How Should We Treat Our
Neighbor ? Episode 6 : Listener comments and questions, part B
This episode continues my responses to the insightful comments and questions I received from listener Bob of Connecticut.
Before answering any specific question, I would like to remind listeners that libertarians believe that the sole purpose of government is to protect individual rights. Remember this when considering each of Bob’s questions below. After you hear his question, ask yourself – Would the proposed government activity protect individual rights ? If you conclude that the activity does not protect individual rights then it is not a legitimate function of government. I will not repeat this point for each question, but will make additional comments.
We begin with this question –
Businesses generally have the freedom to innovate and offer new products or services, but those may be trivial or wasteful, just catering to materialistic consumers. Shouldn’t the government provide incentives to encourage businesses to produce things that meet the real and important needs of society ?
The so-called “materialistic consumers” are spending their own wealth to purchase products or services that they judge to be valuable. How can a government bureaucrat better judge what products or services those consumers should be buying ? And how could it be moral for government bureaucrats to substitute their judgement for that of the consumer ?
Regarding “the real and important needs of society” – “Society” is an abstract concept. “Society” does not have needs. In the case of the USA, “society” refers to approximately 340 million people, each of which has their own needs and values. How do you know that government bureaucrats are so smart that they can acquire knowledge of the needs of so many people ? How do you know that most citizens are unable to determine their own “real and important needs” ? What if we allow the bureaucrats to make such decisions and they make significant errors ? How will the bureaucrats provide restitution to those who are injured by the bureaucrat’s harmful choices ?
A free market allows individual producers to offer products and services to any willing purchaser. If they attract many consumers, their business thrives. If they attract few or no consumers, their business fails and the producer can try again by offering a different product or service. Free markets allow producers and consumers to interact consensually. For government to offer “incentives” to businesses, it has to use coercion in the form of taxation to obtain the money it will be handing out to the winning businesses it has chosen. The historical record shows that government has a very poor record when choosing businesses to subsidize. And, the choice to benefit one business with subsidies will also injure other competing businesses that do not receive subsidies.
Here is a relevant quote from Dr. Ron Paul, a former U.S. Congressman –
We have a lot of goodness in this country. And we
should promote it, but never through the barrel of a gun. We should do it by
setting good standards, motivating people and have them want to emulate us. But
you can't enforce our goodness […] with an armed force. It doesn't work.
[ Note 1 ]
Next question –
In some cases, it seems government must be involved to innovate. For example - the Hoover Dam, the Panama Canal or space travel. Do libertarians agree that government should fulfill such a role ?
Infrastructure projects like dams or canals are either economically profitable or they are not. If they are, then private firms can raise the capital needed to execute the project and the investors will earn a return based on the profit generated.
If the proposed project is not profitable, then using the coercive power of government to force taxpayers to fund the project is simply a way to make those taxpayers bear the economic losses. When politicians extract wealth from taxpayers for these sorts of projects, they point to the finished product and expect praise for building the dam or canal. Everyone can see the dam or canal and persuade themselves that it is a good thing. What people cannot see are the things that each taxpayer would have done, had they been allowed to retain their own wealth to use in ways that they chose for themselves. It’s not possible to measure the value of the lost opportunities suffered by the taxpayers.
In the 18th and 19th century, many infrastructure projects were funded privately. For example, the Patowmack Canal was built by the Patowmack Company as part of a project to make the Potomac River a feasible artery of commerce from the east coast to the Ohio Valley [ Note 2 ]. As another example, the Brooklyn Bridge was built by the New York and Brooklyn Bridge Company [ Note 3 ]. In modern times, the Millau Viaduct in France was built, operated and is maintained through toll revenue without any government subsidies. Upon completion in 2023, it was the tallest bridge in the world [ Note 4 ].
Let’s compare the government-funded California High Speed Rail project with the privately-funded Brightline rail project in Florida. The California HSR ultimately plans to operate rail service from Los Angeles to San Francisco, a distance of about 494 miles. Brightline currently operates rail service from Miami to Orlando, a distance of about 235 miles.
The California HSR project intends to begin service with a 171-mile segment from Bakersfield to Merced. Construction of this initial segment began in 2015 and is projected to be complete between 2031 and 2033 with a projected cost of 28 to 38 billion dollars [ Note 5 ]. Brightline began construction of its rail line in 2014. By 2018, they were able to begin revenue-generating service from Miami to West Palm Beach. Service all the way to Orlando began in 2023 after a delay due to the COVID pandemic. The cost of the 235-mile line was about 6 billion dollars in total [ Note 6 ].
From these summary statistics, we can see that an optimistic estimate of California’s HSR shows it will cost about 163.7 million dollars per mile, while Brightline’s railway cost about 25.5 million dollars per mile [ Note 7 ]. California’s HSR estimates that it will build about 10.7 miles per year, while Brightline actually built 26.1 miles per year [ Note 8 ]. California’s HSR cost per mile will be more than six times higher than Brightline’s while Brightline built the railway at a rate more than double what the HSR expects to achieve. Such are the differences between government-funded projects and privately-funded projects.
Regarding space travel – how do government expenditures on space travel benefit taxpayers in any way ? You may think that people derive a psychological benefit from watching rockets and astronauts in action, but that does not morally justify the coercion needed to take wealth away from those who produced it. Today, there are private companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin that are successfully pursuing space travel, showing that government is not needed.
From a libertarian point of view, there is no role for government in these types of projects. Only when they are undertaken by private enterprises will they be subject to the discipline of profit and loss. Generation of a profit proves that the consumers of the service value it higher than the cost to provide the service. When undertaken by government, there is no financial discipline and waste of taxpayer dollars is the ultimate result.
Here is a related quote from the late Dr. Milton Friedman, a Nobel-prize winning economist –
“The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate
interests. The great achievements of civilization have not come from government
bureaus. Einstein didn’t construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat.
Henry Ford didn’t revolutionize the automobile industry that way.”
[ Note 9 ]
Next question –
Is governmental support of the arts defensible ? Could classical music, ballet and opera survive without money from the government ?
No, governmental support of the arts is not defensible. If consumers do not willingly support classical music, ballet or opera, then why should taxpayers be forced to fund these things ? If these forms of entertainment don’t survive, what harm will befall the residents of the country ?
Today, no one is forced to fund competitions between gladiators, and no one willingly funds them, so such competitions do not exist. We, the taxpayers do not suffer due to the lack of such competitions.
Wealthy individuals are well-known for providing financial support to organizations that provide these sorts of entertainment. This form of support is consensually-based charity which is morally preferable to subsidies provided by government, as those subsidies are the result of coercive taxation.
The late Berton Braley, who was an American poet, said the following –
“I honestly believe that sound commercialism is the
best test of true value in art. People work hard for their money and if they
won’t part with it for your product the chances are that your product hasn’t
sufficient value. An artist or writer hasn’t any monopoly .... If the public
response to his artistry is lacking, he’d do well to spend more time analyzing
what’s the matter with his work, and less time figuring what’s the matter with
the public.”
[ Note 10 ]
In summary, these first three questions all relate to the functions that governments routinely perform today. Libertarians do not want the government to perform any of these functions. But it is hard for people to imagine a society where government is not involved in these aspects of our lives.
As an analogy, imagine a person coming to the USA from a socialist or communist country. He would find it hard to believe that the government does not control agriculture here. In his country, the government routinely dictated what, where and when to plant. He would insist that farmers in the USA would be unable to make such decisions for themselves without government command and control. However, just as farmers don’t need government to tell them what, where and when to plant, businessmen don’t need government to tell them what, where and when to build.
Government is a tool of coercion. Government is a big gun, pointed at the heads of taxpayers, forcing them to fund all sorts of things. With that in mind, we could translate these three listener questions into something like this –
If government does not extract money
from taxpayers for this function, then what will force people to –
·
attend to their “real
and important needs” ?,
·
or fund dams, canals or
space travel ?,
·
or fund classical music,
ballet or opera ?
The answer to all these questions is – no force is necessary to accomplish any of these things. Using force to achieve these things is not moral. It does not respect the freedom of the individual. We, the people, do not need central planners who force their visions on us.
To repeat the lesson of episode one – for libertarians, the proper function of government is to protect the rights of the individual. Nothing more. In all other circumstances, forego the use of force. Give up on the gun. Respect your neighbor’s rights. That is how we should treat our neighbor.
Next question –
Although personal responsibility and accountability are the ideal, it seems that some people will be incapable of providing for themselves, have no family to help them, and cannot find a private charity to support them. Won’t governmental support always be necessary for such people ?
Just to be clear, in this response I am talking about individuals who are physically and mentally competent adults. Libertarians understand that children need support until they reach adulthood. Also, some people are either physically or mentally disabled to the point that they cannot care for themselves. And old age may bring physical or mental disability that requires support from others. I will leave aside those special cases in the discussion below.
Historically, such support was provided by family, neighbors, private charity, fraternal organizations, and mutual aid or benevolent societies. After government intruded itself into this role, people are less inclined to provide support to their neighbors, or give to a charity, as they conclude that they are already forced to pay taxes to support government-run welfare programs. They are less inclined to join fraternal organizations or mutual aid societies as they assume that government will take care of them if they ever find themselves in need of such support. So, government involvement causes people to be less caring for their neighbors, and to be less responsible about insuring themselves against the risk of future calamity.
Private charities are more cost-effective than government welfare programs. Private charities like Feeding America or Americares each spends about 98 percent of its budget on program services [ Note 11 ]. Compare that with government-run welfare programs that spend about 70 percent of their budget on administrative expenses, so only about 30 percent of the money is actually paid out to welfare recipients. There is no incentive for the government to be more efficient as the money they spend and waste is other people’s money – that is, taxpayer’s money [ Note 12 ]. A private charity cannot afford to be wasteful, as people would be unwilling to make donations to support it.
Furthermore, government-run welfare programs create long-term dependency. Only seven percent of welfare recipients exit the system within two years, while 65 percent receive welfare payments for eight or more years [ Note 13 ]. For a politician who promotes welfare programs, such dependency is beneficial, as each recipient represents a person who is guaranteed to vote for that politician in the future to keep the welfare payouts going. A private charity cannot afford to continue supporting the same person for years or decades.
Also, government welfare programs only work for those people who can read and write, and are able to find their way to some government office to apply for the assistance, or apply via the Internet. But there seem to be some people who never receive government assistance. The government bureaucrats are not out on the streets trying to find and help those people. The bureaucrats simply wait in the office for the potential recipients to arrive.
Remember that government is only a tool of coercion. How will coercion be employed to help a person who abuses drugs or alcohol ? Government might force that person into some treatment program, but it will not be effective if the substance abuser does not sincerely want to end their abuse. Government might confine that person in prison, but once they are released, they will most likely resume their substance abuse.
Also, there are some people we call “mentally ill”. It’s not clear if there really is such a thing as mental illness [ Note 14 ]; it may just be that some people adopt an unusual strategy for survival, such as begging. Again, I don’t think government could force such a person to abandon that behavior, they must desire to do so.
It is unfair and immoral to use taxpayer dollars to fund such treatment programs and carceral lodging. The taxpayer is effectively punished for the failings of their neighbors. The only moral way to fund these programs is through private charity.
If the individual cannot, or does not overcome his self-destructive behavior, he will face unpleasant consequences. For these people, reality is the ultimate disciplinarian. That is very sad. Why can we not ask each individual to take his own life seriously and assume responsibility to stop behavior that is harmful to himself ? If an individual is not willing to treat his own life as something worth preserving, why does preservation of his life become a duty and burden to others ?
Here is an appropriate quote from the frontiersman, soldier and politician, the late Davy Crockett –
“I want people to be able to get what they need to
live: enough food, a place to live, and an education for their children. Government does not provide these as well as
private charities and businesses.”
[ Note 15 ]
This episode has reached a reasonable length. We will complete the listener questions in the next episode.
A transcript of this episode is available on the “Podcasts” tab of the website “hswton.com”. The link may be found by expanding the plus sign next to the episode number and title. The transcript also contains supporting notes and links for quotes, definitions and other content contained in this episode.
Thank you for listening. I hope you will continue with the next episode of "How Should We Treat Our Neighbor ?".
Good day.
|
Note |
1 |
|
Author |
Dr. Ron Paul |
|
Author’s URL |
|
|
Quote |
“We
have a lot of goodness in this country. And we should promote it …” |
|
Quote URL |
|
|
Date URLs accessed |
2026 April 29 |
|
Note |
2 |
|
Source |
National Park Service website |
|
Source URL |
|
|
Author |
Not specified |
|
Content title |
The Patowmack Canal |
|
Content URL |
|
|
Date updated |
2024 January 24 |
|
Date URLs accessed |
2026 April 29 |
Return to related text 2 or 3 or 4
|
Note |
3 |
|
Source |
Wikipedia |
|
Source URL |
|
|
Authors |
Various |
|
Authors' URL |
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brooklyn_Bridge&action=history |
|
Content title |
Brooklyn Bridge |
|
Content URL |
|
|
Date updated |
2026 March 29 |
|
Date URLs accessed |
2026 April 29 |
Return to related text 3 or 2 or 4
|
Note |
4 |
|
Source |
Reason magazine |
|
Source URL |
|
|
Author |
Robert Poole |
|
Author’s URL |
|
|
Content title |
Europe's Highest Bridge Was Built Without Government Subsidies |
|
Content URL |
|
|
Date content updated |
2025 August 21 |
|
Date URLs accessed |
2026 April 29 |
Return to related text 4 or 2 or 3
|
Note |
5 |
|
Source 1 |
Wikipedia |
|
Source 1 URL |
|
|
Authors 1 |
Various |
|
Authors' 1 URL |
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=California_High-Speed_Rail&action=history |
|
Content 1 title |
California High-Speed Rail |
|
Content 1 URL |
|
|
Date content 1 updated |
2026 April 25 |
|
Source 2 |
Fox 11 Los Angeles |
|
Source 2 URL |
https://www.foxla.com/ |
|
Authors 2 |
Fox 11 Digital Team |
|
Authors' 2 URL |
|
|
Content 2 title |
California high-speed rail: $15.7B already invested in 'failed' project as Republicans criticize Newsom |
|
Content 2 URL |
|
|
Date content 2 updated |
2025 February 20 |
|
Comments |
Source 1 provides the numbers that were used in the transcript. Source 2 was included in these notes to provide the reader with more information about the contentious politics that are associated with this government project. |
|
Date URLs accessed |
2026 April 29 |
|
Note |
6 |
|
Source 3 |
Smart Cities Dive |
|
Source 3 URL |
|
|
Author 3 |
Dan Zukowski |
|
Author 3’s URL |
|
|
Content 3 title |
Florida’s Brightline kicks off passenger rail service to Orlando |
|
Content 3 URL |
|
|
Date content 3 updated |
2023 September 25 |
|
Source 4 |
Foundation for Economic Education |
|
Source 4 URL |
https://fee.org/ |
|
Author 4 |
Thomas Walker-Werth |
|
Author 4’s URL |
|
|
Content 4 title |
Florida Company Shows California How to Build a Railroad with Its Brightline Rail System |
|
Content 4 URL |
|
|
Date content 4 updated |
2022 March 15 |
|
Comments |
Source 3 documents the cost and distance of Brightline’s rail service while source 4 discusses the operational history. Source 3 is the best data I could find on the Internet regarding the cost to build the entire line from Miami to Orlando. I sent an electronic mail message to Brightline’s press office (press@gobrightline.com) to inquire about the cost, but my request received no reply. The financial data in source 4 does not reflect the cost to build the entire line from Miami to Orlando. |
|
Date URLs accessed |
2026 April 29 |
|
Note |
7 |
|
Comments |
From source 1 (see Note 5 above), we see that the CHSR Initial Operating Segment will be 171 miles in length and is expected to cost between $28 to $38.5 billion dollars. In the best case, the cost per mile will be – ($28,000,000,000 / 171 miles) = $163,742,690 per mile. From source 3 (see Note 6 above), we see that Brightline’s entire line from Miami to Orlando is 235 miles in length and cost $6 billion to build. The cost per mile was – ($6,000,000,000 / 235 miles) = $25,531,914 per mile. |
|
Note |
8 |
|
Comments |
From source 1 (see Note 5 above), we see that the CHSR Initial Operating Segment will be 171 miles in length, construction began in 2015 and is expected to be complete between 2031 and 2033. In the best case, the miles built per year will be – (171 miles / 16 years) = 10.6875 miles per year. From source 3 (see Note 6 above), we see that Brightline’s entire line from Miami to Orlando is 235 miles in length and that it began service in 2023. From source 4 (see Note 6 above), we see that construction began in 2014 . The miles built per year was – (235 miles / 9 years) = 26.111 miles per year. |
|
Note |
9 |
|
Author |
Milton Friedman, PhD |
|
Author’s URL |
|
|
Quote |
“The
world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests. The great …” |
|
Quote URL |
|
|
Date URLs accessed |
2026 April 29 |
|
Note |
10 |
|
Author |
Berton Braley |
|
Author’s URL |
|
|
Quote |
“I
honestly believe that sound commercialism is the best test of true value in
art …” |
|
Quote URL |
|
|
Date URLs accessed |
2026 April 29 |
|
Note |
11 |
|
Charity 1 |
Americares Foundation Inc. |
|
Charity 1’s URL |
|
|
Charity 1’s review |
|
|
Charity 2 |
Feeding America |
|
Charity 2’s URL |
|
|
Charity 2’s review |
|
|
Comments |
To view the financial data, click on the “review” URL above. On the webpage, scroll down and click on the text that says “Accountability & Finance”. Scroll down to the section labelled “Financial Health”. Click on the link that says “Program Expense Ratio”. This information shows the program expenses as a percentage of total expenses. That is, of all the money the charity spends, what percent is spent to deliver the service the charity claims to provide. |
|
Date URLs accessed |
2026 April 29 |
Return to related text 11 or 12
|
Note |
12 |
|
Source |
Advocates for Self-Government |
|
Source URL |
|
|
Author |
Mary Ruwart, PhD |
|
Author’s URL |
|
|
Content title |
How Effective is Government Welfare Compared to Private Charity? |
|
Content URL |
https://www.theadvocates.org/effective-government-welfare-compared-private-charity/ |
|
Date content updated |
2013 June 25 |
|
Date URLs accessed |
2026 April 29 |
Return to related text 12 or 11
|
Note |
13 |
|
Source |
Foundation for Economic Education |
|
Source URL |
https://fee.org/ |
|
Author |
Joel Lim |
|
Author’s URL |
|
|
Content title |
How Does Government Welfare Stack Up Against Private Charity? It’s No Contest. |
|
Content URL |
|
|
Date content updated |
2021 December 04 |
|
Date URLs accessed |
2026 April 29 |
|
Note |
14 |
|
Source |
Wikipedia |
|
Source URL |
|
|
Authors |
Various |
|
Authors' URL |
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Myth_of_Mental_Illness&action=history |
|
Content title |
The Myth of Mental Illness |
|
Content URL |
|
|
Date updated |
2026 January 11 |
|
Comments |
The Wikipedia article discusses the book titled “The Myth of Mental Illness” written by psychiatrist Thomas Szasz and published in 1961. Dr. Szasz rejects the very concept of “mental illness”, suggesting that people who are described as “mentally ill” are those who have adopted a strategy for survival that most of us consider to be unworthy of respect. |
|
Date URLs accessed |
2026 April 29 |
|
Note |
15 |
|
Author |
Davy Crockett |
|
Author’s URL |
|
|
Quote |
“I
want people to be able to get what they need to live …” |
|
Quote URL |
|
|
Date URLs accessed |
2026 April 29 |
Transcript and notes last updated – 2026 April 29
Copyright 2026, by James W. Troy. All rights reserved.