'We need only turn to the problems which arise in connection with land, particularly with regard to urban land in modern large towns, in order to realize that a conception of property which is based on the assumption that the use of a particular item of property affects only the interests of its owner breaks down. There can be no doubt that a good many, at least, of the problems with which the modern town planner is concerned are genuine problems with which governments or local authorities are bound to concern themselves. Unless we can provide some guidance in fields like this about what are legitimate or necessary government activities and what are its limits, we must not complain if our views are not taken seriously when we oppose other kinds of less justified “planning.”'

If that were the case, Southwest would have never taken off.

Given the false choice between state roads and state rail, I can see why a pragmatic libertarian would choose the more governmentally decentralized option of roads and zoning. That, at least, provides for a lower cost “right of exit” to which Kling was referring.

That was well put.

First, and more meaningfully, cars provide much more individual liberty than trains and busses. You can take a car anywhere you want, whenever you want (or close enough as makes no difference).

With a bus or train, especially state-run ones, you go where the State wants to let you go, when it wants to let you go there.

The libertarian appeal of the former is obvious, no?

Secondly, I think it's more that given that we already have both subsidized roads and subsidized mass transit, most people focus on the “greater evil” both in terms of state control and in terms of expense (after all, if it was free and nobody was being oppressed by taxation to promote it, it would be far less of a libertarian evil!).

That and arguing for road privatization is a lot harder to manage – too many people reflexively assume it's just impossible to have private roads of any amount and quality; the rewards to arguing against them are lower per amount of effort than arguing against subsidized rail boondoggles, where the costs and failings are more obvious.

I've certainly seen academic libertarian arguments against road subsidies as well as rail and bus subsidies.

It does involve more responsibility (car payment, insurance, gas, etc.), but it allows you to go so many more places than public transport. I say this as a non-car owner and heavy user of public transportation.

Until we have teleportation technology, that will always be the case.

I might have felt guilty violating the parking meter laws had the spaces ever been even close to fully occupied, but they never were. I think the most I ever saw was one other car parked on the same block, with 3-4 other spaces remaining empty. An economist would probably say the spots were over-priced since the market never cleared.

Strangely, I would feel extremely guilty parking in a handicapped space even if I believed with a high degree of certainty that it wouldn't be used otherwise. And I consider it extremely rude when I see others doing it. For some reason that social norm sticks for me in a way that regular metered parking doesn't. It may have something to do with the fact that I've spent the majority of my life in Atlanta, where parking is ubiquitous and rarely if ever rationed by price. It's rare to ever have to even parallel park, and a lot of people I know forgot how to do it after they passed their drivers' exam.

You have a better argument with the HOV lanes, although I didn't even realize there was a law until I got ticketed the first time. Admittedly, after receiving the ticket I continued to break the law, knowingly. Meh, no feelings of guilt. Again, as a counter-example, I do feel guilty driving in a normally marked HOV lane on the left side of the highway as a single passenger, just not when the entire highway turns into an HOV during rush-hour. Maybe if I lived in D.C. for longer the social norm would begin to develop for me?

I don't feel guilty free riding unless I'm actively depriving someone of something they would have gotten otherwise. For example, I use Wikipedia all the time but have never contributed. (I suppose I'm using up some bandwidth.) And I illegally pirate music and movies that I wasn't planning on buying anyway. I still pay to go see movies in the theater on occasion, and purchase the rare concert ticket or album if I appreciate the band.

I can understand the selfish dickhead part, I suppose, but not so much the “hates to be around poor people part.” Of all the people entering D.C. each morning on either the Metro or the highway, I suspect that summer interns are in the lowest income brackets as individuals, and my family was in a lower income bracket than most of the other interns I met. I don't recall seeing very many poor people on the Metro in the morning; most were dressed in suits, carrying iPods, and looking all policy wonkish.

Despite your snark, you did make me realize how much the laws and social norms differ from state to state, so thanks for that. And I suppose urban density and city vs. suburb living has a lot to with the establishment of different social norms as well. For example, I remember noticing that in D.C., pedestrians are much more likely to observe the crosswalk signals even when no cars are coming, whereas in Atlanta, pedestrians pretty much ignore the signals at their convenience and jaywalk wherever they please.