Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!cca!inmet!janw
From: janw@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Re: The free market (and lemons)
Message-ID: <28200425@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 21-Dec-85 19:19:00 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.28200425
Posted: Sat Dec 21 19:19:00 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 24-Dec-85 20:45:32 EST
References: <849@mmintl.UUCP>
Lines: 60
Nf-ID: #R:mmintl:-84900:inmet:28200425:000:3054
Nf-From: inmet!janw    Dec 21 19:19:00 1985


[Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka]
>In article <28200390@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes:
   [Nat Howard :]
>>>>As I've argued before: just because the government in theory (or any
>>>>beneficent, disinterested, arms-bearing force) could "solve" this sort
>>>>of problem doesn't mean that the historical outcome will be a solution.
>>>>A powerful government bears all our own imperfections (in the 
>>>>transplant case, probably sloth, greed, and ignorance) magnified.
  [me :]
>>This appears to be the proper generic rebuttal to *any* statist
>>claims in the fields of health, education, welfare or the economy -
>>in all areas, in fact, except defence and law-and-order.
   [Frank Adams :]
>And the proper response to this generic rebuttal is to note that there
>are many areas where the government has done a great deal of good.
>Without the power of eminent domain, we would all be much poorer.  Public
>road-building has done a great deal of good.  You may argue that private
>roads could have done as well, but that is an unproven assumption.  In
>fact, public roadbuilding took place because of a recognized need for
>the roads, and a perceived inability of the private sector to provide
>them.  The libertarian proposal is to build toll roads.  But for local
>roads, the cost of collecting tolls probably exceeds the cost of building
>and maintaining the roads.

The proper way to test these assertions is by controlled  experi-
ment:  two  comparable zones in one of which government exercises
eminent domain and builds roads and in the  other  collects  less
taxes.  Elsewhere  you  made a rather sweeping statement that so-
cial experimentation is dangerous and I tried to draw a  distinc-
tion  between  proper  experimentation, relatively safe and abso-
lutely necessary, and rash wholesale innovation, almost univer-
sally  harmful. I offer the above (tentatively abolishing cer-
tain government functions in an area in exchange for  a  tax  re-
lief) as another example of the proper, harmless kind of experiment.

It is akin to free enterprise zones - which, by the way, have  been
*tested*  on  a  state  basis,  in 20 states, 1300 zones, and ap-
parently are a great success. That  they  are  still  stalled  in
Washington  seems  inexplicable. No one gives *reasons*; in fact,
they are all *for* it; Senate passed it twice; but the House Ways
and  Means (under Danny Call-me-Rosty) does not let it out
for a vote. Democratic process, you know. I only hope someone,
left or right, makes it a BIG election issue for '86. 
But back to the roads.

Until the experiment has been made, on whom is the burden of proof?
I would claim, the advocates of government control and coercion.
Since you approve, in principle, of a sunset law - it would seem
that you agree. But then your sentence above :

>You may argue that private
>roads could have done as well, but that is an unproven assumption.  

should read:

You may argue that private
roads could have done no better, but that is an unproven assumption.  

		Jan Wasilewsky