> If these works can be funded and maintained by user fees, why are they the responsibility of government at all?
That is one of my constant themes: that if a government project can be financed by user fees, it need not be a government project; and if it cannot, then it is unpopular and unworthy. Of course everyone will quibble and find their own list of exceptions, but the theme holds.
The general argument is that even though user fees can fund and maintain those projects, those fees are not sufficient to turn a profit. That seem to have been Smith's view as well. After publishing this piece I was told about a relevant paper from Dan Klein--a GMU professor and Smithian expert--looking at the private turnpike system in 19th century America. Here's a link to that research if interested: https://eh.net/encyclopedia/turnpikes-and-toll-roads-in-nineteenth-century-america/
I know it was Smith's argument. It is still wrong, and frankly, I consider researching the details to be pointless and missing the big picture.
If people aren't willing to pay enough for roads or harbors or anything else, then they have better uses for their money, the roads or harbors in question are not worth building or maintaining, and when government forces them to be built and maintained against the wisdom of the markets, it is wasting that money. Opportunity cost is a real thing.
It really is that simple. If people don't want to pay for it, government coercion is counter-productive.
> If these works can be funded and maintained by user fees, why are they the responsibility of government at all?
That is one of my constant themes: that if a government project can be financed by user fees, it need not be a government project; and if it cannot, then it is unpopular and unworthy. Of course everyone will quibble and find their own list of exceptions, but the theme holds.
The general argument is that even though user fees can fund and maintain those projects, those fees are not sufficient to turn a profit. That seem to have been Smith's view as well. After publishing this piece I was told about a relevant paper from Dan Klein--a GMU professor and Smithian expert--looking at the private turnpike system in 19th century America. Here's a link to that research if interested: https://eh.net/encyclopedia/turnpikes-and-toll-roads-in-nineteenth-century-america/
I know it was Smith's argument. It is still wrong, and frankly, I consider researching the details to be pointless and missing the big picture.
If people aren't willing to pay enough for roads or harbors or anything else, then they have better uses for their money, the roads or harbors in question are not worth building or maintaining, and when government forces them to be built and maintained against the wisdom of the markets, it is wasting that money. Opportunity cost is a real thing.
It really is that simple. If people don't want to pay for it, government coercion is counter-productive.