29 votes

But Who Would Pave The Roads?!

There seem to be a few "road socialists" out there.

Just because they grew up in a country where the state has kept a tight monopoly on transportation routes, they cannot even imagine what it would be like if road maintenance was taken care of by private groups.

The argument for socialized health-care is quite similar.

In fact, the same goes for education.

Some people cannot imagine how children would be educated if not payed for by taxes.

This is due to a lack of imagination, and lack of faith in free people, coming together to solve problems.

So what is the solution?

Either pay for socialized roads, or get thrown in a cage with the rapists!

This was part of the argument that was presented to me:

"If a person wants shoes, they have a huge selection of possibilities and even the choice to make their own or go barefoot. If a private company owned the route I take to work or the grocery store, I literally would have no other options than to pay or walk in the grass beside the road."

As of current, if you do not pay the state for licenses, registration, inspection, and the taxes that go towards roads, you cannot travel on them.

Nothing will change in a market-based road scenario.

The only thing that will be different is that we will have MANY different roads that will compete with each other.

This competition will bring roads down to a market-level cost.

That means roads would be cheaper in a market based system.

YOU ARE PAYING TOO MUCH RIGHT NOW.

And either way, you ARE paying for the roads.

So choose, do you want freer, cheaper roads, or restrictive, expensive roads that are populated by sharks that want to give you citations?

I made this point:

"Hell, if private companies can manage to put satellites into space, manage nation-wide cell phone networks, and build super-powered computers the size of a thin book, then do you think that people can manage to lay a measly strip of pavement down a country lane?"

To this, my opposition said:

"Again.. because your idea works in one area doesn't mean it will work for everything."

Are you supporting the concept of market failure?

Because that is one of the cornerstones of the argument for socialized state services.

You aren't on their side, are you?

So if anyone out there can present a consistent, cogent argument for the socialization of the roadways, I would love to hear it.

Any takers?




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The Definitive Guide

To Who Will Build The Roads

http://libertarianmoney.wordpress.com/2013/07/12/the-definit...

"Do you support extortion, kidnapping, theft, and every other non-voluntary transaction used to build the roads? That’s the real question."

I'm a taker: will you respond?

Your error is found in your premise. Current road systems are not owned socially, they are owned by the GOVERNMENT.

Three distinct ways the roads could be owned: In commonly, government, and privately.

Your argument goes from government ownership to private ownership and skips common ownership.

We would be much better off owning the roads in common: All would have a right to travel on the road, and there would be no taxation.

Funding could come from charging those who use the roads for profit a fee, advertising space, and building them in a way that they would require little maintenance.
(interestingly there are a number of SCOTUS rulings that suggest this is the way our system is supposed to work today)
This would mean NO TAXATION, and everyone would have the right to use the road for pleasure.

If you respond, or contact me directly, i will provide a more cogent answer.

That is not to say that owning roads in common would be the ONLY way roads could be owned, in this alternate reality i am exploring with you, private parties could compete with the common option as they wished.

My take on the roads issue..

Let them have this one. Of all the issues that need to be fixed, I think we can wait to have the roads discussion at a later time. We can't fight every battle at once, so let's end the fed, end the police state, end the military occupation of other countries, end the paid off politicians, etc...

...THEN we can have this conversation about who should pave the roads.

Just my $.02

Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty. -Thomas Jefferson
www.brianronk.com

I agree with bronco

How ever I believe infrastructure is best done by competitive bid with very small local government with full transparency / with encouraged participation of all. I vote no on Toll booths

As a Libertarian,

I think the best place to start would involve local, state, and federal governments selling every single piece of their road maintenance equipment.
While the government owns the roads, all building and maintenance should be contracted out to private business.
Every single bid, and every single awarded contract should be posted for public viewing.
In other words, the New York county highway Dept would have about 15 employees. The New York State D.O.T. would also only need about 15 employees... and that's being generous.
Combine the above with a considerable reduction in frivolous regulation and I guarantee our roads would cost much less with the quality rising exponentially.

The Government..

Can own no more than 10 square miles of land to erect forts and buildings to conduct business. that 10 square miles is District of Columbia. Any land the government "claims" it owns, outside of DC, is complete theft.

I use Blue Wave, but don't expect one of THEIR silly taglines.

Sorry, the Seat of Government can be no more than 10 miles

square, but there is no restriction on "other needful buildings" or forts, et cetera.

As it is, D.C. isn't even 10 miles square, as the Virigina portion was ceded back to Virginia.

When it comes to "Road Socialists" vs

"Road Facists", I choose the lesser of two evils.

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.
Friedrich Nietzsche

Is there another candidate?

-

Free includes debt-free!

You tell me...

I already pay taxes for the building and maintenance of the roads I use. I do not feel compelled to give money to Walmart's road paving department for what I am already paying for.

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.
Friedrich Nietzsche

Zilwaukee Bridge: Long history of costly srew-ups paid by taxes.

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

Construction began in 1979 with an expected completion date three years later; however the bridge in 1889

The initial budget of $79 million was exceeded by $48 million.

In April 2008, work crews replacing bridge bearings drilled into several reinforcing steel bars in the bridge.

The $3.3 million project when crew found the new bearings weren't designed properly.

On December 7th, 2012 the Detroit News reported that a $70 million MDOT program would commence the following April to replace 154 of the bearings

Free includes debt-free!

i'm glad you said PAVE

because roads are automatically built with property lines... they are called "public easements" that is what a "road" is... the PAVEMENT on the other hand is a complete LUXURY and is not NEEDED to travel.

who will pave the roads? WHO FUHKING CARES?

I use Blue Wave, but don't expect one of THEIR silly taglines.

It would be like saying you

It would be like saying you have to stop and deposit a quarter into your computer every time you visit another website. The internet is mostly privatized, and all the companies that own backbones and services have agreements to make it work.

They could figure out the traffic distribution and have a toll booth every 100 miles, or come up with better transportation methods, or just put up advertising and not charge the users. Three roads sitting side by side is totally unnecessary, because there are usually alternative routes we can take if one is too expensive, and the mere fact of this keeps the prices down as it does in all other industries. If there is only one road to a dead-end street, the residents would pressure the road owner, maybe with the fact that the owner also owns other roads. Or they could just charge businesses and extend roads around a bit for travel to the commercial areas, and the more backwoods residents would need to pay a bit for roads.
Pedestrians and bicyclists, or anything under x pounds, could use them for free if there's room, because they don't cause wear. The weather causes more wear. See, that's a whole bunch of ideas off the top of my head, and I have no interest in getting involved.

In all likelihood, we would have LESS paved road, not more.

The roads that would be retained would be:

A)those which were economically necessary - only those that were in demand,
B)better maintained, and
C)designed more efficiently.

Roads?

I believe roads could be

I believe roads could be privatized and operate fine, however I also believe that its a pointless, loser political issue. I believe government is necessary to provide court systems and enforcement mechanisms. Social engineering via government roads is the least of my worries.

Ventura 2012

I'm a road socialist.

I live on a dead end street. I like not having to worry about snow removal or street maintenance. My neighbor, who's house I drive by twice a day, is an elderly woman who doesn't drive. She wouldn't contract to have the snow removed (in a timely fashion)on the street in front of her house. Personally, I wouldn't care about snow removal further up the street than my driveway. I also don't want to deal with the multitude of toll booths that would pop up. Road maintenance is one of the few things government does well.

I live in the country and we dedicated our roads to the County.

They accepted our conveyance about 20 years ago but have proceeded to NEVER do one dollar worth of maintenance on these roads. So me and my neighbors continue to spend umpteen thousand dollars a year to maintain our roads and retain all the liability (the County accepts none despite the County accepting and claiming the roads are under their administrative domain) It is an upside down world.

beephree

You what Bob, I'm with you

There are some things that a government is good for and plowing all the roads in a county is definitely one of them.
The whole "who would pave the roads?" question assumes a complete dissolution of government at all levels and is really an enormous leap in any rational discussion of libertarian principles.

"roads"

Roads are nothing more or less than "property lines" or "public easements". nobody "builds" roads... we create them by creating property lines and allowing others to travel on our property line in exchange that we may travel on theirs.

Pavement is a luxury and is not NEEDED to travel. who will PAVE the roads? who cares? we can make better vehicles, tracked instead of tires, floating on cushions of air instead of tracks or tires, etc... we can use dirt, grass, rocks, sand, etc for roads... we did for centuries, what's changed? only our expectations for luxury items.
Get over yourselves. there are no kings, only delusional people willing to hurt or steal from others for things they desire but do not NEED to continue breathing.

as for plowing... "ALL THE ROADS IN THE COUNTY".. which that phrase just cracked me up, mainly because i have seen first hand that they don't. i live in a rural area... do know who plows our roads? We do. i saw more people on their john deer tractors during the snowpocalypse, recently, than i've seen snow plows. In fact. on a major state route here, there were snow plows stuck on the side of the road while people in their tractors and trucks were still clearing the PROPERTY LINES for them. so basically we pay them to get stuck and we still have to do the work. We also pay them to destroy our mailboxes with their massively destructive snowplows. ;)

who will do it? WE WILL. stop being little buck passers.

"If you want something done CORRECTLY you have to do it YOURSELF."
Clear your section of road. Help your neighbor clear theirs.

Hey... here's a concept. Maybe WalMart, Kroger, Meijers, and other corporate entities... wants their semi's to reach their stores for delivery? yes? then THEY will pay people to plow the roads... you think they wont? you would be sadly mistaken. why don't they now? do they have to? nope. and there's your answer. "they don't have to, they can FORCE us to do it for them."

I use Blue Wave, but don't expect one of THEIR silly taglines.

Walmart is going to pay to

Walmart is going to pay to plow my dead end street?? I doubt it. I'll plow my own street??? I don't own a plow and have no interest in buying one. I also don't want the hassle of plowing. My town does the job, thanks for asking.

you plow your street.

you just said "MY STREET". with ownership comes responsibility.

don't pass the buck, kid.

I use Blue Wave, but don't expect one of THEIR silly taglines.

Bad choice of words kid. The

Bad choice of words kid. The town plows the road next to my home. Why make something so simple that works well more complicated?

You're giving the State too much credit...

I used to build roads. Dad spent his life doing it, and I began learning from him at a young age. I can do the layout, shoot the grade, and operate all the equipment - including finished grading.

In my experience, the pricing mechanism is very distorted and the technology is slow to develop in the road industry. In a market situation, the construction companies themselves may own the roads and thereby be responsible for the upkeep. There would need to be service fees to provide economic incentive; however, that doesn't necessarily mean that you would need to stop at a toll booth. Even today, toll booths have lanes where motorists can drive through undisturbed with use of an electronic pass.

Imo, roads would be much cheaper to the consumer and maintained much better if the market took on the task. On top of that, construction companies would realize a larger profit margin simply for the reason of cutting out the middle man.

The road I live on was built

The road I live on was built by ABC construction it empties into a road built by XYZ construction. What would stop XYZ construction from charging a $10 fee every time I drove on one of their roads? Oh, the threat of someone else building a road? What happens when people don't want to sell their land to construct that road? What happens when ABC construction that owns the road outside of my house decides it doesn't think snow removal should be a priority? No thanks, I'd rather have government take care of it.

In the market situation, there is economic motive to

provide good service.

As for government maintenance of roads, there is a good reason why people in the construction industry joke about how the city/state workers can always be seen leaning on their shovels.

If you want "government" to take care of something, what you are

really saying is that you think it perfectly legitimate to threaten to murder someone to get your way.

That is the end game here.

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is FORCE, and like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - Geo. Washington

THIS is why government should be limited ONLY to the NON-INITIATION of force, that is, force used ONLY after and in response to someone else using force upon another, for the purpose of bringing the criminal to justice, and/or compensating their victim.

If you want government to build and maintain roads, then you want people to be threatened with death if they don't allow or make it happen.

If you want government to handle schools, you think it appropriate to threaten to kill anyone who doesn't send their kid to school, or the kid themselves for not going.

You are also advocating armed robbery of everyone else in order to pay for what you think government should "handle."

There is NOTHING 'civilized' about that sort of arrangement. It is entirely barbaric.

To the best of my knowledge

To the best of my knowledge my town has never murdered anyone while attempting to plow the street in front of my home nor have they murdered or threatened to murder anyone while attempting to collect the property taxes necessary to plow the street in front of my home. The town also picks up my trash and to the best of knowledge has not committed a murder while doing it. It makes you feel better I'll write a note and include it with my tax bill that indicates my paying the tax does not constitute approval of murder or attempted murder while collecting the tax or while preforming town services.
Meanwhile I have no desire to buy a snow plow or to dispose of trash myself. More power to you that you do.

nobody owns the public easements.

Shared Property Lines used for travel are "public easements". The supreme court has upheld our "right to travel" upon "public easements" over and over again.
http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/right2travel.shtml

You would only rather have "the government", aka stolen money from working individuals, take care of it because you may be a person who does NOT want to take responsibility for anything. That is a real possibility, deny it or not. like you stated for yourself, "No Thanks." saying "no thanks" to your responsibility? you just asked, "What happens when ABC construction that MAINTAINS (not owns) MY PROPERTY LINE (your public easement\road) outside of my house decides it doesn't think snow removal should be a priority?" whether or not you used those exact words is irrelevant. You conveyed THAT exact message. It is YOUR property line to maintain. Do they have the deed to your property line? nope, they don't. go check. in fact your property has the "road" included in the parcel. look it up. your property line meets halfway in the road butting up against your neighbor's (across the street) property line.

Like it or not. Deny it all day... but The government does not have any money of its own to lend out or to take care of anything, they steal it from working individuals. They have no moral authority to steal. stealing is, 100% of the time, morally wrong. the initiation of force is ALWAYS morally wrong.

I use Blue Wave, but don't expect one of THEIR silly taglines.

It's my TAX money

and I like to think MY tax money is paying for it, and lucky for you, I am not alone because 40% of Americans are taking MY tax money to sustain (social security, unemployment, disability).