Other: Ron Paul On Privatizing Roads

[dannno]

If farmers didn't have to pay income and property taxes they could probably afford to upkeep a fucking road to their house

 

[GeorgiaAvenger]

If farmers didn't have to pay income and property taxes they could probably afford to upkeep a fucking road to their house

But who owns it?

 

[dannno]

This. We are still waiting for the link to Ron Paul stating he supports this. The same old thing of having people claiming their ideas as RP's.

Ron Paul's view is not to force his view on everybody else....however.. he would probably argue from a philosophical standpoint that truly private roads (not taken through eminent domain) would be better than letting the government do it.

 

[dannno]

But who owns it?

The person who built and maintains it.

He can contract it out, potentially, and they can charge people a modest toll if they choose.

Since people aren't paying as much in taxes, they could afford these modest tolls which would likely be very easy to pay, something like a card swipe or even RFID.

 

[kuckfeynes]

Ron Paul is supposedly a "strict Constitutionalist."
This is a Constitutional question, at least where the federal government is involved.
Therefore it is relevant.
You don't have to be a full blown ancap to acknowledge merit in the idea of market-based roads.

So what if the road in front of my house gets shut down, then what? I would have to move just so you can privatize roads?

On second thought, how could I move?

Depends. Hopefully other people need the road for their commerce and you can pool your resources that you are saving by not being taxed to maintain it. You will almost certainly allocate it much better than the government would, and not spend as much. Otherwise, you are not living in an economically viable place, and it should not be my responsibility to pay for you to do so.

 

[rpwi]

I always assumed...Ron would just give complete control of the roads over to the states. The states would then determine what do with the roads. If the Post Office was still operating, I would also assume they would have a right-away provision (so State-X couldn't charge the Feds billions of dollars for the Post Office to use their roads...as sort of payback for not getting enough pork). But such a right-away provision for Postal vehicles doesn't necessitate federal control over the roads.

 

[klamath]

You're in hysterics. Most land is purchased with ingress and egress rights and it would take a major court rollover for any of your hypotheticals to present themselves. Private roads does not necessarily imply for-profit, corporate hands. Whether or not you could be denied access depends on conditions of sale, local and federal laws, etc. Likely, it would be little different than it is now.

Are you in love with the current system which doesn't let you take a hypothetical horse for a ride down the street and every drive you are unreasonably searched and your stuff is seized? I would rather deal with a business which can lose my patronage than with a government which can nullify my vote with a dead person. Where are the free market roads without the police state?

If GE takes a shot at me, that would suck but the lawsuit would be far sweeter than the action your local municipality will give.

Obviously you weren't around to see the thousands of houses and farmland condemed to build the interstate system. I remember it.
If the laws and sales restrict the buyers control of the roads then nothing has changed, so why change.
There is no free market to the roads in fromt of your house. The business entity would have complete and total market control and you over the barrel. He could charge pretty much anything he wanted. If the price was outragous you couldn't even sell your property as no one else would buy your property with killing road tolls as the only engress and egress.

 

[The Free Hornet]

There is no free market to the roads in fromt of your house. The business entity would have complete and total market control and you over the barrel. He could charge pretty much anything he wanted. If the price was outragous you couldn't even sell your property as no one else would buy your property with killing road tolls as the only engress and egress.

Again, property is bought with ingress and egress rights. A common example is two plots of land with only one having access to the public road. The back lot uses the driveway of the front lot. The front lot owner cannot charge a toll or unreasonably restrict/block. It is an open question what rights you have were a road to be privatized. My initial guess stands: pretty much the same as what you have right now.

As far as being "over the barrel", I'll cast you as the ignorant one: the special assessment tax. Governments can and do improve roads charging select land owners to pay for it. This is over an above normal real estate taxes and would likely hit those on the road being improved. So if you live on a busy road or a quiet road they want to make busy, you can be charged for re-doing the whole damn thing and watching traffic go from 1000 to 10000 cars a day.

We have a system of public roads where the police prey on the populace. You really think a private system with no publicly funded police is going to be worse? Yesterday, at one corner, I saw 9 squad cars going 3 different directions all being fascist and whatnot. I haven't heard of any murderers being caught or kidnapping ring shut down.

Why do you pee your pants over something that might be a problem and ignore something that is a problem today?

Business can and do screw their customers over. They pay for it. Only with government's assistance can we be "over the barrel". The question is how best to limit the influence of government. Your cops, you public roads funded with my money is not the solution.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Everyone-read "Privatization Of Roads And Highways" by Walter Block. Get it free on mises.org. Privatization is viable and better (like all current "public goods"). ETA: the Constitution only mentions post roads. Not much of an argument against road privatization.

 

[klamath]

Again, property is bought with ingress and egress rights. A common example is two plots of land with only one having access to the public road. The back lot uses the driveway of the front lot. The front lot owner cannot charge a toll or unreasonably restrict/block. It is an open question what rights you have were a road to be privatized. My initial guess stands: pretty much the same as what you have right now.

As far as being "over the barrel", I'll cast you as the ignorant one: the special assessment tax. Governments can and do improve roads charging select land owners to pay for it. This is over an above normal real estate taxes and would likely hit those on the road being improved. So if you live on a busy road or a quiet road they want to make busy, you can be charged for re-doing the whole damn thing and watching traffic go from 1000 to 10000 cars a day.

We have a system of public roads where the police prey on the populace. You really think a private system with no publicly funded police is going to be worse? Yesterday, at one corner, I saw 9 squad cars going 3 different directions all being fascist and whatnot. I haven't heard of any murderers being caught or kidnapping ring shut down.

Why do you pee your pants over something that might be a problem and ignore something that is a problem today?

Business can and do screw their customers over. They pay for it. Only with government's assistance can we be "over the barrel". The question is how best to limit the influence of government. Your cops, you public roads funded with my money is not the solution.

Well your private rent a cops running all over the roads that were made on land siezed from me by government is not a solution. I have no say over your rent a cops or your private road built on my former land but I can still voice my problems and elect commissioners if they get out of hand.