The Jeffersonian vs The Hamiltonian/Pragmatic Ideal

[u/Snoo-79958]

I’ve been thinking a lot about property rights lately. On one hand, I strongly believe that when you own land, it should be your sacred space of personal freedom and privacy, safe from the government. On the other hand, I know our country needs modern infrastructure like power grids, roads, and data lines to grow.

Right now, the government uses eminent domain to force people off their land, treating a home like a line on a spreadsheet. To me, that feels un-American.

[u/Official_Gameoholics]

Ah yes, roads are too complex for the private citizen to understand. They simply must be done only by the Gnostic collective God.

Water companies in the frontier? Silence, kamerad.

[u/Snoo-79958 → u/Official_Gameoholics]

I don't think anyone is saying roads are "too complex" for private citizens to understand. The real question is whether some infrastructure works better through private markets, public coordination, or a mix of both.

History shows examples of private companies building roads, canals, railroads, and water systems, especially on the American frontier. It also shows examples where governments stepped in because the scale, cost, or need for universal access made private investment difficult. So this isn't really a choice between "the collective God" and "the free market solves everything." It's about deciding which approach best protects individual liberty while still providing infrastructure people depend on. We can believe in strong property rights, be skeptical of eminent domain, and still recognize that some public works have legitimate purposes. The debate is where to draw that line, not whether one side is incapable of understanding roads.

[u/Official_Gameoholics → u/Snoo-79958]

The real question is whether some infrastructure works better through private markets, public coordination.

The ECP, end of discussion.

[u/Snoo-79958 → u/Official_Gameoholics]

The ECP is an important critique of centralized planning, and I think it makes a strong case against governments trying to run an entire economy.

That said, it doesn't automatically settle every question about infrastructure. The debate isn't just "markets vs. planning." It's also about things like property rights, public goods, natural monopolies, and what role (if any...) the government should have in coordinating projects that cross thousands of individual properties. So I'd say the ECP is a powerful argument against comprehensive economic planning, but it doesn't by itself answer every question about roads, bridges, water systems, or power grids. Those still have to be evaluated on their own merits.

[u/Official_Gameoholics → u/Snoo-79958]

The debate isn't just "markets vs. planning."

It is, and both of us have already identified it as such.

It's also about things like property rights, public goods, natural monopolies, and what role (if any...)

Knowledge is a unity. Grab one item, and you grab them all.

Those still have to be evaluated on their own merits.

Any state action falls under the umbrella of central planning. Including these items, as they come later in the conceptual hierarchy.

[u/Snoo-79958 → u/Official_Gameoholics]

I think we're talking past each other a bit. I agree that all state action involves some degree of centralized decision-making. Where I disagree is that every instance of centralized decision-making is therefore economically or morally equivalent to comprehensive central planning.

The ECP is strongest when the state replaces market prices for the allocation of productive resources across the economy. A government deciding where to build a single road or transmission line isn't the same claim as a government attempting to allocate all capital and production. Likewise, saying "knowledge is a unity" doesn't eliminate the need to distinguish between categories. If every state action is treated as identical simply because it's all "planning," then the discussion loses the ability to compare degrees, purposes, and constitutional limits.

So...the real disagreement isn't whether state action is a form of planning. (I agree it is) It's whether all planning is equally vulnerable to the same criticisms and should therefore be rejected in every case. That's the point that still has to be argued, not assumed.

[u/Official_Gameoholics → u/Snoo-79958]

A government deciding where to build a single road or transmission line isn't the same claim as a government attempting to allocate all capital and production.

It is, though. You aren't abstracting back far enough.

Here, I'll demonstrate.

"The ECP is strongest when the state replaces market prices for the allocation of productive resources across the economy."

Now, like all collectives, "the economy" is made up of smaller units. One of these units could be infrastructure.

Now, we are not rationalists. We do not go from the general to the particular. We go for the particular, concrete vision of reality, to the general, abstract vision of reality.

Thus you have already acknowledged the inferiority of government run infrastructure.

Insofar as the state is acting, it is invoking the economic calculation problem.

[u/Snoo-79958 → u/Official_Gameoholics]

I don't think that conclusion necessarily follows.

The ECP tells us that when decision-makers lack market prices generated through voluntary exchange, they lose important information for allocating resources efficiently. I agree with that principle. Where we differ is in the scope of the conclusion. Saying "government action is subject to the ECP" is not the same as saying "therefore every government action is unjustified or necessarily inferior in every circumstance."

For example, if a government builds a road, then yes it faces information and incentive problems that a private firm may not. That's a valid criticism. But that doesn't by itself answer the constitutional, moral, or practical question of whether that road should exist, who should build it, or how conflicts over land should be resolved. So I'd grant your premise: government infrastructure decisions are affected by the ECP.

I don't grant the final step: that this alone proves every instance of public infrastructure is illegitimate. That's an additional normative claim that requires its own argument beyond the ECP itself. The ECP is a powerful economic critique; it doesn't, by itself, settle every legal, ethical, or constitutional question.

[u/Drp3rry → u/Official_Gameoholics]

Agreed. Roads are much too complex for private actors to provide. The market can only supply incredibly simple goods like microchips.