Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!yale!inmet!nrh
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Supposed monopolies: the railroa
Message-ID: <7800374@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 8-Aug-85 13:42:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: inmet.7800374
Posted: Thu Aug  8 13:42:00 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 12-Aug-85 07:25:14 EDT
References: <1682@psuvax1.UUCP>
Lines: 68
Nf-ID: #R:psuvax1:-168200:inmet:7800374:000:3652
Nf-From: inmet!nrh    Aug  8 13:42:00 1985


>/* Written 10:19 pm  Aug  6, 1985 by psuvax1!berman in inmet:net.politics */
>/* ---------- "Re: Supposed monopolies: the railro" ---------- */
>> Regarding Charley Wingate's conjecture that the railroads were
>> monopolistic way back when, I merely note that they had the benefit
>> of federal land grants and subsidies.  
>> 
>> --Barry
>> -- 
>> Barry Fagin @ University of California, Berkeley
>
>Here we are.  The road (railroad) is a kind of utility, i.e. if it is organized
>sensibly, then it creates a local monopoly.  Consider interstate highways.  It
>doesn't make much sence to create 3 competing highways from Salt Lake City to 
>Albuquerque.  Why?  Because the necessary capital spending never could pay
>of.  At certain stages the same concerns the railroad.  Also, to much of
>competition is clearly counterproductive, because the networks are not 
>sufficiently developed.  Of course, one can point that some markets contain
>2-3 highways/railroads.  But this is a local oligopoly.
>Now, why roads, railroads, pipelines, transmition lines etc. were invariably
>build with goverment intervention (eminent domain, land grants etc)?
>Because THIS WAS THE ONLY POSSIBLE WAY.

In his book, "The Tyranny of the Status Quo", Milton Friedman points
out the strong tendency people have to consider that the way things
are done now is the only possible way to do them.  Friedman was
one of the people who first proposed income tax withholding from
paychecks.  He encountered strong resistance from (guess who?) the 
IRS (!) who argued that the way the tax was then collected was the only
way in which the system could possibly work.

As for private road systems, I don't know that much about them -- 
I'm told that rural roads in New England were private until farmers
prevailed upon the government to pay for their maintenance (the farmers
didn't like paying the upkeep to ensure their access to cities).

I suspect that without government intervention in the roads system we
would have built differently -- perhaps with less intrusive 
fast intercity transport ( more shipping, airships and  planes and fewer
railroads and automobiles)  I suspect that private road systems would
have continued, had we kept hands-off, but with a certain amount of
irksome toll-gathering.  

>I do not argue with Barry, but with libertarian who critisize goverment
>that it got involved in the economy (whatever the involvment).  In many
>cases state property/regulated enterprizes/supported enterprizes is the
>only way to go.

Okay, WHAT things actually require the state's intevention?

Only about half of all libertarians are Anarchists (no state).  The rest
see some functions as best supported by the state (defense is an obvious
one).  It seems to me that current-day libertarians do not so much
insist that the state not do anything as insist that it's actions be
*FULLY* justified.  In a great many cases, (say 80-98% by expenditures
of the current government functions) the government DOESN'T justify
itself as being "the only way to fly", but merely attracts enough
lobbyists and political hacks to extend itself in whatever directions
seem most politically profitable.

Just for example, the government need not be the way to supply old
age pensions, but it insists on doing it (and has badly mismanaged
the system at that).  The government need not be the mechanism used
for actual provision of schooling (whatever you may think about 
it's right to require schooling).  The government need not be the
people to provide postal service (but we are warned of hideous 
consequences by postal worker's unions if the government gives up
this function).