Markets vs. Privacy

A libertarian named Henry Lamb paints a dire picture of what could happen if highways are universally tolled rather than funded out of gas taxes: loss of privacy, government knowing your every move, denial of mobility to those who haven’t paid their bills. “Government could control when and where people go simply by adjusting the tax rate,” warns Lamb.

The question of tolls puts libertarians in a dilemma. They know that gas taxes, though a user fee, are inefficient because they don’t give the right signals to either the users or the highway providers. Tolls are the free-market solution, but they also worry about privacy. They would like to see the roads privatized, but even a private road owner could have its records subpoenaed by the government.

Fortunately, there are several ways of designing electronic toll systems that preserve traveler privacy, two of which are described in this paper that the Antiplanner previously mentioned here. So why do writers like Lamb still freak out at the thought of toll roads?

The real issue is not the technological issue of preserving privacy but the institutional issue of designing an efficient transportation system. When Lamb frets that “Purchase of a vehicle will give the government a database containing the name and residence location of every automobile owner,” I shrug my shoulders and say, so what? The department of motor vehicles — which, last time I looked, was a part of the government — already has such a database.

Nowadays however, suffering men appalachianmagazine.com cialis 40 mg do come clean with their problem and look for a cure in the modern time. Nowadays, one also has the option viagra online online , with several pharmacies mushrooming on the internet. levitra: Some Interesting cheap levitra Here are some interesting facts and statistics published by the USRF that are likely to make you feel good. The reason is to usa generic viagra find licensed, knowledgeable, practitioner who will engage you in the healing process. But again women is very conscious about what treatment she is adopting and that cheap viagra buying here treatment should be according when choosing medicines since when their diseases being caused, the bacterium types are a lot, it will become more terrible for the situation and flora imbalance will be caused by blindly usage of medicines. But when Lamb says, “Government could force people to use public transportation [or] dictate the type of vehicle you drive by adjusting the tax rate,” then I agree we have cause for concern. The social engineers who now dominate the federal government certainly want to do those things for the sake of the environment. Even if I agreed that environmental issues were paramount over every other concern, they get all their facts wrong and will support systems that are less, not more environmentally friendly.

So what institutional designs will protect both privacy and personal choice? Privatization is one, and would probably be a good thing, but I don’t see that on the immediate horizon. Currently, most of our roads are owned by states, counties, and cities, and none of them have been particularly innovative or protective of the user fees they collect from highway users.

But one highway owner has been both: the regional or county toll road authority. While state and local highway bureaus are generally a part of broader transportation departments, toll road authorities tend to be narrowly focused on one thing: their toll roads. Being focused on that, and getting all of their revenues from user fees rather than from tax dollars, they are much more responsive to user needs and much less likely to divert a share of their revenues to light rail or other transit fantasies.

County toll road authorities in Florida, Texas, and other states have been very successful at building innovative highways at a low cost and paying for those highways out of their tolls. In contrast, state-run toll roads in New Jersey and Pennsylvania are better known for corruption and cronyism. Colorado recently built some tollroads in the Denver metro area that have not been financial successes. County or regional authorities would probably have avoided the state’s mistakes, which were due to various political pressures.

State legislators who are truly interested in reducing congestion and providing more efficient transportation without tax subsidies should enact laws that allow all counties in their states to set up quasi-independent toll road authorities. This won’t immediately solve the question of how to pay to maintain existing roads, but it will show how we can have efficient tolling systems that are immune from the manipulations of social engineers.

Bookmark the permalink.

About The Antiplanner

The Antiplanner is a forester and economist with more than fifty years of experience critiquing government land-use and transportation plans.

6 Responses to Markets vs. Privacy

  1. bennett says:

    “Government could force people to use public transportation [or] dictate the type of vehicle you drive by adjusting the tax rate,”

    But the market already takes care of this. It’s funny how we thing that buying a BMW, a KIA, or riding transit is a choice that government can take away. For many there is no choice to begin with.

  2. John Thacker says:

    It’s funny how we thing that buying a BMW, a KIA, or riding transit is a choice that government can take away. For many there is no choice to begin with.

    It’s certainly true that not everyone has the money to buy everything that they want, though many people certainly can make different trade offs. Some people splurge on nice cars and skimp on food; some people save more; some people take nicer vacations.

    But your comment is a non sequitur, bennett. Not everyone can make all choices simultaneously; but that doesn’t mean that many people don’t have choices, and it certainly doesn’t mean that government isn’t capable of taking that choice away.

    In any case, the US economic system has been the absolute world leader in giving people a choice to have a car or not. For that reason, it’s strange to blame the market when it’s the system that has given the most people the most choice. Sure, there are problems, but you have to compare it to all the alternatives out there.

    Most people choose to have cars, though some people enjoy life without them. There are probably some people who would prefer to live without cars, but housing is too expensive in cities because cities and their prospective neighbors don’t want to build more of it. Though again I’d characterize that as government taking a choice away.

  3. bennett says:

    I’m not “blaming” anything for the choices we have. But it does seem cold to me that capital is what determines your ability to enjoy the “freedom” of our great system. But I was just trying to rock the boat a bit with my last comment.

    However, “housing is too expensive in cities because cities and their prospective neighbors don’t want to build more of it,” is a weird take to me. I’ve lived in Chicago, NYC, Denver, Atlanta, and now Austin and all I’ve seen in each city is massive city building. I don’t deny that housing is more expensive in the city (for the most part), but I think you have the causation completely wrong. In areas that are built out, space is at a premium. Thats just supply and demand. Housing is expensive in NYC and San Fran because of high demand and a geographic inability to conjure up more supply. Here in Austin we are building up with residential in downtown like you’ve never seen. There are 4 new skyscrapers that are competing for the largest and tallest in the city, that are all housing, all expensive, other than the tiny bit of “affordable” (my ass) housing that the developers provide.

    My last point is that I guess I’m just not as scared about government limiting my choices to drive a particular vehicle or ride transit as much as highway loving libertarians are. If we just look at the precedent of government involvement with this choice they seem to give lots of incentives to drive. I believe under the last administration they gave a tax break to the purchaser of cars over a certain weight. I thought that’s why they made all of those kind of SUV, kind of mini van, kind of hatchback things. For a while there were incentives to buy hybrids.

    Also, in todays political climate, which legislator is going o be the first to stand up and say, “We need to increase taxes on automobiles,” just after bailing out GM and the likes. It aint gonna happen. Not anytime soon. So I implore my libertarian friends not to worry… about this.

  4. the highwayman says:

    If you going shopping at a store, chances are that you being watched on CCTV system.

  5. bennett says:

    I hope they are watching. They might learn something.

  6. mimizhusband says:

    To Bennett

    If you hope that while watching us big brother learns how to purchase carefully and mostly not buy anything, than that in fact would be a good thing for them to learn.

Leave a Reply