Originally Posted by Mikebert

You bandy about the word rightful, as in high taxation on the rich is theft because the rich are the rightful owners of the wealth that is being taxed. On who's authority is that property deemed rightful? Apparently on your authority. And so I ask, who made you God? That is, how is it that you believe you are one who can determine for others, what is and what is not rightful?

Sorry! I was previously unaware that remarks on justice only fall under the purview of God!

(Forwards to John Rawls' grave)

Originally Posted by Matt1989

Sorry! I was previously unaware that remarks on justice only fall under the purview of God!

(Forwards to John Rawls' grave)

They don't, but only God (should there be one) can speak with absolute authority on the subject. Absent God (and that's the practical reality we face whether or not He/She/It exists) justice, rights, etc. are matters of judgment, not fact.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

They don't, but only God (should there be one) can speak with absolute authority on the subject. Absent God (and that's the practical reality we face whether or not He/She/It exists) justice, rights, etc. are matters of judgment, not fact.

Even if this were true (though I do not believe it is), Mike was objecting to the use of concepts like justice and rights, in effect saying that assertions about these concepts from a mere mortal have no basis in rational discussion. That's really all I can take from his statement. But even if it is all a matter of judgment, it would appear that certain principles are essential to coherently talk about political philosophy in the first place. That is, if one is going to advocate for X over Y, then they need to have reasons for preferring X over Y. That's where justice (and from that, rights) come in.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

Even if this were true (though I do not believe it is), Mike was objecting to the use of concepts like justice and rights, in effect saying that assertions about these concepts from a mere mortal have no basis in rational discussion. That's really all I can take from his statement.

I didn't take that. I took it that he was objecting to your assertion that people have a right to whatever income the process of division as it exists now grants them, as if that were a claim of fact not possible to dispute. I agree with him, of course.

But even if it is all a matter of judgment, it would appear that certain principles are essential to coherently talk about political philosophy in the first place. That is, if one is going to advocate for X over Y, then they need to have reasons for preferring X over Y. That's where justice (and from that, rights) come in.

Agreed, but the point here is that we are NOT in full agreement over the assumptions/core values that lead you to the conclusion you expressed. And in fact, I don't even think you are yourself; I think you haven't completely thought the matter through. How do very rich people get to be very rich? What are the consequences of allowing them to remain that way? Does the answer to the first question grant them rights to their wealth that would override the answer to the second? I say no, and if you think about it, I believe you will say no as well.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

You have shown incredible ignorance.

Tell me what do I not understand.

What does your ideology promise that mine does not?

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

from Fruitcake



Perhaps you skipped that Government class you were suppose to take in high school but you would have learned that those decisions are not made by liberals or conservatives or moderates or any other narrow slice of the body politic. They are made collectively by the elected representatives of the people in a system called representative democracy under Constitutional limitations.

Your own independent island would afford you the opportunity to substitute your own values, priorities and judgments above those of an entire nation. Good luck with that.

once again you evade my question.

You continue to tap dance around it

I've asked Liberals this question many times (What's wrong with small government?)......the *best* answer I ever got came from Odin who screamed at me and called me a "selfish jerk".
That wasn't the answer I was expecting but honestly it was intellectually superior to the response I got from both you and pbrower2a.
At least Odin displayed reading comprehension skills and understood the question.

I'm having trouble posting. Hopefully this works.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I didn't take that. I took it that he was objecting to your assertion that people have a right to whatever income the process of division as it exists now grants them, as if that were a claim of fact not possible to dispute. I agree with him, of course.

Couple things:
1) I never claimed that people have a right to own whatever society recognizes that they own, since there is a disconnect between justly acquired property and unjustly acquired property. Duh. What government taxation does is ignore the historical aspects of how certain persons came to acquire their property -- and so it inevitably commits theft.

2) I also never claimed that it was impossible to dispute my assertion, nor should that have been inferred by my post. As far as I can tell, Mike was objecting to my use of rights.

Agreed, but the point here is that we are NOT in full agreement over the assumptions/core values that lead you to the conclusion you expressed.

Sure, and I'd expect that. But that's not what Mike did.

And in fact, I don't even think you are yourself; I think you haven't completely thought the matter through. How do very rich people get to be very rich?

I don't think you've got my position down, and that's my fault for suggesting that the rich are the rightful owners of their property without sufficiently qualifying that statement. I did include a caveat in the next sentence, but I didn't think the caveat was particularly damaging to the argument that "taxation on the very rich is theft," because the government does not discriminate on this matter, so I did not fully elaborate on that subject.

What are the consequences of allowing them to remain that way?

This is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether taxation is theft (taking someone's property without their consent).

Does the answer to the first question grant them rights to their wealth that would override the answer to the second? I say no, and if you think about it, I believe you will say no as well.

My libertarian/anarchist perspective suggests that the correct question would be, "What are the consequences of having a government that does not respect property rights?" or "What kind of consequences does taxation/'taxation on the rich' have?" I imagine that a program of taxing the rich would, over the long haul, have worse consequences than a program in which the rich weren't taxed.

A lot of trouble posting this one. If you read this near the timestamp I'm still probably editing it.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

If that's the case, then you have no effective means of applying coercion to those who would act in a socially disruptive manner, and we are back to chaos.

How does this follow? I could see you arguing that non-monopolies on enforcing justice inevitably leads to chaos, but the ability for organizations to apply coercion is not non-effective absent monopoly.

(Snip -- Brian talks about Somalia here. Strange that I needed to cut this in order for the post to work.)

It's a complicated affair, and I don't know enough about the politics of the country to determine if and where anarchy exists. (I do know that it has indeed existed over pockets of Somalia for the past two decades, and that many Somalis can/could choose between different protective services, opt-out of their "government", etc.)

However, even in precivilized times when states did not exist, territorial monopoly of force did. It was simply not exercised by a formal state. So that, the characteristic of states which you seem to find most objectionable, does seem to be inherent to human social organization.

I'm not sure what your definition of a state is--it seems to be out of the norm--so I'm a little confused.

And naturally , I would dispute that states are inherent to human social organization, but again, I'm not sure what that means. I think you would acknowledge that humans most certainly can live without a monopoly of force over a given territory (but not particularly successfully), which would seem to show that states are not inherent to human social organization.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

You bandy about the word rightful, as in high taxation on the rich is theft because the rich are the rightful owners of the wealth that is being taxed. On who's authority is that property deemed rightful? Apparently on your authority. And so I ask, who made you God? That is, how is it that you believe you are one who can determine for others, what is and what is not rightful?

There is a tradition that states the burden of proof must lie on those who make the accusation.
Mikebert you accuse the rich of not being rightful owners of their property so therefore the burden of proof lies on you to prove otherwise.

That is, how is it that you believe you are one who can determine for others, what is and what is not rightful?

Accusing others of what you are guilty of.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

When money is a prerequisite to liberty -- which it is -- then if there is a right to liberty, there is also a right to money.

I thought you were talking about negative liberty when you said "political freedoms."

from Fruitcake

What's wrong with small government?)

What is "small government" exactly? Before I can begin to tell you what is wrong with it I first have to know what it is. Do you even know and can you explain it to everyone here in clear and definable terms that can be applied to the USA today?

Originally Posted by Matt1989

This is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether taxation is theft (taking someone's property without their consent).

It's not irrelevant. Before you can determine whether property is taken without someone's consent, you have to determine first whether it's rightfully their property. How the rich got to be that way is germane to that determination. If it's not rightfully their property, taking it without their consent is not theft.

Under law, of course, it's not theft anyway; the property in question is defined by tax law and regulation as belonging to the government for public expense and not to the individual. But I doubt that argument is going to carry a lot of weight with you. (Nor does it with me, actually.)

My libertarian/anarchist perspective suggests that the correct question would be, "What are the consequences of having a government that does not respect property rights?" or "What kind of consequences does taxation/'taxation on the rich' have?"

The first question is too vague. So expressed, it applies to no government in history, since all governments respect property rights -- as their own laws define such rights. That was even true of the Soviet Union, which restricted property rights much more than most governments do, but did recognize and respect some rights to private property.

The second is exactly what I posed.

I imagine that a program of taxing the rich would, over the long haul, have worse consequences than a program in which the rich weren't taxed.

I can't imagine on what basis you imagine this.

Taxation of somebody is necessary. (Reason: expenditure for various public-good purposes is necessary, and voluntary donation to such expenditure is inherently unfair to the responsible and benefits the irresponsible, and also insufficient in almost all cases.) Taxation of the rich causes less harm than taxation of the non-rich, given the same absolute amounts taxed.

Originally Posted by fruitcake

Tell me what do I not understand.

First, you fail to recognize the limitations of your learning. The first step to wisdom is to know that one is ignorant. The second is to develop curiosity. Turn off the TV and the video game console which both offer a shallow substitute for learning. As for chatlines -- you aren't learning anything, or so it seems. You are dealing with some very sophisticated people -- people who can diagnose your intellectual deficiencies from the content of your posts.

I do not pretend to know everything -- even all that I would like to know. I find my own ignorance embarrassing. So did Socrates, so did Freud, and so did Einstein, and I don't pretend to approach either.

I don't know your level of formal education -- but if you are a high-school graduate, you can attend a liberal arts college with a Great Books approach to learning. You will learn much -- most significantly how to think and express yourself without resorting to bromides (unless you are discussing the chemistry of bromine). You would be surprised at how well such learning prepares one for graduate school and even for commercial activities.

If you can't afford college, then you can still study the Great Books; it is essential, of course, that you discuss them with others on the journey. An extensive study of those books (some will differ on emphasis) will make you more genuinely educated than lots of people with four-year college degrees who might have as well been spending four years dedicated to discussion of sports trivia. Most of the books are in the public domain at the Gutenberg Project, so your cost will be your computer and your time.

It will be a good activity for developing friendships. It will be well worth the effort.

What does your ideology promise that mine does not?

1. A social order that doesn't self-destruct in revolution. Liberal states don't have proletarian revolutions; states under control of people who recognize no responsibility to the poor and helpless have often had Commie revolutions.

2. No hunger. Liberal societies may compromise the free market, but they ensure that people don't starve for lack of food. Botswana endured the same drought as did Ethiopia in the 1970s -- and Botswana, with its democratically-elected government, prevented the mass hunger that an absolute monarchy, a military dictatorship, and a Commie regime failed to stop in Ethiopia.

The last famine in western Europe was in Holland in the winter of 1944-1945... under the Nazis. India, never a rich country, has never had a famine since independence.

3. Peace. There has never been a war between two electoral democracies in existence for at least five years. The only warlike activities between Britain and Finland in World War II was a British attack on German economic interests in Finland.

4. Intellectual progress.

5. No persecutions.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

There has never been a war between two electoral democracies in existence for at least five years.

The War of 1812. Just a quibble.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

It's not irrelevant. Before you can determine whether property is taken without someone's consent, you have to determine first whether it's rightfully their property. How the rich got to be that way is germane to that determination. If it's not rightfully their property, taking it without their consent is not theft.

Sorry, I mostly misread your question, so please ignore my response.

I can't imagine on what basis you imagine this.

Well, I'm not sure what the smiley face is implying, but my idea is that any taxation will probably have bad consequences. It gets a little muddled when we talk about taxation as privilege (suppose that the government taxed only the poorest people!), in which extending a tax to the rich might remove that privilege and thus produce good consequences, but lucky for me, I'm not an ethical consequentialist in the first place.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

I'm not sure what your definition of a state is--it seems to be out of the norm--so I'm a little confused.

And naturally , I would dispute that states are inherent to human social organization, but again, I'm not sure what that means. I think you would acknowledge that humans most certainly can live without a monopoly of force over a given territory (but not particularly successfully), which would seem to show that states are not inherent to human social organization.

I can't speak for Brian, but I can work with Wiki's article. I'll note the first few sentences...

A state is a set of institutions that possess the authority to make the rules that govern the people in one or more societies, having internal and external sovereignty over a definite territory. In Max Weber's influential definition, it is that organization that has a "monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory." It thus includes such institutions as the armed forces, civil service or state bureaucracy, courts, and police.

I've been repeating my own brief description of some of man's basic drives. Man is a social animal that forms groups which select rulers, defend territories and make rules.

I believe the rule making is to a great extent an aspect of human reason. Man is a cultural animal. He learns many of his behaviors by growing up within a society. I'll suggest killer whales are another cultural animal. Different groups of killer whales develop entirely different patterns of what they hunt and how they hunt. Two groups in the same area might be nigh on identical genetically, quite capable of interbreeding, but entirely incompatible in life style. The groups seldom interact. In a similar way, human groups have rules, laws, traditions, customs or whatever which define very diverse ways of life.

While not too many animals are as obviously cultural, there are many animals that are territorial, that feature dominance (pecking orders, leadership), or form groups (packs, herds, prides, schools).

I'll note that culture can trump territoriality. A bunch of horse nomads will not have the same sense of territory as farmers or modern real estate agents. Humans form highly diverse cultures. In humans, drives are tendencies, not rigid imperatives.

Yet, if you look at Wiki's definition of state, it echoes the notion of groups, rules, leaders, and territory. Not every human exists within the context of a state as defined by Wiki, but human states do reflects drives found in nature in the behavior of many species including man.

As not all human groups are territorial, not all will live within a state as Wiki defines it. Human cultures vary a lot. It is hard to define any set of behaviors as definitively human. Men have adapted to so many circumstances that there will always be outliers.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

(Somalia is) a complicated affair, and I don't know enough about the politics of the country to determine if and where anarchy exists. (I do know that it has indeed existed over pockets of Somalia for the past two decades, and that many Somalis can/could choose between different protective services, opt-out of their "government", etc.)

If it is reasonable for you to ask for a definition of a state, is it reasonable to ask for a definition of anarchy? You offer one criteria above. Rather than a monopoly on force, in an anarchy individuals can chose between different protective services? I suspect this might be only one partially defining feature of anarchy as the monopoly on force is only a partially defining feature of a state.

But I would differentiate between a benign utopian anarchy and the sort of anarchy which occurs in a failed state. Somalia at various times has been an example of the latter. (They are doing considerably better now than the have in the past.) While some in a failed state anarchy might be able to choose a protective service, in other cases the 'protective services' -- generally various groups attempting to claim territories, name leaders, make up rules and monopolize use of force -- chose victims rather than letting the victims select protectors.

At one point in Darfur, in order to get firewood, one needed to leave the refugee camp. If one leaves the refugee camp, one might well expect to be raped. I'm assuming that is not the sort of anarchy you are advocating.

Somalia has not always been a classic state by Wiki's definition. There has not always been a monopoly on use of force. There have been multiple factions attempting to create such monopolies. The borders have not always been well established. Multiple groups with different cultures and leaders have striven to control territories.

To me, I would think a benevolent anarchy would not include violence between protective agencies struggling for control of people, territory or other resources. The people ought to be able to choose freely and wander among territories without risk of reprisal. I could celebrate an anarchy where the people have unforced choices, but could not celebrate rival wannabe states coercing people in conflicting attempts to strive for power.

Anyway, yes, I can acknowledge that people do live outside of states, not always by choice. I would agree that the life styles resulting are often not 'successful.' I can sympathize with the goals many anarchists are striving for. I'd be interested should they be able to actually eliminate coercion rather than creating a situation where violence and coercion becomes more blatant and common.

But what an anarchist would have to do is promote a new culture, make up some rules or customs that protect the rights of the group, and see that these rules or customs are followed within their territory.

An admirable goal. Lots of luck.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

If it is reasonable for you to ask for a definition of a state, is it reasonable to ask for a definition of anarchy? You offer one criteria above. Rather than a monopoly on force, in an anarchy individuals can chose between different protective services? I suspect this might be only one partially defining feature of anarchy as the monopoly on force is only a partially defining feature of a state.

Well, it looks to me that the ability to choose between protective services might be a sufficient criteria for anarchy (it really seems to only encompass market anarchism), but not a necessary one. I think a more robust definition may be founded on the notion of consent; there are some good remarks on that here.

I can sympathize with the goals many anarchists are striving for. I'd be interested should they be able to actually eliminate coercion rather than creating a situation where violence and coercion becomes more blatant and common.

But what an anarchist would have to do is promote a new culture, make up some rules or customs that protect the rights of the group, and see that these rules or customs are followed within their territory.

An admirable goal. Lots of luck.

Sure. I don't think anarchism is that strange of a claim: "We should abolish the State and replace it with a consensual order." I suspect many liberals would be tempted by a statement to that effect, provided that this takes place far into the future. (We could call this something like philosophical anarchism.)

It is the consequences.
It is the consequences.
It is the consequences.

The ideology... the philosophy .... the justifications ..... the mental gymnastics .... the rationalizations .... the criteria .... it is all inconsequential.

It is the consequences.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

It is the consequences.
It is the consequences.
It is the consequences.

The ideology... the philosophy .... the justifications ..... the mental gymnastics .... the rationalizations .... the criteria .... it is all inconsequential.

It is the consequences.

Bentham and Mill don't hold a candle to your logic h.m.!

(P.S. Would you kidnap a man, kill him, and transplant his organs into two dying patients if there was no other way to save these people?)

Originally Posted by Matt1989

Bentham and Mill don't hold a candle to your logic h.m.!

(P.S. Would you kidnap a man, kill him, and transplant his organs into two dying patients if there was no other way to save these people?)

The consequences of making that a rule outweigh the benefit of saving two lives -- er, net one life -- by a long margin.

Every moral argument comes down to, "We should/should not do this because _______." A consequentialist argument fills in the blank with, "because X will happen if so and we do/don't want that." Any non-consequentialist argument ends up being authoritarian: "because God commands it," or "because these moral principles command it."

Y'all may do as you wish, but I won't feel compelled to do something stupid and destructive because God/some moral principle requires it. Any valid morality, it seems to me, will not require me to do something that's wrong.

Originally Posted by fruitcake

Unlike Liberals, I do not subscribe to an ideology that says the world must revolve around my ass.
. . .
I do not plan on being one of the "serfs" in this new gilded age, I plan on being one of the aristocrats.

I thought you said you didn't subscribe to a self-centered ideology. Or is it that you're presently a conservative and you plan on becoming a liberal?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The consequences of making that a rule outweigh the benefit of saving two lives -- er, net one life -- by a long margin.

Most certainly, but what if the transplant were done it secret? How could one claim to be a consequentialist if there were net benefit in violating the rule *this one time*, yet still chose not to violate it? The whole point of following the rule is to produce good consequences in the long-run, but if those good consequences could be enhanced by a single violation of the rule, then I think the consequentialist would be committed to going through with the transplant.

Every moral argument comes down to, "We should/should not do this because _______." A consequentialist argument fills in the blank with, "because X will happen if so and we do/don't want that." Any non-consequentialist argument ends up being authoritarian: "because God commands it," or "because these moral principles command it."

Err... all realist ethical arguments, including consequentialist ones, rely on moral principles to command a certain action. The divine command theorist relies on the principle of following God's orders; the deontologist on the principle of actions being good in and of themselves; the virtue ethicist on the principle of living well; the consequentialist on the principle of producing good consequences. And if any one of these principles is true, we are morally commanded to follow that principle.

I mean, I suppose we could say something along the lines of "Well, there is no such thing as the good, it's a human construct and nothing more," but still retain preference for realist theories in daily life, (which looks like what you have done with consequentialism) in which case we aren't morally commanded to follow a principle. But consequentialism is not special in this regard. The non-cognitivist "deontologist" could say "We should not do X because we don't want action X in our lives."

Originally Posted by Matt1989

Most certainly, but what if the transplant were done it secret?

Then you have a problem in that you have, by your actions, endorsed violating the law. Of course, if you're an anarchist and don't think the law should exist in the first place, that's different.

If you're asking the personal question of whether I would, in an emergency, sacrifice one innocent life to save many -- that's a tough one. I think there are circumstances in which I would.

Err... all realist ethical arguments, including consequentialist ones, rely on moral principles to command a certain action. The divine command theorist relies on the principle of following God's orders; the deontologist on the principle of actions being good in and of themselves; the virtue ethicist on the principle of living well; the consequentialist on the principle of producing good consequences. And if any one of these principles is true, we are morally commanded to follow that principle.

No, that's specious. Consider the different nature of each of those so-called principles. One can accept the divine command only if one believes in God and in the source of knowledge of His Will. One can agree with the deontologist only if one agrees in the arbitrary assertion that a given act is good. As for virtue ethics, that's a type of consequentialism that focuses on the inner rather than the outer consequences; proper consequentialism would consider both.

Anyone can see and agree that the consequences of an act are what they are, assuming the evidence is in. If we also agree that those consequences are good/bad (which is a little more problematic of course, but that's where debate comes in), then we have a basis for pragmatic agreement. I don't have to argue a principle or say that we ought to do things which have good outcomes, because it's natural and instinctive for us to do so. Don't put your hand on the hot stove. Careful where you put your thumb as you're driving nails. When driving, watch what the other drivers do. We don't even necessarily have to be talking morality at all, except when we begin to draw a distinction between outcomes that are selfishly good for an individual and those that are good for all. But even then, as we have instincts for cooperation as well as for competition, an understanding of this argument is instinctive and natural.

On the other hand, when you have a moral philosophy that argues we should do things even if the consequences are horrible, that's when you have to buttress it with authoritarianism, because you're going against human instinct, normal behavior, and common sense.

Matt asks

Would you kidnap a man, kill him, and transplant his organs into two dying patients if there was no other way to save these people?

sorry Matt, but I

a- am not a kidnapper
b- am not a doctor who could pull off such an operation
c- do not know anybody in this situation

The consequences of anarchy are all hell busting loose and lots of folks getting hurt because of any lack of social controls. Sorry, but that means a hell of a lot more to me than 5,000 pages of you and Justin waxing philosophically about theory and abstract thought.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

If an investor could lose, not only everything he puts into the business (that's reasonable), but also his home, his life savings, and 50% of his net income from other sources for the next 20 years, because of non-criminal negligence on the part of, say, an employee that he hires, that's going to increase the risk of investment and make wealth-creating enterprises less attractive compared to non-wealth-creating investments.

Limited liability is not objectionable, so long as someone has liability. It's OK to make an agreement with an investor that you are accepting all legal liability in exchange for their funds. What's not OK is entity status (often called "corporate personhood") where the organization becomes a liable party separate from all of its members. The reason why that is objectionable is because the former agreement binds two willing parties, while the latter involuntarily binds others who are neither corporate officers, nor stockholders, nor even necessarily workers or customers of the firm.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Ha! Interesting. Not necessarily, and I was merely repeating the standard line without serious investigation. Obviously I need to look into this a bit more.

The findings of that experiment are quite surprising, even to me. I imagine there are some factors that would dampen the advantage of a commons in real life, but the gap they show between patent and non-patent systems is so huge that it's hard to see it closing entirely.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Since there's no realistic prospect that I can see (at the moment) of going back to most people being self-employed, there's really no advantage to being employed by a small company as opposed to a big one, provided the government is labor-friendly.

Size does have an effect on working conditions. There are limits to human empathy and once an organization gets big enough, its members will have difficulty respecting the needs and desires of other members who are "too far away" within the organization. The prospects for an accommodating labor environment drop off as the company gets larger. This is especially going to be true once upper management is so large as to encompass the limit of human empathy on its own (~150 managers). Then the ability of managers to empathize with anyone other than their immediate, direct subordinates is minimal and anyone below that tier in the company is essentially just a balance sheet entry.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

No it doesn't, and obviously that's been the case at times. The most obvious example is the interstate highway system. Clearly transporting goods by truck is wasteful compared to doing so by train. However, that's an argument for factoring in such considerations to what form of transportation is favored. It's not a good argument against public transportation per se, given the benefits thereof.

Unfortunately, the "factoring in" of those considerations can't really be done outside of a price system. Even laying aside interest group politics, we have little reason to expect any planned economic endeavor on a large scale to be optimal.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

While this might conceivably work, it strikes me as far less efficient and convenient than the present arrangement. Since I don't have any ideological reason myself to oppose the idea of publicly-owned transportation, that's enough reason to oppose it. Also, when looking at the idea ab initio rather than after a long period of public involvement in transportation, it's not at all clear how the roads would have been built in the first place.

Definitely the transportation system would be different had not subsidies occurred. It's very hard to say precisely how it would be different.

There might be a way to put market inputs into our present road system (as a sort of a halfway position). Currently there are often fights at the local level over new infrastructure that can drag on for years. You could have a system where people in the nearby jurisdiction bid on a proposed piece of infrastructure. You could bid any amount (probably with a cap) and either for or against. If the bids for outweighed bids against, those bids would be distributed to the opposition bidders in proportion to their opposition. If bids against won, the reverse would occur and any future attempts to push forward such a project would require paying back the winning bidders (probably with a minimum time between bids). I can think of a couple of infrastructure fights in my own community which could have been resolved years ago with this sort of system. Obviously, there would be some complexity in approving projects for bid and how to notify people of upcoming bids, but it would help move infrastructure projects away from a command economy model.