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.

Because I don't want to collect your taxes.

Because I wouldn't collect your taxes. I want to sell gas as cheaply as I can. What are you going to do when I tell you to go pack sand Anarchist? Who's going to collect these taxes?

Am I going to have any representation within that organization? Will you have the consent of the people before you start using force against them? You oppose Government, so you are by definition just a looter stealing from people at a gas pump operating from behind closed doors serving the principle of self interest.

I'd have no problem starting a war and rounding you up. I'd offer people everything you'd deny them; justice, representation, transparency, and consent. We'd mop the floor with you.

Ha!

Is that what the government offers? Justice, representation, transparency, and consent?

I have one request. Can I opt out? I'll go ahead and answer it for you. NOPE. If it was optional nobody would sign up. So you have yourself a monopoly that stretches over every square inch of the planet. You do not have my consent, you do not represent me, I do not feel justice is in my favor and, well, transparency...lmfao.

http://batr.org/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/.pond...

You must be a communist or a comedian?

Your roads are not free. Your government delivered roads are funded by stolen money. The gun at the toll is at least honest in that hes collecting money for a specific service and you can choose to take non-toll roads, train or fly. The money taken in taxation to fund your roads (so you dont have to face the realism of the toll) is less honest as you have no idea how its being used. You do not have the right to freedom of movement if it means I'm forced to pay for it.

See the The Cannabis Genome Project at the apple istore with Jane-Ome.

Who said they're free?

Who said they're free?

"Your government delivered roads are funded by stolen money."

I'm happy to pay for roads to make sure the world never becomes an Anarchist utopia of toll collectors. It's about protecting peoples liberty. You're an Anarchist and like I've said many times, Anarchists are WORTHLESS to liberty, a DETRIMENT, because they've decided a world filled with goon squads and toll collectors serving the principle of self interest sounds like freedom.

"The gun at the toll is at least honest"

Yes, a very honest looter... I'd sooner kill him and go to war rounding up all the parasites and toll collectors. Do you imagine yourself as the man with the gun collecting tolls?

"you can choose to take non-toll roads"

The non-toll roads? ROFL. Why would there be any non-toll road anywhere? Where would they be, next to the toll road, or at the "free road salvation army"? I'd be surrounded by private property, land locked, and I'd have no business on another persons private property. I wouldn't even be able to WALK to the airport through private property.

"You do not have the right to freedom of movement if it means I'm forced to pay for it."

Sure I do, and you want to TAKE THAT RIGHT from me by destroying the American Republic and putting a toll collector on every road in my country, good luck... I'd sooner go to war and help round up all the Anarchists before I let that happen, so grab your gun tin soldier. You want to be an enemy of my country, so be it.

You have a very sad viewpoint of anarchy

I don't know from where it comes, but you've been brainwashed as to what anarchy would be like. Your view seems like a mixed bag of both tyranny and corporatism with a few anarchist type freedoms tossed in for good measure.

You do realize that under total anarchy, the market would set prices, wages, taxes, interest rates and inflation, right? With that as a given and adding the given that all people are now empowered to design, produce, barter and sell any product or service on the planet, what would the economy look like?

Hint: There probably wouldn't exist any bankers, insurance, finance advisers, tax collectors, IRS agents, government leeches, (hell, 99% of the government would be gone) or even the entire top half of most corporations.

Without those massive groups of people leeching off of others, the productive people would earning many times current rates for their labor. This basically returns the wealth from the banks to the people. Do you really believe that under such a scenario, people wouldn't form coops or some other joint venture to maintain the road system they've known to be so important all their lives?

On the other hand, maybe we just need wide, low traffic sidewalks for our residential areas because some new transit system got funded instead.

Agreed and nicely said. I

Agreed and nicely said.

I too can't escape thinking that people who argue privitizing roads and a few other things that work just fine socially haven't thought out their argument.

They don't see their call for this activity is extreme and that it plays into the hands of those who control the world and that if those controllers are rounded up, our government(s) will act according to our country's constitution and answer our requests, including those of road maintenance, the wiping away of these calls.

Up to a few years ago, calls for privitizing roads and other social services among us, the commoners, were nonexistent. I heard nothing about this privitization until Ron Paul ran in 2007, and even then it was almost nil. But since about 2010, this topic has encroached mainstream discussion. In fact, I expect to hear media heads bring up this topic, privitization of social services such as roads, high ways and parks, in the next two or three years.

From the acknowledgement of a certain bookish, observation stance, it's no wonder posts calling for the privitization of things social that operate fine are moving to the fore. I surmise this idea is from parroting books promoting end-to-end-spectrum-of-life changes. If the promotion of this idea is from those books rather than the person hearing the idea and thinking about it relative to the past, present and how things would be if what he promotes happens or doesn't happen, that person is engaged in self aggrandizement, deception or, what I hope, miscomprehension.

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton Forest Dutton, MD, in his 1916 book whose subject is origin (therefore what all healing methods involve and count on), simple and powerful.

"Post Roads"

Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 of the United States Constitution, known as the Postal Clause or the Postal Power, empowers Congress "To establish Post Offices and post Roads".

That clause is vague. It doesn't specify if roads have to be government owned or are licensed by government to charge tolls every half mile to the tune of its owners.

We do know that Benjamin Franklin was the first CEO of American Express (or was it United Parcel?) though.

One way or another, government is going to be very wrapped up in roads. One of Ron Paul's concerns with Gov. Perry's NAFTA highway is the amount of land that has to be condemned for it. There will have to be a lot of cooperation to enforce eminent domain for the profit of Gov. Perry's favored Spanish corporation. Kelo vs. New London helped pave the way to condemn land for the common good and private profits. Why isn't Gov. Perry getting more support from the supporters of private toll roads here?

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!

jrd3820's picture

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....

Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That'll teach you to keep your mouth shut. Hemingway

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

Study nature, not books. -Walton Forest Dutton, MD, in his 1916 book whose subject is origin (therefore what all healing methods involve and count on), simple and powerful.

jrd3820's picture

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.

Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That'll teach you to keep your mouth shut. Hemingway

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

Study nature, not books. -Walton Forest Dutton, MD, in his 1916 book whose subject is origin (therefore what all healing methods involve and count on), simple and powerful.

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?

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."

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?

Love or fear? Chose again with every breath.

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

Study nature, not books. -Walton Forest Dutton, MD, in his 1916 book whose subject is origin (therefore what all healing methods involve and count on), simple and powerful.

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.

Love or fear? Chose again with every breath.

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.

Love or fear? Chose again with every breath.

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

Study nature, not books. -Walton Forest Dutton, MD, in his 1916 book whose subject is origin (therefore what all healing methods involve and count on), simple and powerful.

Thanks fishy :)

I rebut the above presumption that I'm an anarchist. I support self-government. I am accountable to my peers.

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!