Comment: I'm a taker: will you respond?

(See in situ)


I'm a taker: will you respond?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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