I have noticed that the issue of public goods has been a contentious topic among libertarians. While many Austrians deny that "public goods" pose an exception to traditional free-market thought, others, such as those on EconLog and fringeelement's video series on libertarianism, propose that public goods such as fire prevention and capillary roads cannot be dealt with in the traditional manner of free-market products and instead suggest that a contractual agreement be formed among residents to provide for the payment of public goods and restrictions on their use. Do the people here tend to agree more with the former viewpoint or the latter, and for what reason? Would it be likely that different communities may encounter these problems in different ways (depending on their population density for example)?
Roads are not traditionally a public good. They are a private good that was socialized in the 19th century.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Would this include capillary roads in urban areas?
Until the 20th century all roads were capillary roads.
Ceaser wold disagree with you that roads were not public goods until the 20th century.
(what I'm saying is, I didn't see where in that article it addressed/proved your claim ^)
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin