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.

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???

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.

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.

Yes, perhaps if the

Yes, perhaps if the transportation industry wasn't so heavily subsidized and regulated we would have flying cars by now.

Damn state intervention is getting between me and my flying car!

I suppose tax victims are easier to catch when they're on the ground.

Bingo!

I suppose tax victims are easier to catch when they're on the ground.

IMHO - The REAL purpose for paved roads was for GovCorp to be able to better manage it's "product" - paved roads make a country much more susceptible to invasion and occupation.

Human beings are now a COMMODITY. THEY DO NOT CARE ABOUT US... THEY DO NOT CARE ABOUT US.... THEY DON'T F-ING CARE ABOUT US!!! WE ARE CATTLE TO THEM!!! LIVESTOCK....

Until people accept this there will never be a REAL solution which is SELF-GOVERNMENT by private contracts and NON-VIOLENT resolution to conflict.

That's what COURTS are supposed to be for... NON-VIOLENT resolution. Two gentleman coming together in front of a mediator and agreeing UP FRONT to abide by the opinions of their PEERS.

If someone COMPLAINS about someone else they must get 12 people to agree their complaint is valid and support the subsequent resolution. The defendant ONLY NEEDS ONE JUROR to agree with him in order to be held harmless in the action!

INSTEAD WE HAVE EVERYONE SUBMITTING TO THE DECREES OF ONE BLACK ROBED RAPIST WHO IN MANY CASES HAS NO ACTUAL REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE OF THE "CRIME" AND DOES NOT EVEN HAVE TO ABIDE BY THE LAW HIMSELF. NOT TO MENTION THEY HAVE NEVER SERVED SO MUCH AS ONE DAY IN JAIL BUT ARE SENTENCING POT SMOKERS TO YEARS IN A CAGE!!!

WE CONSENT TO DICTATORS!

Not knowing is not knowing

http://phys.org/news183361139.html

If criminals did not take over government what would we be using to get from point A to point B?

Joe

Huh?

Explanation of the sound bite:

If there is no rule by criminals with counterfeit authority...

How about a meeting of the minds?

What do you think is the proper role of government?

How about a concept of imagining what might be our world had our ancestors successfully avoided any injury by people who claim to be protecting us and instead of actually protecting us they were actually our worst enemies?

How about imagining a Free Market Solution to the transportation problem?

What is the best, most efficient, highest quality, and lowest cost method of moving from where you are at the moment to the place you want to be as soon as possible?

I don't know how to speak in the language of duplicity, therefore I can't communicate with people who do.

Joe

Anything worth having, is worth paying for.

There are two sides to this debate:

The first, which I've made says:

"I do not care how the roads are payed for, as long as it is not done by the violence and threats of taxation.

The other side goes like this:

"I am afraid of road monopolies that will charge me too much to get to work."

I have to state up front, I do not condone corporations owning any roads.

ALL corporations are fascist extensions of the state.

A corporation could not exist without state protection.

They are artificial creations that under the current system, have privileges that would not exist in a free society that respects contracts and property rights.

And as for monopolies, they only exist by legislation.

You may, if you wish, read here:

http://mises.org/daily/5266/

Government = Monopoly

Economic principles cannot be called principles unless they can be applied uniformly throughout all human transactions.

So we all know that socializing health care, education, retirement, housing, etc, are all economically unsound and unsustainable in the long run.

Socializing goods or services violates economic principle.

Not only that, but socialization requires threats of violence and kidnapping to accomplish a task, which is immoral.

So, if economics are based upon principle, how does that principle suddenly not apply to strips of asphalt?

Are roads magic?

Are roads immune to economic laws?

Socialism is bad, right?

Amongst the fears of monopoly it is being overlooked that...

WE ALL READY HAVE A ROAD MONOPOLY

But really, this whole debate isn't about roads.

It's about threats and violence.

I don't care whether a tax is constitutional or not, because you going to have to stick a gun to my head to get me to pay for it.

That makes tax collectors the initiators of violence against peaceful people.

Constitutional theft is still theft.

The constitution is not holy.

It was made by mere mortals, many years ago.

They were doing what they thought best at the time.

And that best, we might remember, included accepting that slavery was aye-ok.

To defend taxation is to defend slavery. Period.

Any human interaction that relies on the initiation of threats to accomplish a task is immoral and barbaric.

Let us imagine a scenario:

20 people live on a street.

12 of them go door to door, armed to the teeth, demanding funding to pave their gravel road.

5 of the threatened neighbors cave in, and pay the extortion.

2 neighbors get thrown into a locked basement for refusing.

1 neighbor is shot dead when he tries to repel the aggressors.

The actual issue here is the morality and reality of taxes and what they imply.

Is that the kind of world you want to live in?

Would you threaten your neighbors?

I can extend that immorality

to the fact that not only do they want to threaten their neighbors... they are too cowardly to actually do the threatening themselves.

At least a robber has the morality to demand your money from you at gunpoint - and take the consequences if he's caught doing something illegal.

"Government" legislates criminal acts and makes them "legal" as long as their corporate agents are doing the crime.

End the Pentagon.

Don't forget "Military socialists", the biggest scam of them all. In a free society everyone should purchase arms and protect their own property. If necessary States should regulate militias. Read that some where, oh that's right, the Constitution.
grant

I have no problem with that

Even if each state had a nuclear arsenal.. meaning at least one weapon per state.

That's a fix that the Constitution calls for and it makes sense.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Roads etc can be handled two things:

1) Temporary Apportioned Taxes on a State and Local Level

A proposal is put to the community for a temporary tax for a specific purpose. In this case: roads.

Once the road is funded and built, the tax expires

2) Limited Incorporation

It is my understanding that, before the middle of the 19th century, corporations were temporary entities that were formed for a specific purpose, then disbanded when the purpose was served.

Register a corporation(s) for building the road, bridges, support utilities - raise private investment capital (in addition or instead of) the public temporary apportioned taxes ..

.. then disband the corporation when the task is completed. So they can't cause any mischief.

"1) Temporary Apportioned Taxes on a State and Local Level"

We have something like that now, except it's not temporary as it should be. The reason is, they steal the money for other things.

Actually both of your ideas are good and I see little problem with them.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Rural electrification, perhaps the greatest victory claimed by

the collectivists, can best be argued against with the example you gave of cellphone networks, which were built first where the demand was, then expanded out as markets grew into and through rural areas.

Another question to ask - why aren't driveways nationalized if people can't be trusted to maintain their own paths?

Potential Annualized National Debt Allowance - a look at 40 years of PANDA next Pandaline - weekdays central time

I suppose because that's actually your own little piece of earth

Scale matters in economics.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

I see the logic. We own our driveways so we pay for them,

and we don't own the roads but we pay for them.

Got it.

Potential Annualized National Debt Allowance - a look at 40 years of PANDA next Pandaline - weekdays central time

No you don't get it..

We own the driveways and they're on a scale that we can afford. Don't fool yourself into thinking that there aren't some serious issues in retrofitting the idea that the OP has put up as a so called free market solution.

If you want to ignore that, you're welcome to, I however will not. When I tell people about free market ideas, I don't want to be the asshole that doesn't have answers and has to point them to videos that really don't support my ideas and which are nothing but rhetoric. Great sounding rhetoric but no substance.

I can tell people about free market schools because we have examples that are viable on large scale implementation. Roads have some serious logistical issues attached.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

If you can't see private roads you have no imagination

We have private fiber networks which cross state federal and international boundaries. How are they paid for?
How do cell networks get the billing right despite you traveling from tower to tower under different ownership?
What's the percent of automobile users which have a cell phone or a GPS device? Probably higher than EZ pass owners. This GPS information is used to update google maps traffic patterns and there is no reason a private company couldn't use it with your permission to give you discounted mileage on a network of road ownerships.

Examples of private roads exist today. Disney is one example and Chicago was built privately. They are always better built and maintained when there is a direct financial connection to the customer. Arguing for some socialization is always pissing into the economics winds because you have no imagination.

So you're going to be the next dumbass that comes along

Look, very simple.. Take the time to read the whole thread before you start in because I'm getting a little irritated at the morons who continuously miss the point of what I've said repeatedly here. Read how I've given multiple personal examples of private roads. The guy who started this mess of a thread just admitted that he doesn't know how to apply free market to an existing infrastructure. If you can't see it's way more complicated, it's not my problem.

I get a service from it and although it's not perfect and it's even wasteful, it's completely voluntary.

All of those examples are easy.. and not the same. Can I take a road with me? Put it in my pocket? Does a whole community depend on my personal cell phone to make calls with? Is any of this sinking in?

Probably not.. the rhetoric is strong in this one! Rhetoric is useless without an understanding of HOW things work.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

The government only has the money that the people give....

them. So if we can't afford it, they cannot afford it either. Some of us refer to it as living within one's means.<\i>

I'm starting to wonder if some of you are capable of critical

thinking.

Very simplified answer to a problem you seem to have trouble grasping.. In the real world, the cost of roads spread out amongst the nation, is less expensive on each individual, even IF government makes costs rise, than it would be if say.. 10 people had to pay for their stretch of the road.. which would include.. building it and upkeep.

Have you ever had to pay for a private road to get asphalted, built and maintained? I wanted to place asphalt on my driveway.. the lowest bid was 8000.

That's a relatively small driveway. Now try to scale that up for a 1 mile private road that might have 5 houses on it.

This is kind of what I've been saying... people don't take things to their conclusion because it's easier to spout rhetoric than it is to think things through.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Road contracts are not bid on a national level...

They are either city, county, or state contracts. The roads that you drive on primarily are probably built on city contracts. As I said before, it should not be my responsibility to maintain some road across town that I never use. Further, the cost that we pay is likely much higher than what it would be in a free market situation. Another point that you have neglected with your superb critical thinking skills is that lower traffic roads don't have to be paved. Dirt roads with borrow ditches are much cheaper. I just drove home on a dirt road.

When you feel the need to resort to insults, you should realize that it is a clue that your argument is failing.

I know that.. It was an all inclusive statement.

I'll ask you the same thing I did Rob..

You do know that the issue of roads goes all the way back to the Founding Fathers don't you?

"As I said before, it should not be my responsibility to maintain some road across town that I never use."

No need to repeat yourself, we don't disagree on that and if you can come up with an idea that doesn't have 1000 holes in it, I'd be on board. As it is now, only one person has done that.

Don't throw out rhetoric, toss out solid ideas. Up against his idea of trading one monopoly for another one, I would not support.

I personally favor a Constitutional tax that would pay for things like that on the local/state level.

"Another point that you have neglected with your superb critical thinking skills is that lower traffic roads don't have to be paved. Dirt roads with borrow ditches are much cheaper. I just drove home on a dirt road."

So you think, because I didn't mention something, that I hadn't thought of it? Ever think that I might be trying to keep things down a bit because I'm having to defend my position to everyone on the board? The poster knew that would happen by the way, it's probably one of the reasons, he posted it to start with and hasn't come back to "finish our conversation" lol.

"When you feel the need to resort to insults, you should realize that it is a clue that your argument is failing."

I've already debunked that many times over. That's something someone says to make themselves feel like they are "winning" an argument, as well or it's a form of ego protection (Usually the case I think)

Sometimes I get frustrated that those before me either can't or won't see what's right before them. I personally start to believe that people are being intellectually dishonest.. It's like me having to explain another possibility in this situation. You'd think instead of throwing out statements like that.. which is what people do instead of thinking.. they'd ask or figure out alternatives themselves.. but they don't.. it's easier to throw up their form of ego shield.

So it's not always the way you see it.. it's not always about someone feeling that they are "losing" an argument.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

So you believe insults are a productive way of communicating...

your points?

In any case, there are likely so many free market solutions to roads that no one man could dream them all up. One thing is for certain, there must be a way to avoid the government overhead that is currently involved; thereby saving everyone quite a bit of money.

One possible solution would be for people that have no existing road to their homes (a rarity) to finance the construction. Thereafter, they could pool together for long-term maintenance fees.

In housing editions, developers often pay for the roads to be built during construction before any residents move in. Who wants to move into a housing edition with no roads? Future maintenance could be left to the property owner's association.

This isn't a very hard problem to solve. You seem to think that government involvement is the most efficient and cost effective solution. I disagree. The people would have their roads with or without government involvement, and they would very likely come at a much lower cost.

None of you this whole time have understood the problems I see

You're talking simplicity in simple cases.. I've even posted my own experiences where I've seen them work, so why do you keep bringing up these examples as if they have solved any major logistical problems?

Maybe this is beyond you and you just don't want to concede that you don't have the vision to see the logistical problems for existing infrastructure.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.