31.01.2013 Views

The Privatization of Roads and Highways - Ludwig von Mises Institute

The Privatization of Roads and Highways - Ludwig von Mises Institute

The Privatization of Roads and Highways - Ludwig von Mises Institute

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

116 <strong>The</strong> <strong>Privatization</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Roads</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Highways</strong><br />

Ross does point out a practical problem: “As a practical matter,<br />

utility <strong>of</strong> service or value <strong>of</strong> service cannot be used as a basis<br />

for pricing highway services to the highway user except in the<br />

very limited case <strong>of</strong> toll roads.” But modern innovations in electronic<br />

counting mechanisms <strong>and</strong> computers have taken the force<br />

out <strong>of</strong> this argument, if it was ever valid. We must conclude that<br />

the external benefits in this case are, in the words <strong>of</strong> Brownlee <strong>and</strong><br />

Heller, “illusions arising from failure to charge highway users<br />

appropriately for the services provided by the highway system.”<br />

Let us take a quite different case. An attractive woman sauntering<br />

down the street in a miniskirt provides an external benefit.<br />

22 She is a delight to other pedestrians, yet she is unable to<br />

charge them for these viewing pleasures. 23 <strong>The</strong> recipients,<br />

according to the theory, however, are the “free riders,” who benefit<br />

without paying their “fair share” <strong>of</strong> the costs. Ought they to<br />

be forced to pay? Although examples cited by the advocates <strong>of</strong><br />

the view that free riders ought to be made to pay for benefits<br />

received are usually far more sober, the miniskirt case is perfectly<br />

analogous. In all cases, the so-called free rider’s benefits come to<br />

him unsolicited. If it is ludicrous to insist that he pay for an uninvited<br />

view <strong>of</strong> a woman’s legs, it is equally so to insist that he be<br />

charged, via tax payments, for the losses accompanying “transport<br />

<strong>of</strong> all types.” 24 And to call such forced payment “justified,”<br />

22To most males, that is. In the eyes <strong>of</strong> competitive women, homosexuals,<br />

perhaps, <strong>and</strong> strict, fundamentalist clergymen, presumably, she is anything<br />

but. (We deal below with the question <strong>of</strong> one man’s meat being<br />

another’s poison.)<br />

23Even such an externality can be internalized by the ever watchful <strong>and</strong><br />

vigilant marketplace. For an account <strong>of</strong> how this is accomplished by the<br />

management <strong>of</strong> Maxwell’s Plum restaurant, in New York City, see New York<br />

Magazine, March 1978, <strong>and</strong> for a similar account involving Sardi’s restaurant,<br />

see United Magazine, November 1982.<br />

24George M. Smerk, Urban Transportation: <strong>The</strong> Federal Role (Bloomington:<br />

Indiana University Press, 1965), p. 230, writes: “As the general public benefits<br />

from an increased supply <strong>of</strong> transport <strong>of</strong> all types, tax receipts from the<br />

general public may with justice be used to make up losses.”

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!