Upon recently reading Walter Block's defense of private roads and subsequent criticism of public ( by 'public' I mean to say state-owned) roads there appeared certain claims in his blog that I either disagreed with or had a hard time understanding.
Block begins by asserting that all roads , everywhere, should be privatized, no exceptions. He then suggests if you do not seriously consider this position of all-out privatization then your very life can be in danger. He points out that over 40,000 people annually lose their lives on American highways. He means to quite directly assert that it is the government ownership and maintenance of these roads that are the 'ultimate cause' of these deaths.
However, it is quite unclear by what he means by 'privatization.' Privatization today usually involves some piece of land sold by government to a favored corporation at non-market based prices. It is a switch of dictatorship.
He blames poor stewardship pointing to bungling bureaucracy as the culprit. The State is not subject to the profit/loss system and price mechanism of the free market and, therefore, does not brunt the true costs shoddy roads and the consequences that can result from them. Block seems to imply that there is serious lack of efficiency in state roads and this can be considered the main cause of the 40,000 + deaths.
Here is my problem with this, and its two pronged. When there are a myriad of factors that lead to accidents on the road , why would bureaucratic management standout as the 'ultimate cause?' Also, why do we care about how the state handles the roads issue?
The problem of government roads being the ultimate cause isn't really substantiated by any evidence ( at least that I have seen). It is a claim without substance. Factors such as alcohol play a huge role in judgment impairment on any road ( government or private) and will increase the probability of an accident. As far as intoxication goes, I guess one reasonable advantage a private road might have over a government one is that it can be restricted to drivers not under the influence. But then again government can and do set up check points and that still isn't full proof and I expect that you can't ever fully avoid at least the occasional mishap.
If a somewhat intoxicated man walked into Wal-Mart and used the restroom facility which posted that the custodian has just finished mopping the floors , and the the intoxicated customer slips and breaks their neck, would Block blame Wal-Mart or the man?
In terms of keeping up the roads , I would say the government does a fairly good job. I am not kidding either. The roads in my community and the major highways near me look in excellent condition, especially when compared to roads I have seen in other countries. I have been many places within the U.S. and rarely do I see a road ( yes, government run) that looks very horrible. The biggest problem I see , in terms of efficiency , is the amount of time it takes workers to repair or change a road, particularly a highway. Block is correct in suggesting that central planners have a much harder time calculating than free market entrepreneurs, but roads are not that much of a problem for a central planning body. Roads are low entropy and compared to something like a stock market and are not that hard to manage. Hell , even the bureaucrats can do a decent job , right?
But just because I said the State does , at least , an O.K. job of road maintenance, does that mean I actually endorse state-ownership of roads? Well no, I don't. I don't believe it is justified. The efficiency issues , I believe, can be handled by a free market to be comparatively as well or better than state maintenance. Block seems to focus the problem on efficiency when it seems to me to be beside the point. Does this mean if the State can actually be shown to be fairly efficient at handling the roads , would he would be in favor of state ownership? The problem with state-ownership is much more fundamental and problematic than matters of efficiency and bureaucratic management. It is the the forced externalization of costs which can penalize non-compliance with prison time.
I don't believe that collective management of roads should always be frowned upon either. From example of the State, we already see that most roads can be collectively managed reasonably well. Unfortunately since the State monopolizes most roads, its just about impossible to determine the true costs of roads. I believe when a free market competes in the road business we will be able to know these costs. I still think that collective management could be better in some situations. Why can't a local community decide to collectively maintain their thoroughfares? I find it problematic when someone proposes non-pluralistic measures. Claiming , as an imperative , life or death , that all roads must be privatized is a stretch and frankly, vulgar. Its pretty much like if a socialist claims that all means of production , everywhere , must be collectivized , no objections, that would seem vulgar.
Honestly, in a hypothetical free society , I see a likely combination of commonly owned roads and private roads. Thank you Mr.Block for your insight. And while I do support free markets I don't demand that all things must be privatized as a matter of life and death. Communities , which are established voluntarily , may be able to decide how they want to manage their own resources and whether they want to share collective responsibility or not.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that you need to travel to Europe and Pennsylvania if you think that US roads are OK. But even Europe, I would argue has pathetic roads compared to what I imagine a free market (i.e. one that did not have to compete with "free" roads) would produce.
ReplyDeleteFor starters, traditional roads/highways may not even exist in a free market, I would suspect that something much better would have been standardized by now, something that one might not even call a road. Likely this means some form of extremely light rail, which something similar to cars would run on. Something that is much easier and cheaper to build and maintain than a road, all while providing a much safer alternative. This new "road" standard would likely even have embedded electric hookups.
I am sure that on the surface this sounds expensive compared to roads, but I don't think people realize how expensive roads really are. Roads require so much land and permit so few cars at once and are labor intensive to maintain.
People should look to history to see how rails once proliferated if they think that we could not build light rails almost everywhere today. A historical map of Colorado will show that the entire state was once covered in rails. Rail transportation at the turn of the 20th century was fabulous. People could ride trains to mining cities up in the mountains and take a light rail to their hotel upon arrival.
Modern railroads are incredibly efficient, the machines which construct and maintain them are very efficient and mostly automated. And this is standard gauge rail. Imagine what types of extremely light rail could be concocted for individual cars. Cars could travel individually to the end of neighborhood streets and couple up with other cars for the highway achieving great densities and safety. Automated systems could allow for efficient merging in neighborhoods bypassing traffic lights at intersections.
Cars built for these roads would last much longer due to drastically reduced vibrations compared to tarmac, and less start/stopping. An electric engine lasts forever compared to a combustion engine and would likely also benefit drastically from standardization compared to combustion engines. Combustion engines are constantly being engineered (and thus evolving) to last longer and be more powerful and more efficient. The electric motor was mostly optimized over 100 years ago, no need to keep redesigning it.
But this is just my perception, it is hard to really know what would happen without subsidized roads. I find it hard to believe that the average person would accept the planned obsolescence of roads, cars, tires, etc. if the roads were not "free", if they had to chose between cost based systems.
Accepting the status quo is sad, particularly with roads. Call it an axiom, the state will evolve towards the most expensive solution possible over time since it allows for the most people to receive the most porc. Roads/cars are one perfect example of this.
I think that you need to travel to Europe and Pennsylvania if you think that US roads are OK. But even Europe, I would argue has pathetic roads compared to what I imagine a free market (i.e. one that did not have to compete with "free" roads) would produce.
ReplyDeleteFor starters, traditional roads/highways may not even exist in a free market, I would suspect that something much better would have been standardized by now, something that one might not even call a road. Likely this means some form of extremely light rail, which something similar to cars would run on. Something that is much easier and cheaper to build and maintain than a road, all while providing a much safer alternative. This new "road" standard would likely even have embedded electric hookups.
I am sure that on the surface this sounds expensive compared to roads, but I don't think people realize how expensive roads really are. Roads require so much land and permit so few cars at once and are labor intensive to maintain.
People should look to history to see how rails once proliferated if they think that we could not build light rails almost everywhere today. A historical map of Colorado will show that the entire state was once covered in rails. Rail transportation at the turn of the 20th century was fabulous. People could ride trains to mining cities up in the mountains and take a light rail to their hotel upon arrival.
(More below...)
(...continued from above)
ReplyDeleteModern railroads are incredibly efficient, the machines which construct and maintain them are very efficient and mostly automated. And this is standard gauge rail. Imagine what types of extremely light rail could be concocted for individual cars. Cars could travel individually to the end of neighborhood streets and couple up with other cars for the highway achieving great densities and safety. Automated systems could allow for efficient merging in neighborhoods bypassing traffic lights at intersections.
Cars built for these roads would last much longer due to drastically reduced vibrations compared to tarmac, and less start/stopping. An electric engine lasts forever compared to a combustion engine and would likely also benefit drastically from standardization compared to combustion engines. Combustion engines are constantly being engineered (and thus evolving) to last longer and be more powerful and more efficient. The electric motor was mostly optimized over 100 years ago, no need to keep redesigning it.
But this is just my perception, it is hard to really know what would happen without subsidized roads. I find it hard to believe that the average person would accept the planned obsolescence of roads, cars, tires, etc. if the roads were not "free", if they had to chose between cost based systems.
Accepting the status quo is sad, particularly with roads. Call it an axiom, the state will evolve towards the most expensive solution possible over time since it allows for the most people to receive the most porc. Roads/cars are one perfect example of this.