Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

alexandros might be referring to the argument was made by Roderick Long in Cato's lead essay in November: http://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/11/10/roderick-long/corpora...

He points out that government funding of highways acts as a de facto subsidy of Walmart and similar chains by partly socializing the costs of shipping, making it easier to compete with local businesses; and that regulations (which large companies can more easily understand and comply with than smaller companies) provide barriers of entry to industries.

He concludes: "In a free market, firms would be smaller and less hierarchical, more local and more numerous"

(I don't have a strong opinion on this. It sounds plausible but it's a bit anecdotal for my taste.)



I'm sympathetic to this, but at the same time, most local sellers (outside of those who exclusively sell locally-produced goods) rely on the same transportation system.


I would argue they don't rely on it so much as make use of it. As cities grow then they need to truck supplies in from elsewhere, but for suburbs and rural areas they can survive on the local economy.


Maybe. It depends where you live, though--not every area is capable of sustaining its own food supply(1). And, even those that are still import some goods.

But I think we're shifting the discussion a bit to a "Long Emergency" scenario.

As a bit of localist, I'm more troubled by local governments who bend over backward to bring large retailers into an area. I think these more localized benefits (tax breaks, development dollars, etc) are far more beneficial to, say, Wal-Mart, than the highway system.

(1) And many that can have transformed that land into housing and strip malls.

EDIT: Fixed formatting.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2026 batch! Applications are open till July 27.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: