Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Supposed monopolies: the railroads
Message-ID: <1187@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 11-Aug-85 00:32:35 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1187
Posted: Sun Aug 11 00:32:35 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 13-Aug-85 00:20:44 EDT
References: <7800374@inmet.UUCP>
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 74

In article <7800374@inmet.UUCP> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes:

>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 suspect that the demand for private cars would have inevitably overwhelmed
questions of economies of scale.  The thing that killed rail passenger
travel wasn't cost, but convenience; people wanted to get there faster
(so they took planes) or wanted to go more places (so they took their cars).
It's not clear to me why we have government-owned roads, as opposed to some
sort of a utility.  It's quite clear that competition between private
road systems could only be possible on an intercity basis; within a town,
there simply isn't room for multiple roads to a dwelling.

>>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.

I find it curious that defense is universally singled out as the one function
libertarians universally delegate to government.  Nowhere does the association
between government and industry cause such economic distortions.  I think it
is safe to say that, if normal economic pressures prevailed, the defense
industry would be radically different.  Few buyers pay for as much incompetent
workmanship.  So why protect the defense industry?

>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).

I think it's fair to say that the reason why all of these functions were
acquired by the government was that people wanted to be surthey were done.
It is certainly arguable whether many of these should continue to
be done by the government directly.  BUt compulsion to see that these services
are performed means some sort of governmental coercion.  One can argue at
great length whether we should have government services or licensers.
I think it would be hard to show, though, that market forces would (for
instance) guarantee postal service for everyone.

C Wingate