too often.

Re: goverment highway deaths

MikeL — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 06:09:38 GMT

It is difficult to imagine that roads in the U.S. could get any less safe than they are right now. Just tonight while driving on a busy Bay Area freeway I was marvelling at the fact that there aren't even <em>more</em> deaths on the roads. Huge blocks of steel and rubber traveling and nearly incontrollable speeds, with just a few feet between blocks, and most piloted by a very distracted driver. It's insantiy the way roads are designed, and yet everyone has simply grown accustomed to the government way of building them.

Re: goverment highway deaths

misesstudent — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 03:33:24 GMT

thank you very much!