Topic: Libertarianism
Common Objections to Liberty (III): But who would take care of the roads? Probably the most common question asked when talking about a world without a government is: But who would take care of the roads? I don’t dismiss this question out of hand. I, in fact, believe that there probably would be far less roads if government hadn’t built them.by Jeremy West
(libertarian)
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Probably the most common question asked when talking about a world without a government is: But who would take care of the roads?
I don't dismiss this question out of hand. I, in fact, believe that there probably would be far less roads if government hadn't built them.
There are two reasons I believe this:
1) Imminent domain: Governments often use the imminent domain clause of the constitution to force land owners to sell their land at a "fair market price". Without this special privilege, private road companies would have trouble with holdouts trying to get far more than market value for their land since the road cannot be built (straight anyway) without their land.
2) Roads are expensive. As the money to build them is stolen from you and me before we get our paychecks, they appear to be free. If the real cost were made apparent to you in tolls or otherwise, you may not support nearly as many roads.
However, I'm not sure having fewer roads is entirely bad. An abundance of roads promotes an abundance of single occupant cars, which in turn causes higher levels of pollution (and perhaps even *gasp* global warming. I know, I know, it's not popular for libertarians to admit that global warming might possibly be happening and may in fact be caused or at least worsened by humans).
Most people currently use roads as their primary mode of transportation because they are so heavily subsidized (with money originally extorted from those same people, of course). If the market were not able to bear the cost of roads, it would only be because other forms of transportation are more cost effective.
If tax dollars had not been subsidizing roads all this time, perhaps we would be utilizing trains, subways, or light rail far more than we currently do. Or perhaps the flying cars we've all been waiting for would have actually come to fruition decades ago.
People want to move from place to place. If there were no government around to get them from point A to point B, some "greedy capitalist" would see the demand and provide a way.*
* My favorite example of this comes from what I saw when I lived in Japan. One of the most popular department stores was called the Hankyu Department Store. And one of the most popular private railroad companies was called the Hankyu Railway. Guess where the terminal stations were? You guessed it; the trains ran from the Hankyu department store of one major city to the Hankyu department store of the next major city. As the "greedy capitalists" wanted to get people from the suburbs to their stores, there were several convenient stops on the way to each city.
If you enjoyed this article, please use the buttons above to digg it and subscribe to The Jeremy West Column. Then enjoy my other articles below:
The views expressed in this
article are those of Jeremy West only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Jeremy West is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: C. Al Currier
Date: 2008-06-10 09:35:06
If there were no government around to get them from point A to point B, some "greedy capitalist" would see the demand and provide a way
In the good 'ol USA, we used a process called collusion to build the railsystems in the Western States. Congressmen simple gave away vast stretches of timber-land to corporations (economic stimulus) and to this very day, some big corporations can't figure out if they are a railroad or a lumber company. Our history in this country isn't quite as neat as Ayn Rand's novel, Atlas Shrugged, portrays the 'Capitalists', nor does it even look into the socialist tendencies of Thomas Jefferson with land allocations to 'Schools and Churches' that somehow 'disapeared' with the settlements of the west. The term 'railroaded' comes from 'private-sector' solutions to eminent domain, which isn't a good solution either.
When it comes to trains, compromises get made to principles, public and private.
I don't fit neatly into any political group when it comes to trains. In the mid 1980's I moved to Lancaster CA while the LA Times were promoting 'Maglev-Highspeed' rails from LA to Las Vegas, which made perfect sense to me. Unfortunately, the project never made it much past headlines-of-news status and all I got was an opportunity to squander years of my life in the desert, wandering aimlessly without a clue.
I wouldn't support highspeed rail from LA to Vegas now! The desert cities are now built to fit a auto-dependant infrastructure and its too late to figure out rail. In the mid 1980's they had a chance to do it right with rail first, then subdivide-and-develope after. Now it would take unreasonable amount of design work plus eminent domain to get a rail system to work.
I don't hold it against anyone wanting high speed rail, though. At one time those 'crazy' folks used to conspire in Dodge City, Kansas with steam locomotives to try to beak records,
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2008-06-10 12:16:47
When do we have enough roads?
I think Interstate, federal highways should be restricted to free commercial use only and personal useage, including daily commutes, should be sufficiently enough to pay for maintenance not covered by gasoline taxes. Most people in metropolitan areas already have a toll transponder on their windshield by now. This change is a matter of law and computer programming; a no cost way to greatly improve our economy, reduce miles being driven, help roads last longer and let users pay for the long term maintenance.
I live near the congested I-70 corridor west of Denver where weekend traffic and even daily rush traffic cripple Interstate traffice. It happens in every city but in Colorado it happens also along the 90 or so miles from Denver to Vail. My suggestion above separates the two problems and puts responsibility for local traffic back in Colorado's lap because the Interstate is fine to support the commercial traffic.
This also creates new business opportunities as ski resorts become creative about ways to bring more people to the slopes. Bus and limo services could provide numerous local jobs.
Mixing federal and state interests is the domain of liberals and has no place in the never ending defense of individual liberty.
Posted By: C. Al Currier
Date: 2008-06-11 16:21:48
"I, in fact, believe that there probably would be far less roads if government hadn’t built them." by Jeremy West
Uh, wait a minute Jeremy.
The gob'ment built the interstate highway system (bids to private sector contractors) and lesser highways, but when it comes to most roads in cities and suburbs, they're built by private sector developers and the roads become owned by the gob'ment at the conclusion of the developement.
I don't mean to get real picky about all that, but the gob'ment usually fig'res out how to be a 'supervisor' type entity when it comes to building anything, including roads.
Way back in the mid 1980's (Lancaster, CA) when I wandered aimlessly in the desert for years, I did a bunch of that road building stuff (subdivision and developement) and the gob'ment takes over after the work is done.
This topic is a good one, and it's a shame few people have shown interest in it (4 thumbs up so far) and so few comments posted.
Yes, the contractors physically build the roads, but the gob'ment pays for them. Same thing goes for the interstates. If they didn't there would be less roads built and more cost-effective means of transport would have been developed. As things are, the roads could be sold off to companies who would maintain them and charge tolls (automatically via those doohickies on our windshields). Any roads that aren't worth buying and maintaining should be allowed to deteriorate.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
