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: <28200508@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 4-Jan-86 19:59:00 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.28200508
Posted: Sat Jan  4 19:59:00 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 6-Jan-86 20:46:30 EST
References: <849@mmintl.UUCP>
Lines: 52
Nf-ID: #R:mmintl:-84900:inmet:28200508:000:2708
Nf-From: inmet!janw    Jan  4 19:59:00 1986


[Mike Sykora sykora@csd2]
>>>/* franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) /  8:05 am  Dec 27, 1985 */
>>>We must not consider whether some good came out of government policies,
>>>but whether net good came out of them.  If that is what you are saying,
>>>then clearly this is an unproiven assumption.

>>Strictly speaken, it is unproven; but I think it is pretty obvious.

>I am talking about individual policies, not whether it is better to have a
>government or not at all.  In the case of eminent domain I'll admit you may be
>right (though I disagree), but it is hardly obvious.  Do you really know that
>much about the history of eminent domain?

What seems *obvious* is that eminent domain contributed to  rapid
road-building,  and  railroad-building, in USA. *Net good* is not
at all obvious, and I don't see how to verify it even  with  his-
totical  research  - unless someone uncovers a natural controlled
experiment.  Otherwise, we are reduced to guesswork.   Had  there
been  no  eminent  domain, what would have been the history ?  In
most cases, probably the only difference would be the price  paid
for  the property acquired and that the road interests would have
applied different forms of pressure. It would  be  net  loss  for
*them*. But the money would go to work on other things.

A chilling effect might be there (in the absence of ED)  for  the
railroad  industry  in general. Again, the money would go to work
on something else. This is just a case of an industry artificial-
ly  made  lucrative by government-granted privilege. It could, by
chance, be good for the economy. But not obviously.

In some cases, the owners would prove intractable  -  this  would
mean  a  bypass,  or  some  alternative technical solution. There
would be an immediate net loss (perhaps) to the economy, but  the
acquired  technical  experience would be useful. After all, roads
and railroads *are* built in mountainous or  swampy  areas,  too,
and  some  landscape features are as recalcitrant as a stubborn
farmer. Why not treat a person with the same respect as a crag  ?

Being  able  to  sweep  away  obstacles  by  simply  buying a few
congressmen must have been nice; but hardly necessary. This is  a
frequent  mistake:  "it has always been done this way" is *not* a
good argument for "this way". A good argument would  be  "several
ways have been tried, and this one came out better every time".

Assuming there *was* a net loss,  the  question  would  arise:  how
*big* a loss ? Eminent domain is a very serious limitation of in-
dividual rights. The reason it does not chafe more is that it has
always  been  there.  Still,  these rights should be worth *some-
thing* to most people.

		Jan Wasilewsky