Open Letter to Mothers Against Drunk Driving
It is not at all true that speed, alcohol, drugs, etc., are ultimately responsible for vehicular death. Rather, they are only the proximate causes. The underlying explanation is that the managers of the roads, those in charge of them, have failed to deal with these problems. With a system of private highways and streets, the various owners would compete with one another to provide service for their customers (including, preeminently, safety). Those who failed would be forced either to change the error of their ways or go belly up. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (54)
Joe
I agree largely with the article. One comment I would add however is they should consider prevention more than punishment. I live in Florida and we have drive thru liquor stores. We have cold beer and wine, on ice, at the counter in nearly every gas station. I have not heard of the Dramm Act being used here. Establishments should bear some responsibility.
Published: April 13, 2009 8:47 AM
haragan
Privatizing is not necessarily the solution. It's a matter of looking at the numbers but I would bet that in driving death rates in European or even in certain developing countries are lower even though their roads are also government managed.
Published: April 13, 2009 9:25 AM
Matt
Haragan:
I think the larger point here is that government-managed roads are inferior to an environment where free enterprise is allowed to reign. Under government control, there is no room for improvement or change...for the wheels (no pun) of a bureaucracy work notoriously slow.
I like the idea of privatizing roads, even if there is no guarantee privitization will improve conditions vis-a-vie roadway fatalities. Worst case scenario is we can always return to (shudder) government-managed roadways.
Published: April 13, 2009 9:36 AM
Jonathan Finegold Catalán
Joe, I'm not sure that banning "drive through liquor" stores would be a solution to the problem. It's not the liquor store's or gas station's fault that the driver was drinking and driving. The store is only providing a service to those who want to procure alcohol. It's like blaming Big 5 for selling the rifle that killed a student during a school shooting. Furthermore, curtailing the liberty to sell what you'd like will not stop drivers from being able to drink and drive.
I understand the message the letter is trying to send, but I don't think speeding is a primary cause of accidents, as much as it has to do with poor driving. I remember I was driving down one of San Diego's main streets at about 60MPH (10MPH over the speed limit), in the middle lane (of three), and a truck pulls into the first lane extremely slowly, but the turning radius forces the truck to go partly into my lane. Instead of quickly merging into his own lane, the truck driver instead spends about thirty seconds in both lanes... and I'm right on him. I had to swerve to get out of his way. Although, arguably, had I gone slower I would have better been able to avoid the accident, the fault is also (mostly) on the other driver for not merging into his lane and instead effectively cutting me off (when had absolutely no reason to do so).
I'm sure that bad drivers who also speed are a large cause of accidents. But, speeding itself is not the primary cause. Case in point is the autobahn, where it has a safety-record, despite the lack of a speed limit (and Thomas diLorenzo admits that the speed limit has more to do with government regulation of gas expenditure than with actual safety applications).
I would bet that in the case of privatized roads, these road owners would actually offer their own licenses (through stacking or through partnerships) and increase the driving capabilities to get the license in the first place. As a citizen of both Spain and the United States, and having experience driving in both, I can tell you that European standards for retrieving a driver's license is many times as high.
But, I admit that this avoids the real message behind the letter... even though I think that the real message is a bit out of MADD's league.
Published: April 13, 2009 9:37 AM
Phil
Haragan - I would like to at least see if privatization could work. Unfortunately, no one in government or in our nation can seemingly wrap their heads around the fact that government is not necessary.
Published: April 13, 2009 9:40 AM
Eric
When I working in Germany and found myself with a few days of free time I decided to tour the autobahns where there were no speed limits.
The roads were straight, flat, and extremely smooth. You stayed out of the left most lane or you kept up. No stragglers were found there. Once in a while a car would pass doing about 130 mph.
You NEVER passed on the right, since this allows drivers the means to move to the right safely when being approached from behind by a faster vehicle.
One day I reached France. There was no border patrols and so I simply kept going. What was immediately noticeable was the difference in the road surface. It was, well, much like US roads. Pot-holed, cracks, and a rough ride.
Clearly there can be differences in road quality, though in this case, both are government roads.
When I was young and the Atlantic city expressway opened up, it was a very smooth road, designed for higher speed. It was a toll road (though I don't know if it's a privately owned road).
Clearly there is a huge difference in the management of roads. But with government roads, there is no alternative competition, and they can't be sued for lack of proper maintenance.
Another point is the enforcement of traffic laws. How many times have you seen a cop causing a traffic jam, and on occasion one sneaks up in the right lane doing over 100 mph just to catch someone in the fast lane going a few mph over the speed limit. And every few days someone gets hurt or killed in a car chase, especially here in LA.
The bottom line is:
Government roads + traffic fines = a business model. It's not to promote safety.
Published: April 13, 2009 10:02 AM
prettyskin
Driving fatalities are inevitable, regardless of causes. Attaching privatization of roads with MADD causes is a bit feckless. Options are what we need, period. So, if an option for better roadways is privatization, it should be given a chance to fail or succeed.
@ Phil
If government is not necessary, who will protect personal properties and secure the nation?
Published: April 13, 2009 10:02 AM
FTG
There is compelling evidence that anti0drunk driving laws actually make the problem worse than it has to be. When I was living in Monterrey, Mexico, during New Year Eve, you could see scores of drivers that were obviously intoxicated, swerving from lane to lane very slowly - these were very easy to detect and avoid. When a new administration started a crackdown of drunk drivers by way of street blocks, the number of accidents and deaths shot up because drunken drivers were now trying to arrive home as fast as possible through streets and other shortcuts, where other cars go much slower, just to avoid having their car impounded.
So a solution to this problem would be to simply get rid of drunken driving laws, and educate drivers to drive slowly and as carefully as possible if they are intoxicated, so that they don't end up killing someone.
Published: April 13, 2009 10:27 AM
Magnus
Just to put some perspective on the issue, more than 100 people per day are killed while driving on America's roads. That's 35,000 to 40,000 per year, year in and year out, for several decades. And that number does not include the permanent brain injuries, quadriplegics and amputations.
Yet people get all a-twitter because some Somali pirates might have killed 3 or 4 men on the open sea. Which is bad, don't get me wrong, but in the time it has taken me to type this comment, more people have died while driving on an American freeway than have been killed by pirates in the last several years.
The issue of government-controlled roads goes beyond the blood-bath, which is bad enough. But governmental roads control the US oil policy. Which controls the direction of pretty much the entire government.
Zoning and land use restrictions are also all built around road-construction. Which means the roads control where and how people live, and where and how their businesses are operated.
Published: April 13, 2009 10:47 AM
ProudCapitalist
It was unneccesary to blur the topic by start talking about potholes. I think Block unintentionally makes it look as if the free market has no solution to the drunk driving problem "but it can fix potholes!"
A private road manager would of course directly handle the very serious drink-and-drive problem itself, not only "make up for the deaths" in term of road quality. Do pilotes of privately owned airliners drink and fly? How many patients are dying because of drunk surgeons?
Since drunk driving causes mass death, and because many are worried about road safety, private road managers will deal with that issue for marketing purposes if nothing else. Not policemen, who are expensive and badly needed to fight other crimes, but corporate inspectors would make alcohol tests on drivers, and ban those caught, from further road use (plus other penalties). Since private alcohol tests would be very much cheaper, they would occur very much more often. Also, there would be a profit motive for conducting them, since it'd give great goodwill to be at the top of the road safety league, just like it's great for airliners.
Actually, you know that it has happened that when an airplane makes a crash landing, a team of painters have been rushed by the airliner to erase its logo on the aircraft before the journalists get there and puts in on the first page of all newspapers in the world! The same avoidance tactic isn't possible on a road. Having a poor reputation for safety is a very very bad thing in the entire transportation industry. But with the government in charge, another 30,000 dead this year? Who cares?
Published: April 13, 2009 11:41 AM
Don
If government is not necessary, who will protect personal properties and secure the nation?
I can only speak for myself, but the one who will protect my personal property is the one who feeds and clothes me and provides the roof over my head. Who will protect me? I will.
Who will secure the nation? A well regulated militia. What is a militia? According to Black's Law Dictionary-Militia:The body of citizens in a state, enrolled for discipline as a military force, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies, as distinguished from regular troops or a standing army.
Published: April 13, 2009 12:01 PM
EnEm
"All of these things — alcohol, drugs, speeding, malfunctioning vehicles, badly engineered roads, weather conditions, whatever....".
You forgot Death by Stimulus Package.
Published: April 13, 2009 12:11 PM
prettyskin
@ Don
Vigilantism. Let us all do this! Sooner or later we'll attach each other (My militia vs. Your militia).
This doesn't solve roadways poor maintenance nor diminish vehicular fatalities.
Published: April 13, 2009 1:20 PM
Jonathan Finegold Catalán
So why did you ask the question in the first place?
Published: April 13, 2009 1:30 PM
Patrick
@ prettyskin
Don't ask "Who will do X if government doesn't?"
A much better question to ask is "Why is X done best by government?"
The first form assumes government is always best and the burden of proof is on those opposed to some form of government intervention. Instead the burden ought to be placed on government to prove why it is necessary.
Published: April 13, 2009 1:36 PM
filc
@ haragan
Privatizing anything is never a solution. It is only a means allowing the market to adequately and quickly find the solution which works best. Weeding out solutions that do not.
Our current method is assuming the authorities know what the solution is. How quickly does our bureaucracy address common issues, or recognize their existence at all? Point being, Government often times cannot find the solution to anything, at least not in a timely manner. Or sometimes just outright continues to do something wrong. Private enterprise however is forced to do the right thing, lest they not want to go belly up.
Published: April 13, 2009 2:16 PM
Ned Netterville
I certainly concur with Walter Block. If the users of a private highway demanded the road be kept free of drunk drivers, the private-road owners would see to it, by hook or by crook, that drunk-driver stayed off their road. Whatever "draconian" measures perceived necessary to insure that impaired drivers were swept and kept from their roads could and would be implemented if drunk-driver-free roads were deemed sufficiently critical by the paying road users-that is to say, -if they deemed the sacrifice involved in submitting to the draconian measures worth the added safety such measures assured by preventing drunks from accessing the road.
I do have one serious criticism of MADD's operations not mentioned by Mr. Block, which would certainly not apply in a regimen of privately operated roads. (Actually, there would probably be no need for MADD if roads were not publicly owned and operated.) I have personally been stopped by MADD-award-winning cops (MADD honors or rewards cops who garner the most DUI busts.) for no other reason than that the vehicle I was driving (not a late-model Lexus or Mercedes, you may be sure), plus the time of day (at night at the time when bars are closing) and location (in the vicinity of bars) fit the profile of a drunk driver. Cops being cops (viz., agents of the state) and me being me (viz., utterly appalled by illegitimate authority), the incidents led to further violations of my human rights by the so-called "safety forces." If the incidents had occurred on private roads, I would have submitted to being stopped to demonstrate that I was unimpaired and that would have been the end of the incident. However, primarily because in one incident the cop felt obligated to justify the stop by lying and issuing me a citation, and because of the contrived and cumbersome quasi "legal" apparatus created for "enforcement" of "traffic laws," one incident in particular went on for several years and involved a cost to me and the traffic-court jurisdiction of many, many hours and several tens of thousands of dollars in attendant expenses, most of which cost was forcibly extracted from the beleaguered taxpayers of that jurisdiction, whose only crime was being gulled into supporting the idiotic apparatus that surrounds the enforcement of traffic laws.
Published: April 13, 2009 2:35 PM
bernardpalmer
Excerpt from 'What is the Primary Fundamental Right?'
"The sale of all roads owned by the various US governments could be very profitable to the US citizens as roads are really hidden assets of immense value especially if the lanes were sold separately to the highest bidder and paid for in gold. There is no way of knowing their true worth without selling them but most toll ways cost roughly $50 million per 3 lane mile to build.
As there is about 40,000 miles of government owned freeways in the US then their value should be more than that cost, which is about $2 trillion. If they were now worth $3 trillion and there are 300 million American citizens (2008) then each citizen could receive about $10,000 in gold from their sale.
Also there is about 3.7 million miles of ordinary roads which could be sold for maybe $5 million per mile giving every American citizen another $60,000 worth of gold. So a family of four could possibly receive about $250,000 of gold from the sale of all the roads in the USA, more than enough to pay for any toll charges over their life time. Also there are all the harbors and railways and various buildings such as schools and offices, plus all the land, the motor vehicles, the planes, all owned by governments that would need to be sold for gold and the money given to the US citizens."
Published: April 13, 2009 2:56 PM
greg
To stop drunk driving, you must stop the drunks from driving. Once they get behind the wheel, it is too late! And to cloud your concept of privatization of roads with benefits to MADD is completly off base.
Now, I have built homes in many private communities with private roads and I can tell you these roads are by far inferior to communities with public roads. The reason for this is that private roads are built to meet current standards. While county and state officials make developers that turn their roads over to the state, exceed these standards.
Finally, having lived on the west coast and moved to the east, toll roads really are a pain!
Published: April 13, 2009 3:04 PM
Justin
There is a difference between a Bentley and a Kia, but both will get you from point A to B. So, could it also be possible for certain roads to cater to the intoxicated driver market? (ie straight from a urban center/club bar district to the suburbs) Or that some roads wouldn't be able/chose not to compete to the same degree in terms of safety? Impared drivers would know this and gravitate toward these roads in order to avoid any and all penalties due to intoxicated driving?
I suppose this would have a lot to do with what is considered 'intoxicated' driving? and how often it truly occurs
This is, of course, assuming that all roads are private roads and road owners are free to set all policies on their roads.
also, for the record, I do not condone driving while impaired or even tired, for that matter. However, we seem to be assuming that all private roads would strive to be the safest and I am wondering if this is neccesarily the case or would certain niche markets exist?
Published: April 13, 2009 3:19 PM
Jonathan Finegold Catalán
My experience with private roads is almost entirely relevant to the agricultural industry in Castilla-La Mancha (heavily subsidized, in general, but roads are built from the farmer's pockets). They are built to meet traffic requirements (the traffic requirements being the requirements of the farmers). It would, simply put, be inefficient to spend money on roads that exceed the standards required by the people who are going to use it. And, the farmers repair roads according to their needs (or demand).
Private roads, naturally, would be built to the standards required by the consumer (or else the consumer would choose another road, entirely). They would be built in the most efficient (and cost cutting way) possible, but they would still meet that demand, or else they wouldn't make a profit.
Relying on government to inefficiently build roads "above the standards" is not positive.
Published: April 13, 2009 3:21 PM
Matt R.
I find the concept of private roads intriguing, and plan to purchase Walter Block's book, but I have no idea how private roads would stop drunk driving. This seems to be a bit of a stretch to me.
Published: April 13, 2009 3:23 PM
Jonathan Finegold Catalán
I don't think that Walter Block believes that private roads can stop drunk driving. He is arguing that private roads, by nature of their business, would work to decrease the threat to driver's safety to stimulate demand for their product (the road). And so, private security on these roads would be much more efficient than public security.
Published: April 13, 2009 3:27 PM
Matt R.
Jonathan,
Thanks. Good clarification.
Published: April 13, 2009 3:44 PM
James R
greg said:
Apples and oranges.
The developer of the private road is being contracted to build it, to certain specifications, at a certain price. Once the road is complete, that developer will most likely turn the road over to some sort of homeowners association, which will then be responsible for maintaining the road. The developer's responsibility for the road ends; he shares in neither the profits (if any) the road can generate, nor the costs of maintaining the road over time.
To expect the developer to exceed the design specifications when he has no means to recoup the additional cost that doing so would require is naive.
If, however, the developer owned the road outright, he would be highly motivated to minimize costs over the long term. He might decide to "overbuild" the road now rather than pay more in a year or two to insure the road meets certain specifications. Or he might not, if he thought doing the work in the future would be less costly than doing it now It would be up to him.
Published: April 13, 2009 4:07 PM
bernardpalmer
Excerpt from 'What is the Primary Fundamental Right?'
"The sale of all roads owned by the various US governments could be very profitable to the US citizens as roads are really hidden assets of immense value especially if the lanes were sold separately to the highest bidder and paid for in gold. There is no way of knowing their true worth without selling them but most toll ways cost roughly $50 million per 3 lane mile to build.
As there is about 40,000 miles of government owned freeways in the US then their value should be more than that cost, which is about $2 trillion. If they were now worth $3 trillion and there are 300 million American citizens (2008) then each citizen could receive about $10,000 in gold from their sale.
Also there is about 3.7 million miles of ordinary roads which could be sold for maybe $5 million per mile giving every American citizen another $60,000 worth of gold. So a family of four could possibly receive about $250,000 of gold from the sale of all the roads in the USA, more than enough to pay for any toll charges over their life time. Also there are all the harbors and railways and various buildings such as schools and offices, plus all the land, the motor vehicles, the planes, all owned by governments that would need to be sold for gold and the money given to the US citizens."
Published: April 13, 2009 4:37 PM
james
What would happen if the individual who owns the road going by your home or business does not maintain it to your desired level?
Roads are in general a monopoly in the location they exist within towns and cities. So unlike in a normal free market, if the road that goes past your location is insufficient, you cannot just build a competing one as there is no place to build it.
In this case free market requirements of competing products cannot occur as there is not physical room to put a new road. Without the ability to produce a competing road there is no incentive for the current owner to improve or even maintain the current road.
A counter argument to this is that the residents can simply move to a better location with better roads. So the road owner must maintain it to keep his income. However, they will have difficulty selling their current property as the road is poor. So the residents are somewhat captive to the road owner.
Mostly this applies to city roads. Highways outside of cities generally have room for competing roads to be built. The question then becomes how much land to you want to see paved over in competing highways?
Basically government is not always unnecessary in some cases it can be useful. The problem is too much government.
Published: April 13, 2009 4:45 PM
Jonathan Finegold Catalán
James,
Published: April 13, 2009 4:52 PM
bernardpalmer
There is a direct relationship between drink driving and the War on Drugs. If there was more choice of chemical stimulants then possibly safer drugs would prevail. The possibility that an even more dangerous driver impairing drug would become the dominant drug of choice could also be an advantage if it would speed up the Darwinian Selection process for a much younger driver age group before they started breeding and passing on any dangerous characteristics. Also excessive road deaths might make it imperative for safer vehicles that can also do the driving, a sort of Nagasaki Effect rationale, kill more now to save more later.
Another excerpt from 'What is the Primary Fundamental Right?'
"In a study conducted in 2001 by the Dutch 'Institute for Road Safety Research' the researchers found that people driving with a blood/alcohol level close to 0.05 were 5 times more likely to have a serious driving accident than no alcohol drivers. Those above 0.08 increased their risk by 15 times. People driving after using ecstasy, cocaine or opiates had a very small risk increase while those on marijuana had no risk increase of any statistical significance.
Robbe & O'Hanlon, 1993, in a study of marijuana and driving which was sponsored by the U.S. National Highway Safety Traffic Administration, concluded from their own research and available literature "that no clear relationship has ever been demonstrated between marijuana smoking and either seriously impaired driving performance or the risk of accident involvement." But the real problem is that apparently about 80% of marijuana users also use some alcohol at the same time. It's then the accidents happen."
Published: April 13, 2009 5:12 PM
Sovy Kurosei
I'm sure Walter Block means well but this article is terribly patronizing.
Published: April 13, 2009 5:26 PM
Jonathan Finegold Catalán
I have used marijuana, and driven under the influence of marijuana (once), and I can guarantee that I was in a state in which I could have had an accident. Mostly, because my reaction time was impaired and my ability to think ahead of my actions. On the other hand, I was driving much more slowly than I would have been driving otherwise.
Published: April 13, 2009 5:40 PM
billwald
The bottom line problem is that drunk driving is our national sport. Evidence, it is only a misdemeanor and vehicular homicide is treated as a misdemeanor in many jurisdictions.
Published: April 13, 2009 6:01 PM
Frank
For every drunk driver involved in an accident, there is one, or more, sober people involved in the same accident.
Also, there is absolutely no form of logic which can conclude that if one person is drunk, then every sober person involved is perfect.
Defensive driving is the only solution.
Nothing is perfect.
Get used to it.
Published: April 13, 2009 10:19 PM
Gil
Golly what happened to the other LewRockwell.com articles where drunk-driving should be legal and celebrated? "If they're drunk they're hurting no one hence there can be no laws against it. If they hurt or kill someone then they're in trouble but until then they shouldn't be touched. They pay their taxes for the road, hence they own it and they're just getting money's worth anyway."
Walter Block seems to play a feel-good arbitrator between angry statists and starry-eyed Libertarians. "Privatise the roads and drink-driving be enforced more strigently than public roads!" Many free-loving Libertarians would be asking "What's with the selling out? We thought a privatised world would mean we'd be able to drink more not less? Why are you appealing to statists via telling them you're in favour for harsher law enforcment?" By the same token, I'm sure many people are swayed by Libertarianism becaues "drugs will legal and open and celebrated" not "drugs may be illegal in some private entities (such as HOAs) and be enforced with greater efficiency than what the State could do."
Published: April 13, 2009 10:19 PM
Jonathan Finegold Catalán
Gil,
The difference is that the Lew Rockwell article was discussing public roads, while this article is relevant to private roads. I don't think that the Lew Rockwell article would argue that the manager of a private road couldn't ban drunk driving on his or her private property.
Published: April 13, 2009 10:28 PM
The State
found a pretty clever twitter
http://twitter.com/ourenemy
it’s from the point of view of the state, kinda funny
thought you guys might enjoy it :)
Published: April 13, 2009 10:37 PM
Better Dead than Red
I once sat in a miles long traffic jam in Chicago. It gave me lots of time to wonder what the problem could be. Was it road construction? Was it a bad accident?
Nope, it was a toll booth. So after burning gallons of gas I pulled up and...That will be fifty cents, sir. It was so stupid all I could do was laugh.
So here's a really great idea. How about if everyone gets to own the 50 feet of pavement in front of their house. You can set up your own little toll booth and make some money.
Better yet, demand payment in gold coins.
But if someone rips you off, don't call the cops, as they are just "illegitimate authority".
When there's nothing on the Comedy Channel, I can always count on these comments to give me a good chuckle.
Published: April 13, 2009 10:53 PM
Havvy
As described as the URL associated with my nick, though not a website I control, MADD currently goes through the government to get it's positions across, and not anything free market oriented.
Published: April 14, 2009 12:15 AM
Marc Sheffner
Here's a dumb question: ProudCapitalist wrote, Not policemen, who are expensive and badly needed to fight other crimes, but corporate inspectors would make alcohol tests on drivers, and ban those caught, from further road use (plus other penalties). Since private alcohol tests would be very much cheaper, they would occur very much more often.
The government owns the roads and government employees (police) patrol them and perform alcohol tests on users. What's the difference?
Published: April 14, 2009 2:43 AM
michael
The premise is badly flawed. The number of fatalities resulting from poorly designed or maintained public roads is vanishingly small. Plus, the fix suggested would be fabulously expensive. Turning over all paved surfaces to companies whose purpose is to maximise profit would be a world class giveaway of public property to avaricious individuals.. much like the giveaway of our public airwaves.
Imagine how expensive going to the corner shopping center would become if tolls were exacted for each trip. There would, for example, be no cap for costs. Toll takers or mechanical enforcement mechanisms would proliferate.
Manufacture of coin baskets, cameras and other gadgets to facilitate enforcement would become a multibillion dollar business over night. And guess who would have to pay those multi billions of dollars? You would.
In addition, of course, to having to pay for roads maintenance as well.
I assume that part of this plan is that there would be no intrusive government oversight? That all tolls would be predicated on the absolute maximum the market could bear? That is, the extent to which a driver was capable of paying, say, to continue to be able to go to work each morning?
This is an idea that can only have been thought up by parties hoping to gain by its promulgation. It would be like privatising the air.. so everyone would have to pay the air company for the amount they breathed. It's a truly insidious idea.
Published: April 14, 2009 8:37 AM
Jeff
As far as the drunk driving, no one ever thinks of those left behind. We all morn the lives cut short. We never look beyond the funeral to the parents, brothers, sisters left behind with their lives torn to shreds. Marriages collaps, families fall apart friendships destroyed.
If we could put the aftermath and devostation in front of people so they could fully understand what is left behind we may be able to make a difference.
Published: April 14, 2009 9:26 AM
Gil
"But with the government in charge, another 30,000 dead this year? Who cares?" P. Capitalist.
It'd be interesting to show how the government would be at fault for those 30,000 dead. Last time I looked a vehicular fatality was caused by the driver being drunk, tired, driving too fast, distracted, steal someone else's right-a-way, etc. The sort of things that wouldn't change if the roads weren't privatised.
Published: April 14, 2009 10:06 AM
Magnus
The number of fatalities resulting from poorly designed or maintained public roads is vanishingly small.
Really? You're too caught up in the status quo to see the big picture.
Before massive, high-speed freeways, there were only smaller, more local, slower roads. With the increased size and speed of the new kind of artery-road and freeway (and all of their various engineering properties, like surface materials, lines of sight, grading, signage, guard rails, etc.) came the sharp increase in deaths by traffic.
Maybe you think it's a fine trade-off to get faster, more high-volume roads in exchange for killing 40,000 people per year, and permanently maiming and amputating body parts off of thousands of others.
But only the State would make that bargain. Only people infected with the mindset of the State would make that bargain, and then convince themselves that there is no other way to build roads.
Published: April 14, 2009 10:30 AM
Matt
Michael, Better Dead than Red:
Sounds like you two need to read Dr. Block's book. If it is anything like his speeches on the same subject, he goes into great detail in answering all of your critiques. In fact, a cursory glance through his archive would answer your complaints.
I never cease to get a chuckle out of those who immediately see corruption in the private market, yet so willingly turn a blind eye when the same actions are undertaken by government.
Sad, really.
Published: April 14, 2009 10:45 AM
newson
michael says:
"...world class giveaway of public property to avaricious individuals.. much like the giveaway of our public airwaves."
the fcc oversees the em spectrum. prior to the fcc takeover, radio operators had no problem coordinating use of bandwidth collaboratively. see -
http://mises.org/journals/jls/20_2/20_2_2.pdf
Published: April 14, 2009 11:17 AM
ProudCapitalist
Marc Sheffner wrote:
"The government owns the roads and government employees (police) patrol them and perform alcohol tests on users. What's the difference?"
It's the standard gov't waste. Road controls are rather specific and routine jobs: Speed measurement, alcotest, tire quality, no cargo sticking out in a dangerous way, vehicle not too high for the tunnel ahead et cetera. Much like giving parking tickets. The most relevant competence is to know car mechanics so that cars in the risk of dangerous malfunctions (such as loosing steering or breaks) can be stopped from proceeding. Policemen do not have any such competence. So more, better and cheaper road controls would be one obvious way for privately managed roads to improve over public roads.
Private road inspectors with some mechanics competence could offer assistence to cars which have broken down too. I think they'd often co-locate check points with gas stations.
The police today stop cars "to check the safety of your car" in order to spy on who is driving the car, who else is in the car, what stuff is in the car (open the trunk please, we want to make sure you have a warning triangle, which the law prescribes). Of course they register any information of interest in their databases. This procedure would be much less intrusive with private "road inspectors".
Published: April 14, 2009 11:57 AM
ProudCapitalist
Gil wrote:
"It'd be interesting to show how the government would be at fault for those 30,000 dead. Last time I looked a vehicular fatality was caused by the driver being drunk, tired, driving too fast, distracted, steal someone else's right-a-way, etc. The sort of things that wouldn't change if the roads weren't privatised."
They WOULD change!
Most people do not want to use roads together with such drivers you described. On a free market this very strong demand would be met by supply, in the shape of private roads managed in a way that minimzes the amount of such drivers on them
How? By what technology? I don't know, entrepreneurs will discover what's best. But cheaper, better and more road controls is a possibility which I have described above.
Published: April 14, 2009 12:32 PM
debrah
driving is a privilege and not a right. 1st offense of DUI/speeding - take away license and car. Even if the car belongs to someone else...maybe then people will be more cautious about who is allowed to drive their car.
Published: April 14, 2009 12:47 PM
michael
Matt.. You say "Sounds like you two need to read Dr. Block's book. If it is anything like his speeches on the same subject, he goes into great detail in answering all of your critiques. In fact, a cursory glance through his archive would answer your complaints. I never cease to get a chuckle out of those who immediately see corruption in the private market, yet so willingly turn a blind eye when the same actions are undertaken by government."
But my criticism had nothing to do with corruption. In fact you're more likely to see unauthorized profit seeking in public works. (In the private sector, everything's for-profit to begin with.) But still, a bit of corruption in our state highway systems doesn't drive the costs of our roads up to intolerable levels. Nor does it result in them becoming appreciably less safe.
Since I'll not be looking up the collected works of the magnificent Dr Block any time soon, maybe you can describe for me in your own words how it can be that when there are no constraints against maximising personal gain in an area where the service being provided is (a) essential and (b) inherently monopolistic, our costs wouldn't be increasing tenfold or beyond.
Please don't give us the argument that if someone is gouging us on the only road between our house and where we work, the miracle of private enterprise will just prompt someone to put in a second, competing road. This is absurd on every level. It would be a waste of resources, there's unlikely to be the space for a duplicative road, and it would be twice as expensive to have two roads. Who would pay, for instance, to have hundreds of people's front yards removed and paved over, just so someone else could get into the roadbuilding business?
I live in an area where state funds are short just now, and the roads are beginning to deteriorate. Drivers just learn to cope. We're not dying in inordinate numbers just yet. But one they start putting up toll booths on every road in the state, we'll be marching on the capital to bring the government down. Such an act would be an unauthorized giveaway of the public's property-- one we will never permit.
Published: April 14, 2009 2:02 PM
dmitry
Most roads are not essential. A world of private roads would have far fewer roads (at least in their current form), cars, pollution, etc.; and more efficient modes of transportation would evolve.
Published: April 14, 2009 3:44 PM
Justin Larson
So this is what i gathered from the comments:
If someone makes it easy for someone to buy alcohol and consume it while driving its a matter of personal responsibility, but if the gov builds roads for them to drive drunk on, its the gov's fault. Privatizing roads with both reduce the number of roads and not result in a monopoly.... right.
Published: April 14, 2009 9:35 PM
Buckley
I agree with what Greg said in an earlier post that the only way to stop drunk driving is not to have the drunk get into his or her car and start driving. No enforcement, public or private, can stop a drunk from driving once he or she gets behind the wheel. It is too late when that happens and it has nothing to do with freedom or liberty but pure responsibility. Something a lot of drunk drivers don't seem to have once they get behind the wheel of their car. Not for themselves and not for anyone else.
Which gets to another good point stated by Jeff that the emotional and financial well being of the survivors of the victims of drunk drivers are tremendous and real and just can't be chucked off as a meaningless by product of these all too ever present tragedies that occur in America it seems every week. If not punished in some meaningful way the drunk will continue on his or her own merry way getting a six pack of beer at a liquor store in the morning and continuing to drink all day long and then getting into his or her own vehicle with a fifty-fifty chance of causing some incredible damage if some unlucky person out there that has the misfortune to come accross the drunk driver at the wrong place and at the wrong time.
This doesn't ,and shouldn't, have anything to do with other reasons why automobile accidents, other than by drunk driving, occur or why roads should be privatized. It is about personal responsibilty. Something that should go alongside personal freedom.
A lot of people here and elsewhere may feel that death by drunk driving ,while very tragic, is just still an accident. And that we should not hold the drunk driver anymore responsible than any other reason for a automobile accident that ends up in death. That is, until, a drunk driver kills someone very close to you. That arguement then blows over pretty fast.
Published: April 14, 2009 10:16 PM
MB221
Buckley, you hit the nail right on the head:
"This doesn't ,and shouldn't, have anything to do with other reasons why automobile accidents, other than by drunk driving, occur or why roads should be privatized. It is about personal responsibilty. Something that should go alongside personal freedom."
Couldn't have said it any better myself! Personal responsibility comes with personal freedom, indeed. I think this is a core value in Libertarian and free-market philosophy, and something one must recognize (subconsciously at least) in order to truly understand and appreciate the brilliance and logical simplicity of free-market theory. The people who denounce free-markets as absolutely ludicrous and impossible, I believe, are merely recognizing the widespread lack of real personal responsibility that is so deeply ingrained in our culture (this is likely a subconscious recognition, twisted around and misinterpreted on its way to the conscious in the form of advocating more state control).
You know, waaay back in the day they believed in an 'Eye for an Eye', and something tells me that these people were MUCH more careful in their decision-making. Personal responsibility was probably TOO proliferate. Now you can just call up the insurance company or the lawyer and have them bail you out... for the right price of course. Oh yea, let's not forget about the most recent inductee of that list of "bailer-outers": the Federal Governement.
Why try and take on real responsibility and/or deal with consequences of your actions when you know you can get away with it? Why go get a job when you can claim welfare or social security? Why let your company go under when you can threaten 'systemic risk' with its demise? I see this as a cultural problem, with the federal government directly initiating, facilitating, and benefiting (expanding) from it.
We know where the problems lie, the question is what can we do about it?
Published: April 15, 2009 4:22 AM
toni lynn walker
hi
Published: April 21, 2009 10:07 AM