Every so often you come across a story that, through no intention of the author, perfectly encapsulates the libertarian argument. Today that story comes from Peter King of Sports Illustrated, who expressed his frustration that the federal government did a poor job helping him get to the airport:
On Wednesday, I had a 6:03 a.m. flight from Providence to Detroit; Northwest to Detroit cheaper from Providence than Boston, or at least it was for this flight. I left Boston at 4:05 a.m. for the 53-mile drive to the airport in Providence. Not being all that familiar with the drive, I did what anyone would do — followed the signs on the highway for T.F. Green Airport, figuring it would be the shortest route.
From I-95 north of Providence, I got on I-295 south. And drove. And drove … and got back onto I-95 south of Providence for the final couple of miles to the airport. I couldn’t believe it — 65 miles. Seemed way too long. Got to the airport at 5:18, and if you’ve flown from Providence, you know it has the longest rush-hour security lines on the East Coast.
I made the flight, but I went on Mapquest later in the day and looked at the route. Mapquest would have had me go straight down I-95 all the way. So I’m an idiot for not looking at a map before I left home. I just figured if a sign on an interstate highway tells me to take I-295 to get to the airport, it wouldn’t be taking me 12 miles out of my way to get there.
Let’s say I’m not the only idiot out here who trusts the highway signs north of Providence. There have to be a few people every day who actually read the signs and heed them on the interstate highway system. Let’s say there are 200 a day who do what the United States Department of Transportation is telling them — get off this road, take the freeway circling the town, and drive 14 miles further to get to your destination. Wouldn’t the federal government, trying to get us to drive less and emit fewer pollutants into the air, be interested in knowing that scores of cars in Rhode Island are driving more miles than they need to? Let’s say it’s 200; it might be 50, it might be 500. But if 200 cars follow the route the highway planners tell them to follow, then cars are driving 2,400 more miles per day than they have to.
So, to recap, King only went on Mapquest after following the fed’s misleading road signs. I don’t know about you, but I tend to research directions before making a trip. Especially since the market provides that service free of charge via Mapquest and Google. But why do your own work when you can just rely on the government to tell you what to do? Honestly, King’s little misadventure may be one of the best metaphorical arguments against state intervention ever.
King’s longtime critics at the blog Kissing Suzy Kolber had a field day with this story. I’d like to highlight their response to King’s “200 people a day” hypothetical, because it doubles as a nice summary of the problem with most mainstream economics: “Let’s just invent an arbitrary statistical model that means nothing, so that I can justify my own idiocy.” Beautiful.
{ 14 comments }
I love it!
I just wish more people out there in the readership of Sports Illustrated had the critical thinking skills to see how this relates to the big picture…
I can’t believe KSK got linked on Mises. For more relevant crossover, you guys should check out the Nasty Fetish Tournament they hosted in March. Quantitative Easing made it to the Sweet Sixteen before being crushed by Necrobestiality.
I make that drive to TF Green several times a year. I always saw those ridiculous signs and I always wondered what kind of idiot would drive all the way around Providence just to get right back on I-95. Now I know.
Oh can I relate. Just last weekend I made a trip to Chicago. A detour crossing from Iowa to Illinois on I-80 set the trip off by an hour and had us well south below where we wanted to be.
On top of this was another nice detour in Chicago that, as we were heading downtown, directed us toward the outside of Chicago on the interstate!
My college study was communication, so I’ve long been interested in how the government communicates directions on its roads and have determined it is horrible at communicating.
I liken it to a book. What author (or road developer) would write a book in such a way as to confuse and mislead its reader? Not any author that wants to be successful, I’d say. Sure, people can say, “Well, that’s what maps are for, whether print or electronic,” and I would say, “What author depends on Cliff’s Notes to make his work easy to access and to encourage repeated use?” No author would!
So why do the “authors” of our roads so utterly fail at directing its readers through understandable signs (think of tables of contents, chapter titles, subheads, page numbers, etc.)? Especially with all of the digital technology today?
But, as S.M. Oliva points out, the market is once again brilliant here with online map services and constantly refined technology (e.g., GPS).
One of the most important life lessons I have learned is never to underestimate the power of self-denial. Also, in the case of not actually having an excuse, just get defensive and passive aggressive, and everybody will forget what you were ever saying. Works like a charm. Oh, wait…
His personal responsibility getting lazy is no excuse.
What about the times that Google Maps or MapQuest had mislead? I’ve got stories of following these guides and getting inaccurate directions, but no one is paying me to argue a particular position, so I do not necessarily have an axe to grind. I would like to say, however, we tend to find what we are looking for to the exclusion of other ideas.
to june:
mapquest/google are free. taxes are not elective. comparison invalid.
The argument mises, probably for shortness, that traffic density varies. A road through town can be jammed, causing the cars to pollute more although driving less, and causing inconvenience for the people living in the town.
In a real free economy, this would be solved by the town/owner of road charging more money for driving through(since he has to pay more compensation to people neighboring the road) and thereby reducing the amount of traffic.
The state has to solve the problem of the colliding interest of the inhabitants and the travelers by fooling from time to time one or the other.
One of the difficulties that Austrian-schoolers have is that Anarcho-Capitalism is a clumsy title. Why not also call yourselves Free Anarchists? The Free part could be both Free Enterprise, and Free Market. This will distinguish you from the other kind of anarchists, who tend to live in communes. (Sorry to put this here, but there’s no ideal spot for it.)
“Free Anarchists” – Hey, that’s pretty good, Nuke! I’ll have to try that out.
“Free Anarchists” – Hey, that’s pretty good, Nuke! I’ll have to try that out.
“Free Anarchists” – Hey, that’s pretty good, Nuke! I’ll have to try that out.
argh! multiple submissions.
Comments on this entry are closed.