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).