Communal Property
I noticed in two recent, separate posts that libertarians are accused of not understanding the concept of communal goods (here*, via Radley, and in the comments of Megan's fromthearchives post). In the first, libertarians are also ridiculed for "not minding government funded roads". And in the comments to that post, they are also ridiculed for actually discussing private roads as an alternative to government funded roads.
Huh?
Now, I realize that people don't realize that not all libertarians agree, and nor is there agreement among all of the people with whom libertarians disagree. But still it shouldn't be that difficult to realize that some libertarians accept public roads and so therefore probably understand and accept that concept of communal property. Is it too much to put those two snipes together and realize, "oh yeah, nevermind"? It would only take a little deeper thought to realize that other libertarians understand something that only the Deep Green left seems to understand about communal property: it isn't always and everywhere good!
I probably need to back up and point out that many on the left (and right) who speak about "communal goods" with such pious tones probably mean "the type of property of which I approve", like parks and military power and such, but they probably haven't thought about it much further than that. There is a symmetry, with one side thinking "private property mostly good, communal property mostly bad" and the other the opposite. Neither of these strikes me as sophisticated analysis.
Deep greens and libertarians have recognized that communal property is frequently used for private gain. An old joke is that BLM stands for Bureau of Livestock and Mining; these were the guys who invented chaining, the act of dragging a chain between two bulldozers to clear out small trees and make land more amenable to cattle. The Forest Service is the federal agency within the Agriculture Department in charge of building roads used for transporting equipment and logs up and down mountains in order toclear cut enjoy our communal crop of old-growth. And the nation's roads are the communal property means by which we consume oil and produce air pollution, time-wasting congestion, and sprawl.
Sure, the oil-users pay road taxes at the pump, but you don't suppose that all of it goes to roads, do you? The last time I saw a figure (Gabriel Roth's Roads in a Market Economy), about half of fuel taxes intended for roads actually makes it to roads. But you don't suppose that means that we are short of roads, do you? Of course not; as M1EK points out for the Austin area (start at the bottom), large portions of the roads are supported by bonds that are repaid out of sales and property taxes.**
No quarter is given to libertarians on issues such as roads: use them, support the status quo, advocate change, it doesn't matter: you are either a hypocrite or a crackpot, no middle ground is given. I find that odd, given my ideal transportation system. I don't know what to say about Pandagon's commenters who defend public roads; they are being consistent with their support for public property, but inconsistent with almost every one of their other principles. Here I should think M1EK would join my team and wonder how in the world they can make statements such as "The US interstate highway system, warts and all, is a gem that most of the world envies."*** Maybe if you live in Afghanistan; Germany certainly doesn't. The French wouldn't admit to it even if they did envy it (which they probably don't). And even an American who has sat in rush hour traffic is probably doing the opposite of envy, even if they can't comprehend what a real alternative would look like.
One of the commenters makes a valiant attempt at claiming that roads are not a public good. Perhaps not a pure public good, but they meet most of the criteria. And like many communal goods, they show the signs of the tragedy of the commons. Most libertarians are familiar with the general idea that commons, including such diverse examples as National Parks and fish stocks, may give rise to a tragedy in which it is in no user's interest to conserve. The difference between the left and libertarians lies in their choices over what actions they prefer to avert the tragedy. Both private and state action may lead to unsatisfactory consequences: underdistribution on one hand and overdistribution on the other.
By that, I mean that privatization of a commons always has the problem that one person gets title to the good though it is not clear how that person and no other should get it. Because he is first? That seems arbitrary. Because he is mixing his labor? That seems slightly less arbitrary until you consider that his first arrival now prevents others who would mix their labor with the land if given the chance. But the other end of the spectrum, political control, results in overdistribution: too many people trying to do too many things with the property and none of them having full responsibility for the outcome. You can try to solve that problem with majoritarian rule, but that also seems arbitrary: first one to 50% + 1 wins!
I would tend to look for the approach most likely to lead to the least worst outcome in a dynamic environment. The worst outcome would be permanent assignment to the first arbitrary winner who happens to be particularly inept. The best outcome would be that use is shared among all users according to the utility they derive from the good, an admittedly utilitarian argument to which I would solicit Will Wilkinson's anti-utilitarian response. In my opinion, private institutions have proven more adept at seeking the optimum use. Megan's requirement that I prove that the average farmer be a profit maximizer is a red herring; all we need is for the marginal farmer to be attracted to selling his water rights. A job, especially for a farmer, is not only about income maximization; sometimes it's about doing things your own way, including choosing when and how to leave it. The average anyone is not a profit maximizer, and yet we find that supply and demand generally work; otherwise, things like CAFE, carbon taxes, and tax rebates are futile efforts in a world where people could choose Toyotas over SUVs and until recently have not.
*I only get one hit on that bingo card, so I guess I don't win the prize.
**Incidentally, M1EK writes interesting posts about transit and urban development issues, but his over-the-top, self-described "bile" interferes with the message. His case for hybrids over turbodiesels generally ends up in lots of arm-waving and glossed-over points while accusing his interlocutors of failing to compare fairly (i.e. claiming that the Golf is substantially smaller so doesn't compare to the Civic when the Civic is actually the smaller car in both passenger and cargo capacity, claiming that all tests that show the Jetta having higher mileage are unfair or outliers, claiming that the Prius is midsize and the Jetta is a compact, etc.). In my opinion, the entire debate is silly: it's like the musclehead "Camaro vs. Mustang" debates of yore. At the end of the day, we should simply be happy that consumers have choices for high mileage cars. His comments on Econbrowser and other places can be very snipey. And yet you get the idea from reading his blog that he's probably a nice guy in real life. Can we blame the vulgar libertarians for blurring issues so badly that M1EK is driven into such states?
***The rest of that comment is hillariouser: "The US military shows how socialized health care can be provided for large numbers of people at a reasonable cost. (It’s when the poor soldiers fall into the hands of the VA that the care - and my point - fall apart.)" (1) It is no different than any employer-provided healthcare, except perhaps in scale (and that not much more than the largest private employers). That is to say, it sucks. Quit the military and see how far it gets you. (2) Can you put "The US military shows how ... at a reasonable cost" in a sentence and keep a straight face? (3) Yes, the parenthetical portion pretty much summarizes it.
Huh?
Now, I realize that people don't realize that not all libertarians agree, and nor is there agreement among all of the people with whom libertarians disagree. But still it shouldn't be that difficult to realize that some libertarians accept public roads and so therefore probably understand and accept that concept of communal property. Is it too much to put those two snipes together and realize, "oh yeah, nevermind"? It would only take a little deeper thought to realize that other libertarians understand something that only the Deep Green left seems to understand about communal property: it isn't always and everywhere good!
I probably need to back up and point out that many on the left (and right) who speak about "communal goods" with such pious tones probably mean "the type of property of which I approve", like parks and military power and such, but they probably haven't thought about it much further than that. There is a symmetry, with one side thinking "private property mostly good, communal property mostly bad" and the other the opposite. Neither of these strikes me as sophisticated analysis.
Deep greens and libertarians have recognized that communal property is frequently used for private gain. An old joke is that BLM stands for Bureau of Livestock and Mining; these were the guys who invented chaining, the act of dragging a chain between two bulldozers to clear out small trees and make land more amenable to cattle. The Forest Service is the federal agency within the Agriculture Department in charge of building roads used for transporting equipment and logs up and down mountains in order to
Sure, the oil-users pay road taxes at the pump, but you don't suppose that all of it goes to roads, do you? The last time I saw a figure (Gabriel Roth's Roads in a Market Economy), about half of fuel taxes intended for roads actually makes it to roads. But you don't suppose that means that we are short of roads, do you? Of course not; as M1EK points out for the Austin area (start at the bottom), large portions of the roads are supported by bonds that are repaid out of sales and property taxes.**
No quarter is given to libertarians on issues such as roads: use them, support the status quo, advocate change, it doesn't matter: you are either a hypocrite or a crackpot, no middle ground is given. I find that odd, given my ideal transportation system. I don't know what to say about Pandagon's commenters who defend public roads; they are being consistent with their support for public property, but inconsistent with almost every one of their other principles. Here I should think M1EK would join my team and wonder how in the world they can make statements such as "The US interstate highway system, warts and all, is a gem that most of the world envies."*** Maybe if you live in Afghanistan; Germany certainly doesn't. The French wouldn't admit to it even if they did envy it (which they probably don't). And even an American who has sat in rush hour traffic is probably doing the opposite of envy, even if they can't comprehend what a real alternative would look like.
One of the commenters makes a valiant attempt at claiming that roads are not a public good. Perhaps not a pure public good, but they meet most of the criteria. And like many communal goods, they show the signs of the tragedy of the commons. Most libertarians are familiar with the general idea that commons, including such diverse examples as National Parks and fish stocks, may give rise to a tragedy in which it is in no user's interest to conserve. The difference between the left and libertarians lies in their choices over what actions they prefer to avert the tragedy. Both private and state action may lead to unsatisfactory consequences: underdistribution on one hand and overdistribution on the other.
By that, I mean that privatization of a commons always has the problem that one person gets title to the good though it is not clear how that person and no other should get it. Because he is first? That seems arbitrary. Because he is mixing his labor? That seems slightly less arbitrary until you consider that his first arrival now prevents others who would mix their labor with the land if given the chance. But the other end of the spectrum, political control, results in overdistribution: too many people trying to do too many things with the property and none of them having full responsibility for the outcome. You can try to solve that problem with majoritarian rule, but that also seems arbitrary: first one to 50% + 1 wins!
I would tend to look for the approach most likely to lead to the least worst outcome in a dynamic environment. The worst outcome would be permanent assignment to the first arbitrary winner who happens to be particularly inept. The best outcome would be that use is shared among all users according to the utility they derive from the good, an admittedly utilitarian argument to which I would solicit Will Wilkinson's anti-utilitarian response. In my opinion, private institutions have proven more adept at seeking the optimum use. Megan's requirement that I prove that the average farmer be a profit maximizer is a red herring; all we need is for the marginal farmer to be attracted to selling his water rights. A job, especially for a farmer, is not only about income maximization; sometimes it's about doing things your own way, including choosing when and how to leave it. The average anyone is not a profit maximizer, and yet we find that supply and demand generally work; otherwise, things like CAFE, carbon taxes, and tax rebates are futile efforts in a world where people could choose Toyotas over SUVs and until recently have not.
*I only get one hit on that bingo card, so I guess I don't win the prize.
**Incidentally, M1EK writes interesting posts about transit and urban development issues, but his over-the-top, self-described "bile" interferes with the message. His case for hybrids over turbodiesels generally ends up in lots of arm-waving and glossed-over points while accusing his interlocutors of failing to compare fairly (i.e. claiming that the Golf is substantially smaller so doesn't compare to the Civic when the Civic is actually the smaller car in both passenger and cargo capacity, claiming that all tests that show the Jetta having higher mileage are unfair or outliers, claiming that the Prius is midsize and the Jetta is a compact, etc.). In my opinion, the entire debate is silly: it's like the musclehead "Camaro vs. Mustang" debates of yore. At the end of the day, we should simply be happy that consumers have choices for high mileage cars. His comments on Econbrowser and other places can be very snipey. And yet you get the idea from reading his blog that he's probably a nice guy in real life. Can we blame the vulgar libertarians for blurring issues so badly that M1EK is driven into such states?
***The rest of that comment is hillariouser: "The US military shows how socialized health care can be provided for large numbers of people at a reasonable cost. (It’s when the poor soldiers fall into the hands of the VA that the care - and my point - fall apart.)" (1) It is no different than any employer-provided healthcare, except perhaps in scale (and that not much more than the largest private employers). That is to say, it sucks. Quit the military and see how far it gets you. (2) Can you put "The US military shows how ... at a reasonable cost" in a sentence and keep a straight face? (3) Yes, the parenthetical portion pretty much summarizes it.
Labels: environment, libertarian, property_rights, roads
<< Home