tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post5060140978287959824..comments2024-03-29T10:51:27.752+13:00Comments on Not PC: DOWN TO THE DOCTOR’S: Smacking, thieving and getting knocked aroundPeter Cresswellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-47329652820816329542009-11-19T07:14:58.911+13:002009-11-19T07:14:58.911+13:00bloodyorange
Can you explain what is moral about ...bloodyorange<br /><br />Can you explain what is moral about forcing non-cyclists to pay for your cycleway? <br /><br />LGMLGMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-67999286362541618062009-11-18T22:22:17.871+13:002009-11-18T22:22:17.871+13:00'allo allo
"How about a cycleway built p...'allo allo<br /><br />"How about a cycleway built privately and funded by a toll on cyclists?"<br /><br />What if us cyclists are dirt poor? That's why we're driving. We can't afford to pay for a road. <br /><br />Is it right that we get neither safety on the public roads nor can we afford a private one?<br /><br />Not really.<br /><br />Markets are a democracy of dollars... one dollar one vote. There's nothing intrinsically right about their outcomes. Sorry. <br /><br />However.... if you're prepared to adopt a individual welfare-centric approach to morality, combine it with the assumption that individual preference satisfaction is identical to individual welfare, assume away externalities, public goods, market power, and information asymmetry-generated market failures, and then finally adopt a position that strength of individual preference (and hence individual welfare) is exactly represented by individual willingness-to-pay (which amounts to weighting marginal utility of consumption by wealth level in a utilitarian calculation), then FINALLY you might be able to say something strong about markets and morality.<br /><br />But that would be silly, no? Every assumption made there is faulty. <br /><br />It's a shame, though, because the implications are so seductively 'neat', that I can't help thinking that it's more probable that libertarians have been seduced by that neatness, than that they're worked their way through all the problems presented by the 'markets are good' theory.bloodyorangenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-83186532316794638412009-11-18T10:21:22.507+13:002009-11-18T10:21:22.507+13:00mawm - How about a cycleway built privately and fu...mawm - How about a cycleway built privately and funded by a toll on cyclists? I'd be all for that.<br /><br />The point I was trying to make is that these accidents involving cyclists and motor vehicles are happening on government roads, and we are constantly being told that private roading couldn't possibly work and that a government monopoly is the only way to go.<br /><br />Well, private roading might be a little more responsive to consumer demand, like other private indistries tend to be, and might be safer as a result.Richard McGrathnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-42221962514855270612009-11-18T09:31:06.512+13:002009-11-18T09:31:06.512+13:00I fail to see how either driver error or cyclist e...I fail to see how either driver error or cyclist error has anything to do with government funded vs privately funded roads. If you put a slow moving vehicle (bicycle) on the same road as a faster moving vehicle (car, bus, etc) you are going to have collisions because of the difference in speed. However a cycleway..............mawmnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-18482743078550815162009-11-18T09:15:26.777+13:002009-11-18T09:15:26.777+13:00I just posted on that odious prat Rudman's col...I just posted on that odious prat Rudman's column. And sent him an email. Hopefully a lot of people will do the same.KGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01940428991630766942noreply@blogger.com