America at war - Waterways: A priority

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review ^ | Tuesday, June 18, 2002 | editorial

[Willie Green]

The government's chief obligations are safeguarding the citizenry and providing the infrastructure through which Americans may seek economic reward.

The nation's system of ports and waterways fits snugly into that paradigm. They are, in fact, far more efficient than highways and are essential to the economy. Need we remind that the economy is essential to generating the resources needed to defend the nation?

[Willie Green]

Even the Tribune-Review, with its blatant libertarian bias on economic issues, recognizes the validity of government involvement in the development and maintenance of our vital transportation infrastructure.

[TomGuy]

A good example of waterway vunerability is the recent I-40 bridge collapse in Oklahoma.

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

If these vital resources were in private hands, there would be no funding shortfalls.

[discostu]

They are, in fact, far more efficient than highways and are essential

Suuuure they are. I'll give you $100 dollars if you can find a way to get to Tucson via water. maybe in water country they're more efficient (though given the speed cargo bots travel at I'm having a hard time buying into that) but there's vast tracks of land in America that can't be gotten to by water.

[discostu]

Of course notice the bad part of that is that I-40, one of the most important east-west links, has been shut down. Waterways are important, no doubt about it, but they aren't the heigth of American transport.

[StriperSniper]

The Port of New York/Newark complex is dredging right now to accomidate larger boats. At the same time the locals are compaining about the loss of good jobs in the area, they are upset that there is blasting that has to be done. Last fall after the attacks the blasting was suspended for a while because of frayed nerves, O.K. But what I never understood was how it bothered people on land. We used to have to wait in the boat for them to set off the charge before we could pass to return to the marina. We were about 100 yards away and all we heard was a muffled 'wooomp', then we would proceed over the blast bubbles. It's amazing the silenceing factor of 50 feet of water. ;-)

[Willie Green]

If these vital resources were in private hands, there would be no funding shortfalls.

In a free society, it is vital that the citizenry be enabled to move about freely and peacefully to engage in commerce as well as their private affairs. To this end, it is also vital that government exert its authority over those who would desire monopolistic control over such transportation routes for their own personal gain.

[babyface00]

"To this end, it is also vital that government exert its authority over those who would desire monopolistic control over such transportation routes for their own personal gain"

Yes, its much better that a bumbling bureaucracy mismanage our vital transportation routes rather than that someone make a profit managing them efficiently. Profit is evil.

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

To this end, it is also vital that government exert its authority over those who would desire monopolistic control over such transportation routes for their own personal gain.

You aren't actually trying to equate free-market capitalism with monopolistic practices are you? You know perfectly well that one is the antithesis of the other.

[Willie Green]

You aren't actually trying to equate free-market capitalism with monopolistic practices are you? You know perfectly well that one is the antithesis of the other.

That's complete utter nonsense, especially considering the size of the market.

We can stick with river transportation as the example. On the one hand, river and barge transport are the most economic means of hauling bulk cargo such as sand, gravel, coal, grains, etc. etc. etc. Yet on a local level, there is no economic alternative to passage through a lock & dam other than the extremely inefficient transfer of cargo to land transportation, then back to another barge on the other side of the lock/dam. Thus, the lock/dam constitutes a natural, local monopoly on river travel.

It is in the public interest that such a natural monopoly be operated at MINIMUM cost to those using the facility for passage, NOT at the MAXIMUM that the traffic will bear for the enrichment of an individual.

[Willie Green]

Profit is evil.

When it is an impediment to the citizens' right to move about freely, yes it is.

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

The fact is that there are plenty of ways that people can transport goods and there should be a competitive market amonst all of them. None should be subsidized over the others.

[Willie Green]

In a free society, public right-of-way trumps private property rights.

Get used to it.

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

See, I don't agree that in a free society public right-of-way trumps property rights (or, necessarily, vice versa). And I definitely don't agree with the second part of the opening sentence of the article:

The government's chief obligations are safeguarding the citizenry and providing the infrastructure through which Americans may seek economic reward.

[discostu]

WHAT?! Have you lost your mind?! In a free sociey NOTHING trumps rights EVER under any circumstances. It's rights that make a society free. And the next time they want to put an off ramp in your backyard you should remember that.

[Willie Green]

And I definitely don't agree with the second part of the opening sentence of the article:

Well, you'd also be extremely hard-pressed to cite any examples to support your extremist perspective.
Like it or not, government provides vital infrastructure, including that which facilitates transportation.
Government even provides institutions for those who are emotionally incapable of coping with that concept.
My advice: you should learn to adapt to reality.

[Willie Green]

"A right of property in moveable things is admitted before the establishment of government. A separate property in lands, not till after that establishment. The right to moveables is acknowledged by all the hordes of Indians surrounding us. Yet by no one of them has a separate property in lands been yielded to individuals. He who plants a field keeps possession till he has gathered the produce, after which one has as good a right as another to occupy it. Government must be established and laws provided, before lands can be separately appropriated, and their owner protected in his possession. Till then, the property is in the body of the nation, and they, or their chief as trustee, must grant them to individuals, and determine the conditions of the grant."

--Thomas Jefferson: Batture at New Orleans, 1812. ME 18:45

[discostu]

Great, thanks for proving my point. You should actually read what you post.

[babyface00]

Gosh, I missed all the fun awhile back.

I think there's a distinction here between who owns the river, for example, and who manages the river. While I think you can make a good historical and precedential argument that it is in the best interest of society that "the government" owns the river, I don't think you can extend that to say the government is the best, or most appropriate manager of the river.

I should have been more clear earlier. I'm not arguing that we sell the river to the private sector (although in some cases, that may be appropriate), but I am saying that perhaps development and management are best handled by the private sector. Profit is the best incentive for efficiency, and everyone benefits. There's absolutely no incentive for the government to manage efficiently or effectively.

Although, the more I think about it, why does the government have to be involved at all? Couldn't all interested parties get together and fund infrastructure improvements via dedicated corporations - with perhaps state government as partial shareholder/partner in some cases where necessary?

[Willie Green]

I did. Did you?

Land ownership is not a natural right.
It is actually a privilege granted by sovereign government.
Sovereign government has the right of eminent domain to revoke
such privileges, following the due process of law and just compensation.
Get used to it.