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.
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.
I'm all for the expansion of public transportation. Just don't demonize car owners in the process and we'll get along just fine. We had an excellent public transit network in the 20s when street cars were widely available and frequently used
Many are quick to say that transportation and infrastructure spending in general are sink holes because they don't pay for themselves, but that's only because they don't seem to ever want to factor in the positive externalities, in this case facilitating trade and transportation of goods and services and more efficient movement of labor.
Some excerpts from The Wealth of Nations:
Quote:
"According to the system of natural liberty, the sovereign has only three duties to attend to . . . First, the duty of protecting the society from violence and invasion . . . secondly, the duty of protecting, as far as possible, every member of society from the injustice or oppression of every other member of it . . . and, thirdly, the duty of erecting and maintaining certain public works and certain public institutions, which it can never be for the interest of any individual, or small number of individuals, to erect and maintain; because the profit would never repay the expense to any individual or small number of individuals, though it may frequently do much more than repay it to a great society."
"The greater part of such public works may easily be so managed as to afford a particular revenue for defraying their own expenses, without bringing any burden upon the general revenue of the society."
"The tolls for the maintenance of a high road cannot with any safety be made the property of private persons."
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.
I noticed he did not state mass transportation or mass transit. public roads and transportation should be in the hands of goverment, but state and local goverment.
What Adam Smith is getting at, is sort of the fundamental flaw of capitalism and the world in general. And that flaw is, land.
Basically, if land owners could potentially grab up all the land in an important economic area, then they could control the building of roads or other forms of transportation across that land. If they controlled the land, then they would have an effective monopoly on all transportation through that land. That monopoly would allow them to enact tolls or other duties that would greatly hamper trade, as well as providing the means for large land-owners to exploit citizens for their own benefit.
So, in reality, all Adam Smith is trying to accomplish, is to guarantee a means of free passage for people and trade. Which would be paid by everyone(taxes/tolls/duties/etc) for the benefit of everyone.
Contrary to what the Op wants to believe, in Adam Smith's view, governments control over things like cars, buses, and trains is not necessary, because it would not be used to prevent a monopolistic exploitation of the people.
What Adam Smith is getting at, is sort of the fundamental flaw of capitalism and the world in general. And that flaw is, land.
Basically, if land owners could potentially grab up all the land in an important economic area, then they could control the building of roads or other forms of transportation across that land. If they controlled the land, then they would have an effective monopoly on all transportation through that land. That monopoly would allow them to enact tolls or other duties that would greatly hamper trade, as well as providing the means for large land-owners to exploit citizens for their own benefit.
So, in reality, all Adam Smith is trying to accomplish, is to guarantee a means of free passage for people and trade. Which would be paid by everyone(taxes/tolls/duties/etc) for the benefit of everyone.
Contrary to what the Op wants to believe, in Adam Smith's view, governments control over things like cars, buses, and trains is not necessary, because it would not be used to prevent a monopolistic exploitation of the people.
Whoa doood. That's waaay too complicated. Can't you just whittle it down to a label or sound bite like liberal, socialist or communist so the Murdock faithful can understand it and tear it to pieces like jackals over a piece of red meat?
The southern plantation owners certainly did not believe in reinvesting their profits into their communities, whether it be education, or infastructure, and look what it got them. The roads down here are still crappy!
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.
What makes you think Adam Smith was a Libertarian?
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.
