Who Should Pay for Highways

A form of neglected argument exists which could be used to successfully put an end to many social controversies. It is argument by analogy. This form of argument can also be used to display the unfairness of policies and the inconsistency of social and economic policies.

Consider, for instance, the following truths.

Telephone companies provide a product and a service to people. This service requires an infrastructure which the companies themselves must build and maintain.

The railroads also provide a service that requires an infrastructure, and the railroad companies themselves must build and maintain it.

Cable and satellite television both require infrastructures, and the companies providing these services must build and maintain their infrastructures.

So, in general, most services that require infrastructures, and the companies that provide these services are also responsible for providing and maintaining their infrastructures.

There is one major exception; however, and except for citing historical accident, there is no reason for its being an exception. That one exception is the motor vehicle transportation service. This industry provides products and services that require an extensive infrastructure; yet they are not responsible for either building nor maintaining it. Why should that be?

Here we have an entire industry that is not just subsidized by the public but entirely dependent upon the public’s provision and maintenance of the infrastructure without which this industry could not exist.

When one thinks about it, this is very strange, completely illogical, and an immense burden of the public. Yet no one questions it. Do our heads go empty when it comes to cars?