Libertarianism k – nudi seniors 1nc

Download 344.59 Kb.
Size344.59 Kb.
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8

Libertarianism K – NUDI Seniors


1NC Shell

Transportation Investment destroy free market principles and basic property rights- this results in massive inefficiencies

Carson 10 (Kevin A. Carson, senior fellow and holder of the Karl Hess Chair in Social Theory at the Center for a Stateless Society, this article won the 2011 Beth A. Hoffman Memorial Prize for Economic Writing, November 2010, “The Distorting Effects of Transportation Subsidies”, Foundation for Economic Education,]
It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the dominant business model in the American economy, and the size of the prevailing corporate business unit, are direct results of such policies. A subsidy to any factor of production amounts to a subsidy of those firms whose business models rely most heavily on that factor, at the expense of those who depend on it the least. Subsidies to transportation, by keeping the cost of distribution artificially low, tend to lengthen supply and distribution chains. They make large corporations operating over wide market areas artificially competitive against smaller firms producing for local markets—not to mention big-box retailers with their warehouses-on-wheels distribution model. Some consequentialists treat this as a justification for transportation subsidies: Subsidies are good because they make possible mass-production industry and large-scale distribution, which are (it is claimed) inherently more efficient (because of those magically unlimited “economies of scale,” of course).Tibor Machan argued just the opposite in the February 1999 Freeman:Some people will say that stringent protection of rights [against eminent domain] would lead to small airports, at best, and many constraints on construction. Of course—but what’s so wrong with that? Perhaps the worst thing about modern industrial life has been the power of political authorities to grant special privileges to some enterprises to violate the rights of third parties whose permission would be too expensive to obtain. The need to obtain that permission would indeed seriously impede what most environmentalists see as rampant—indeed reckless—industrialization.The system of private property rights . . . is the greatest moderator of human aspirations. . . . In short, people may reach goals they aren’t able to reach with their own resources only by convincing others, through arguments and fair exchanges, to cooperate. In any case, the “efficiencies” resulting from subsidized centralization are entirely spurious. If the efficiencies of large-scale production were sufficient to compensate for increased distribution costs, it would not be necessary to shift a major portion of the latter to taxpayers to make the former profitable. If an economic activity is only profitable when a portion of the cost side of the ledger is concealed, and will not be undertaken when all costs are fully internalized by an economic actor, then it’s not really efficient. And when total distribution costs (including those currently shifted to the taxpayer) exceed mass-production industry’s ostensible savings in unit cost of production, the “efficiencies” of large-scale production are illusory.

Government coercion never results in a better society –rejecting the plan is necessary to prevent tyranny

Browne 95 (Harry, Former Libertarian Party candidate for President and Director of Public Policy for the, Why Government Doesn't Work,)

Social reformers and crime-busters try to beg off responsibility for the¶ destruction by saying these invasions are the price we pay to create a better¶ world, a better nation, or a better community. After all, “you can’t make an¶ omelet without breaking a few eggs.”¶ But, somehow it’s always someone else’s eggs that get broken —¶ never theirs.¶ And the omelet never materializesonly cracked shells and¶ broken lives.¶ Their better world never materializes because it depends upon coercion to¶ succeed. And coercion never improves society. So government is always¶ promising to do something that’s impossible — such as coercing people to stop¶ taking drugs or abandon their prejudices.¶ When the coercion doesn’t work, the politicians must impose harsher and¶ harsher measures in order to show they’re “serious” about the problem and,¶ inevitably, we come to the abuses we saw in the preceding chapter — such as¶ property seizures and “no-knock” invasions of your home. Some of these things — such as getting children to snitch on their parents or¶ ordering people into reeducation programs — already are happening in America.¶ The others have been proposed and are being considered seriously. History has¶ shown that each was an important step in the evolution of the world’s worst¶ tyrannies. We move step by step further along the road to oppression because¶ each step seems like such a small one. And because we’re told that¶ each step will give us something alluring in returnless crime,¶ cheaper health care, safety from terrorists, an end to discrimination¶ — even if none of the previous steps delivered on its promise. And¶ because the people who promote these steps are well-meaning¶ reformers who would use force only to build a better world.

The alternative is to embrace the free market as the only solution to effective transportation infrastructure

Browne 95 (Harry, Former Libertarian Party candidate for President and Director of Public Policy for the, Why Government Doesn't Work,)

But if each person has his own standards, how can the needs and wants of¶ different people all be served?¶ The marketplace takes care of that automatically.¶ Most companies offer products that are a little different from those of their¶ competitors — in order to catch the consumers who prefer those differences.¶ That’s why there are so many different car models to choose from. That’s why¶ there are so many different computers and computer programs. That’s why there¶ are so many different kinds of salad dressing in the supermarket, and so many¶ different dresses in the department store.¶ In the marketplace, you get to weigh safety, quality, service, features, and¶ price by your standards — and pick the product that’s closest to what you want.¶ And your choices don’t keep anyone else from choosing what he wants.¶ Everyone can make his own choice without preventing others from getting what¶ they want.¶ And the opportunity to choose isn’t limited to products. It applies as well to¶ the services you require — to such things as safety information, guaranteed¶ repair service, special help in making a selection, instruction in how to operate a¶ product, a cheaper alternative, shopping without leaving your home, or almost¶ anything else. If a sufficient number of people want it, someone will see that¶ desire as an opportunity to profit, and will make the service available.¶ It isn’t necessary to muster a majority to make something available — as it is¶ in political matters. Many a company prospers by serving only 1% of its market¶ — because it provides the features the 1% want. For example, there are hundreds¶ of magazines, each with a devoted readership. There are thousands of furniture¶ manufacturers, each producing the kinds of chairs that some people want. There¶ are millions of businesses, each offering something a little different that some¶ people want. And even when an industry, such as breakfast cereal, is dominated¶ by a few giant companies, each competes by offering dozens of choices.

Download 344.59 Kb.

Share with your friends:
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8

The database is protected by copyright © 2022
send message

    Main page