🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Jun3.210543.3123@leland.Stanford.EDU>, murt@leland.Stanford.EDU (Scott Gregory Murtishaw) writes:

> In article <SLAGLE.92Jun3001118@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>>
>>All of which would seem to argue for a small-scale, flexible
>>commuter transportation system.  Maybe we should try individual
>>commuter units.  Maybe we could call them auto-mobiles, to
>>mean self-transport units.  You suppose anybody'd buy one?

> Millions of people are leading desperate, poverty-stricken lives with little
> hope.  All of which would seem to argue for a cheap, readily-available,
> euphoria-inducing substance.  Maybe we could call it crack.  Think anyone
> would buy it?

I'm sure that some would.  I'm sure that most would not.  Shall
we then put all the ones who would in jail?  And who has taken
all their hope?  Certainly you're not suggesting that it was I?

And your analogy rests on the assumption that crack is, and will
remain over an extended period of time, an adequate solution, or
at least palliative, for the desperation and poverty you decry.
It is not, as you well know.  Automobiles do, however, still get
people to work in about the same time that they did a good, long
while back, so I am not satisfied with your analogy.  Perhaps you
could suggest one that is more germane?

> Mark's logic rests on that tired old neoclassical assumption that
> unrestrained individual self-interest leads to the greatest good.

Forgive me for being contrary, but I think it rests on no such
thing.  It rests on the fact that mass transit systems, in most
of the area where I live, are a solution to the form of a problem
that no longer exists.  There are, of course, problems with the
system as it exists, too.  There is no denying that obvious fact.
And there are surely selected situations where mass transit is
still a good answer.  But cars are still the best transportation
solution for now.  They could stand some improvement, but so can
any system, man-made or otherwise.

The unstated assumption in your objection is that you have a better
solution.  Pray tell, just what is it you have in mind for us?

> Of course, all human beings are rational actors and capable of
> careful, critical analysis.  Maybe more neoclassicists should study
> some basic social psychology.  Maybe they could explain the
> phenomenon of making runs on banks, the tragedy of the commons, and
> similar situations in which the decisions made separately by many
> individuals lead to outcomes which none of them desire.  I wonder if
> Mark enjoys driving in the Bay Area during rush hour.  I know I sure
> get a kick out of it.

Wonder no more.  I do not enjoy driving on the area freeways
during rush hour, although some of the arterial streets are not a
lot worse then than at other times during the day.  My personal
solution to that very narrowly defined problem is to just not do
it much.  Not too tough to implement, not too expensive, not
requiring force of law.  I schedule most of my activities,
including the big one at work, so that I avoid the rush hour
grind most of the time.  You might be surprised at how pleasant
the drive home can be after midnight.  Few cars, few red lights,
few hassles.  There are several possibilities out there for
dealing with the problem on a more general level, however.  One
way might be to implement some sort of pricing scheme based on
time of day.  That would even out the load somewhat.  Perhaps
technology will get us out of this one, too.  Who knows?

And perhaps we have studied more than you seem willing to
acknowledge.  Runs on banks are caused, I think, mostly by
ignorance, with an admixture of unwise investment strategy.  And
I note that we have not witnessed one since the uniquely sensible
solution of simply closing the doors until the panic subsides was
discovered along with availing the besieged bank of the
cooperation of other banks in the system.  

The tragedy of the commons is a bit of an overworked concept (not
to mention a bit of overworked language), though it can be useful
for promoting one's agenda.  The answer to the problem of the
commons is to provide appropriate incentives by the expedient of
insisting that people be responsible, morally and financially,
for their actions.  What would you propose instead?

So for now, I await your solutions to the problems that you
describe that do not involve treading on the freedom of others.
It makes them testy, and they eventually fight back and ruin all
your carefully conceived plans for them.  People do not always
act rationally, nor do I assume that they do or should.  But they
are usually capable of looking out for their own, if given a
chance.  At least I respect their ability and wish to try and do
so.  But, I remain open to all suggestions and look forward to
hearing yours.
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA