Who Pays for the Roads?

[mediahasyou]

In early America, many governments of the Jeffersonian era simply refused to pay for roads. Thus, turn pikes or private roads began to spring up funded by tolls. It was not until later did Federalists of the State of New York began making public roads through the use of public funds. Many roads, bridges and such were set right next to private toll roads. Since, public roads had already been paid through taxation many chose the public roads. Thus creating the monopoly of the road system.

You can thank this for that pothole you hit last week.

The fact is roads have held us back. If there was no monopoly on the road, train, subways, FAA, and boating we would have much more capitol to invest to the most efficient service. If there was consumer demand, these could even be green transportation.

With a free market transportation system, one option could be helicopters. No roads, railroads, subways, or other bureaucratic services would be needed. No more ecosystems would be destroyed through the constructing of roads. With high consumer demand in helicopters, the price would make them affordable to all.

Monopolies are not libertarian. There is no liberty in the forced payment of a service.

 

[brandon]

While there certainly are very convincing arguments for privatization of all infrastructure, I think it would be more efficient to have LOCAL governments build roads via LOCAL taxes. When a highway needs to be built it should be agreed upon by the local governments...the state gov and feds should have no say in it.

 

[travismofo]

All taxation is theft. Private roads ftw!

 

[The_Orlonater]

While there certainly are very convincing arguments for privatization of all infrastructure, I think it would be more efficient to have LOCAL governments build roads via LOCAL taxes. When a highway needs to be built it should be agreed upon by the local governments...the state gov and feds should have no say in it.

+1

On the subway argument. I find it impossible. Let's take for example a city, like a big one with a big metropolis. That company would have to looks around in the city and buy a lot of property to tear down and build tracks everywhere. There should be a local subsidized public train system(s). The public transportation doesn't always have

It's stupid if you blame the government being involved with the road businuess. If you haven't forgotten, we spend our money overseas. Our governments don't have enough cash. This country is falling apart and we got to rebuild it. Besides, the governments do fix the roads. We just can't fix everything because we're fucking poor. Every god damn thing is falling apart. And some of you don't want to have your money "stolen" so we can have this country rebuilt, because surley that is the worst thing to happen.

 

[The_Orlonater]

Personally, I'm not really against private roads. I just think that if we had money, local governments could fix the roads. Even in systems like these, I wouldn't be against private roads.

But saying that you could have free market public trains(like in a city, not really out in the country, I think you can do it there)

I don't think it can be done.

 

[RCA]

I believe in charity, not taxes.

 

[revolutionary8]

The Constitution gave government the power to collect taxes for postal roads. I do not believe in taxation for public transportation, usage fees should cover the cost. I remember an old Onion quote that goes something like this- "98% of Americans support public transportation for others". lol

I believe that the General Welfare clause is what led states like New York to take the first steps down the path of publicly funded "transportation".

Concerning the General Welfare clause (Article 1 section 8) of the Constitution, Hugh Williamson wrote:
"If congress can apply money indefinitely to the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their hands, they may establish teachers in every state, county and parish, and pay them out of the public treasury; they may take into their hands the education of the children; establish in like manner schools throughout the union, they may undertake the regulation of all roads, other than post raods. In short, everything from the highest object of state legislature down to the most minute objects of police would be thrown under the power of congress. For every object I have mentioned would admit the application and might be called, if congress pleased, provisions of the General Welfare."

Of course when addressing this particular issue in the Federalist Papers, Andrew Jackson called this concern about the General Welfare clause-- "Absurd".

IMO, Hugh Williamson was one of the Union's first "Conspiracy Theorists".

 

[Premonition]

As a historical precedent, roads have been terrible until the government gets involved.

Monopolies are not libertarian. There is no liberty in the forced payment of a service.

Yes they are. Individual liberty requires a monopoly over your own body and land.

 

[Premonition]

All taxation is theft. Private roads ftw!

That's ridiculous.

 

[John of Des Moines]

Before voting, please define "taxes."

Income Taxes - No
Gasoline Excise Tax - Yes
Personal Use Car Registration Taxes - No
Corporate Excise Taxes - Yes
Toll Roads - Yes, if private and handed over to the state government after 20 to 40 years.

 

[ShowMeLiberty]

While there certainly are very convincing arguments for privatization of all infrastructure, I think it would be more efficient to have LOCAL governments build roads via LOCAL taxes. When a highway needs to be built it should be agreed upon by the local governments...the state gov and feds should have no say in it.

+1

On the subway argument. I find it impossible. Let's take for example a city, like a big one with a big metropolis. That company would have to looks around in the city and buy a lot of property to tear down and build tracks everywhere. There should be a local subsidized public train system(s). The public transportation doesn't always have

It's stupid if you blame the government being involved with the road businuess. If you haven't forgotten, we spend our money overseas. Our governments don't have enough cash. This country is falling apart and we got to rebuild it. Besides, the governments do fix the roads. We just can't fix everything because we're fucking poor. Every god damn thing is falling apart. And some of you don't want to have your money "stolen" so we can have this country rebuilt, because surley that is the worst thing to happen.

Before voting, please define "taxes."

Income Taxes - No
Gasoline Excise Tax - Yes
Personal Use Car Registration Taxes - No
Corporate Excise Taxes - Yes
Toll Roads - Yes, if private and handed over to the state government after 20 to 40 years.

^^ These.

Roads, particularly interstate highways, are one of the very, very few things I am willing to pay a reasonable tax and/or usage fee to have.

 

[jeepndesert]

yawn. here we go, anarcho-capitalists trying to stretch the truth and warp reality to fit their narrowed view of applied libertarianism.

libertarianism is not anarcho-capitalism. anarcho-capitalism is merely a utilitarian convenience to PARTIALLY meet the non-coercion principle.

however, anarcho-capitalism alone does not meet the libertarian non-coercion principle.

when you start to research geoism (Henry George, Thomas Paine), you start to realize that geolibertarianism is another utilitarian part of libertarianism like anarcho-capitalism.

we don't want toll roads. why would anyone want to carry around a sack of quarters and stack of toll cards everytime they drive?

the most ideal and most utilitarian are gas taxes. they are a direct measure on how much a person uses the road. some areas, especially rural areas, have different needs and may choose property taxes to fund road construction and maintenance.

you may say, wait a minute, how about people who use gasoline powered equipment. i say fuck them because they are burning a natural resource and should be taxed for robbing the earth of the natural resource when they could be using an ox, rake, or broom. sorry, it isn't a perfect world.

tax the earth. tax the natural resources. redistribute it back to the people. write the right-of-way easements because people have the right to travel across the land and send their electric signals, water, and natural gas.

learn that geoism is a valid part of libertarianism, and you're well on your way to coming to turns with "who will build the roads?" the free market and capitalism isn't the cure all because it misses the point that man does not own the earth and it's fruits, just his labor. everyone has the natural right to an equal share of land and natural resources.

it is statism if you coerce someone into working to buy or rent land and it's fruits. that is why private property rights are flawed and proper libertarian principle must accept that capitalism is only part of the solution, only a convenience for the rights of owning one's own labor.

it is statism if you force someone to pay someone else to travel across the land. you pay for the construction and maintenance of the roads, not the tar that makes up the road, and not the land it runs across. You pay for the labor involved in the roads. You don't pay for the "ownership" or "capitalization" of the land and natural resources the roads use. THIS IS EXACTLY WHERE THE FREE MARKET AND CAPITALISM FAILS TO MEET LIBERTARIAN PRINCIPLE. Roads are tightly associated with land and natural resource ownership when placed in the free market and that is exactly why it doesn't belong in the free market because everyone has equal rights to that land.

you may say, but, but, but the free market is the holy grail. we tax the road owners for the value of their land and tax the oil and tax the tar, gravel, and cement. then, we redistribute it back to everyone so they can pay all those companies to drive on their roads with a bag of quarters in the car and 50 monthly subscriptions. can we get any more obtuse and place that much more power in the hands in the government and corporations just to make the free market religion work in this situation?

can we really depend on the invisible hand to justly divide the land and natural resources in this way? we have the right to travel. we own that land. not some corporation and individual who happened to capitalize it first.

and when you understand that, you're on your way to understand how socialism also fits into an ideal application of the libertarian principle because excessive capitalization is the same dangerous power as any state if it isn't being put to justified use.

there isn't a simple solution. it requires many principles because reality is complex. this is where utilitarian principle comes in to guide us in the application of the libertarian principle with many other principles.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

You people who love government roads should read these:

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Tired of the Paparazzi? Privatize the Roads and Other Spaces[/FONT][/FONT]


[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]No More Government Roads[/FONT][/FONT]



as well as "The Market For Liberty".

 

[travismofo]

That's ridiculous.

You're right, its ridiculous. Just like private phone and internet companies, just like people running their own businesses, just like any shameful company that tries to market a product or service for a filthy profit.

 

[The_Orlonater]

+1

On the subway argument. I find it impossible. Let's take for example a city, like a big one with a big metropolis. That company would have to looks around in the city and buy a lot of property to tear down and build tracks everywhere. There should be a local subsidized public train system(s). The public transportation doesn't always have

It's stupid if you blame the government being involved with the road businuess. If you haven't forgotten, we spend our money overseas. Our governments don't have enough cash. This country is falling apart and we got to rebuild it. Besides, the governments do fix the roads. We just can't fix everything because we're fucking poor. Every god damn thing is falling apart. And some of you don't want to have your money "stolen" so we can have this country rebuilt, because surley that is the worst thing to happen.

Oh, what do you know. The anarchists can't come up with an argument.

 

[nickcoons]

everyone has the natural right to an equal share of land and natural resources.

I disagree with your entire premise, and this point in particular.

"My labor" and "the fruits of my labor" cannot be separated. One is exchanged for the other. Labor is simply a potential, and when put to use created fruits of labor which is the actual. I own one just as I own the other. If I extract iron ore from the earth and use the iron to build something, then I own the end product. The earth did not produce the end result; I did, and it is because of this act that I own the end product. With ownership of the product comes with the ability to transfer ownership to someone else at whatever price I set. I am not forcing someone to work, because I am not forcing someone to accept ownership of the product. It is their choice if they want to purchase my product for the price that I have set. They could very well do what I did and make their own product, or they could seek employment at something they were more efficient at and purchase the product I made on my terms. No force has been used, so no theft or slavery has taken place.

No one is born with ownership of anything other than themselves. Therefore, someone cannot be born with a share of ownership of the earth. Ownership of property comes from expending one's own labor toward the end of acquiring property. The state of owning property means that the owner has control of that property and how it may be disposed of.

Everything ultimately comes from the earth (excluding items from outer space, which for simplicity's sake I won't go into). So to claim that one cannot own land would imply that one cannot own anything, because everything comes from land. And to say that nothing can be owned is to say that no one has control over how property may be disposed of. All property that can be used is by definition owned by the individual that has the authority to decide how it may be used.

 

[nickcoons]

Oh, what do you know. The anarchists can't come up with an argument.

Maybe the anarcho-capitalists are tired of having this discussion because we've had it many times before and have proven our points. For more information, see numerous articles written on the site linked to in your signature.

 

[The_Orlonater]

Maybe the anarcho-capitalists are tired of having this discussion because we've had it many times before and have proven our points. For more information, see numerous articles written on the site linked to in your signature.

I've read them, and I don't agree with everything. I like most of mises.org.
You guys never had the arguments with argument I provided.

 

[jeepndesert]

I disagree with your entire premise, and this point in particular.

"My labor" and "the fruits of my labor" cannot be separated. One is exchanged for the other. Labor is simply a potential, and when put to use created fruits of labor which is the actual. I own one just as I own the other. If I extract iron ore from the earth and use the iron to build something, then I own the end product. The earth did not produce the end result; I did, and it is because of this act that I own the end product. With ownership of the product comes with the ability to transfer ownership to someone else at whatever price I set. I am not forcing someone to work, because I am not forcing someone to accept ownership of the product. It is their choice if they want to purchase my product for the price that I have set. They could very well do what I did and make their own product, or they could seek employment at something they were more efficient at and purchase the product I made on my terms. No force has been used, so no theft or slavery has taken place.

No one is born with ownership of anything other than themselves. Therefore, someone cannot be born with a share of ownership of the earth. Ownership of property comes from expending one's own labor toward the end of acquiring property. The state of owning property means that the owner has control of that property and how it may be disposed of.

Everything ultimately comes from the earth (excluding items from outer space, which for simplicity's sake I won't go into). So to claim that one cannot own land would imply that one cannot own anything, because everything comes from land. And to say that nothing can be owned is to say that no one has control over how property may be disposed of. All property that can be used is by definition owned by the individual that has the authority to decide how it may be used.

again, you miss the point COMPLETELY.

i believe rothbard even brought up this point.....

if what you say is all true, i can visit your "private property" and if i see an inch of it which doesn't have evidence of your labor attached to it, i can grab it, thus, adding my labor to it, and take it away. or i can stick my flag in it and claim i now own the land because i put my labor into it by sticking a flag into it.

this is where your little world of free market capitalism idealogy completely breaks down and where taxes and redistribution of wealth come in to solve the crisis.

this is where you contradict yourself and make retarded statements as you try to defend an invalid application of free market capitalism.

 

[jeepndesert]

Maybe the anarcho-capitalists are tired of having this discussion because we've had it many times before and have proven our points. For more information, see numerous articles written on the site linked to in your signature.

i masturbated several times, and thus, proven you're all retards. for more information, come watch me on web cam while i masturbate to my propaganda and psuedo-intellectual discourse on how i masturbated on the earth and thus own it until my balls and mind is completely empty with the same bullshit that ignores where it fails.