If private roads are feasible, why don't we have them now?

[Rael]

After all, there are other areas where the government dominates, that still have private alternatives. For example, even though government dominates education, there are still private schools.

[Jeremy]

Because society is literally built around the existing government roads.

But there are some. I think France has a lot more than the US.

[heavenlyboy34]

Bad habits, bad laws, and bad ideas take time to defeat

[Kludge]

Because society is literally built around the existing government roads.

+1

Private corporations already are starting to take over the highways/interstates, but it´s a slow transition and voters often work to prevent corporations from taking over gov´t roads.

YouTube - Private Roads -- Stossel in the Classroom (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5DCmDXJun4)

[RonPaulGetsIt]

There are private roads on private property such as the expansive Disney World Florida site. It's all well designed, safe and immaculate.

Also the early roads were all turnpike pay for use roads.

[ClayTrainor]

In Canada we don't have any private hospitals, but that does not mean that private hospitals are not feasible, it just means that coercion and force is used to prevent people from owning and running their own hospitals. I think the same logic can be applied to the roads.

[Travlyr]

If roads were privatized, road construction would be a road building project, not an endless jobs program.

[Jeremy]

If roads were privatized, road construction would be a road building project, not an endless jobs program.

You mean we can't hire 25 people to replace a storm drain? You are for unemployment!!!!

[Travlyr]

You mean we can't hire 25 people to replace a storm drain? You are for unemployment!!!!

Yes! I learned from Nancy Pelosi that unemployment is the best way to create jobs!

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=251624

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I heard the USSR never had any unemployment, perhaps we should immediately institute their policies!!! /sarc


In Canada we don't have any private hospitals, but that does not mean that private hospitals are not feasible, it just means that coercion and force is used to prevent people from owning and running their own hospitals. I think the same logic can be applied to the roads.

Exactly. It is also the fallacy of because it doesn't exist right now, it can not ever exist. (Remember, at one point in time every country at slaves. Now, you wouldn't say that having a country without slaves is not feasible, right??)

[heavenlyboy34]

You mean we can't hire 25 people to replace a storm drain? You are for unemployment!!!!

lolz!! :D;)

[Fredom101]

There are private roads all over the place. Lots of subdivisions build their own roads, there are private toll highways, etc.
But the government does not like to let go of it's power, and it does get legitimacy in people's minds by building roads. The bottom line is people build roads- in a free country without government, there would still be huge demand for roads, so they of course would get build and maintained.

[Rael]

In Canada we don't have any private hospitals, but that does not mean that private hospitals are not feasible, it just means that coercion and force is used to prevent people from owning and running their own hospitals. I think the same logic can be applied to the roads.

I don't think that applies in this case; to my knowledge there are no laws prohibiting private roads.

[BuddyRey]

I was researching this subject recently, and in fact, most of the first highways were privately funded.

[WaltM]

because (according to anarchists who live in fantasyland)

a) they made it illegal
b) they want people to believe it's unfeasible
c) they want to discourage you from doing it, so it's expensive

[Fredom101]

because (according to anarchists who live in fantasyland)

a) they made it illegal
b) they want people to believe it's unfeasible
c) they want to discourage you from doing it, so it's expensive

Bullshit, read what I wrote.
Statists are the ones living in fantasyland. To them, without government, no roads would get built or maintained, because, government employees are the only ones who posses the knowledge about roads!? Or is it that some billionaire would buy up all the roads in a free society and block cars from going anywhere, because, well, he just wants to be evil, and nobody would be able to stop him!?

[Fredom101]

Rothbard wrote a book on roads, and I believe this is a clip: YouTube - rothbard roads (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmImpYxKvl4)

[awake]

I built and maintain a piece of road privately, it is my driveway. It is quite profitable. Other people use it as well at times for my own benefit. I even heard of people owning whole areas where cars could sit still for rest, they call them parking lots.

[Elwar]

There are private roads.


Seeing an opportunity, Cigna Corp., Prudential Power Funding, and John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance stepped in, formed a new corporation called TRIP, and made an offer. TRIP would build the road if it could reap the profits. Virginia agreed, and despite enormous bureaucratic obstacles and (still) potentially ruinous government barriers, the road has at last been completed.

Allowing the owners to run it like a business is another matter. The chief problem is the price structure. Before the road was finished, Virginia formed the State Corporation Commission to regulate road prices in the same way the government regulates utilities today. To change prices, TRIP has to ask permission, and the Commission can approve or reject any proposal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_road_association


In St. Louis, these are referred to as "street associations." They provide not only roads but other municipal services, such as garbage collection and security. Typically these are neighborhoods where the streets were previously public but have been deeded to the street associations by the city, in exchange for the residents providing their own city services.

I also recall reading about a bridge run from the US to Canada that was costing both sides a lot of money. They sold it to a private company and not only did the company make a profit, it was also able to lower the toll to cross.

[WaltM]

Bullshit, read what I wrote.
Statists are the ones living in fantasyland.


No, the world we live in today is no thanks to anarchists.



To them, without government, no roads would get built or maintained, because, government employees are the only ones who posses the knowledge about roads!?


nope, never said that.

to us, people can built roads all they want, let's see them buy the land up first.



Or is it that some billionaire would buy up all the roads in a free society and block cars from going anywhere, because, well, he just wants to be evil, and nobody would be able to stop him!?

that's a possibility, so what?

i don't exactly think that's wrong, if it is, or it's stoppable, Starbucks, WalMart, DeBeers, Apple, Google wouldn't exist.

[Elwar]

I had a neighbor who built a few townhouses and had to put in a road as well. He freely gave it to the city once he was finished so that he didn't have to pay to maintain it.

[ClayTrainor]

because (according to anarchists who live in fantasyland)


YouTube - Successful Troll Song (with lyrics) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kE7CEycI7nc)

[awake]

I have driven on toll highways and paid money. They seemed well kept and maintained... The idea works. Most people complain that they not only have to pay taxes for the roads but have to pay to drive on certain sections as the toll highway as well.

The model works, but it is one or the other, taxes or tolls, not both. I happen to believe private ownership would bring about a proper supply of roads... not what we have now.

[low preference guy]

YouTube - Successful Troll Song (with lyrics) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kE7CEycI7nc)

Another reason WaltM post is pretty lame is that one doesn't have be an anarchist to advocate private roads.

I'm not an anarchist and I want private roads (not sure if all, but want to move in that direction and see what happens).

Also, Ayn Rand wasn't an anarchist. Yet she wanted all roads to be private.



because (according to anarchists who live in fantasyland)

[awake]

Walt M; what are your thoughts on An Caps?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Indeed, preference, indeed. I guess Walt believes George Mason to be an anarchist also. Especially those silly Anti-Federalists and them not wanting a STANDING ARMY AT ALL! Crazy anarchists!!

[WaltM]

Walt M; what are your thoughts on An Caps?

they're USUALLY (but not all or always) about as naive as communists.

[WaltM]

Indeed, preference, indeed. I guess Walt believes George Mason to be an anarchist also. Especially those silly Anti-Federalists and them not wanting a STANDING ARMY AT ALL! Crazy anarchists!!

to be honest, anarchist is a relative term, just like atheist, all Christians are atheists to Allah, all Muslims are atheists to Vishnu.

So communists are anarchists against capitalism, capitalists are anarchists against socialism.

George Mason lived in a different time.

[awake]

they're USUALLY (but not all or always) about as naive as communists.

Well as naive as I might be, what is a realistic social arrangement for society according to WaltM?

[emazur]

Are there govt. roads n America that require tolls? I remember the govt. expressways in Japan were pretty expensive - just looked on Wikipedia and it says

National expressways are expensive to use, with the 325.5-km journey from Tokyo to Nagoya on the Tōmei Expressway costing ¥7100 in tolls for an ordinary car.[9] As of March 2009, the toll for most lengths of road on weekends has been reduced to 1000 Yen maximum for those using the ETC card system (detailed below).
Fortunately Japan has an awesome nationwide system of trains and owning a car is not necessary there

[WaltM]

Another reason WaltM post is pretty lame is that one doesn't have be an anarchist to advocate private roads.


Yes, and those are the reasons that IF you're an anarchist (and also live in fantasyland), you'd say why private roads don't exist (or not as much).




I'm not an anarchist and I want private roads (not sure if all, but want to move in that direction and see what happens).


I never said you live in fantasyland.



Also, Ayn Rand wasn't an anarchist. Yet she wanted all roads to be private.

[Number19]

Privately owned improved roads are only feasible where traffic volume equals a minimum sustainable level. Large areas of rural America, particularly in the West, would revert back to horse and wagon. OK, a bit of an exaggeration. However, roads would revert back to unimproved surfaces, gravel in some instances, but simply dirt tracks in many cases. The social impact would be extreme. Has anyone given the slightest thought to this? Even the YouTube clip dared not approach this question.

[WaltM]

Well as naive as I might be, what is a realistic social arrangement for society according to WaltM?

the status quo?

I dont believe private and public is a real dichotomy (at least its not for practical purposes)

[awake]

Privately owned improved roads are only feasible where traffic volume equals a minimum sustainable level. Large areas of rural America, particularly in the West, would revert back to horse and wagon. OK, a bit of an exaggeration. However, roads would revert back to unimproved surfaces, gravel in some instances, but simply dirt tracks in many cases. The social impact would be extreme. Has anyone given the slightest thought to this? Even the YouTube clip dared not approach this question.


Some of the un-mantained asphalt surfaces in some rural areas have the residents begging either to have it repaired or torn up. The roads are in such disrepair that dirt road speed is all you can get up to with out your vehicle disintegrating.

[Elwar]

Privately owned improved roads are only feasible where traffic volume equals a minimum sustainable level. Large areas of rural America, particularly in the West, would revert back to horse and wagon. OK, a bit of an exaggeration. However, roads would revert back to unimproved surfaces, gravel in some instances, but simply dirt tracks in many cases. The social impact would be extreme. Has anyone given the slightest thought to this? Even the YouTube clip dared not approach this question.

Give me all of the rural roads in the US and you'd see an Internet/electricity/cable TV/phone revolution beyond your wildest dreams.

[heavenlyboy34]

Privately owned improved roads are only feasible where traffic volume equals a minimum sustainable level. Large areas of rural America, particularly in the West, would revert back to horse and wagon. OK, a bit of an exaggeration. However, roads would revert back to unimproved surfaces, gravel in some instances, but simply dirt tracks in many cases. The social impact would be extreme. Has anyone given the slightest thought to this? Even the YouTube clip dared not approach this question.

Those roads are often frequented by truckers (who are paid by trucking companies), who would have an incentive to maintain them. Such roads are also useful to farmers and other folks who live away from the big cities. (I've been through such areas and know this first-hand) I say your argument fails.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Why should residents in the rural areas expect to have the same infrastructure as heavily populated areas? Isn't the market supposed to allocate resources the most efficiently, or are you against the market in this area? Even with that said, I still think there would be paved roads simply because it is more efficient and demanded alternative to dirt roads. Also, even with todays Government infrastructure many roads are still dirt roads in rural areas.

I know, I used to live in BFE Maryland and dirt roads were still widely used, and this was MARYLAND, not Wyoming. The laws of Economics are not always pretty.

PS: I still have family that lives in those rural areas of Maryland and they still don't have access to high-speed internet, unless they get Satelitte internet. Do you suggest the Government should tax the rest of the residents in the state to pay for high-speed internet for those who live in rural areas? After all...today the internet is probably as important as paved roads.

[bucfish]

Back in the days early 1700's when one wanted a bridge or road they made a lottery to fund the project.

[WaltM]

Back in the days early 1700's when one wanted a bridge or road they made a lottery to fund the project.

do I understand the logic here?

Because something worked in the 1700, no reason it can't work today.

Try that with slavery, immigration, militia, woman's suffrage.

[ClayTrainor]

I dont believe private and public is a real dichotomy (at least its not for practical purposes)

How about Market and Government?

How about Capitalism and Socialism?

Are these also false dichotomies, for practical purposes? What dichotomy is true?

[awake]

the status quo?

I dont believe private and public is a real dichotomy (at least its not for practical purposes)

So you like the interventionist model we live in currently? Because we can not stay in the mixed model, the fulcrum forces a choice from everyone.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

So you like the interventionist model we live in currently? Because we can not stay in the mixed model, the fulcrum forces a choice from everyone.

Indeed. There is a great quote with Mises on this...I just can't remember it for the life of me, and I really don't feel like flipping through the 1000 pages of Human Action. Perhaps others here have it.

[WaltM]

How about Market and Government?


A better one, but I believe a government is just another group or people, or corporation, which is eventually part of the market (and sometimes rules over it)




How about Capitalism and Socialism?


not a real dichotomy until you define what is property and what are rights



Are these also false dichotomies, for practical purposes? What dichotomy is true?

I believe the only real dichotomies are :
happy vs unhappy
wealth vs poverty
voluntary vs involuntary
practical vs inpractical (or sustainable)

[Fredom101]

Realize that when talking to statists, government employees are like MAGIC! Only they can magically build roads. Private companies would NEVER be able to figure it out!

[WaltM]

So you like the interventionist model we live in currently? Because we can not stay in the mixed model, the fulcrum forces a choice from everyone.

I like some of it, do you hate it entirely?

Yes, we can stay in a mixed model, we may change the composition of mixing, but it's most likely going to be mixed (or else you can at least show me one country that's a purist model)

[WaltM]

Realize that when talking to statists, government employees are like MAGIC! Only they can magically build roads. Private companies would NEVER be able to figure it out!

never said that.

I dont even deny that private companies do things better. I just dont see how it wouldn't come at a greater cost.

[heavenlyboy34]

Realize that when talking to statists, government employees are like MAGIC! Only they can magically build roads. Private companies would NEVER be able to figure it out!

lolz!! ;):D

[Fredom101]

You said that anarchists who want private roads are living in fantasyland.
In a free society, you would only pay for the roads you use, and there's no sales or income taxes. Since roads would be open to free market competition, you would most certainly pay less for them than you do now, and they would be in better condition.

[bucfish]

do I understand the logic here?

Because something worked in the 1700, no reason it can't work today.

Try that with slavery, immigration, militia, woman's suffrage.


I think you do not understand. In 1700's when they had a big project to make they didn't raise taxes they had a lottery(kinda like the local baseball team having a bake sale)

If we are forced to do something then are we not slaves that have to pay a percentage of our incomes to the Master?

Or forced to accept laws that they change at whim such as immigration?


On the Militia and Women's suffrage we have both because people fought and died for them against an omnipotent state..

[Political Terror]

Where cities and towns can't afford the upkeep of roads maybe they'll start selling them to the private sector.

In this article from the Wall Street Journal there's a county that is tearing up the road to make it a dirt road again because they cannot afford the upkeep or maintenance.

Roads to Ruin: Towns Rip Up the Pavement (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704913304575370950363737746.html)

[WaltM]

You said that anarchists who want private roads are living in fantasyland.


No I didn't. I said those who give such excuses live in fantasyland.




In a free society, you would only pay for the roads you use, and there's no sales or income taxes.


I lived and traveled in 3rd world countries.



Since roads would be open to free market competition, you would most certainly pay less for them than you do now, and they would be in better condition.

believe me, the places I lived in had more things worthy your concern than who pays for roads.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

No I didn't. I said those who give such excuses live in fantasyland.




I lived and traveled in 3rd world countries.



believe me, the places I lived in had more things worthy your concern than who pays for roads.

You will be living in one in the not too distant future too, under your nice little system.

[WaltM]

I think you do not understand. In 1700's when they had a big project to make they didn't raise taxes they had a lottery(kinda like the local baseball team having a bake sale)


And what if the government wanted a big bake sale, in form of direct taxation?

Is that not more effective?




If we are forced to do something then are we not slaves that have to pay a percentage of our incomes to the Master?


Yes and no, you're free to do nothing, or move to a nice area.

But I meant, slavery was legal during 1700s, should it still be today?
Seemed to work for them back then, right?



Or forced to accept laws that they change at whim such as immigration?


I agree, we shouldn't, we shouldn't change what we did about immigration when our country was founded



On the Militia and Women's suffrage we have both because people fought and died for them against an omnipotent state..

no, I meant, 1700s had no women's suffrage, and it worked for them, so why should we have it now? How can we say it's wrong for them to have not had it?

[bucfish]

No I didn't. I said those who give such excuses live in fantasyland.




I lived and traveled in 3rd world countries.



believe me, the places I lived in had more things worthy your concern than who pays for roads.

WaltM answer why Government needs to pay for them darn roads. Do the business's and people that use them roads not pay for them?

If those roads are necessary than will they be better paved?

[awake]

I like some of it, do you hate it entirely?

Yes, we can stay in a mixed model, we may change the composition of mixing, but it's most likely going to be mixed (or else you can at least show me one country that's a purist model)


We can not stay. You need only look around you, the too big to fail /bailout model of the interventionist tool bag is enough to bring on successive and ever increasing crisis for which more government intervention is called forth to undo the previous mistakes. It is a vicious descending spiral much like the table cloth when pulled; the plates, glasses and utensils come with it and to the floor.

You have only two choices: back to the free market, or onward to full government control. And in your case, fence siting is just the choice of the latter until it gets so bad that you make the choice to turn against the momentum out of self interest and self preservation.

[WaltM]

You will be living in one in the not too distant future too, under your nice little system.

by then, the countries I lived in aren't exactly improved, so here will still be relatively better.

[WaltM]

We can not stay. You need only look around you, the too big to fail /bailout model of the interventionist tool bag is enough to bring on successive and ever increasing crisis for which more government intervention is called forth to undo the previous mistakes. It is a vicious descending spiral much like the table cloth when pulled; the plates, glasses and utensils come with it and to the floor.

You have only two choices: back to the free market, or onward to full government control. And in your case fence siting is just the choice of the latter until it gets so bad that you make the choice to turn against the momentum out of self interest and self preservation.

I disagree that those are the only 2 choices.

I want government control on some things, not all things.

I want government to execute criminals and leave me alone in bed.

I don't need to wait for things to get bad, I know countries that have bad roads for other reasons, and good roads thanks to their government.

I DO already live for self interest and preservation (can you say you don't?)

[thehunter]

You guys might be interested in this (it's not perfect, but it is well maintained and speedy!):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_Highway_407

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

by then, the countries I lived in aren't exactly improved, so here will still be relatively better.

You should move to Detroit then. Let me know how much relatively better it is there.

The reason 3rd world countries are 3rd world is because of their authoritarian nature, not because of freedom & liberty. I even have empirical evidence that shows how liberty and freedom even under the most duress situations is better than the Statist "solution". You will probably not even listen though.

[ClayTrainor]

A better one, but I believe a government is just another group or people, or corporation, which is eventually part of the market (and sometimes rules over it)

Of course they're both just groups of people. The difference is how they are funded...

[WaltM]

WaltM answer why Government needs to pay for them darn roads.


because they want to, and get away with it.



Do the business's and people that use them roads not pay for them?


Yes and no.



If those roads are necessary than will they be better paved?

no, 3rd world countries DEMAND, BEG AND CRY DAILY WHAT'S NECESSARY and they don't get what they want. Does food fall from the sky just because you say you want it? Does somebody give you what you want just because you tell him you have money to pay for it?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I disagree that those are the only 2 choices.

I want government control on some things, not all things.

I want government to execute criminals and leave me alone in bed.

I don't need to wait for things to get bad, I know countries that have bad roads for other reasons, and good roads thanks to their government.

I DO already live for self interest and preservation (can you say you don't?)

So the road to serfdom, and the unintended consequences of intervention are just fairytales also?

[bucfish]

because they want to, and get away with it.



Yes and no.



no, 3rd world countries DEMAND, BEG AND CRY DAILY WHAT'S NECESSARY and they don't get what they want. Does food fall from the sky just because you say you want it? Does somebody give you what you want just because you tell him you have money to pay for it?


Walt are you sure you are not Sarah Palin or Mitt Romney?

[WaltM]

You should move to Detroit then. Let me know how much relatively better it is there.


Detroit isn't better than where I live, but better than Philipines, Cambodia and Vietnam.




The reason 3rd world countries are 3rd world is because of their authoritarian nature, not because of freedom & liberty.


why are there more 3rd world countries in African than in Europe?




I even have empirical evidence that shows how liberty and freedom even under the most duress situations is better than the Statist "solution". You will probably not even listen though.

no, I want to listen.

Please show me. I suspect you won't agree with me on what's statist and liberty.

[WaltM]

Walt are you sure you are not Sarah Palin or Mitt Romney?

I'm not a creationist or a Mormon.

[WaltM]

So the road to serfdom, and the unintended consequences of intervention are just fairytales also?

is serfdom inevitable?

[bucfish]

Detroit isn't better than where I live, but better than Philipines, Cambodia and Vietnam.




why are there more 3rd world countries in African than in Europe?




no, I want to listen.

Please show me. I suspect you won't agree with me on what's statist and liberty.

Because Europe (England) has imposed Imperial Taxation upon the Africans.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

is serfdom inevitable?

It is if everyone believed in the status quo like you Walt.

[bucfish]

Africa is 3rd World cause they do not have FREEDOM!

[WaltM]

Because Europe (England) has imposed Imperial Taxation upon the Africans.

why can't the opposite be done?

why hasn't europe done it to Asia?

Why hasn't asia done it to africa?

Why hasn't Africa done it to India?

Hell, India's known for exporting IT, why cant they sell themselves to Africa?
Why is India still not top 30?

[WaltM]

Africa is 3rd World cause they do not have FREEDOM!

what do they have? Socialism? taxes? free education?

do they have nice food stamps?

[awake]

I disagree that those are the only 2 choices.

I want government control on some things, not all things.

I want government to execute criminals and leave me alone in bed.

I don't need to wait for things to get bad, I know countries that have bad roads for other reasons, and good roads thanks to their government.

I DO already live for self interest and preservation (can you say you don't?)


Limited government is a failed experiment. It is in fact a fools errand. The U.S. Constitution was meant to do everything with in mans power to restrain the idea of government, to make it a protector of civil society, the result? You have malignant tumors spreading all over humanity, a rapidly growing cancer that is slowly paralyzing the great division of labor. This universal cooperation that has allowed our forebears to prosper, thus paving the way for this generation to walk the earth in conditions not dared dreamed of by those who came before.

We are less free today than 10 years ago... we will be even less free 10 years from now. You stay with the idea that it can stay as it is ... the rest of us who know better will be hard at work.

[Flash]

Drew Carey had an interesting documentary on private roads that he made for Reason. Heres the link if anyone wants to check it out:
http://reason.tv/video/show/gridlock

[ClayTrainor]

Drew Carey had an interesting documentary on private roads that he made for Reason. Heres the link if anyone wants to check it out:
http://reason.tv/video/show/gridlock

Thanks!

[WaltM]

It is if everyone believed in the status quo like you Walt.

so countries that are socialist but not in serfdom such as Norway, Netherlands, Canada, is because they don't believe in the status quo? Or that they're not in serfdom yet? Or is your definition of serfdom simply high taxes regardless of how happy they are, what they get in return?

[WaltM]

Limited government is a failed experiment. It is in fact a fools errand.


So all countries in the world are either failed, or full authoritarian?



The U.S. Constitution was meant to do everything with in mans power to restrain the idea of government, to make it a protector of civil society, the result? You have malignant tumors spreading all over humanity, a rapidly growing cancer that is slowly paralyzing the great division of labor.


But isn't that only because we don't obey our Constitution?

You're gonna get slammed here for saying the Constitution failed to provide us liberty or was faulted to begin with.




This universal cooperation that has allowed our forebears to prosper, thus paving the way for this generation to walk the earth in conditions not dared dreamed of by those who came before.

We are less free today than 10 years ago... we will be even less free 10 years from now. You stay with the idea that it can stay as it is ... the rest of us who know better will be hard at work.

so you work, I relax, who's the serf?

[fisharmor]

I will keep saying this every time the topic comes up...

The very first road system in this country was 100% private. It was actively killed by the federal government in the early to mid 20th century.

The fact that it was made of steel and wood, and not concrete and asphalt, is immaterial.

This entire thread assumes that roadways for use by automobiles are necessary, when they are not necessary or even desirable. Had the market been allowed to decide, we would very likely not have three cars per house, we would still have relatively centralized populations, and more of us would still have foot access to basic goods and services.

[bucfish]

so countries that are socialist but not in serfdom such as Norway, Netherlands, Canada, is because they don't believe in the status quo? Or that they're not in serfdom yet? Or is your definition of serfdom simply high taxes regardless of how happy they are, what they get in return?

those countries are in serfdom. Yet they have vast resources like the Arab states so they can continue the illusion much longer.

[awake]

So all countries in the world are either failed, or full authoritarian?


But isn't that only because we don't obey our Constitution?

You're gonna get slammed here for saying the Constitution failed to provide us liberty or was faulted to begin with.




so you work, I relax, who's the serf?

1. Yes on both accounts, and it is a matter of degrees.

2. The U.S. Constitution was a contract between the people and their government. It is all but admitted void at this point. If you can ever get back to it, the governments subsequent escape will be of little or no effort.

3. Your Constitution failed to keep you in liberty.

[ChaosControl]

They would be more annoying than it is worth. For one it is too expensive for most non-governmental entities to afford any decent length of road and I don't want to have to pay a toll every mile I drive. I prefer public roads. Some things are better to be publicly owned.

[WaltM]

those countries are in serfdom. Yet they have vast resources like the Arab states so they can continue the illusion much longer.

so if I can live a lifetime under the illusion, have you anything to say?

[WaltM]

1. Yes on both accounts, and it is a matter of degrees.


fair enough, I enjoy certain degrees.




2. The U.S. Constitution was a contract between the people and their government. It is all but admitted void at this point. If you can ever get back to it, the governments subsequent escape will be of little or no effort.

3. Your Constitution failed to keep you in liberty.

[WaltM]

They would be more annoying than it is worth. For one it is too expensive for most non-governmental entities to afford any decent length of road and I don't want to have to pay a toll every mile I drive. I prefer public roads. Some things are better to be publicly owned.

but for some people, paying for it is FREEDOM (and there's some truth to that, how else do you prevent abuse , free loading and waste).

[awake]

so if I can live a lifetime under the illusion, have you anything to say?


By all means, I wish you the very best in your illusion.

http://www.alicia-logic.com/capsimages/mx_083JoePantoliano.jpg

[ClayTrainor]

but for some people, paying for it is FREEDOM

If roads are to exist, than they must be paid for... Since you don't believe private vs public is valid, nor is capitalism vs socialism (without spending the next 10 pages debating over defining property and rights)...

This would bring us to the voluntary vs involuntary dichotomy. Who should be the ones to decide who pays for which roads, and how should they decide?

[ClayTrainor]

They would be more annoying than it is worth. For one it is too expensive for most non-governmental entities to afford any decent length of road and I don't want to have to pay a toll every mile I drive. I prefer public roads. Some things are better to be publicly owned.

I think it may be worth your time to consider this video. :)

http://reason.tv/video/show/gridlock

[ClayTrainor]

By all means, I wish you the very best in your illusion.

http://www.alicia-logic.com/capsimages/mx_083JoePantoliano.jpg

Some people prefer the blue pill... \
YouTube - Matrix (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGQF8LAmiaE)

[Number19]

My point is that this question is never addressed. Heavenlyboy34, your remark is likely accurate in some cases, but academics crunch numbers for the urban centers, so why do they avoid crunching numbers when the results may put their arguments in a negative light. Austrian Econ Disciple, I made a simple statement of "fact", which may or may not be accurate as Heavenlyboy pointed out, and made no statement of my position on this issue. 1) They should not; 2) Yes; 3) No; and 4) No.

I have asked this question on numerous occasions over the years because I have never seen any serious discussion on the rural ramifications of road privatization. I don't think the numbers would look good in the context of today's society. However, a free society would be so much more prosperous, who knows?

As someone who has directed his attention from the philosophical to the practical, I would suggest that if any suggestion of road privatization be put into the political arena, you better be prepared to answer this better than any response I have seen to date.

[fisharmor]

As someone who has directed his attention from the philosophical to the practical, I would suggest that if any suggestion of road privatization be put into the political arena, you better be prepared to answer this better than any response I have seen to date.

What is wrong with my response?
If practicality is the goal, then the automobile loses.
Automobile traffic has been heavily subsidized for nearly a hundred years.
Where before, under the 19th century private road system (rail) we had
centralized populations,
necessities within range of foot travel,
much virgin wilderness,
efficient, safe travel,

Now under the automobile road system we have
scattered populations,
necessities which may be within walking distance to which we nevertheless can not walk without risking life and limb,
radically decreased wilderness areas (indeed, state intervention to protect what's left),
and 40,000 deaths a year in a system that is hard to beat if the goal is to waste resources.

[libertybrewcity]

By reading through this entire forum thread, it looks like WaltM is grasping at these:
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a30/sleahy21/fat-straws.jpg
And I hope I am doing this:
http://socialmediaanswers.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/troll-web.jpg

[Fredom101]

If roads are to exist, than they must be paid for... Since you don't believe private vs public is valid, nor is capitalism vs socialism (without spending the next 10 pages debating over defining property and rights)...

This would bring us to the voluntary vs involuntary dichotomy. Who should be the ones to decide who pays for which roads, and how should they decide?

Clay, you've done a great job in this debate, but realize that you are arguing with someone who fundamentally believes in central planning as a good way to organize society...so you won't likely get very far. The central planning mentality is why we keep having these voluntary vs. involuntary debates. It is REALLY hard to pull people away from thinking this way, but you may have better luck at it than I do!

[WaltM]

Clay, you've done a great job in this debate, but realize that you are arguing with someone who fundamentally believes in central planning as a good way to organize society...


I don't fundamentally believe that.

I believe it works sometimes, but not always.




so you won't likely get very far. The central planning mentality is why we keep having these voluntary vs. involuntary debates. It is REALLY hard to pull people away from thinking this way, but you may have better luck at it than I do!

you have no luck engaging in a discussion if all you do is put words in another person's mouth, you seem to think if a person disagrees with you, he must hold complete opposite views with you on every issue.

[WaltM]

I have asked this question on numerous occasions over the years because I have never seen any serious discussion on the rural ramifications of road privatization. I don't think the numbers would look good in the context of today's society. However, a free society would be so much more prosperous, who knows?


But those who live in fantasyland would still tell you the numbers look good in their minds/



As someone who has directed his attention from the philosophical to the practical, I would suggest that if any suggestion of road privatization be put into the political arena, you better be prepared to answer this better than any response I have seen to date.

yep.

[CzargwaR]

because the government is capable of running them efficiently

[awake]

Central planning can work, that is, if all planning is central to the individual deciding his own affairs.

[itshappening]

people dont like paying taxes and tolls. I think roads are a unique situation unless they're falling apart people dont care about the quality; that is the road serves its purpose and is unlikely to receive many complaints unless they're poorly maintained which in some cases is true.

There are private operators of freeways in the UK and Europe but they're very unpopular and uneconomical, people would rather stay in a jam than pay the toll so they lie empty which is just a waste of land

[Elwar]

Once again. There are private roads. They are feasible in spite of constant government intrusion.

[A Son of Liberty]

I think it's presumptuous to try to describe what it would be like with private roads. Fact is, we don't know what it would be like. They would be funded, maintained and used via countless, unconsidered methods which only the great untapped entrepreneurs out there might imagine.

What we can say about private roads - for sure - is that they would be just. Forcing Bob in urban Maryland to pay for Frank's roads in rural Montana - and vice versa - is immoral.

[Travlyr]

Clay, you've done a great job in this debate, but realize that you are arguing with someone who fundamentally believes in central planning as a good way to organize society...so you won't likely get very far. The central planning mentality is why we keep having these voluntary vs. involuntary debates. It is REALLY hard to pull people away from thinking this way, but you may have better luck at it than I do!

This is not altogether true. The voluntary vs. involuntary debate is more fundamental than that. I believe that a state is required to protect property rights, but I don't believe in central planning.

[acptulsa]

The title of this thread demonstrates that someone is unfamiliar with the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority. The more you learn about it, the less you find it to be anything but profitable for the bondholders.

The unfortunate part is the state-guaranteed monopoly...

That said, we do have private roads. They're made of two steel rails that weigh over a hundred pounds per foot, and are the most efficient method of transportation ever devised. And, yes, they work just fine. You just can't drive on them until you've been properly trained to do it (something they share with other private roads known as race tracks). And the death rate on both of these private thoroughfares is amazingly low, coincidentally or not...

[Fredom101]

I don't fundamentally believe that.

I believe it works sometimes, but not always.




you have no luck engaging in a discussion if all you do is put words in another person's mouth, you seem to think if a person disagrees with you, he must hold complete opposite views with you on every issue.

Central planning either works or it doesn't.
The problem is, central planning doesn't work. If it did, I'd be a full-fledged Communist, which is the central planning idea carried out to its fullest extent.

[Fredom101]

Central planning can work, that is, if all planning is central to the individual deciding his own affairs.

True, but that's not the actual definition of central planning!

[Fredom101]

This is not altogether true. The voluntary vs. involuntary debate is more fundamental than that. I believe that a state is required to protect property rights, but I don't believe in central planning.

Ok. Can you tell me how a government, which steals money (property) from people at gunpoint to provide so-called services, can realistically on the same token protect that individual's property? Does this not remind you of the mafia, offering "protection"?

[fisharmor]

That said, we do have private roads. They're made of two steel rails that weigh over a hundred pounds per foot, and are the most efficient method of transportation ever devised. And, yes, they work just fine. You just can't drive on them until you've been properly trained to do it (something they share with other private roads known as race tracks). And the death rate on both of these private thoroughfares is amazingly low, coincidentally or not...

&^%*ing finally, thank you! Am I on everyone's ignore list?

[Travlyr]

Ok. Can you tell me how a government, which steals money (property) from people at gunpoint to provide so-called services, can realistically on the same token protect that individual's property?
Theft is not a proper function of government. I can discuss this with you.

Does this not remind you of the mafia, offering "protection"?
No, it doesn't.

This thread is about private roads. Rather than derail it, let's take it to:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=252325

[RCA]

I'm all for private roads, but what about beltways? What if some asshole bought the road and put up a "no trespassing" sign and nobody could leave the city by vehicle? I know this is probably a straw-man argument, but it's still a valid concern. The same goes for a street in front of your house. What if the owner of the road doesn't like you and denies you access for the hell of it?

[acptulsa]

&^%*ing finally, thank you! Am I on everyone's ignore list?

Eh? Speak up! I'm having trouble hearing you!

J/K and you're welcome.

[ClayTrainor]

Theft is not a proper function of government. I can discuss this with you.

"all taxation is theft" - Andrew Napolitano ;)

[Flash]

I'm all for private roads, but what about beltways? What if some asshole bought the road and put up a "no trespassing" sign and nobody could leave the city by vehicle? I know this is probably a straw-man argument, but it's still a valid concern. The same goes for a street in front of your house. What if the owner of the road doesn't like you and denies you access for the hell of it?

Rothbard mentioned this once. He said no one would buy a house if they didn't have guaranteed access to use the roads. So you would probably have to sign a contract with said road company.

[Travlyr]

"all taxation is theft" - Andrew Napolitano ;)

I do realize this. Finding a way to alleviate theft through taxation is the challenge to overcome.

[ClayTrainor]

I do realize this. Finding a way to alleviate theft through taxation is the challenge to overcome.

Volunatry, voluntary, voluntary. ;)

[Fredom101]

Theft is not a proper function of government. I can discuss this with you.

Ok, then how do you form a voluntary government where there is no coercion?



This thread is about private roads. Rather than derail it, let's take it to:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=252325

No. I think this is very relevant to our roads discussion and is at the core of the debate.

[Stary Hickory]

Because we are already forced to pay for public roads. And creating a rivate road is not done without tearing through red tape, and probably is not allowed.

Why do we have private driveways? Why are they not government run? Answer: because the government has not forced itself into the market. If we had a choice between "free" public driveways(the ones we are taxed for already) or better private ones, well most people by a large majority would take the crappy free ones.

When we talk about private roads, it's not something you can just do without government approval.

[Travlyr]

Ok, then how do you form a voluntary government where there is no coercion?

You don't. But you do limit and starve government. I don't have the exact remedy, but I don't see it as impossible.


Volunatry, voluntary, voluntary. ;)

Voluntary will not work at the present time because me and about 300 million of my fellow Americans do not want it. That is a huge hurdle that will take two or three generations to overcome... if you take the schools back now.

1. First of all, I see a stateless society as extreme as tyranny. Extremes always exclude some people.
2. Finding a way to fund a state is the problem because being forced into an involuntarily taxation is theft. I understand that.
3. Society can be better organized under a republic than it is now, and the state can be starved to only provide protection for property rights. This minimal state to help me protect my property from theft is preferable to anarchy.

[JeNNiF00F00]

>:)

[ClayTrainor]

Voluntary will not work at the present time because me and about 300 million of my fellow Americans do not want it.

So we should seek solutions through the state, instead of advocating free-market solutions?



1. First of all, I see a stateless society as extreme as tyranny. Extremes always exclude some people.

So you want to find a balance between freedom and tyranny?


2. Finding a way to fund a state is the problem because being forced into an involuntarily taxation is theft. I understand that.


Yet you still advocate it, do you not?



3. Society can be better organized under a republic than it is now, and the state can be starved to only provide protection for property rights. This minimal state to help me protect my property from theft is preferable to anarchy.

Your state is based upon theft, and you expect it to protect you from theft? The contradiction is blatant.

[Travlyr]

I don't think people would be 'excluded' because everything you had would be associated with what you wanted. You could live in an all capitalist area, communist area, fascist area or whatever. Where you live and whatever 'society' you contribute to would be your choice. You would be the product of your existence.
Several people would be excluded when they fail to properly protect themselves. A minimal state (protection of property rights only) provides this as well and does a better job of it.

[ClayTrainor]

A minimal state (protection of property rights only) provides this as well and does a better job of it.

How is this minimal state financed? What about people who regard taxation as theft and want to be protected from the state?

[Travlyr]

So we should seek solutions through the state, instead of advocating free-market solutions?
Yes, for protection of property rights the state is superior to the free market.

So you want to find a balance between freedom and tyranny?
Yes.

Yet you still advocate it, do you not?
I seek a solution.

Your state is based upon theft, and you expect it to protect you from theft? The contradiction is blatant.
The contradiction is not blatant when you realize that self-ownership and self-dependence are not the same thing. We are all in this life together. We share in the good and the bad. We owe each other compassion and assistance for productive lives.

[Travlyr]

How is this minimal state financed? What about people who regard taxation as theft and want to be protected from the state?
This is the challenge.

Few would oppose a minimal state if it did not cost anything. Yet maintaining a sheriff is not free. It could be at minimal cost. Perhaps the inmates could compete in the marketplace to pay restitution and fund the sheriff's office.

[Elwar]

Why does every thread have to come down to Ancap vs minimalism? It takes many a thread off track to become worthless.

[Sentient Void]

Because - we want to try to be logically consistent.

Slippery slopes are a bitch - I know.

[Travlyr]

Why does every thread have to come down to Ancap vs minimalism? It takes many a thread off track to become worthless.

Because it is fundamental to understanding virtually every topic. I am happy to take my discussion here:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/search.php?searchid=5237460

[WaltM]

Central planning either works or it doesn't.


Correct, and it doesn't work all the time.

Just like justice isn't available every time.
Just like capitalism doesn't work every time.
Just like tyranny doesn't work every time.




The problem is, central planning doesn't work. If it did, I'd be a full-fledged Communist, which is the central planning idea carried out to its fullest extent.

if I can show you an example of central planning working will you say "that doesn't count" or "that's not true" or "yeah, but that's an exception, I still won't be a full fledged communist".

[Sentient Void]

Those are some lonnnng straws you've been pulling at, WaltM! ;)

[Rancher]

Why does every thread have to come down to Ancap vs minimalism?

Good point. The road debate is AnCap vs. miminalism vs. big government. Which is better? Right now we have mostly government roads. Having all private roads is tough to visualize.

[ClayTrainor]

Because it is fundamental to understanding virtually every topic. I am happy to take my discussion here:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/search.php?searchid=5237460

I posted my response in the other thread.

[WaltM]

Those are some lonnnng straws you've been pulling at, WaltM! ;)

I drink your milkshake!

[fisharmor]

Good point. The road debate is AnCap vs. miminalism vs. big government. Which is better? Right now we have mostly government roads. Having all private roads is tough to visualize.

It's hard to visualize because ROADS FOR AUTOMOBILES ARE NOT WHAT THE MARKET WOULD PRODUCE.

Face it - you're all so blinded by the way things are to realize that if left to the market, this situation wouldn't even exist.

Look, I'm on anarchy's side here, but I didn't bring it into the argument. I'm trying like hell to point out that this whole debate is effing worthless.

There is no sense in trying to figure out how the free market would produce something which is only possible through theft, coercion, bribes, kickbacks, and liberal use of eminent domain and zoning law.

The market doesn't use the same dirty tricks, so it can not produce the same result.

[Stary Hickory]

Why does every thread have to come down to Ancap vs minimalism? It takes many a thread off track to become worthless.

I don't know because it cracks me up. Because we are light years from either of these things to get all pissy about the details its stupid. I will welcome the day when we have beaten back statism and oppression enough so that the difference between ancap and minimalsim or what have you is actually relevant.

I mean I swear we have so uch common ground to cover, and a long hard fight ahead let's try and not beat each other up over stuff that does not matter for years and years. I don't think that anarchists will find much opposition from minarchists or vice versa a common theme amongst us(most of us) is we just want to be left alone.

I am not going to be the one to say no you may not live without my rules. If a few states want to go anarchist I could care less. If it looks like it's working out and they can actually defend themselves from unscrupulous elements(something I always doubt) I might even join them. However we are living in a statist hell hole, so for the meanwhile lets move forward together, there is so much corruption and destruction that needs to be dealt with.

[Sentient Void]

Star Hickory - of course I and everyone here agree with you wholeheartedly :) but it's fun and thought-provoking to philosophize in the meantime, right? Hell, at some point - the founding fathers, Bastiat, Locke, Thoreau, et al all had to philosophize about the possibilities before it was particularly relevant - and before anything near such a society as a minimalist one was even achieved. Then came the great experiment. It was a success, but yet - it was a failure - if we all look around us. That being said - we all can and will work together - this is just philosophy with our free time.


I drink your milkshake!

Haha! One of my all-time favorite movies, and all-time favorite scenes! :D

You have a milkshake... and I have a milkshake. And I have a straw - see? There it is, there's my straw. And I take my straw, and I reach acrossssssss the room - into your milkshake...

I. DRINK. YOUR. MILK-SHAKE!!!! I DRRRRRINK IT UP!!!!!!!

Yes, that was from memory.

Anyways, it sounds here that why you and others against privatizing roads are more for alleged utilitarian reasons. We all acknowledge the immorality of theft, coercion, etc. But it seems the conversation always, or at least often, comes down to the issue of practicality, or that the system wouldn't work, or somehow be oppressive.

First off, we know of successful privatized highways. Those are easy to source. As for generally privatized roads - have you guys ever heard of or been to a gated community? Privatized roads. Not even gated communities - how about condo associations? Many times - private roads. How about around big malls? Privatized roads. have any of you ever been to Walt Disney World in Orlando, FL? It's complete with private roads, private freeways, private expressways, etc.

Understand these are just a few examples, and I could go on. Not only that - but these aren't even under a truly free market system - and under such a system it would be cheaper and less red tape would be required for maintenance, operation, etc.


Also, if you'd like more information on such things, there's a very extensive book written about it... 'The Privatization of Roads and Highways' by fellow An-Cap Walter Block. I took the extra effort of finding a free PDF available for you guys online, if you are actually interested in understanding the position.

http://mises.org/books/roads_web.pdf

Take note as well - that this is one man. We are, in this forum, but a few people. The idea behind a free market and libertarian philosophy is that the interactions, transactions and associations between hundreds, thousands, or millions of individuals, through entrepreneurship, investment and innovation, can come up with etter solutions to society's problems and demands than any one person on the face of the planet. If any one of us could come up with the best solutions for everything, we'd all be hypocrites - because that'd make a damned good case for a dictatorship.

[Flash]

I don't know because it cracks me up. Because we are light years from either of these things to get all pissy about the details its stupid. I will welcome the day when we have beaten back statism and oppression enough so that the difference between ancap and minimalsim or what have you is actually relevant.

I mean I swear we have so uch common ground to cover, and a long hard fight ahead let's try and not beat each other up over stuff that does not matter for years and years. I don't think that anarchists will find much opposition from minarchists or vice versa a common theme amongst us(most of us) is we just want to be left alone.

I am not going to be the one to say no you may not live without my rules. If a few states want to go anarchist I could care less. If it looks like it's working out and they can actually defend themselves from unscrupulous elements(something I always doubt) I might even join them. However we are living in a statist hell hole, so for the meanwhile lets move forward together, there is so much corruption and destruction that needs to be dealt with.

Yeah I can see where you're coming from. I don't agree with the Anarchists that think we should abstain from voting or running office, that is a bit too much for me. I'll vote for any Libertarian-Republican running for President, Senate, or local elections. But I find anarchists have better solutions to dealing with the state than merely running for office every other year. Just look up Agorism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agorism). If something like this was implemented in a state like New Hampshire then we could make real progress. But to each his own.

[Fredom101]

Correct, and it doesn't work all the time.

Just like justice isn't available every time.
Just like capitalism doesn't work every time.
Just like tyranny doesn't work every time.




if I can show you an example of central planning working will you say "that doesn't count" or "that's not true" or "yeah, but that's an exception, I still won't be a full fledged communist".

Give me your best shot.

The problem that you run in to advocating central planning is that you are advocating the use of the threat of violence to accomplish whatever it is. Non-violent solutions ALWAYS win out, simply because 1) coercion is not used, and 2) they rely on voluntary interactions, which respects individual decisions as opposed to setting something up for thousands or millions of people with varying wants and needs.

[Elwar]

Back before roads were public, these were the images for future cities:

http://www.skyscraper.org/EXHIBITIONS/FUTURE_CITY/NEW_YORK_MODERN/images/1900/kingsdream1.jpg

http://www.skyscraper.org/EXHIBITIONS/FUTURE_CITY/NEW_YORK_MODERN/images/1900/kingsdream2.jpg

[WaltM]

Give me your best shot.

The problem that you run in to advocating central planning is that you are advocating the use of the threat of violence to accomplish whatever it is.


That's not a problem for me. I use force if I feel it's right.



Non-violent solutions ALWAYS win out, simply because 1) coercion is not used,


Yes, always!
http://anwararis.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/sabra_shatila_massacres.jpg



and 2) they rely on voluntary interactions, which respects individual decisions as opposed to setting something up for thousands or millions of people with varying wants and needs.

so for you, everything is up to the individual?

[Elwar]

That's not a problem for me. I use force if I feel it's right.



Yes, always!
http://anwararis.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/sabra_shatila_massacres.jpg



so for you, everything is up to the individual?

Initiating force is different from self defense.

[ClayTrainor]

Fuck me, that is one disturbing photograph. :(

[Fredom101]

That's not a problem for me. I use force if I feel it's right.



Yes, always!
http://anwararis.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/sabra_shatila_massacres.jpg



so for you, everything is up to the individual?

I don't get how this disturbing photo backs up your point?
How often do you use force in your day to day life?

[Fredom101]

Walt- Not just for me, but for everyone, everything is up to the individual.
Government is simply a collection of individuals. The military is made up of individuals.

What part of your life do you want to turn over to complete strangers?

[Vessol]

In a free market, would roads even be as common as they are now? We only use roads so much now because they were built by the government.

The U.S Highway System was built with rapid mobilization of the military across it in mind.

If we had a free market in this, I think things would be quite different. Perhaps we would see more railroads and roads being more localized. Or perhaps more air travel? Who knows.

[Number19]

What is wrong with my response?
If practicality is the goal, then the automobile loses.
Automobile traffic has been heavily subsidized for nearly a hundred years.
Where before, under the 19th century private road system (rail) we had
centralized populations,
necessities within range of foot travel,
much virgin wilderness,
efficient, safe travel,

Now under the automobile road system we have
scattered populations,
necessities which may be within walking distance to which we nevertheless can not walk without risking life and limb,
radically decreased wilderness areas (indeed, state intervention to protect what's left),
and 40,000 deaths a year in a system that is hard to beat if the goal is to waste resources.Not anything; I agree that had we maintained a free market in the transportation field, we would have something far different from what we have now - and for the better. As someone who grew up as a "libertarian" environmentalist, the idea of less convenient access into wilderness areas is a positive. But this is a game of "what if" and "make believe" and I address the issue of convincing voters to support our agenda to start reducing the size and role of government in our lives.

[Number19]

I think it's presumptuous to try to describe what it would be like with private roads. Fact is, we don't know what it would be like. They would be funded, maintained and used via countless, unconsidered methods which only the great untapped entrepreneurs out there might imagine.

What we can say about private roads - for sure - is that they would be just. Forcing Bob in urban Maryland to pay for Frank's roads in rural Montana - and vice versa - is immoral.The one thing we can probably all agree on is that the federal government should get out of the road business immediately. This does not call for privatization, merely handing sole responsibility back to the states. This is an excellent example of (edit) incrementalism at work.

(edit) environmentalism? How did that get in there?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

The one thing we can probably all agree on is that the federal government should get out of the road business immediately. This does not call for privatization, merely handing sole responsibility back to the states. This is an excellent example of environmentalism at work.

According to the Constitution, the Federal Government does have a role in "interstate" commerce, and the highway being a facilitator thereof. That is again, if you believe in the Constitution, which I suppose you do. This is actually one area which falls under the constructionist view of the Constitution. The .fed would oversee the interstate highway systems so that one state could not impose large tolls which act as tariffs, etc.

[ClayTrainor]

oops, wrong thread, my bad :o

[RCA]

Rothbard mentioned this once. He said no one would buy a house if they didn't have guaranteed access to use the roads. So you would probably have to sign a contract with said road company.

That makes sense for new home purchases after the road is built, but not if the house was bought before the road was built.

[Number19]

According to the Constitution, the Federal Government does have a role in "interstate" commerce, and the highway being a facilitator thereof. That is again, if you believe in the Constitution, which I suppose you do. This is actually one area which falls under the constructionist view of the Constitution. The .fed would oversee the interstate highway systems so that one state could not impose large tolls which act as tariffs, etc.Just because something may be allowed by the Constitution, or at least Constitutionally argued, doesn't mean we have to go there. If I remember my history, the federal funding of roads was to facilitate the delivery of mail.

I've argued elsewhere that I'm a strong supporter of a republican form of government. Dr Hoppe and Rothbard both lecture on the steady and inevitable progression of government, since the dawn of civilization to today. If we must tolerate a State, then the smaller the political division the better it is for liberty. The first step is to decrease our current form of government. The next step would be to return to a republic.

Thinking of ways to reduce the federal government, to achieve step one, something you could advocate for without too great of a political backlash ( and it is going to be crucial to bring spending under control ) is to turn all responsibility for our highway system over to the states.

[Flash]

That makes sense for new home purchases after the road is built, but not if the house was bought before the road was built.

Yeah exactly. Thats a problem.

[Number19]

Posting to another "road" thread, a thought occurred which I've had in the past but which had slipped my mind in composing some of my earlier comments.

If "tax revenue" is not used in the construction or maintenance of the road system, does is matter if "the government" is the "owner" of the system?

Which brings to the forefront the question : Are "fuel taxes" a "tax" or are they a "user fee"? You are not "forced" to pay this "tax", nor forced to drive an automobile, nor forced to use the roadways. It seem to me this falls more in the realm of a user fee.

I realize there are some irregularities in the method of collecting these fees, but in this simplified scenario, just consider the method of collecting the rightful income due an owner.

Then, instead of government owned roads and privately owned fueling stations, let's say the same private corporation owned both and used an identical system of financing his road business, rather than the toll model. Does this make a difference?

fuel tax vs user fee : which is the proper categorization.

[WaltM]

Initiating force is different from self defense.

bad guys never admit they're bad guys, duh!

[gpickett00]

I wrote this paper about road privatization earlier this summer for an Urban and Regional Planning class. My teacher wasn't a proponent of the idea...


The transportation system in the United States of America is severely flawed. Most Americans are not losing sleep at night over the current state of affairs but the provision of transportation facilities in our country allows over 40,000 Americans to die on highways per year. This statistic alone should bring the masses to their feet in protest, yet we see no structural changes to the management of our highways. Since most Americans have not been exposed to the idea of a privatized transportation system, there is little public outcry demanding it.
A completely privatized transportation system would allow for a safer and more efficient solution for its constituents. Additionally a privatized system would be beneficial for the economy by reducing government spending, reducing corruption, opening up a new market for the economy, decreasing congestion and creating a more ethical and fair way to provide transportation.
The majority transportation projects are funded by revenue collected by fuel taxes, which proponents argue is the most fair way to pay for it. The problem we face is not the source of taxation we use to pay for roadways. The problem is that we have a government-controlled marketplace for roadways, where an unresponsive, monopolistic bureaucracy allocates funds and makes decisions.
When the government taxes the people to pay for its roadways, it is always inefficient. The government must collect the taxes and politicians must decide how to spend the money. Next, the politicians are influenced by lobbyists and special interests who will benefit from the additional funding. By the time that roadways receive funding, money has already passed through a massively corrupt government bureaucracy and is partially reallocated to other public transportation projects or special interests. In this scenario, since there is no market mechanism to efficiently allocate funds to roads that need funding most, the problem of congestion is not well addressed, and society is worse off.
To understand why a fuel tax is not an acceptable way to run a transportation system, it is important to understand why government run markets are undesirable. Most people can agree that the government should assist with the provision of basic services. A national defense, judicial, and police system are obvious minimalist services that a government should provide.
More debatable are government funding for education, roadways, retirement, health care, and space flight. Even though the government dominates these sectors, there are still private companies who provide better-than-government quality goods while remaining profitable. The reason that we don't see more competition within these markets is because government spending makes up a huge portion of the overall market. Would-be market participants are not able to compete because the government does not go out of business when it is not profitable. When government investment makes up a large share of a market, private companies are crowded out, prices are higher than they would be without the intervention, and the end result is economic inefficiency.
On publicly funded roadways there is not a pricing system to account for supply and demand. In a market, prices are needed in order to balance supply and demand. Without a pricing system, we end up with either surpluses or shortages and it is impossible to achieve equilibrium.
According to economics, shortages result from excess demand for a good that does not vary in price. Under its communist regime, Russia faced massive shortages of goods in multiple sectors of its economy. This was a result of the inability of prices to flexibly adjust upward to an increase in demand. This system of perpetual inefficiency resulted in long queues, frustrated citizens, an inefficient market, and eventually the collapse of communism.
By choosing the communist route to managing our transportation system, our government guarantees that we will endure the ill-effects of publicly owned roads well into the future. Shortages in the market for roadways manifest themselves through roadway congestion and long commute times.
It is obvious that roadway congestion is costly to society. For a doctor who wastes an additional thirty minutes in traffic, the economic impact is great due to his high opportunity cost. By adding up the opportunity cost of each motorist, we could theoretically estimate the cost that congestion inflicts upon society. However it is difficult to put a tangible price on the costs of congestion, since there are so many variables that go into such a calculation. Additionally, it is impossible to put a price on the anger, frustration and rage that motorists endure by dealing with congestion.
Surpluses in public transit can be seen by overcapacity on poorly planned highways, publicly run bus lines, or train systems. Rarely used buses and trains are the most obvious example of surpluses that exist with public transportation. The economically inefficient outcome of a surplus in this market is again due to an inflexible price system. A surplus of public transit options may seem like a good thing, but the economic effects of surpluses generated by government investment are great.
It is clear that surpluses with public transit systems are inefficient. But, it is important to understand why a surplus would exist. Since politicians, not private owners, are in charge of deciding where fuel tax funds will be spent, funds are not spent in areas in which they would bring in the highest return. Instead, funds are allocated to places that bureaucrats deem best fit. These decisions are influenced by many people acting with their own self interest and do not provide the economically most efficient outcome.
Under a privately managed system, the revenue stream from road users would go directly to that particular road's owner. Free to use profits in his self-interest, the road owner would reinvest profits as needed to improve capacity, road quality and overall service. This is an important distinction from a government-run system where incentives are distorted. Since in a free market, business owners have a goal of profit maximization, they will cater to the needs of their customers and have an incentive to do a good job. The free market promotes competition and drives innovation. It is the foundation of incentives that capitalism provides that allows a market economy to flourish and encourages creativity.
Historically, roads have been provided by the private sector. Predating the era of the automobile, roads existed as a for profit enterprise, profiting risk takers who acted in their self interest indirectly serving others. Entrepreneurs who built the first roads were extremely profitable because the new roads provided a shorter, smoother and faster way to get from point A to point B.
As this system developed, certain roadways became congested. Higher roadway volume meant more profit for owners, but opportunity for competitors. Congestion upon these roadways meant that demand for roadways exceeded its supply. Naturally, this drew more entrepreneurs to provide competing roadways. These factors led to a flourishing business environment where entrepreneurs competed with each other to profit from the new demand for more roadways. Competition among road builders led to innovation within that sector of the economy, economic growth, job creation, and net positive externalities for consumers.
Similarly, the market for railroads developed under a system of free enterprise. Again, an entire infrastructure was built without an intrusive government dictating the placement of railroads. Railroads were developed in response to the demand for increased efficiency in commerce. Since the railroad industry increased economic activity and efficiency, the free market naturally allowed it to flourish, without the assistance of the government.
The idea of a free market for transportation has dwindled since the era of railroads. Today, almost all of our roads are publicly owned and managed. Much of the funding for road projects in siphoned into public transit projects and maintenance of existing roads. This means that new road construction is difficult to come by due to budget constraints. These factors have led some entrepreneurs to consider the construction of privatized toll roads.
During the early 1990's a fifteen mile commute from the suburbs of Washington D.C. to the Dulles airport took an average of 90 minutes. While the suburbs of the city exploded in growth, a few entrepreneurs realized an opportunity. With the area's road congestion at an all time high and a cash strapped local government not able to expand road building, these entrepreneurs envisioned a private toll road connecting the suburbs to the airport. By taking advantage of relatively low suburban property values, the Toll Road Investor Partnership II (TRIP II) financed and built the first private highway in Virginia since 1816: a 14 mile stretch called "The Dulles Greenway."
This stretch of highway offered many benefits when compared to publicly owned roads. First, it has a speed limit of 65 m.p.h. This faster speed really moves things along when compared to the more congested adjacent toll road. Next, a $1.50 toll is charged to access the road. Motorists justify this because of the benefits the road offers. With the absence of traffic lights, the toll road is much more pleasing to drive, since stop and go traffic is not the norm.
When envisioned, the owners of the Dulles Greenway expected masses of traffic bringing it revenues and that it would be an instant hit. However, when the toll road opened, owners didn't receive the high volume of traffic that they initially anticipated. Part of the reason for this was that it took a long duration of time for motorists to accept paying another toll on top of the one charged on the adjacent highway. Nearby state-owned turnpikes charged tolls already and not many people saw the advantage of paying an extra $1.50 to commute.
However, over the next decade the suburbs continued to increase in population density, putting more pressure on state-owned roads. This population increase caused more and more motorists to use the newly built private toll road. Additionally, the negative stigma toward private toll roads that had been built up over the last 100 years disappeared once motorists realized benefits provided by the privately owned roadway.
Although the Dulles Greenway is now a road that motorists could not see themselves living without, it has its flaws. Since its inception, the owners have dealt with immense regulatory pressure from the local government. Fears that the toll road owners would engage in monopolist behavior has led to regulations placed upon the TRIP II.
Government regulations cap the price for the tolls that the company can charge, which completely goes against the idea of a privately managed roadway. Since the government heavily regulates what TRIP II can and can not do, the owners of the Dulles Greenway publicly stated that they would not have built the toll road had they known the constraints that government would impose. Since anybody seeking to build a new private highway in Virginia has witnessed the regulatory nightmare the government imposed on TRIP II, the privatization movement that we desperately need will slow.
Each year 40,000 Americans die on our government controlled highway system. When roads are in the hands of government, no company or individual is held responsible for conditions that lead to unnecessary fatalities. It is not to say that nobody would die in a privatized highway system, but at least it is likely that someone would be held responsible for excessive highway deaths. In the same way that we entrust the production of bread and beans to private enterprise instead of government monopoly, we can expect that under a privatized transportation system the owners of the infrastructure would be scrutinized to maintain highway safety.
The United States is amidst the most severe recession since the 1930's and local, state and national governments are looking for ways to improve the economy and cut spending. By selling off roads to private companies the government would reduce the tax burden on its citizens. This would reduce the size of government and eliminate the amount of bureaucracy we currently endure.
Additionally, and more importantly, opening up the market for private transportation would allow that sector of the economy to boom like never before. Currently there is a gigantic market for the provision of transportation in the United States but almost the entire market is dominated by a monopolist government. The transfer of this part of the economy from the government to the private sector would allow for a much more efficient and productive economy.
In addition to selling publicly owned roads to private companies, the government needs to reform laws restricting entrance into the market. Reducing barriers of entry to the market and eliminating bureaucratic red tape would serve to encourage economic growth and allow the market to function more smoothly.
Since the government heavily subsidizes public transportation, that market is also severely hindered. A reasonable justification for subsidizing new public transportation projects is that those who are less fortunate and those who do not have cars need a way to commute. Instead of letting the free market determine what the best way to get around a city will be, government uses its heavy hand to impose regulations on private transportation and mandate public spending on buses and trains. In order to promote economic growth, reduce the tax burden, and provide a more efficient transportation system, the government stay out of the provision of transportation and encourage business creation and competition. The pursuit of these policies would certainly allow a vibrant private transportation market to serve the population.
Private transportation is much more common in the third world than it is in the United States. Since most economic activity in poor countries occurs outside of the authority of taxation officials, barriers of entry to the transportation market are much lower. This promotes much more competition and allows for generally lower priced transportation opportunities.
I spent the summer of 2009 in Guatemala and witnessed some incredible examples of the success of privately provided transportation.. Since the Guatemalan government can not afford the luxury to lose money on all transportation projects the same way we do in the United States, they rely on the free market to provide transportation. This results in a spontaneously crafted private transportation system completely reliant on user fees.
The safest mode of transportation within a big city in Guatemala is a taxi cab. This option is also more expensive. With the provision of taxis, there is a predetermined starting and ending point to the ride without picking up other passengers. Taxis are a flexible, expensive, more direct mode of transportation.
Guatemala also has privately owned buses for travel between cities. The most economical option is to ride formerly American-owned school buses. These bus-owning entrepreneurs slam as many people as they possibly can on to a bus and do not leave until the bus is full. Throughout the country there are thousands of these school buses and at any given station it is extremely simple to climb aboard a bus that is about to leave. The disadvantages of these buses are obvious: they are crowded, stop frequently, and take longer to get to the intended destination. For the less thrifty bus rider, it is possible to pay about four times the amount for a nicer, smaller, air conditioned bus.
The most incredible demonstration of the free market transportation system is the thousands of little ten passenger vans screaming through the country side. Throughout Guatemala it is popular for a van owner to hire a helper who shouts out that particular vans destination at everyone on the side of the road as they drive. They function like the school buses, they leave when they are full, and they pick up people along the way. The fares for these vans are extremely cheap and they provide really fast service. Riders pay depending on distance traveled. Van operators will not make a trip if they deem that it will be unprofitable. The costs of this type of transportation to the bus owner is only the gasoline consumed and the wear on his van.
Since Guatemala has low barriers of entry to the private transportation market, they have a vibrant and creative transportation industry. Such low barriers of entry allow such an incredible amount of competition to emerge that private transportation becomes affordable for even poor Guatemalans. Although our tax system would not allow for such a spontaneously operating free market to function, it is worth noting that even if the government provided no public transportation, viable private options would emerge.
If the United States wants to free up tax dollars and improve the economy, pursuing a privatized transportation system is essential. By allowing competition with the provision of road building and mass transit, private enterprise will no longer be crowded out of the market by government. Since our country has not trusted the private sector with the provision of transportation during our lifetime, it is hard to see how it would work. Regardless, if we can trust the laws of economics and pursue policies that reduce government intervention and promote entrepreneurship, maybe we will structurally change our transportation system for the welfare of all.