Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!cca!ima!inmet!nrh
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response
Message-ID: <1911@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 22-Jan-85 01:54:51 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.1911
Posted: Tue Jan 22 01:54:51 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 25-Jan-85 06:35:47 EST
Lines: 288
Nf-ID: #R:loral:-74200:inmet:3900164:177600:15244
Nf-From: inmet!nrh    Jan 20 21:31:00 1985

>***** inmet:net.flame / amdcad!phil /  1:13 pm  Jan 20, 1985
>> Once upon a time there were private roads.  One net-user advanced
>> the notion that the private roads were so expensive that farmers
>> appealed to the State to nationalize the road system.  You
>> have no idea how happy I am to subsidize farmers and
>> truckers by money extracted from me by force.
>> 
>> The railroads were built by private industry cooperating with (not
>> directed by) government.  Odd that government should be in the
>> construction business, don't you think?
>
>How are you going to build highways and railroads without the power of
>eminent domain? Seems to me the railroad companies got a lot of help
>from the government in condemning land for right of ways. 

Indeed, the government used this power on behalf of the railroads.  Whether
it was needed, or whether it simply made things easier for the railroads
is open to debate, and probably more a matter of historical record
(anybody know if there were railroads that didn't use this sort of 
thing, but paid property owners?).   The point I was making, though,
was that the government did not participate in the construction of the
roadbed and the laying of the rails.  By analogy, it's worth asking
if government employees must be the ones to lay out the highway system.

>I don't
>understand how paying for roads with gasoline taxes is unfair.

Excuse me, but it's violently unfair.  Why?  Well, among other reasons,
the gasoline tax is only somewhat related to the amount of road-wear 
a given user will cause.    If you wanted to be FAIR, you'd charge
according to the prorated economic benefit given each user by the road.
Or would you charge according to the marginal cost of his use?  Or
perhaps how many times he traversed the road (thus forcing the government
to absorb the cost of under-planning).  Two points:  a) people who
never use the highways pay as much extra for gas as those who use
them all the time.  b) What's fair is a matter of debate, especially
where the property is public.

>Here in California, we believe that the overhead in charging tolls for
>highways (make everyone stop, pay a coolie to take your quarter) is
>unacceptably high. Yet this is what you must have to operate private roads.

That's interesting.... I wasn't aware that California was unanimous
on the subject.  In any case, the quarter/coolie arrangement is 
hardly needed for private roads.  Some obvious alternatives 
involve magnetic "readers" under the roads which read an identifying
plate on the car (in use in (I think) Hong Kong to charge people extra
for using downtown roads in rush hour) and videotaping the license plates
of the cars as you they go by (stopping those who haven't registered
with the road owner).   

>Does the government belong in the construction business? Caltrans
>(dept of transportation) seems to be doing an adequate job, even
>though years of Gov Brown crippled them. We have some nice roads,
>come check out Interstate 280 sometime. 

Excuse me, but it's fairly common knowledge that it costs government
on the average, TWICE what it costs a private company to do anything.

To say that the roads are adequate is one thing.  To say they were
worth the cost is another. 

>I have heard that perhaps
>the government in Mass is more corrupt than most, but that does not
>mean to me that all government is bad, just that Mass has a problem.
>

Quite correct.  That the government in Mass is more corrupt than
most does not imply *ANYTHING WHATEVER* about the desirability
of governments in general.

>> Don't even ask me about building code regulations.
>
>Why not, do you think they (maybe public health regulations too)
>are unnecessary? 

Now there's an interesting question.  Did you know that in 
Cleveland, Ohio, where I grew up, the building codes apparently
have no TOLERANCES?  That is, unless a pipe that is supposed to
be vertical is *perfectly* vertical, you must pay a fine and
be prepared to show that you've made it truly vertical?  
This was how a lot of "undesirable"  (porn stores, places that
didn't pay their graft) places were closed down in 
Cleveland.  How do I know this?  An ex-cop who was involved (peripherally)
told me so.

A friend of mine who's in the Libertarian Party did a paper
on the statistical correlation between deaths by fire and 
whether buildings were built after building code regulations took
effect.  I'll try and get more information, if you're really interested,
and if the results would have any impact on people.

My own personal discovery of the delightful utility of building codes
was when, in a large computer room in a New York building, the firm I
worked for ordered  flexible power cables.  You see, we wanted
to be able to move such cables around without having to call the
(unionized, very expensive) electricians in, and the point of
the flexible cables was that it made it safe for non-electricians to move
outlets around under the false floor.

Imagine our surprise to find that the electricians had dutifully installed
the  cables, and then bolted them immovably to the floor.  Why?
"That's the code", the union rep told us, smiling.

As for public health regulations, I do believe that they are
essentially unnecessary -- the key here is that you must live
in a society where you can sue people who impinge on your health
(such as polluters).  In a society such as ours, where the
EPA regulates such things, and you may not sue people for
creating a nuisance (you could once upon a time, but no longer)
you are indeed thrown upon the mercy of the regulators.  
They sure did a nice job on asbestos, agent orange, and love canal,
DIDN'T they?  

>I think you're a bit naive if so. 

Excuse me, but are you an expert?  Do you have any statistical evidence
to back up this claim that public health regulations have done what you
hoped?  I agree that it is obvious that a government agency that is
charged with maintaining public health gives you someone to blame if the
public health isn't maintained.  That's about all it actually gives you.

Let me tell you a little story (that I got from CBS's "60 minutes"
show).  

A statistician was curious how much automobile inspection helped in
improving road safety.  He examined all 50 states, some of which have
this regulation, some of which didn't.  For those lucky enough to live in
states that don't have it, the inspection regulation means that your car
must be inspected periodically by someone who you pay to do this.
Typically you pay a person at a gas station licensed to do the
inspection.  If your car passes, you get a sticker which you then
display.  If it fails, you're not supposed to drive your car until the
shortcomings that made it fail are corrected (typical shortcomings: worn
tires, lights out of alignment).

After correcting for everything he could correct for, the statistician
compared the accident rate of the states that have inspection laws
with the states that didn't.

He found that there was no correlation.  The study was released publicly,
but this caused no particular reaction.  "60 Minutes" sent people
to various state governer's offices, asking why, given this 
startling fact, the governments didn't repeal such laws, as a 
useless imposition upon citizens.  The governer's reactions amounted
to "Hem, Haw".  It turns out that the licensing of the inspection
stations makes a fair amount of money for the states involved.

>By the way,
>how about the FCC? Shouldn't we abolish that too? Why should we
>hamstring all the would-be broadcasters? Just let anyone use
>any frequency, any power, and any equipment they desire. If they
>aren't putting out a quality product, why people will stop listening
>to them. Oh, your (private) police can't hear themselves anymore?
>Too bad, but we must make some sacrifices to freedom.

Tsk, Phil.  If you wish to attack libertarianism, you should throw yourself
on our flanks, not on our swords!  The FCC is doing what it can
to undo itself.  I believe that some of its functions are going to be
absorbed by the FTC later this year (sorry, vague memory).  The head of
the FCC is one of the most libertarian members remaining in the Reagan 
administration.  The solution to the problem of keeping people from
talking over each other is not to declare that the government should
run everything that happens there -- this would be like saying that
all LAND is owned by the government, and that the government should
therefore have a commission to regulate everything that happens on
land so that people do not bump into each other.

The solution, as with land, is to sell the spectrum.  At this point,
property rights to the spectrum become enforceable, just as property
rights with land are now.    If somebody broadcasts on a band you
own, and you don't like it, sue him!  After all, if the government
NOW owns the spectrum, and if it sells a part of it to you, you can
prove you've the right to it, and he can't.  The  exact mechanism
by which you pursue your right depends on the exact justice system
your society has, but assuming, for the moment, that the FCC went
out of business after selling off all the parts of the spectrum
it could reach, (in other words, assuming it's our society, but just
a little more libertarian) then you just call up your lawyer, get
an injunction, show your paper in court, and remove the other fellow
to jail (or have him pay you a hefty settlement).

A libertarian society, of course, would have somewhat different
mechanisms of enforcement (meet you in net.politics.theoretical?)

>> >running
>> >parks and recreation departments, 
>> 
>> Yes, I think it's perfectly okay to tell taxpayers that they will
>> be put in jail if they do not pay for parks and recreation departments.
>> After all, they are life and death issues, and it's morally 
>> justified to steal from citizens to construct bridle paths.
>
>You seem to think parks are luxuries or that someone will provide them
>if the government doesn't. If you're rich enough to have a car you
>can drive away from the concrete. Not everyone can afford to do that.

This is so.  That's why there are co-op gardens in NYC, and that's why
central park charged admission in the 1800's.  On the other hand, parks
are (strictly speaking) "luxuries" in the sense that you don't need them
to live.  Now, I expect you'll be ready with a bunch of stuff about how
"every man ought to be able to commune with nature", but think about it
before you post it: it's true that people are happier with parks than
without them, but people who don't have them survive.

As for other people providing them if the government does not, why yes
indeed!  Right now, there are private camps, and private parks (as I
recall, I mentioned this in the article you're replying to).  They tend
to be on a subscription basis, but not always.  I recall seeing TV ads
for some charity that would get poor children out to the woods.  What?
Central Park too dangerous and awful to send your children too?  But
it's run by GOVERNMENT?  What's WRONG?

Just as we see very few private roads (they'd have to compete with
government roads) we see very few private parks.  On the other hand,
absent a government offering these for "free" (You've already paid for
the government park but the private one will cost extra), and TAXING
people for leaving land in a relatively wild state (can you imagine what
the real estate tax would be for the hypothetical private owner of
central park?) you would probably see quite a few private parks --
they'd charge admission, of course, just like central park once did, but
you could subscribe, or not subscribe, and NOT PAY.

>> 	4. Make it clear that PG&E and all the others will be liable
>> 	for any damages they cause.
>
>I think you'll need a (shudder) government agency to enforce this.

The problem of enforcement of rights in the absence of government
has already been discussed quite a bit in net.politics.  If you
want to read how it's done, take a look at "The Machinery of Freedom"
by David Friedman.  He devotes a chapter to it.

>And don't forget, you probably want to regulate the air quality
>coming out of a coal fired plant and such things. Could this be
>an EPA?

If every two-bit fool for miles around (within telephone reach of an
enterprising shyster) can sue me for polluting the air, and I can't
prove to my insurance and arbitration companies that I didn't do it, I'm
in big trouble.  Litigation costs alone may eat up my profits.  If every
Canadian forester can sue me for causing acid rain, I'm going to be in
even more trouble.  On the other hand, if the government regulates such
things, and the government can be bought off, or convinced to say:
"It's okay to pollute THIS much", then I'm home free.  Remember that my
financial life or death depends on controlling this government, an
average citizen is not going to care nearly as much that acid rain falls
on Canada as a utility company is going to care about making it safe to
pump poison into the air.

Now, this is net.flame, and I'm going to bend the rules, but 
I think it's worth saying:  I do not dismiss out of hand or lightly
the notion that government may be needed to do certain things.  The problem
(amply illustrated by Phil's reply) is that government, with all its
warts, is the obvious solution (not necessarily correct, but certainly
obvious) to a whole lot of problems.  I believe it is Milton Friedman
who is responsible for the following metaphor:

Consider a group of people, colonists, perhaps, who know they will
be cut off from outside help, and know that winter is coming.
The OBVIOUS way to make sure they get through the winter is by 
having one person take charge, and say:  "You, gather nuts",
"You, gather firewood", "You, make crops", "You, get a water supply",
Anyone who fails will be punished, to maintain discipline, as an
"enemy of the people".  
and so on.  This is the obvious way to survive.  This idea of 
centrally planned economy dominates the Soviet Union today.

Now consider another group of people, who have deliberately forsworn
the notion that one person or entity may force them to do things.
They must take a less-obvious route: they must plan without forcing
each other.  Their most likely route is to trade with each other:
"I'll find water, and guarantee you a supply through march, if you'll
kill enough deer to feed my family for the same time."  This is a 
market approach to the same problem, and has the nice characteristic that
it tends to be much more efficient than the centralist solution.  Why?
because each transaction has at least two willing parties, where a central
authority may simply command that something must be done, even if it
makes no sense in terms of survival.  Thus it may command that
everybody must go to church on Sunday, or that everybody must wear
very modest clothing, or that only so-and-so may produce jam.

My plea to Phil, and to the others reading this is to consider, the next
time you hear of some government function, whether it MUST be done
by government, and if it needn't be, just what the tradeoffs
are between government action and letting the function, whatever it is,
be at the private discretion of those involved.