commentary by Michael L. Bromley
copyright 2005

More entries: see Index

... of Automobiles

Jan 13/05: But of course:

State should pick up tab for car-deer accidents
In West Virginia the DNR (Department of Natural Resources) has a deal if you hit a deer or a bear the state pays for the damage. If our cattle get out and a car hits it we have to pay. So the state of Ohio says they own the deer for the purpose of hunting license and deer tags and cost hunters money. So my point is why should we or our insurance have to pay when we hit a state animal? They don't down in West Virginia or I think also Michigan.

It's a letter to an Ohio newspaper. The man also demands year-round hunting season, but that's getting beyond things here, which is, if an animal living on state property causes damage the state must pay. Sounds logical, especially with the context the letter gives that farmers are responsible for damage caused by their stock. But it goes not further, for the tradition of law holds no one responsible for wild animals. If WV or WI want to take on "ownership" of wild animals and all the responsibilities therein, that's their problem. The common law tradition does not make it so.

What this man is demanding is socialization of the costs of road kill. Why stop there? Why not spread the burden across the entire system?

Most people would respond negatory on that, bud, yet those same welcome a similar practice every day -- every walk on a public space, every drive on a public road marks a private benefit paid by larger society. Americans love the common space yet loath the taxes that paid for it. We've resolved this through history in the fight for and against public expense and the tolls to fund it -- taxes, that is, and, on the whole, we've kept a good balance across the days, at least far better than most democracies, which are inherently inclined towards general public benefit over narrow private interest. Frankly, it's amazing that we've managed to sustain the pull of individual  interest over the long line of democratic demands for nationalization and socialization of just about everything. That's the story of America.

Anyway, the concept of the public space was affirmed in law in Munn v Illinois (94 U.S. 113) back in 1877, when the Supreme Court affirmed that the "public interest" was the larger than the private if the former was affected. If the Guvmnt wants it it gets it, limited only by that great unspoken of the great Bill of Rights protections, the Fifth amendment's "takings clause" that demands that what the public takes the public must pay. (Let's just say that Stalin didn't abide.) Generally, Americans do not look upon socialization as inherently good, but they accept it for certain things. With the "if" settled, the question is how and why. We look to socialized systems in such things as national defense and enforcement of the law. It gets beyond us when we move into economics, thus the enduring historical fights over business regulation, welfare, and so on, either for more or less of it (the progressives called it "nationalization"). The defining elements to these equations are cost and benefit. Generally speaking, while we regulate the work place, we understand that over-regulation stifles it, and while we provide economic support to certain individuals, we understand its costs and its limits, especially upon the whole.

Americans will often trade liberty if they believe the returns are good. We do it all the time. In this case, our Ohio friend wants to exchange it for the price of deer assaults on motor vehicles. That make sense? I think not. But what about that road he's driving on? Should it be paid by all? Think about it. One of the greatest socialized systems is transportation. My question is, does it make sense for us all to pay for roads we don't all use? The natural argument -- and just this was used by early automobile promoters -- is that we all benefit from public roads. Funny, though, how we accept this premise with roads and not when it comes to stocking the grocery shelves. Why not socialize food production and distribution? Because it sucks, that's why. And because attempts to do it have killed millions of people (for some of my Stalin rants start here).

The assumption that all public roads should be publicly funded ought not be self-evident. Costs and benefits of a system are not necessarily equally shared, so we mustn't assume, from custom or convenience, that it must be so. For a similar example, see this landmark study that proves that no-fault and compulsory insurance laws cause road deaths:

The Effect of Automobile Insurance and Accident Liability Laws in Traffic Fatalities
(Abstract) When states adopt compulsory automobile insurance regulations and no-fault liability laws, some drivers may become a little more lax or relaxed. They may drive slightly faster or a little less cautiously, aware that the financial and legal consequences of an accident are reduced. They may be somewhat less likely to use seat belts and more likely to buy an old car without air bags, or to drink and drive, or simply to drive more often and further. As a result, the number of traffic fatalities increases, according to a study by Alma Cohen and Rajeev Dehejia. In The Effect of Automobile Insurance and Accident Liability Laws on Traffic Fatalities (NBER Working Paper No. 9602), they find that no-fault limits on driver liability in an accident, by diminishing the possibility of being sued, increase fatalities by about 10 percent.

The premise is so beautifully logical you wouldn't have thought it: with the financial risk carried by a third party individuals more readily expose themselves to that risk, and, those exposed to such consequence more carefully avoid it.* So, I ask you to think this one over again: are there consequences to socialized roads, and are there benefits to a private system?

  A great experiment on this is going on in Texas, and the reactions to it are sadly predictable:

Double-Wide Divide: Critics say Perry's turnpike plans will take a terrible toll on Texans
Ever wanted to own a toll road? How about one with 85 mile-per-hour speed limits alongside a congested interstate -- one where you had exclusive rights to sell food, gas and lodging? You can buy all that and more if you've got a few billion dollars and can convince the Texas Transportation Commission to let you build the Trans-Texas Corridor.

No mention there of those same advantages being carried by the state and funded by the public. Despite the derision, this plan will go forward, and it is an act of bravery on the part of Texas Governor Perry. He's been called corrupt (in this article, too) and mean and unfair and all the rest. But he's gonna do it, and it's gonna rock all Americans -- and shake them into a new way of thinking.

What will eventually result will be a series of public-private ventures on major highways that will have the effect of stimulating market forces to better a system that has been immune to them at fantastic expense to the people as a whole. It will help resolve traffic congestion, and it will be a key element to creating new (and presently lost) efficiencies and growth in road transportation. Get ready for it.

(More on this soon. For previous Bromley thoughts on toll roads start here)

* I won't go too far into this for it's a whole nuther discussion, but insurance is socialization within a specific system: i.e., spreading the burden of individual risk across a system. Unfortunately, the cost of that limited system is partly carried by society at large, for the behavior incentives affect others outside the system equally. Think it this way: health insurance raises the cost of health care for those who do not have health insurance.
 

Here for previous entry
More entries: see index