Lets talk roads.

[silverhandorder]

So I am in an argument on a forum on anarchic road systems. And I made a comment that for the first hundred years the roads were not maintained by the government and we got along. However I was proven wrong. In the very first years Jefferson sanctioned a national highway. Now is there any partial truth to my comment. I remember hearing on this forum a similar comment.

[jkr]

use hovercraft and we wont need "roads"

[TortoiseDream]

People build roads. Why does it have to be people from the government?

[Andrew-Austin]

So I am in an argument on a forum on anarchic road systems. And I made a comment that for the first hundred years the roads were not maintained by the government and we got along. However I was proven wrong. In the very first years Jefferson sanctioned a national highway. Now is there any partial truth to my comment. I remember hearing on this forum a similar comment.

One highway among how many roadways?

[TonySutton]

Who made the Oregon trail?

[TCE]

Privatize the roads themselves. If you want to use them, pay for them. That way, everyone doesn't have to get taxed if they don't use the roads. You can also guarantee that the company that takes over the roads will do a lot better than the government will. If people don't like a road, they can use another one. The Chicago Skyway is a perfect example. It was privatized a while back and everything is fine, it's one of the nicest highways in the state.

[silverhandorder]

Found a great site with many essays on this topic.
http://lsb.scu.edu/~dklein/papers/default.htm

[TonySutton]

Here is an interesting read

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/private-highways-in-america-1792-1916/#

[BenIsForRon]

There is not infinite space for multiple competing roads. So there needs to be some government involvement, so that there isn't runaway road building across the countryside. It doesn't have to be outright ownership, but roads should be required to maintain a certain level of quality and accessibility.

[surf]

turnpikes.

an interesting sidenote to the whole road story is that the advocacy of government road building (lobbied for by tire manufacturers - back when tires lasted only a few miles rather than the 40 - 100k miles today) led directly to the demise of railroads. in 1900 there was roughly 4x the amount of rail miles as there is today. LA, among other cities, was served well by trolleys - but i'll confess that i can't guarantee that these were privately run though i assume they were.

[Met Income]

There is not infinite space for multiple competing SHOES. So there needs to be some government involvement, so that there isn't runaway SHOE building across the countryside. It doesn't have to be outright ownership, but SHOE should be required to maintain a certain level of quality and accessibility.

fixed.

[__27__]

The free market can provide ________ better than the government can provide ________ .

This is a true statement, no matter what you fill in the blank with. This doesn't mean that I understand each and every possible application you can fill in the blank with, or how they are specifically better, but the statement is no less true because I don't understand it.

Just because I might not understand how quantum physics works doesn't mean that they don't work.

[dgr]

PPP's sound fine until you see the involvement of foreign management firms and foreign soverign wealth investment funds in them

[Met Income]

PPP's sound fine until you see the involvement of foreign management firms and foreign soverign wealth investment funds in them

What's the problem with that?

[Ricky201]

The free market can provide ________ better than the government can provide ________ .

This is a true statement, no matter what you fill in the blank with. This doesn't mean that I understand each and every possible application you can fill in the blank with, or how they are specifically better, but the statement is no less true because I don't understand it.

Just because I might not understand how quantum physics works doesn't mean that they don't work.

No there are some things that government are more productive at...

Such as theft, kidnapping, spying, and murdering!

[dgr]

It all depends on the state you live in and if they are selling the contract to get out of debt.

plus a lot has to happen befor the really big contracts kick in . The plan according to the 21st Century Transportation Bill is to rescind the provision that bans tolls on interstate systems.
then toll on intercity Interstate connected highways would have the toll plus Peak point pricing, 3 tolls to drive to work
then all fees involved in operating a car will increase each year, fees keep going to the state and a milage tax for each mile you drive goes to the state so you are paying the state plus the management firm for the same thing use and maintiance .

[Reason]

interesting

[__27__]

No there are some things that government are more productive at guilty of...

Such as theft, kidnapping, spying, and murdering!

fify.

Private sector thieves are far more productive and efficient, the government just has more aggregate thanks to the whole monopoly on force thing. They actually get to forcibly remove their private sector counterparts from the thieving market!!

[Met Income]

It all depends on the state you live in and if they are selling the contract to get out of debt.

plus a lot has to happen befor the really big contracts kick in . The plan according to the 21st Century Transportation Bill is to rescind the provision that bans tolls on interstate systems.
then toll on intercity Interstate connected highways would have the toll plus Peak point pricing, 3 tolls to drive to work
then all fees involved in operating a car will increase each year, fees keep going to the state and a milage tax for each mile you drive goes to the state so you are paying the state plus the management firm for the same thing use and maintiance .

Sounds good. Traffic would decrease and people that don't use the roads wouldn't have to pay for them.

[Uriel999]

Oh for christs sake. Flame me all you want, but I actually like public roads. They are one of the few things I don't mind paying taxes for. And really were I live, the roads are good. Public roads benefit everybody. EVERYBODY uses roads. Sure in the north you may have towns were you don't need a car, but for States like Florida that only really developed after World War II, driving is a must. This is a the great thing though about having many states with different governments. Perhaps a state could try 100% privatized roads and see how it works. I would bet that it would actually be very inconvenient.

[Matt Collins]

Here is EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW:

http://www.theadvocates.org/ruwart/questions_list.php?Category=14





.

[Met Income]

Oh for christs sake. Flame me all you want, but I actually like public roads. They are one of the few things I don't mind paying taxes for.

I support your love for public roads. I encourage you to pay taxes for them. I do not support public roads and I should not be forced to pay for them.



And really were I live, the roads are good. Public roads benefit everybody. EVERYBODY uses roads.

Everyone does not use roads. Anyways, that's not even the point. The point is that we are coerced into accepting one type of service. We have no input on how it should fit our preferences.



Sure in the north you may have towns were you don't need a car, but for States like Florida that only really developed after World War II, driving is a must. This is a the great thing though about having many states with different governments. Perhaps a state could try 100% privatized roads and see how it works. I would bet that it would actually be very inconvenient.

There's no empirical evidence that suggests that the government does anything better than the private sector. Why would roads be any different? Roads aren't magical.

[Uriel999]

I support your love for public roads. I encourage you to pay taxes for them. I do not support public roads and I should not be forced to pay for them.



Everyone does not use roads. Anyways, that's not even the point. The point is that we are coerced into accepting one type of service. We have no input on how it should fit our preferences.



There's no empirical evidence that suggests that the government does anything better than the private sector. Why would roads be any different? Roads aren't magical.

Do you use public roads? I understand the coercion argument, but roads are pretty benign. We've got bigger problems, for instance education.

Private roads leads to roads completely shut off for public use making regions inaccessible, which then in turn could lead to businesses being inaccessible driving them out of business. Roads are not magical, however, complete access over them is pretty freaking awesome.

[BenIsForRon]

fixed.

Shoes don't permanently deface the landscape like roads do. There needs to be a limited number of roads so that people have space for living, farming, and recreation.

[Elwar]

I could make a lot of money on my own private road. Without the need for any tolls or cost to the drivers.

[pcosmar]

Lets talk roads.
:confused:
It seems to me that there are many much more pressing issues.

but what ever is your pet issue,,,:rolleyes:

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

If you want a clear damnation of Internal Improvements read all the state Constitutions in 1860, then read the CSA Constitution in 1861. You will notice something out of the ordinary.

The vast majority had made it a Constitutional prohibition for Government subsidized internal improvements. In the CSA Constitution it also clearly forbade this activity. Why would they specifically prohibit that you ask?

http://mises.org/journals/scholar/Internal.pdf

Read that. There is literally no good reason for public roads.


By 1861, on the eve of the War for Southern Independence, the internal improvements
debate had been effectively decided: Government subsidies for private transportation were not
necessary, and when they were used the result was disaster after disaster. So disastrous were
they that numerous states not only enacted legislation but amended their constitutions to prohibit
them. Theory, evidence, and experience had shown the wisdom of privatized transportation
and the folly of government subsidies

[silverhandorder]

Oh for christs sake. Flame me all you want, but I actually like public roads. They are one of the few things I don't mind paying taxes for. And really were I live, the roads are good. Public roads benefit everybody. EVERYBODY uses roads. Sure in the north you may have towns were you don't need a car, but for States like Florida that only really developed after World War II, driving is a must. This is a the great thing though about having many states with different governments. Perhaps a state could try 100% privatized roads and see how it works. I would bet that it would actually be very inconvenient.

I don't mind public roads much either it is more like staying consistent with philosophy and something to look forward to in the future.


:confused:
It seems to me that there are many much more pressing issues.

but what ever is your pet issue,,,:rolleyes:

Actually this is simply a mental exercise for me. While I do prefer privately owned roads I understand it is not the biggest issues.

Thanks Matt on the link.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Oh for christs sake. Flame me all you want, but I actually like public roads. They are one of the few things I don't mind paying taxes for. And really were I live, the roads are good. Public roads benefit everybody. EVERYBODY uses roads. Sure in the north you may have towns were you don't need a car, but for States like Florida that only really developed after World War II, driving is a must. This is a the great thing though about having many states with different governments. Perhaps a state could try 100% privatized roads and see how it works. I would bet that it would actually be very inconvenient.

And I would bet you would be wrong.

[SamuraisWisdom]

There is literally no good reason for public roads.

Yeah, because they've had no real use for us up to this point :rolleyes: Any time you go to work, you use a public road. Any time you get in your car you use a public road. Any time you walk to the the grocery store you use a public road. The only way you DON'T use a public road is if you never leave your house...ever.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I don't mind public roads much either it is more like staying consistent with philosophy and something to look forward to in the future.



Actually this is simply a mental exercise for me. While I do prefer privately owned roads I understand it is not the biggest issues.

Thanks Matt on the link.

It is not a big National Issue, but it sure as hell should be a big state issue. For one imagine paying upwards of 70 to 80 cents less per gallon of gas? Imagine roads more streamlined, better paved, less traffic, no Government license, no Government plates, no extortion from the Goverment, etc.

People would save billions upon billions! Not only that, roads would actually be usable because it wouldn't be in the hands of Politicians and Central Economic Planners. For people who think the free-market is awesome, they sure don't mind socializing roads....:confused::confused:

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Yeah, because they've had no real use for us up to this point :rolleyes: Any time you go to work, you use a public road. Any time you get in your car you use a public road. Any time you walk to the the grocery store you use a public road. The only way you DON'T use a public road is if you never leave your house...ever.

This is a good arguement for roadways, not for monopolized public roads. Read the article I linked, it will give you a good historical perspective.

Besides, people have no choice in a monopoly, so the only thing you are advocating for is monopoly....

[orafi]

Do you use public roads? I understand the coercion argument, but roads are pretty benign. We've got bigger problems, for instance education.

Private roads leads to roads completely shut off for public use making regions inaccessible, which then in turn could lead to businesses being inaccessible driving them out of business. Roads are not magical, however, complete access over them is pretty freaking awesome.

Businesses can either own, operate, and maintain their own roads (collectively even) or they can pay rent to the road owner. What do you think?

[Elwar]

Yeah, because they've had no real use for us up to this point :rolleyes: Any time you go to work, you use a public road. Any time you get in your car you use a public road. Any time you walk to the the grocery store you use a public road. The only way you DON'T use a public road is if you never leave your house...ever.

In the year 2020:
Yeah, because they've had no real use for us up to this point :rolleyes: Any time you log in to work, you use a public Internet. Any time you get on your computer you use a public Internet. Any time you check the weather you use a public Internet. The only way you DON'T use a public Internet is if you never get on your computer...ever

[SamuraisWisdom]

In the year 2020:
Yeah, because they've had no real use for us up to this point :rolleyes: Any time you log in to work, you use a public Internet. Any time you get on your computer you use a public Internet. Any time you check the weather you use a public Internet. The only way you DON'T use a public Internet is if you never get on your computer...ever

Apples and oranges. Private internet works because companies can shut off service at any time if you don't pay. How would you do something like that for roads? And also, how would you stop people from using roads they haven't paid for? Are you going to have checkpoints at every intersection? Plus, say you wanted to go on a cross country trip. Are you going to pay for all the roads you use on your way? Private roads do not, have never, and will not work.

[TotalLiberty]

So I am in an argument on a forum on anarchic road systems. And I made a comment that for the first hundred years the roads were not maintained by the government and we got along. However I was proven wrong. In the very first years Jefferson sanctioned a national highway. Now is there any partial truth to my comment. I remember hearing on this forum a similar comment.

I warn you not to go down the roads path! People who believe in statism are convinced that government is magic. Somehow, in a free society, nobody would want roads, nor would anyone know how to build them.

Murray Rothbard wrote an entire book on roads in a free society.

Even if you somehow satisfy them with a good answer on roads, the next question will be "Well what about the poor?" And the discussion will go on and on.

Ask them 1 question: Which services do you think should be provided at the barrel of a gun?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Apples and oranges. Private internet works because companies can shut off service at any time if you don't pay. How would you do something like that for roads? And also, how would you stop people from using roads they haven't paid for? Are you going to have checkpoints at every intersection? Plus, say you wanted to go on a cross country trip. Are you going to pay for all the roads you use on your way? Private roads do not, have never, and will not work.

You clearly do not understand history. Private roads, have worked and always worked. Public roads were the roads that didn't work, nor have ever worked. You just don't realize the sheer amount of bloated and over-priced lunacy that is our public roads. Not to mention you have to have Government issued licenses, plates, fines, laws, etc.

I never understood this...You all ready pay now!!!! What the hell do you think Federal/State/Local gas tax is? What do you think property tax is also used for? Good lord.

[Fox McCloud]

There is not infinite space for multiple competing roads. So there needs to be some government involvement, so that there isn't runaway road building across the countryside. It doesn't have to be outright ownership, but roads should be required to maintain a certain level of quality and accessibility.

Looks like Ron Paul Forums has a new Statist in town.


I recommend Walter Block's roads and highways for help in arguments..Block always presents things in a clear and simple manner. http://mises.org/books/roads_web.pdf

[Matt Collins]

The Interstate highway system is modeled after fascist Germany. It doesn't mean it's a bad idea, but it shouldn't be run by the feds, and ideally the roads would all be privatized.

[SamuraisWisdom]

You clearly do not understand history. Private roads, have worked and always worked. Public roads were the roads that didn't work, nor have ever worked. You just don't realize the sheer amount of bloated and over-priced lunacy that is our public roads. Not to mention you have to have Government issued licenses, plates, fines, laws, etc.

I never understood this...You all ready pay now!!!! What the hell do you think Federal/State/Local gas tax is? What do you think property tax is also used for? Good lord.

You are confused. Plain and simple. How do public roads not work? We use them every day. The US Interstate System is the best highway system in the world. And of course we pay for them...:rolleyes: Let me ask you this. You tell me how you would like a privatized road system to work. Explain who would own them, how people would pay for them, how people would use certain roads they pay for and can't use the ones they don't, how that will be enforced, and everything else needed to run a privatized road industry. I want every detail.

[BenIsForRon]

I don't mind tolls, but if you value an intact, pleasant countryside, you can't have totally private, regulation free roads.

Imagine a guy is charging a $1 toll on his highway. Now a competitor wants to build his own highway witha 90 cent toll. Then another guy comes along that builds his own highway and to charge 75 cents! How many roads can we have tearing through the countryside? How can you find a place to picnic when there are 10 competing highways surrounding your home?

This is why we should have either public roads, or government regulated private roads.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

You are confused. Plain and simple. How do public roads not work? We use them every day. The US Interstate System is the best highway system in the world. And of course we pay for them...:rolleyes: Let me ask you this. You tell me how you would like a privatized road system to work. Explain who would own them, how people would pay for them, how people would use certain roads they pay for and can't use the ones they don't, how that will be enforced, and everything else needed to run a privatized road industry. I want every detail.

Two good primers to read is Walter Block's Privatization of Roads which can be read for free on google books, and the second is this article by Thomas Di'Lorenzo.

http://mises.org/journals/scholar/Internal.pdf
http://mises.org/daily/3415
http://mises.org/story/3188
http://mises.org/journals/aen/blockaen.asp

There is a lot of information out there. Moreover, just because you use public roads does not mean they work, similarly if the Government made cars, doesn't mean that they necessarily worked, were efficient, were innovative, or anything else the market does. For one, we have no pricing structure in roads. Between the horrible decay of infrastructure and roads in this country, to an ever increasing tax, etc. it is proven that these tax dollars do not go to finance upkeep and construction, but to either pay for other services or are outright stolen via increasing salaries, government jobs, and bureaurocrats. Same thing happened in the 19th Century. Everywhere public roads were tried they failed. Why you ask? Because there was still competition between public and private. Now-a-days, only Government roads are allowed so people don't realize how horrible they are (well they do, but they are brainwashed to think that private roads don't work).

It is no different than comparing any good monopolized by Government that eventually was turned over to the market. What happened? Productivity increased, prices decreased, more widespread use, more efficiency, etc.

As for if we have every answer? Of course not, thats why there are entreprenuers. You wouldn't ask someone in 1960 to answer every question about computers and the internet and expect them to know every detail would you?

[Fox McCloud]

You are confused. Plain and simple. How do public roads not work? We use them every day. The US Interstate System is the best highway system in the world.

debatable--the autobahn may very well be better; it's high capacity and has no limits on top speed; they also have a much lower fatality rate on their highways per 1 Billion Veh·km; Germany is 3.8 and the US is 5.2---this is considering that Germans do 31% of their travel via the autobahn where as the US only uses their federal highway system for 24% of travel. They also have a higher annual average daily traffic rate, as well.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I don't mind tolls, but if you value an intact, pleasant countryside, you can't have totally private, regulation free roads.



I don't mind buildings and private property, but if you value an intact, pleasant countryside, you can't have totally private buildings and property.

[__27__]

The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.

[klamath]

Sounds great if it would have been started from the begining but as I have stated before; people that have had thousands of acres of land seized through eminent domain for the roads are not going to be to happy when suddenly that road infront of their houses is sold by the government to a private corporation that now has the authority to ban them from using that road. This would be the ultimate in the government stealing land from millions of individuals and then giving it to a big corporations. I know for a fact that all things done by a private corporation is not always better. Aircraft maintenance done by Haliburten is NOT better than military maintenance companys.

[SamuraisWisdom]

debatable--the autobahn may very well be better; it's high capacity and has no limits on top speed; they also have a much lower fatality rate on their highways per 1 Billion Veh·km; Germany is 3.8 and the US is 5.2---this is considering that Germans do 31% of their travel via the autobahn where as the US only uses their federal highway system for 24% of travel. They also have a higher annual average daily traffic rate, as well.

And the autobahn is a public roadway system as well.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Sounds great if it would have been started from the begining but as I have stated before; people that have had thousands of acres of land seized through eminent domain for the roads are not going to be to happy when suddenly that road infront of their houses is sold by the government to a private corporation that now has the authority to ban you from using that road. This would be the ultimate in the government stealing land from millions of individuals and then giving it to a big corporations. I know for a fact that all things done by a private corporation is not always better. Aircraft maintenance done by Haliburten is NOT better than military maintenance companys.

Your objection has all ready been answered by Block. Every conceivable objection has been answered in his book. If you want to talk about roads I would recommend reading his book beforehand.

For example. That land would be ceded back to you, the original owner. This is all within the Homesteading principle. Besides, the pro's outweight the con's. If this were to happen you would simultaneously criminalize eminent domain. It would no longer be a power of any Government/State. I'm sure people would hop on board of that. Not to mention the immense "stimulus" that would be acquired through the sell of the infrastructure. You could do parts at a time, or all of it auctioned at once. Revenue would be upwards of tens of billions. All money acquired would be paid back to the residents in the area. I think I'd want a check for 10,000$, end all gas tax (in effect, decreasing price of gas by over 30-40%), and ban eminent domain, wouldn't you?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

And the autobahn is a public roadway system as well.

When pretty much every road system is public, it doesn't take a genius to figure out the best road system will be public, since it's the only option....That never crossed into your mind though, did it?

[South Park Fan]

Sounds great if it would have been started from the begining but as I have stated before; people that have had thousands of acres of land seized through eminent domain for the roads are not going to be to happy when suddenly that road infront of their houses is sold by the government to a private corporation that now has the authority to ban them from using that road. This would be the ultimate in the government stealing land from millions of individuals and then giving it to a big corporations. I know for a fact that all things done by a private corporation is not always better. Aircraft maintenance done by Haliburten is NOT better than military maintenance companys.

Straw man. No one here who advocates private roads would permit the use of eminent domain to construct them. Any private road owner would have to acquire the land to build the road on through honest means by buying or homesteading the land. The Halliburton example doesn't apply since Halliburton is subsidized by the federal government. In fact, that would be a better example for why "government-subsidized private roads", as Benisforron advocates wouldn't work.

[__27__]

Sounds great if it would have been started from the begining but as I have stated before; people that have had thousands of acres of land seized through eminent domain for the roads are not going to be to happy when suddenly that road infront of their houses is sold by the government to a private corporation that now has the authority to ban them from using that road. This would be the ultimate in the government stealing land from millions of individuals and then giving it to a big corporations. I know for a fact that all things done by a private corporation is not always better. Aircraft maintenance done by Haliburten is NOT better than military maintenance companys.

What color is the sky in your world?


As a pilot, and a military veteran, I will put my life in the hands of an airline (private) mechanic LONG before I put it in the hands of a military mechanic. That doesn't mean their aren't some military mechanics who are far better than some airline mechanics, it means I trust the system of immediate response driven by profit and loss to the system of lethargic bureaucracy that allows problems to go unrepaired for months and years while the "elite" decide what should be done.

[klamath]

Your objection has all ready been answered by Block. Every conceivable objection has been answered in his book. If you want to talk about roads I would recommend reading his book beforehand.

For example. That land would be ceded back to you, the original owner. This is all within the Homesteading principle. Besides, the pro's outweight the con's. If this were to happen you would simultaneously criminalize eminent domain. It would no longer be a power of any Government/State. I'm sure people would hop on board of that. Not to mention the immense "stimulus" that would be acquired through the sell of the infrastructure. You could do parts at a time, or all of it auctioned at once. Revenue would be upwards of tens of billions. All money acquired would be paid back to the residents in the area. I think I'd want a check for 10,000$, end all gas tax (in effect, decreasing price of gas by over 30-40%), and ban eminent domain, wouldn't you?

Sounds great written in a theoretical book but having spent countless hours reading right a way cases it would be an unmitigated disaster. It would be great until you found you lived at the end of a one way street and the neighbor at the entrance decided to build his second garage across the road on his newly ceeded land.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Sounds great written in a theoretical book but having spent countless hours reading right a way cases it would be an unmitigated disaster. It would be great until you found you lived at the end of a one way street and the neighbor at the entrance decided to build his second garage across the road on his newly ceeded land.

It has all ready worked. It is not a theory. Did you read the article by Di'Lorenzo?

Read the CSA Constitution and State Constitutions prior to the Civil War. Ask yourself why they would put that in there.

[TotalLiberty]

Should roads (or any services) be provided at the barrel of a gun?

[Justin D]

I have a simple idea. High speed roads like interstates can be privatized. Afterall, they need to be maintained well to allow for high speed traffic. All others (low speed roads) can be owned by the commons. That way, people can access their property and get to where they need to go without the need to pay tolls to private companies.

Want to get somewhere cheap? Use the common roads.
Want/need to get somewhere fast? Use the private highway.

I like my idea.

[BenIsForRon]

The Halliburton example doesn't apply since Halliburton is subsidized by the federal government. In fact, that would be a better example for why "government-subsidized private roads", as Benisforron advocates wouldn't work.

I didn't say subsidized, I said regulated. As in the government regulates pricing and upkeep, so that it is accessible for all the population and does not fall into disrepair.


I don't mind buildings and private property, but if you value an intact, pleasant countryside, you can't have totally private buildings and property.

What the fuck man, total strawman. Go back and respond to my post. The austrian school doesn't have all the answers.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I have a simple idea. High speed roads like interstates can be privatized. Afterall, they need to be maintained well to allow for high speed traffic. All others (low speed roads) can be owned by the commons. That way, people can access their property and get to where they need to go without the need to pay tolls to private companies.

Want to get somewhere cheap? Use the common roads.
Want/need to get somewhere fast? Use the private highway.

I like my idea.

Tolls would never be used by private companies. They would use electronic issuances that are scanned as you drive by designated scanners. Hell a French road company has in their quasi-private road system electronic scanners under the road. They also have 24/7 monitoring of traffic and call tow trucks in immediately when there is a large wreck. I can't count how many times I had to wait in hours and hours of long stand still because the idiots never moved the wrecks off the roads. Is time money to you? How much time do you lose on the bloated and inefficient Government road system? I'd gladly pay a few bucks to save me that time.

Stossel has a pretty good segment on privatized roads.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I didn't say subsidized, I said regulated. As in the government regulates pricing and upkeep, so that it is accessible for all the population and does not fall into disrepair.



What the fuck man, total strawman. Go back and respond to my post. The austrian school doesn't have all the answers.

You aren't advocating for anything private. If the Government can tell you what you have to price your service for, then it isn't private. The whole point to the market is profit-loss system! Not only that, it would prevent private companies from pricing their service for different times of travel. Could be much cheaper at night, and a little more expensive during rush hours. This would have the benefit of reducing traffic congestion as I'm sure some people would rather travel when it is less expensive.

Do you agree regulations are beneficial? If so, you should be all over our current system praising it. Competition increases accessibility. All your regulation would do is run out private companies and then we'd be back in square one except this time people would think that private roads definitely don't work, even though they were never private in the first place.

Of course we don't have all the answers to every intricacy. If we did then central economic planning would work. What we do know, is that entreprenuers through the market do have all the answers because of the mechanisms of the market itself. From Say to Turgot to Rothbard this has been proven without a shadow of a doubt, yet still people are contrarian.....

[klamath]

What color is the sky in your world?


As a pilot, and a military veteran, I will put my life in the hands of an airline (private) mechanic LONG before I put it in the hands of a military mechanic. That doesn't mean their aren't some military mechanics who are far better than some airline mechanics, it means I trust the system of immediate response driven by profit and loss to the system of lethargic bureaucracy that allows problems to go unrepaired for months and years while the "elite" decide what should be done.

As a mechanic and a military veteran I can tell you that those mechanics working on the aircraft are none other than the same military mechanics that suddenly got smart and quit the militay and went of work for the private corporation so they could make 2 to 3 times as much with far better perks. They are no smarter or better than when they were in the military.
I do say that the reason that this system fails is because government contractors have very little competition. My point being that any time a private company is recieving tax dollars it does not automatically mean they are doing a better job than the government. A lot of times yes but not always.

[Fox McCloud]

I didn't say subsidized, I said regulated. As in the government regulates pricing and upkeep, so that it is accessible for all the population and does not fall into disrepair.

Then it's not really a private system in the least bit, anymore, and will trend towards monopoly pricing, as do electricity and telecom rates.




What the fuck man, total strawman. Go back and respond to my post. The austrian school doesn't have all the answers.

no it's not; he's using a logical example your reasoning on the subject of private roads; he's merely using a different set of regulations (building codes and zoning).

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

As a mechanic and a military veteran I can tell you that those mechanics working on the aircraft are none other than the same military mechanics that suddenly got smart and quit the militay and went of work for the private corporation so they could make 2 to 3 times as much with far better perks. They are no smarter or better than when they were in the military.
I do say that the reason that this system fails is because government contractors have very little competition. My point being that any time a private company is recieving tax dollars it does not automatically mean they are doing a better job than the government. A lot of times yes but not always.

Wait who advocated to give tax dollars to anyone? In fact, who advocated for any tax here?

[klamath]

It has all ready worked. It is not a theory. Did you read the article by Di'Lorenzo?

Read the CSA Constitution and State Constitutions prior to the Civil War. Ask yourself why they would put that in there.
And how did they answer the question I posed?

[klamath]

Wait who advocated to give tax dollars to anyone? In fact, who advocated for any tax here?

I didn't say you did but was referring to the private always does better.

[Met Income]

I didn't say subsidized, I said regulated. As in the government regulates pricing and upkeep, so that it is accessible for all the population and does not fall into disrepair.



What the fuck man, total strawman. Go back and respond to my post. The austrian school doesn't have all the answers.


And the Fed doesn't have all of the answers either - hence why it shouldn't be centralizedat the point of gun. Austrian economists never claimed to have all of the answers.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I didn't say you did but was referring to the private always does better.

Free-Markets always do better. Getting stolen money (IE Subsidies) is not private.

[BenIsForRon]

You aren't advocating for anything private. If the Government can tell you what you have to price your service for, then it isn't private. The whole point to the market is profit-loss system! Not only that, it would prevent private companies from pricing their service for different times of travel. Could be much cheaper at night, and a little more expensive during rush hours. This would have the benefit of reducing traffic congestion as I'm sure some people would rather travel when it is less expensive.

Do you agree regulations are beneficial? If so, you should be all over our current system praising it. Competition increases accessibility. All your regulation would do is run out private companies and then we'd be back in square one except this time people would think that private roads definitely don't work, even though they were never private in the first place.

Of course we don't have all the answers to every intricacy. If we did then central economic planning would work. What we do know, is that entreprenuers through the market do have all the answers because of the mechanisms of the market itself. From Say to Turgot to Rothbard this has been proven without a shadow of a doubt, yet still people are contrarian.....

You still didn't respond to my post about how a totally free market for roads could result in multiple competing highways, which would simply look terrible and reduce the amount of continuous natural space for humans and animals. There shouldn't be multiple highways when only one is necessary.

In response to your post: I don't see things in black and white. In some rare cases, regulations are simply a necessity. When they are, you need to try to have the most fair, least intrusive regulations.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

And how did they answer the question I posed?

Read the article. Do some independant research. I've given you the tools.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

You still didn't respond to my post about how a totally free market for roads could result in multiple competing highways, which would simply look terrible and reduce the amount of continuous natural space for humans and animals. There shouldn't be multiple highways when only one is necessary.

In response to your post: I don't see things in black and white. In some rare cases, regulations are simply a necessity. When they are, you need to try to have the most fair, least intrusive regulations.

I did respond. Now we are basing our economics on aesthetics...I'm not even going to respond to such absurdity because you move from objective realizations to subective conjecture which can never be answered. We get it. You want an agrarian static society so we can live in harmony with the natural beauty of this planet...Who cares what benefits will be achieved for the common man, as long as the world around us looks pretty in your definition.

I also enjoy how you know the specific number of roads that are needed. How did you come up with that answer and observation?

[Met Income]

And how did they answer the question I posed?

Maybe it didn't come up because your worst case scenario is unlikely.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Where are all the Constitutional Minarchists around here? I thought the only legitimate powers of Government in your view was the protection of life and property?

Where in the Constitution did it allow for the 1954 Eisenhower Highway program? What about the FDR New Deal?

[klamath]

Read the article. Do some independant research. I've given you the tools.

I appears you don't know the answer to this simple question so I get refered to the holy bibles.
Sorry but I have experienced life and observed human nature just as much as these bible writers. I can draw my own conclusion to political problems without getting scripture quoted to me.

[__27__]

Where are all the Constitutional Minarchists around here? I thought the only legitimate powers of Government in your view was the protection of life and property?

Where in the Constitution did it allow for the 1954 Eisenhower Highway program? What about the FDR New Deal?

"General Welfare"

"Regulation of interstate commerce"


;)

[klamath]

Maybe it didn't come up because your worst case scenario is unlikely.

How many court cases have you read. It happens ALL the time. Major gun battles have been fought over roads and water rights.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I appears you don't know the answer to this simple question so I get refered to the holy bibles.
Sorry but I have experienced life and observed human nature just as much as these bible writers. I can draw my own conclusion to political problems without getting scripture quoted to me.

I know the answer (but I'm not going to sit here and answer every inanity you come up with, hence I pointed you to the answers of most or all of your questions). Sorry, but you have no idea what you are talking about. Both the historical and theoretical history proves you false. I pointed you to the answers, but if you refuse to read them, much less acknowledge them you are a lost cause.

From now on, I will call those who are supporters of public roads socialists, along with my continuance of calling those who are anti-secessionist as tories.

[BenIsForRon]

I also enjoy how you know the specific number of roads that are needed. How did you come up with that answer and observation?

Through observations on population and traffic patterns.

You obviously value the freedom of present generations to make money over the freedom of future generations to have enough land to enjoy and grow food on. You cannot completely reconcile the two. There are things that the present generation engages in that will inhibit the ability of future generations to achieve a similar quality of life. This is because resources and land are finite. I've never seen an Anarcho-capitalist even try to approach this issue.

[__27__]

And as for the Ike interstate program, it was a national defense tool, not a tool for commerce or public convenience. I still completely reject it, but if a minarchist believes one of the roles of government is a strong national defense, at least then I can accept their argument for the interstate on a national defense level as intellectually honest.

[Anti Federalist]

Looks like Ron Paul Forums has a new Statist in town.


I recommend Walter Block's roads and highways for help in arguments..Block always presents things in a clear and simple manner. http://mises.org/books/roads_web.pdf

Nice to see you back, Fox. ;)

[Anti Federalist]

Railroads are private.

They seemed to work out OK.

[LibForestPaul]

Do you use public roads? I understand the coercion argument, but roads are pretty benign. We've got bigger problems, for instance education.


Ditto

[Fox McCloud]

Through observations on population and traffic patterns.

You obviously value the freedom of present generations to make money over the freedom of future generations to have enough land to enjoy and grow food on. You cannot completely reconcile the two. There are things that the present generation engages in that will inhibit the ability of future generations to achieve a similar quality of life. This is because resources and land are finite. I've never seen an Anarcho-capitalist even try to approach this issue.

if land is more valuable to be used for growing crops, then it will be used for that, but if it is more valuable to be used for transportation, it would be used for that; if the road ever fell into disuse (or no use) then the value may drop back to a more realistic level for agriculture.

It's not like once land is developed for a particular use, it has to stay as that for the rest of time; sure, land is finite, but so is every other resource in the world; it's why we have the pricing system; if everything was infinite, then the price of everything would be at or VERY near zero---land, as a commodity isn't that much different than other commodities; it's merely and immobile one tied to a single location...but this alone doesn't make it any more special than any other commodity.


Also, I'd like to point out, as agriculture advances more and more, it becomes more and more efficient, and you can produce more on the same amount of land. If you extrapolate this out far enough, eventually you don't have to have very much land to produce all the food that's necessary (and then some); this is a good thing, as it frees up more resources (capital, if you will) for other industries. It's why, in the 1800's and 1900's we had VAST amounts of land used for farming, but now, we have way less farmers and less farmland; it's not needed thanks to market-gains in efficiency.


Nice to see you back, Fox. ;)

Why thank you. =^^=

[klamath]

I know the answer (but I'm not going to sit here and answer every inanity you come up with, hence I pointed you to the answers of most or all of your questions). Sorry, but you have no idea what you are talking about. Both the historical and theoretical history proves you false. I pointed you to the answers, but if you refuse to read them, much less acknowledge them you are a lost cause.

From now on, I will call those who are supporters of public roads socialists, along with my continuance of calling those who are anti-secessionist as tories.

Typical response. They can never answer the questions that might lead to more acceptance. More people might accept the ideas if concerns are addressed. Oh it takes so much time.
No it's always "right here in the bible. Its all written down. I know the answers, you don't. Nah, Nah, Nah. You socialist socialist socialist socialist!"
Such enlightening and stimulating debate.:rolleyes:
In the time it took to write sociaist, socialist socialist, the answer could have been typed out if there is one.

[BenIsForRon]

if land is more valuable to be used for growing crops, then it will be used for that, but if it is more valuable to be used for transportation, it would be used for that; if the road ever fell into disuse (or no use) then the value may drop back to a more realistic level for agriculture.

It's not like once land is developed for a particular use, it has to stay as that for the rest of time; sure, land is finite, but so is every other resource in the world; it's why we have the pricing system; if everything was infinite, then the price of everything would be at or VERY near zero---land, as a commodity isn't that much different than other commodities; it's merely and immobile one tied to a single location...but this alone doesn't make it any more special than any other commodity.

It is very hard to turn roads or parking lots back into farmland. Soil fertility is completely destroyed, and you have to import many organisms and minerals to restore it. Then it can take decades to restore to its original fertility.

Also, don't forget that roads usually lead into a certain kind of development, whether industrial, residential, or commercial, so its not just the road that is in the way.


Also, I'd like to point out, as agriculture advances more and more, it becomes more and more efficient, and you can produce more on the same amount of land. If you extrapolate this out far enough, eventually you don't have to have very much land to produce all the food that's necessary (and then some); this is a good thing, as it frees up more resources (capital, if you will) for other industries. It's why, in the 1800's and 1900's we had VAST amounts of land used for farming, but now, we have way less farmers and less farmland; it's not needed thanks to market-gains in efficiency.


You seem to still be a believer in the "green" revolution of the 50's and 60's. This was brought about by petrochemical ferilizers, pesticides, and herbicides. All this "technology" has destroyed the fertility of soils and poisoned waterways. This will only last as long as oil is cheap, as it will no longer be profitable after it gets more expensive.

In Iowa, these "advances" you speak of have destroyed the soil to such a degree, that the only way they can grow food on the land is with massive petrochemical inputs. The farmland simply no longer has the ability to be farmed organically.

I hope you see where I'm going with this. I don't think issues like these can be resolved under one simple governing philosophy.

[andrewh817]

There is not infinite space for multiple competing roads. It doesn't have to be outright ownership, but roads should be required to maintain a certain level of quality and accessibility.

Explain to me how that is not "outright ownership."



So there needs to be some government involvement, so that there isn't runaway road building across the countryside.

Actually this has already occurred under the government. If people have to pay to upkeep a road, houses will not be so spread out as they are now in rural areas. Same thing with water, if water wasn't subsidized at all people would use less of it.

[Fox McCloud]

It is very hard to turn roads or parking lots back into farmland. Soil fertility is completely destroyed, and you have to import many organisms and minerals to restore it. Then it can take decades to restore to its original fertility.

Also, don't forget that roads usually lead into a certain kind of development, whether industrial, residential, or commercial, so its not just the road that is in the way.

I never claimed it would be easy, cheap, or that the reclaimed farmland would produce the same amount of crop that it would have before roads were built on it, but at some point, if it is needed, there will be a financial incentive to convert it back into farmland, and when that does occur, it WILL be converted back into farmland; that's the point I'm driving at that you seem to not understand, willfully ignore, or are not aware of.


You seem to still be a believer in the "green" revolution of the 50's and 60's. This was brought about by petrochemical ferilizers, pesticides, and herbicides. All this "technology" has destroyed the fertility of soils and poisoned waterways. This will only last as long as oil is cheap, as it will no longer be profitable after it gets more expensive.

In Iowa, these "advances" you speak of have destroyed the soil to such a degree, that the only way they can grow food on the land is with massive petrochemical inputs. The farmland simply no longer has the ability to be farmed organically.

I hope you see where I'm going with this. I don't think issues like these can be resolved under one simple governing philosophy.

This is a rather complex topic and not my personal specialty; something that I'd have to personally consult with my agronomist friend with. Either way, from what little I have gathered, there are some issues with it, but for the most part, the issue seems to be largely exaggerated and blown way out of proportion.

as for your accusation of "one philosophy can't solve this" I'd beg to differ; Capitalism has created no problem, from what I've gathered in any sector of society, and has solved nearly all of its problems, all the while improving our standard of living, giving us more free time, and lengthening our lives; on the contrary, I think it could be adequately shown that one philosophy is more than enough to solve "problems".

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

It is very hard to turn roads or parking lots back into farmland. Soil fertility is completely destroyed, and you have to import many organisms and minerals to restore it. Then it can take decades to restore to its original fertility.

Also, don't forget that roads usually lead into a certain kind of development, whether industrial, residential, or commercial, so its not just the road that is in the way.



You seem to still be a believer in the "green" revolution of the 50's and 60's. This was brought about by petrochemical ferilizers, pesticides, and herbicides. All this "technology" has destroyed the fertility of soils and poisoned waterways. This will only last as long as oil is cheap, as it will no longer be profitable after it gets more expensive.

In Iowa, these "advances" you speak of have destroyed the soil to such a degree, that the only way they can grow food on the land is with massive petrochemical inputs. The farmland simply no longer has the ability to be farmed organically.

I hope you see where I'm going with this. I don't think issues like these can be resolved under one simple governing philosophy.

I guess you haven't seen the urban farms yet have you? Youtube Detroit.

[BenIsForRon]

I agree that runaway development was largely caused by government, which is one of the main reasons I jumped on the Ron Paul bandwagon when I heard the "end the fed" argument.

However humans do have a tendency to be short-sighted and selfish. Both of those things can lead to resource scarcity at such a large degree that future generations will have to struggle to maintain a decent quality of life. Government has played a big part in this, but that does not mean that there is no role for government, especially at the local and state level, in reducing future scarcity.

For example, all Mexico receives from the Colorado river is a small stream of dirty, salty water. This problem was caused by the massive dam building along the river by the Bureau of Reclamation during the early 20th century. So yeah, government created problem.

However, I see this as something that could have happened just as easily under a free market system. Feel free to correct me if you think that is not true.

[silverhandorder]

I agree that runaway development was largely caused by government, which is one of the main reasons I jumped on the Ron Paul bandwagon when I heard the "end the fed" argument.

However humans do have a tendency to be short-sighted and selfish. Both of those things can lead to resource scarcity at such a large degree that future generations will have to struggle to maintain a decent quality of life. Government has played a big part in this, but that does not mean that there is no role for government, especially at the local and state level, in reducing future scarcity.

For example, all Mexico receives from the Colorado river is a small stream of dirty, salty water. This problem was caused by the massive dam building along the river by the Bureau of Reclamation during the early 20th century. So yeah, government created problem.

However, I see this as something that could have happened just as easily under a free market system. Feel free to correct me if you think that is not true.
So if it can happen under either system should you not realize that it can not be used as an argument against either system?

[Elwar]

You tell me how you would like a privatized road system to work.

I would personally break the road system up into 3 categories. Long distance highways, city roads (stop and go type of traffic), and residential roads.

The long distance highway roads are easy because you already have examples of how those work. I actually take a toll road to work every day. I have a SunPass that sticks to my window. I drive at normal speeds through three tolls on my way to work at a dollar each. The roads are very well maintained and traffic is minimal.

Residential Roads - Another easy one that I would bank a lot of money from. Look at all of the companies that need access for their lines or pipes to go to people's homes. Every road I built, I would have about 6 feet underneath of either some sort of concrete structure or steel structure. From there I would run any type of pipe, or wire or cable that companies are willing to pay me to run. You could have 3 competing water companies running pipes under the road, all manner of different electric, cable and Internet companies running wires under your road. The most expensive part of an Internet company is the cost per mile of laying the wire. That's revenue just waiting to be created.

The city roads - I would sell a simple device that you can put in your car. It is tied to the street lights. Each street light has it's usual time set up in the standard way to change from green to red. But this little device will give you the option to put money toward a faster change to green for your traffic. Say the red light is set to be red for 30 seconds and you want it to change to green. You bid 1 cent times the amount of time left to take a second off of your wait, so at 30 seconds it costs you 30 cents to take a second off, at 20 seconds it costs 20 cents, etc. And let's say someone coming up to a green has set his box to bid 20 cents per second, his bid wins and the light stays green for that 30 seconds. All people waiting or driving through put their bids through and the combined total wins. This would mean that the more people waiting for a light, the more bids and the more likely they can get it to change. Or you could have a high priority sales meeting that you have to be at work in a hurry at any cost...so you drop $100 to make sure that you have green lights your whole way to that important meeting.




I want every detail.

I doubt you want every detail considering you've ignored the plethora of links highlighting just how a private road system would work.

[BenIsForRon]

So if it can happen under either system should you not realize that it can not be used as an argument against either system?

Of course, but you have to make sure you are accurately attributing cause to effect. From my perspective, many people attribute too many problems to the free market.

However, on this forum, there are definitely people who attribute every problem to government intervention, and who believe the Laissez Faire is the best possible system in all scenarios. I think that's naive, and I think I've made a good case as to why zero government involvement in transportation will simply not work out in the best interests of most people.

[silverhandorder]

Of course, but you have to make sure you are accurately attributing cause to effect. From my perspective, many people attribute too many problems to the free market.

However, on this forum, there are definitely people who attribute every problem to government intervention, and who believe the Laissez Faire is the best possible system in all scenarios. I think that's naive, and I think I've made a good case as to why zero government involvement in transportation will simply not work out in the best interests of most people.

We can disagree. I don't expect everyone to fall under libertarian/anarcho view.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

We can disagree. I don't expect everyone to fall under libertarian/anarcho view.

This isn't even a sole An-Cap viewpoint. Where An-Caps differ from minarchists are courts, police, and law.


Madison’s very last act as president was to veto an internal improvements bill sponsored by Henry Clay. Clay had seen to it that the rechartering of the Bank of the United States in 1816 left a $1.5 million slush fund to be used for internal improvement subsidies. Madison had previously warned that such expenditures were unconstitutional and said that a constitutional amendment would be necessary in order for the federal government to spend money on such purposes. Clay attempted to sneak his bill past the lame duck president, who reportedly learned of the bill in the newspapers. So on his very last day in office President James Madison:

[D]ecided it was time to teach the nation a lesson in constitutionalism. . . . The
. . . bill, he said, failed to take into account the fact that Congress had enumerated
powers under section eight of the first article of the Constitution, ‘and it does
not appear that the power proposed to be exercized in the bill is among the
enumerated powers, or that it falls by any just interpretation within the power
to make the laws necessary and proper’ for carrying other constitutional powers
into execution.


Madison warned Congress that the General Welfare Clause of the Constitution was never intended to become a Pandora’s box for special-interest legislation.
Some sixteen years later Andrew Jackson vetoed numerous internal improvement bills, much to the consternation of Henry Clay, their principal sponsor. Jackson referred to such subsidies as “saddling upon the government the losses of unsuccessful private speculation” and, in his Farewell Address, boasted that he had “finally overthrown . . . this plan of unconstitutional expenditure for the purpose of corrupt influence.”

[MN Patriot]

I didn't bother reading all the threads in the middle, so pardon me if somebody already mentioned this, but probably not:

ROADS ARE FUNDED WITH GAS TAXES.

...and...

ROADS ARE A PUBLIC GOOD.

Some roads, like freeways can be easily privatized and converted to toll roads. Local highways and residential roads cannot be privatized easily, hence the need for them to be treated as a public good.

Gas taxes are entirely fair in my mind (except when driving on a toll road, since the gas you paid taxes on isn't being used to pay for the toll road, but hardly a major issue). The bigger vehicles use more gas and wear out the roads more. Smaller vehicles use less gas, pay fewer taxes.

Of course if gasoline engines go away and we have electric vehicles, some other method of paying for roads will have to be created. Probably a mileage tax of some sort.

Case closed. End of discussion. :cool:

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I didn't bother reading all the threads in the middle, so pardon me if somebody already mentioned this, but probably not:

ROADS ARE FUNDED WITH GAS TAXES.

...and...

ROADS ARE A PUBLIC GOOD.

Some roads, like freeways can be easily privatized and converted to toll roads. Local highways and residential roads cannot be privatized easily, hence the need for them to be treated as a public good.

Gas taxes are entirely fair in my mind (except when driving on a toll road, since the gas you paid taxes on isn't being used to pay for the toll road, but hardly a major issue). The bigger vehicles use more gas and wear out the roads more. Smaller vehicles use less gas, pay fewer taxes.

Of course if gasoline engines go away and we have electric vehicles, some other method of paying for roads will have to be created. Probably a mileage tax of some sort.

Case closed. End of discussion. :cool:

Or how about we eliminate the tax altogether and institute free-market policies? Not only that, property tax also goes towards roadways. Moreover, that gas tax you pay for, half is also Federal tax. On top of that, most of the times that tax isn't even used for upkeep, but siphoned off to other projects, salaries, pensions, etc.

What does Roads being socialized right now have to do with anything? Secondly, Tolls are a policy of the State. Private roads would not have tolls. They would use some form of electronic issuance for payment. There are quasi-private roads in France which have electronic scanners under the roads. Stopping and individually paying would never happen because it increases congestion and consumers do not want congestion. I figure some sort of subscription based service would be used. You would get mailed your bill. You could also possibly tie in your Checking Account for automatic transaction. All of it would be through electronic sensing (You would put a sticker on your window, or some other part of your car).

I would gladly pay a little more if need be (I am 100% positive though, that my costs to use roadways would be dramatically decreased) to save me hours and hours of travel time. Time is money. I would also love to get rid of State licensing, state plates, state fines, state laws, etc. Imagine having no State cops on the highways, just some private security forces if the roads had a minimum and maximum speed allowance. I'm sure some companies would compete for driving markets. If you wanted to drive faster, then drive on roads that allowed for that. Vice versa.

BRING COMPETITION AND THE MARKET!

[literatim]

Businesses can either own, operate, and maintain their own roads (collectively even) or they can pay rent to the road owner. What do you think?

So a Walmart could buy up all the roads going to their competitor and shut them down.


The Interstate highway system is modeled after fascist Germany. It doesn't mean it's a bad idea, but it shouldn't be run by the feds, and ideally the roads would all be privatized.

So when Jefferson enacted the first national highway, he was basing it off of Nazi Germany?


Where are all the Constitutional Minarchists around here? I thought the only legitimate powers of Government in your view was the protection of life and property?

Where in the Constitution did it allow for the 1954 Eisenhower Highway program? What about the FDR New Deal?


Article 1, Section 8

To establish post offices and post roads;

[Met Income]

So a Walmart could buy up all the roads going to their competitor and shut them down.



So when Jefferson enacted the first national highway, he was basing it off of Nazi Germany?




Article 1, Section 8

To establish post offices and post roads;


Wal-mart already did, except it's called the Federal govt and they didn't buy it, they got it through force.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

So a Walmart could buy up all the roads going to their competitor and shut them down.



So when Jefferson enacted the first national highway, he was basing it off of Nazi Germany?




Article 1, Section 8

To establish post offices and post roads;

Could you please link to the article which Jefferson instituted a national highway.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

So a Walmart could buy up all the roads going to their competitor and shut them down.



So when Jefferson enacted the first national highway, he was basing it off of Nazi Germany?




Article 1, Section 8

To establish post offices and post roads;


Errr wrong. According to James Madison the Father of the Constitution.

[MN Patriot]

Or how about we eliminate the tax altogether and institute free-market policies? Not only that, property tax also goes towards roadways. Moreover, that gas tax you pay for, half is also Federal tax. On top of that, most of the times that tax isn't even used for upkeep, but siphoned off to other projects, salaries, pensions, etc.

Roads are paid through a number of different funding mechanisms. Libertarians need to learn how things currently work before proposing radical changes. Yes, federal gas taxes should pay for national roads, those that are designated as interstate federal freeways, US highways, etc. State gas taxes are used for state and local roads. Up here in the northland, even snowmobile trails get a fraction of the gas taxes for maintaining trails. City property taxes are used for local city streets. Yes, in typical government fashion, the tax money gets used for non-road projects, etc. Which is why we need to elect libertarians and not socialists.

Privatizing toll roads wouldn't be too much of a challenge. But how do you propose privatizing local roads, such as the street you live on? Toll roads have the competition of local roads. But if there is only one possible street to your house, how can there be any competition other than digging a tunnel or inventing a "hovercraft" that takes off vertically?


What does Roads being socialized right now have to do with anything?

Because that is the nature of the reality we inhabit RIGHT NOW.


Secondly, Tolls are a policy of the State. Private roads would not have tolls. They would use some form of electronic issuance for payment. There are quasi-private roads in France which have electronic scanners under the roads. Stopping and individually paying would never happen because it increases congestion and consumers do not want congestion. I figure some sort of subscription based service would be used. You would get mailed your bill. You could also possibly tie in your Checking Account for automatic transaction. All of it would be through electronic sensing (You would put a sticker on your window, or some other part of your car).

Modern technology can provide solutions, like you demonstrate. But then how many people want some company keeping track of their every movement? I can predict much resistance to this idea, even though it is technically feasible, because people don't want Big Brother watching them.


I would gladly pay a little more if need be (I am 100% positive though, that my costs to use roadways would be dramatically decreased) to save me hours and hours of travel time. Time is money. I would also love to get rid of State licensing, state plates, state fines, state laws, etc. Imagine having no State cops on the highways, just some private security forces if the roads had a minimum and maximum speed allowance. I'm sure some companies would compete for driving markets. If you wanted to drive faster, then drive on roads that allowed for that. Vice versa.

BRING COMPETITION AND THE MARKET!

Then would private roads require cars to be built to a certain specification? Could I build my own jalopy with lances and arrows protruding from it? Laser beams flashing in every direction? High beams always on? (10 of them so that I can see REAL good.) How about a coal powered steam vehicle, belching tons of black smoke?

The reason I post these objections is because the typical dumbed-downed citizen will come up with arguments like these.

And in the end, I think privatizing the roads is at the bottom of the liberty movement's priority lists. It makes for good academic discussion, but there are more pressing issues to tackle.

[angelatc]

Looks like Ron Paul Forums has a new Statist in town.




It's ok. A little liberal keeps us sharp.

[angelatc]

I didn't bother reading all the threads in the middle, so pardon me if somebody already mentioned this, but probably not:

ROADS ARE FUNDED WITH GAS TAXES.



Roads should be funded with fuel taxes, but they're not.

[BenIsForRon]

It's ok. A little liberal keeps us sharp.

You guys see me as a liberal, however, I think I'm a conservative and many of you are just anarcho-capitalists who haven't realized it yet. Constitutionalists and libertarians are not all anti-public roads.

[Fox McCloud]

You guys see me as a liberal, however, I think I'm a conservative and many of you are just anarcho-capitalists who haven't realized it yet. Constitutionalists and libertarians are not all anti-public roads.

I don't think they (I am not) are going by just your statements on roads to arrive at that conclusion.

[dgr]

The public roads PPP's are part of a more compliciated big picture, and befor e you scream conspiriacy therory, I have read the whole legislation from Clinton to my states most recent compliance report. They call it priviatation of the highways, push for it as safty and fuel savings, but it is a compliciated 3 state linkage of highways to make for more effiecent movement of goods from Mexician ports to points in the US called "inland ports" which are Mexician consular territory That is what the suit to stop the Mexician piolit trucking program is all about. Independent trucking firs and truckers will be put out of business it says this in the BILL, only Mexicians will be alowed to work in the inland port distribution centers. This also involve the RR in fact it calls for privitation of the RR , some ports and friight air ports.
Some lanes on the highway will be trucks only, some new highspeed rail lines will be constructed along side thes roads, these things will be 4 to lanes wide, emminent domian will be used to get the land and enviorment studies will be deemed unnecessay as the whole thing will be fast tracked 10 years start to finish and they hve been implementing it for 4 years. It plans to make driving too expensive to do, and if you still drive , that miliage tax is going to be determined 'BY A TRACKING DEVICE IN YOUR LEICIENS TAG''

GET THE PICTURE NOW

[kahless]

Interstates are one thing that could be privatized but when you get down to local roads no one should own them. You make them a public - private partnership where if you do or do not want to contribute to improve the road system you are free to make that choice. The worst case is if people in your neighborhood fail to contribute then the consequences are you are driving on subpar roads. However with this option the freedoms of the individual private property owners are not infringed upon. If some home or business owners are not happy with that then they could contribute more to have something done about it.

The alternative is forcing private property owners to pay for roads against their will. It is astounding that we continue to see people in a liberty forum posting in favor of such policy.

Privatizing local roads where competition is not possible would allow corporations to infinge on the private property rights of the home or business owners. This is another aspect that get played out time and time again on these forums. Forum members favoring private property rights of corporations over that of the individual home or business owner. A corporation could simply drive me off of my private property by buying up the road to my property, charging me such an outrageous fee for use and preventing my access if I do not pay. I could end up in court for failure to pay some outrageous fee and they would be allowed to put a lien on my private property if I do not comply. You think government immient domain is bad, wait to you see what corporations do with corporate privatization of your local roads to gain control of private property they do not own.

[teacherone]

The city roads - I would sell a simple device that you can put in your car. It is tied to the street lights. Each street light has it's usual time set up in the standard way to change from green to red. But this little device will give you the option to put money toward a faster change to green for your traffic. Say the red light is set to be red for 30 seconds and you want it to change to green. You bid 1 cent times the amount of time left to take a second off of your wait, so at 30 seconds it costs you 30 cents to take a second off, at 20 seconds it costs 20 cents, etc. And let's say someone coming up to a green has set his box to bid 20 cents per second, his bid wins and the light stays green for that 30 seconds. All people waiting or driving through put their bids through and the combined total wins. This would mean that the more people waiting for a light, the more bids and the more likely they can get it to change. Or you could have a high priority sales meeting that you have to be at work in a hurry at any cost...so you drop $100 to make sure that you have green lights your whole way to that important meeting.
.

This, my friend is pure fucking genius-- and something no army of beuareucrats could ever devise.

http://content.ytmnd.com/content/4/c/5/4c584b6de9a1f7bd471cc863b9e41750.jpg

[teacherone]

The city roads - I would sell a simple device that you can put in your car. It is tied to the street lights. Each street light has it's usual time set up in the standard way to change from green to red. But this little device will give you the option to put money toward a faster change to green for your traffic. Say the red light is set to be red for 30 seconds and you want it to change to green. You bid 1 cent times the amount of time left to take a second off of your wait, so at 30 seconds it costs you 30 cents to take a second off, at 20 seconds it costs 20 cents, etc. And let's say someone coming up to a green has set his box to bid 20 cents per second, his bid wins and the light stays green for that 30 seconds. All people waiting or driving through put their bids through and the combined total wins. This would mean that the more people waiting for a light, the more bids and the more likely they can get it to change. Or you could have a high priority sales meeting that you have to be at work in a hurry at any cost...so you drop $100 to make sure that you have green lights your whole way to that important meeting.
.

This, my friend is pure fucking genius-- and something no army of bureaucrats could ever devise.
http://content.ytmnd.com/content/4/c/5/4c584b6de9a1f7bd471cc863b9e41750.jpg

[teacherone]

Private Water Company goes after thieves who steal water
By John Scheibe

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

A private company that supplies water to parts of Camarillo, Thousand Oaks and Newbury Park is ramping up a campaign against water theft, saying the crime hurts water users as well as the company.

Customers risk having their water contaminated when thieves take it, said Al Yanez, operations manager for California American Water.

Yanez said a theft typically involves a construction truck attaching a hose to a fire hydrant and filling up a large tank that can hold as much as 5,000 gallons. Yanez said it takes about 20 minutes to fill such a tank as high-pressure water gushes out of the hydrant.

Contamination can occur when water from the tank flows back into the hydrant, sending debris and other contaminants from the tank into a system that supplies households and businesses.

“We really don’t know where that truck has been,” Yanez said. “It could have just come from a waste-water treatment facility.”

Another issue is water rationing imposed on suppliers throughout the state because of the drought, said Brian Barreto, external affairs manager for California American Water’s Southern California region. The company risks substantial state fines if it distributes more water than its allotment, Barreto said.

“Right now, we’re within 1 percent of our allocation,” he said.

interesting....http://www.vcstar.com/news/2010/jan/19/company-goes-after-thieves-who-steal-water/?print=1

[Akus]

use hovercraft and we wont need "roads"

Or we can bring those Avatar flying beasts and acclimatize them to oxygen and connect with them on mind-mind level....:)

[akforme]

I'm into this late but I have a question. Isn't this more a state / federal issue?

We don't want federal mandated roads because they would use federal tax dollars for the government to pick certain sates, cities and counties that would benefit instead of the state deciding. I can see the issue of planning but I can also see that if somebody built a highway, what fool would build one right next to it unless traffic necessitated it.

I could be wrong, I've never really looked into the matter but that was kinda my take on it.

[Travlyr]

Government roads programs are really jobs programs. Virtually every city is constantly rebuilding, repairing, or replacing one or more of their roads. It does't have to be that way.

A free market road system would use something like Phillips Petroleum Petromat (http://books.google.com/books?id=DgEAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA101&lpg=PA101&dq=phillips+petroleum+petromat+popular+science&source=bl&ots=tJ1BbVbq4W&sig=MR1O0jdOc47FaFxtz2C5ZhpZLtk&hl=en&ei=R9NcS8-QDIKwswPkpaSPAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false//), higher quality materials, roundabouts rather than stop lights, and much smarter designs.

[ramallamamama]

http://memegenerator.net/Instances/834/Joseph-Ducreux-THESE-ROADWAYS-WILL-MAKE-YOU-FEEL-AS-THOUGH-YOU-HAVE-BEEN-RENEWED-THE-COLOSSAL-STREET.jpg

[TCE]

If there was a free market, some entrepreneur would use the technology we have to track if you used his road or not. Since it would be a small business owner, we don't have to worry about the NWO conspiracy chips, etc.

Akforme: It should be a state issue, as the original Bonus Bill vetoed by Madison was to show. However, it has become a federal one. The federal government now offers states highway funds if they follow certain guidelines, essentially bribing the states to do it like the feds want them to. The states now know this money is coming, so, they forfeit whatever rights the federal government wants them to in exchange for it. This gives them no incentive to privatize the roads, because they won't affect the budget very much. If these federal handouts ended, we would see many more private roads.

[Elwar]

Actually, when I was working with an investor group for some land in New Hampshire for the Free State Project (http://www.freestateproject.org), I was working with the coordinator to own the roads precisely so that I could set it up to run our utilities under the roadway. It would have, of course, required an easement for each property in the neighborhood.

Not only would I charge utilities to run their lines to the homes, there were a few ideas by people to have the community be self-sustaining as far as electricity goes. They could have used my roads to run the power.

And being up in New Hampshire, I figured that the water pipes could be heated under the roads to melt the snow.

But the whole land deal fell apart as the housing boom began and prices started to skyrocket.

[Travlyr]

Free the roads! End the jobs program, and let us build some smart roads.


https://kokesh.netboots.net/sites/kokesh.netboots.net/files/imagecache/fullsize/images/Andrew_Sharp/BBlarge.gif (http://www.kokeshforcongress.com/birthday-bomb-february-1st-2010)

[MN Patriot]

Government roads programs are really jobs programs. Virtually every city is constantly rebuilding, repairing, or replacing one or more of their roads. It does't have to be that way.

A free market road system would use something like Phillips Petroleum Petromat (http://books.google.com/books?id=DgEAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA101&lpg=PA101&dq=phillips+petroleum+petromat+popular+science&source=bl&ots=tJ1BbVbq4W&sig=MR1O0jdOc47FaFxtz2C5ZhpZLtk&hl=en&ei=R9NcS8-QDIKwswPkpaSPAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false//), higher quality materials, roundabouts rather than stop lights, and much smarter designs.

Roads wear out, like just about anything else. For awhile there were radio ads for concrete roads, as if anybody is going to buy a concrete road, except government. Don't really know why they spent all that money on buying ads, except some contractor was pushing to put in concrete roads. My local freeway is concrete, according to the ads concrete lasts for 20 years. About 5 years after it was put in, they had to shut the lanes down for half the summer to fix it.

Roundabouts are a government bureaucrats wet dream. So European. The local crew cut, pencil neck government transportation commissioner zombie with only one emotion, total seriousness, had 3 (THREE) stupid roundabouts put in on my road that goes to my concrete freeway. All three within about 1/2 a mile (oops one kilometer) of each other. They are a complete pain in the ass. Turn lanes would have been adequate, they have 2 or three turn lanes in between the roundabouts, which have low traffic cross streets. There was major opposition to them by all the locals, but residents and citizens don't matter. Government bureaucrats know better.