by Jose Apr 11, 2006 at 06:20 PM


What if I never go there, or order stuff from there? Why should I pay?

I am of course being contrarian (though the questions have merit). The
libertarian view would also eliminate libraries and the space program.
It is fatally flawed when applied as a panacea.

You are taking two completely disparate views and conflating them,
making arguments for one from the other. ON the one hand, you don't
like airplane noise (but don't seem to mind leafblower noise). On the
other hand you don't like GA "subsidies" but don't mind automotive
subsidies. This leads to arguments that are inconsistant, and an excuse
for inconsistancy that does not wash.




I agree that libertarianism taken to an extreme would result in no roads,
libraries, health care, etc. I don't want to live in a society that is
like the wild west, nor would most others I think.

Leafblower noise?? That is apples and oranges. You can knock on your
neighbor's door, and you have common interests with your neighbors.
Aircraft noise is an externality that has no cost to the aviator. The
victims cannot even identify the fliers, and if they do, no one is
responsible. A classic catch-22: the FAA says the airport is
responsible, the airport says the FAA is responsible, and most of the
fliers simply say "F- You: Its my right to make noise" or silly variants
like the airport was there first. The cost of noise pollution is borne
100% by those on the ground, and they have little to no political recourse
(in most places). As I said before, there are laws on the books in most
communities that target noise pollution: Only plane noise is exempt.


There are no automotive subsidies at the federal level. Federal gasoline
taxes exceed subsidies provided for road projects. So there are in fact
negative subsidies. See the BTS study I posted for info.

You might find the Reason Foundation study interesting, and you'll see its
not that harsh on nonbusiness GA (see pp. 31- from below link). They
propose keeping the current GA avgas tax as the preferred funding method,
even though correctly stating that it generates only 3% of Trust Fund $$.
(They also debunk some absurd Boyerisms, but then come down largely on his
side for funding of FSS, for e.g.).

http://www.reason.org/ps332.pdf