But Who Would Pave The Roads?!
Submitted by The Individual Right on Wed, 01/02/2013 - 12:32There 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?
- Login to post comments
Roads are in large part paid
Roads are in large part paid for by the consumption tax on fuel and the Highway Trust Fund. As soon as I point this out, they go away as they are arguing for a system that taxes everyone who uses the service equally and regressively.
People with road pavers will pave the road.
Act No. 132 of 1850
An ACT to incorporate the Lansing and Howell Plank Road Company
http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-54463_18670_18793-5...
The plank roads (sometimes called "turnpikes") did, on average, a mediocre business for several years. However, with the coming of the railroads in the decades following, most of the plank road companies including the the Lansing and Howell Plank Road Company went bankrupt.
Before the Revolutionary War native Americans created a trails system in Michigan. Most of the trails were so well planned and implemented that they were the basis of the roads that followed.
http://www.geo.msu.edu/geogmich/indian_trails.html
Roads today are established by political whim and not practical need. Competition with railroads let unprofitable roads go bankrupt.
Private roads are established in order to earn return on investment. Public roads depend on revenues extorted form the public by the legislature.
Can the conversion succeed and how? Time will tell.
Free includes debt-free!
So....
What is your free market solution to existing roads and highways? The Free Market works well for a lot of things, and maybe even roads, but I am trying to picture in my head what would happen to current roads. Are you talking about selling them to the highest bidder? Because that would be a free market solution... Whoever has the most money can buy the product. However, at the end of the day wouldn't that just give a small group of people control of the roads eventually creating a monopoly....
I am just thinking out loud here....
jrd is still here... kinda in a weird sort of way. She also just might be the happiest girl in the world because she got exactly what she wanted which was a perfect summer wandering playlist.
Thinking. It's a good
Thinking.
It's a good activity. It's more important than books and I'm glad you're doing it. Keep on doing it.
PS. See my comment above. You might appreciate it.
School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me
I read your post a few comments above....
It is funny to me because people have often called me an anarchist, yet, according to this thread I fall more into the socialist category lol! I can see how to apply the free market to a lot of things, but I am having a hard time picturing the application of these ideas to our current road system. Some people below me did suggest a few books which I will get around to eventually (I'm currently in grad school and can hardly keep up with my assigned reading!), but until then I am trying to picture how this would work and it is not a pretty picture.
The only reason I have not jumped into this thread further to ask questions or point out my thoughts is because I think the road system might be the least of our problems right now anyways.
jrd is still here... kinda in a weird sort of way. She also just might be the happiest girl in the world because she got exactly what she wanted which was a perfect summer wandering playlist.
Lol, sometimes I feel I'm
Lol, sometimes I feel I'm socialist among some DPers. I know they mean well, but I think the people I feel that way around are caught up in applying libertaianism in some situations without regard to present circumstances. Pertaining to present circumstances I think is the acknowledgement many DPers don't give, the world's money masters.
The world's bankers are something I always consider ever since learning about them in 2007. For the DPers who know about the bankers but avoid discussing them when bringing up drastic changes such that of the road system, I consider that omission a tremendous detriment in argument, in attaining truth. Because of that habit of theirs, you can imagine how I felt when mainstream news outlet the History Channel aired the four-part mini series "The Men Who Built America" in November and December.
In the third installment is mention, not discussion, but mention of the name of names, Rothschild. Just once and in passing to the unaware and quite telling to someone such as me, someone who studies the world with that family in mind. Prior to that mention when Morgan Jr. is talking with Thomas Edison, which was at one hour and minute nine, is the parallel of the ninth or tenth minute from Morgan Sr. to Morgan Jr. about finance on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. The Morgan to Edison scene was Jr. talking about his dad denying the advice Rothschild gave to his dad: buying when there's blood in the streets. In other words, use the instrument Rothschild and others set up, the maker of America, the stock market. In both scenes, the environment was shadowy but the dark yielded to the light in the second scene, the Jr.-Edison scene. Interesting.
About the road system, I agree with you. It's the least of our problems.
School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me
To be quite honest, I do not
To be quite honest, I do not exactly know.
I say this with the same frankness that I will admit that I have no idea how computers or personal flying machines will work in the future.
Let us remember that we only specialize in certain fields, so it would be ludicrous to think we had all the answers.
But the answers are there, though, in some smart entrepreneur's head, just waiting to bestow prosperity on us.
I have quite a few ideas, though.
No one can be sure how the market will solve problems, but eventually they do get solved.
For example--slavery.
No one knew how cotton would be picked in the absence of forced labor, but it worked out.
In pre-abolition times, they would have thought you a maniac if you would have suggested that huge mechanical machines would zoom through the fields and snatch up the cotton with their robot arms.
But that didn't matter, all that mattered is that force and violence was not used to accomplish the task.
The market--aka: free people--worked it out.
A few ideas:
The interstate highway system would be split into hundreds of sections and sold off to private enterprise.
State highways and roads would be divided into hundreds if not thousands of sections and auctioned off just like the interstate.
Rural and suburban roads would be under the jurisdiction of the people who live on and own property along the roads.
These people would come together and form voluntary associations to manage their roads.
In the absence of taxation, they would have all the money needed to do so.
An excellent example of how this works are condominiums and private communities.
These free associations take no tax funding but yet are able to maintain spotless looking asphalt--and the best part--no one needs to make threats to make it happen, it's all contractual.
And as for tolls on major roads, who knows what some bright entrepreneurs will come up with.
Maybe they will stick to the old-school toll gate.
Or, something like the "easypass" system could be used. This is where the driver installs a small electronic box inside their car and each time they pass a gate, zap, they are recorded and a monthly statement is sent to their house.
Who knows what will be invented.
One thing I do know is, using violence and threats is barbaric.
We live in "A Jetson's World," let's take advantage of all the technology and freeflow of ideas available today and not revert back to the model of our forefathers---
---do it my way, OR ELSE.
Taxation is a relic.
Onward to the future, not back the violent past.
the kind of monopoly's you're
the kind of monopoly's you're referring to can't exists within the context of a truly free-market. those monopolies depend solely on government to grant and enforce them.
a simplified way of looking at it is whoever can move his government can destroy his competition. this is what a monopoly is.. the ability to get legislation and regulations passed that either bar entry into a market or strangle competition with red tape. because without the guns of government, what is a "monopoly?"
the idea that if a company gets too large it becomes morally depraved is incorrect as it ignores basic precepts of human action. it requires you to take a rational model of the world and then invert it.
A really good, short and free book is:
Anti-Trust: The Case for Repeal
by DOMINICK T. ARMENTANO
http://library.mises.org/books/Dominick%20Armentano/Antitrus...
or just type in "monopoly" on the search bar at mises.org for a ton of interesting videos, articles, books.
Local government, buttom up ownership.
Local governments should tax people to pay for and own their own roads. The only legitimate purpose of government is to defend liberty, and the ability to travel is integral to your liberty.
Perfect? No. But still, that sounds a whole heck of a lot better than privately owned roads.
If you don't want roads, make yourself heard within your local government, and if you don't pay taxes, consider the use of those roads to be a privilege provided to you.
If that's still not to your liking, vote with your legs and move to a place without roads. If you can't find anyplace without roads, consider yourself a lunatic, climb the nearest tree, and live there until you remember that you're man not a monkey.
What?!?
and if you don't pay taxes, consider the use of those roads to be a privilege provided to you.
So you are saying that if you pay taxes it's a right? Since when do you have to pay to exercise a RIGHT?
Visit the Mission Command Center & Join Our Ranks!
You know darn well that's not what I said liar. (bad fruit)
"So you are saying that if you pay taxes it's a right?"
No. This is what I said:
"if you don't pay taxes, consider the use of those roads to be a privilege provided to you."
Websters - "privilege"
"a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor : prerogative; especially : such a right or immunity attached specifically to a position or an office "
I'm saying everyone within our borders should have the right to use roads whether they pay taxes or not. I'm saying that if you don't want to pay taxes, consider the use of those roads to be "a favor and right" granted to you by those willing to pay your way, and without them, you'd be paying your way through the world, and there's no better way to demonstrate that you've lost your liberty than to make you pay to travel through the world while traveling over private property. You just want to create a prison of toll roads don't you Anarchist?
You have a right to move about freely, but others also have a right to property ownership, so unless there are public arteries to travel through, you'd be locked in an Anarchist prison, surrounded by toll roads and privately contracted goon squads serving an Anarchists version of justice; the principle of self interest.
It's not YOU that I hate. It's broken and worthless ideas that I hate, Anarchism, and privately owned toll roads is a broken and worthless idea. I choose liberty, and as I've said many times; Anarchists are WORTHLESS to liberty; less than worthless actually, a detriment to liberty because they don't care about anybodies but their own imagining they'll be free if they can just get rid of government.
Anarchists are kind of like a bank manager thinking he can get rid of bank robbery by getting rid of guns. It's not the gun that causes injustice. It's the covetous man who'd use force to take what he covets, and the same kind of person who'd rob a bank is the same kind of person who'd make people pay a toll to travel through his land.
I would advise not using websters.
I do stand partially corrected - however only based upon your presumption that "privilege" means "right" - A self-evident right is granted by your Creator. The "right" you reference above is granted by "government" - which can then take that "right" away.
especially : such a right or immunity attached specifically to a position or an office
Consider: Office of UNITED[6] STATES[6] PERSON[6]
Websters is kinda like a sesame street dictionary. Please don't take offense of this fact as many others are already taking offense to another thread:
http://www.dailypaul.com/268762/us-citizens-have-no-constitu...
There is an express difference between rights and privileges. I suggest if you want to reference words in any statutes or acts that you grab a law dictionary.
Note: I'm not here at the DP to win a popularity contest. I'm trying to save your lives from being devoured by the blood sucking vampires known as "BARflies."
Visit the Mission Command Center & Join Our Ranks!
I highly suggest you read a dictionary.
"I would advise not using Websters."
Like I've said many times; the first books Anarchists burn are the dictionaries. A dictionary frames the debate in such a way that words have meaning, and as nihilists, they believe that there is no bases for truth because nothing has meaning. Everything they do is about corrupting meaning, which leaves them arguing that toll roads are good for liberty.
"I'm not here at the DP to win a popularity contest."
I know. Anarchists are here to use people, peddle influence and corrupt meaning, to lie smear and destroy.
STOP declaring other people "worthless."
"Anarchists are worthless." You should be ashamed.
REPUBLICANS are worthless. A much more true statement, and yet STILL NOT THE TRUTH.
I can relate to getting panties in a know and overstating my opinion. Perhaps this is overstating your opinion? And now that you have cooled off a bit, maybe you would like to find the TRUE statement?
Ron Paul supports a new 9-11 investigation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fH9nOWnp5G0
Fishy, you're a liar and a self worshiper, not a victim.
Spare me your false guilt and shame.
Did I say Anarchists are worthless? No. I said they're "worthless to liberty" because they don't know what threatens liberty, mans covetous nature, nor will they defend liberty; serve justice. They try and blame injustice on government which makes them an intellectual fraud and leaves them in the same category as a gun grabber.
They're also liars and Judas Goats who constantly misquote me trying to serve their agenda. Did I say Anarchists are worthless? No. Even an evil man and a liar can have great worth, both in this world and to Gods plan.
I don't respond to false guilt from self worshiping liars. You'll need to offer me reason and logic; not lies, insults and false guilt.
"Republicans are worthless" - Ron Paul is a Republican. There are TONS of Republicans who cruise the Daily Paul. Are we all worthless people now? I don't think anybody walking the earth is worthless. You do.
YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELF, but as a self worshiping Anarchist, you have no shame.
In every way, excellent
In every way, excellent comment.
School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me
Yes, declaring many of your allies "worthless" is excellent.
It is sad to me when an otherwise relevant argument dips into name-calling and judgement, but sadder still when a person is patted on the back for doing it.
Ron Paul supports a new 9-11 investigation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fH9nOWnp5G0
Fishy, you're a liar and hypocrite.
"It is sad to me when an otherwise relevant argument dips into name-calling and judgement"
"Republicans are worthless."
Fishy, do you know what a hypocrite is? Bringing up Anarchism and toll roads is extremely relevant to this post and the larger debate. Toll roads are a detriment to liberty, just like Anarchists.
Relevance is what YOUR posts were lacking, but they weren't lacking judgement or name calling were they?
I expect that out of MSM, but whatever.
And the next sentence was.... "That is a more true statement, but still NOT TRUE." Or pretty close to that, I am working from memory here. I was attempting to illustrate the point that sweeping sttements about entire groups of people are pretty much always not true. But thanks for deliberately twisting my reply to justify your wadded panties.
Ron Paul supports a new 9-11 investigation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fH9nOWnp5G0
Good catch. You're right
Good catch. You're right about name calling, but I understood his use of worthless not as disparagement but as expressing frustration, something I recall him expressing in other arguments about anarchists after his opponents began chiding him. As well, I took his comment as just a small part of his comment because he didn't drone on about this frustration.
From my recollection, he seldom name calls. My recollection, though, might be wrong. But because I remember he has no habit of speaking poorly about people is why I understood his use of worthless how I did. If my recollection is wrong, where he does downcast people habitually, then I hope he cleans up his behavior.
School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me
Thanks fishy :)
I rebut the above presumption that I'm an anarchist. I support self-government. I am accountable to my peers.
Visit the Mission Command Center & Join Our Ranks!
We had to pave our road
A neighbor went down the street and had people sign a petition to have the road paved. The county agreed and paved it, then they charged everyone based on the linear feet of frontage of the property. Anyone who didn't pay got an assessment charge on their tax bill amortized over 10 years.
Did the government charge a high price or low?
?
Free includes debt-free!
Seemed high to me
The way they did it was to charge each land owner for half and the county paid half. It was very expensive, but I don't know what the cost of paving roads is. Whats interesting is all the people who signed the petition thought it was "free", when they found out they had to pay half, they had a change of heart, but it was too late.
I have had this very
I have had this very conversation. I pointed out the little known fact, income taxes did not pay for our roads. Excise taxes did. The roads aren't even considered to be public roads, they are military roadways that we have the "privilege" of using.
Did you ever look at some people and think to yourself, really, that's the sperm that won?
PLEASE DO MORE RESEARCH
I'm sure you will revise your thinking...
http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/DLbrief.shtml
Using the public highways for travel is NOT a PRIVILEGE! It is a constitutionally GUARANTEED RIGHT! A right which in the founders days was so obvious they didn't even think to include it in the bill of rights.
AND - THAT IS THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT PROCESS to the Bill of Rights - IT IS TO ENUMERATE MORE RIGHTS - IT IS NOT TO LIMIT ANY - GOVERNMENT CANNOT LIMIT THE RIGHTS OF FREE PEOPLE BECAUSE THAT IS NOT FREEDOM!
Now stop for a minute and really think about this... the 9th amendment basically says "if it's not in here... you CANNOT DO IT" so most of the amendments after 13 are COMPLETELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
The purpose of the constitution is to RESTRAIN GOVERNMENT - it is NOT to RESTRAIN PEOPLE in any way!!! In NO WAY AT ALL. If someone harms someone else... a jury of the PEOPLE decides what to do. Government is not even supposed to be involved in that process!
Today the common mode of travel is by car/truck. In the founders' days you commonly traveled by horse. Just IMAGINE some gestapo telling people in the few years after the Revolutionary War pulling your horse over and telling you you need a license to go from A to B???
Visit the Mission Command Center & Join Our Ranks!
While use of the road way
might not be considered a "Privilege" the driving of any type of motor vehicle upon it is. The court's have constantly upheld this violation of our Constitutional rights by declaring our vehicles open to search as well as throwing out our rights against self incrimination with out legal representation. Where things are about to get real interesting was Obama's use of monies from the general fund for his stimulus plan which was utilized upon the roadway's. Much of these funds were also used to construct ADA compliant ramps at many intersections. Imagine the resulting uproar if blind or crippled individuals were required to surrender their Constitutional protections to utilize those ramps.
If not us than who?
Yes, I understand all of
Yes, I understand all of that, hence the quotation marks around the word privilege. Thanks for the reply. If (when?) the government declares martial law, travelling on the roadways will be considered a privilege - by our government and their lackeys. I am always free to travel via shoe leather express.
The main point of all of this needs to be
that if you need to use violence to enforce some kind of "service" to the public - that service shouldn't exist. I don't care WHAT JUSTIFICATION you want to use for harming people. If someone isn't harming anyone else - it's against The Law to do so!
If people want something bad enough they will pay for it.
I was hitching in Texas one day and got into a debate with someone about this. I said to him "I don't operate my own private auto. I walk, or thumb it. I can just as easily walk or thumb it on a dirt road. Why should I be forced to pay for something just so it's easier, faster or better for other people to do?
People are so impatient. They are on such a tight time schedule. They never stop to smell the roses. Maybe unpaved roads are a good idea. When you become devoid of all material possessions... you find out you never needed them in the first place. You learn to live without them.
A bunch of grass could grow up over the pavement and I wouldn't care less. Perhaps we should have some better cars... which we don't have due to the fascist car industry? Cars/trucks with better shocks etc... you don't need paved roads anyway... all you need are roads that are frequently traveled and there will not be overgrowth.
If the secret black-ops would release technologies such as anti-gravity your car wouldn't even touch the road.
Visit the Mission Command Center & Join Our Ranks!
You've befuddled me.
First, it was established below that gas taxes pay for roads. So how are you paying for them if you do not buy gas?
Second, laying asphalt is only one course of the usual four courses involved in road construction. There is first excavation or embankment to get the road to the proper elevation/alignment/crown, then there is a subbase course of coarsely graded gravel, then another base course of more finely graded crushed gravel , all compacted. 'Dirt roads' are rarely just made of dirt. If it is a government road it is at least up to the base course layer. Asphalt is just base course mixed with bitumen, a sticky, black and highly viscous liquid or semi-solid form of petroleum. A dirt road in most locations would be impassable with a hint of moisture.
If roads were private the best way to pay for them would be at the pump. The heavier the vehicle the more fuel would be required. Of all things the government does this tax and service makes to most sense. And governments don't build roads. They are contracted out to the lowest bidder. So this government service is very efficient besides the bureaucracy involved in obtaining land and procuring contracts.
Property owners having to pay for the education of children is really unfair. I am not sure where the FAA gets their funds but whether it is through income tax or gas tax it is unfair for those who do not fly.
Of course we all know the moral issue with the State to begin with but I think the roads and the post office are at least a benefit we receive from their ill gotten booty. These are the only benefits I have ever received from the rip-off anyway. Welfare and 'defense' are the biggest rackets they have going.