A Nation of Toll-Roads: Why Libertarianism Can Never Work
by David Deutsch
Libertarianism has been in the news a lot lately, thanks to Kentucky Republican Senate nominee Dr. Rand Paul. And we are much better off because of his candidacy. Why? Because while libertarianism sounds like a great idea in theory—you can’t spell libertarian without (most of the word) liberty—the practical application of libertarian philosophy is not just cold and heartless, but also impossible to implement without causing real-world nightmare scenarios. And now, thanks to the Good Dr. Paul, libertarian ideology is on full display for everyone to see as a utopian ideal that can never be applied to the real world.
At first blush, the libertarian message is quite compelling. In principal, many who consider themselves libertarians are socially liberal but economically conservative and believe in limited government. But fiscally conservative people are not classic libertarians. Folks like Dr. Paul and Karl Hess, the forefather of libertarianism, illustrate what true libertarian philosophy looks like; a philosophy that sees government as an a priori evil, a force that is so uniquely destructive and evil that the only way to have a good government is to have no government at all.
Rand Paul
Indeed, Hess once said “[G]overnment never has and never can humanely and effectively manage men’s affairs,” as if government were a uniquely inhuman construct designed to subjugate puny Earthlings. Fast forward a few years to Dr. Paul’s victory in the Kentucky Senate Republican primary election. Shortly after his victory, he went on the Rachel Maddow show. During that interview, Paul spoke about his, and indeed libertarian, views on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. To his great credit, Paul stated what he believed: that the government should not tell private businesses what to do, and that includes discrimination based on race. In Paul’s world, the so-called free market ought to be the final judge on whether policy is good or bad, not the government, society or any other outside force.
To many libertarians, this is perfectly reasonable: why should the Government tell private businesses what kinds of customers they can accept? Why should the government decide who may patronize an establishment, or who a business owner may choose not to serve? So goes the classical libertarian argument.
Never mind that Rand Paul is a white, conservative Southern male and will likely never be denied a seat at any restaurant in the U.S. Let’s give Rand the benefit of the doubt and assume he is not racist, but rather is sincerely philosophically opposed to Government telling private businesses what to do.
But even in this idealized version of reality, libertarianism fails miserably. First, although libertarians hate it, the fact is Government can—and oftentimes does—tell private industry what it can and cannot do. Such authority is enshrined in that un-American, socialist document called the U.S. Constitution. Government regulatory authority is clearly spelled out in Article 1, Section 8 [italics mine]: “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes ...” From this, our government mandates compliance with myriad laws: minimum wages, safety, health of employees, cleanliness ... they can even shut restaurants down if their hot water goes out because you can’t effectively clean dishes with cold water.
Second, beyond mandating what individual business can and cannot do, the government provides the legal infrastructure, paid for by tax money, which allows businesses to run in the first place. The National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) makes sure that plugs and outlets are consistent, lightbulbs screw in to light sockets, and more. The government provides roads for people to get to and from businesses. And our legal system that enforces business contracts is paid for by taxpayers.
But let’s get off Rand Paul’s back and talk about something I am more familiar with: roads. Prominent libertarians such as Hess have argued that the role of Government should not extend beyond U.S. national security. To quote Hess: “the only—repeat, only—function of law or government is to provide the self-defense against violence that an individual, if he were powerful enough, would provide for himself." I guess this means the government should not be involved in making or maintaining roads. The libertarian argument says firms who maintain the best roads would be the most frequently traveled, thus giving such companies an incentive to maintain their roads. How would these private roads be financed? Not by taxes, but tolls, of course! This worldview sounds compelling when libertarians—almost all of them are well-educated and very articulate, by the way—explain the benefits of fully-privatized roads. Needless to say, such a system would be an absolute nightmare.
Why? Private industry has one, and only one, compelling interest: to maximize profit. That’s it. If it does anything else, it is no longer a private business, but rather a non-profit or some other kind of organization. If private industry controlled our roads, for instance, we’d literally see so many toll booths that it would make the New Jersey Turnpike or Garden State Parkway look like express freeways. George Carlin described the GS Parkway in this way: “I don’t mind paying tolls, but every 27 feet? Bullshit!” And presumably these tolls would be enforced by armed security guards and not toll-takers, to ensure that people paid the tolls. After all, in the current system, if you don’t pay a toll you get a fine ... from the government. Take the government out of the equation and you’re pretty much left with private enforcement of tolls. Without a legal incentive for drivers to pay the tools, we’d all plow through the booths without paying. And to prevent this, armed guards would need to work at toll booths. I guess that would make the NRA happy, but probably not most drivers. This says nothing about America’s side streets. Would there be tolls for each side street, with different blocks owned by different companies? Would I pay a toll for rolling out of my driveway?
Moreover, these profit-maximizing firms would have no incentive to adequately maintain these roads. In fact, they’d have every incentive to cut as many corners as possible to maximize shareholder revenue. How many highway deaths would be required to make libertarians happy because they have an ideological beef with government? (Along these lines, Dr. Paul, referring to the BP oil spill and mining accidents in Kentucky, said “accidents happen,” never mind that 30+ people were killed in those tragedies. Dr. Paul didn’t know them, so what’s the big deal?)
Not all of libertarian philosophy is bad; to their great credit, libertarians see the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as inherently nonsensical ventures. They recognize that these wars are based on a contradictory ideology among American neoconservatives: that the government can’t do anything right, except declare wars on countries and occupy them indefinitely. And they are strong on social issues, noting that the government has no right to legislate personal choices, such as abortion and gay marriage. So, at the very least, their ideology—that government should not be involved in our daily lives—is consistent.
Nonetheless, classical libertarian ideology can never work in the real world. They fail to note that, while private industry plays a very important role in American society, market forces are not perfect and they should not dictate social policy. Those who advocate for such ideas show a basic lack of understanding of economics (supply and demand curves only determine the most efficient outcomes, which in reality can be absolute nightmares) and present a world that cannot, and indeed should not, ever exist. Those of us who advocate for good government understand that the government is, by itself, an evil that needs to be eradicated, or “drown it in the bathtub.”
Thus we all owe Rand Paul a huge favor: the whole world can now see how morally, ethically and practically bankrupt libertarian philosophy is. And now the rest of us in the real world can continue to advocate for good public policy that includes a mixture of private and public interests that will always need one another to survive.
Comments
The “conservative/libertarian” mantra that government is evil and private industry is good has always puzzled me. A corporation, for example, is legally mandated to make money for it’s stockholders. Period. Bottom line. Make money for its stockholders. If you’re not a stockholder, if you’re a member of “the public,” even if you’re a “customer” of said company, it has NO interest in you. So this con/lib notion that somehow “the marketplace” will solve all problems via competition & etc. is patently nuts: The marketplace cares about one thing; Making money. And if it has to destroy members of the “public” to do that, it will. And if it’s designed by law to put profit for stockholders above all else, “the public” will remain, at best, a mere annoyance, at worst, an impediment that must be removed.
That con/libs think this is o.k. makes me wonder if they’re operating from the delusional rule of “exceptionalism:” That THEY will be the exception to the implacable Rule of Money? That the poisoned drug made by a cost-cutting company will kill OTHER people . . . but never . . . them?
2010-06-7 by Ann Calhounthe fact is Government can—and oftentimes does—tell private industry what it can and cannot do. Such authority is enshrined in that un-American, socialist document called the U.S. Constitution. Government regulatory authority is clearly spelled out in Article 1, Section 8 [italics mine]: “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes ...” From this, our government mandates compliance with myriad laws: minimum wages, safety, health of employees, cleanliness ... they can even shut restaurants down if their hot water goes out because you can’t effectively clean dishes with cold water.
====================
My, how amazing that your interpretation of the federal constitution wasn’t realized for, ah about a hundred years and fifty years after that document was adopted. I guess those silly authors of the constitution and a century and a half worth of Supreme Court justices, and all those others less adept at interpreting the law than you are, were just crazy libertarians when they imagined that the federal constitution applied solely to regulating commerce “between the states,” not to regulating businesses within a state. Oh, wait, that is what it says, isn’t it? Pesky written words.
2010-06-11 by CraigThe most advanced socialist countries have toll roads -everywhere-. Like the “ringvein” Norway. You have to pay to drive into a city, or between citeis. They also have toll booths at bridges and tunnels. They also have a 20% VAT added to -eveything-...hidden in the price so it’s opaque…
2010-07-22 by Norwegian LiberalPS, Afghanistan and Iraq were never declared wars as you incorrectly stated. By the way, if businesses were only out to chase the evil dollar, then why the successes of Habitat For Humaity, The Humane Society, NPR or The Goodwill Store? There are plenty of consumer advocate groups that do a far better job than the FedGov; like Good Housekeeping, Underwriters Laboratory (UL), and Consumer Reports—all voluntary associations.
In fact, Libertarians recongnize that ALL Governments eventually become corrupt. The only answer is LOCAL control. Hence the State Rights heirarchy of The Constitution.
Maybe you should study WHY The Constitution limits the FedGov to exactly 17 enumerated powers and (purposely) leaves the rest up to the States…
2010-07-22 by Norwegian LiberalDon’t be foolish. Private roads wouldn’t require tollbooths everywhere; we have the technology to do better than that. You’d have some sort of local roads subscription and other roads would be charged via something like EZ-Pass, except you wouldn’t have to stop. Don’t underestimate the inventiveness of the free market.
Having shot down your prime example of why libertarianism doesn’t work, your whole support of the violent state collapses.
2010-07-22 by VoluntaryistThe American Society of Civil Engineers gave the US infrastructure a “D” grade, with the nation’s roads getting a “D-”. Similar reviews by other engineering organizations have given similar results. How many highway deaths will it take before we start considering other options?
2010-07-22 by BlakeDon’t be foolish. Private roads wouldn’t require tollbooths everywhere; we have the technology to do better than that. You’d have some sort of local roads subscription and other roads would be charged via something like EZ-Pass, except you wouldn’t have to stop. Don’t underestimate the inventiveness of the free market.
Having shot down your prime example of why libertarianism doesn’t work, your whole support of the violent state collapses.
The foolish one is yourself. Somehow you think that you shot down the argument but you justified it. All of these toll roads would be owned by different companies vying for economic supremacy. One’s EZ pass would not work for the other’s. We would have to ride around with 20 or more EZ passes and hope that some company decided not to raise the price arbitrarily while we were in route to a destination. The company that controlled access to the freeway could charge whatever they wanted and without government intervention, we would get screwed. You aren’t that bright ...are you? But as most libertarians, you suffer from pseudo-intellectualism.
2010-07-22 by Hershel Will“One’s EZ pass would not work for the other’s.”
Why would that be? EZ Pass works on I-Pass roads and vice versa.
Your cellphone roams on other networks. You can use your credit card to pay at various places. All without government intervention.
Roads should be toll roads anyway. Why should people pay for roads that they never use? Even if they indirectly use the road for deliveries, the driver of the truck would be required to pay a toll so the usage of the toll road would be figured into the price.
2010-08-22 by MnZEZ-Passes work on other roads because we have a Governmental system of regulation that requires that they do. This made use of the infrastructure of the civilized society provided by the US Constitution… You use it, you pay for it.
Cell-Phones work on other networks because we have a Federal System that requires them to do so, by a series of standards that have been set forth and are schedules for the eventual adoption of a worldwide standard.
The Roads and Highways have been degrading because we just popped out of 8 years of rule by a fool who squandered all manner of funds slated for the highways on other projects. And current Libertarians tend to keep those roads in ill repair in order to justify their ideologies.
It all boils down to this:
NO PRIVATE SYSTEM is possible of being constructed unless it is ON THE BACK of the Federal Infrastructure provided by the US Constitution, and the civil society that it created.
The reason that many of those powers were not enumerated for 150 years was that prior to the 1950s, the “Highway System” in the USA consisted largely of dirt roads that were not useable in many parts of the year.
If you wish to abandon your duties as an American in paying taxes for living in a civil society (the first level of infrastructure) upon which was built a public infrastructure (yes, that needs maintenance - and as soon as those who place the highest stress upon that infrastructure begin to pay for it - namely the rich - then it will get repaired), then you may go back to riding on dirt roads, without access to public schools, or a post office, or garbage collection, or water purification, and so forth…
And, if you wish to “Build or use” a “Private Infrastructure” you are free to do so.
But this does not free you from having to pay for the PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE WITHOUT WHICH NO PRIVATE INFRASTRUCTURE COULD FUNCTION.
Private infrastructures require employees. They must use public infrastructures to get to work, and for their mail, and their water, and their garbage, and their courts, and the civil society in which they live that makes it all possible.
Libertarian Philosophies of Rand are pusillaninous regurgitations of anarchists, who don’t realize at all the functioning of Rational Economic Agencies in Game Theory, and that most of them would be preyed upon rather than being the “Exception.”
If they want their Galt’s Gulch, then they must give back EVERYTHING that they obtained by virtue of the FOUNDATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE USA: ITS CIVIL SOCIETY, then LEAVE the USA, and begin from scratch somewhere else.
2011-06-19 by Matthew Bailey
no man is an island. good article. dr. rand’s philosophy is as goofy as his toupee. (cheap shot, but what the hell.)
2010-06-2 by florence