This is the "Saturday-Night Special" mentality.

Let's do away with inexpensive guns so that only the well-do-do will be armed, let's get the riff-raff off the roads.

No one has a right to free guns from the State. Yours is the welfare baby argument.

Not a "right," but a policy of favoritism for cultural and economic advantage. As a matter of fact, the gun culture has historically been subsidized by the state. For many years this took the form of surplus firearms, ammunition and accessories distributed to gun clums and to individuals at nominal cost through the Department of the Army, Director of Civilian Marksmanship. I have one of these, an M1 Garand, acquired in the 1980's, for which I paid the cost of administration, about a quarter of its market value. Now people who didn't like the gun culture have been sniping at the program for years, and at present the weapons and ammunition are being distributed not be the Army directly, but by a private entity, the Civilian Marksmanship Program.

The car culture, like the gun culture, is America's cheap defense of the nation, to borrow Burke's phrase. Its significance is spiritual and political. Even if it did not pay for itself, which it does, we should subsidize it for its manifold benefits.

It's actually made the country quite vulnerable. But we can decide what we want to charge folks for the privilege--that's how democracy works.

But we can decide what we want to charge folks for the privilege...

Correct, and right now that amount is zero.

No, Brandon, every time one fills up at the tank one pays. And IL pays more than others.

So, OJ, you are suggesting my husband close his bizness? He has 2 company cars.

Can I come sponge off of you?

Or should we live above the store, even tho he still has to pick up and deliver?

Long Live The Freeway!Long Live The Freeway!

Any of you they-deserve-to-pay clowns have any idea how high the gas tax in the UK already is??? The idea that people are driving for free would be laughable, if it weren't so intellectually dishonest.

Nice to see OJ endorsing a libertarian solution to traffic problems! The only problem I see with the London proposal is that the rate is set rather high. Better to start lower and gradually raise it until the problem clears up.

Sandy and Kirk: Gas taxes don't solve this problem, because while they discourage driving in general, they don't discourage it at the specific times and places needed to alleviate the "tragedy of the commons" problem of traffic congestion.

With respect to the comment from the British Airways executive: airplanes already pay 'ground' fees (for parking, landing rights, etc.) - how about tacking on an air fee as well? Perhaps 10% of each fare? I'll bet he would turn on a dime.

Oj's hobbyhorse notwithstanding, the reality is that the new county commissioners in my county got elected on a promise to repeal a 5 cent gas tax enacted by their predecessors.

Papaya,

Sure, nothing's perfect, though the gas tax is at least vaguely proportional to the amount of road resources used (unlike the abominable BBC television tax, for example.) But did I miss where this new tax was going to be coupled with a repeal of the gas tax?

I don't usually find myself defending taxes, but it makes sense to me to direct gas taxes to road maintenance, but use congestion taxes to alleviate congestion on certain roads at certain times. Despite both involving cars and roads, they are distinct issues.

It would be redundant to have a general per-mile charge (for any driving) in addition to a gas tax, though.