Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 20:14:34 -0500
From: "Michael Walsh" <MJW at mail.press.jhu.edu>
To: <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Transportation TANSTAAFL
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>

Lee Strong uttered:

>	Mr. Walsh professes to have a "radical thought" that public
>transportation should be free.  Cute, but neither practical nor terribly
>radical.  Someone has to pay for the producation of the vehicles and the
>time and labor of the drivers, which means either taxes or user fees or
>both.  Designating something as "public" merely means that the taxpayers
>foot all or part of the bill.  Radical?  Variations of this concept have
>been suggested for thousands of years and have proven ineffective for
>thousands of years.  If someone wants to be truly radical, organize a
>transportation service and provide free service to anyone you designate.
>	Ms. Matigan suggests punitively taxing private citizens to =
subsidize
>public transportation.  This has the virtue of suggesting a revenue =
stream
>to pay for her concept, but fails to explain why public transportation
>supported by coercion is more desirable than private transportation =
services
>supported by voluntary transactions.  Socialism by the back door is still
>socialism, and socialism is both morally and economically inferior to =
free
>enterprise practiced by moral citizens.

Damn . . no time to play . , ,  just back from NYC, offto NYC late =
tomorrow.

But let me note that Maryland law mandates that one half of public transit =
funding come from thefare box.

mjw