The Government's Highway System
In a recent article I argued that the federal government's involvement with the nascent internet caused some serious problems down the road. Not everyone was convinced, though I personally thought the article, and my follow-up comments, were absolutely brilliant.
Anyway, one of my points was even when the government creates something lots of people like (e.g., the "public goods" described in economics textbooks), the benefits may not outweigh the opportunity costs. Enthusiasts, like the townspeople admiring the new pane of glass in Bastiat's famous fable, often forget this.
An excellent case in point is the US Interstate Highway system, the 50th anniversary of which is generating a lot of hullabaloo here in the States. It's well known that Eisenhower's aims in creating the Interstates were at least partly military, that he hoped to facilitate the rapid movement of military personnel and equipment as he had observed on the Lincoln Highway in 1919 and the German autobahns during World War II. It's interesting to imagine what sort of long-distance highway system would have emerged, and when, in the absence of government intervention.
The current issue of the Economist has a lengthy feature on this, summarized here by Sam Koritz. For more information, contact Walter Block, who I'm sure has at least twenty-five articles on the subject.
Comments (7)
Almost 20 years ago, I renember reading an article in national geographic about the first freeway system in the US. It turns out that the first freeways were privately funded by gas stations along the route. As soon as the government got into the picture, all the private freeways were pretty much put out of business. One act killed the entire industry overnight.
One thing that I wish people would understand is that sometimes the worst thing that can happen to a government program - is that it becomes successful. Success in private enterprise creates competition, success in government enterprise creates entrenched bureauocratic monopoly. Success in the private sector is helped by more entrants, success in government is ruined by it. NASA was successfull at getting man to the moon, now it's hobbeling US space advances in the private sector. Public schools were successfull at educating millions of children who never had an education before, now it is an entrenched babysitting/incarceration service for kids. Social security was successfull at providing a safety net for millions of elderly, now it's a morally and financially bankrupt ponzi scheme. The interstate system created a transportation network that led to billions of commerce and trade. Now it's an 80 billion dollar per year maintenance disaster that is locking out private sector transportation services.
The truth is that we are far better off when a government program fails, when it doesn't provide services and benefits successfully. While it is still as likely to eternally suck away our tax money - at least it doesn't grow into a mega entrenched multi billion dollar beast that eats up everything in sight and halts innovation for decades if not centuries.
Published: July 1, 2006 11:41 AM
I thought it was the reverse for government. Failure means more money must be thrown at it!
Published: July 1, 2006 12:12 PM
I also read a report that Americans are more depressed and have less friends than anytime before. I am positive this has something to do with the way the road system that has developed. I really hate suburbs and hopefully will never live in one again.
Published: July 1, 2006 3:51 PM
Look at it from a private property angle. Do we really own our vehicles? For the "privlige" of driving on gov't roads, we have to register our cars and obtain a license to drive. The state can impound our cars and revoke our license whenever we violate any of their numerous laws. We can't modify our vehicles or even purchase certain vehicles lest they be "street legal."
And what do we get for our wonderful 50-year old interstate highway system? Traffic, potholes, frustration, traffic, more frustration, and more traffic.
Published: July 2, 2006 9:43 AM
What's amazing to me is that many of the same people who laud the Interstate system as an example of how centralized government really works are the same people who are the most concerned about car pollution and sprawl.
In the absence of a latticework of interstates, who knows what privately funded mass transportation systems would have arisen? And who would make a 60 mile commute one-way without those limited-access highways?
Published: July 3, 2006 6:16 AM
Maybe 40 years ago I heard an ancient member of the senate talking about government waste. He stated that it didn't matter if money was wasted as long as the process was honest, something to that effect. Personally, if the Mafia could deliver a superior product as a lower price, good for them. This is why govt lottos and tribal casinos have not put the numbers racket out of business - the Mafia pays off better.
Published: July 3, 2006 12:45 PM
Billwald said;
"Personally, if the Mafia could deliver a superior product as a lower price, good for them. This is why govt lottos and tribal casinos have not put the numbers racket out of business - the Mafia pays off better."
OH YEAH - we blogged about an instance of that here;
http://www.libertyguys.org/articles/detail.asp?ArtID=208
"...the illegal "ring" was, if anything, TOO customer focused. Apparently, a winning bet on an illegal game paid off at 600 to one, whereas the State-run legal lottery only pays 500 to one. Go figure."
Published: July 3, 2006 1:06 PM