[...]we came across a cool site that you might enjoy. Take a look if you are looking for a way to clean your blog from spam links.[...]……

I believe the core of the argument is that since the system is at fault, the system needs to be scrapped. I don’t subscribe to the notion that ‘if we just get the RIGHT people into office, ALL OUR PROBLEMS will be SOLVED! Like MAGIC!’ but rather a more realistic one which presupposes that politicians are as human as the rest of us.

“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?”

See, now that’s a strange question, on two levels. In my view of how roads would logically be built and run, the people with the greatest incentive to have it as cheap as possible to drive on the roads would be the businesses that would like to or already have property there, and of course the people living there. So if an urban development company wanted to build a mall on the outskirts of some town, it’d also contract out the construction of the roads and charge the businesses renting spots in the mall the cost of maintaining the roads that bring customers to them.

And I’m assuming that in a residential area, ownership of the road would come with ownership of the property. So what are you scared of? Somebody building a road to connect two towns and then charging a million dollars a car? Roads are built to be used. You may have an issue with how we convert the existing system into a free market, but that’s a different question entirely.

And the larger question here is, of course, why you have such a narrow view of competition. There are a hundred and one different ways to go from A to B; there is also the choice of not doing so at all. The people who choose to drive and are taxed because of it unfortunately don’t have the choice to direct their money toward the provision and maintenance of roads. But people are cost-minimizers and profit-maximizers: they respond to gas taxes with fuel-efficient cars, and will probably respond to absurd road fees with an overall reduction in their use of cars, whether by commuting in one vehicle as a group or adopting work-at-home methods.

“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.”

In the modern economy I believe there is is an alternative to toll booths. Ah, yes: electronics. You see, some of us up here in Canada have had to put up with private roads for quite some time. The government builds new highways and sells it to people in foreign countries who do the whole ‘toll’ thing. Of course, the contract controls the rent they’re able to charge, but I don’t see how that won’t apply in an entirely private system if the businesses want customers.

If you would like to use these private roads, you’ve got two options: you can buy a little device to stick on the inside of your windshield or you can let them take a picture of your license plate and mail you the bill. They have these devices at the start and exit of every highway. This doesn’t require ‘stopping every couple of miles to pay a new toll’ whatsoever. See, the market is resourceful.

“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.”

I suppose the question is this: do the history books cringe and flee under your gaze? It seems that, since you’re looking for a practical solution, you might look to how roads are traditionally provided, both in Americas history and even ancient times. That way the practical solutions to these conundrums won’t continue to elude you.

What happens to freeways if they go bankrupt? How hard do you think it is to maintain a road?

“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.”

I agree with you, to an extent. I also acknowledge that the very act of becoming a politician in our current political climate requires you to pander to special interests whether you want to or not, or even realize that you are. I am under no illusion that the names next to the ballot box have any idea who I am, care about any of my interests, or would listen to me if I tried. I don’t know any politician personally so I have no real hope of being close enough to their circle of friends to influence their policies. No offense to any politician out there, but the simple fact is they all only know the people around them and so can’t possibly be expected to act as a representative of me.

Instead of tossing grenades into the opposing trenches, just implore the poor deluded sap who differs from you to be polite; then stick to the topic at hand.

For example, what about all the petty religious voters who wouldn’t support Romney (as much as I hate that guy) simply because he was a Mormon, even though they agreed with him on everything else? WTF does being Mormon have to do with being governor or president? Who the hell cares what someone’s religion is? Who cares if Obama is or isn’t a Muslim? Don’t we freedom of religion in the 1st Amendment?

Or another example is folks on the Left who refuse to support a candidate who denies evolution. As long as the guy won’t shove it down my throat or campaign for those beliefs (such as ID in schools), I don’t know why it’s an issue. Yes, it’s nutty to refuse to believe in something with so much empirical evidence simply because of belief in an imaginary friend, but as long as they keep to themselves on that, I could care less.

Then there are the nanny-staters and the moralists on both sides who want gov’t to legislate morality or “help you help yourself” through insanities like sin taxes, banning gay marriage, anti-obesity initiatives, or the War on Drugs. These people are so full of it.

And what about all the voters on the left AND the right who consistently deny economics, or have a RIDICULOUS version of it in their minds, and then vote or advocate on behalf of these ridiculous theories? They include ideas such as “Illegals are taking our jobs and depress wages,” “Illegal aliens depress wages”, “Outsourcing is inherently bad”, or “Wage disparity is a necessary statistic to look at.” God, they piss me off.

Only about 20% to 1/3rd of American voters, I would say, actually know their stuff (if not fewer). The rest are either stupid, ignorant or misinformed. Or a combination of 2 or all 3.

Secondly, “no creationist twists biological or geological evidence. They merely present evidence that evolutionists refuse to consider.” What “evidence”?? Show me hard evidence that Creationism is “true” and evolution is totally wrong. I’m sorry, but you sound full of CRAP, with all due respect. You guys on the fundie side of that debate have been saying the same NONSENSE over and over, and it just has gotten so old. I’ve heard the classic creationist arguments a bazillion times, and they’re EASILY DEBUNKABLE! You’d think that if evolution were that easy to demolish, it wouldn’t have lasted 150 years!!!! Come on, folks. It’s called a brain. Use it.

Thirdly, …wow. I had no idea there were this many bible-thumping creationists in the liberty movement. *facepalm* pitiful

And why all the attacks on Bryan Caplan, all of a sudden? The man is a fairly good economist. I don’t mind him. His book “The Myth of the Rational Voter” is a completely timely screed that demolishes the idea that democracy or republicanism is “working” simply because “the people voted for it.” But what if the vast majority of the people are either idiots or just plain misinformed on so many levels?? What if a relative few people with less knowledge have MORE political power than those with the facts on their side?

Like the anti-gay activists who banned gay marriage in so many states but refuse to call it what it is: discrimination. Instead, they refer to it as “protecting” marriage. Please…

\" … 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.