Inevitably when you talk about freedom, people ask about the poor. So with private roads and highways, how would the poor be helped who now have to pay for what was once "free?"
Under this hypothetical let's give all conditions, that means all the costs from the DoT, etc., no longer exist. That does not mean that the costs for roads is gone, that means what the government took out of their income through taxes to pay for roads should no longer exist either. This means the money that was taken from them to pay for the whole is not taken, so they can pay directly for what they do use.
My own problems with this is that it's unknown what the government does and doesn't take, so it can be argued against that money is still taken (I can only use this hypothetical in the full context when someone claims what happens if all these government programs no longer exist, well, for the poor they don't have to pay for them!)
Another is that of collective money pools people pay into and receive what they need per week or month for the roads they travel on average, and what they pay into is based on various circumstances that's beyond the thought of one individual.
As far as public transit goes, if the government pulls completely out of all transportation issues you'll most likely see cheaper private transit (I can't dig it up at the moment, but the LvMI FB page posted an article couple weeks ago about a private taxi company that was no licensed, and they were quicker and cheaper than the public transit, but kept getting fined for their business practices - not asking the government to transport people and doing it better than they can).
I realize it's always a bit lackluster to get one of these kinds of responses, but in this case the available resource is quite perfect, so I'd like to make an exception...Block has provided the first full treatise on the subject....you can read it for free, and check out the links for excerpts and related content...
Whenever you consider roads, remember that they are currently essentially a government monopoly. This means that they lack innovation. If the roads are privatized, then I see much more innovative ways to fund the roads being created. We cannot imagine how they could be run. For example, I predict that there may be some roads which are free to consumers and are funded through a new type of advertisement.
First, there would be very few poor people. The economy would prosper beyond imagination without the State getting in the way. Even now, poor people can afford cars, cellphones, HD TVs, etc. Consider that, then consider that these very same people would be much wealthier with a healthier economy.
Secondly, competition would lower prices. Right now the road is monopolized, we have road socialism. There is no rational way to allocate the resources for road production, so they are naturally going to be more expensive and wasteful.
Lastly, businesses want the business of even poor people. IMO, without the State, most roads would be built and maintained by businesses and homeowners. Who is going to build a business with no road access, and who would make it so expensive that poor people would not be able to use them?
Also, I think it is likely that if a person is so poor that they can't afford to drive on the very affordable roads, they are also probably too poor to even be able to afford to buy a car. But again, I don't think we can underestimate just how wealthy people would become in a free society.
Old-fashioned charity.
Heather Malin:So with private roads and highways, how would the poor be helped who now have to pay for what was once "free?"
The Communists probably asked the same thing about food and clothing.
Why anarchy fails
the way I see it:
Large highways: run by big corporations, funded by advertising and licencing out rest stops to rest stop companies (or run internally), and if neccessary, tolls.
neighborhood roads: run by the homeowners association or a small company or co-op consisting of the local people who use the road the most. Funding could be through pay schemes where you are protected from the free rider problem (you agree to pay, but don't actually pay until a certain % of other people also agree to pay)
Roads in comercial areas could be owned and run by the local businesses or at least mostly funded by them. the collective landlords of a certain area could form a holding company and then hire a third party company that specializes in building and maintaining commercial roads.
And then important roads that connect all of these roads together, but aren;t really major highways could be paid for by medium sized companies again on a toll and ad based structure or provided for by charities.
if you're a poor, you don't have a job, a car etc. So why the hell poor people would need roads? Hm
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
Heather Malin: Inevitably when you talk about freedom, people ask about the poor. So with private roads and highways, how would the poor be helped who now have to pay for what was once "free?"
You could always do a reductio: If a woman gave away sex for free, but then she started charging for it, should she be forced to continue to give it up for free? But the counter to that is that you are you are changing the subject, which isn't true, but at least you'll realize that the person that you are talking to is not being serious.
Also, the usage of roads is not free; there are plenty of taxes and fees that the users of the roads pay. Doesn't the person with which you are arguing not realize that there are toll bridges? You can't cross a bridge into San Francisco without paying. You can't take public transportation into San Francisco without paying.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Moved my question to here