\" … could be any perceived wrong that government coercion must right\" – I was speaking in the style of the categorical imperative and spotting the believer in government solutions their own concepts for sake of argument, whereas with markets there often is no \"one solution\" to a problem. Thus, with \"perceived wrong that needs to be addressed and if it is something that can actually be cured\", we\’re already off on the wrong foot, here.

\"I have some difficulty seeing the Market solution as always being the best solution\". Singular? I thought the entire point was that markets offer choice. There may or may not be one \"best\" solution to a problem for everyone. The feedback mechanism that the price system offers, also tends to correct. Few such opportunities to examine \"how we\’re doin\’ so far\" (Ed Koch), exist in a world of no profits and thus, no losses, where losses simply dictate more funding.

Agree that the gas tax does a better job of being a proxy for how private roads could be funded, than nearly any other tax in existence. There is at least *some* connection between miles driven and what one pays. You suggest the counter, though, when you say \"via a booth or box on my windshield.\" Already you\’ve doubled the options for paying that currently exist. Thank you

\"I am every bit as alarmed by the prospect of corporate oppression as I am of a tyrannical government.\" I shop at Wal Mart when I want, and no one from their organization sends me notices informing me that my wages are to be levied or liens filed against my property, if for whatever reason, I withhold (!) my funds and choose not to spend them there for a time. You show way more than the brainpower necessary to complete the analogy. This is a crucial difference and does indeed define libertarian approaches, whether one comes at it from Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, Milton Friedman or any of dozens of other directions

Speaking of Rothbard, who did more than \"[make] a vague nod to toll roads and pretend like that is sufficient\" in For a New Liberty – two words: EZ Pass

All right, four words altogether: check cards

\"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?\"

– \"Danneskjold\"

In an effort to explore your point, it would seem to me that it depends entirely on the perceived wrong that needs to be addressed and if it is something that can actually be cured.

I have some difficulty seeing the Market solution as always being the best solution if for no other reason than economy of scale. I know this is heresy to the Capitalist and Objectivist purist and some may want to revoke my claim of being a Libertarian but I am every bit as alarmed by the prospect of corporate oppression as I am of a tyrannical government.

In this case Henderson writes against the gasoline tax. I am not a fan of taxes so I can sympathize. Unfortunately by rallying against the status quo he has the responsibility to provide an alternative that is close to parity, at parity, or superior rather than making a vague nod to toll roads and pretending like that is sufficient.

The gas tax is one of the better taxes because it is “voluntary” in the sense that it is a function of usage rather than arbitrarily collected from everyone’s paycheck. In addition to this it is (supposedly) targeted directly at supporting our economic infrastructure. The more gas you use the more you use the roads and the more taxes you pay to service the roads you use. I know that the gas tax is there. I know what it is (supposed) to fund. I do not see it as being any more coercive than paying a toll except the government collects it at the pump rather than on the road via a booth or box on my windshield.

I wish more taxes were directly linked to the item they (supposedly) service rather than something truly coercive like the Income Tax which sucks money out of my wallet without any promise of actually going someplace that does me any good. Common defense? Great. Welfare and healthcare for foreign nationals? No thanks.

We should be supporting taxes like this where the tax goes to something that it is directly linked to rather than being collected from everyone and dumped into a nebulous pool that is allocated by the whim of the Polit Bureau… um… Sacramento / Washington.

Bryan Caplan can be cantakerous, but he’s anything but dumb. You’re welcome to join in on Pete Boettke’s workshops, weekly during the GMU semester, if you wish to address him in person.

Thank you, David, for fleshing out a term I, too, have begun using. I find it useful to wager with the alleged government fundamentalist, in the James Randi style, as follows:

Is there any point at which the federal government will have spent sufficient money on this problem [could be any perceived wrong that government coercion must right] that you would be willing to concede, this approach has failed, it’s time to try something new and get the federal government out of this endeavor? It can be any number, though obviously billions/trillions are preferred, as we are dealing in those sorts of figures at this level. I will ask you to write this down, preferably via email or other mode containing a time and datestamp, and should spending on this issue hit that point, I will hold you to your promise.

Should the person fail to accept your reasonable wager, effectively declaring there is no point at which sufficient resources have been exhausted to consider alternative, noncoercive methods of addressing various issues, the phrase “government fundamentalist” may very well be appropriate.

“Fair? It’s I against the organized strength, the guns, the planes, the battleships of five continents.” (”Ragnar Danneskjold”)

I’ve also read the Bible and have friends and relatives that are religious scholars. My sister, for instance, held a Masters of Divinity from Princeton and was an ordained Minister. If you would like to debate Creation versus Evolution I’d be happy to join in, but in looking at the article above it seems that such a discussion is wildly inappropriate since the author is writing about Economics rather than Evolution. Both start with the letter E so I can see how they might be mistaken for each other but I would hope that we as gentlemen and ladies all can search out the topic at hand rather than generating one whole cloth as well as treating each other with some level of respect rather than calling on ad hominem.

The flaw in Mr. Henderson’s argument is he is assuming that since taxes are being misused the concept of a gas is therefore inappropriate and the defacto cure for this is to leave it to the free market.

I fail to see how a free market road system would work. How would competition work in this proposed free market roadway when it would be prohibitively expensive to get the necessary right-of-ways and property to build a parallel road way so as to compete?

If anyone has driven in New Jersey they will learn very quickly that the toll system is not the panacea Mr. Henderson pretends. Freeway conditions in California are already absurd but stopping every couple of miles to pay a new toll would make it even worse.

Even if it were practical, how many freeways would he like to see spawned and what happens to these freeways if they go bankrupt? In a few years the roads would be a monopoly and monopolies do not foster a free market. In fact, Smith clearly indicates monopolies are the bane of a free market. So the government would have to step in and break them up and the process would repeat. Sounds like a waste to me but perhaps Mr. Henderson can provide a workable model under the free market since it eludes me.

What Mr. Henderson appears to be missing is if the tax were applied as it was envisioned it would act as toll paid at the pump rather than at a booth saving time and money. It may not work that way due to politicians “raiding the larder” but that’s not inherent in the gas tax, only in the lack of ethics demonstrated by politicians. So let’s put the blame where it belongs, on those that are stealing from programs the voters want so they can fund programs the voters do not want.

It\’s not necessary to read too far into \’creation science\’ literature to realize that one needn\’t read further. For me, that point occurred about six pages into a creationist tome foisted on me by my wife\’s sister-in-law, when I read about the \’Doctrine of Apparent Age\’ — in other words, the idea that God created the world to look exactly as if it had evolved over billions of years.

As theology, this is remarkably stupid. As science, it is utterly worthless.

So, no, I won\’t be reading any \’creation science\’ books, and, yes, I will continue to regard creationists as morons and Luddites.

Bryan Caplan likes to invent new definitions for words because it’s easier for him to change definitions in such a way that his arguments automatically win rather than forcing himself to take part in honest debate.

In the first place, no creationist twists biological or geological evidence. They merely present evidence that evolutionists refuse to consider. On the other hand, evolutionists do quite of bit of fact twisting. Roger Lewin, an evolutionist, describes the torture of evidence by evolutionists in his “Bones of Contention.” In addition, evolutionists offer only evidence for micro-evolution, what is commonly called selevtive breeding, for macro-evolution, which is the change of one kind of animal into another. Of course, Bryan is weak on his knowledge of economics and his knowledge of biology and geology is virtually non-existent.

The term “fundamentalists” was adopted by American Christians at the turn of the 20th century to distinguish themselves from the “liberal” churches who denied the deity of Christ, his virgin birth and his bodily resurrection. They used the term correctly, because a fundamentalist is someone who emphasizes the fundamentals of his discipline. In football, the fundamentals are tackling and blocking. In investing they’re the economic causes of price changes as opposed to chart reading. In economics, the fundamentals are marginal pricing, subjective valuation, supply and demand, and money supply. People fall into error when they get away from the fundamentals. Austrian economists are fundamentalist economists because they emphasize the fundamentals of the disciple which mainstream economists ignore.

Deceptive journalists diliberately misused the term in the 1980’s, by applying “fundamentalist” to Islamic terrorists. The whole purpose was to slander American fundamentalists with guilt by association, even though the two had absolutely nothing in common. Socialists have always been dishonest by changing the definitions of words. Promoting this misuse of the term is not only dishonest, but contributes to the break down of communication.

First, the term “liberal” is not equivalent to “government fundamentalist”. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. The liberal philosophy is one of laissez-faire respect for the individual. I believe that you must have meant “Liberal” (with the capital “L” differentiating the political movement from the philosophy).

Second, if referring to “Liberal”, then you’d be right, but it may not be a good strategy. Framing the terms of an argument (e.g., “right to life” vs. “choice”) is an important step in victory; don’t let your opponent determine the terms of the argument.

The basic problem is our educational system in which few get a real grounding in our economic system. Business is bad, greedy, short sighted. And of course liberals use the few, although sometimes magnificent “failures” as evidence of the failure of free markets. No attention is paid to the innumerable successes, big and small.

Regarding the Constitution, some use the term “Originalist” but basically it comes down to a “fundamentalist” understanding of the document. Your reference to the religious context is flawed. Bryan Caplan sounds like an idiot who is intolerant of religious people. I take it your reference to his book is about the creation vs. evolution debate. But as usual, liberals don’t debate. They have “consensus” that is final. No debate.

(FYI – Christian fundamentalism is about belief in the Bible being the “Word of God” given to man for his instruction on how to live life and in achieving everlasting life beyond the grave. Things like the 10 commandments are not negotiable and are not a “living” list that man can choose to follow. I’m not saying that fundamentalists are perfect but they insist that there are things about life that are truths for all time.)

I also find your reference about the common defense as opposed to “offense” trite. I know you believe “Bush lied, people died.” Your literal use of the word “defense” is immature.

However, I do agree that those 40% who pay no taxes and live off the taxpayers, read government, largess do benefit from our common defense. You have to admit, 40% is one whopper of a number! And it will only get worse over time.

I read your article because the title interested me. I, as a businessman with an MBA, I try to explain things to family and friends only to have them spout liberal slogans and shut their ears. I am, like you, labelled the ignorant one because I am part of the business community. Therefore I take advantage of people, the environment, am greedy and contribute nothing to the community or society at large. I try, but it is a futile effort. So I go back to my thing until the next family gathering. Keep on keeping on!