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?



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

This may be true at the local level

But go ahead and try competing with Bechtel to build a highway.

As for the fairness of using gasoline taxes, no matter how you slice it you are still handing over your hard earned cash to a monopoly that has no accountability to anyone but themselves. I'd be very curious to know what percentage of this huge stash of cash actually gets put back into roads.

Just answerin'.

Agreed.

Government sucks no matter how you slice it. Highway work is pretty much always low bid though, even the large contracts. But you get into libraries, schools, municipal golf courses, army corp. of engineer projects (military and US waterway infrastructure), or any public buildings you are correct. There is no public bid opening so they do not have to take the low bidder. And yes, I am sure their bureaucracy siphons off a large portion.

Just replyin'.

You make it sound peachy but you fail

to discuss that you are just fine with the fact that the government does not earn money to pay out to contracts. You miss the point that the govenrment either lies cheats or steals money and dribbles a few cents back to projects like these to justify their immoral theft. You are pretty happy with the entire process so I suggest you find your morality and stop assuming that its ok to steal as long as the money is passed out in what you think is a pretty fair process.

Stolen goods are used to pay for your road and every cent paid to the contractors and their employee workers is money taken without permission from real live people. So I say if you want your road build it yourself just dont count me in on your nasty theiving scheemes. Discusting. Transportation infrastructure is a group think term if people want to travel they will find a way without the liars theives and crooks.

sovereign

Whoa!

I just explained the process. I disagreed with the poster that the taxpayer(gas tax) was getting a bad deal. I am an anarchist. I do not believe in government ooooo But I get tired of libertarians ignorantly complaining about the government building roads. They don't do it. People get a good bang for their buck in this particular category. And you can quit buying gas so you can avoid the tax if you like. Neither your income tax nor your property tax is going to build roads. I happen to think that the roads and the collection of the taxes at the pump is the most fair part of government. But I disagree with government as an entity, k?

I except your apology. Perhaps you can drill, process, and store your own fuel so you can avoid the pumps. You can get a chopper so as to avoid the roads, k?

i'm sick of people not

i'm sick of people not growing gardens in their front yards and back yards. if you want to grow a garden on some random land johny po-po tells you to get lost.

these people not growing gardens in their front yards and always cutting their grass after it grows one inch is pissing me off. they pay property tax on the nothing that they own anyways.

lawrence

Any takers?

False arguments are invented by who and for what purpose?

I've personally met Mr. Block and in my very brief discussion with him I can say confidently that he was unwilling to entertain a competitive point of view: i.e. monopolist.

These arguments for the sake of arguments are fully self-contained contradictions as the inventor and producer of the argument creates both sides of the argument they invent and produce.

"Any takers?"

That is code for: "If you enter this argument your viewpoint will not be considered and the inventor and producer of this argument will speak for you despite any effort on the part of the target victim to speak for themselves."

Been there, done that, but for anyone else who may want to know the facts concerning the struggle between Liberty and Crime made Legal, it may be worth listening to a viewpoint that isn't a self-made contradiction.

Any person who resorts to deceit (such as this topic) as a means of accomplishing a goal is by that method a person intending to injure an innocent, targeted, victim.

That is one process of thinking and acting that is part of the group of thoughts and actions that make up crime.

Those who deceive are perfectly capable of claiming that deceit is not a crime, so that itself is a self-evident confession made by the criminal who resorts to that specific deception.

Next on the short list of things done by criminals is the use of threats of violence, and again this can be a source of even more lies, it can even be a lie in cases where the liar is incapable of violence, or the liar is not even capable of hiring someone to be violent as the liar hires a violent person to be violent for the liar.

Next on the short list of things done by criminals is the use of violence as a means of defining the meaning of crime as the criminal willfully employs violence upon an innocent victim whereby the definition of innocence in any case of aggressive violence done by a criminal is such that the victim did not, in any way, deserve, or earn the injury inflicted by the criminal upon the innocent victim, and the only reason all these words are required to convey the true meaning of crime is understandable from the understanding that criminals lie effectively.

One of the most effective lies a criminal can willfully invent, produce, and inflict upon the innocent victims that are targeted by the criminal is the lie that says that LAW can be involuntary.

Know that fact, and you can avoid being a victim.

The criminals certainly know the truth about this most effective lie.

So...

The self-made contradiction offered by the topic starter is such that a lie is either parroted or known to be a lie by the topic starter and it matters not to me which is the case in this case.

The personal life of the topic starter, or my personal life, is not the focus of my attention and that has to be understood by the reader. If the topic does not remain focused upon the subject of the topic and instead the topic is moved to some other topic, such as my personal life, then that is a clue as to the true color of whoever moves the topic from the subject of the topic to someone's personal life.

"Any takers?"

The topic concerns something specific.

Example:

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

Roughly half of the worlds population is currently leaning to the left, or toward socialism, if English words can even remotely reach the goal of accurate communication, so as far as I am concerned the topic is targeting roughly half of the words population.

That is a way that I can begin to meet the challenge:

"Any takers?"

Yes, there are people, more than one, who are perfectly capable of challenging the viewpoint presented in this topic, and a challenge to the viewpoint presented in this topic is easy to accomplish without resorting to deception, threats of violence, or violence, and without changing the subject from the subject and changing the subject to someone's personal life.

"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."

Who is "country"?

Who is "the state"?

Who is "they"?

Who is "private groups"?

I am someone, and I have a viewpoint, and my viewpoint challenges this specific paragraph, for the paragraph is a self-contained contradiction, or at least it is too vague to convey accurate meaning, or at least it is interpretable as meaning almost anything by almost anyone.

The concept of a country was, and can still be, a perception of the entire number of human beings existing within a geographical area.

I have a source for that understanding and that source is here:

http://www.barefootsworld.net/trial01.html

"It is supposed that, if twelve men be taken, by lot, from the mass of the people, without the possibility of any previous knowledge, choice, or selection of them, on the part of the government, the jury will be a fair epitome of "the country" at large, and not merely of the party or faction that sustain the measures of the government; that substantially all classes of opinions, prevailing among the people, will be represented in the jury; and especially that the opponents of the government, (if the government have any opponents,) will be represented there, as well as its friends; that the classes, who are oppressed by the laws of the government, (if any are thus oppressed,) will have their representatives in the jury, as well as those classes, who take sides with the oppressor - that is, with the government."

That is the country and to return to the POINT of my reply concerning the topic I can return to the one paragraph that is currently being challenged as in "Any takers?":

"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."

Next is the concept of the state.

What does that mean?

If that means an involuntary association then that means crime. If the person claiming that an involuntary association isn't crime then that person is either volunteering to join that association and the claim is false, a lie, or that person is a victim, an involuntary servant of the crime in progress, and perhaps the victim is parroting the lie for fear of suffering an increase in injury.

I don't know.

If a person uses the word state when the person means crime, then the person doing so can easily explain why they mean to accurately identify criminals (presumed to be innocent) and instead of doing so they fail to do so, and instead they focus attention on something that isn't accountable for whatever crime is in progress.

If the person does want to accurately identify criminals, and those criminals are employing a very effective lie, such as a lie that says involuntary associations are legal, as if Law is a synonym for crime, then I think the person could accomplish that goal instead of failing to accomplish that goal, if there is a will to do so, and I can assume, or ask and not assume, the actual intent behind the word state.

Does the word state in the context of the paragraph in question intend to mean the willful actions of people as those people commit crimes under the color of law?

Is that a fair question?

I can assume that the paragraph does intend to convey the accurate accounting of actual people who actually commit crimes under the color of law when the word state is used in that paragraph.

This:

"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."

Moving on to "private groups", there are yet again a number of people involved, if I can assume as much, and my guess is that this number of people are not currently involved in any crimes that are perpetrated under the color of law in any way, and that is what is meant, if I am correct in my assumption, concerning the words "private groups".

So...a "private group" makes a road from New York to California, and this "private" road cuts the country in half.

Can a "private group" make another road on top of it?

Can a "private group" get from south of that boarder to north of that boarder without having to pay an extortion fee, called whatever the extortionists claim the extortion fee is, such as a "tax", or a "toll", or whatever word that the extortionists can make their victims believe, or can any "private group" cross that road at will, as in free will, and as in "animated contest of freedom", or as in competitively employ the land in this country, or as in hey, who and what army says I have to pay a "tax" or a "toll" to travel from south to north in this country?

The concept of who owns the land is a concept that is another argument designed to keep the arguments going.

The fact that someone controls any land is a fact that can be measured, without argument. If there is an argument as to who controls any land, anywhere, then there are ways to resolve those arguments, as well as there are ways to keep those arguments going - perpetually.

One way to look at the land, in this country, is to look at any other thing that is common to all, and at this point the knees of the brainwashed jerk.

Why?

If your knee jerks at the mere mention of some thing, such as land, being common to all, then it may be a good idea to figure out why you have that problem.

Air is common to all too.

Land is common to all.

If your knee jerks when someone mentions the English words that are arranged in a order as such: Land is common to all, then you have a problem, Houston, you have a problem.

If your knee does not jerk when someone mentions that the air we breath is common to all, then there is no problem?

Note the question mark.

I control the air I breath, and I consume it, and no one else can consume the air I breath, it is gone as far as you are concerned, as I turn that very scarce, very necessary, very valuable supply of air into carbon dioxide. Too bad for you.

I stole the air out of the air and you can't have it.

Why is land any different?

Back to the paragraph in question:

"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."

"They" grew up in a land where a few people own (control) the Law Power because a few people own (control) the Money Power, so "they" jerk their knees when told, without question, and "they" are ever ready to defend their abject belief in falsehood without question, and "they" will stop at nothing, "they" won't stop at torture, and "they" won't stop at mass murder to defend their lies, so why would anyone focus any more time arguing over anything other than finding workable solutions to "they" as "they" destroy everything of value while "they" control (own) everything?

I don't know.

Trial by Jury worked when it worked and the concept of tax in those days was a voluntary agreement to act when called upon to act as a Juror, or as a defender of the country in case of invasion by a large criminal army of aggression for profit.

If voluntary taxes worked, then who is claiming that there is a need for involuntary taxes?

If someone is claiming that there is a need for involuntary taxes then that someone aught to be called out as someone who is aiding and abetting the criminals who are perpetrating crimes under the color of law, and stop calling them "elite", and stop calling them "socialists", and stop calling them "capitalists", and stop calling them names that are designed to cause roughly half the population to be at the throats of roughly half the population because those false fronts, those false names, cover up the actual crimes committed by the actual criminals who have actual names and live in actual places.

I can go on, and I see a particularly destructive lie that goes by the name of "free rider", but why spend so much time and energy beating dead horses?

What is the point?

If the point is to move closer to Liberty and move further away from crime made legal, then there are 3 steps that are clearly in view.

1.
End the FED (do so peacefully, competitively, and in time)
2.
End the IRS (do so as a function of doing number 1 above)
3.
Bring the Troops Home (but not bringing them home so as to defend the FED and the IRS here at home, so number 1 and number 2 have to be done or number 3 can't be done right)

One more sentence from the Topic Starters initial volley, a few more comments, and I think I will have offered a fair response to this:

"Any takers?"

From the Topic:

_____________________________________
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.
______________________________________

Assuming that the FED and the IRS are gone, and assuming that The Troops are not ordered to enforce the FED and the IRS while the FED and the IRS are not leaving peacefully (the FED and IRS people use The Troops to destroy the competition), assuming all that, then the subject of how any number of people from one end of the country to the other negotiate free travel can enter into a competitive, free market, solution - not before.

Assuming that each State government asserts a higher power over the falsely labeled "Federal" government, and then each State becomes a competitive government within a Voluntary Union or Confederated Federal Government, then assuming that that happens after The FED and the IRS are gone, which State will offer the more competitive solution to the free travel problem, as far as roads go?

How about a contest?

Supposing there were 50 State governments, all working at various levels of despotism or liberty, socialism or capitalism, or whatever words the people want to use to label what they do in each State, how about one of us, any one of us, describe what their state does in the state they move to, when that state becomes what the people moving to that state make it, and be specific as to what you do, and what other people do, in your state, as your state becomes what the people in it want, in respect to the roads in that state.

I can offer a competitive version of what happens in the state I move to when the FED and the IRS are gone, because a replacement, or smaller version, of the FED and the IRS are not going to exist in the state I move to, and then the questions of what happens to the roads are not questions that are solved by the people running the FED or the IRS, which are the same people running everything else, including what the troops do.

How about that?

Any takers?

1.
Your state become this...(because you and everyone like you in your state agree with the method) as far a roads are concerned.

2.
Your state does not become this...(because you and everyone like you in your state agree that those people in that state are fools) as far as the roads are concerned.

3.
In a Confederated System of a number of Constitutionally Limited States (each constitution is a competitive free market offering to each potential citizen who is free to travel from one state to another) whereby each State joins or does not join the Union of Voluntary Union of Sovereign States, which state do you move to, because this constitutionally limited State, that you want, does this, or does not do that, with the roads; which means: The People do not do this, and The People do not do that with the roads in your ideal state.

If you can't find anyone to agree with your ideal (idea) State, then what does your idea Constitute - in fact?

Joe

I would rather walk or make my own road than

Have any entity think that it has control over me in any way shape or form. To think that its justifyed to accept immoral extorted theft to fund road building is just bat guana.

sovereign

I'd rather go back to horses myself.

But the chances of that happening are very slim.

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.

trucking companies

Their trucks damage the roads significantly more than cars. They should pay tolls everywhere based on the number of trucks they have. Since there are not that many toll roads. Huge fleets would provide good revenues to state road repairs. They can afford it because they have monopolies and some of their owners are members of the Federal Reserve.

Other than that I do not really care much about roads. They are nothing like they are in God foresaken Europe or elsewhere and I have a vehicle with high ground clearance and AWD. If people want to get a horse like Amish go for it.

BTW, I do not think 4 wheel vehicles or less should pay tolls unless it is a private road.

donvino

True: Truck do more damage

A fully loaded 18-wheeler does the equivalent wear & tear on a road as 30,000 passenger cars

This due to the significantly larger and more numerous deflection they cause in the pavement which creates cracks etc. Without 18 wheelers highways would last significantly longer and only need to be rebuilt to expand capacity, not due to wear. I'm not sure if gas-tax properly takes this into account or not...

slave labor will pave the

slave labor will pave the roads

lawrence

Slave labor already does pave the roads.

If we could opt out of the income tax, sales tax and about 100 other taxes, then things would be different. But as it stands, roads have all been financed through involuntary contributions. Whenever someone claims a right to what someone else has made, we have slavery. Having a flag, a title, and the largest collection of thugs within a certain set of imaginary lines changes nothing.

Walter block has a book on

Walter block has a book on mises.org that you can download free. I believe that it is called " defending the undefendable." There are videos discussing this on there also. Also, Google "roads fit for people" its a fantastic look at a real life alternative to normal traffic issues.

Thanks for the post!

I recently made an inspiring post on this topic of roads...

But Who Will Build the Roads? Peasant Farmer Carves Mountain Road by Hand When Gov't Refused

I'm also working on an in-depth blog series titled Decimate the State where the first installment would address traffic laws, traffic lights, and traffic cops.

Keep an eye out for a post from me in the next week or two called Decimate the State: Traffic Laws, Traffic Lights, and Traffic Cops.

I'm a serial entrepreneur and liberty activist from Texas!

www.RevolutionCarBadges.com
www.NonNetwork.com

That's actually a great story of how people can get thigns done

without help but this guy is promoting selling off our existing roads to corporations who would then have a monopoly on your way to commute.

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.

Actually, if you press Control+F to "find" all...

Hey bud! Actually, if you press Control+F to "find" all instances of the word "corporation" in this entire thread, the only time the word is used is when you say it.

The original post mentions nothing of corporations...it does however mention private vs. gov't ownership of future and existing roads.

In your $70/wk scenario to get to work on the only road, don't you think that your employer may be upset that his workers are unable to attend work because they can't afford the tolls?

You seem to be operating under several flawed assumptions like:

1. Private road owners can only mean high tolls
2. Private road ownership can only be by corporations, not adjacent landowners who don't own corporations or businesses, not charities, not co-ops of land owners who actually travel the road...just greedy corporations interested in charging above market rates
3. All public roads will be sold to corporations
4. No public roads will ever exist
5. By selling off roads to private entities, perpetual monopolies will be created

What I have trouble with is being forced to pay for something I don't want, don't need, and don't benefit one iota from. Let's just say the one road to your work was in my town. Why should I have to contribute towards the road that you and your employer use exclusively? Shouldn't you and your employer pay for that road?

Why do I have to pay for hundreds of rural roads and highways which I never or will never use? The answer: I shouldn't be forced to pay for anything, especially something I don't want, need, or use.

The people who want to travel somewhere are the ones who should foot the bill for the roads to get them there. Those travelers and destinations should not be able to use government force to require that everyone help them make the road that only they will benefit from.

When everyone owns something, no one owns it. It kind of reminds me of the story about the four people named Everybody, Somebody, Anybody and Nobody.

There was an important job to be done, and Everybody was asked to do it. Everybody was sure Somebody would do it. Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did it. Somebody got angry about that, because it was Everybody's job. Everybody thought Anybody could do it, but Nobody realized that Everybody wouldn't do it. It ended up that Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have done.

I'm a serial entrepreneur and liberty activist from Texas!

www.RevolutionCarBadges.com
www.NonNetwork.com

"You seem to be operating under several flawed assumptions like"

You seemed to be operating under several flawed assumptions yourself.

Nothing I've said should have lead you to those assumptions unless that's where you wanted to go in the first place.

"Why should I have to contribute towards the road that you and your employer use exclusively?"

Why is it my employers responsibility to pay for my road? He doesn't use it.

"The people who want to travel somewhere are the ones who should foot the bill for the roads to get them there."

Right, so how do we do that while making sure the guy who owns the only road that not just I use but probably many others use, doesn't rake people over the coals because he knows he has you by the balls.

Only one person in this whole debate so far has come up with a third option to my "dilemma".. to ignore the issue is nothing more than demagoguery..

If people want free markets, real free markets to catch on with the public, then those who preach it need to well versed on the details of how they see it working and NOT the fluff.

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.

Hmmm...

Perhaps I misunderstood.

"Nothing I've said should have lead you to those assumptions unless that's where you wanted to go in the first place."

You said, "this guy is promoting selling off our existing roads to corporations who would then have a monopoly on your way to commute"

To me, the statement, "this guy is promoting selling off our existing roads to corporations" is an assumption that you made. The original poster never said that.

Then your statement, "corporations who would then have a monopoly on your way to commute," makes the assumption that IF a road was sold off to a corporation, then only a monopoly can exist...another assumption. I can think of several other scenarios other than a monopoly. What if the corporation didn't charge to use the road, and instead sold frontage space to advertisers? What if the corporation was just feeling charitable? What if the corporation's biggest competitor came in and bought up land adjacent to the road in question and built a better, cheaper road? The point being that you assumed a monopoly would exist.

"Why is it my employers responsibility to pay for my road? He doesn't use it."

I fail to see how your employer does not use the only road to his business? Is that even possible? Does he need workers to show up for work? Does he need supplies to be delivered from other vendors? Does he need to ship out his product? Does he ever come in to work too? The employer most certainly must use the road if as you say, it's the ONLY road to the business...probably more so than the employee.

Perhaps it's just me and the way my mind works, but if I saw there was only one way to travel to a location that I needed to get to, and that path was obstructed by something (high tolls, pot holes, traffic, bad bridge, etc.), I wouldn't see a problem like most people. I would see an opportunity to build a better mouse trap.

But just because you feel the need to pretend that no one has addressed/answered your question directly, I'll humor you and list several other scenarios to get you out of your false dilemma even though you didn't answer my first question.

Your stated dilemma:

"So can you help me out with my problem?

I have one road to get to work on and it's sold to a private company who then decides to charge $10 a day or more to use their road. That's $70 a week.. Now since there are no competing roads and would likely not be, my choices are to either pay or walk or what?"

1. Is it everyone else's responsibility to help you out with your own transportation problem?
2. You "problem" is littered with Slippery Slopes and Continuum Fallacies
3. You could go talk to your boss, co-workers, and adjacent property owners to try to come up with an alternative route
4. You could get a new job
5. You could raise money to build a competing road
6. You could contact the biggest competitor of the current road owner, and lobby them to join you and others in building a competing road to challenge the "monopoly".
7. You could shame the company.
8. You could stage a protest or boycott ($10/day wouldn't last very long with zero paying customers.)
9. You could just not pay the toll and speed through.
10. You could move within walking distance of work.
11. You could convince your company's owner to move to a more accessible location.
12. You could contact the road owner and try to have a sit-down with them to convince them that only charging $1/day would double his profits because more people would use the road at that price then at the $10/day price.
13. Or what if simply, the road owner didn't charge $10/day as you assumed he would? What if he just charged $1?

The point is that there is literally an infinite amount of solutions to your manufactured, false dilemma.

The other major point I'd like to try to make deals with your last sentence: "If people want free markets, real free markets to catch on with the public, then those who preach it need to well [be] versed on the details of how they see it working and NOT the fluff."

This is absolutely wrong. More people actually need to STOP pretending that we have all the answers. More people need to say, "you know what, I don't know what will happen."

We're against central planning remember?

No more will we be able to predict or describe how free-market roads would exactly work than your great-great-great-grandfather would have been able to predict or describe how we could send voice from city to city with little portable, pocket computers.

I'm a serial entrepreneur and liberty activist from Texas!

www.RevolutionCarBadges.com
www.NonNetwork.com

"I fail to see how your employer does not use the only road to

his business?

Never seen a store along the side of a road before? Imagine a local road in a small town where there are side streets but spread out. He's technically on one road.. people that lets say, live up north would travel south and those living south would travel north to get to his store.

What's so hard to figure out.

The next time you go to your grocery store, try to get there from your house without using a main road. Just for kicks.

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.

Huh?!!

Now I'm completely lost! You responded, "Why is it my employers responsibility to pay for my road? He doesn't use it."

To which I responded, "I fail to see how your employer does not use the only road to his business? Is that even possible? Does he need workers to show up for work? Does he need supplies to be delivered from other vendors? Does he need to ship out his product? Does he ever come in to work too? The employer most certainly must use the road if as you say, it's the ONLY road to the business...probably more so than the employee."

And please don't insult my intelligence when your ability to express a point through text is lacking. Of course I've seen a grocery store on a road. Your statement says that the owner of the grocery story doesn't use the road to get to his grocery store! Huh?!!

OF COURSE it's your employers (or the grocery store owner's) responsibility to ensure people can access his store. Unfortunately, people like you have got together and confiscated all the land that was already being used by everyone to travel freely, and y'all used the force of gov't to monopolize the construction and maintenance of roads because people like you assume that greed corporations will come in and buy up all the roads and hike up tolls.

This is illogical on so many levels. If those corporations buy up all the roads and jack up tolls, no one would use them. The could charge a million dollars to cross their road, and no one would pay it. All you price fixers who have hidden and socialized the price of travel are responsible for most of the problems with all of the transportation industry from roads, to rails, to airplanes...all under the guise of, "well roads are different, they're infrastructure."

I'm a serial entrepreneur and liberty activist from Texas!

www.RevolutionCarBadges.com
www.NonNetwork.com

Okay, you got me on that one, I must have read your statement

wrong.

"And please don't insult my intelligence when your ability to express a point through text is lacking. Of course I've seen a grocery store on a road. Your statement says that the owner of the grocery story doesn't use the road to get to his grocery store! Huh?!!"

I think the fact that I am able to see my own errors is proof that you're not right. And I have the balls to admit it, even when I know people will try to use that against me. Which is more than I can say for the majority of the people I've interacted with here. :)

I've proven, however that you are defunct logically on many occasions, despite your ability to write well and convey it. :)

"OF COURSE it's your employers (or the grocery store owner's) responsibility to ensure people can access his store."

Yeah that's the way it works now.. All of my previous jobs paid for my cars, insurance, gas and upkeep so that I could get to work for them. Now they take that responsibility on for customers, in the form of location and such, but we aren't talking about customers. We're talking about the average worker getting to work and since you're of the mind that you aren't responsible for someone else's road, why then should we be willing to slap that on a business owner instead? Regardless of whether he gets benefit from it or not, it's NOT his responsibility to make sure his workers get to work.

"Unfortunately, people like you have got together and confiscated all the land that was already being used by everyone to travel freely, and y'all used the force of gov't to monopolize the construction and maintenance of roads because people like you assume that greed corporations will come in and buy up all the roads and hike up tolls."

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

"This is illogical on so many levels."

You say this right before you say this turditry below..Speaks volumes for your idea of logical..

"If those corporations buy up all the roads and jack up tolls, no one would use them."

I would imagine, it probably wouldn't come to that point realistically, but I don't doubt that where there were monopolies, you would have serious problems with it.

Don't we have issues with price gouging now when people think they have you by the balls?

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.

BTW, my so called "false" dilemma is a real possibility.

The majority of those counterpoints you brought up are completely worthless, logistically.

5. You could raise money to build a competing road (unrealistic/highly unlikely)
6. You could contact the biggest competitor of the current road owner, and lobby them to join you and others in building a competing road to challenge the "monopoly".(unrealistic/highly unlikely)
7. You could shame the company.(unrealistic/highly unlikely)
8. You could stage a protest or boycott ($10/day wouldn't last very long with zero paying customers.)(unrealistic/highly unlikely)
9. You could just not pay the toll and speed through.(bad advice coming from supposed rule of law type)
10. You could move within walking distance of work. Already suggested.. Although possible, problematic.
11. You could convince your company's owner to move to a more accessible location.(unrealistic/highly unlikely)
12. You could contact the road owner and try to have a sit-down with them to convince them that only charging $1/day would double his profits because more people would use the road at that price then at the $10/day price. Possible but again, unlikely.
13. Or what if simply, the road owner didn't charge $10/day as you assumed he would? What if he just charged $1? Possible and even may be more likely but lets not forget, that many of us drive on many more roads than just one.

I just don't like the idea of people owning throughways of commerce.. People depend on these roads to get everywhere. It's not the exact same as purchasing products. Much more complicated.

Also, keep in mind, when talking to me about this, that I would be happy if we went back to horses and dirt roads. Peoples ideas of progress is rarely mine.

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 scenario you laid out...

The scenario you laid out and requested a perfect answer for is unrealistic and highly unlikely no matter the title you give your comment, and your ad hominem remarks are not necessary.

You'll need to lay out the "real possibility" more thoroughly and detailed if you want more suggestions. But to me, it seems like your mind is made up, and you're not open or receptive of new suggestions. My responses are based off the information you provided, and you simply blow off my legitimate responses to an unrealistic, hypothetical situation by saying my off-the-cuff responses are "unrealistic/highly unlikely".

There are go-getters, innovators, problem solvers, and creators....and then the rest. I can promise you, if I were in your alleged situation (which frankly, I cannot understand the logistics of it with the limited information you've provided), if I needed to be at a certain place, I would be there. Nothing would stop me, and if I don't make it there, it's my own fault or some random accident out of my control.

"I just don't like the idea of people owning throughways of commerce."

"People" do own our throughways of commerce already, collectively through a system called government. There are other more voluntary and less forceful means to a satisfactory end which, in other industries just as vital as transportation, have proven more efficient and effective.

I think the assumption that should be made is that private industry will always out perform government and that the heart of your question is better expressed as, "While recognizing the obvious benefits of private versus public ownership of property, how can we practically transition from a transportation system that has historically relied upon the confiscation of private property to make common travel routes available to the public at the expense of the property owner to a voluntary system that respected property rights of land owners?"

To that question, one might answer, try it in a small town whose citizens are willing to experiment with laws.

I'm a serial entrepreneur and liberty activist from Texas!

www.RevolutionCarBadges.com
www.NonNetwork.com

I'll answer the rest of this tomorrow but I wanted to leave you

this.

""People" do own our throughways of commerce already, collectively through a system called government. There are other more voluntary and less forceful means to a satisfactory end which, in other industries just as vital as transportation, have proven more efficient and effective."

What I really implied with that statement to your answer about is an issue with monopolies.

Right and it works somewhat okay the way it is besides the corrupt backroom deals and government stealing out f the coffers for infrastructure.

My real problem is the monopoly one company would have and the potential for price gouging that WOULD occur. Plenty of examples of extreme greed once a company or person has a monopoly on something..

"While recognizing the obvious benefits of private versus public ownership of property, how can we practically transition from a transportation system that has historically relied upon the confiscation of private property to make common travel routes available to the public at the expense of the property owner to a voluntary system that respected property rights of land owners?"

That's what I've been saying.

So how are roads paid for in our current system?

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.

You did misunderstand

Because I said "corporations" does that mean I think that they all would be bought by them or could it mean that, since they tend to have a larger portion of the capital to purchase and invest, that it might be likely for them to be the main purchasers?

Try not to focus on inconsequential words. It doesn't matter whether a corporation buys it or a private company or a private person, the issue doesn't go away.

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 basically a private

So basically a private company would by the land neccessary to build the road then build them. I guess the roads would have to use serious technilogy to track drivers? But you would have "heated" roads in icy or snowy conditions that would cost more.. Its an interesting idea that is hard to currently fathom

He's also talking about selling the existing roads to companies

.

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 used to build roads. I would be happy to start a business...

maintaining rural roads. Those that needed more maintenance would have to pay a little more, but in reality, it's not someone else's job who lives across town to pay for the maintenance of your road that may only service a few people.

He's taking about selling the roadways to

different companies. You don't see any serious issues with that?

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.

This reminds me of the early days of the railroad...

In some places there were two or three rails present, in others there was only one. Travelers complained that where only one rail was available that the fees were too high in comparison where more competition existed. Eventually, the complaint was heard by the government and action was taken.

Do you think the price where one rail existed fell to that where there were two or three? Or, do you think the price was raised in the cheaper locations to match the higher price?

I can travel nearly anywhere I want to go by several different routes. I wouldn't be worried if the roads were to be privately owned. Right now, the money that we pay for roads goes towards a lot of government overhead rather than keeping the roads maintained. The maintenance fee in a free market situation would likely be much cheaper (given there was more than one route available).