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.
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 -
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.
they said we would have an unfair fun advantage
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.
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.