Eisenhower's Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956

[No Free Beer]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal-Aid_Highway_Act_of_1956

This is what separates me from libertarianism. I think this Act helped the United States tremendously. This act changed the way America did business. What would be the libertarian viewpoint of this act? How would you have embarked on this mission, from a libertarian's view point?

Comment below.

- NFB

 

[Canderson]

I think thats perfectly ok under the interstate commerce clause. Just because RP and a lot of people talk about how abused it is, doesn't mean the interstate commerce clause doesnt have any role. The problem I can see arising with projects this large could be eminent domain getting out of control.

 

[JamesButabi]

I guess the question is, would the idea have been presented and would people have voluntarily contributed to such a project absent monopolistic central planning? I personally think achievement and grand ideas are more numerous and abundant absent of coercion. Some form of this would probably have existed nonetheless. Whether it would have been better or not is unknown. It was an idea that needed to occur due to the explosion of transportation and manufacturing.

 

[TheState]

Of course, in a perfect world, we'd want private ownership and construction of roads, but under our current constitution, I find the interstate ok.

However, I think this act also showed some of the folly of central planning. They built this huge interstate system, which we are finding out now that we can't afford to maintain. It makes you question whether they overbuilt in the first place.

I think it helps the libertarian position of private roads one day. If the construction of roads is driven by demand and the market, it would help prioritize construction and keep from overbuilding.

 

[Dr.3D]

Now that all of those roads have been built, I see no reason to keep that Act active.

 

[Rocket_pilot]

The answer lies in the private highway systems under development all over this country at the moment. Where I live there is a private highway which is a toll road. The rest of the highways in my area are federal and state roads. Guess which highway is in better shape? You guessed it, the private toll road. That, and they offer roadside assistance. Sure, you pay more in the short term for using a toll road, but it's still cheaper and more efficient in the long term when comparing it to the taxes I pay to support a crumbling federal highway.

 

[acptulsa]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal-Aid_Highway_Act_of_1956

This is what separates me from libertarianism. I think this Act helped the United States tremendously. This act changed the way America did business. What would be the libertarian viewpoint of this act? How would you have embarked on this mission, from a libertarian's view point?

Comment below.

- NFB

I've raised this one many a time. I believe one of my first posts here was a critcism of this turkey.

The U.S. highway system--the ones with all white shields--was built without a federal fuel tax, and it managed to connect all of the states and provide a structure of through routes. It was just a case of the states working together for the common strength of the nation. And here's what didn't happen back then:

Federal highway fuel taxes create federal highway funds. Everyone who drives pays them, and whether or not a state gets them back depends. Depends on what? Well, back in the 'seventies, it depended on whether or not a state passed the 55 mph speed limit. You know, the speed limit that was appropriate enough for Connecticut and Maryland, but had people in places like West Texas, Nevada and Eastern Utah falling asleep at the wheel. It depends on things like states lowering their BAC standard for drunk driving to .08, throwing a certain percentage of their populaton in jail for it, and setting up police roadblocks whether they actually had a problem with widespread death and destruction from drunk driving or not. And yes, the federal government has actually tied whether or not a state gets federal highway funds to things that have nothing to do with cars, trucks and driving.

Just another Pandora's Box that needs to be slammed back shut and padlocked.

 

[torchbearer]

i always thought of the interstate highway system as a function of national defense. either the states would have to each make their links seperate or a central agency could plan it. to the benefit/cost of each route is debatable.
but having a fast national transit system could help with troop mobilization.

 

[Dr.3D]

i always thought of the interstate highway system as a function of national defense. either the states would have to each make their links seperate or a central agency could plan it. to the benefit/cost of each route is debatable.
but having a fast national transit system could help with troop mobilization.

Yes, but now that it's all been built, I see no reason for federal involvement.

 

[torchbearer]

Yes, but now that it's all been built, I see no reason for federal involvement.

true. states could maintain their own stretch of highway.

 

[acptulsa]

i always thought of the interstate highway system as a function of national defense. either the states would have to each make their links seperate or a central agency could plan it. to the benefit/cost of each route is debatable.
but having a fast national transit system could help with troop mobilization.

That is the way it was sold to the public. Which is pretty funny, considering that we were short on both gasoline (not oil, but we had only so much refining capacity) and rubber during WWII, so we relied on the railroads to keep the war machinery functioning--and it worked splendidly.

 

[No Free Beer]

Keep going guys, I find this incredibly interesting...

 

[torchbearer]

That is the way it was sold to the public. Which is pretty funny, considering that we were short on both gasoline (not oil, but we had only so much refining capacity) and rubber during WWII, so we relied on the railroads to keep the war machinery functioning--and it worked splendidly.

does our rail system still connect our bases?
the local base here that had rail access was closed under clinton.

 

[acptulsa]

does our rail system still connect our bases?
the local base here that had rail access was closed under clinton.

Hell of a good question, isn't it? Considering the cozy relationship that has existed between the oil industry and the defense department since Eisenhower's time, I'd say that railroads are just too fuel efficient to suit them.

 

[Steve Teters]

The main problem with the act is that it was unconstitutional, Jefferson and Madison both felt that a system of interstate roads and canals were necessary for the growth of our country, and both said it was possible provided the states amended the Constitution to accomplish it. If the Framers doubted the constitutionality of this type of Act, then it probably was not constitutional.

 

[ZanZibar]

but having a fast national transit system could help with troop mobilization.

So could an authoritarian police state. Efficiency is never a good reason for government to do anything.

I think thats perfectly ok under the interstate commerce clause.

I would say not. But perhaps under the "postal road" clause?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal-Aid_Highway_Act_of_1956

This is what separates me from libertarianism. I think this Act helped the United States tremendously. This act changed the way America did business. What would be the libertarian viewpoint of this act? How would you have embarked on this mission, from a libertarian's view point?

Libertarianism and Constitutionalism are not the same thing. Libertarianism is for smaller limited government with maximum free markets across the board. Constitutionalism is adherence to the document, which of course means that we get things like the Post Office which are indeed Constitutional even if they are big-government.

 

[Voluntary Man]

...The problem I can see arising with projects this large could be eminent domain getting out of control.

yeah, basically, if the property owners don't have a problem with it, then i don't have that much of a problem with it -- except that the government (federal and state) already own and control sooo much property.

 

[sailingaway]

Why is this in this subforum?

Eisenhower justified this as necessary in the event of domestic war, for troop movements. Look it up. People respected the Constitution back then.

But as Ron Paul says, 'No one wants a revolution over highways.'

 

[No Free Beer]

Please go on Sailing...

 

[sailingaway]

I think this belongs in a different forum, actually. It being here implies that Ron has some platform on his campaign to take out the federal highway system, which is hardly the case.