home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: sci.econ
- Path: sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!leland.Stanford.EDU!bohnert
- From: bohnert@leland.Stanford.EDU (matthew bohnert)
- Subject: Question about Libertarian Idealogy posted to sci.econ
- Message-ID: <1992Sep12.011348.3455@leland.Stanford.EDU>
- Sender: news@leland.Stanford.EDU (Mr News)
- Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
- Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 01:13:48 GMT
- Lines: 57
-
- Hello to all...
-
- I plan to vote libertarian in the upcoming election (due to the clear
- lack of any acceptable alternative), but I find myself wrestling with
- some of what I perceive, perhaps erroneously, to be `good things' for
- society that the Libertarians appear to be against.
-
- The first that is obvious to me is government subsidized mass transit.
- I've been to Europe, as well as to several major American ubran centers,
- where subsidized mass transit is an essential key to a prosperous,
- more liveable urban/rural lifestyle. It appears to reduce several problems
- common to urbanized areas, chief among them smog and traffic congestion.
- At this point in time mass transit seems to be unable to pay its own way
- purely in terms of a revenues/expenses balance sheet, but provides innumerable
- benefits that `trickle down' (I promise I won't use that term again) thru
- the economy, and perhaps cannot have a price tag as such. The Libertarian
- ideal would seem to be to `wait' until the inconvenience of traffic and
- pollution causes enough discomfort for a private enterprise to provide
- a profitable mass transit system. However, this would require an enormous
- amount of capital resources, as well as working through snags involving
- property ownership, utility lines, etc. Is there some Libertarian who
- can explain to me why subsidized mass transit is a bad thing?
-
- The other key disagreement I have with the party is on environmental
- issues. Certainly, the stance of suing for violation of property rights
- via pollution is something I wholeheartedly agree with. But what do you
- do with money once a PRICELESS natural resource has been adulterated?
- If company X pollutes the local drinking supply because `it thinks it
- can get away with it', but gets caught, pays damages, and perhaps goes
- bankrupt in the process, who loses? No amount of money awarded to plaintiffs
- is going to change the fouled state of the environment. You can't go to
- Sears and `reorder' pristine wilderness... it's gone for good! It seems
- as though the Libertarians rely on the threat of a potential lawsuit as
- the basis for disincentive to pollute. I just don't buy this... the earth
- is a finite resource, and one that must be treated accordingly. If somebody
- screws it up, and even if they pay some `cost', you just can't keep moving
- on indefinitely to new resources that will satisfy your needs. At some point
- the planet will be exhausted.
-
- Any comments? I guess the above characterizes me as a heretic in some
- hardcore circles, but I would appreciate thoughtful responses just the same.
-
-
- Matt Bohnert | Ron : That's certainly an impressive desk,
- Building 500, Room 501B | Mr. Speaker.
- Stanford University | Tip : Why thank you, Mr. President. It was
- Stanford, CA 94035 | used by Grover Cleveland.
- 415.723.4490 | Ron : Really? He was a great pitcher. I played
- bohnert@leland.stanford.edu | him in a movie once.
- | Tip : No sir, you're thinking of Grover C.
- | Alexander. I was referring to
- | the former President. --- Jan, 1981
-
-
-
-
-
-