> On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 9:45 PM, Michael Smith <mjs at smithbowen.net> wrote:
>
> > On this principle, we should subsidize caviar. Hey, poor folks can't afford
> > it!
>
> I'm not sure I see the parallel, but sure, why not? I have nothing
> against fine foods - in fact, I like them decidedly better than bombs
> and prisons. What do you have against them?
I'm sure you're kidding, but I'll pretend you're serious.
There are lots of things where a case can be made for a subsidy (or socializing cost, which amounts to the same thing). Health care, housing, basic foodstuffs, education. Transit! Sidewalks!
But driving? Where's the case for making that free to the consumer? It actually does cost the society quite a lot, you know, in many ways -- not least of them being the inordinate amount of valuable space it consumes, when you try to do it in a crowded city. The noise, the air pollution, the daily slaughter, the thuggish bullying and menacing of people on foot, the butt-ugliness, regimentation and general dis-amenity of the car-dominated street.
Actually, subsidizing caviar is a rather poor analogy for subsidizing driving. Eating caviar, after all, is harmless (except to the poor sturgeon). But driving is noxious. Subsidizing driving is more like paying people to defecate on your doorstep.