[Maxim Litvinov]

Feel free to point out where the problem with this argument is.

[1] Most/many mass transit systems (ie - public transport) are loss-making at the most direct level and need government support.
[2] Libertarians don't believe in government support for public transport.
[3] The state of play that a libertarian would advocate would therefore involve a decrease in public transport availability and usage.
[4] This state would lead to an increase in carbon emissions, gridlock etc. etc.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

More of 'bash the libertarians' time, is it?

[Maxim Litvinov]

More of the 'nothing useful to contribute', is it?

In terms of evaluating libertarian positions, I find the only way is to go through issue by issue and find out what libertarians believe requires public funding and what they don't believe requires it. Because until a specific issue is put on the table, the (false) assumption is sometimes that government and taxes serve no useful purpose across the whole gamut of current government spending.

[Paradigm]

If most mass transit today runs at a loss, then in a libertarian society, they might have to charge more or find ways of being more cost-efficient. However, since you could have numerous buslines and other such systems competing against each other, the competition would ensure that the most efficient one would win out. And some forms of mass transit are more compatible with a free market than others. Taxi companies are usually privately owned, while on the other hand things like trains and subways are natural monopolies which require government intervention to even start running.

I understand that because mass transit is currently publicly funded that it's hard to picture any other arrangement, but where there's a will, there's a way. If there's a high enough public demand for something, some entrepreneur will figure out how to make money providing it. Even if the price increases, people will keep more of their paycheck, so they'll have more to spend. Remember that they already pay that extra cost in taxes. This just makes the cost more up-front and honest.

[graymouser]

This relates to a point I was thinking of recently: How would Libertarians deal with the fact that the end of federal subsidies would probably destroy the commercial airline industry? As I understand it, it's almost inherently unprofitable and was created by the government mostly for the benefit of airplane manufacturers.

-Wayne

[Paradigm]

This relates to a point I was thinking of recently: How would Libertarians deal with the fact that the end of federal subsidies would probably destroy the commercial airline industry? As I understand it, it's almost inherently unprofitable and was created by the government mostly for the benefit of airplane manufacturers.

Hmmm...I'd never heard this before. But you know, not too long ago, the first private spaceship was launched, so if private space travel is on the horizon, it seems like it shouldn't be too hard for commercial airlines to adapt to having to make money for themselves. I think with any sort of subsidies, it makes sense to phase them out gradually so as to cushion the transition, and allow people in those industries to plan ahead of time.

[Maxim Litvinov]

Thanks for the reply, __Paradigm__.

It does seem to be predicated a bit too much on wishful thinking for my tastes. Whilst there might always be demand enough for major urban areas to have some forms of mass transport, when it comes to lower population zones, governments themselves are running such a loss in some areas that it seems guaranteed there is no way private enterprise would run any worthwhile service there without subsidisation.

[Paradigm]

Well, I can tell you one thing that will definitely cost more under a libertarian government: oil. Without subsidies and an oil-driven foreign policy, the price would rise dramatically, but while this make people angry in the short-term, it would be exactly the kind of incentive the free market would need to implement alternative fuels. I realize that doesn't solve the congestion problem, but it would almost certainly be good for emissions.

[Maxim Litvinov]

I'd agree there.

Although, coming from an Australian perspective, I'd expect oil prices to fall here.

[nach0king]

It does seem to be predicated a bit too much on wishful thinking for my tastes. Whilst there might always be demand enough for major urban areas to have some forms of mass transport, when it comes to lower population zones, governments themselves are running such a loss in some areas that it seems guaranteed there is no way private enterprise would run any worthwhile service there without subsidisation.

Quite possibly. I know several village lines in the area where I live would be removed. There is nothing to stop villages investing in minibusses though; in fact, one already has. Most schools will provide busses too, and workers can carpool. The solutions are manifest; they just take a bit of time and effort. Something that many people aren't wont to do; they'd rather just fill in a tax form and watch the money drain away...

The bus system where I live in Glasgow is great; it is also the most competitive sector. The train lines are one-company monopolies gained by license after bids to the government from the private sector; both overland and underground lines are nowhere near as efficient as the busses. I know this isn't your exact question but it's a related issue.

Of course, the private input into the railway sector has its problems too: crashes in the past have been due to corporate negligence. Of course, one could just as easily say that it's a "public private partnership" that ruins the system (and one need only look at the health and education services to see why supposedly keeping companies on a government leash actually only serves to make them untouchable...)