Quote:
Originally Posted by bunt_q
Well, I would agree... and most people would. Right up until they have an accident and can't drive, get old, or have a developmentally disabled kid (or any other kid under 16 for that matter). The buses may be damned inconvenient, but they provide the only means of mobility for over one-third of america... that's why we subsidize them.
You know, you could make the same private-sector argument - "If the public really demanded it, the private sector would provide it." - for health care, housing, retirement, or even fire protection... but for some odd reason, some americans think those things should be available to more people than can afford a plasma tv.
Personally, I'm young, healthy, reasonably wealthy, well educated, white, and male... I could do without a lot of things. I could do without social security, medicare, medicaid, the denver police (i'd rather pay security - i'd trust them more), denver fire (i'll buy private insurance), affirmative action, public schools, public higher education, public transportation, free roads, and a host of other things. I'd get by just fine, and the private sector, no doubt, could and would provide everything I need adequately for me. That doesn't mean I don't see a need for these things, because I am quite certain many people - including most on this forum - need at least something from that list more than I do.
I think we've spent almost two decades now neutering government, and I thought most Americans were beginning to think that, no, we're actually not better for it. Maybe I'm wrong, though... maybe people still do not see government as a potential force for good. I do, though... call me a hopeless optimist. I see a place for both the public and private sectors.
|
I too see a role for the public and private sectors. It appears we disagree about which goods the government should provide. I think the government's role is to provide
public goods. Lighthouses and national defense are the classic examples. What constitutes a public good? From Wikipedia:
Quote:
This is the property that has become known as Non-rivalness (the consumption of a good does not preclude other people from consuming it). In addition a pure public good exhibits a second property called Non-excludability: that is, it is impossible to exclude any individuals from consuming the good.
|
Many of the things you list the market does provide. Housing for example. Others are really income transfer programs, to help the poor or underprivileged. You admit as much when you list your own characteristics, and when you say that they should be available to "more people than can afford a plasma tv." If what you want to do is an income transfer, there are more effective ways. What if instead of spending money on public buses, we sent the money directly to low income individuals? Or if you prefer control how individuals spend money, why not offer transportation vouchers? As it stands now, RTD has a monopoly. I think most on this forum would agree that monopolies are undesirable. At least with vouchers, you would open up transportation to some more innovation. Whose to say that the buses or routes RTD provides are "the right ones." Maybe someone else can provide better service. My proposal was to open up the buses to private companies and reinvest what's spent on buses on rail.
Our roads are subsidized. It's one of the factors that contributes to our car culture. While roads could in theory be built privately (and were in the 1800s and even occasionally in the present), in practice, they often require the use of eminent domain. Moreover, until only very recently, it was too expensive to charge individuals for the use of roads. Bus service, since it takes advantage of the subsidies used for private vehicles (buses use roads), differ from rail I think in a fundamental way because rail requires its own infrastructure.
Two final points. Chile is a poorer country than the US but the poor there did not lack for bus service because that service was provided privately. And second, what is your opinion of department of transportation lavishing subsides on those flights to small towns. If you think this is a bad idea, how does this differ bus transport?