POLITICS PART 7: WHAT ABOUT ROADS?!
Many are receptive to the philosophical concepts of rights, the non-aggression principle, and might even be willing to follow those consistently to condemn the current structure of the state and taxation. However, there is an inevitable, knee-jerk reaction as this philosophic theory meets reality, when one realizes things like state-run infrastructure or education is implicated. Clearly, any rational person knows these things must remain fixtures of the state, so philosophy is abandoned and rationalizations for taxation and the state rush back in with a vengeance. This mindset is so prevalent and predictable, that the whole "who will build the roads" line has become a cliché joke in many libertarian circles. Somehow, we've all been wired in a way where we see the private sector come up with unfathomable advances in almost every marketplace, yet we can't imagine it figuring out how to connect us from point A to B.
This starts to depart from the scope of this site, which is philosophy, into more practical matters, but it's a necessary departure. Cliché or not, this is sometimes an honest and valid objection, and needs to be answered. Most libertarians who have resolved these issues in their heads would still admit to it being a stumbling block at one point if they were honest. The question needs to be examined; are things like infrastructure and education unique goods and services that are best provided by the state using coercive tactics, or can we hold our views on morality consistently and trust the free market?
This starts to depart from the scope of this site, which is philosophy, into more practical matters, but it's a necessary departure. Cliché or not, this is sometimes an honest and valid objection, and needs to be answered. Most libertarians who have resolved these issues in their heads would still admit to it being a stumbling block at one point if they were honest. The question needs to be examined; are things like infrastructure and education unique goods and services that are best provided by the state using coercive tactics, or can we hold our views on morality consistently and trust the free market?
This is a very brief overview. For a more scholarly, in-depth look, Walter Block's Privatization of Roads and Highways is a good start.
ROADS AND INFRASTRUCTURE
It's a little strange to think about it; public roads alone are responsible for 30-40,000 deaths a year, not to mention hypertension inducing daily gridlock in almost every major city, yet few blame the manager. They throw up their hands in resignation, and just accept these things as metaphysically given. It's hard to imagine such patience if roads were managed by private entities! Today, most take it for granted that the government builds and manages roads, railroads, subways, and even airports. Many would be surprised to learn that there are countless examples of infrastructure, both present and past, that were built and successfully run privately. The New York Subway was largely private in the beginning, as were many early roads. The Great Northern Railroad, created by James J. Hill in the late 1800s, connected St. Paul to Seattle, no small feat given the geography of the west. He did this with no federal funds, and no federal land grants. Unlike the railroads that did get subsidies during that time, the Great Northern didn't go bankrupt, was profitable, and better built. Today, there are a surprising number of private industrial roads and toll roads, not to mention roads through gated communities and business centers. However, due to the ubiquitous nature of government planning, it's not realistic for private enterprises to invest the capital necessary to compete with "free" roads. Remember, at least $.40-.60 per gallon of gas goes to fund our "free" roads (not to mention other taxes), so even if one avoided them, they would still be forced to pay for it.
ROADS AND INFRASTRUCTURE
It's a little strange to think about it; public roads alone are responsible for 30-40,000 deaths a year, not to mention hypertension inducing daily gridlock in almost every major city, yet few blame the manager. They throw up their hands in resignation, and just accept these things as metaphysically given. It's hard to imagine such patience if roads were managed by private entities! Today, most take it for granted that the government builds and manages roads, railroads, subways, and even airports. Many would be surprised to learn that there are countless examples of infrastructure, both present and past, that were built and successfully run privately. The New York Subway was largely private in the beginning, as were many early roads. The Great Northern Railroad, created by James J. Hill in the late 1800s, connected St. Paul to Seattle, no small feat given the geography of the west. He did this with no federal funds, and no federal land grants. Unlike the railroads that did get subsidies during that time, the Great Northern didn't go bankrupt, was profitable, and better built. Today, there are a surprising number of private industrial roads and toll roads, not to mention roads through gated communities and business centers. However, due to the ubiquitous nature of government planning, it's not realistic for private enterprises to invest the capital necessary to compete with "free" roads. Remember, at least $.40-.60 per gallon of gas goes to fund our "free" roads (not to mention other taxes), so even if one avoided them, they would still be forced to pay for it.
This seems efficient!
TRAFFIC
Perhaps the most frustrating headache with public roads is the traffic. In virtually every city, there is predictable gridlock every morning and evening, as the bulk of people congregate on the roads traveling to and from work. It's truly mind-boggling the amount of lost productivity and leisure lost, as otherwise productive people sit hours each week in traffic. There are clumsy attempts by governments to solve this issue, but most throw up their hands and accept this as the nature of travel, and assume it would involve massive expense to fix. For government, yes, but in the private sector, companies always seem to figure out ways to limit gridlock. It's not as though roads are the only example of services that have uneven demands. Somehow, flower retailers figure out how to accommodate their customers on Valentine's Day or Mother's Day, when demand is exponentially higher than the rest of the year. Restaurants typically don't have lines out the door during the lunch hour, despite the spike in business. After all, waiting around an hour for food during the workday would be unproductive! If left to the free market, the same efforts would be made to minimize traffic delays, as entrepreneurs would figure out the most efficient way to solve the problem of gridlock.
Perhaps the most frustrating headache with public roads is the traffic. In virtually every city, there is predictable gridlock every morning and evening, as the bulk of people congregate on the roads traveling to and from work. It's truly mind-boggling the amount of lost productivity and leisure lost, as otherwise productive people sit hours each week in traffic. There are clumsy attempts by governments to solve this issue, but most throw up their hands and accept this as the nature of travel, and assume it would involve massive expense to fix. For government, yes, but in the private sector, companies always seem to figure out ways to limit gridlock. It's not as though roads are the only example of services that have uneven demands. Somehow, flower retailers figure out how to accommodate their customers on Valentine's Day or Mother's Day, when demand is exponentially higher than the rest of the year. Restaurants typically don't have lines out the door during the lunch hour, despite the spike in business. After all, waiting around an hour for food during the workday would be unproductive! If left to the free market, the same efforts would be made to minimize traffic delays, as entrepreneurs would figure out the most efficient way to solve the problem of gridlock.
CITATIONS AND RULES
Another annoyance with the government is their enforcement of traffic laws. Some sort of rules are necessary for roads to work, but the necessary ones would be implemented in a private system. Likely, a private road would figure out a better way to encourage safe operation than setting up secret stings to fine their customers. Much of traffic and parking enforcement is not really about safety, it's about revenue for the state. With no incentive to cater to the consumer, there's little incentive to stop the abuse. Parking meters are the perfect example; why have a system where one must predict how long they'll be gone, and then hit them with a huge fine if they're a few minutes late? When parking in private lots, you pay one fee, or based on time in the lot. It's hard to imagine a private parking lot existing that had as little regard for their customers as a parking enforcement cop! Furthermore, think of all the unnecessary interaction public roads give us to the police. Enforcing government street rules gives them the means to pull over and search people's cars for a variety of justifications. The function of a police force should not be to monitor a population and set up stings to pull over people going 55 in a 45 zone. Their purpose should be to protect the population from criminals, the monitoring and enforcement of traffic rules can be done much better by private entities.
Another annoyance with the government is their enforcement of traffic laws. Some sort of rules are necessary for roads to work, but the necessary ones would be implemented in a private system. Likely, a private road would figure out a better way to encourage safe operation than setting up secret stings to fine their customers. Much of traffic and parking enforcement is not really about safety, it's about revenue for the state. With no incentive to cater to the consumer, there's little incentive to stop the abuse. Parking meters are the perfect example; why have a system where one must predict how long they'll be gone, and then hit them with a huge fine if they're a few minutes late? When parking in private lots, you pay one fee, or based on time in the lot. It's hard to imagine a private parking lot existing that had as little regard for their customers as a parking enforcement cop! Furthermore, think of all the unnecessary interaction public roads give us to the police. Enforcing government street rules gives them the means to pull over and search people's cars for a variety of justifications. The function of a police force should not be to monitor a population and set up stings to pull over people going 55 in a 45 zone. Their purpose should be to protect the population from criminals, the monitoring and enforcement of traffic rules can be done much better by private entities.
TOLLS AT EVERY CORNER?
All but the most ardent socialists accept that the private sector does things much more efficiently and competently than the state, but there are a few main stumbling blocks to private roads. One is the nature of tolls. The impression is that with many owners, we'd be stopping every block or two to make toll payments. Travel would turn into a mind-numbing experience of digging for spare change. This is highly unlikely, as it would be a huge inconvenience and tick off customers. It would be in both the customer and the road operator's interest to make travel as easy, quick and smooth as possible. With the transponder technology of today, it's very likely private roads would use hands free tracking devices and customers would never even pay directly. Think of an ATM card. A customer might bank only at Chase, but their ATM card "miraculously" works in almost every machine in the world. It would be a huge inconvenience and frustration to carry many cards, so the market has solved this problem. Or consider a cell phone. It doesn't hiccup as it moves through different towers or providers. Companies work on the best way to give their customers seamless operation, else they'll lose business to a competitor who does.
All but the most ardent socialists accept that the private sector does things much more efficiently and competently than the state, but there are a few main stumbling blocks to private roads. One is the nature of tolls. The impression is that with many owners, we'd be stopping every block or two to make toll payments. Travel would turn into a mind-numbing experience of digging for spare change. This is highly unlikely, as it would be a huge inconvenience and tick off customers. It would be in both the customer and the road operator's interest to make travel as easy, quick and smooth as possible. With the transponder technology of today, it's very likely private roads would use hands free tracking devices and customers would never even pay directly. Think of an ATM card. A customer might bank only at Chase, but their ATM card "miraculously" works in almost every machine in the world. It would be a huge inconvenience and frustration to carry many cards, so the market has solved this problem. Or consider a cell phone. It doesn't hiccup as it moves through different towers or providers. Companies work on the best way to give their customers seamless operation, else they'll lose business to a competitor who does.
WHAT ABOUT THE LAND?
Another objection lies with obtaining the necessary land. The government can decree a road necessary and kick previous owners who are in the way out to build it, private entities can't (without violating rights and the NAP). It's hardly noble to endorse a system that forces innocent people off their land, and those like James J. Hill showed even huge projects are possible without such measures. Most land on highways and interstates is relatively cheap and barren anyway, but if there were some holdouts in crucial spots, entrepreneurs would have to deal with it by paying more or figuring out an alternate route. Ironically, it was the railroads without public funding that tended to be straighter and more efficient, as the subsidized ones were paid per mile, and often meandered needlessly to secure additional funds. The market has a remarkable way of allocating land for its most efficient use, and any landowners who think their land is more valuable than it is will run into the brick wall of economics and the marketplace. There is clearly a great economic value to roads, and entrepreneurs would figure out the best way to connect people.
Another objection lies with obtaining the necessary land. The government can decree a road necessary and kick previous owners who are in the way out to build it, private entities can't (without violating rights and the NAP). It's hardly noble to endorse a system that forces innocent people off their land, and those like James J. Hill showed even huge projects are possible without such measures. Most land on highways and interstates is relatively cheap and barren anyway, but if there were some holdouts in crucial spots, entrepreneurs would have to deal with it by paying more or figuring out an alternate route. Ironically, it was the railroads without public funding that tended to be straighter and more efficient, as the subsidized ones were paid per mile, and often meandered needlessly to secure additional funds. The market has a remarkable way of allocating land for its most efficient use, and any landowners who think their land is more valuable than it is will run into the brick wall of economics and the marketplace. There is clearly a great economic value to roads, and entrepreneurs would figure out the best way to connect people.
MONOPOLIES?
Another fear is that roads would become monopolies and force its users to pay exorbitant rates. Again, the study of economics doesn't support this. First, the owner would likely want to maximize profits. If a highway operator raised prices above market levels of supply and demand, they would get less users and revenue than at a market price. At some point, customers would start car-pooling or changing their habits to avoid traveling as much on the road. Roads that were paid for by retail businesses (like in a downtown or mall setting) would want as many people to frequent them as possible, and these would likely be free. If a road operator did start overcharging and raking in huge profits, this would attract new competitors to the market. As long as the market is free, the laws of economics will tend to create the best product at the lowest price. It's only when an entity can corner a market by nefarious means (which almost always involves the help of government) where the customers get fleeced.
Some argue that in towns or cities there might be only one way in or out, or one "Main Street". How horrible it would be if there was only one service provider! It's quite rare that there's only one way in or out of a town, but if one entity ended up owning all the streets in a small town, so what? There's often only one gas station, mechanic, pharmacy or baker in a town. It's not as if this creates a situation where the baker charges exorbitant rates for bread. It's not only in their interest to keep as many customers as possible, but also to compete with another potential business who could open up shop at any moment.
Another fear is that roads would become monopolies and force its users to pay exorbitant rates. Again, the study of economics doesn't support this. First, the owner would likely want to maximize profits. If a highway operator raised prices above market levels of supply and demand, they would get less users and revenue than at a market price. At some point, customers would start car-pooling or changing their habits to avoid traveling as much on the road. Roads that were paid for by retail businesses (like in a downtown or mall setting) would want as many people to frequent them as possible, and these would likely be free. If a road operator did start overcharging and raking in huge profits, this would attract new competitors to the market. As long as the market is free, the laws of economics will tend to create the best product at the lowest price. It's only when an entity can corner a market by nefarious means (which almost always involves the help of government) where the customers get fleeced.
Some argue that in towns or cities there might be only one way in or out, or one "Main Street". How horrible it would be if there was only one service provider! It's quite rare that there's only one way in or out of a town, but if one entity ended up owning all the streets in a small town, so what? There's often only one gas station, mechanic, pharmacy or baker in a town. It's not as if this creates a situation where the baker charges exorbitant rates for bread. It's not only in their interest to keep as many customers as possible, but also to compete with another potential business who could open up shop at any moment.
WHAT WOULD PRIVATE ROADS LOOK LIKE?
It's really impossible to lay out just how a private infrastructure system would play out if the government stopped supplying the service. Imagine someone trying to predict the cell phone industry in 1990. What kinds of phones would there be? Where would the towers be built? How would they work together? Probably not many would predict the fantastic improvements in efficiency and uses. Now, imagine the government took over the industry in its infancy, would we have the same level of service and innovation? Probably not even close, we'd likely still have bulky phones that charged roaming fees every time we left our area code!
Similarly, attempts at predicting or contemplating all the intricacies of infrastructure would be futile. All we do know is the private sector is constantly working to improve and meet consumer demands through the profit and loss mechanism. Inconveniences like traffic would be diminished, costs would drop, police harassment would decrease, and safety would go up. With a government monopoly, there is little incentive for these things to improve, so they seldom do. Most importantly, having a free market, instead of a coercive state monopoly, jives with the philosophical ideals of morality, and should be the goal of a truly free society.
It's really impossible to lay out just how a private infrastructure system would play out if the government stopped supplying the service. Imagine someone trying to predict the cell phone industry in 1990. What kinds of phones would there be? Where would the towers be built? How would they work together? Probably not many would predict the fantastic improvements in efficiency and uses. Now, imagine the government took over the industry in its infancy, would we have the same level of service and innovation? Probably not even close, we'd likely still have bulky phones that charged roaming fees every time we left our area code!
Similarly, attempts at predicting or contemplating all the intricacies of infrastructure would be futile. All we do know is the private sector is constantly working to improve and meet consumer demands through the profit and loss mechanism. Inconveniences like traffic would be diminished, costs would drop, police harassment would decrease, and safety would go up. With a government monopoly, there is little incentive for these things to improve, so they seldom do. Most importantly, having a free market, instead of a coercive state monopoly, jives with the philosophical ideals of morality, and should be the goal of a truly free society.