Other: Ron Paul On Privatizing Roads

[Just Flossin']

Would Ron support states selling off assets such as toll roads and making them private?

 

[narrowphoenix]

Yes, ALL roads, including highways and freeways but I don't think it will ever happen because we have a lot more important issues faces us now.......

 

[klamath]

Yes, ALL roads, including highways and freeways but I don't think it will ever happen because we have a lot more important issues faces us now.......

Source? Where did he state this?

 

[Icymudpuppy]

Roads do have constitutional authority. To Establish Post offices and Post Roads. Any road that is used to transport the mail (which BTW is virtually every road in America) is under federal jurisdiction. Of course, the government's authority is to establish the roads, but not necessarily to maintain them. Still, without a constitutional amendment striking that clause, I think RP will support public roadways. Roads are one of the most important economic drivers. The ability to transport goods effectively and quickly contributes dramatically to economic health in all sectors. The problem with privatized roads is that weak economic areas, and rural areas will not get funds to maintain their roads because the big cities will get all the private funds. This will result in higher prices for raw materials, and huge economic disparity between urban and rural settings.

 

[CaptUSA]

Yes, ALL roads, including highways and freeways but I don't think it will ever happen because we have a lot more important issues faces us now.......

Yeah, where did you hear that?

This "roads" thing is something that has been used forever to sideline libertarians. While privatizing some roads can make economical sense, there is consitutional authority for the federal government to maintain roads. (Postal roads)

This is nowhere on anyone's agenda and is just an excuse to ostracize someone who believes in liberty.

 

[luctor-et-emergo]

Postal roads, in some weird way... That could be the internet....

 

[Just Flossin']

Well, the Post Office is a mess. I would imagine that it would make more economic sense to partner more with the private companies than keep everything in house. Did RP ever comment on the Post Office?

 

[Kade]

Roads and most state built network infrastructure should be government/tax supported and free for all use...The internet should also remain utterly neutral, regardless of whatever vile, vulgar, filth exists on it... this is the essence of freedom.

Arguments against this are simply asinine. There are a trillion ways for a market economy to make money off these things alone... so let's stop being ridiculous.

 

[Esoteric]

Yes, the government has quasi-constitutional authority over roads.

No, Ron Paul would not advocate government roads over private roads. Ron Paul is a "voluntaryist".

Government roads exist by using force. They operate on stolen money (taxes), and have also created a monopoly, consequently hindering innovation in personal transportation for the past 100 years. Without a government monopoly on roads, it's possible that we would be traveling 10x faster today than we have been for the past 100 years in motor vehicles, and without petroleum. That doesn't happen when the government owns the roads, and is also bought and paid for by the oil companies.

 

[dannno]

I'll bet if more roads were privatized there would be much cheaper ways of making them and they would last a lot longer.

 

[kuckfeynes]

Just because there is Constitutional authority for something doesn't mean we have carte blanche to shovel money down a black hole trying to keep a bloated bureaucracy competitive with the free market. Did the federal government have anything to do with roads before the Interstate Highway System? I'm asking, I truly don't know. But it seems logical to me that it was mostly a state responsibility. In which case, some states may choose to exert more control over infrastructure building than others, with different degrees of public vs private ownership. And the best systems will be seen and emulated by others.

Anyway it seems pretty clear to me that "establish post office and post roads" means that federal government has the authority to make sure the mail gets delivered, nothing more. Think about it; the men who wrote that clause didn't even know what a locomotive was let alone air mail or e-mail. If they thought the federal government should have absolute authority over all roads, they would have explicitly phrased it that way.

 

[GeorgiaAvenger]

I guess it is a stupid question but how are things going to be coordinated and what is to stop the road owners to not ignore less populous stretches of roads?

 

[kuckfeynes]

What is to stop the government from ignoring less populous stretches of roads? It already happens, often at the expense of other totally unproductive spending. In fact here in PA we have several grown-over roads to nowhere, including a rather famous highway that people hike to see. Areas that are not economically viable depopulate, and people move. It just happens quicker in a free market, or ideally, people never settle in economically unsustainable areas in the first place.

 

[klamath]

Privatizing the roads would be the absolute pinnacle of corporatism. Millions of acres of land taken by force with imminent domain for roads by the government is then sold to private corporations that can charge anything they please from people that had their land stolen by the government. I would have no say in any shape or form on how much I was charged for the land taken from me for the road in front of my house that is now the my only means of access. There would be no free market as there is no land for a competing road I could use. I could also be denied use of that road if the corporation or road owner so chose.
No thanks.

 

[The Free Hornet]

Privatizing the roads would be the absolute pinnacle of corporatism. Millions of acres of land taken by force with imminent domain for roads by the government is then sold to private corporations that can charge anything they please from people that had their land stolen by the government. I would have no say in any shape or form on how much I was charged for the land taken from me for the road in front of my house that is now the my only means of access. There would be no free market as there is no land for a competing road I could use. I could also be denied use of that road if the corporation or road owner so chose.
No thanks.

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.

 

[GeorgiaAvenger]

What is to stop the government from ignoring less populous stretches of roads? It already happens, often at the expense of other totally unproductive spending. In fact here in PA we have several grown-over roads to nowhere, including a rather famous highway that people hike to see. Areas that are not economically viable depopulate, and people move. It just happens quicker in a free market, or ideally, people never settle in economically unsustainable areas in the first place.

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?

 

[CaptUSA]

This forum is "Ron Paul on the Issues". Too many in here are arguing their own preference when it comes to roads.

If anyone has a link to where Paul is suggesting we privatize the roads, please post it. Otherwise, we're just engaging in a conversation that has always been used to push libertarians out of the mainstream.

 

[klamath]

This forum is "Ron Paul on the Issues". Too many in here are arguing their own preference when it comes to roads.

If anyone has a link to where Paul is suggesting we privatize the roads, please post it. Otherwise, we're just engaging in a conversation that has always been used to push libertarians out of the mainstream.

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.

 

[No Free Beer]

Roads do have constitutional authority. To Establish Post offices and Post Roads. Any road that is used to transport the mail (which BTW is virtually every road in America) is under federal jurisdiction. Of course, the government's authority is to establish the roads, but not necessarily to maintain them. Still, without a constitutional amendment striking that clause, I think RP will support public roadways. Roads are one of the most important economic drivers. The ability to transport goods effectively and quickly contributes dramatically to economic health in all sectors. The problem with privatized roads is that weak economic areas, and rural areas will not get funds to maintain their roads because the big cities will get all the private funds. This will result in higher prices for raw materials, and huge economic disparity between urban and rural settings.

This.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Even if Ron had two full terms and had a willing Congress, we wouldn't even get back to strict adherence to a Constitutional government (and likely wouldn't even be close), so government-built and operated roads would still be the status quo.