“What’s up with groups that argue for less government but see publicly built highways as an expression of the free market?” asks Alex Marshall, a columnist for Governing Magazine, in what is both a cheap and unoriginal shot at some of the Antiplanner’s friends.
Marshall finds it “exceedingly strange that a group of conservative and libertarian-oriented think tanks — groups that argue for less government — have embraced highways and roads as a solution to traffic congestion and a general boon to living,” while they “attack mass-transit spending, particularly on trains.” Among these peculiar people Marshall names Wendell Cox, John Tierney, Bob Poole, and some guy named RandalO’Toole (Marshall doesn’t say whether that is a first or last name).
The only one of these people that Marshall talked to is Poole, the former director of the Reason Foundation who coined the term “privatization.” According to Marshall, when asked “to square Reason Foundation’s support for roads with its general dislike of government involvement,” Poole responded, “I’d never thought about it that way.”
Yeah, right. As a strong advocate for both private tollroad construction and private takeover of existing highways, Poole probably thinks about this false paradox every working day.
The truth is that many of the people Marshall is writing about — Wendell Cox excepted — don’t particularly like cars, driving, or highways. Bob Poole and that RandalO’Toole fellow each have a house full of model trains and/or railroad memorabilia. If rail transit worked — if it provided a cost-effective alternative to driving — we would be first in line to support it.
It is embarrassing brand cialis 20mg because they feel they are not able to achieve or maintain erection for long period of time for which you had been consuming this medicine and so on. PDE-5 viagra pill on line inhibitors work by enabling the penile arteries and restoring their elasticity. Of course, the question on everyone’s mind is, “Does it work?” The more inquisitive among us may also ask, “How does it work?” “What does it cost?” and “Will it work for me?” We free viagra uk try to address the primary questions here. This causes great distress to us super cialis professional in terms of outdated practices and systems now collapsing. More important than our personal preferences, what we want most are institutions and technologies that work in reality, not just in fantasy. Highways are a technology that relieves congestion — just ask San Jose, where new highway construction in the late 1980s and early 1990s reduced delays per peak traveler by 28 percent. Rail transit does not relieve congestion — just ask San Jose, where delays per peak traveler increased by 28 percent after the region’s transit agency persuaded the region to divert highway dollars to light rail.
We also support institutions that are based on user fees, like toll roads, rather than institutions that require huge subsidies. To the extent the gas taxes are user fees (which is what they were intended to be), highway user fees cover 88 percent of the cost of roads, while transit fares cover less than 30 percent of the costs of transit.
If we could, we would eliminate the federal gas tax and all other federal funding for surface transportation. We would encourage the states to rely on private transportation companies to both build roads and provide mass transit. Street Smart, a book previously reviewed here that contains chapters by several of the Antiplanner’s friends, advocates exactly these policies.
But people like Bob Poole are also pragmatic. They know that Congress is not going to repeal the gas tax in 2009. So they promote institutional and technical solutions that are both politically feasible and likely to reduce congestion and improve everyone’s mobility.
Most of the writers and at least some of the readers of Governing Magazine can’t see the difference between a program that largely pays for itself and one that requires huge subsidies. Nor do they see the difference between a program that provides mobility at a cost of a few pennies per passenger mile and one that costs a dollar or more per passenger mile. For them governing is not about improving efficiency or creating the right incentives, it is simply about getting as much taxpayer money into the hands of state and local governments as possible.
Because we oppose that, we are seen as anti-government. But we don’t oppose government per se. We just oppose wasteful and intrusive government. The fact that most government is more wasteful than the alternatives is not our fault. Bob Poole and his friends are trying to make government work better. If that means that a railfan has to support highways because they are better at reducing congestion and pollution than trains, then we will put aside our personal preferences and support such congestion and pollution relief.
The privacy, convenience, safety, speed, and simple freedom of a personal vehicle are substantial benefits. None of those factors are enhanced by public transit, so for me I’m not getting anything for its enormous cost. On the other hand, if transit were by some miracle cheaper tomorrow than roads, now we have some figuring to do. For me, those benefits are worth a big price.
How much of the cost of roads would gas taxes cover if none of it were diverted to transit subsidies? Of that remaining 12%, how much of that is covered by sales, excise, and income taxes on autos and auto-related goods and services?
The scary thing about the present time is the elite’s view on living standards. Historically, elites, even when wrong about policy choices to achieve the end, had a general bent in favor of increasing general living standards. We now have an elite that views its goal as reducing living standards — placing fealty to nebulous environmental goals above the good of humankind. The fact that rail transit is less convenient, slower, more expensive, less humane, is not unknown to those who advocate it. Its advocates aren’t persuadable by pleas to do what[‘s best for the mass of people, because they couldn’t care less about improving the lot of the masses. When your omlette is massive reductions in energy usage your broken eggs are going to be, necessarily, living standards.
We now have an elite that views its goal as reducing living standards  placing fealty to nebulous environmental goals above the good of humankind.
Pffft.
Evidence please. Actual quotes from elites advocating lowering living standards would be great, and please don’t bother with opinion pieces without source quotes but full of unsubstantiated hearsay.
Thank you in advance.
DS
Dan, There are some statements of opinion that don’t need the support of the type of evidence you increasingly require. The sky is blue, water is wet, that sort of thing.
Elites for years have discounted standard of living as an important measure of a societies progress and have instead inserted other measures more in line with what they see as important. Over zealous environmental regulations that leave common sense behind are a good example of such thinking. Planning rules that kill economic growth while preserving some notion of a clean green utopia are another.
I hope we can all continue to share ideas without constantly being asked for “evidence please”.
In Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics, Paul Taylor writes “The ending of the human epoch on Earth would most likely be greeted with a hearty ‘Good riddance!'” In a glowing review of Bill McKibben’s The End of Nature, biologist David M. Graber writes (Los Angeles Times, October 29, 1989): “Human happiness [is] not as important as a wild and healthy planet . . . . Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.”
Is there a more complete disregard for human standards of living as a call for our annihilation? I guess it is ok to mourn the death of a snale or tree while welcoming the death of billions of people.
Steve, so you have nothing. Thanks. Asking one to back a claim isn’t burdensome at all – we’ve been doing it since before Plato. Sorry if its a burden on you, though – I understand.
JG, can you help me understand how these two standard-issue objectivist quotes show that ‘the elite’ wish for our deployment back to Cro-Magnon times, rather than being the opinions of individuals? Are Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and the other denizens of ‘the elite’ (presumably meaning well-educated and/or rich) actively creating caves and clubs for all of us to use? Where is the trade in flint strikers? Where are the posters of Raquel Welch in yummy leather toga on every street corner? Where are the roving bands of nomads hunting bison on the plains, and the capitalists who supply their provisions?
And surely the Ayn Rand Institute doesn’t want you to think that it is ‘the elite’ who utter good riddance in this passage:
It is clear and obvious from the passage that it is not ‘the elite’ speaking. Although the argumentation about hatred is an impressive strawman, I must say, and so typically arising from nothing quoted or given.
As for the second standard-issue quote, which logical fallacy, jg, do you think the purveyors of this tripe are committing? Do you think it is the hasty generalization, selective observation, or sweeping generalization (fringe EarthFirst!ers’ opinions applied to others) fallacy? I’d be interested to hear your opinion.
DS
First of all Randal, anyone wh claims to be a libertarian MUST be against any form of government, if my understanding of libertarian philosphy is correct. Read or listen to some theoretical discussions of libertarian philosophy sometime if you are confused on this matter. It is interesting, if nothing else. Certainly Reason foundation is a libertarian publication, so their goal should be the complete abolishment of government.
So I’ll assume then that you are not a libertarian Randal? I figured you were a big government kinda guy. You just drape your BIG government values in the idea of user fees, etc.
And to the “I am right and I dont need facts” people:
What do you define as living standards? Obviously there are a set of basic needs that people require in order to have a good, healthy living standard. Most of this comes from a healthy diet and clean drinking water. That is one of the fundementals of sustainability – that people NEED a certain standard of living. Except for a few radical groups (such as the Environmental Liberation Front – the radical ecocentrists), most lefties or elitist greeners (funny how I know so many low income people who are environementlists. I guess those dumb poor people dont know any better huh?) do not advocate making people worse off. They advocate not destroying the planet and do not agree that obtaining as many goods from walmart as possible is the best way to increase quality of life or standard of living. Many people recognize that although lots of “stuff” may provide a couple of extra thrills, in terms of happiness or basic sociological and biological welfare, huge piles of “stuff” does not make us a whole lot better off.
So what is this inalienable extra truth about standard of living that the “three marketeers” are fighting for on this blog? Is there something besides biological and sociological well being that johngalt or StevePlunk know about that the veggie eating, people hating people do not know about?
No comments on my smarminess or liberal flippantness please. I’ll just take it as a complement.
Thank you.
Dan, I see you miss the point completely. Your tiresome act as troll in residence completely discourages free thinking and exchange of ideas. Incessant cries of “evidence please” creates an atmosphere where thinking aloud is not allowed. Rather than discussion we seem to be required to have our thoughts peer reviewed and footnoted. It may work that way in the public sector (and not work well) but the productive sector likes to brainstorm and think creatively.
From a more formal point of view I would expect those who question a statements validity to carry the burden of disproving it unless it is an outrageous statement. That means if you see something you disagree with then you step up with your set of facts. The tactic you use is becoming more common in discussion forums and many of us are seeing through it. Winning a battle of ideas through attrition is not much of a victory.
Common sense, logic, and solid reasoning can be used to solve complex problems without having to go back and document everything. The call for evidence is many cases is simply an excuse for not being able to counter the logical conclusions. If you disagree with a statement that’s fine but it creates a responsibility to offer a counter statement instead of just a cop out of “evidence please”. Some might call it polite conversation or civility.
Sustainibertarian, I would ask you what is a good measure of standard of living if we reject the lots of stuff way of doing it. Perhaps we could sit down and reach an agreement on how to measure it but measuring it should be done. I doubt we consider those who ignore standard of living as people haters. It’s more like they are indifferent to people because they have a set of priorities very unlike ours or most people.
I’m curious how someone who states their opinion gets morphed into an “I am right and don’t need facts” person. We have facts, we have opinions, we have assumptions, we have logic, we have experience, we have a lot to bring into the discussion without constantly being told to document every point. I’ll use the word tiresome again. This isn’t a science paper, it’s a discussion. None of those statements are so outrageous to need evidence in support. It’s a tactic of simply wearing down those who you disagree with and it’s being used more and more.
Make your own case and let it stand instead of working so darn hard at undermining others. Is that so hard to understand?
sustainibertarian,
I think you have Libertarians confused with Anarchists. Libertarians believe that government should be as small as possible while still serving its legitimate ends, but they do not believe that there should be no government.
Steve, first of all, I didn’t ask you. But if you can’t back the claim, fine. I’ll wait for Veddie.
Second of all, every other exchange of ideas that’s ever occurred throughout history on this planet – save this discussion, apparently – has an expectation that ideas can be challenged, so you have to be ready to prove your claim. See, that’s the rule. Since the Greeks. Basic. For millennia.
Nonetheless, my point was that I wanted to learn the basis for the argument. Where did it come from? See, that’s a start of a discussion, what is the basis of this position.
Is it factual, or merely evidenceless pablum promulgated as “fact”. Is it something I can examine, or no better than ‘them scary lib’rulls want to take your wealth!!!!!!!!!! Enviro green nazis want to send you back to Neandertal days!!!!! Everyone git a-skeered of ’em!!!!
Is the claim merely marginalization politics, IOW.
Third, asking for evidence for an assertion serves two purposes: it allows us to examine the evidence, and it allows you to go examine one of the pillars of the edifice of your belief system. Do we look beyond standardized, boilerplate objectivist rhetoric, and do we find much or little to back the claim. See, there is a paucity of evidence that the nebulous, undefined ‘the elite’ want any such thing.
So, yes, I challenged “your” ideas. That’s, um, one of the bases for discussion. I see no basis for “your” “ideas”, and you haven’t provided any. Perhaps I haven’t looked hard enough, but my counterclaim is that I find no basis for the assertion. I patiently await evidence to the contrary (further basis for discussion, see. If there’s nothing, there’s no discussion. If you want to claim having no basis for an assertion is cutting off discussion, well, that’s funny).
If there’s none forthcoming, I guess that shuts off discussion right there, as I’m unwilling to waste my time discussing baseless accusations that are little more than FUD.
Basic stuff.
DS
Veddie Edder, How do you measure standard of living? GDP per capīta? Or something more sophisticated and meaningful?
How do massive reductions in energy usage lead to lower living standards? As Randall has repeatdly pointed out, rail transit uses more energy than private cars. That’s an excellent example of increased energy use leading to lower living standards. Are you seriously arguing that an unisulated house is a sign of a higher standard of living than a well insulated house? Or that the curent generation Mustang is less refined than the original simply because it is less polluting and more fuel efficient? Or that a Mini Cooper is inferior to an Escalade solely because it is more fuel efficient? I think they are equally good at meeting the living standards expectations of their respective segments of the auto market.
Economy and environment are opposite ends of a see-saw only when the commons are unpriced, particularly air and water. As far as I can see the only people opposed to environmental protection are those who are profiting by abusing the air and water that belong to all of us. Naturally the move to price these commons upsets those who have been getting something for nothing. Of course those who have the most to lose squeal the loudest but none of us will be unaffected. One of the most basic reasons we resist change is because even if what we lose is actually going to be balanced by what we gain our perception is badly distorted. We have experienced what we are losing but are yet to experience what we are gaining. Quite literally we know what we are losing but we don’t know what we are gaining.
While you might disagree that the problems of global warming and peak oil have been identified through a process of robust analysis I think you will agree that many of the solutions being advocated have definitely not been subjected to robust analysis. Although there are flaws in Randall’s analysis of transit versus autos those flaws don’t invalidate his overall conclusions. Which, in itself, says a lot about inefficient transit really is. In my considered opinion focussing on transit as “the” solution to fossil fuel problems is preventing faster and cheaper options from being adopted. The only reason high oil prices are hurting America’s GDP is because it’s mainly imported therefore high oil prices drain money out of the economy. If the tech to improve fuel efficiency is American then it is obviously better for the US economy to invest in energy efficiency than to keep using energy inefficiently. Looking after America’s environment is good for America’s standard of living. It won’t be good for Saudi Arabia’s or Mexico’s or Russia’s but that’s their problem to solve.
Evidence? Do I have to fly to the surface of the sun to know that it’s hot? A professor of mine years ago said that there were two ways one could acertain the truth of the proposition that most people, when caught out in the rain sans umbrella/raincoat, have enough sense to come in out of the rain. The
way beloved of academics would be to do a multi-decadal longitudial, multicultural,
multi-continent, multi-million-dollar, multi-disciplinary study; OR one could draw conclusions from one’s life experience and intuitive logic. Guess what the odds are on both methods coming up with the same answer?
Except one method costs nothing and garners immediate results while the other is costly
and some of may die of old age before the “proof” is in.
So virgil has no evidence either to share.
Anyone? Anyone at all have anything besides hasty generalization, selective observation, or sweeping generalization?
Thank you so much in advance.
DS
Look everyone! Dan wants to argue epistemology. Isn’t he bright, a true student of the Western philosophical tradition?
Too bad he can’t offer fresh insight, or even a fresh application of tired and dead ideas, to the topic at hand. Not only is it tiresome and wasteful, the condescension is rude (and so evidently unfounded). Every statement is an appeal to authority and a ad hominem attack.
Compounding the rudeness is a willful ignorance, an inability to see the line of thinking about which AP has organized this blog. I suggest Dan start his own forum rather than steal electrons from AP and the constructive commenters here.
Perhaps this is some form of therapy where the activist gets to be the blockheaded crank at the back of the meeting hall instead of the blowhard bureacrat explaining his feeble misinterpretations before the assembly. Is it therapy, my boy? If so, Dan, please send us all payment for value received. If you receive no value here, apply some logic to your choices and spend your keystrokes somewhere else.
In either case,
Thanks in advance…
Sustainiwhatever:
I will respect your plea and only comment on your lack of study (or willful ignorance). If you are open to learning, look into the range of thought under the libertarian umbrella. It’s not all as you seem to believe. If a thing (intagible or in the form of stuff) is a NEED, that tells us nothing about how that NEED is best met. It seems non-libertarian if one asserts that there are some NEEDS so vital that they make morally preferable the initiation of force.
Also, look into the details of lefty/green policy. They do aim to improve living conditions. The problems arise in a pathological mistrust of humans to solve problems without coercion, and a blindness or disinterest in evaluating the unseen consequences of their policy prescriptions.
Not to be Dan-like, but I think the concept of “Sustainability†is premised upon some finite resource limit(s). I cannot find sound proof that any resource is limited in a relevant way. Dan’s pal Erlich is the handiest example of how the finite resource mythology is blind to innovation and substitution.
aynrandgirl wrote:
“On the other hand, if transit were by some miracle cheaper tomorrow than roads, now we have some figuring to do. ”
No miracle is required!
A good quality local bus service could be provided for $40 per week per person. If 10% of people use the bus, the cost per taxpayer of making the buses free would be $4/week. A bit arm-waving but that’s the idea. If more people use the service then the tax goes up accordingly. At high levels of use – well, let’s cross that bridge when we get to it.
The bus schedule would be ‘flexed’ – fewer buses running off-peak, more on-peak, with the part-time drivers coming partly from service personnel at the bus company, and partly from the local council.
There are other sources of income – freeway tolls and toll lanes. The difference is that freeway tolls would be priced so as not to unduly disturb traffic levels, whereas toll lanes would have the tolls set at a level to manage congestion. This would enable a free coach service too.
Then it’s up to whether or not people want to use the service provided.
Dan – When elitists here argue that we need to live more like Europeans, that is the evidence. Of course they won’t say expressly “We want lower living standards,” but if they say we want to make Americans live like Europeans . . . and Europeans have on average a lower living standard . . . then elitists want Americans to live at a lower standard of living.
Close Observer, The problem with your argument is that it is only true if money and what it can buy is your sole measure of standard of living. By this measure American has a higher standard of living than Europe. Surveying people on their happiness or contentment or satisfaction with their standard of living or quality of life is another way of comparing standards of living, as perceived by the people who are actually doing the living. This is impÃ…Ârtant only because no amount of money can buy happiness. By this measure America’s standard of living of living is pretty average. But then so are most country’s.
I live in a country with an economic standard of living worse than many western European countries. Nevertheless we mostly live in sprawling houses on large lots and most workers own their own cars and have all the gadets and gizmos that the chattering classes crave.
The simple fact is that our lower incomes are offset by lower costs, especially food and electricity. Europe’s way of life also has some aspects where costs are lower than in the USA, per capita. This seems to be especially true for transport, housing and access to green spaces. This is partly because Europe is older than the USA and thus a smaller proportion of urban areas are autocentric or, a century ago, less horse & buggy centric. This is most notable if you compare small town America with European villages.
We owe a lot of credit to Alex Marshall. He did a fairly good job of pointing out the double standards regarding transport policy that a lot of so called “libertarians” promote. (Such as the Mr.O’Toole, a better term might be fibertarian?)
Other wise Mr.O’Toole be would out of “work” and would have to get a real job!
foxmark,
first of all, what lack of study or willful ignorance is it that I possess. Maybe libertarians believe in some governance to prevent property theft or violence, but thats all. I never made any prescriptions as to how vital needs should be met. So is that where my ignorance came from?
Is your idea of force income redistribution, because most people would not consider that ‘force.’ What happened to the notion of it being okay for a starving family to steal a loaf of bread? If it is necesssary to expand economic growth to the point where per capita income is $500,000 to eliminate poverty in a particular country, it seems that would be extreme overkill and it would be much easier and more efficient for some of that “force” you speak of. Maybe redistribute some income through taxes to the very poor.
And if you dont believe that any resources are finite, then I’m wasting my time talking to you, because you obviously are willfully ignorant or need to do some studying. Start with ecological economics, which is based on ecology. Its much more of a science then the economics BS where everything is perfectly substitutable for everything. Ever heard of thermodynamics, entropy, closed systems, etc. I guess if we completely destroy an ecosystem we can just substitute it with something else. Right. Good one foxmark.
It is not “OK” to steal bread, even if you are hungry.
No, Kevyn, I’m not only considering money. What is the average square footage of an average European home versus that in America? That’s just one measure.
How is it Western Europeans have more access to green spaces? I just did a road trip down to Santa Fe and, trust me, pretty much no one lives in the 300 miles between the Springs and Santa Fe. Is there anywhere in Western Europe that you could drive where 200 miles wouldn’t only mean driving through several large cities but even another country or three? Or by Europe did you actually mean all of Europe? That is, including Albania, Moldova, Belorus, Serbia, etc. ?