Roads becoming privatized.

[nodeal]

Okay experts, I must once again be at the mercy of your intellect.

First of all, do you guys believe that roads can be built and provided by private industry in a more efficient manner than the way in which the government currently provides them? Why or why not?

If you do indeed believe in private industry's ability to supply and maintain roads, how exactly would this system work? What would the model be for this system? How would you counter the common argument that states: if there were to be a private road system, tolls would exist every time you exit one owner's highway and enter another owner's.

What is to stop the owner of these roads from discriminating against drivers, going to great lengths to get people of certain races/backgrounds off the road?

Also, if one road exists between one town and another, wouldn't a monopoly then exist, allowing the owner of this road to charge a high toll?

Any other issues I'm missing that rise from the privatization of our road system, please feel free to address. I believe in free-markets, and I would LIKE to apply it to the road system, but the aforementioned issues seem quite legitimate.

Your counters?

[Elwar]

No road would ever exist if it weren't for the almighty government. People would be trapped in their homes and we would all die.

[Grubb556]

Well first off privatizing roads lowers your taxes, and now if you don't use a road you don't need to pay for it. But also I'm not sure if private people could easily acquire the tracts of land needed for roads, and also you could pick from different roads if one road tries to overcharge people. Also if you search the archive theilre some other threads that address this issue.

[Acala]

Once again, Eugene, you have failed to do your homework.

The private sector built most of the roads in this country for its first hundred years or more. some were toll roads built for profit. Others were simply cooperative efforts.

So, history has already answered your question - people are quite capable of designing, building, and operating roads without the violence of the state being involved.

Furthermore, I would suggest that government roads have been the excuse for some of the worst government excesses - the driver's license (de fact national ID), surveillance, checkpoints, etc.

[Zippyjuan]

As Grubb inquires, how did the road builders gain access to the land to build them on? Government land grants. They didn't go out and purchase the property. Were there competing roads or were they government created monopolies?

[nodeal]

Once again, Eugene, you have failed to do your homework.

The private sector built most of the roads in this country for its first hundred years or more. some were toll roads built for profit. Others were simply cooperative efforts.

So, history has already answered your question - people are quite capable of designing, building, and operating roads without the violence of the state being involved.

Furthermore, I would suggest that government roads have been the excuse for some of the worst government excesses - the driver's license (de fact national ID), surveillance, checkpoints, etc.

Who's Eugene? Is that an expression? Should I know who/what you are referring to?

This thread is my homework.

[erowe1]

If you do indeed believe in private industry's ability to supply and maintain roads, how exactly would this system work?

The beauty of the free market is that nobody has to know how it works for it to work. We can support it without having a plan for it. And it will end up being better than our expectations in ways we never dreamed.

This is the exact opposite of putting the government in charge, where what you can accomplish is limited by the ability of the central planners to figure it out.

Read this (http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/i-pencil/).

[muzzled dogg]

lol he called him eugene

[nodeal]

Well first off privatizing roads lowers your taxes, and now if you don't use a road you don't need to pay for it. But also I'm not sure if private people could easily acquire the tracts of land needed for roads, and also you could pick from different roads if one road tries to overcharge people. Also if you search the archive theilre some other threads that address this issue.

I see. While we may pay more tolls, taxes are still not being taken from us to pay for roads.

Question: if we are paying more tolls, then that means more toll booths. How would this model look on highways, residential roads, etc? Would you need to pay a toll every time you get on a new highway? Would you need to pay a toll every time you drive into a new neighborhood? I mean, how exactly would this be structured?

[Elwar]

Seriously though. There are private roads. They are more efficient. This has been discussed quite a bit because once someone considers getting rid of taxes the initial reaction is "well, what about the roads?". As if the only thing keeping us from no taxes is those damned roads...



How would you counter the common argument that states: if there were to be a private road system, tolls would exist every time you exit one owner's highway and enter another owner's.


You use a cell phone...you move in and out of cell tower range all the time yet you don't notice this. Same would be done for road use.



What is to stop the owner of these roads from discriminating against drivers, going to great lengths to get people of certain races/backgrounds off the road?


Same thing that stops Walmart from discriminating against certain races/backgrounds.



Also, if one road exists between one town and another, wouldn't a monopoly then exist, allowing the owner of this road to charge a high toll?


How high would the toll be? High enough where someone else might be willing to buy land and build a road parellel to it and charge a high toll as well? Only to be screwed by that damn invisible hand of the free market.


Any other issues I'm missing that rise from the privatization of our road system, please feel free to address.
A few other issues that people like to bring up:

What if someone bought a road all across America and didn't let anyone build a road going across it?
What if someone owned a road around your house and didn't let you go on the road?

Here's a good book that goes into private roads if you're really interested: http://mises.org/daily/3416

Another question missed:
With over 40,000 people killed on these highways each year, shouldn't someone be held accountable?
(Actually, that's a question that goes unasked because the roads are run by the government...it would be asked if they were private though.)

[Sola_Fide]

Careful with that axe, Eugene!

PS-NOT ANOTHER PRIVATE ROAD THREAD! PLEASE!

[Acala]

Who's Eugene? Is that an expression? Should I know who/what you are referring to?

This thread is my homework.

You are asking others to do your homework for you. You have been directed to numerous excellent books that will help you understand how free people can solve their own problems very nicely without the use of force. But instead you insist on posing as an advocate for liberty and then demonstrating that you don't know the first thing about it. It raises the suspicion that you are not what you claim to be.

[zyphex]

I think one of the largest problems, at least in my own state, is that the government not only owns, but also builds the roads.

Tax dollars should be used to pay for roads, but these roads should be purchased from a private sector entity. Private entities in a competitive market can pave roads more efficiently than government because these entities have an incentive to produce at efficient levels because they are "price takers"; they have a profit motive and must do things as cheaply as possible in order to stay in business, unlike government.

I don't think I actually answered any of the original questions, but it seems like a relevant idea to throw around as it incorporates competitive markets.

[nodeal]

The beauty of the free market is that nobody has to know how it works for it to work. We can support it without having a plan for it. And it will end up being better than our expectations in ways we never dreamed.

This is the exact opposite of putting the government in charge, where what you can accomplish is limited by the ability of the central planners to figure it out.

Read this (http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/i-pencil/).

Just finished reading it. That was fantastic. Bookmarked. Thank you.

[HazyHusky420]

Consider competition and even land conservation. Roads that are only used by people who are lost whither away from lack of funds and the land may be returned to its state.

[fisharmor]

First of all, do you guys believe that roads can be built and provided by private industry in a more efficient manner than the way in which the government currently provides them? Why or why not?

If you do indeed believe in private industry's ability to supply and maintain roads, how exactly would this system work? What would the model be for this system? How would you counter the common argument that states: if there were to be a private road system, tolls would exist every time you exit one owner's highway and enter another owner's.

What is to stop the owner of these roads from discriminating against drivers, going to great lengths to get people of certain races/backgrounds off the road?

Also, if one road exists between one town and another, wouldn't a monopoly then exist, allowing the owner of this road to charge a high toll?

Any other issues I'm missing that rise from the privatization of our road system, please feel free to address. I believe in free-markets, and I would LIKE to apply it to the road system, but the aforementioned issues seem quite legitimate.

Your counters?

I don't know if you are Eugene, but I'll assume you're not and that you're just a new guy who hasn't heard me say this before.
Here is the ultimate rebuttal:
The first trans-continental road system in this country was built by private industry and worked quite well. It simply used rails instead of asphalt.

Your post is laden with assumptions.
It assumes that people like to live far from basic amenities in cardboard mansions.
It assumes that people like to live 10-60 miles away from their places of employment.
It assumes that people like to spend 2-5 hours a day in their cars.
It assumes that people like owning 2-4 separate vehicles simply to be able to get around.
It assumes that people would still take their cars on 10-24 hour road trips if reasonably priced alternate travel was available.
It assumes, in a nutshell, that people like to waste significant parts of their lives and fortunes simply getting from point to point.

Road travel came to its prominence in this country for several reasons.
First of all, railroads voluntarily called for regulations on the industry in order to cartelize, because the barons were being forced out by the market and needed the regulations to keep competitors out.
Then came the taxes and nationalization of rail around WWI.
Then cars became affordable, and people realized that they weren't getting quite so screwed by driving.
Then came the war time taxes in WWII - an extra 15% federal tax on passenger rail travel that existed to the mid-1970s.
Meanwhile cars get more affordable and more reliable.
Interestingly enough, passenger travel was again nationalized about the same time congress finally got rid of the war tax.

It's still nationalized, by the way - it's straight-up national socialism. There is no other word to describe it.

How would private road systems work? I don't care, because I'm not at all convinced that the market would favor it at all.
Travel by automobile is ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE less efficient than rail travel.
It encourages sprawl.
It makes us live in mazes like rats, only there's no cheese within miles.
It makes us fat, it makes us isolated, it turns our kids into TV addicted automatons with no ambition beyond beating the latest Call of Duty game.

How would private roads work? I don't think they would. I think if we ended state subsidies of roads, de-nationalized passenger rail, and removed restrictions on rail companies (and ALL regulations), then it would be maximum 30 years before every family had one gigantic family wagon they drove once a week tops, traffic on existing roads would disappear, and our pressboard estate funeral parks would be overgrown wastelands.

[HazyHusky420]

Careful with that axe, Eugene!

PS-NOT ANOTHER PRIVATE ROAD THREAD! PLEASE!

Why not? This isn't an anarchist vs minarchist issue. There's no reason a minarchist should oppose private roads. Even if there are government roads who's to tell a land owner they can't create a shortcut and charge for it?

[Elwar]

Consider that from the 1930s to the 1980s the government controlled the phone industry (AT&T) for similar reasons as your questions about roads.

The only advancement between the 1930s and 1980s was going from an operator patching you through to someone, to a dial phone.

Look at the advances that happened between 1984 when the long distance monopoly was broken up to the late 90s when the phone industry was truly deregulated (as much as government can deregulate something) to where we are now with phone technology.

Consider the advancements that are not occurring right now as far as getting us from Point A to Point B.

I, for one, am sick of the ancient road technology that we must put up with in a modern world. All because of government ownership.

[nodeal]

You are asking others to do your homework for you. You have been directed to numerous excellent books that will help you understand how free people can solve their own problems very nicely without the use of force. But instead you insist on posing as an advocate for liberty and then demonstrating that you don't know the first thing about it. It raises the suspicion that you are not what you claim to be.

Don't be a clown.

I got finished reading Economics In One Lesson by Hazlitt, and am currently up to chapter 16 in Defending the Undefendable by Block. I read what links I am directed to in my threads with enthusiasm, and it definitely helps. I read articles from Mises here and there, and I have lectures downloaded from the site onto my phone. All this considered, there's nothing wrong with hashing out a specific issue that arises in my head via these forums. In addition to hypothesizing what could be based on what I have read, I also like to hear what others have already come up with.

If inquisition is irritating or suspect, then I guess you're not familiar with the learning process. Most liberty advocates respond with fervor when asked to apply free-market principles to specific examples -- especially one's particularly touchy or popular with the opposition. You on the other hand seem to use it as an opportunity to project a holier-than-thou attitude, mixed with a little whining.

Pity, because (from what I can see) you're well versed on the topic.

[Sola_Fide]

I think one of the largest problems, at least in my own state, is that the government not only owns, but also builds the roads.

Tax dollars should be used to pay for roads, but these roads should be purchased from a private sector entity. Private entities in a competitive market can pave roads more efficiently than government because these entities have an incentive to produce at efficient levels because they are "price takers"; they have a profit motive and must do things as cheaply as possible in order to stay in business, unlike government.

I don't think I actually answered any of the original questions, but it seems like a relevant idea to throw around as it incorporates competitive markets.



Nah. The government confiscating people's money to inefficiently pay for roads they will never use? No thanks.

In my town just recently, they decided to raise our property taxes because they wanted to expand one of the schools. Our Tea Party looked in to the "deal" the government got when they bought the land for the school expansion. It turned out that the land was owned by a family member of the school board and they paid 3 TIMES the market value for the property.

This is the nature of government. It creates no wealth, it can ONLY steal. And you never care about efficiency when you can just steal more and more.

[Wesker1982]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Os0BeA7sWV4
Chapter 11: http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp

FREE MARKET TRANSPORTATION by Walter Block: https://mises.org/journals/jls/3_2/3_2_7.pdf
The Privatization of Roads and Highways by Walter Block: http://www.scribd.com/doc/14140118/The-Privatization-of-Roads-and-Highways-Walter-Block

[HazyHusky420]

The only advancement between the 1930s and 1980s was going from an operator patching you through to someone, to a dial phone.

Thanks to the great invention called Unix. Sure Linux and Mac are unix variants, but if it weren't for unix there wouldn't have been an inspiration for IBM OS/2 which all modern versions of Windows (NT, XP, Vista, 7) are descendants of. Considering that the majority of people here and everywhere else on the web are users of one of those Windows versions, would you all want to really want to still be using one of those old DOS-based versions of Windows to do your web browsing? Especially with our tabbed, split process web browsers that rely on the underlying systems multi-tasking functionality? Actually back then most servers ran some multi-tasking system inspired by unix if not unix itself. Imagine websites being ran by DOS servers?

Of course if Tesla wasn't censored by the state we would have much more advanced technologies, so even the good things that came about from government would have been left in the dust by what could have been. I mean Tesla created wireless communications before most people had telephones. But no, thanks to the banker controlled government they can't regulate such technology in order to charge for it. The same goes for free energy. Boy aren't government regulations great? The Ralph Nader crowd is full of shit when it comes to "consumer protection".

LONG LIVE SPONTANEOUS ORDER!

[Elwar]

Don't be a clown.

I got finished reading Economics In One Lesson by Hazlitt, and am currently up to chapter 16 in Defending the Undefendable by Block. I read what links I am directed to in my threads with enthusiasm, and it definitely helps. I read articles from Mises here and there, and I have lectures downloaded from the site onto my phone. All this considered, there's nothing wrong with hashing out a specific issue that arises in my head via these forums. In addition to hypothesizing what could be based on what I have read, I also like to hear what others have already come up with.

If inquisition is irritating or suspect, then I guess you're not familiar with the learning process. Most liberty advocates respond with fervor when asked to apply free-market principles to specific examples -- especially one's particularly touchy or popular with the opposition. You on the other hand seem to use it as an opportunity to project a holier-than-thou attitude, mixed with a little whining.

Pity, because (from what I can see) you're well versed on the topic.

He's just pointing out a common tactic that we see around here of people acting like they are libertarians and "argue for liberty other places". Only to try to openly poke holes in free market theory while trying to sound like a supporter. Ala Eugene (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/search.php?searchid=130807). Only to find that they've asked the exact same questions on other libertarian websites arguing in a fake "but what about" sort of way on each and every site after being told the exact same thing.

[nodeal]

I don't know if you are Eugene, but I'll assume you're not and that you're just a new guy who hasn't heard me say this before.
Here is the ultimate rebuttal:
The first trans-continental road system in this country was built by private industry and worked quite well. It simply used rails instead of asphalt.

Your post is laden with assumptions.
It assumes that people like to live far from basic amenities in cardboard mansions.
It assumes that people like to live 10-60 miles away from their places of employment.
It assumes that people like to spend 2-5 hours a day in their cars.
It assumes that people like owning 2-4 separate vehicles simply to be able to get around.
It assumes that people would still take their cars on 10-24 hour road trips if reasonably priced alternate travel was available.
It assumes, in a nutshell, that people like to waste significant parts of their lives and fortunes simply getting from point to point.

Road travel came to its prominence in this country for several reasons.
First of all, railroads voluntarily called for regulations on the industry in order to cartelize, because the barons were being forced out by the market and needed the regulations to keep competitors out.
Then came the taxes and nationalization of rail around WWI.
Then cars became affordable, and people realized that they weren't getting quite so screwed by driving.
Then came the war time taxes in WWII - an extra 15% federal tax on passenger rail travel that existed to the mid-1970s.
Meanwhile cars get more affordable and more reliable.
Interestingly enough, passenger travel was again nationalized about the same time congress finally got rid of the war tax.

It's still nationalized, by the way - it's straight-up national socialism. There is no other word to describe it.

How would private road systems work? I don't care, because I'm not at all convinced that the market would favor it at all.
Travel by automobile is ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE less efficient than rail travel.
It encourages sprawl.
It makes us live in mazes like rats, only there's no cheese within miles.
It makes us fat, it makes us isolated, it turns our kids into TV addicted automatons with no ambition beyond beating the latest Call of Duty game.

How would private roads work? I don't think they would. I think if we ended state subsidies of roads, de-nationalized passenger rail, and removed restrictions on rail companies (and ALL regulations), then it would be maximum 30 years before every family had one gigantic family wagon they drove once a week tops, traffic on existing roads would disappear, and our pressboard estate funeral parks would be overgrown wastelands.

Who's Eugene?

Yes my questions are riddled with assumptions, but they are the few and far between scenarios that do exist -- one's that must be addressed in order to solidify an argument.

You bring up an interesting point. I never thought about it -- government intervention actually inhibited railways, forcing automobiles as the better alternative. INTERESTING!

[Acala]

Don't be a clown.

I got finished reading Economics In One Lesson by Hazlitt, and am currently up to chapter 16 in Defending the Undefendable by Block. I read what links I am directed to in my threads with enthusiasm, and it definitely helps. I read articles from Mises here and there, and I have lectures downloaded from the site onto my phone. All this considered, there's nothing wrong with hashing out a specific issue that arises in my head via these forums. In addition to hypothesizing what could be based on what I have read, I also like to hear what others have already come up with.

If inquisition is irritating or suspect, then I guess you're not familiar with the learning process. Most liberty advocates respond with fervor when asked to apply free-market principles to specific examples -- especially one's particularly touchy or popular with the opposition. You on the other hand seem to use it as an opportunity to project a holier-than-thou attitude, mixed with a little whining.

Pity, because (from what I can see) you're well versed on the topic.

If you are a sincere seeker after the truth, I apologize.

[nodeal]

He's just pointing out a common tactic that we see around here of people acting like they are libertarians and "argue for liberty other places". Only to try to openly poke holes in free market theory while trying to sound like a supporter. Ala Eugene (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/search.php?searchid=130807). Only to find that they've asked the exact same questions on other libertarian websites arguing in a fake "but what about" sort of way on each and every site after being told the exact same thing.

Honestly, my posts are usually motivated by debate (either a debate that goes on inside my head or with someone else).

For example, I can be arguing with someone who is anti-capitalist, and they will bring up a point which I do not have an adequate response for. So I turn to this forum to get an answer. Similarly, I can be hashing out an issue in my head, debating what-ifs back and forth both for and against capitalism. If I end up coming to a point which I cannot find a free-market answer for, I also tend to post here.

Sorry if my method of posting is a bit suspect, but my intentions are genuine. If it helps any, all information derived from my posts has been put to good use through debate, discussion, etc.

[Elwar]

Thanks to the great invention called Unix. Sure Linux and Mac are unix variants,

Not to hijack the thread. Unix certainly helped with the modern Internet but phone technology doesn't rely all that much on it outside of some of the more recent smartphone technology.

Also, transistors helped a lot. I could see telephone technology in the 50s having a bastardized version of what we have today but maybe having a phone the size of a suitcase with a hand set.

Either way, traffic jams should be something we laugh about happening "back in the day". Not something that happens now. And traffic accidents should be a rarity.

[nodeal]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Os0BeA7sWV4
Chapter 11: http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp

FREE MARKET TRANSPORTATION by Walter Block: https://mises.org/journals/jls/3_2/3_2_7.pdf
The Privatization of Roads and Highways by Walter Block: http://www.scribd.com/doc/14140118/The-Privatization-of-Roads-and-Highways-Walter-Block

WOW. Overload. I'm gonna have to watch/read these pieces of information later on tonight before bed. At least now I know what I'm gonna do while I vape a few bowls!

[HazyHusky420]

Not to hijack the thread. Unix certainly helped with the modern Internet but phone technology doesn't rely all that much on it outside of some of the more recent smartphone technology.

Also, transistors helped a lot. I could see telephone technology in the 50s having a bastardized version of what we have today but maybe having a phone the size of a suitcase with a hand set.

Either way, traffic jams should be something we laugh about happening "back in the day". Not something that happens now. And traffic accidents should be a rarity.

Wasn't trying to hijack the thread either. My point was that Unix came out the efforts of AT&T and Bell labs, so the era you pointed out was alot more important for telecom and technology in general than just phones. I mean look at the smart phones of today. Windows Mobile, BlackBerry and Symbian are the only smartphone platforms that aren't unix. Even the BlackBerry is moving to Unix with the QNX-based BlackBerry Tablet and future BlackBerry phone releases.

Speaking of which, most real-time systems have some unix in them. VxWorks is heavily used in robotics (like the Honda Asimo) and aerospace and everyone knows VxWorks has unix ancestry.

[nodeal]

If you are a sincere seeker after the truth, I apologize.

I really am. I'm sorry if the knowledge I convey is not adequate enough to posit me firmly as a free-market capitalist, but I have been interested in this political philosophy ever since I saw Giuliani engage Ron Paul during the debates.

lol, sorry if it seems as if I'm "using" you for information instead of flipping through books myself, but shit, you and everyone on here always hit the nail on the head!

[nodeal]

Seriously though. There are private roads. They are more efficient. This has been discussed quite a bit because once someone considers getting rid of taxes the initial reaction is "well, what about the roads?". As if the only thing keeping us from no taxes is those damned roads...



You use a cell phone...you move in and out of cell tower range all the time yet you don't notice this. Same would be done for road use.



Same thing that stops Walmart from discriminating against certain races/backgrounds.



How high would the toll be? High enough where someone else might be willing to buy land and build a road parellel to it and charge a high toll as well? Only to be screwed by that damn invisible hand of the free market.


A few other issues that people like to bring up:

What if someone bought a road all across America and didn't let anyone build a road going across it?
What if someone owned a road around your house and didn't let you go on the road?

Here's a good book that goes into private roads if you're really interested: http://mises.org/daily/3416

Another question missed:
With over 40,000 people killed on these highways each year, shouldn't someone be held accountable?
(Actually, that's a question that goes unasked because the roads are run by the government...it would be asked if they were private though.)

Thank you thank you thank you.

But I'm a little confused about your cell phone analogy. The scenario I was depicting was one where you are constantly being charged a toll for exiting one owner's road and entering another owner's. So, through this portrayal, what I'm really asking is: 1) can affordability in driving be maintained when you are constantly being charged every time you make this transition from one road to another, and 2) how would the flow of traffic adjust to the constant slow downs associated with paying tolls? If you're envisioning a system where tolls are paid wirelessly/electronically, then ignore my second question.

P.S. If the answer is in the article you posted, I haven't read it yet! So bear with me!

[Elwar]

What also pisses me off about government roads is the under-utilization.

Every home in America has one thing in common...a road runs right up to their property.

What if under that road there were fiber optics, electric lines, water pipes, heat pipes, sewage pipes, and on and on...multiples of each with competing companies. Hell, even some sort of solar technology in our roadways...

The government sees roads as a single thing...something to transport cars. That's all they're directed to do.

Private industry will take their product and say "what else can we do with this"? How can they capitalize on their investment to bring in more money.

I want a choice of 5 different power/water/internet/sewage companies damnit...these are things we're missing thanks to government roads.

I want to be able to get in my car in the morning and tell the computer my destination and be able to take a nap or have my morning breakfast or watch TV as my car takes me on the smart road to work (in the most efficient way possible).

[Elwar]

Thank you thank you thank you.

But I'm a little confused about your cell phone analogy. The scenario I was depicting was one where you are constantly being charged a toll for exiting one owner's road and entering another owner's. So, through this portrayal, what I'm really asking is: 1) can affordability in driving be maintained when you are constantly being charged every time you make this transition from one road to another, and 2) how would the flow of traffic adjust to the constant slow downs associated with paying tolls? If you're envisioning a system where tolls are paid wirelessly/electronically, then ignore my second question.

P.S. If the answer is in the article you posted, I haven't read it yet! So bear with me!

With the advent of electric cars governments are trying to address the problem of losing all of that gas tax money. Some governments are looking to GPS devices for cars to charge a "per mile" cost.

Where I live we have private toll roads all over the state. The state has a "SunPass" that you buy ($5 bucks). It's a little sticker with an RFID that you put in your window. If you have a SunPass you just drive through the SunPass lane and it registers your car coming through.

There are plenty of theories on how it would work. With your cell phone you might go from one company's tower to another, to another. You never notice this but the companies have agreements on how to handle this. Your car could go from one company's roadway to another's to another. It would all be seamless. You'd get your monthly bill based on use.

I pay about $6 per day for my toll roads. I could use the government roads but there's more traffic so I am willing to pay a bit more for a faster commute.

Either way...the whole idea behind the free market is that the market will figure these things out.

With old AT&T phones when they were the monopoly people would have thought that you'd have to have 6 different phones if you have family and friends that use different phone companies...how would one company be able to use another company's lines without you being charged by each company? We could theorize about it all we want and the solution we, as non phone people, might come up with might seem crude compared to the comfortable way of just having one company. But in the end it was figured out by the companies and we've moved far beyond that onto bigger and better things.

[VBRonPaulFan]

Thank you thank you thank you.

But I'm a little confused about your cell phone analogy. The scenario I was depicting was one where you are constantly being charged a toll for exiting one owner's road and entering another owner's. So, through this portrayal, what I'm really asking is: 1) can affordability in driving be maintained when you are constantly being charged every time you make this transition from one road to another, and 2) how would the flow of traffic adjust to the constant slow downs associated with paying tolls? If you're envisioning a system where tolls are paid wirelessly/electronically, then ignore my second question.

P.S. If the answer is in the article you posted, I haven't read it yet! So bear with me!

pretty sure you would never have to even stop your car in a privatized road system. chances are there would be a system just like the EZPass system now where you put some sort of wireless device on your dash and put money into an account or register a credit card to an account, and you automatically get billed the toll electronically every time you drive through the toll.

[HazyHusky420]

Where I live we have private toll roads all over the state.

Wrong. I'm a Floridian and here in north Florida we don't have toll roads.

[HazyHusky420]

chances are there would be a system just like the EZPass system now where you put some sort of wireless device on your dash and put money into an account or register a credit card to an account, and you automatically get billed the toll electronically every time you drive through the toll.

I love the idea. Sadly some Alex Jones fans think we're nazis for supporting that. Like leftists they think private means corporate. Go to one of AJ's sites and say something about private prisons and see what kind of response you get.

[erowe1]

I love the idea. Sadly some Alex Jones fans think we're nazis for supporting that. Like leftists they think private means corporate. Go to one of AJ's sites and say something about private prisons and see what kind of response you get.

The thing is, when it comes to public policy in practice, usually "privatize" just means that something remains under the state's purview and they just farm out the work to contractors. That's not necessarily any better than having the state do it. Private prisons are far more profitable with our drug war going on than they would be without it, which provides a huge financial incentive for those who profit from them to support politicians who support tough drug laws.

[HazyHusky420]

The thing is, when it comes to public policy in practice, usually "privatize" just means that something remains under the state's purview and they just farm out the work to contractors. That's not necessarily any better than having the state do it. Private prisons are far more profitable with our drug war going on than they would be without it, which provides a huge financial incentive for those who profit from them to support politicians who support tough drug laws.

No no I completely understand what you mean. But from my experience with them they think privatize means the same all around. I've heard people bash Ron Paul for supporting private banking as if it's the same as the private federal reserve.

[jclay2]

+ to Elwar: Thread winner imho.

[Acala]

I really am. I'm sorry if the knowledge I convey is not adequate enough to posit me firmly as a free-market capitalist, but I have been interested in this political philosophy ever since I saw Giuliani engage Ron Paul during the debates.

lol, sorry if it seems as if I'm "using" you for information instead of flipping through books myself, but shit, you and everyone on here always hit the nail on the head!

No problem. I thought you were a troll I have been jousting with resurfacing under a new avatar. Your initial posts had a bit of the same flavor. But I think I was wrong and I hope you get all the answers you need.

Peace!

[Wesker1982]

WOW. Overload. I'm gonna have to watch/read these pieces of information later on tonight before bed. At least now I know what I'm gonna do while I vape a few bowls!

I am happy you are genuinely interested!

The 2nd Walter Block link is a whole book, GL trying to get that done before bed :p

[nodeal]

pretty sure you would never have to even stop your car in a privatized road system. chances are there would be a system just like the EZPass system now where you put some sort of wireless device on your dash and put money into an account or register a credit card to an account, and you automatically get billed the toll electronically every time you drive through the toll.

Right! Or a system where you pay monthly to certain companies and are allowed unlimited access to their roads. This would be ideal for people who travel on the same roads a lot. Wow. Genius!

[nodeal]

What also pisses me off about government roads is the under-utilization.

Every home in America has one thing in common...a road runs right up to their property.

What if under that road there were fiber optics, electric lines, water pipes, heat pipes, sewage pipes, and on and on...multiples of each with competing companies. Hell, even some sort of solar technology in our roadways...

The government sees roads as a single thing...something to transport cars. That's all they're directed to do.

Private industry will take their product and say "what else can we do with this"? How can they capitalize on their investment to bring in more money.

I want a choice of 5 different power/water/internet/sewage companies damnit...these are things we're missing thanks to government roads.

I want to be able to get in my car in the morning and tell the computer my destination and be able to take a nap or have my morning breakfast or watch TV as my car takes me on the smart road to work (in the most efficient way possible).

lol, yeah, innovation usually doesn't come from bureaucrats.

[__27__]

What evidence do you have to believe they wouldn't? What evidence do you have to believe Government does ANYTHING better or more efficiently than private market? If government can provide roads better and more efficiently than market, why not shoes? Why not clothes? Why not homes? Why not food? Why not...

And the only truthful answer to the question of how is, well I don't know. Do you know what the best rubber compound is for tire life? Do you know how to design a supersonic inter-planetary transport ship? Do you know how to replace an aortic valve on your mother? No? This is why we leave things to the market, to specialization. I don't have to know all of the answers. If you believe in a government system, that government MUST know all of the answers in order to be efficient. But the truth is no matter how many committees and coallitions you form, you can NEVER know everything. The marketplace is vast and unending, where there is a need, someone will fill it. Where there is a question, someone will answer it. And all of this without the initiation of violent coercion.

Rational self interest and the marketplace of ideas.

[Carson]

There is some validity to the argument of roads being privatized. I can't remember what it was.

I don't see any reason to look into it until we get straightened out of the dividing of the money the government is taking in selling off our stuff.

An account should be set up for every legal citizen that paid into the creation of the property. A vote should be taken and if the property is sold off, accounts should be credited.

[__27__]

There is some validity to the argument of roads being privatized. I can't remember what it was.

I don't see any reason to look into it until we get straightened out of the dividing of the money the government is taking in selling off our stuff.

An account should be set up for every legal citizen that paid into the creation of the property. A vote should be taken and if the property is sold off, accounts should be credited.

So how does your little refund scheme work? Do all those people who pay nothing, or even get a check back for MORE than they payed in taxes get nothing back or even have to PAY under the sale while those who pay millions of dollars in tax each year get their proportional investment back? Or do you just want to split up other peoples money and divide it "equally"?

[heavenlyboy34]

Thanks to the great invention called Unix. Sure Linux and Mac are unix variants, but if it weren't for unix there wouldn't have been an inspiration for IBM OS/2 which all modern versions of Windows (NT, XP, Vista, 7) are descendants of. Considering that the majority of people here and everywhere else on the web are users of one of those Windows versions, would you all want to really want to still be using one of those old DOS-based versions of Windows to do your web browsing? Especially with our tabbed, split process web browsers that rely on the underlying systems multi-tasking functionality? Actually back then most servers ran some multi-tasking system inspired by unix if not unix itself. Imagine websites being ran by DOS servers?

Of course if Tesla wasn't censored by the state we would have much more advanced technologies, so even the good things that came about from government would have been left in the dust by what could have been. I mean Tesla created wireless communications before most people had telephones. But no, thanks to the banker controlled government they can't regulate such technology in order to charge for it. The same goes for free energy. Boy aren't government regulations great? The Ralph Nader crowd is full of shit when it comes to "consumer protection".

LONG LIVE SPONTANEOUS ORDER!

+rep for you, good sir.

[heavenlyboy34]

What evidence do you have to believe they wouldn't? What evidence do you have to believe Government does ANYTHING better or more efficiently than private market? If government can provide roads better and more efficiently than market, why not shoes? Why not clothes? Why not homes? Why not food? Why not...

And the only truthful answer to the question of how is, well I don't know. Do you know what the best rubber compound is for tire life? Do you know how to design a supersonic inter-planetary transport ship? Do you know how to replace an aortic valve on your mother? No? This is why we leave things to the market, to specialization. I don't have to know all of the answers. If you believe in a government system, that government MUST know all of the answers in order to be efficient. But the truth is no matter how many committees and coallitions you form, you can NEVER know everything. The marketplace is vast and unending, where there is a need, someone will fill it. Where there is a question, someone will answer it. And all of this without the initiation of violent coercion.

Rational self interest and the marketplace of ideas.

+infinity. :cool:

[Travlyr]

Take a look at a Rand McNally map from early 20th century. The roads are not at all straight. It seems that most property owners just said, "Go Around!" While it probably didn't make much difference for those times, today people would be screaming for better designs.

[Sola_Fide]

What evidence do you have to believe they wouldn't? What evidence do you have to believe Government does ANYTHING better or more efficiently than private market? If government can provide roads better and more efficiently than market, why not shoes? Why not clothes? Why not homes? Why not food? Why not...

And the only truthful answer to the question of how is, well I don't know. Do you know what the best rubber compound is for tire life? Do you know how to design a supersonic inter-planetary transport ship? Do you know how to replace an aortic valve on your mother? No? This is why we leave things to the market, to specialization. I don't have to know all of the answers. If you believe in a government system, that government MUST know all of the answers in order to be efficient. But the truth is no matter how many committees and coallitions you form, you can NEVER know everything. The marketplace is vast and unending, where there is a need, someone will fill it. Where there is a question, someone will answer it. And all of this without the initiation of violent coercion.

Rational self interest and the marketplace of ideas.

+++++++++++

[GreedyHenry]

How would private road systems work? I don't care, because I'm not at all convinced that the market would favor it at all.
Travel by automobile is ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE less efficient than rail travel.
It encourages sprawl.
It makes us live in mazes like rats, only there's no cheese within miles.
It makes us fat, it makes us isolated, it turns our kids into TV addicted automatons with no ambition beyond beating the latest Call of Duty game.

Good point even people's "worst possible outcome" would actually be positive.

[guitarlifter]

Seriously though. There are private roads. They are more efficient. This has been discussed quite a bit because once someone considers getting rid of taxes the initial reaction is "well, what about the roads?". As if the only thing keeping us from no taxes is those damned roads...



You use a cell phone...you move in and out of cell tower range all the time yet you don't notice this. Same would be done for road use.



Same thing that stops Walmart from discriminating against certain races/backgrounds.



How high would the toll be? High enough where someone else might be willing to buy land and build a road parellel to it and charge a high toll as well? Only to be screwed by that damn invisible hand of the free market.


A few other issues that people like to bring up:

What if someone bought a road all across America and didn't let anyone build a road going across it?
What if someone owned a road around your house and didn't let you go on the road?

Here's a good book that goes into private roads if you're really interested: http://mises.org/daily/3416

Another question missed:
With over 40,000 people killed on these highways each year, shouldn't someone be held accountable?
(Actually, that's a question that goes unasked because the roads are run by the government...it would be asked if they were private though.)

In a free market, Walmart would be allowed to discriminate as well as anyone. Remember that we are talking about no regulation of the economy by the government. However, anyone these days that would discriminate as a store could be publicly humiliated and be put out of business. If a coffee shop down town stopped serving blacks, I could almost guarantee you that it would go out of business. I would tell all my friends, put up posters next to the place and all around the surrounding neighborhood.

[__27__]

In a free market, Walmart would be allowed to discriminate as well as anyone. Remember that we are talking about no regulation of the economy by the government. However, anyone these days that would discriminate as a store could be publicly humiliated and be put out of business. If a coffee shop down town stopped serving blacks, I could almost guarantee you that it would go out of business. I would tell all my friends, put up posters next to the place and all around the surrounding neighborhood.

In a pure free market a business that discriminated wouldn't survive long enough for you to even make your picket signs or type your angry letters. The true power of the free market is competition, among ALL circles of the economy, job market included. In order to be a successful business you must be able to find and hire the top talent available. Anyone who has ever looked for talent of any kind understands that the wider net you throw, the more talent you grab. A company that discriminates is willfully reducing the size of their talent pool, and will as a result be getting inferior talent in comparison to his non-discriminatory competition. He will at best be running a floundering business only counting it's days before it's extinction. When discussing a pure free market you have to disabuse yourself of the corporatist mindset you live with today. WalMart as it exists today would NEVER exist in a pure free market.

[YumYum]

When discussing a pure free market you have to disabuse yourself of the corporatist mindset you live with today. WalMart as it exists today would NEVER exist in a pure free market.

How is that?

[__27__]

How is that?

Seriously? I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or are you really asking that question...

[YumYum]

Seriously? I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or are you really asking that question...

No, I'm not being sarcastic. There are lurkers here who would be puzzled by that comment, so briefly explain why there would be no monopolies, or Walmarts, or no big corporations that would buy out the little businesses in a Free Market society.

[nayjevin]

Market doesn't favor global expansion. I would guess we'd see more bazaars, flea markets, garden markets, strip mall shopping centers. It's not out of the question to conceive of society voluntarily adapting to lesser variety in products and fewer foods from afar in exchange for the benefits of local specialization, cooperative food exchanges, and plant-to-mouth turnaround of the unregulated roadside offering. It takes little variety to satisfy basic needs.

[Mr.Magnanimous]

Something I don't see brought to the table very often on the subject of private roads is advertisements. What company wouldn't want to advertise on frequently used roads? I imagine private road companies would offer many oppurtunities for businesses to advertise on their roads, bringing in a good source of income.

A lot of people on the left seem to hate the idea of private roads, but really considering their stances on other issues (namely the environment), they should be huge proponets, even though I think some of their support would stem from a fallacy (global warming). A lot of leftists seem to be bent on lowering their "carbon foot print", and maybe they would bite down on to this plan if they believed people might be discouraged from driving due to tolls. This might lead to more use of alternative forms of transportation. In my view though, I think the real effect would come from the expertly designed roads that would be designed with gas-efficiency in mind.

And just think of the wonders that these roads could provide like heated roads to prevent freezing (i'm sure it's possible).

[YumYum]

Market doesn't favor global expansion. I would guess we'd see more bazaars, flea markets, garden markets, strip mall shopping centers. It's not out of the question to conceive of society voluntarily adapting to lesser variety in products and fewer foods from afar in exchange for the benefits of local specialization, cooperative food exchanges, and plant-to-mouth turnaround of the unregulated roadside offering. It takes little variety to satisfy basic needs.

I live here in Southwest MO where we have all those things; flea markets, road side vendors, etc...and people love them. People here also seem to love Walmart, because it is always packed. We also had Walmart wipe out all of ma and pa businesses on the town square. Now, the town square is slowly coming alive with offices for attorneys and insurance companies, but the little paint stores and linen stores are gone for good. Hopefully, the last Hardware store we have won't close its doors. One thing that people like about the Walmart monopoly is convenience. They always have a good location and you can usually get just about everything you need in one stop. Shops that specialize in certain items would survive in a Free Market society; they do here in MO, but those businesses always seem to just get by, while Walmart gets richer and richer.

[Mr.Magnanimous]

Shameful Bump

[Acala]

One of the dangers in the study and theoretical application of liberty is that because it is SO very good at solving the problems of human society, we want it to be perfect and when it isn't, we discount it harshly. But, as has often been said before, utopia is not one of the options.

It is like the old joke about the two guys camping. They are asleep under the stars by the campfire when a grizzly lumbers into camp. They both wake up and one guy starts putting on his shoes. The other guy whispers "Griz can run as fast as a horse over short distances. There is no way you can outrun it." And the other guy says "I don't have to outrun it, I just have to outrun YOU!"

Liberty doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be better than any other real option. And it is by such a large margin that the only debate that gets any real traction in the truly reasoning mind is the kind of debates we have here: largely academic.

So when you have a bunch of high-watt brains like you encounter on this forum all sitting around thinking about liberty, they can find some cracks in the beautiful edifice. But the fact that the only cracks in the edifice are the obscure hypotheticals like "what if someone builds a road all around your property?" just proves up the incredible power of freedom to order human affairs.

The efforts of the OP, and others, to have such a firm understanding of all possible ramifications of freedom is laudable, but not necessary. Being pushed into solving EVERY conceivable hypothetical problem in order to defend freedom is a trap. So in addition to being fully-conversant in the way freedom works, it is also useful to be able to spin out of that trap and return an argument to its proper arena - not how liberty is perfect but how liberty is so much better than tyranny.

[klamath]

I don't know if you are Eugene, but I'll assume you're not and that you're just a new guy who hasn't heard me say this before.
Here is the ultimate rebuttal:
The first trans-continental road system in this country was built by private industry and worked quite well. It simply used rails instead of asphalt.

Your post is laden with assumptions.
It assumes that people like to live far from basic amenities in cardboard mansions.
It assumes that people like to live 10-60 miles away from their places of employment.
It assumes that people like to spend 2-5 hours a day in their cars.
It assumes that people like owning 2-4 separate vehicles simply to be able to get around.
It assumes that people would still take their cars on 10-24 hour road trips if reasonably priced alternate travel was available.
It assumes, in a nutshell, that people like to waste significant parts of their lives and fortunes simply getting from point to point.

Road travel came to its prominence in this country for several reasons.
First of all, railroads voluntarily called for regulations on the industry in order to cartelize, because the barons were being forced out by the market and needed the regulations to keep competitors out.
Then came the taxes and nationalization of rail around WWI.
Then cars became affordable, and people realized that they weren't getting quite so screwed by driving.
Then came the war time taxes in WWII - an extra 15% federal tax on passenger rail travel that existed to the mid-1970s.
Meanwhile cars get more affordable and more reliable.
Interestingly enough, passenger travel was again nationalized about the same time congress finally got rid of the war tax.

It's still nationalized, by the way - it's straight-up national socialism. There is no other word to describe it.

How would private road systems work? I don't care, because I'm not at all convinced that the market would favor it at all.
Travel by automobile is ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE less efficient than rail travel.
It encourages sprawl.
It makes us live in mazes like rats, only there's no cheese within miles.
It makes us fat, it makes us isolated, it turns our kids into TV addicted automatons with no ambition beyond beating the latest Call of Duty game.

How would private roads work? I don't think they would. I think if we ended state subsidies of roads, de-nationalized passenger rail, and removed restrictions on rail companies (and ALL regulations), then it would be maximum 30 years before every family had one gigantic family wagon they drove once a week tops, traffic on existing roads would disappear, and our pressboard estate funeral parks would be overgrown wastelands.
Might want to reread your history. That first transcontinental transportation system was subsidized by US taxpayers and government granted deeds to huge tracks of land. It is one of the biggest corporate ripoffs of the 1900 century. They were being paid so much a mile by the FEDERAL government for laying tracks across flat land and more to lay tracks over mountains. The railroads lied to the government and said they were laying more rails over mountains so they could get paid more. A great deal of the private roads got their land through government granted eminent domain.
Why does this map have a checkerboard pattern? It is because the federal government granted title to every other square mile of land to the Southern Pacific Corp for building a railroad through northern California.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_sMhjFnWQBMk/TESPThfCpMI/AAAAAAAAByw/MS5ByqIEMWA/s1600/chappie%2Bshasta%2Bohv%2Bpark%2Bmap.jpg&imgrefurl=http://rare-earth-news.blogspot.com/2010_07_01_archive.html&usg=__dcThYek6u7PV7Hen3MdSR31kJ98=&h=1600&w=1200&sz=427&hl=en&start=0&sig2=nNi8XAsA4Ay5YzWiMO696Q&zoom=1&tbnid=QUmzxeBGIoQxTM:&tbnh=129&tbnw=97&ei=szInTdDUJY-4sQO2mPXFBw&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dshasta%2Btrinity%2Bcheckerboard%26um% 3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox%26biw%3D1419%26bih%3D694%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=1044&vpy=40&dur=7661&hovh=259&hovw=194&tx=98&ty=137&oei=aTInTeGkLY-2sAPuyryCBw&esq=10&page=1&ndsp=29&ved=1t:429,r:5,s:0

[Acala]

I live here in Southwest MO where we have all those things; flea markets, road side vendors, etc...and people love them. People here also seem to love Walmart, because it is always packed. We also had Walmart wipe out all of ma and pa businesses on the town square. Now, the town square is slowly coming alive with offices for attorneys and insurance companies, but the little paint stores and linen stores are gone for good. Hopefully, the last Hardware store we have won't close its doors. One thing that people like about the Walmart monopoly is convenience. They always have a good location and you can usually get just about everything you need in one stop. Shops that specialize in certain items would survive in a Free Market society; they do here in MO, but those businesses always seem to just get by, while Walmart gets richer and richer.


The walmart phenomenon is complex. But let's take a stab.

First of all, Walmart is a corporation. Corporations are government creations. In a truly free market it is debateable that anything like a modern multi-national corporation could exist. Trying to achieve the liability shield and perpetual ownership of the corporation in a free market would be problematic at best.

Second, government regulation gives Walmart an advantage. Regulations at all levels hinder economic activity - business license, building code, zoning regulations, health and safety, labor laws, wage and price controls, OSHA, EPA, and, in the case of businesses that rely heavily on imports as does Walmart, trade regulations. But these hinderances favor large businesses that can afford to hire lawyers to wade through it all. When Walmart opens a new store, they basically just unpack a kit that includes everything ready to go including experts on call to deal with all the government red tape. They also have political power to pressure government to give them special favors. In a free market the large business would not have these advantages.

Walmart was largely built by importing cheap foreign goods. Having the market for comsumer products dominated by cheap foreign goods favors the global corporation that can buy goods by the ship-load. The local business can't easily compete. And the reason foreign goods are cheaper than local goods is because of government/bank manipulation of the money supply and the government regulations that make local manufacturing more expensive.

Government subsidy of oil, highways, shipping, etc. makes national and global distribution cheaper than it would be in a free market. For example, in the current distorted market it is common to import vegetables and fruit from hundreds of miles away when the same produce can be grown locally more cheaply.

And government has stepped in and prohibited certain businesses that have threatened to compete with large corporations - prohibition of alcohol and hemp, just coincidentally, killed local alternatives to oil-based products. When Henry Ford introduced the Model T, it was designed to run on alcohol or gasoline with the flip of a switch and he announced that this capability would allow farmers to produce their own fuel. It is safe to say that Henry Ford was no dunce and if he thought local production of ethanol was a viable fuel option, it probably was. Government put the kibosh on that and to this day production of ethanol for fuel requires jumping through Federal hoops.

This list could be much longer, but essentially the burden of government falls most heavily on small business and the benefits of government are reaped most by large business which, not coincidentally, usually has lobbyists working the halls of the legislature.

[fisharmor]

What also pisses me off about government roads is the under-utilization.

+yeahnokidding!
I can't tell you how much it pisses me off that the commonwealth requires some mouthbreather to occasionally spraypaint my vegetable garden, a piece of land I ostensibly "own" but don't really, so as to avoid hitting utility lines while they're not digging there.
If I truly owned that piece of property, there would be no choice in the matter: they'd have to go under the road.


It is because the federal government granted title to every other square mile of land to the Southern Pacific Corp for building a railroad through northern California.

Ok, checked my history.
The Great Northern Railway was 100% privately funded. It got no land grants, and set up lines slowly, as soon as they were profitable.
So no, I wasn't entirely right - but this proves my point, that privately funded road systems are entirely possible - and makes the further point, the most important point, that private road systems tend not to waste money in the same manner as government road systems.
So not only do they compensate property owners better, but they also use the money they have much more wisely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Northern_Railway_%28U.S.%29


So when you have a bunch of high-watt brains like you encounter on this forum all sitting around thinking about liberty, they can find some cracks in the beautiful edifice. But the fact that the only cracks in the edifice are the obscure hypotheticals like "what if someone builds a road all around your property?" just proves up the incredible power of freedom to order human affairs.

A: then the market would deem that property to be much more valuable as a business than as a residence, and you'd win big, so stop complaining.
:p

[klamath]

One of the dangers in the study and theoretical application of liberty is that because it is SO very good at solving the problems of human society, we want it to be perfect and when it isn't, we discount it harshly. But, as has often been said before, utopia is not one of the options.

It is like the old joke about the two guys camping. They are asleep under the stars by the campfire when a grizzly lumbers into camp. They both wake up and one guy starts putting on his shoes. The other guy whispers "Griz can run as fast as a horse over short distances. There is no way you can outrun it." And the other guy says "I don't have to outrun it, I just have to outrun YOU!"

Liberty doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be better than any other real option. And it is by such a large margin that the only debate that gets any real traction in the truly reasoning mind is the kind of debates we have here: largely academic.

So when you have a bunch of high-watt brains like you encounter on this forum all sitting around thinking about liberty, they can find some cracks in the beautiful edifice. But the fact that the only cracks in the edifice are the obscure hypotheticals like "what if someone builds a road all around your property?" just proves up the incredible power of freedom to order human affairs.

The efforts of the OP, and others, to have such a firm understanding of all possible ramifications of freedom is laudable, but not necessary. Being pushed into solving EVERY conceivable hypothetical problem in order to defend freedom is a trap. So in addition to being fully-conversant in the way freedom works, it is also useful to be able to spin out of that trap and return an argument to its proper arena - not how liberty is perfect but how liberty is so much better than tyranny.
No this isn't some obscure hypothetical. These are the streets that runs in front of nearly everyones house in urban areas, That land was seized or corerced out private land owners. Building roads in an undeveloped area works good for a private road system but getting back to a complete private market road system is where the real problems start. How do you get those roads back into private hands. Does the government sell the land siezed through eminent domain to another corporation, private business or to each of the homeowner along the street? If the private homeowners own the road in fromt of their own house what are your recourses if he closes his section of the road and blocks you in? THIS is NOT some far fetched Hypothetical. This is a very real and active litigation field in more rural areas where there are a lot private roads. People in rural areas have recourses a lot of the time because they have space to reroute their road, something that is not an option for millions of urban dwellers.

[__27__]

No, I'm not being sarcastic. There are lurkers here who would be puzzled by that comment, so briefly explain why there would be no monopolies, or Walmarts, or no big corporations that would buy out the little businesses in a Free Market society.

Walmart as it is currently configured exists only because it is insulated from competition by voluminous regulation ensuring that only the largest of companies can absorb the cost of the regulation, as well as being insulated from financial failure by government cash in the form of subsidies, tax exemptions and even in some cases free money (bailouts). It isn't only Walmart, it's my employer as well, Target, and ALL of the large corporations in this country. The pure market favors small to medium businesses as they are closer to their consumer and more able to meet the varied and numerous demands of their consumers.

And the larger the companies become, the more revenue stream they have to lobby. They lobby for MORE regulation to restrict their competition and MORE subsidies and tax exemptions to keep their revenue stream growing, which again leads to more lobbying, etc. etc.

[__27__]

The walmart phenomenon is complex. But let's take a stab.

First of all, Walmart is a corporation. Corporations are government creations. In a truly free market it is debateable that anything like a modern multi-national corporation could exist. Trying to achieve the liability shield and perpetual ownership of the corporation in a free market would be problematic at best.

Second, government regulation gives Walmart an advantage. Regulations at all levels hinder economic activity - business license, building code, zoning regulations, health and safety, labor laws, wage and price controls, OSHA, EPA, and, in the case of businesses that rely heavily on imports as does Walmart, trade regulations. But these hinderances favor large businesses that can afford to hire lawyers to wade through it all. When Walmart opens a new store, they basically just unpack a kit that includes everything ready to go including experts on call to deal with all the government red tape. They also have political power to pressure government to give them special favors. In a free market the large business would not have these advantages.

Walmart was largely built by importing cheap foreign goods. Having the market for comsumer products dominated by cheap foreign goods favors the global corporation that can buy goods by the ship-load. The local business can't easily compete. And the reason foreign goods are cheaper than local goods is because of government/bank manipulation of the money supply and the government regulations that make local manufacturing more expensive.

Government subsidy of oil, highways, shipping, etc. makes national and global distribution cheaper than it would be in a free market. For example, in the current distorted market it is common to import vegetables and fruit from hundreds of miles away when the same produce can be grown locally more cheaply.

And government has stepped in and prohibited certain businesses that have threatened to compete with large corporations - prohibition of alcohol and hemp, just coincidentally, killed local alternatives to oil-based products. When Henry Ford introduced the Model T, it was designed to run on alcohol or gasoline with the flip of a switch and he announced that this capability would allow farmers to produce their own fuel. It is safe to say that Henry Ford was no dunce and if he thought local production of ethanol was a viable fuel option, it probably was. Government put the kibosh on that and to this day production of ethanol for fuel requires jumping through Federal hoops.

This list could be much longer, but essentially the burden of government falls most heavily on small business and the benefits of government are reaped most by large business which, not coincidentally, usually has lobbyists working the halls of the legislature.

I should have read the last page before responding. Good post.

[Elwar]

If the private homeowners own the road in fromt of their own house what are your recourses if he closes his section of the road and blocks you in?

This is addressed here: https://mises.org/journals/jls/3_2/3_2_7.pdf


The typical nightmare vision runs somewhat as follows: "A man
buys a piece of land. He builds a house on it. He stocks it with food, and
then brings his family to join him. When they are all happily ensconced, they
learn that the road fronting their little cottage has been purchased by an
unscrupulous street owning corporation, which will not allow him or his
family the use of the road at any but an indefinitely high price. The family
may 'live happily ever after', but only as long as they keep to their own
house. Since the family is too poor to afford a helicopter, the scheming road
owner has the family completely in his power. He may starve them into
submission, if he so desires."



This does indeed appear frightening, but only because we are not accus
tomed to dealing with such a problem. It could not exist under the present

system, so it is difficult to see how it could be solved by free market
institutions. Yet, the answer is simple: no one would buy any plot of land

without first insuring that he had the right to enter and leave at will.
Similar contracts are now commonplace on the market, and they give rise
to no such blockade problems. Flea markets often rent out tables to separate
merchandisers; gold and diamond exchanges usually sublet booths to indi-
vidual, small merchants; desk space is sometimes available to people who
cannot afford an entire office of their own. The suggestion that these
contracts are unworkable or unfeasible, on the grounds that the owner of the
property might prohibit access to his subtenant, could only be considered
ludicrous. Any lawyer who allowed a client to sign a lease which did not
specify the rights of access in advance would be summarily fired, if not
disbarred. This is true in the present, and would also apply in an era of
private roads.



It is virtually impossible to predict the exact future contour of an industry
that does not presently exist. The task is roughly comparable to foretelling
the makeup of the airline industry immediately after the Wright Brothers'
experiments at Kitty Hawk. How many companies would there be? How
many aircraft would each one own? Where would they land? Who would
train the pilots? Where could tickets he purchased? Would food and movies
be provided in flight? What kinds of uniforms would be worn by the
stewardesses? Where would the financing come from? These are all questions
not only impossible to have answered at that time, but ones that could
hardly have arisen. Were an early advocate of a "private airline industry"
pressed to point out, in minute detail, all the answers in order to defend the
proposition that his idea was sound, he would have had to fail.

In like manner, advocates of free market roads are in no position to set up

the blueprint for a future private market in transport. They cannot tell how

many road owners there will be, what kind of rules of the road they will set
up, how much it will cost per mile, how the entrepreneurs will seek to reduce
traffic accidents, whether road shoulders will he wider or narrower, or which
steps will be taken in order to reduce congestion. Nor can we answer many
of the thousands of such questions that are likely to arise.

etc..

[klamath]

+yeahnokidding!
I can't tell you how much it pisses me off that the commonwealth requires some mouthbreather to occasionally spraypaint my vegetable garden, a piece of land I ostensibly "own" but don't really, so as to avoid hitting utility lines while they're not digging there.
If I truly owned that piece of property, there would be no choice in the matter: they'd have to go under the road.



Ok, checked my history.
The Great Northern Railway was 100% privately funded. It got no land grants, and set up lines slowly, as soon as they were profitable.
So no, I wasn't entirely right - but this proves my point, that privately funded road systems are entirely possible - and makes the further point, the most important point, that private road systems tend not to waste money in the same manner as government road systems.
So not only do they compensate property owners better, but they also use the money they have much more wisely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Northern_Railway_%28U.S.%29



A: then the market would deem that property to be much more valuable as a business than as a residence, and you'd win big, so stop complaining.
:p

It has always been my argument that our country would have been far better off to have let the railroads pay their own way accross the country. The federal government trying to manipulate the growth of the nation created many of the monoply problems we later had in this country. An over growth of steel, timber and buffalo hunting industries.

[Acala]

No this isn't some obscure hypothetical. These are the streets that runs in front of nearly everyones house in urban areas, That land was seized or corerced out private land owners. Building roads in an undeveloped area works good for a private road system but getting back to a complete private market road system is where the real problems start. How do you get those roads back into private hands. Does the government sell the land siezed through eminent domain to another corporation, private business or to each of the homeowner along the street? If the private homeowners own the road in fromt of their own house what are your recourses if he closes his section of the road and blocks you in? THIS is NOT some far fetched Hypothetical. This is a very real and active litigation field in more rural areas where there are a lot private roads. People in rural areas have recourses a lot of the time because they have space to reroute their road, something that is not an option for millions of urban dwellers.

The transition from a coercive system to a free market is a different, more complicated, and more practical question than the more academic question of what a totally free market looks like.

The law of real property that developed in a relatively free market in the UK and the US solved the problem of "landlocked" property through the use of easements. In a free market you would no more buy a property without access easements across adjoining land than you would buy a car with no engine.

And it is in the interest of road owners to have you use their roads. So they are going to try and make that easy for you. The problem would arise if you had only one easement to one road and the owner of that road wanted to charge you a monopolistic rate. I think the solution to that is to deny property owners the rights to the sky and the center of the earth. Then people could tunnel under and bridge over the obstructing road.

So to answer your question, public roads should be auctioned off in segments: the surface easement, the airspace above it, and the earth below it. By treating the world as the three dimensional space it is rather than a two dimenstional map, you avoid the problem of roads becoming traps.

[klamath]

This is addressed here: https://mises.org/journals/jls/3_2/3_2_7.pdf


The typical nightmare vision runs somewhat as follows: "A man
buys a piece of land. He builds a house on it. He stocks it with food, and
then brings his family to join him. When they are all happily ensconced, they
learn that the road fronting their little cottage has been purchased by an
unscrupulous street owning corporation, which will not allow him or his
family the use of the road at any but an indefinitely high price. The family
may 'live happily ever after', but only as long as they keep to their own
house. Since the family is too poor to afford a helicopter, the scheming road
owner has the family completely in his power. He may starve them into
submission, if he so desires."



This does indeed appear frightening, but only because we are not accus
tomed to dealing with such a problem. It could not exist under the present

system, so it is difficult to see how it could be solved by free market
institutions. Yet, the answer is simple: no one would buy any plot of land

without first insuring that he had the right to enter and leave at will.
Similar contracts are now commonplace on the market, and they give rise
to no such blockade problems. Flea markets often rent out tables to separate
merchandisers; gold and diamond exchanges usually sublet booths to indi-
vidual, small merchants; desk space is sometimes available to people who
cannot afford an entire office of their own. The suggestion that these
contracts are unworkable or unfeasible, on the grounds that the owner of the
property might prohibit access to his subtenant, could only be considered
ludicrous. Any lawyer who allowed a client to sign a lease which did not
specify the rights of access in advance would be summarily fired, if not
disbarred. This is true in the present, and would also apply in an era of
private roads.



It is virtually impossible to predict the exact future contour of an industry
that does not presently exist. The task is roughly comparable to foretelling
the makeup of the airline industry immediately after the Wright Brothers'
experiments at Kitty Hawk. How many companies would there be? How
many aircraft would each one own? Where would they land? Who would
train the pilots? Where could tickets he purchased? Would food and movies
be provided in flight? What kinds of uniforms would be worn by the
stewardesses? Where would the financing come from? These are all questions
not only impossible to have answered at that time, but ones that could
hardly have arisen. Were an early advocate of a "private airline industry"
pressed to point out, in minute detail, all the answers in order to defend the
proposition that his idea was sound, he would have had to fail.

In like manner, advocates of free market roads are in no position to set up

the blueprint for a future private market in transport. They cannot tell how

many road owners there will be, what kind of rules of the road they will set
up, how much it will cost per mile, how the entrepreneurs will seek to reduce
traffic accidents, whether road shoulders will he wider or narrower, or which
steps will be taken in order to reduce congestion. Nor can we answer many
of the thousands of such questions that are likely to arise.

etc..

No that doesn't answer it. We are talking about those current land owner that have a city street with right of access NOW that is being sold to private enties. We are not talking about somebody buying in afterwards.
His example of airlines does not apply as that was a new and advancing industry that was starting from scratch with no already existing right aways. That paragraph also shows he has a pretty uncertain concept of his philosphy.

[klamath]

The transition from a coercive system to a free market is a different, more complicated, and more practical question than the more academic question of what a totally free market looks like.

The law of real property that developed in a relatively free market in the UK and the US solved the problem of "landlocked" property through the use of easements. In a free market you would no more buy a property without access easements across adjoining land than you would buy a car with no engine.

And it is in the interest of road owners to have you use their roads. So they are going to try and make that easy for you. The problem would arise if you had only one easement to one road and the owner of that road wanted to charge you a monopolistic rate. I think the solution to that is to deny property owners the rights to the sky and the center of the earth. Then people could tunnel under and bridge over the obstructing road.
So to answer your question, public roads should be auctioned off in segments: the surface easement, the airspace above it, and the earth below it. By treating the world as the three dimensional space it is rather than a two dimenstional map, you avoid the problem of roads becoming traps.
No it is not always in the interest of the road owners to have you use their roads. If someone buys that road at auction they very well may shut down that road because they flat out don't like people around them. I know quite a few people like that. And from an anarchists view who enforces all these easement and property lines?

[Acala]

No it is not always in the interest of the road owners to have you use their roads. If someone buys that road at auction they very well may shut down that road because they flat out don't like people around them. I know quite a few people like that. And from an anarchists view who enforces all these easement and property lines?

I never claimed to be an anarchist. Close, but not there yet. I'm still not sold on the idea that you don't need a system of courts and deed recording. Although I think it can be made voluntary in a sense - if you want the benefit of the law, you pay a fee to record your title and for that you get the services of the court and the sheriff. If you choose not to record and pay the fee, you get to defend you property yourself of with a defense agency.


A couple solutions to your hypothetical:

1. Property law recognizes deed restrictions that "run with the land". If I were to buy a piece of property that had only one possible mode of ingress and egress across the property of another or along their road, I would make sure I had an easement and/or their property was burdened, and mine was benefitted, with perpetual rights of ingress and egress such that they could never close the road.

2. Their surface rights shouldn't cover the sky or the subsurface. So you, or a competing road provider, can bridge over or tunnel under their property.

[Elwar]

No that doesn't answer it. We are talking about those current land owner that have a city street with right of access NOW that is being sold to private enties. We are not talking about somebody buying in afterwards.
His example of airlines does not apply as that was a new and advancing industry that was starting from scratch with no already existing right aways. That paragraph also shows he has a pretty uncertain concept of his philosphy.

I do agree with you that this issue would need to be hashed out. Governments using eminent domain to take someone's land and then sell it to a private company is nothing other than theft.

That's the main beef in Texas. That the government is taking everyone's property via eminent domain and then selling it to a private Spanish company to build toll roads. Or some cities that are buying residential property via eminent domain, turning it into strip malls and then selling it to private companies so that they can benefit from the higher tax income from the commercial property.

The theft part is wrong and has happened. But that doesn't mean that no government property should be privatized because of the way it was initially acquired.

Government sells public property all the time. The Louisiana purchase used taxpayer money to buy a huge amount of land. A whole lot of that land is now private.

Maybe a type of "homesteading" arrangement for roads could be done. Government allows a company to take over a roadway once they've met a certain amount of criteria for that road. Once it's met, it's theirs. Whatever that criteria might be.

[klamath]

I never claimed to be an anarchist. Close, but not there yet. I'm still not sold on the idea that you don't need a system of courts and deed recording. Although I think it can be made voluntary in a sense - if you want the benefit of the law, you pay a fee to record your title and for that you get the services of the court and the sheriff. If you choose not to record and pay the fee, you get to defend you property yourself of with a defense agency.


A couple solutions to your hypothetical:

1. Property law recognizes deed restrictions that "run with the land". If I were to buy a piece of property that had only one possible mode of ingress and egress across the property of another or along their road, I would make sure I had an easement and/or their property was burdened, and mine was benefitted, with perpetual rights of ingress and egress such that they could never close the road.

2. Their surface rights shouldn't cover the sky or the subsurface. So you, or a competing road provider, can bridge over or tunnel under their property.

Do you really think that you should be able to build a bridge over someones property blocking their sunlight, airflow and rainfall?
Many properties have only surface management rights while others retain the mineral right which means they control that earth under them. A patented homestead only has surface management rights while a patented mineral claim generally has both.

[fisharmor]

And from an anarchists view who enforces all these easement and property lines?

I'm not the most informed of anarchists, but the answer is two-fold.


I'm still not sold on the idea that you don't need a system of courts and deed recording.

First, I'm not at all convinced that we don't need courts or deed recording - and I don't think any anarchist would say we don't need these.
The question, once you drag anarchism into the debate, is whether or not these services can only be provided, can be better provided, or can even properly be provided by the state.
Second, Historical functional anarchies - ones where there was a substantial population and these things would have been an issue - had people owning property, and had roads.
The medieval Irish and Icelanders were able to get from place to place, and Kowloon Walled city had something like 14 stories of apartments all glued to each other, and yet the people who lived on the 14th floor were able to get in and out of their places.
When a state moves in and dismantles a functional anarchy, it's not really in its interest to extol the virtues of the anarchy it is wiping out, so we'll probably never know the finer points of how things worked.
The point is, things did work.

[klamath]

I do agree with you that this issue would need to be hashed out. Governments using eminent domain to take someone's land and then sell it to a private company is nothing other than theft.

That's the main beef in Texas. That the government is taking everyone's property via eminent domain and then selling it to a private Spanish company to build toll roads. Or some cities that are buying residential property via eminent domain, turning it into strip malls and then selling it to private companies so that they can benefit from the higher tax income from the commercial property.

The theft part is wrong and has happened. But that doesn't mean that no government property should be privatized because of the way it was initially acquired.

Government sells public property all the time. The Louisiana purchase used taxpayer money to buy a huge amount of land. A whole lot of that land is now private.

Maybe a type of "homesteading" arrangement for roads could be done. Government allows a company to take over a roadway once they've met a certain amount of criteria for that road. Once it's met, it's theirs. Whatever that criteria might be.

I agree that as much land and services that can be turned to private industry is the best way. This road issue is one of those big areas that it gets real complicated because of years of already established laws and rights. When people are talking about buying the street in front of their house with a public easement all they are doing is paying for is land in the commons that they will have no rights to change build upon or modify. Who would lay out hard earn cash for that? There is absolutely no incentive for them to buy land that they will always have the right to use anyway along with everyone else.

[Acala]

Do you really think that you should be able to build a bridge over someones property blocking their sunlight, airflow and rainfall?.

Why not? Do YOU really think owning a road should give you the right to exclude people from underneath your property to the core of the earth and from above your property to the ends of infinte space?

I think it depends on the use they are making of their property. As long as you don't impair their use, you should be able to do so. Building a bridge to cross their road doesn't interfere with their use. Building a bridge over their farm might. But tunneling under would not. And maybe you can build a bridge that allows light and rain through . . .


Many properties have only surface management rights while others retain the mineral right which means they control that earth under them. A patented homestead only has surface management rights while a patented mineral claim generally has both.

Here you are talking about what the law is when the discussion is what the law SHOULD BE to deal with your hypothetical.

And, by the way, owning mineral rights does NOT mean they control the earth under the land. It means they have the right to exclude any use that is incompatible with their rights to extract minerals just like an easement doesn't prevent any use other than those which interfere with the purpose of the easement. So you could tunnel through land as to which someone else owns the mineral rights so long as your tunnel didn't interfere with their mineral extraction.

[__27__]

Why not? Do YOU really think owning a road should give you the right to exclude people from underneath your property to the core of the earth and from above your property to the ends of infinte space?

I think it depends on the use they are making of their property. As long as you don't impair their use, you should be able to do so. Building a bridge to cross their road doesn't interfere with their use. Building a bridge over their farm might. But tunneling under would not. And maybe you can build a bridge that allows light and rain through . . .

And this is precisely the problem with attempting to concretely discuss private roads through the window of current day government roads. You and I have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what private roads would look like. Hell we don't even know if market would make roads AT ALL, it may favor some other form of transportation.

But giving in to roads for sake of argument, do you really believe free market roads would have intersections with stop&go signals every two blocks that force would be travelers to stand completely still sometimes while NO ONE is utilizing the road in other directions? Preposterous unless your goal was to design the most inefficient road possible. My point is that you cannot simply say this is what a road looks like under government and it would look exactly the same under market, it would just cost less. We really have absolutely no idea what they would look like, though I certainly wish I did as it would end this type of argument in one breath.

[klamath]

I'm not the most informed of anarchists, but the answer is two-fold.



First, I'm not at all convinced that we don't need courts or deed recording - and I don't think any anarchist would say we don't need these.
The question, once you drag anarchism into the debate, is whether or not these services can only be provided, can be better provided, or can even properly be provided by the state.
Second, Historical functional anarchies - ones where there was a substantial population and these things would have been an issue - had people owning property, and had roads.
The medieval Irish and Icelanders were able to get from place to place, and Kowloon Walled city had something like 14 stories of apartments all glued to each other, and yet the people who lived on the 14th floor were able to get in and out of their places.
When a state moves in and dismantles a functional anarchy, it's not really in its interest to extol the virtues of the anarchy it is wiping out, so we'll probably never know the finer points of how things worked.
The point is, things did work.
There were no functioning populated anarchies in history. There may have been no national governments but a system of clans and local systems of government that had the power to inflict penalties on those that violated the codes of the clan. As an individual you still were suspressed by a greater force called the clan leader. When technology advanced, that system of ruling all but bacame extinct, because national governments could move large armies and concur a divided land.

[fisharmor]

Thanks to the great invention called Unix. Sure Linux and Mac are unix variants, but if it weren't for unix there wouldn't have been an inspiration for IBM OS/2 which all modern versions of Windows (NT, XP, Vista, 7) are descendants of. Considering that the majority of people here and everywhere else on the web are users of one of those Windows versions, would you all want to really want to still be using one of those old DOS-based versions of Windows to do your web browsing? Especially with our tabbed, split process web browsers that rely on the underlying systems multi-tasking functionality? Actually back then most servers ran some multi-tasking system inspired by unix if not unix itself. Imagine websites being ran by DOS servers?

By the way, I couldn't let this go by without mentioning that the first multitasking, multimedia desktop computer was Amiga. It had zero to do with UNIX, and it owned the video editing industry for a decade (Star Trek TNG and Babylon 5 were both done on it).
Your post also downplays the importance of NeXT, VAX/VMS and DEC Alpha, RISC OS, and a bunch of other non-UNIX technologies that all helped to get us to where we are.
We'd still be doing this. Maybe a lot differently, but we'd still be doing it.

[fisharmor]

There were no functioning populated anarchies in history. There may have been no national governments but a system of clans and local systems of government that had the power to inflict penalties on those that violated the codes of the clan. As an individual you still were suspressed by a greater force called the clan leader. When technology advanced, that system of ruling all but bacame extinct, because national governments could move large armies and concur a divided land.

Well I'm not trying to turn the discussion to anarchy again, but my understanding of medieval Ireland is that chieftains were not geographically located. Also, while KWC was originally run by gangsters and would probably qualify as being governed locally, the gangsters eventually lost control, and its governance from the 1970's until its violent destruction by the state is a mystery.

[Acala]

There were no functioning populated anarchies in history. There may have been no national governments but a system of clans and local systems of government that had the power to inflict penalties on those that violated the codes of the clan. As an individual you still were suspressed by a greater force called the clan leader. When technology advanced, that system of ruling all but bacame extinct, because national governments could move large armies and concur a divided land.

I don't think this is true. My understanding is that many if not most native American tribes existed in a state of anarchy in the sense that you followed whatever chief you wanted - or followed no chief at all. The tribe would not come after you, force you to give them part of your meat, or make you obey their rules. Indeed, it is very likely that most of the world existed under a similar organization for most of human existence and only after the invention of agriculture did the coercive state arise.

[Acala]

And this is precisely the problem with attempting to concretely discuss private roads through the window of current day government roads. You and I have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what private roads would look like. Hell we don't even know if market would make roads AT ALL, it may favor some other form of transportation.

But giving in to roads for sake of argument, do you really believe free market roads would have intersections with stop&go signals every two blocks that force would be travelers to stand completely still sometimes while NO ONE is utilizing the road in other directions? Preposterous unless your goal was to design the most inefficient road possible. My point is that you cannot simply say this is what a road looks like under government and it would look exactly the same under market, it would just cost less. We really have absolutely no idea what they would look like, though I certainly wish I did as it would end this type of argument in one breath.

Agreed. And so that may be the response to the road challenge: "we don't know exactly what roads would look like in a free market. We know that people had roads long before they had governments to build them. And we know that people have built far more complicated things than roads without government assistance. And it is hard to imagine a realistic free market road scenario that is as bad as what government has given us. So liberty wins again!!!!"

[klamath]

Why not? Do YOU really think owning a road should give you the right to exclude people from underneath your property to the core of the earth and from above your property to the ends of infinte space?

I think it depends on the use they are making of their property. As long as you don't impair their use, you should be able to do so. Building a bridge to cross their road doesn't interfere with their use. Building a bridge over their farm might. But tunneling under would not. And maybe you can build a bridge that allows light and rain through . . .



Here you are talking about what the law is when the discussion is what the law SHOULD BE to deal with your hypothetical.
And, by the way, owning mineral rights does NOT mean they control the earth under the land. It means they have the right to exclude any use that is incompatible with their rights to extract minerals just like an easement doesn't prevent any use other than those which interfere with the purpose of the easement. So you could tunnel through land as to which someone else owns the mineral rights so long as your tunnel didn't interfere with their mineral extraction.
And who defines and enforces impairment of someones property? Your and someone elses idea of what is impairing property is always going to be in conflict.

We are not going to start the world over with no prior history, rights or customs, we have to get there from our current state of laws, customs, governments, titles rights without tromping on what people currently believe are their rights.

[klamath]

I don't think this is true. My understanding is that many if not most native American tribes existed in a state of anarchy in the sense that you followed whatever chief you wanted - or followed no chief at all. The tribe would not come after you, force you to give them part of your meat, or make you obey their rules. Indeed, it is very likely that most of the world existed under a similar organization for most of human existence and only after the invention of agriculture did the coercive state arise. You better believe the chief had the power to tell his squaws and slaves stolen from other tribes what to do with the threat of death behind it. Try being an indian slave and run away, did they just let you go? Were you hunted down and brought back or killed?

[klamath]

well i'm not trying to turn the discussion to anarchy again, but my understanding of medieval ireland is that chieftains were not geographically located. Also, while kwc was originally run by gangsters and would probably qualify as being governed locally, the gangsters eventually lost control, and its governance from the 1970's until its violent destruction by the state is a mystery.
kwc?

[Acala]

And who defines and enforces impairment of someones property? Your and someone elses idea of what is impairing property is always going to be in conflict.

We are not going to start the world over with no prior history, rights or customs, we have to get there from our current state of laws, customs, governments, titles rights without tromping on what people currently believe are their rights.

Ha! People think it is their right to use government to take your property, tell you what you can and cannot do with what they let you keep, tell you what you can and cannot do with your own body, tell you what you can and cannot do with other consenting adults, etc. I submit that contrary to what you assert, the only hope for the human race is to have most of "what people currently believe are their rights" totally crushed by economic collapse so we can start over. The good news is that cure is about to be delivered.

[Acala]

You better believe the chief had the power to tell his squaws and slaves stolen from other tribes what to do with the threat of death behind it. Try being an indian slave and run away, did they just let you go? Were you hunted down and brought back or killed?

I wasn't talking about slaves. Slaves were not owned by all native american tribes nor were they necessary to any of their social or economic structures. Hence that is irrelevant to the question at hand. Contrary to your blanket assertion, anarchical societies seem to have existed for most of human history and, lo and behold, the species survived.

[klamath]

Ha! People think it is their right to use government to take your property, tell you what you can and cannot do with what they let you keep, tell you what you can and cannot do with your own body, tell you what you can and cannot do with other consenting adults, etc. I submit that contrary to what you assert, the only hope for the human race is to have most of "what people currently believe are their rights" totally crushed by economic collapse so we can start over. The good news is that cure is about to be delivered.
And unlike you I don't hold the human race in so much contempt. When I step back and look at the human species from the big picture I see it as pretty fantastic.

[klamath]

I wasn't talking about slaves. Slaves were not owned by all native american tribes nor were they necessary to any of their social or economic structures. Hence that is irrelevant to the question at hand. Contrary to your blanket assertion, anarchical societies seem to have existed for most of human history and, lo and behold, the species survived. Maybe you want to ask the american indian tribes whether they feel they have survived. Their system of local divided governments fell. If the tribe had the power to kill they were a government. You can now voluntarily leave America and it is very unlike you would be stopped unless you are wanted for multiple crimes here. the same applied to indian tribes.

[fisharmor]

kwc?

The aforementioned Kowloon Walled City.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowloon_Walled_City


You can now voluntarily leave America and it is very unlike you would be stopped unless you are wanted for multiple crimes here.

I think I'll return the favor and ask you to check your facts. ;)
http://harpers.org/archive/2004/10/0080240
It is simply not a matter of walking out.

Also, effective July 13 2010, there is now a $450 fee for renouncing your citizenship, too. So, like so much else here, this isn't free.
http://cominganarchy.com/2010/07/02/last-chance-to-renounce-us-citizenship-for-free/

[Fox McCloud]

As Grubb inquires, how did the road builders gain access to the land to build them on? Government land grants. They didn't go out and purchase the property. Were there competing roads or were they government created monopolies?

I'm not well versed in the history of roads, but it's not impossible for a road to be built without land grants...it's not exactly a road, but there was a particular railroad that was build entirely off of private financing and without land grants/imminent domain....it was also the only railroad to not go bankrupt when the rail industry crashed.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

One thing that seems to get overlooked when it comes to private roads is advertising. If a company owns a high traffic thoroughfare, they could pay for the upkeep with advertisements along that route. Much like free services online that are ad driven. This model will probably only be viable on avenues, high traffic areas with a cheaper upkeep than a freeway.

[klamath]

The aforementioned Kowloon Walled City.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowloon_Walled_City



I think I'll return the favor and ask you to check your facts. ;)
http://harpers.org/archive/2004/10/0080240
It is simply not a matter of walking out.

Also, effective July 13 2010, there is now a $450 fee for renouncing your citizenship, too. So, like so much else here, this isn't free.
http://cominganarchy.com/2010/07/02/last-chance-to-renounce-us-citizenship-for-free/

Sorry a mob is a government and one you pretty much have zero control over. KWC had a government sometimes more sometimes less. There are quite a few innner cities in America that sound like KWC.

Just because the government still calls you a citizen doesn't mean you can't leave. People that are trying to renounce their citizenship are trying to make a big political statement but they could be out of this country whether they are called Americans or not. Any apache whether he was with his tribe or not was still called an apache. Whether you go to an area with another hostile government is your choice. You had to take you chances with other tribes and hostile nature just like you would now if you left.

[fisharmor]

Sorry a mob is a government and one you pretty much have zero control over. KWC had a government sometimes more sometimes less. There are quite a few innner cities in America that sound like KWC.

Read between the lines here. I already conceded that a criminal gang controlling an area is a government, and I already pointed out that they weren't in control for 20 years of its existence.

I will further point out, however, that the population therein tripled after the mob lost control of the place.
I don't think I claimed they didn't have "government" of any sort - I said it was a functional anarchy, since there was no state.
You need to answer the question as to why, if it had such horrible "government" (remembering that it was not state government), over 30,000 people chose to live on a little over 6 acres of land, especially considering that they were probably never more than a 10 minute walk from one of multiple exits leading to what the Heritage foundation now considers the most economically free country on earth.

This is the reason why we can't have meaningful conversations about roads. Any discussion about whether or not something can be done without the state inevitably ends up devolving into an argument about anarchy - perhaps devolve isn't the right word, because it's essentially what doing something without government means, even if there is a state in the area: it means an anarchy in one particular area of concern. No state with respect to roads.

Then if we trot out examples of where a genuine stateless society had these things and there is no historical record of there being violence in those streets or fire or brimstone or plagues of frogs, we get into an argument as to whether it was an anarchy or not? There was no functional state. There was not necessarily no government.

If access to apartments (ie, the "roads") was ever a concern in KWC, that would have been one of the stated reasons why the government of Hong Kong marched the people living there out at gunpoint and razed it.

It's not. They chose to do it because of sanitary conditions (unproved to me so far, and now the evidence has conveniently gone the way of a Branch Davidian compound), prostitution (not the purview of the state, according to almost everyone here), drugs (likewise), illegal manufacturing (likewise), and primarily, I'm convinced, generally being a pain in the ass by showing the world that if given the chance between the world's most economically free country and a complete anarchy, population-density wise, people overwhelmingly chose the anarchy as a place to live.

That in itself, in my humble opinion, is a fairly unanswerable argument in favor of state-free anything.

[Flash]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUA4h8ctNWM

Walter Block Road Privatization

[Carson]

So how does your little refund scheme work? Do all those people who pay nothing, or even get a check back for MORE than they payed in taxes get nothing back or even have to PAY under the sale while those who pay millions of dollars in tax each year get their proportional investment back? Or do you just want to split up other peoples money and divide it "equally"?


Well if you put together the millions of dollars a mile to build a highway with business associates, the ripoff artist in charge of your corporation shouldn't be allowed to sell it off to a friend of his and pocket the money. The shareholders that put up the funds should be shown some respect.

Is what I was trying to say.

I do like where you were going with it on the proportional and fairness of who gets what.

I suspect a good concept (Private business handling some things better) is being taken advantage of and we are being looted plain and simple.

[klamath]

Read between the lines here. I already conceded that a criminal gang controlling an area is a government, and I already pointed out that they weren't in control for 20 years of its existence.

I will further point out, however, that the population therein tripled after the mob lost control of the place.
I don't think I claimed they didn't have "government" of any sort - I said it was a functional anarchy, since there was no state.
You need to answer the question as to why, if it had such horrible "government" (remembering that it was not state government), over 30,000 people chose to live on a little over 6 acres of land, especially considering that they were probably never more than a 10 minute walk from one of multiple exits leading to what the Heritage foundation now considers the most economically free country on earth.

This is the reason why we can't have meaningful conversations about roads. Any discussion about whether or not something can be done without the state inevitably ends up devolving into an argument about anarchy - perhaps devolve isn't the right word, because it's essentially what doing something without government means, even if there is a state in the area: it means an anarchy in one particular area of concern. No state with respect to roads.

Then if we trot out examples of where a genuine stateless society had these things and there is no historical record of there being violence in those streets or fire or brimstone or plagues of frogs, we get into an argument as to whether it was an anarchy or not? There was no functional state. There was not necessarily no government.

If access to apartments (ie, the "roads") was ever a concern in KWC, that would have been one of the stated reasons why the government of Hong Kong marched the people living there out at gunpoint and razed it.

It's not. They chose to do it because of sanitary conditions (unproved to me so far, and now the evidence has conveniently gone the way of a Branch Davidian compound), prostitution (not the purview of the state, according to almost everyone here), drugs (likewise), illegal manufacturing (likewise), and primarily, I'm convinced, generally being a pain in the ass by showing the world that if given the chance between the world's most economically free country and a complete anarchy, population-density wise, people overwhelmingly chose the anarchy as a place to live.

That in itself, in my humble opinion, is a fairly unanswerable argument in favor of state-free anything.
First off having a government is a state. You can't seperate the two.
What you have show with KWC is that LIMITED small government works but you have not show it to be a true anarchy. Where did the the police that destroyed the crime syndicates come form?

It was not until 1973–74, when a series of more than 3,500 police raids resulted in over 2,500 arrests and over 4,000 pounds of seized drugs, that the Triads' power began to wane. With public support, particularly from younger residents, the continued raids gradually eroded drug use and violent crime. In 1983, the police commander of the Kowloon City District declared the Walled City's crime rate to be under control

You won't get me arguing against a smaller government being better and i believe that is a possible state.

I will say the city sounds like an absolute hell hole to me but that is because my nearest neigbhor is 7 miles away. I need more than 250 square feet to live.:)

[heavenlyboy34]

First off having a government is a state. You can't seperate the two.


Not so. The distinction between "State" and "Government" is very clear. See "Anatomy Of The State" by Rothbard and "The State (http://fair-use.org/randolph-bourne/the-state/)" by Bourne. People who use State and Government interchangeably are using the terms incorrectly. Unfortunately, this error/misunderstanding is so widespread that it becomes tiring to correct people all the time.

[klamath]

Not so. The distinction between "State" and "Government" is very clear. See "Anatomy Of The State" by Rothbard and "The State (http://fair-use.org/randolph-bourne/the-state/)" by Bourne. People who use State and Government interchangeably are using the terms incorrectly. Unfortunately, this error/misunderstanding is so widespread that it becomes tiring to correct people all the time.

Sorry but that is Rothbard trying to redefine terms. If you have a government you have a state of people binding themselves to a common cause. No matter how hard you try human nature binds people to the group they identify with. You yourself will rally to the aid of your fellow anarchists.

[heavenlyboy34]

Sorry but that is Rothbard trying to redefine terms. If you have a government you have a state of people binding themselves to a common cause. No matter how hard you try human nature binds people to the group they identify with. You yourself will rally to the aid of your fellow anarchists.

No, it is not redefining terms. You are redefining terms if you confuse State and Government as you have been in this thread. These concepts were known well before Rothbard-it wasn't made up out of thin air.

[klamath]

No, it is not redefining terms. You are redefining terms if you confuse State and Government as you have been in this thread. These concepts were known well before Rothbard-it wasn't made up out of thin air.
Whatever, let me know when you want to really discuss details and real life cases like Fisharmor and I have managed to do. I am not going to argue with you about the definition of words.

[Anti Federalist]

I don't know if it's been addressed in this thread yet, I haven't read over each post...

Here's where I have an issue with this: eminent domain.

Part of the reasoning behind the awful Kelo v. New London SCROTUS decision was the fact that during the 19th century, government used it's eminent domain powers to seize private property to turn over to private railroad companies in order for them to build their lines.

I envision the same thing happening again.

Not that government takings are much better, but there is just something terribly wrong about government seizing someones property and turning right over to somebody else.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I don't know if it's been addressed in this thread yet, I haven't read over each post...

Here's where i have an issue with this: eminent domain.

Part of the reasoning behind the awful Kelo v. New London SCROTUS decision was the fact that during the 19th century, government used it's eminent domain powers to seize private property to turn over to private railroad companies in order for them to build their lines.

I envision the same thing happening again.

Not that government takings are much better, but there is just something terribly wrong about government seizing someones property and turning right over to somebody else.

That's why we have to get rid of Eminent Domain AF. Just curious is the legislature going to introduce anything to repeal eminent domain ability?

[Anti Federalist]

That's why we have to get rid of Eminent Domain AF. Just curious is the legislature going to introduce anything to repeal eminent domain ability?

I'm not sure. I'm assuming you're talking about the NH legislature, correct? Because you'll never see anything like that a federal level.

I have a couple of pet issues for the coming NH legislature, repealing the salt water fishing license and "no permit" CCW for starters.

[skyorbit]

I don't know how it would work.

I'm not a central planner.

Tracy