What about the roads?

[Elwar]

Nope, not another one of those threads...this one is different.

I am writing a speech about privatizing roads and wanted some input from you folks. The speech is to a small group of politically diverse listeners, the goal is just to get people thinking, even if just a bit, about the government roads.

The speech:
--------------------------------------

I consider myself fairly libertarian in my thinking and don't see all that much that couldn't be privatized or left to the free market. From time to time I will bring this up to people and inevitably I get the response...

"what about the roads?"

What about the roads...

What about the roads is so great? Sure, they get you from point A to point B, but they get you there in the most inconvenient way possible. It's like dealing with the DMV on a daily basis.

What about the roads is so great...is it the long waits at red lights? Is it the amount of time wasted sitting in traffic? Is it the fact that roads are so dangerous? According to the CDC, accidents on our roads are the leading cause of death for US teens accounting for 1 in 3 deaths in this age group. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports over six and a half million car accidents per year. A Federal Highway Administration study showed that 34% of serious accidents had contributing factors relating to the roadway. People are literally dying in the streets and yet we put up with it because the government owns the roads.

Let me ask a question...has anyone here ever been in a car accident? Been stuck in traffic? Waited too long at a red light?

Why do we put up with this?

The blame gets shifted to cell phone use or drunk driving. More laws to fix bad government. The real question should be, why do we put up with a road system that hasn't changed in the past 100 years?

For 50 years we lived under a government mandated phone monopoly where we were stuck with the home telephone where we pick up the handset, dial the number and talk to the person on the other end. And we were fine with this. We didn't want anyone to mess with it because it worked. But competition was allowed in and we had more choices. The telephone system got better. Now hardly anyone uses the old system, there are so many better choices out there. The same could happen for the roads.

The next time you are stuck in traffic, you are at a red light or have the unfortunate thing happen, where you are in a car accident I want you to just give this some thought. To just imagine...

Imagine...

Imagine being able to get to work with no hassle and no delays.

Imagine being able to get in your car in the morning and have your car drive you to work on the smart road while you catch up on that last bit of sleep or eat your breakfast or read a paper.

Imagine driving in an electric car that is charged by the road with wireless induction.

Imagine a world without the need for foreign oil.

All of this is possible, the technology is there.

But we are stuck in the belief that what our government has provided for us in the way of roads is the best solution.

It is time we accept alternatives, it's time that we stop accepting the same old roads as a given and allow the free market to offer us more.

What about the roads?

I agree, What about the roads!


-----------------------------------------------------

Any critiques, large or small, are welcome. I think I might be pushing the time limit at this length (5-7 minutes).

This is for Toastmasters btw, and I encourage all Ron Paul supporters to check out Toastmasters http://www.toastmasters.com

Thanks

[Deborah K]

Be ready to answer these questions: You talk about privatizing roads, but you don't say how it will work. Does everyone have to pay who drives on the road? How do you prove who has paid and who hasn't? What do you to people who haven't paid and still use it?

[Elwar]

Be ready to answer these questions: You talk about privatizing roads, but you don't say how it will work. Does everyone have to pay who drives on the road? How do you prove who has paid and who hasn't? What do you to people who haven't paid and still use it?

I can answer all of those but the speech format doesn't really allow for a question and answer type of session. Perhaps if people are interested afterwards I would answer.



Does everyone have to pay who drives on the road?
That would be up to the road company. Some might charge per mile or have a monthly flat fee. Some might sell advertising along the roadways or have gas stations along the route. Some might host cable/electric/telephone lines under the roads to pay for the road. Some might be donated and maintained by local charities. Some might provide the option of paying for the faster lanes like a carpool lane but paid for. Some might have an auction type environment for red lights where you can bid on a faster green light. The possibilities are endless. We already pay for roads right now through gas taxes, so to say that people aren't paying now isn't exactly true.


How do you prove who has paid and who hasn't?
Plenty of ways, it could be like your cell phone service where you subscribe to a billing company that allows for "roaming" to other private road systems. The charge could occur at a toll, or a GPS, a camera taking pictures of license plates, or as part of the wireless car charging system. How does any company know who has paid or not? It is up to the company.


What do you to people who haven't paid and still use it?
What one would do if someone came into a restaurant and had dinner but did not pay. If you can't afford to drive on the road you probably can't afford the gas you put in your car or the taxes that are charged on that gas. The private roads would probably charge less overall than paying for gas taxes.

[matt0611]

I don't know enough to help.

But have you read this? Maybe it will help?
http://mises.org/resources/4084/The-Privatization-of-Roads-and-Highways

Here's a youtube debate on the subject with the author:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MseBlo-Sno0

I've read a lot of his other stuff and he's pretty great!

[Deborah K]

I can answer all of those but the speech format doesn't really allow for a question and answer type of session. Perhaps if people are interested afterwards I would answer.


That would be up to the road company. Some might charge per mile or have a monthly flat fee. Some might sell advertising along the roadways or have gas stations along the route. Some might host cable/electric/telephone lines under the roads to pay for the road. Some might be donated and maintained by local charities. Some might provide the option of paying for the faster lanes like a carpool lane but paid for. Some might have an auction type environment for red lights where you can bid on a faster green light. The possibilities are endless. We already pay for roads right now through gas taxes, so to say that people aren't paying now isn't exactly true.

Most politically minded people, the type who would be interested in this topic, are already aware of that and probably consider tax on infrastructure a type of pool.


Plenty of ways, it could be like your cell phone service where you subscribe to a billing company that allows for "roaming" to other private road systems. The charge could occur at a toll, or a GPS, a camera taking pictures of license plates, or as part of the wireless car charging system. How does any company know who has paid or not? It is up to the company.

This sounds like an accounting nightmare, when you consider how many roads there are. People would have to keep track of where they traveled on a daily basis AND billing to make sure their "wireless car charging system" wasn't overcharging them. It also sounds, 'Big Brother' intrusive. Would multnational corporations be allowed to purchase roads, and if so, what would stop them from disallowing a certain segment of the population from using them for political reasons, keeping in mind, that many countries prefer a socialistic and some even a dictatorial system.



What one would do if someone came into a restaurant and had dinner but did not pay. If you can't afford to drive on the road you probably can't afford the gas you put in your car or the taxes that are charged on that gas. The private roads would probably charge less overall than paying for gas taxes

What would one do? They'd call the cops. Sounds like more cops would be needed to control people from using roads they haven't paid for.

How would this theory translate for public restrooms, and a parks and such that would become private? And what if certain populations (states) didn't want to privatize their road systems but instead preferred the pooling (tax) system? Could they opt out? And if so, it sounds like a "National ID" type of system would have to be in place so that folks who lived in a 'taxed road' population and traveled to a 'private road' population could be charged.

[Acala]

I like the speech. If there is time you might also add that the public roads were the camel's nose under the tent for government surveillance of the pubilc. Because the roads were public, you had to get a government-issued license. The license had to have all pertinent information just to make sure it was really you. And for the sake of efficiency the information had to be stored on a computer. So the driver's license became a de facto national ID card with an electronic data base.

And, in the interest of highway safety, police must be able to stop people for no reason and search their vehicles. So the public roads heped erode privacy and the Fourth Amendment.

Now, it is also necessary to install cameras all over the roads to read auto license plates and track movements. For safety, you understand.

Every time government gets involved in something as a "service" it ends up being an inroad for tyranny. The roads are no different.

[Napoleon's Shadow]

Here are all of your talking points:

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

[Krugerrand]

Nope, not another one of those threads...this one is different.

I am writing a speech about privatizing roads and wanted some input from you folks. The speech is to a small group of politically diverse listeners, the goal is just to get people thinking, even if just a bit, about the government roads.

The speech:
--------------------------------------
...
Imagine...

Imagine being able to get to work with no hassle and no delays.

Imagine being able to get in your car in the morning and have your car drive you to work on the smart road while you catch up on that last bit of sleep or eat your breakfast or read a paper.

Imagine driving in an electric car that is charged by the road with wireless induction.

Imagine a world without the need for foreign oil.

All of this is possible, the technology is there.

But we are stuck in the belief that what our government has provided for us in the way of roads is the best solution.

It is time we accept alternatives, it's time that we stop accepting the same old roads as a given and allow the free market to offer us more.

What about the roads?

I agree, What about the roads!


-----------------------------------------------------

Any critiques, large or small, are welcome. I think I might be pushing the time limit at this length (5-7 minutes).

This is for Toastmasters btw, and I encourage all Ron Paul supporters to check out Toastmasters http://www.toastmasters.com

Thanks

I think this imagine part is the strength to making the case in a one way speech. You could structure the entire speech around this and nail each point home with - "but the government owns the roads, so we can't" or something more catchy. Even the funding questions can be addressed ... an opportunity to get rid of $x.xx taxes and use alternate means of funding (as you point out) but the government owns the roads, so we can't"

[Elwar]

I think this imagine part is the strength to making the case in a one way speech. You could structure the entire speech around this and nail each point home with - "but the government owns the roads, so we can't" or something more catchy. Even the funding questions can be addressed ... an opportunity to get rid of $x.xx taxes and use alternate means of funding (as you point out) but the government owns the roads, so we can't"

Good ideas. I actually got the "Imagine" wording from Frank Luntz (F U FRANK!) in his 13 powerful words of persuasion. I figured I would do half of the speech as saying what was wrong with government roads and then the second half focus on what could be done with private roads...a sort of transition from the old way to the new way.

[Elwar]

This sounds like an accounting nightmare, when you consider how many roads there are. People would have to keep track of where they traveled on a daily basis AND billing to make sure their "wireless car charging system" wasn't overcharging them. It also sounds, 'Big Brother' intrusive. Would multnational corporations be allowed to purchase roads, and if so, what would stop them from disallowing a certain segment of the population from using them for political reasons, keeping in mind, that many countries prefer a socialistic and some even a dictatorial system.

These would all be legitimate arguments on why we should not go from an AT&T home phone system to wireless cell phones with multiple companies. I don't track my minutes on a daily basis to make sure that each cell tower wasn't overcharging me. I am tracked during every call via the cell towers. Multinational corporations might or might not own parts of my cell phone company, I don't know. If they didn't allow me to use their service I would go to another.


What would one do? They'd call the cops. Sounds like more cops would be needed to control people from using roads they haven't paid for.
If there are police then yes, this is a trespassing issue. If someone tries to drive around a toll on a current toll road, police can pull them over. If you drive your car into a gated community where you don't have permission, the police will be called. I have received a few tickets for going through tolls without paying. They took a picture of my license plate and sent me a bill.


How would this theory translate for public restrooms, and a parks and such that would become private?

I can't think of a public restroom within 20 miles of me right now. But I know that if I were to go out on the road I would have access to many private restrooms wherever I wanted to go. For parks...I go down to a public park an hour away from me, I pay $10 to get in or I could opt for a year long pass for $160. That could easily cost the same or cheaper as a private park.


And what if certain populations (states) didn't want to privatize their road systems but instead preferred the pooling (tax) system? Could they opt out? And if so, it sounds like a "National ID" type of system would have to be in place so that folks who lived in a 'taxed road' population and traveled to a 'private road' population could be charged.

This is the United States...all the Federal government has to do is get out of the way. It is up to the states. If you go from a "taxed road" population to a "private road" population you pay to use the roads. Your taxed road state could only pay for their own state roads, not for another state.

[Elwar]

I don't know enough to help.

But have you read this? Maybe it will help?
http://mises.org/resources/4084/The-Privatization-of-Roads-and-Highways

Here's a youtube debate on the subject with the author:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MseBlo-Sno0

I've read a lot of his other stuff and he's pretty great!

Thank you for the video, just finished watching. I believe I have read through his book (PDF) on private roads and found it very interesting.

And the big thing for me is...I could really care less about private roads as a libertarian because there are so many bigger fish to fry. But everyone likes to throw that in our face like it's a show stopper..."ya, have fun with no taxes and don't go driving on any of the roads that your taxes pay for". The quick and dirty answer is...roads are paid for by gasoline taxes which is as close to a "per use" charge as the government gets.

But the more I have to put up with crappy roads and the fact that we are all stuck with it, it does make me think a bit more about the fact that we are putting up with a sub-par product when we could be light years beyond where we are now if not for complacency. The AT&T monopoly is such a good comparison of how we were for 50 years compared to where we are right now with the roads. Who would have imagined how far we have come just from the mere act of allowing competition in communication. Imagine if the advances to telephones happened to the roads. The sci-fi travel we see in movies would be common. We're at Star Trek levels with our phones at this point.

[Deborah K]

These would all be legitimate arguments on why we should not go from an AT&T home phone system to wireless cell phones with multiple companies. I don't track my minutes on a daily basis to make sure that each cell tower wasn't overcharging me. I am tracked during every call via the cell towers. Multinational corporations might or might not own parts of my cell phone company, I don't know. If they didn't allow me to use their service I would go to another.

I understand the logic you're using, but transportation is a lot more complicated than communication through the use of a cell phone. You'd need cameras on every road in order to charge people. Or a toll on every road, my gawd! That sounds worse than dealing with a trafic jam. And then, what do you when they don't pay? You haven't sufficiently answered that.


If there are police then yes, this is a trespassing issue. If someone tries to drive around a toll on a current toll road, police can pull them over. If you drive your car into a gated community where you don't have permission, the police will be called. I have received a few tickets for going through tolls without paying. They took a picture of my license plate and sent me a bill.


If the cops come and they resist, then what? If they don't pay their tickets, then what?


I can't think of a public restroom within 20 miles of me right now. But I know that if I were to go out on the road I would have access to many private restrooms wherever I wanted to go. For parks...I go down to a public park an hour away from me, I pay $10 to get in or I could opt for a year long pass for $160. That could easily cost the same or cheaper as a private park.


I live in Cali. We have tons of public beaches and restrooms. Tons of parks, lakes, etc. What about the poor who use these facilities and aren't paying taxes right now? At the ocean beach pier many poor people fish off the pier and use the public restrooms. How will this privatized system help them? Do you honestly believe that a privatized system will result in no more poverty? Because I don't.


This is the United States...all the Federal government has to do is get out of the way. It is up to the states. If you go from a "taxed road" population to a "private road" population you pay to use the roads. Your taxed road state could only pay for their own state roads, not for another state

This does not answer my question. I asked:
And what if certain populations (states) didn't want to privatize their road systems but instead preferred the pooling (tax) system? Could they opt out? And if so, it sounds like a "National ID" type of system would have to be in place so that folks who lived in a 'taxed road' population and traveled to a 'private road' population could be charged.

[Deborah K]

I like the speech. If there is time you might also add that the public roads were the camel's nose under the tent for government surveillance of the pubilc. Because the roads were public, you had to get a government-issued license. The license had to have all pertinent information just to make sure it was really you. And for the sake of efficiency the information had to be stored on a computer. So the driver's license became a de facto national ID card with an electronic data base.

And, in the interest of highway safety, police must be able to stop people for no reason and search their vehicles. So the public roads heped erode privacy and the Fourth Amendment.

Now, it is also necessary to install cameras all over the roads to read auto license plates and track movements. For safety, you understand.

Every time government gets involved in something as a "service" it ends up being an inroad for tyranny. The roads are no different.

I hope he doesn't say this. Introducing people to this concept is going to be tough enough. They will never make the connection because most people don't have a problem with paying for infrastructure through taxation.

I'm not one who believes that the Constitution gives the government the right to confiscate our money through force. It says nothing like that in it. The government is doing that of its own accord. I contend that whatever recourse the private sector takes for non-payment of services, etc. a limited government, which adheres to the rule of law, could also take that course. Where I differ from the anarchist point of view is in the belief that somehow privatizing everything is going to make angels out of men. Man's inherent desire to dominate will always prevail, no matter what system you put in place.

[Elwar]

I understand the logic you're using, but transportation is a lot more complicated than communication through the use of a cell phone. You'd need cameras on every road in order to charge people. Or a toll on every road, my gawd! That sounds worse than dealing with a trafic jam. And then, what do you when they don't pay? You haven't sufficiently answered that.

I guess I am just used to Florida's toll services. I put a sticker on my car and drive down the toll roads and it scans the RFID in the sticker. I never have to slow down or stop at a toll booth. There is a wireless induction technology out there that has been proposed to charge electric cars from the road. The induction also allows for communication with the car just like a wireless Internet connection. If we had smart roads that charged cars while they drove, then the distance would be recorded and easily charged. Also, smart roads that interact with cars in order to drive the car for you would have an interactive way of logging miles easily. With technology all of this becomes seamless, though private roads existed for carriages back in the day and did not have the technology. The New York subway was a private enterprise until taken over by the government. The key is, the market will sort all of that out. If one company has tolls that you have to stop at every 100 feet then they obviously will not do well. If a group of companies agree on an RFID system and everyone moves toward that system you will have seamless roads.

If you do not pay, you do not pay, you break the law the same as eating at a restaurant and not paying.



If the cops come and they resist, then what? If they don't pay their tickets, then what?
How is this a question? What happens when you resist arrest? What happens when you do not pay your ticket? Why ask me? Try it now on a government road and find out.




I live in Cali. We have tons of public beaches and restrooms. Tons of parks, lakes, etc. What about the poor who use these facilities and aren't paying taxes right now? At the ocean beach pier many poor people fish off the pier and use the public restrooms. How will this privatized system help them? Do you honestly believe that a privatized system will result in no more poverty? Because I don't.
The speech is on privatizing roads. Not parks. If you want a public park for the poor, get together with a bunch of people and buy land for a park. We have a lot of public beaches here in Florida too. But the private ones are better maintained. And some of the public beaches cost money to get in. We also have a lot of private parks...they are very popular, people from around the world come to them. One of them costs $85 to get in and is packed daily.




This does not answer my question. I asked:
Then I am not sure what you are asking. What if one state does not want to privatize their roads, could they opt out? Yes, the more local the better but a state is a state. Why would you need a National ID system to use a service in another state? If you had public cafeterias in California for all of your food but you went to Arizona, would you need a National ID to eat at a restaurant?

[LibertyEagle]

I used to believe toll roads were the way to go. That is, until we got them in Austin, Texas. Many of our main roads (long stretches of them) were sold to a company in Spain, who then dug them up, expanded them and voila, a toll road. Most people have stickers (complete with chips) on their windshields to keep track of your use of the roads. http://www.txtag.org/

So, here is more corporatism.

If you happen to get on one of these mistakenly, one of the many cameras they have setup all over the place, will photograph you and the police department will be the enforcement.

Completely private toll roads, yeah. But, these kinds of setups? No way.

[MikeStanart]

Roads? Where we're going we don't need roads. (FEMA camp and Back to the Future reference)

[Elwar]

I used to believe toll roads were the way to go. That is, until we got them in Austin, Texas. Many of our main roads (long stretches of them) were sold to a company in Spain, who then dug them up, expanded them and voila, a toll road. Most people have stickers (complete with chips) on their windshields to keep track of your use of the roads. http://www.txtag.org/

So, here is more corporatism.

If you happen to get on one of these mistakenly, one of the many cameras they have setup all over the place, will photograph you and the police department will be the enforcement.

Completely private toll roads, yeah. But, these kinds of setups? No way.

I missed one of those tolls driving around Austin and got a nice letter in the mail.

As for selling public roads to private corporations, that is tricky. You should not use eminent domain to take property from one and give to another, but then again why support using eminent domain to take from one and give it to the government? Eminent domain should not be used.

I do not like the way they did it in Texas. There is no competition, a government created monopoly put in place for 100 years.

[Deborah K]

Elwar, you are making me really nervous with all your talk of RFID chips, etc. for tracking people's whereabouts. This is exactly what this movement is fighting against. I don't like being tracked. An acquaintance of mine, Katherine Albrecht, wrote a book a few years ago called :SpyChips, and she also wrote another version of it for Christians, explaining why we should resist RFID. Please check into it further? I don't think you realize that you are condoning the other side of the same coin.

Also, when you use comparisons like roads to restaurants, you are overlooking the fact that people are limited in their choice of roads in order to get from point A to point B. With restaurants you have a choice whether or not you even want to eat in one as opposed to bringing along your own food. It's just not a good comparison.

The road argument is unique in that there are no reasonable free market comparisons, imo. The statement that "the market will sort all of that out" speaks to the major problem I have with voluntarism and that is when voluntarists argue for a desired plan, they don't ever seem to look at the long term, or in some cases even the short term consequences or outcomes, and they automatically assume all will end well even though the same problems will exist - there will be people who use private roads and won't pay, and force will be used for retribution.

A National ID card would have an RFID chip in it and as far as I can tell, the only way a "private road population" could charge a "public road population" for passing through would be with some sort of device that you have already mentioned. As I stated in the beginning, I am totally against being tracked in this way, whether by private companies or the government.

The reason I brought up parks, restrooms, etc. is because if the ultimate goal is to privatize everything, then these things will have to be considered as well.

[Travlyr]

I am writing a speech about privatizing roads and wanted some input from you folks. The speech is to a small group of politically diverse listeners, the goal is just to get people thinking, even if just a bit, about the government roads.

The speech:
--------------------------------------

I consider myself fairly libertarian in my thinking and don't see all that much that couldn't be privatized or left to the free market. From time to time I will bring this up to people and inevitably I get the response...

"what about the roads?"
The jury is still out on roads. I like your speech, but it is not as simple as it sounds to privatize roads, and it certainly may, or may not, be a better alternative. Nonetheless, the discussions are worthwhile. ;)


I don't know enough to help.

But have you read this? Maybe it will help?
http://mises.org/resources/4084/The-Privatization-of-Roads-and-Highways

Here's a youtube debate on the subject with the author:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MseBlo-Sno0

I've read a lot of his other stuff and he's pretty great!
Privatizing roads is an interesting topic, and a complicated one too. Some good objections have already been brought to light by previous posters, and one, among many others, that is of concern to me as a freedom lover is the RFID chip. I don't want any part of the RFID chip, and I will not be installing one in my vehicle or cell phone.

Walter Block does a pretty good job in this video of pointing out that government roads are not well managed or designed. However, he also points out that he has more questions than answers on how privatization would work. I see many complications with it.

His solution for eliminating eminent domain is incomplete. Going above and below someone's property with a road is not a good alternative, for there are too many obstacles to overcome. I have a Rand McNally map from the early 1900's which show that before eminent domain was used extensively, the roads zigged-zagged around property boundaries ridiculously. At the time, people probably didn't really care because they valued their time differently, but today people would be screaming mad if they had to turn 90 degrees every couple of miles or so.

Block's solution about the trap is incomplete as well. When some people have just a little bit of power, they'll take it to extreme. That is true for both private parties and public institutions. For example, what if a private road owner was already rich enough that he/she didn't care about the road? What if he didn't want to plow the snow off of it? Not all owners of property take good care of it. Not everyone cares to maximize profits.

One other point is the electric car. That may work in a Southern city, but it does not eliminate the need for coal or oil. Electricity is made by burning fuel, then it is transported over electric lines. Electricity is not as efficient as oil. And driving across North Dakota in the winter time calls for a pretty effective heater, as well. Electric cars are not yet ready for prime time.

I think there is a better way to manage and design roads than what we have today, but I'm pretty skeptical that privatization is the way to go.

[nicoleeann]

Well it's a good idea to mention how much of our money the government wastes on their transportation projects.

[Travlyr]

Well it's a good idea to mention how much of our money the government wastes on their transportation projects.

That's right. That waste is based on the Keynesian model of velocity of money. The more something costs the more that money will circulate in society. Our transportation could be a lot higher quality and for less cost if society simply embraced honest competing currencies.

[Deborah K]

Well it's a good idea to mention how much of our money the government wastes on their transportation projects.

True. The government wastes a lot of money on a lot of things. That is because there is entirely too much government. No argument from me on that

.

[Elwar]

Elwar, you are making me really nervous with all your talk of RFID chips, etc. for tracking people's whereabouts.

I assume you do not have a cell phone right? The cell companies need a way to track your location as well. Your Internet Service Provider can track your Internet usage and location for wireless connections.

If privacy is an issue, you can always buy a pre-paid toll ticket, or pay with BitCoins or whichever. You live in California, they have been planning on charging people per mile to drive. You asked how they would be paid. I, as a non-road owner or road engineer, gave a simple example. I also believe that road owners would probably make money in other ways such as renting ad space or renting space under the road for power/cable/Internet lines as well as using roads as solar farms with solar panels above the roadway. Who knows, the market will find the best and least intrusive way of people paying for their road use.


Also, when you use comparisons like roads to restaurants, you are overlooking the fact that people are limited in their choice of roads in order to get from point A to point B. With restaurants you have a choice whether or not you even want to eat in one as opposed to bringing along your own food. It's just not a good comparison.
With roads you only have the A to B option right now because that is all that is provided by the government. The example of the New York subway is a good example of how a private company deals with that. A little bit of free market created something that is used by millions of people in New York. A small advance in the transportation system in such a small amount of time, imagine how many more choices we could have. We are supposed to have flying cars by now, where are those? Stuck on the government roads.



The reason I brought up parks, restrooms, etc. is because if the ultimate goal is to privatize everything, then these things will have to be considered as well.

I understand that, and public parks do not bother me much until it becomes the reason for not having a libertarian society. "No taxes? Good luck finding a park to hang out at, and good luck going to the bathroom anywhere."

[Elwar]

The jury is still out on roads. I like your speech, but it is not as simple as it sounds to privatize roads, and it certainly may, or may not, be a better alternative. Nonetheless, the discussions are worthwhile. ;)

Thank you, just having someone who has never thought of it just consider it is all I am after with the speech. It is such a given in most people's minds, but it does not have to be. Just like many in big cities believe that without taxpayer money you cannot have fire departments or garbage collection when many of us have lived with the private versions of these without any problem. Some people just cannot fathom it.



Privatizing roads is an interesting topic, and a complicated one too. Some good objections have already been brought to light by previous posters, and one, among many others, that is of concern to me as a freedom lover is the RFID chip. I don't want any part of the RFID chip, and I will not be installing one in my vehicle or cell phone.

Why would anyone install an RFID in your cell phone? The information already gathered is way beyond what a simple RFID could produce. As I said, an RFID was just a simple example based on a government solution I have used. A simple barcode or pre-paid sticker would be just as sufficient.


Walter Block does a pretty good job in this video of pointing out that government roads are not well managed or designed. However, he also points out that he has more questions than answers on how privatization would work. I see many complications with it.
Certainly, just like the telephone for 50 years under AT&T. They did not all of the sudden have smart phones the day they allowed for competition. There were probably a lot of questions of how multiple companies would deal with each other. I recall hearing horror stories of everyone needing one telephone line for each company that provided phone service.


His solution for eliminating eminent domain is incomplete. Going above and below someone's property with a road is not a good alternative, for there are too many obstacles to overcome. I have a Rand McNally map from the early 1900's which show that before eminent domain was used extensively, the roads zigged-zagged around property boundaries ridiculously. At the time, people probably didn't really care because they valued their time differently, but today people would be screaming mad if they had to turn 90 degrees every couple of miles or so.
Any solution he gives are examples. Just as any solution I might provide. The New York subway came about because of the privatization and the need for dealing with the roads in New York. Do you remember seeing old pictures of the future from back in the early 1900s where they had air ships and airplanes flying around in cities with landing platforms on the tops of buildings. They could imagine it back then, imagine if it had been allowed to evolve to that back then. Instead we have what we have in New York right now as far as traffic goes.



Block's solution about the trap is incomplete as well. When some people have just a little bit of power, they'll take it to extreme. That is true for both private parties and public institutions. For example, what if a private road owner was already rich enough that he/she didn't care about the road? What if he didn't want to plow the snow off of it? Not all owners of property take good care of it. Not everyone cares to maximize profits.
I always hear about these super rich people who go against the market for their own power mongering greed. Imagine if I had billions of dollars and I MADE libertarianism work in a single city by burning my money on my ideological ideal paying the city governments billions for all of the public services and then giving away those services at pennies on the dollar losing all of my money in the process. Or, if I had billions and proved communism works by doing something similar. Or having billions and literally painting a town red by paying every home and business to allow me to paint their buildings red. From my experience though, rich people tend to be rich for a reason. And throwing money away on power trips does not tend to keep them rich for very long. As anyone in the service industry can tell you, the rich tend to tip less. They are rich for a reason.



One other point is the electric car. That may work in a Southern city, but it does not eliminate the need for coal or oil. Electricity is made by burning fuel, then it is transported over electric lines. Electricity is not as efficient as oil. And driving across North Dakota in the winter time calls for a pretty effective heater, as well. Electric cars are not yet ready for prime time.

Private roads are not yet ready for prime time either. This is just a thought experiment. Imagine if nobody ever considered building an electric car because of the amounts of problems they would have to work through. Or if the Wright brothers had to put up with people wondering if there would be a way for people to eat and use the bathroom on their new flying machine for long flying trips.


I think there is a better way to manage and design roads than what we have today, but I'm pretty skeptical that privatization is the way to go.
The only way that has been tried for the past 100 years has been to let the government take care of it. Roads have not evolved very much since then. A few trials of private roads would not hurt. I was hoping to buy the roads when working with a small Galts Gulch type of real estate project with the Free State Project. Unfortunately the project got going just as the housing market started to skyrocket and costs became prohibitive. My plan was to set up a series of concrete pipes beneath the roadway with enough room to provide all of our electric, fiber, water, etc for the small community even transporting hot water under the roads to warm the roads in the winter. Then I would charge the various companies rent for the space. This would have made upgrades easy for the companies, switching out copper for fiber or upping electric lines without all of the unsightly power lines lining the roads.

[Elwar]

Well it's a good idea to mention how much of our money the government wastes on their transportation projects.

Great suggestion, I will see if I can find some good money stats to throw in there. Everyone focuses on how do you pay for private roads but seem to be blind to the millions each city has to pay for roads.

I even had a radio ad telling me to call my representative to support some road organization in getting more road funding. These organizations do not have people on the other side arguing against more road funding. Perhaps they need some.

[Deborah K]

I have a cell phone, but the difference is that I don't have to take it with me everywhere I go if I am concerned about being tracked. The road system you proposed will leave me with no options. A prepaid ticket still reveals where I intend to travel. I'm sure you're aware that the gps systems that are being put in new cars these days can be used against the owner of the car - under the guise of "see what we can do? we can turn the engine off in your car if you call it in as stolen."

My point is that no matter what you put into place, there is no guarantee that you will be any more free than you are now. Freedom from government does not guarantee freedom from tyranny.

Here are some excerpts from SpyChips:


Though many RFID proponents appear focused on inventory and supply chain efficiency, others are developing financial and consumer applications that, if adopted, will have chilling effects on consumers' ability to escape the oppressive surveillance of manufacturers, retailers, and marketers.

RFID would expand marketers' ability to monitor individuals' behavior to undreamt of extremes. With corporate sponsors like Wal-Mart, Target, the Food Marketing Institute, Home Depot, and British supermarket chain Tesco, as well as some of the world's largest consumer goods manufacturers including Procter and Gamble, Phillip Morris, and Coca Cola [29] it may not be long before RFID-based surveillance tags begin appearing in every store-bought item in a consumer's home.

It goes to show that tyranny can hide itself in the free market just as easily under the guise of convenience.

And I think what you have in mind for cars is ready to be used in stores:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhhjuAsO_3M

Off the topic a tad but not really if you honestly believe that this kind of technology is only dangerous in the hands of government. As I stated in response to Acala, I'm not one who believes that the Constitution gives the government the right to confiscate our money through force. It says nothing like that in it. The government is doing that of its own accord. I contend that whatever recourse the private sector takes for non-payment of services, etc. a limited government, which adheres to the rule of law, could also take that course. Where I differ from the anarchist point of view is in the belief that somehow privatizing everything is going to make angels out of men. Man's inherent desire to dominate will always prevail, no matter what system you put in place.

[lester1/2jr]

bad roads are the number one leading cause of auto deaths. more than drunk drivers.

[Dustancostine]

Elwar,

Have you considered how the government got the roads in the first place? Through theft of private property.

I am against toll roads/privation of government roads due to the fact that the state coerced private property owners into giving them their land to build the roads and then took money through taxes to build them. If you now have the state sell those road to private companies, then you are basically favoring corporatism and redistribution of wealth.

I am all for private individuals/companies polling resources (money and land) to build private roads (which I think is perfectly legal), but I am certainly against the state creating roads through force and then selling them off.

[Travlyr]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhhjuAsO_3M

I prefer the "Farmer's Market."

[Deborah K]

I prefer the "Farmer's Market."

Same here. Enjoy them while you can. Laws are being put in place to heavily regulate them, since they are competition for the corporate owned grocery stores.

[Anti Federalist]

Agreed.

Not only that, but you also get into the ugly situation of eminent domain being used to seize private property for private corporate profit.


I used to believe toll roads were the way to go. That is, until we got them in Austin, Texas. Many of our main roads (long stretches of them) were sold to a company in Spain, who then dug them up, expanded them and voila, a toll road. Most people have stickers (complete with chips) on their windshields to keep track of your use of the roads. http://www.txtag.org/

So, here is more corporatism.

If you happen to get on one of these mistakenly, one of the many cameras they have setup all over the place, will photograph you and the police department will be the enforcement.

Completely private toll roads, yeah. But, these kinds of setups? No way.

[Zippyjuan]

The biggest challenge to creating a private road is access to the land to build it on. Without government help (such as eminent domain), it would be exremely difficult to obtain a contunous strip of land to make a road. The interstate highway system would have been impossible to build.

[Anti Federalist]

The biggest challenge to creating a private road is access to the land to build it on. Without government help (such as eminent domain), it would be exremely difficult to obtain a contunous strip of land to make a road. The interstate highway system would have been impossible to build.

It was this precedent, the government seizing private land to turn it over to private railroad companies in the 19th century, that was used to justify the awful SCROTUS decision of Kelo v. New London.

I pay tolls on state roads in NH, partly because we lose a few million dollars every year in fed extortion money every year since we refuse to enact a mandatory seat belt law, among other things.

I pay it happily, knowing every time I chuck change in a NH toll booth, I'm, in a small way, stuffing pepper right up the fedgov's ass.

[Acala]

. Where I differ from the anarchist point of view is in the belief that somehow privatizing everything is going to make angels out of men. .

I have NEVER heard an anarchist take the position that "privatizing everything is going to make angels out of men." On the contrary, it is a common underlying, but unspoken, fallacy of the statists that somehow the people in government with the power to regulate the market will not be the same greedy incompetent people in the private sector that must be regulated. Anarchists are more inclined to believe that in a free market self-interest, while not making angels out of men, will make them behave.

Right now Wal Mart could require every single customer to give fingerprints and a retina scan upon entering the store. This would allow them to reduce theft. Why don't they do it? Not because they are angels, but because it would cost a lot of money to implement and many customers would stop patronizing their store.

By contrast, TSA doesn't care whether you like being groped or not. If you don't like it, take your business elsewhere! Haha.

Unless you make the assumption that all roads would be owned by the same company, then you must assume there will be some competition. Certainly in areas with many roads. Less so in less-populated areas. But even then it is unlikely that there would be only one reasonable way to get from LA to Phoenix. and if there are at least two ways, then you have competition and freedom of choice. Where you have competition and freedom of choice SELF-INTEREST will protect the consumer.

[Acala]

The biggest challenge to creating a private road is access to the land to build it on. Without government help (such as eminent domain), it would be exremely difficult to obtain a contunous strip of land to make a road. The interstate highway system would have been impossible to build.

Sounds plausible. But it isn't true historically.

Many private turnpikes existed in the early years of this country without the benefit of eminent domain. Additionally, the Great Northern Railroad was built without eminent domain powers and, by the way, without resorting to the Army to kill the Indians. The railroad owner just - hold onto your hat - negotiated with the Indians and other land owners and paid them a fair price! Imagine!

The holdout problem is a great theory for why eminent domain is necessary, but that's all it is. In practice, it has not been necessary but was adopted because it gives government (and government cronies) some extra leverage.

So too with the free rider problem, often illustrated with the lighthouse, and used to explain why certain goods cannot be produced in a free market. And yet many private lighthouses were, in fact, built and operated all along the East coast.

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, free people acting in their own interest find ways to do useful things.

[Deborah K]

I have NEVER heard an anarchist take the position that "privatizing everything is going to make angels out of men." On the contrary, it is a common underlying, but unspoken, fallacy of the statists that somehow the people in government with the power to regulate the market will not be the same greedy incompetent people in the private sector that must be regulated. Anarchists are more inclined to believe that in a free market self-interest, while not making angels out of men, will make them behave.

.

I just wrote this on another thread but it bears repeating here. I don't believe that man is going to suddenly rise above his nature to dominate, and oppress just because a government isn't enforcing the rule of law. Humans are herd animals, there are leaders and followers, the sociopaths eventually rise to the top. It matters not what system or what overriding philosophy is being adhered to.


Right now Wal Mart could require every single customer to give fingerprints and a retina scan upon entering the store. This would allow them to reduce theft. Why don't they do it? Not because they are angels, but because it would cost a lot of money to implement and many customers would stop patronizing their store. By contrast, TSA doesn't care whether you like being groped or not. If you don't like it, take your business elsewhere! Haha.

By the same token, what is to stop Walmart from doing that if the prevailing trend in the free market is to do so? A monopoly can be created in a market with no regulation just as easily. As I mentioned in the above post, tyranny doesn't need a government in order to thrive. The quotes I posted from SpyChips prove that out.


Unless you make the assumption that all roads would be owned by the same company, then you must assume there will be some competition. Certainly in areas with many roads. Less so in less-populated areas. But even then it is unlikely that there would be only one reasonable way to get from LA to Phoenix. and if there are at least two ways, then you have competition and freedom of choice. Where you have competition and freedom of choice SELF-INTEREST will protect the consumer

Except in the many, many cases of where there is only one way in, through, and out of a town, due to its terrain.

[erowe1]

Be ready to answer these questions: You talk about privatizing roads, but you don't say how it will work. Does everyone have to pay who drives on the road? How do you prove who has paid and who hasn't? What do you to people who haven't paid and still use it?

I can think of some answers to those questions that I think are decent. But it would be futile for me to try to give them because nobody really knows how it will work, which is what's so great about the idea.

Ask all the smartest people you know to come up with the best answers to those questions, and then take how good those answers are, and multiply that goodness by 1,000, and that's how good the solutions would be when left to the free market. And then they'd just keep getting better with time.

If the government made pencils, and then someone came along and said the government should stop doing it, then people would say, "How would that work?", and nobody would know the answer, because the process of making a pencil the way it's made in a free market far exceeds the knowledge of any central manager (http://www.fee.org/library/books/i-pencil-2/).

[erowe1]

The biggest challenge to creating a private road is access to the land to build it on. Without government help (such as eminent domain), it would be exremely difficult to obtain a contunous strip of land to make a road. The interstate highway system would have been impossible to build.

That's a good argument against the interstate highway system.

[matt0611]

I have NEVER heard an anarchist take the position that "privatizing everything is going to make angels out of men." On the contrary, it is a common underlying, but unspoken, fallacy of the statists that somehow the people in government with the power to regulate the market will not be the same greedy incompetent people in the private sector that must be regulated. Anarchists are more inclined to believe that in a free market self-interest, while not making angels out of men, will make them behave.

Right now Wal Mart could require every single customer to give fingerprints and a retina scan upon entering the store. This would allow them to reduce theft. Why don't they do it? Not because they are angels, but because it would cost a lot of money to implement and many customers would stop patronizing their store.

By contrast, TSA doesn't care whether you like being groped or not. If you don't like it, take your business elsewhere! Haha.

Unless you make the assumption that all roads would be owned by the same company, then you must assume there will be some competition. Certainly in areas with many roads. Less so in less-populated areas. But even then it is unlikely that there would be only one reasonable way to get from LA to Phoenix. and if there are at least two ways, then you have competition and freedom of choice. Where you have competition and freedom of choice SELF-INTEREST will protect the consumer.

Exactly! Very well said!

"Just tell me where in the world you are going to find these angels who will organize society for us?" -Milton Friedman

[Acala]

Humans are herd animals, there are leaders and followers, the sociopaths eventually rise to the top.

I'm not sure that is true. But to the extent it is, better to decentralize as much as possible to keep any particular sociopath from getting control of a large herd. And the best means to decentralize is to keep the greatest amount of power out of the hands of government as is possible.



By the same token, what is to stop Walmart from doing that if the prevailing trend in the free market is to do so? A monopoly can be created in a market with no regulation just as easily. As I mentioned in the above post, tyranny doesn't need a government in order to thrive. The quotes I posted from SpyChips prove that out..

The quotes from SpyChip prove no such thing. The critical component missing from these retailer plans is the ability to make anyone participate who chooses not to do so. Unlike government plans.

And while monopoly formation in a free market is theoretically possible, can you name a single example? I can name a multitude that government has created.




Except in the many, many cases of where there is only one way in, through, and out of a town, due to its terrain.

I'm sure there are some. Hardly enough to justify a government monopoly of ALL roads EVERYWHERE. But I'll give you this: government can continue to operate any road that provides the ONLY ingress and egress to a community, but only for so long as that is true. That should get them out of about 99.999% of the road business.

[Deborah K]

I'm not sure that is true. But to the extent it is, better to decentralize as much as possible to keep any particular sociopath from getting control of a large herd. And the best means to decentralize is to keep the greatest amount of power out of the hands of government as is possible.
.

I agree. I am for decentralizing as much as possible.


The quotes from SpyChip prove no such thing. The critical component missing from these retailer plans is the ability to make anyone participate who chooses not to do so. Unlike government plans.

They can make you participate by colluding with each other and giving you no choice. Read the book, it's fascinating. These businesses have no qualms about invading your privacy so they can market to you specifically.


And while monopoly formation in a free market is theoretically possible, can you name a single example? I can name a multitude that government has created.

Read the story of what happened to "Breath Assure", put out of business by a pharmaceutical giant that viewed them as competition. Basically sued them into bankruptcy.


I'm sure there are some. Hardly enough to justify a government monopoly of ALL roads EVERYWHERE. But I'll give you this: government can continue to operate any road that provides the ONLY ingress and egress to a community, but only for so long as that is true. That should get them out of about 99.999% of the road business

I'm not justifying a gov't monopoly on the infrastructure. I'm just pointing out that privatizing them and then expecting people who use them to be charged through an rfid system is no better than what we have right now.

[Anti Federalist]

I have NEVER heard an anarchist take the position that "privatizing everything is going to make angels out of men." On the contrary, it is a common underlying, but unspoken, fallacy of the statists that somehow the people in government with the power to regulate the market will not be the same greedy incompetent people in the private sector that must be regulated. Anarchists are more inclined to believe that in a free market self-interest, while not making angels out of men, will make them behave.

Right now Wal Mart could require every single customer to give fingerprints and a retina scan upon entering the store. This would allow them to reduce theft. Why don't they do it? Not because they are angels, but because it would cost a lot of money to implement and many customers would stop patronizing their store.

By contrast, TSA doesn't care whether you like being groped or not. If you don't like it, take your business elsewhere! Haha.

Unless you make the assumption that all roads would be owned by the same company, then you must assume there will be some competition. Certainly in areas with many roads. Less so in less-populated areas. But even then it is unlikely that there would be only one reasonable way to get from LA to Phoenix. and if there are at least two ways, then you have competition and freedom of choice. Where you have competition and freedom of choice SELF-INTEREST will protect the consumer.

No, not yet anyway, but they are moving ahead on RFIDing all their products.

And when every company adopts this strategy, like they are with, say, drug tests, even when there is no law requiring it, then what?

[Anti Federalist]

Sounds plausible. But it isn't true historically.

Many private turnpikes existed in the early years of this country without the benefit of eminent domain. Additionally, the Great Northern Railroad was built without eminent domain powers and, by the way, without resorting to the Army to kill the Indians. The railroad owner just - hold onto your hat - negotiated with the Indians and other land owners and paid them a fair price! Imagine!

The holdout problem is a great theory for why eminent domain is necessary, but that's all it is. In practice, it has not been necessary but was adopted because it gives government (and government cronies) some extra leverage.

So too with the free rider problem, often illustrated with the lighthouse, and used to explain why certain goods cannot be produced in a free market. And yet many private lighthouses were, in fact, built and operated all along the East coast.

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, free people acting in their own interest find ways to do useful things.

And many more were not.

This is just a snip, the whole work is worth a read.

http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/7292


While some courts in the eastern part of the United States were still grappling with Mill Acts, westward expansion was bringing another sort of eminent domain case before the courts: railroad cases. Here again, we see nineteenth-century takings in which the government condemns land and immediately transfers it to a private party (i.e., a railroad company). What is impressive about the railroad cases is the extraordinary sense of gravity and urgency of purpose that permeates the U.S. Supreme Court’s reasoning. These are not mealy-mouthed deferments to the judgment of a legislature or vague nods in the direction of a hoped-for economic boom. Unlike the late twentieth-century and early twenty-first-century takings cases, in which state courts have signed off on statutes enacted on a legislative “Luck Be a Lady Tonight” prayer for economic revitalization, the U.S. Supreme Court in the railroad cases tended to get right to the heart of the standard under which the terrible coercive power of eminent domain would be justified: that is, “making it possible for government to execute and carry out its purposes,” as the court noted in Cherokee Nation v. Southern Kansas Railway Co.4 In a railroad case called Kohl v. United States, in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that the federal government may take land belonging to states through eminent domain, the court saw the power to “appropriate lands or other property within the States for its own uses . . . [as] essential to [government’s] independent existence and perpetuity.”5

The Supreme Court made clear the extremely close nexus between the taking of land for railroads and the public purpose to be served, circling back to questions of grave necessity, public use, and efficiency in public administration. Just as it was essential in the early nineteenth century that corn get milled, it was essential to lay railroad tracks in the late nineteenth century. The court looked to the Cherokee Nation precedent, which established that the power of the federal government to build highways and bridges “was essential to the complete control and regulation of interstate commerce.” The court reasoned that if government itself had the power to regulate commerce by building highways, bridges, and the like, then it would be a legal absurdity to insist that it could not — to use the modern parlance — outsource the work to a private corporation.

Throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, canals, railroads, bridges, and roads were built across America, often within this model of outsourced government authority under the takings clause. Yet local municipalities did not run amok; eminent domain was still perceived as a course of last resort, an action closely tied to necessity, and one that ran cheek by jowl with a tangible public purpose that actually involved either government use or members of the public actually walking over, riding on, or otherwise coming into darn close proximity with the taken land.

[Paul4Prez]

Compare fatality rates from traffic accidents on public freeways vs. comparable existing tollways. Privatization isn't just a good idea, it would save lives.

[heavenlyboy34]

Read the story of what happened to "Breath Assure", put out of business by a pharmaceutical giant that viewed them as competition. Basically sued them into bankruptcy.


Using the government legal system to put someone out of business doesn't sound like a "free market" mechanism to me. Why do you think it is?

[heavenlyboy34]

No, not yet anyway, but they are moving ahead on RFIDing all their products.

And when every company adopts this strategy, like they are with, say, drug tests, even when there is no law requiring it, then what?
Buy foreign made goods, I suppose.

[Anti Federalist]

Buy foreign made goods, I suppose.

With what funds?

You know what I think about this whole subject HB.;)

[heavenlyboy34]

With what funds?

You know what I think about this whole subject HB.;)
Ahhh, yes, I see where you're going. The dystopian future in which everyone has to have a chip to engage in commerce. :eek: Gotcha. ;)

[Anti Federalist]

Ahhh, yes, I see where you're going. The dystopian future in which everyone has to have a chip to engage in commerce. :eek: Gotcha. ;)

Bingo.

Tyranny, and it may not take a single government law to bring right to our door.

Although I strongly suspect that government will mandate it's use, among many other technologies that will strap you down and bind you just as surely and tightly as iron chains did 150 years ago.

[Acala]

"And when every company adopts this strategy, like they are with, say, drug tests, even when there is no law requiring it, then what?"

When EVERY company adopts this strategy, I will open a company that does not and make a fortune. The ONLY way to force your bleak vision is with government.

[Acala]

And many more were not.



Of course, but that misses the point. The point is that it is not only possible to build roads, including transcontinental roads, without eminent domain, but it was actually done.

[Deborah K]

Using the government legal system to put someone out of business doesn't sound like a "free market" mechanism to me. Why do you think it is?

As if a private legal system is somehow less corruptable. Man's nature, HB.

[angelatc]

Read the story of what happened to "Breath Assure", put out of business by a pharmaceutical giant that viewed them as competition. Basically sued them into bankruptcy.


The BreathAsure (That's how they spelled it) people admitted in the trial that their product didn't actually work though. http://openjurist.org/204/f3d/78/warner-lambert-v-breathasure

"On the third day of the bench trial on Warner-Lambert's complaint, BreathAsure stipulated that "[s]cientific studies presented in this case demonstrate that BreathAsure and BreathAsure-D are not effective in reducing bad breath . . . ."

[Fredom101]

Nope, not another one of those threads...this one is different.

I am writing a speech about privatizing roads and wanted some input from you folks. The speech is to a small group of politically diverse listeners, the goal is just to get people thinking, even if just a bit, about the government roads.

The speech:
--------------------------------------

I consider myself fairly libertarian in my thinking and don't see all that much that couldn't be privatized or left to the free market. From time to time I will bring this up to people and inevitably I get the response...

"what about the roads?"

What about the roads...

What about the roads is so great? Sure, they get you from point A to point B, but they get you there in the most inconvenient way possible. It's like dealing with the DMV on a daily basis.

What about the roads is so great...is it the long waits at red lights? Is it the amount of time wasted sitting in traffic? Is it the fact that roads are so dangerous? According to the CDC, accidents on our roads are the leading cause of death for US teens accounting for 1 in 3 deaths in this age group. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports over six and a half million car accidents per year. A Federal Highway Administration study showed that 34% of serious accidents had contributing factors relating to the roadway. People are literally dying in the streets and yet we put up with it because the government owns the roads.

Let me ask a question...has anyone here ever been in a car accident? Been stuck in traffic? Waited too long at a red light?

Why do we put up with this?

The blame gets shifted to cell phone use or drunk driving. More laws to fix bad government. The real question should be, why do we put up with a road system that hasn't changed in the past 100 years?

For 50 years we lived under a government mandated phone monopoly where we were stuck with the home telephone where we pick up the handset, dial the number and talk to the person on the other end. And we were fine with this. We didn't want anyone to mess with it because it worked. But competition was allowed in and we had more choices. The telephone system got better. Now hardly anyone uses the old system, there are so many better choices out there. The same could happen for the roads.

The next time you are stuck in traffic, you are at a red light or have the unfortunate thing happen, where you are in a car accident I want you to just give this some thought. To just imagine...

Imagine...

Imagine being able to get to work with no hassle and no delays.

Imagine being able to get in your car in the morning and have your car drive you to work on the smart road while you catch up on that last bit of sleep or eat your breakfast or read a paper.

Imagine driving in an electric car that is charged by the road with wireless induction.

Imagine a world without the need for foreign oil.

All of this is possible, the technology is there.

But we are stuck in the belief that what our government has provided for us in the way of roads is the best solution.

It is time we accept alternatives, it's time that we stop accepting the same old roads as a given and allow the free market to offer us more.

What about the roads?

I agree, What about the roads!


-----------------------------------------------------

Any critiques, large or small, are welcome. I think I might be pushing the time limit at this length (5-7 minutes).

This is for Toastmasters btw, and I encourage all Ron Paul supporters to check out Toastmasters http://www.toastmasters.com

Thanks

Good ideas, except, nobody reads papers anymore! They are just government propaganda.

[Fredom101]

I agree, it's time for the free market to take over the roads. Government has done a horrible job with them. The list of complaints goes on and on, but just a few are: ridiculously long traffic lights, creating carpool lanes which are proven not to work, potholes that go months and sometimes years without being fixed, red light camera's which charge people $500 and have never been proven to create a safe environment. Free market ideas would rise to the top and we'd have a much better, cheaper system of roads.

[Paul Or Nothing II]

A monopoly can be created in a market with no regulation just as easily.

They can make you participate by colluding with each other and giving you no choice.

Do you seriously believe this? If so, I'm just curious, why are you even supporting Ron & the free market that he is advocating? Again, this is an honest question because these are exactly the kind of unfounded assumptions that statists regularly make against the free market & to justify more & more government.

I'm sorry for saying this but you don't seem to know much about free markets if you think anybody can just create a monopoly in the free market just because there's no regulation. There always IS a regulation in a free market & that comes from the market & the consumers, & that's why it's very difficult to cite examples of companies becoming monopolies WITHOUT government assistance. It's almost impossible in a free market unless they're serving the consumers, if they don't then other companies will always see a reason to enter the market & make profits. We've'd innumerable discussions on this very issue & all such claims have proven to be bunk & completely baseless.

It's really discouraging seeing such statist statements from "libertarians" on here, if the "libertarians" here don't understand how & why markets always work then how are they going to convince anyone else on why we should've free markets that Ron is talking about? Seeing such statements makes me very pessimistic about the future of libertarianism itself, it's like people fear freedom, it's like they're afraid of the bogeyman that MAY BE standing outside their door so they lock themselves inside.


No, not yet anyway, but they are moving ahead on RFIDing all their products.

And when every company adopts this strategy, like they are with, say, drug tests, even when there is no law requiring it, then what?

Why would every company just decide to do it? Some company may start it but if people don't like it then they'll start losing profits & go out of business if they persist. A free market is ALWAYS shaped by the consumers so no company will do something like this if the consumers disapprove of it because they'll lose business to other companies that are NOT doing it.

These questions are like someone comes up to you & says "What if Earth just blows up today?", and you go, "But why would it happen?", & they go, "No, what IF it happens?", & you realize that the question has no fixed ground in reality & is completely pointless if they can't offer you a rational explanation on why & how it could happen based on empirical facts.

[Deborah K]

Do you seriously believe this? If so, I'm just curious, why are you even supporting Ron & the free market that he is advocating? Again, this is an honest question because these are exactly the kind of unfounded assumptions that statists regularly make against the free market & to justify more & more government.

I'm sorry for saying this but you don't seem to know much about free markets if you think anybody can just create a monopoly in the free market just because there's no regulation. There always IS a regulation in a free market & that comes from the market & the consumers, & that's why it's very difficult to cite examples of companies becoming monopolies WITHOUT government assistance. It's almost impossible in a free market unless they're serving the consumers, if they don't then other companies will always see a reason to enter the market & make profits. We've'd innumerable discussions on this very issue & all such claims have proven to be bunk & completely baseless.

It's really discouraging seeing such statist statements from "libertarians" on here, if the "libertarians" here don't understand how & why markets always work then how are they going to convince anyone else on why we should've free markets that Ron is talking about? Seeing such statements makes me very pessimistic about the future of libertarianism itself, it's like people fear freedom, it's like they're afraid of the bogeyman that MAY BE standing outside their door so they lock themselves inside.



You're jumping into the debate without any context. Read all my posts in here before you make the assumption that I am a statist. Just because I'm not FOR anarchy, doesn't necessarily mean I am against it. Secondly, I never claimed to be a "libertarian" either. My argument is not FOR the state. Just like Ron Paul, I am for strict adherance to the Constitution with minimal governance at all levels.

I'm suggesting that it is man's nature that should be the focus. Changing a system will not change man's nature. It might appear to, for a while, but eventually we will repeat the perpetual cycle of "Freedom, complacency, dependency, tyranny, and revolution" that is our history. Anarchy is not going to break that cycle no matter how much you wish it will. It is in man's nature to dominate or be dominated. Anarchy will not resolve corruption. The sociopaths always rise to the top whether it is a free society or not.

[Acala]

The BreathAsure (That's how they spelled it) people admitted in the trial that their product didn't actually work though. http://openjurist.org/204/f3d/78/warner-lambert-v-breathasure

"On the third day of the bench trial on Warner-Lambert's complaint, BreathAsure stipulated that "[s]cientific studies presented in this case demonstrate that BreathAsure and BreathAsure-D are not effective in reducing bad breath . . . ."

Yup. AND the lawsuit was based on a special Federal law called the Lanham act that essentially authorized the court to intervene and police what was essentially an advertising dispute that the market could have handled. Government intervention allowed Warner-Lambert (which would not have existed as such without government created corporate law and the support of the FDA) to put another company out of business.

[Deborah K]

The BreathAsure (That's how they spelled it) people admitted in the trial that their product didn't actually work though. http://openjurist.org/204/f3d/78/warner-lambert-v-breathasure

"On the third day of the bench trial on Warner-Lambert's complaint, BreathAsure stipulated that "[s]cientific studies presented in this case demonstrate that BreathAsure and BreathAsure-D are not effective in reducing bad breath . . . ."

They didn't contest the "scientific evidence" that was presented by the very pharma company that was putting them out of business. Maybe they couldn't conduct their own studies, I don't know. But, the product worked. We used to use it. You could take it before you had food with onions and garlic and no one could ever tell. The ingredients included parsley and sunflower seed - which act to neutralize garlic and onion. Remember when there used to be a sprig of parsley to chew on after your meal at the restaurant? The lawsuits that big pharma brought against this family owned operation eventually drove them into bankruptcy.

[Jace]

..

[Deborah K]

Yup. AND the lawsuit was based on a special Federal law called the Lanham act that essentially authorized the court to intervene and police what was essentially an advertising dispute that the market could have handled. Government intervention allowed Warner-Lambert (which would not have existed as such without government created corporate law and the support of the FDA) to put another company out of business.

And you think the same kind of corruption could not exist with a private system? Keep in mind here, that in order for an anarchic system to work, people would have to evolve out of their inherent desire to dominate or be dominated. The same thing can be said for a Constitutional Republic, right? This is my take on this whole issue.

[Acala]

And you think the same kind of corruption could not exist with a private system? Keep in mind here, that in order for an anarchic system to work, people would have to evolve out of their inherent desire to dominate or be dominated. The same thing can be said for a Constitutional Republic, right? This is my take on this whole issue.

This seems to have evolved into a discussion of complete anarchy. I don't think you have to adopt a total anarchist approach to simply say that government needs to get out of the road business. You can still have courts and police and borders without having a government monopoly on roads.

[Deborah K]

This seems to have evolved into a discussion of complete anarchy. I don't think you have to adopt a total anarchist approach to simply say that government needs to get out of the road business. You can still have courts and police and borders without having a government monopoly on roads.

No, when I use the term anarchy, I mean anarchy et al. And I've already stated why I don't believe privatizing every single road in America will work logistically, let alone without the use of violation of privacy i.e. cameras, and rfid chips to track road users and charge them.

[Paul Or Nothing II]

You're jumping into the debate without any context. Read all my posts in here before you make the assumption that I am a statist. Just because I'm not FOR anarchy, doesn't necessarily mean I am against it. Secondly, I never claimed to be a "libertarian" either. My argument is not FOR the state. Just like Ron Paul, I am for strict adherance to the Constitution with minimal governance at all levels.

I'm suggesting that it is man's nature that should be the focus. Changing a system will not change man's nature. It might appear to, for a while, but eventually we will repeat the perpetual cycle of "Freedom, complacency, dependency, tyranny, and revolution" that is our history. Anarchy is not going to break that cycle no matter how much you wish it will. It is in man's nature to dominate or be dominated. Anarchy will not resolve corruption. The sociopaths always rise to the top whether it is a free society or not.

Again, I'm just curious how someone who has absolutely no faith in & knowledge of free markets would support Ron who's been such a vehement supporter of free market for many decades? I'm just curious how a person making following quoted statements convinces anyone on why they should support Ron Paul & free markets? Again, this is an honest question.


A monopoly can be created in a market with no regulation just as easily.

They can make you participate by colluding with each other and giving you no choice.

I've NOT said YOU are statist, I've merely said that the baseless statements you've made are regularly used by statists to argue against free markets.

As for as assumptions are concerned, why have YOU made an assumption that I'm an anarchist? I'm not.

And considering that anarchists & supporters of various kinds of small government, including Ron, fall into the "libertarian" category, I don't know how you can claim that you're not one but whatever floats your bloat.

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Anyways, on the topic of the thread itself, I haven't yet warmed up to the idea of government selling roads to private companies but DEFINITELY support government leasing them to private companies a few years at a time, may be through public auctions or something like that (to make it transparent); that way government would still OWN the roads while people would get some of the benefits of privatization as well.

[erowe1]

Anyways, on the topic of the thread itself, I haven't yet warmed up to the idea of government selling roads to private companies but DEFINITELY support government leasing them to private companies a few years at a time, may be through public auctions or something like that (to make it transparent); that way government would still OWN the roads while people would get some of the benefits of privatization as well.

Interesting. Kind of like school choice, or Obamacare.

[Acala]

No, when I use the term anarchy, I mean anarchy et al. And I've already stated why I don't believe privatizing every single road in America will work logistically, let alone without the use of violation of privacy i.e. cameras, and rfid chips to track road users and charge them.

You never did address why you think imperfect human beings WITH a total monopoly and the authority to use violent coercion are preferable to the same imperfect human beings but in a situation where they must compete with each other for consumer satisfaction AND where their use of force is strictly limited.

[Deborah K]

Again, I'm just curious how someone who has absolutely no faith in & knowledge of free markets would support Ron who's been such a vehement supporter of free market for many decades? I'm just curious how a person making following quoted statements convinces anyone on why they should support Ron Paul & free markets? Again, this is an honest question.


You are deducing wrongly that I have no knowledge or faith in free markets. What I have no faith in is man's ability to operate within the free market without eventually ending up right where we are. I'm not making the claim that gov'ts prevent corruption, obviously they don't - nothing does. My argument lies within the realm of placing the focus more on man's nature than on trying to find a better way around it. After all, it isn't the gun that does the killing, right? It isn't 'government' that is the problem, it's the people running it. I don't care how perfect a system you come up with, you still have to understand that man will figure out a way to f'k it up for himself as he has always done.


I've NOT said YOU are statist, I've merely said that the baseless statements you've made are regularly used by statists to argue against free markets.

The quotes you used are taken out of context. They were not intended to make an argument for the state but rather to rebut the claim that somehow government has a monopoly on corruption. It's ridiculous.


As for as assumptions are concerned, why have YOU made an assumption that I'm an anarchist? I'm not.

My apologies. I always mean to write it this way: anarchy et al.


And considering that anarchists & supporters of various kinds of small government, including Ron, fall into the "libertarian" category, I don't know how you can claim that you're not one but whatever floats your bloat.

My views cannot be pigeon-holed that readily.

[Deborah K]

You never did address why you think imperfect human beings WITH a total monopoly and the authority to use violent coercion are preferable.....

Why would I address such foolishness? I don't think anyone who's read anything I've ever written and done could accuse me of that. It presumes that I am satisfied with the status quo. Nonsense.


..... to the same imperfect human beings but in a situation where they must compete with each other for consumer satisfaction AND where their use of force is strictly limited

Please show me where I have ever disagreed with this. If you're going to attempt to pick a fight with me, then at least start with intellectual honesty.

[mcgraw_wv]

National highway System was built for national defense, allowingthe military easy ability to deploy troops to certain areas. I see no problem with the government continuing to provide for the national highway system out of a national defense budget.

As for local access roads, I could see a simple monthly subscription plan for paying access to drive, however, no one in their right mind will consider a privately owned road system for local and city roads. Because roads are so crucial to the economy, and emergency vehicles, I would have no issue as a libertarian paying the city and state to maintain local roads. I do not think the federal government other than highways should be involved.

[silverhandorder]

Deb the problem is that if you can make someone fund the roads you want what makes you think they will not in turn make you fund things like healthcare and welfare? It is a double edged sword and be prepared to live by it.

[Deborah K]

Deb the problem is that if you can make someone fund the roads you want what makes you think they will not in turn make you fund things like healthcare and welfare? It is a double edged sword and be prepared to live by it.

Uh....isn't that what's already happening? Not sure what you mean by "making someone fund the roads you want". Need clarification. But please, before you do, read all my posts so that you understand what my real argument is? For the sake of redundancy?

[silverhandorder]

I will read back if we continue to talk but let me clarify first.

For example you say well I don't trust people in the free market so I would like for government to maintain roads. (if you didn't say that then it's fine ill go back and read). So then a liberal would counter and say well I don't like charity/health care in the free market because I don't trust people to play nice and want government to provide it.

To me and to many other people there is no distinction between roads and healthcare. They are both a service and they both have humans that commit fraud. I cant see how you view one different from another. Let's say you believe one can be managed efficiently and the other can not. Shouldn't you still for the sake of fairness opt to have neither managed? Otherwise we will always fight with liberals since they will always want their program and you will always want yours.

[Deborah K]

I will read back if we continue to talk but let me clarify first.

For example you say well I don't trust people in the free market so I would like for government to maintain roads. (if you didn't say that then it's fine ill go back and read). So then a liberal would counter and say well I don't like charity/health care in the free market because I don't trust people to play nice and want government to provide it.

To me and to many other people there is no distinction between roads and healthcare. They are both a service and they both have humans that commit fraud. I cant see how you view one different from another. Let's say you believe one can be managed efficiently and the other can not. Shouldn't you still for the sake of fairness opt to have neither managed? Otherwise we will always fight with liberals since they will always want their program and you will always want yours.

I don't agree with the premise of your argument. To me, comparing public roads to universal healthcare is erroneous for so many reasons I don't even know where to start. For one thing, using a road that is paid for through taxation doesn't include the gov't dictating to you when you can use it, how often, for how long, and so on, whereas universal healthcare dictates what kind of care you get, from whom, and when.

My argument isn't against a free market. My argument is against the assumption that changing a system like a Constitutional Republic to a, lets say, voluntaryst system, would cause such a substantial change, that we would somehow achieve total freedom. I contend that man's nature to dominate and be dominated will not permit such a state to last as has been shown throughout our history. In other words, I don't really see the point in arguing against restoring a Constitutional Republic when, no matter what is in place, the cycle will just repeat itself. For me, the issue is man's nature - as much as people on this forum would like to make it otherwise, that is really at the crux of everything.

[Anti Federalist]

Why would every company just decide to do it? Some company may start it but if people don't like it then they'll start losing profits & go out of business if they persist. A free market is ALWAYS shaped by the consumers so no company will do something like this if the consumers disapprove of it because they'll lose business to other companies that are NOT doing it.

These questions are like someone comes up to you & says "What if Earth just blows up today?", and you go, "But why would it happen?", & they go, "No, what IF it happens?", & you realize that the question has no fixed ground in reality & is completely pointless if they can't offer you a rational explanation on why & how it could happen based on empirical facts.

It's far from pointless. It's happened before in this country. Read up on "Fordism". Read up on the history of the coal mining communities in West Virginia and the company store and the company scrip. Read up on the garment workers.

I can't answer the why every company did it or does it, I don't have time for that right now, all I can point is that they did and do and will again in the future.

Corporate tyranny is as bad as government tyranny and unless you want to trigger a French or Boleshevik type revolution with "let them eat cake" remarks, then ignore this lesson of history at you own peril.

[ClayTrainor]

I don't agree with the premise of your argument. To me, comparing public roads to universal healthcare is erroneous for so many reasons I don't even know where to start.

I can see that :p


For one thing, using a road that is paid for through taxation doesn't include the gov't dictating to you when you can use it, how often, for how long, and so on,

False.

A government drivers license dictates who may use the government roads on their own and who may not, and for how long.

Also, the government can and will shut down a road and restrict your use of it for various reasons (construction, public events, g20 meetings, marathons etc)


whereas universal healthcare dictates what kind of care you get, from whom, and when.

Thats only true in the same way it is true for roads.

In socialized health care I can use any clinic or hospital I want, but they are all owned, maintained and regulated by the state. In socialized roads I can use any road or highway I want, but they are all owned, maintained and regulated by the state.



My argument isn't against a free market.

Who should own roads?

[ClayTrainor]

Corporate tyranny is as bad as government tyranny

Corporations and corporate law are created and enforced by the state. ;)

[silverhandorder]

I don't agree with the premise of your argument. To me, comparing public roads to universal healthcare is erroneous for so many reasons I don't even know where to start. For one thing, using a road that is paid for through taxation doesn't include the gov't dictating to you when you can use it, how often, for how long, and so on, whereas universal healthcare dictates what kind of care you get, from whom, and when.

My argument isn't against a free market. My argument is against the assumption that changing a system like a Constitutional Republic to a, lets say, voluntaryst system, would cause such a substantial change, that we would somehow achieve total freedom. I contend that man's nature to dominate and be dominated will not permit such a state to last as has been shown throughout our history. In other words, I don't really see the point in arguing against restoring a Constitutional Republic when, no matter what is in place, the cycle will just repeat itself. For me, the issue is man's nature - as much as people on this forum would like to make it otherwise, that is really at the crux of everything.


Actually the road use is dictated by government. You just happy with the management policy of the roads but not with the management policy of healthcare. But this is the deal if you accept constitutional republic. And I am not talking about stuff that is clearly against constitution. Constitution can always be amended to w/e the whims are of the majority.

So the man's nature is to grow apathetic and lose all the previous generation worked for. Then their kids rebuild everything. That is not new, that is the status quo and will stay so if you wish for it to remain like that.

However taking small steps within the bounds of constitutional republic should not be feared. I would say roads is one of the smallest steps that could be taken.

[Travlyr]

I can see that :p



False.

A government drivers license dictates who may use the government roads on their own and who may not, and for how long.

Also, the government can and will shut down a road and restrict your use of it for various reasons (construction, public events, g20 meetings, marathons etc)



Thats only true in the same way it is true for roads.

In socialized health care I can use any clinic or hospital I want, but they are all owned, maintained and regulated by the state. In socialized roads I can use any road or highway I want, but they are all owned, maintained and regulated by the state.




Who should own roads?

I have to question if you have ever read the U.S. Constitution? Your posts indicate that you don't understand the most basic information. The current anarchists-in-charge don't care about you, me, or the laws. A lot of us would like to see them behind bars. They are the diplomatic immunity crowd. The laws of the State are irrelevant to them.

[ClayTrainor]

I have to question if you have ever read the U.S. Constitution?

Yes.


Your posts indicate that you don't understand the most basic information.

Please quote where I even mentioned or referenced the constitution in my posts in this thread.

[ClayTrainor]

The current anarchists-in-charge don't care about you, me, or the laws.

So the people who rule over others through the power of the state, are anarchists? Lol


The laws of the State are irrelevant to them.

The laws of the state are very relevant to them. "they" as in the people who dictate and enforce the laws of the state stand to benefit a great deal from the laws of the state, as well as the special intersts who are politically connected to the state.

[Travlyr]

So the people who rule over others through the power of the state, are anarchists? Lol

That is exactly right, and that is what is so frustrating. People who think that laws do not apply to them are the rulers. Stefan pointed that out.


The laws of the state are very relevant to them. "they" as in the people who dictate and enforce the laws of the state stand to benefit a great deal from the laws of the state, as well as the special intersts who are politically connected to the state.
No they are not. They ignore the Constitution (The Supreme Law of the Land). The Constitution does not apply to them. They are above the law.

Mises understood that the state existed for two basic reasons.
Rule of law
Property rights

When those fundamental concepts (The Constitution) are enforced, then people can have liberty, peace, and prosperity. Until then, the anarchist thieves will rule.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIs5r3ujBmw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIs5r3ujBmw

[affa]

That is exactly right, and that is what is so frustrating. People who think that laws do not apply to them are the rulers. Stefan pointed that out.


Anarchism does not mean 'thinking the laws do not apply to you'. not even close. ClayTrainor is correct in questioning your usage, because you're using a term many here find rather important incorrectly.

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Interesting. Kind of like school choice, or Obamacare.

Nope, it won't be like Obamacare. The states would lease their roads for a few years at a time to companies through a public bidding process & all the expenses incurred on re-laying the road, its maintenance, installing mechanism for toll-collection, etc etc will be paid for by the companies themselves, NOT the people & the taxpayers. This would ensure better quality service as well as cost-effectiveness in that governments waste so much tax-money on laying roads & still offers a crappy service anyway


It's far from pointless. It's happened before in this country. Read up on "Fordism". Read up on the history of the coal mining communities in West Virginia and the company store and the company scrip. Read up on the garment workers.

I can't answer the why every company did it or does it, I don't have time for that right now, all I can point is that they did and do and will again in the future.

Corporate tyranny is as bad as government tyranny and unless you want to trigger a French or Boleshevik type revolution with "let them eat cake" remarks, then ignore this lesson of history at you own peril.

Again, your assumption is that it was a free market & that government was not involved which isn't true at all. If there's a free market & a company/companies is/are trying to shove something down the throats of consumers & the consumers aren't happy then it automatically encourages new companies to enter & capture the market & profits that are there for the taking as the consumers will boycott the existing company/companies whom they're dissatisfied with so either they'll go out of business or shape themselves according to the tastes of consumers

This is just inevitable in a free market UNLESS government intervenes & :
1) Tacitly approves ganging up of existing companies on the new entrants through unlawful means
2) Government itself uses covert force by erecting barriers to entry to new entrants with "well-intentioned" "regulations"
3) Government uses naked force against new entrants

And moreover, as has been said :

Corporations and corporate law are created and enforced by the state. ;)

[Deborah K]

Actually the road use is dictated by government. You just happy with the management policy of the roads but not with the management policy of healthcare. But this is the deal if you accept constitutional republic. And I am not talking about stuff that is clearly against constitution. Constitution can always be amended to w/e the whims are of the majority.
.

The road/healthcare analogy is apples and oranges. The gov't managing your healthcare is as intrusive as TSA, imo. Everytime you need to go to the doctor, the gov't determines whether or not you will get care, etc. Every time I jump on the road to go to a friend's house, or the store, or across state lines, I experience no such dilemma. It's just not a good analogy just because they're both government owned. And no one has given a suitable alternative to rfid chips and cameras as a way to charge users of private roads. I'm not willing to change one tryanny for another.


So the man's nature is to grow apathetic and lose all the previous generation worked for. Then their kids rebuild everything. That is not new, that is the status quo and will stay so if you wish for it to remain like that.

These kinds of remarks irritate the f'k out of me! Just because I don't agree with your prescription, doesn't mean I am satisfied with the status quo.


However taking small steps within the bounds of constitutional republic should not be feared. I would say roads is one of the smallest steps that could be taken


Well no shiiiiitttt!

[Krugerrand]

Elwar, did you deliver the speech yet? If so, how did it go?

[Anti Federalist]

If there's a free market & a company/companies is/are trying to shove something down the throats of consumers & the consumers aren't happy then it automatically encourages new companies to enter & capture the market & profits that are there for the taking as the consumers will boycott the existing company/companies whom they're dissatisfied with so either they'll go out of business or shape themselves according to the tastes of consumers.

And what if the consumer's tastes tended to the tyrannical?

Right now, you could sell the 'consumers' a private criminal justice system built and based on the rabid foaming and fulminations of that harridan, Nancy Grace.

Sorry, I remain skeptical of rule by the mob either in the market or the "public" sphere.

[cthulhufan]

I'm raising this thread from the dead because this very topic has been irritating me for some time. I was going to post a new topic but the search function yielded this gem. There is some great information in this thread. I need some time to think about this but, at the end of the day, I think I can become OK with privatization as it sinks in.

The thing that bugs me about utter privatization is Noah Webster's plight in getting the damned dictionary published in all thirteen colonies. Lack of standards like units of measurement and basic practices for whatever. That's what drove him to staunch Federalism and I can totally understand his frustration there.

[noneedtoaggress]

As if a private legal system is somehow less corruptable. Man's nature, HB.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khRkBEdSDDo&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kPyrq6SEL0&feature=related


Man's nature is simply to act in self interest. This doesn't make him necessarily good or bad. There is a difference in incentives provided by the market and the state.

Would a free market legal system likely be less corruptible than a violently enforced monopoly funded through coercion? Most likely.

[ClayTrainor]

I take a privatized road almost every time i travel the 400 series highways in Ontario Canada. I pay for it, but it's never backed up with traffic, always very highly maintained, and I've never seen a single construction job or accident that causes any kind of slow-down. To me it's a clear testament to the efficiency and quality of a market road system, over a socialized road system. They operate on the basis of providing a valuable service to customers (roads free of congestion), or else consumers will choose not to pay.

The socialized roads around the 407 are constantly backed up for various reasons. There is a very clear supply/demand problem, especially at Rush Hour, and there is no price structure to balance it out. They operate on a basis of what politicians decide needs to be done, and you have no choice as to whether or not you pay.

The private highway is far superior to the socialized roads in virtually every respect, and I can only imagine how much better and cheaper it would be if there was some market competition, however all of the other roads are socialized and it shows.

http://www.407etr.com/

[Elwar]

I take a privatized road almost every time i travel the 400 series highways in Ontario Canada. I pay for it, but it's never backed up with traffic, always very highly maintained, and I've never seen a single construction job or accident that causes any kind of slow-down. To me it's a clear testament to the efficiency and quality of a market road system, over a socialized road system. They operate on the basis of providing a valuable service to customers (roads free of congestion), or else consumers will choose not to pay.

The socialized roads around the 407 are constantly backed up for various reasons. There is a very clear supply/demand problem, especially at Rush Hour, and there is no price structure to balance it out. They operate on a basis of what politicians decide needs to be done, and you have no choice as to whether or not you pay.

The private highway is far superior to the socialized roads in virtually every respect, and I can only imagine how much better and cheaper it would be if there was some market competition, however all of the other roads are socialized and it shows.

http://www.407etr.com/

Just noticed on the toll road I drive on every day that they have cameras and dedicated vehicles for going out to help vehicles when they break down.

[Philhelm]

While I believe that taxation is theft, if our government was just in the business of building roads and had a miniscule tax to do such, I'd be inclined to put my torch and pitchfork down and go home. But our government does not have a miniscule tax and intervenes in nearly every aspect of human life, not to mention being outright criminal.

[Travlyr]

While I believe that taxation is theft, if our government was just in the business of building roads and had a miniscule tax to do such, I'd be inclined to put my torch and pitchfork down and go home. But our government does not have a miniscule tax and intervenes in nearly every aspect of human life, not to mention being outright criminal.

I look at it a little differently. The government should not be in the business of building roads. They should own the land of the road and the elected Road Commissioner should be in charge of getting competitive bids from private road designers, contractors, and road maintenance contractors. The same way with parks. The state should own the land of the park and the elected Park Commissioner should contract all the work out to private contractors on a competitive bid process.

[idiom]

The best case for public roads is that they provide privacy in travels. When I travel in Australia there are plenty of completely truly private roads to choose from, but they all track my whereabouts to the the second so I avoid them.

If one advocates private roads, does one also advocate private vehicle licensing? Efficient for one roading company yes, but now I need multiple vehicle licenses to drive across a state. Or possibly, they have incompatible standards and a car can't drive on both groups of roads without changes in configuration.

The public is happy when they can't access half the Internet, but what if your car can't access half the country?

Private road owners can restrict who and what drives on their roads. Privatisation is far more than who pays for the roads and how quickly they are repaired.

Perhaps, like in Australia, you can't drive on the private roads without being closely monitored?