🚀 go-pugleaf

whh> = whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
gph> = gph@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Paul Houtz)

=o= I suggested that libertarians have a blind spot when
it comes to governmental subsidy of single-passenger auto
transportation, and to the inherent problems of unaccountable
health and environmental/property damage caused by said
transportation.  This was one response:

whh> if drivers are to fully fund roads (or, at least, to fund
whh> them to the extent they [use] the roads--debates have taken
whh> place over issues around emergency vehicle usage and usage
whh> by some forms of mass transit), then it is equally fair to
whh> insist that mass transit systems be self-supporting as well.

=o= There are several assumptions at work here, illustrating the
very blind spot I was referring to.  I'll mention two of them.

=1= Assumption:  Auto drivers need only to "fully fund roads."
This is wrong.  There are many other costs incurred by auto
drivers.  I mentioned two specific ones -- the damage all that
pollution does.  There are quite a few other costs, some of
which are sorta addressed by libertarians, but the two specific
ones I mentioned are *never* addressed.

=2= Assumption:  That mass transit is so inherently divorced
from auto transit that they must be considered as separate
self-supporting entities.  This is an arbitrary division, and
seems to be inspired by the conflation of mass transit with
the government and of auto transit with the individual.  These
conflations are both inaccurate, and even if they weren't, the
division is still artificial:  the fortunes of auto transit are
inexorably dependent on those of mass transit.  Auto drivers
benefit from mass transit, 

gph> I think it is interesting how the libertarians always try
gph> to deflect the discussion of gasoline subsidies and cars
gph> into a discussion of funding for roads.

=o= It's just the blind spot at work.  In general libertarians
ask for removal of various governmental restrictions for what
are arguably good moral reasons.  But there is invariably an
assumption that certain elements of the _status_quo_ will
continue on, even though their removal would follow from the
very same arguably good moral reasons.
    <_Jym_>