If you don’t already have David Friedman’s “Ideas” in your RSS feed, I recommend it. He posts infrequently, but the probability that I learn something from each post exceeds 0.9.
One outstanding case in point is his most recent post, “Special Pleading and How to Recognize It.” He discusses 3 examples. First is an argument from Lockean principles for income and/or wealth redistribution. He shows that if we take the argument seriously, we don’t get where those who use the principle want to get to. On this he cites philosopher Matt Zwolinski’s argument for welfare.
The second is an argument for reparations for slavery. He shows that if we take that argument seriously, we should take wealth from poor Africans and give it to rich Americans. On this he concludes, “Not the conclusion that people making the argument wanted.”
The third is on Wal-Mart and urban sprawl.
All are worth reading and pondering.
READER COMMENTS
Thomas Lee Hutcheson
Oct 24 2022 at 3:32pm
The distortion in favor of automobiles is in not charging marginal cost (including congestion) for use of streets and roads.
I think the Lockean argument for redistribution or reparations is really just a refutation of the argument that “what I have was obtained without fraud or violence.” OK. Now let’s START the conversation about redistribution.
robc
Oct 24 2022 at 6:05pm
The easier solution is to transfer the ownership of streets (not roads, making a technical distinction here) to local owner’s associations. Basically POAs, or equivalent infrastructure taxing districts in lieu of an POA. So a street with a bunch of big box stores along it would be paid for entirely by the big box stores along it. They might or might not change the road design.
Roads should have a limited number of access points, very few if any lights, and tolled. With some rural exceptions, destinations should be on streets, not roads. They could be privately owned, I would be fine with that.
Jon Murphy
Oct 24 2022 at 6:29pm
I didn’t know there was a technical distinction between streets and roads. What is it?
robc
Oct 24 2022 at 7:59pm
Roads are (relatively) high speed connectors between places. Streets are for specific destinations, houses, businesses, etc.
And in between is the dreaded stroad, which sucks at being both.
I learned this at strongtowns.org, whose founder did an econtalk interview a long time ago.
Thomas Lee Hutcheson
Oct 25 2022 at 2:31pm
Seems like use of both shroud be priced according to the same principle, marginal cost including congestion costs, “congestion” having a special meaning in the case of use for parking.
Jens
Oct 25 2022 at 3:51am
After reading it, one is actually quite happy not to have to make one’s judgments on libertarian principles.
The equal treatment of blind, disabled and physically strong people in modern societies should not really be based on their ability to work the land or survive in a society based on subsistence farming. However, assuming this equal treatment as a given, one may well additionally think about distribution and regulation of land ownership, thinking of an averagely able person or as a general principle.
The second section defines an abstruse, quasi-magical relationship of responsibility. Only those who have concretely done something can be responsible for it. This is already questionable in criminal law, because even there there can be backers, instigators, masterminds, and perpetrators who harm by omission. In the case of long-term social problems and their normative treatment, this view seems completely confused. The African slave catchers were themselves dependent and probably did not even violate criminal norms of their times and location with their actions.
The last paragraph seems to me to ignore, for example, the cost of public parking and traffic space, which is also necessary for individual transport. But there is certainly a point here that the price elasticity for individual transport is surprisingly high, which in turn makes public subsidies unnecessary. But there I would not rely on such preferences having to be constant (though my interest also waned somewhat after the first two sections).
The bottom line is that libertarian views seem to have surprisingly little to contribute to the issues mentioned, if such a text is supposed to be any good as a refutation of anything.
David Henderson
Oct 25 2022 at 4:46pm
You wrote:
You may well be right. It’s probably also true that U.S. slave owners didn’t violate criminal norms of their time and location. I’m not sure what your point is.
Andrew_FL
Oct 25 2022 at 11:32am
The proper way to deal with Locke’s “proviso” is to throw it in the bin. It does not logically follow in any way from his argument, he makes the proviso out of timidity, irrational fear of his own conclusion.
Knut P. Heen
Oct 25 2022 at 12:18pm
His slavery argument is more or less identical to what I would say about the issue regarding the slaves brought to the new world. The alternative was not freedom, but being a slave in Africa. Another point is that no one in Europe discuss reparations for slavery in Europe, even though slavery was common for a much longer time here.
robc
Oct 25 2022 at 1:02pm
Reparations for slavery in Europe would bankrupt Italy. Who didn’t Rome enslave?
Comments are closed.