Libertarians, What do You Think of Adam Smith's Support of Public Transportation (Congress, regular)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Most people I've talked to from NY view their transportation as a nightmare..
I lived in NYC (Manhattan (Harlem)) for two years, and my work took me to all 5 boroughs. I though the transportation system was phenomenally wonderful.
LOL! You don't get it. If they raise the price too high, the market for use of said passage will vanish, meaning their holdings have no value.
Since like three people have responded to my three year old post in the last day. Let me explain a couple things. While I haven't changed my position against monopoly, I have refined my views on what the possibilities of monopolies are in transportation and what should be the best ways to address them.
With that said, keep in mind that Adam Smith is talking about economics, not social policy. In fact, he isn't even talking about economics as in individual economics. He is merely talking about the economics of commerce. Basically he is saying "to maximize trade efficiency, do these things".
"When high roads, bridges, canals &c. are in this manner made and supported by the commerce which is carried on by means of them, they can be made only where that commerce requires them, and consequently where it is proper to make them. Their expense too, their grandeur and magnificence, must be suited to what that commerce can afford to pay. They must be made consequently as it is proper to make them. A magnificent high road cannot be made through a desert country where there is little or no commerce, or merely because it happens to lead to the country villa of the intendant of the province, or to that of some great lord to whom the intendant finds it convenient to make his court. A great bridge cannot be thrown over a river at a place where nobody passes, or merely to embellish the view from the windows of a neighboring palace: things which sometimes happen, in countries where works of this kind are carried on by any other revenue than that which they themselves are capable of affording.
In several different parts of Europe the toll or lock-duty upon a canal is the property of private persons, whose private interest obliges them to keep up the canal. If it is not kept in tolerable order, the navigation necessarily ceases altogether, and along with it the whole profit which they can make by the tolls. If those tolls were put under the management of commissioners, who had themselves no interest in them, they might be less attentive to the maintenance of the works which produced them. The canal of Languedoc cost the king of France and the province upwards of thirteen millions of livres, which (at twenty-eight livres the mark of silver, the value of French money in the end of the last century) amounted to upwards of nine hundred thousand pounds sterling. When that great work was finished, the most likely method, it was found, of keeping it in constant repair was to make a present of the tolls to Riquet the engineer, who planned and conducted the work. Those tolls constitute at present a very large estate to the different branches of the family of that gentleman, who have, therefore, a great interest to keep the work in constant repair. But had those tolls been put under the management of commissioners, who had no such interest, they might perhaps have been dissipated in ornamental and unnecessary expenses, while the most essential parts of the work were allowed to go to ruin.
The tolls for the maintenance of a high road, cannot with any safety be made the property of private persons. A high road, though entirely neglected, does not become altogether impassable, though a canal does. The proprietors of the tolls upon a high road, therefore, might neglect altogether the repair of the road, and yet continue to levy very nearly the same tolls. It is proper, therefore, that the tolls for the maintenance of such work should be put under the management of commissioners or trustees.
In summary he said, if the cost of building roads/bridges/canals must be paid from the tolls of people and commerce using them, then they won't be built in places where they are unnecessary(IE won't waste a bunch of money). That even if the government has to put up the money to build a public-works project, it is still better to transfer ownership to private individuals rather than operate it themselves. And that only in those areas of transportation where a road can be owned at a profit even in bad condition, is there ever a need for government intervention.
I'm not sure how you go from that to "Adam Smith supports public transportation". I'm not even sure how you go from that to "the government should own all roads, bridges, and canals". Adam Smith seems to be referring to a very small number of roads he calls "high roads". These roads must have very specific attributes. They must be roads required for the movement of commerce which are in such a location that regardless of how poor the condition of the roads have gotten, commerce will still be forced to drive on them, simply because there are no practical alternatives.
Even in those places that Adam Smith concedes the need for government to own the roads. He still argues that the roads should never be paid for through the public treasury. Rather, they should always be paid in full with "user fees"(IE taxes/tolls) in the proper proportion to the cost/damage done by the vehicle which travels over it.
But as I said before, his argument is really about commerce and road quality, not social policy. He is saying that, if we want to have the best system of roads/bridges/canals for commerce possible. Then transportation systems should always be owned privately except in the case that the owner wouldn't have an incentive to maintain them.
Adam Smith thinks that even canals, which certainly form a sort of "natural monopoly", should still be owned privately. Since they would be inoperable without constant maintenance. He didn't mention bridges, but I would bet bridges would fall into the same category as canals. Since bridges become unsafe if they aren't maintained(especially if traveled on by heavy commerce).
Let us think about Adam Smith's principle in regards to roads today. Lets take the interstate highway system. By Adam Smith's premise, should interstates be privately or publicly owned? Well, do interstates create such a monopoly on commerce that they could be in very poor condition and people would still drive on them? If the answer is "No", then Adam Smith would say that they should be privately owned.
The streets that Adam Smith wants to be owned by the government, would be those roads which are so necessary to commerce that there couldn't possibly be any other option. If you were to imagine a small town and all the roads in or near it, which roads are so necessary for commerce that even if they were in serious disrepair, commerce would still have to use them?
In my view, the only road that fits that criteria in a small town, would be the equivalent of "main street". Extending from one side of town to the other. In a large "planned city", it might be each major street in the mile by mile grid. Though, you could argue it is really only a small number of industrial/commercial roads.
I consider myself Libertarian and voted for the Libertarian candidate in the last Prez election cycle but that doesn't mean I agree with everything a Libertarian candidate or any candidate says/believes. We need to look at every activity and ask ourselves, is this better done by the private markets or the government. I think for transportation highways including subways, it should be monitored by the government sector.
Contemporary libertarians are anti-public transportation, but Adam Smith, the most cited intellectual of libertarians, wrote that public roads and transportation should not be in the hands of private institutions.
Infrastructure is constitutional.
That being said, the bureaucrats who make the rules for building, maintaining and manning the roads should absolutely do a far better job of spending the public money.
Unions should not have carte' Blanche on the contracts.....they should be open to bids.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
