Quantcast

Privatize streets and roads?

Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆ 2012/06/11 02:22:53
You!
Add Photos & Videos

Ayn Rand told Alvin (Future Shock) Toffler that private persons and private companies should own and keep up all streets and roads. The government, she said, should worry only about using force when it had to, against those who wrongfully use force against others. That’s what police, armies, and law courts are for.


Obviously she never said that people would neglect to plow the streets in the winter, or keep bridges up. So why would anyone think that they would? Because they forget that public streets, roads, and bridges do not spring into being out of nothing. Someone builds them.


History of road building


For most of human history, governments built roads. Kings and
emperors built the most famous and longest-lasting roads. Ancient Rome’s
roads are the most famous.


All roads lead to Rome.


Those roads did not come out of nothing. Roman magistrates built the first of Rome’s roads. For much of their history,
local townsfolk kept up the roads that passed through their towns. At
other times, an ambitious Roman Senator (e.g., a young Julius Caesar)
would volunteer to keep up a road. Keeping a long road in good
repair earned him votes. That system hasn’t changed much since then.
Details have changed, but fundamentals have not.


But people have almost completely forgotten that private enterprise and private initiative
once played prominent roles in road-building. The Industrial Revolution
in England might never have been, except that several Turnpike Trusts formed to build long-haul roads in England. In America, the first good long-haul roads were also private turnpikes. The first of these was the Lancaster Turnpike in southeastern Pennsylvania.


More recently, Murray Rothbard (no friend of Ayn Rand), in For a New Liberty (1973), wrote the most comprehensive treatment yet of how to build, run, and price roads privately.

Read the rest of the article (see link below) for details, and some exquisite ironies about all the things that critics of Ayn Rand say are wrong with American road-building projects. Things that, in the Ayn Rand world, would not happen.

Read More: http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/06/10...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆ 2012/06/11 02:25:36
    Yes. We've done it before; we can do it again. And how else can we even affor...
    Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
    +8
    As I said in the post: we've done the private-road thing before. Not many people remember the original Turnpikes. Private companies built those, not any highway departments. Those would not come until much later.

    Everything that has gone wrong with transportation, you can blame on the government. Distortion of markets, favoritism, you name it, it happened. It's time to get the government out of transportation. Completely.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • vis_viva 2012/06/26 00:58:17
    No. Public roads have to stay public to be accessible, or well-kept.
    vis_viva
    Just another wild objectivist fantasy. Any Rand was as flawed a philosopher as Karl Marx. They are flip sides of the same unbalanced coin. Every great human endeavor and every great society was a balance of individualism and collectivism aka self-interested and teamwork aka us and me. There are there are things a nation will need and want to do that are NOT the purvey of business.
  • goblue1968 2012/06/13 12:37:05
    No. Public roads have to stay public to be accessible, or well-kept.
    goblue1968
    I hate to say it, but this is a lesser of the two evils choice.

    There is a better probability of public roads being maintained, although with an admittedly much higher cost because of the unavoidable "strings" attached.

    Although, I have to admit, that the outstanding national interstate highway system (the "I" numbers-north/south odds, east/west evens) was started during the Eisenhower (Republican) administration and we don't pay "per use" tolls on them like we have to do on the turnpikes (we just do it with our tax dollar donations).
  • beach bum 2012/06/13 08:46:49
    No. Public roads have to stay public to be accessible, or well-kept.
    beach bum
    no
  • EdVenture 2012/06/12 03:35:53
    Undecided
    EdVenture
    This is nothing more than a ploy to put up tolls everywhere. Private sector builds the roards, I built roads on developments of mine that had to meet certain government standards, above the minimum, before approved and released, freeing up my bonding to allow for the sale of lots/homes. The government one they accept the road assumes the maintenance. In one town i had to pay for street lights for two years. Gas taxes go to the roads and fares where they apply to keep them or make them safe as change occurs. Privatization always ends up being abused and a failure.
  • Revolution 2012 2012/06/11 18:23:06 (edited)
    No. Public roads have to stay public to be accessible, or well-kept.
    Revolution 2012
    +2
    Privatizing roads does not seem like a feasible idea - the "owner" could decide not to invest in maintaining the road or the road could fall into disrepair in financial meltdowns. Giving a single person or organization control over a publicly available system does not make any sense, since it can be used as an act against the people based on the feelings or wealth of the owner. In Canada, we have an "Adopt a Road" system. While it does work for a good amount of the time, it is terrible for small communities, where not as much money is invested, and the roads there are considerably worse off than those in larger cities using the "Adopt a Road" system. Since Canada is filled with small communities, there are many poorly maintained roads as a result. I have also noticed that, in comparison to private road management, publicly funded road management works just as well or better, and the process of reparation and construction is much less complicated. While I advocate smaller government, transportation should be held to higher regulatory standard and should be maintained on a federal and state level.
  • Warren ... Revolut... 2012/06/11 19:43:35
    Warren - Novus Ordo Seclorum
    +2
    I am both surprised and pleased to see your comment based on your nickname and avatar.
  • Revolut... Warren ... 2012/06/12 01:30:38
    Revolution 2012
    +3
    You should not be quick to judge someone based on their affiliation, for the record. I support many of Ron Paul's positions, such as those on limited government and states rights, but I also believe that certain sectors need stricter controls to guarentee public safety and promote public interests. I'm actually more of a Moderate Libertarian than a Conservative in some respects, but I am open to many new ideas. Thanks for the comment. Free raves for everyone! =)
  • Racefish 2012/06/11 16:50:22
    No. Public roads have to stay public to be accessible, or well-kept.
    Racefish
    +2
    Article I section 8:
    "To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;"
  • Temlako... Racefish 2012/06/11 18:09:14
    Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
    +1
    Repeal that, then.
  • Racefish Temlako... 2012/06/11 20:32:55
    Racefish
    It's part of the duties of Congress. If you get rid of one thing it makes it all that much easier to purge something else.
    Cato suggested doing this in lieu of the gas tax. If the gas tax was set as a persentage of the barrel price of oil, it wouldn't be a problem since it would fluctuate with inflation. However, we know the mentality of most of the lawmakers. They tend to be arrogant and stubborn. The never seem to admit they made a mistake untill they are up to their eyeballs in excrement.
  • Warren - Novus Ordo Seclorum 2012/06/11 16:41:28
    No. Public roads have to stay public to be accessible, or well-kept.
    Warren - Novus Ordo Seclorum
    +1
    In college, I lived off a private cul de sac maintained by the apartment complex where I lived. During a big snowstorm, the complex decided it was not worth their effort to plow the cul de sac, and so my car was immobile for over a week. Luckily the taxpayer subsidized bus service and taxpayer subsidized roads were still available, or I would have been stranded.
  • Temlako... Warren ... 2012/06/11 18:09:51
    Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
    +1
    Instead of demanding a free ride, why didn't you organize a shovel brigade?
  • Warren ... Temlako... 2012/06/11 18:26:35
    Warren - Novus Ordo Seclorum
    What free ride? I paid rent to live in the apartments. And as a graduate student working 60 hr weeks, I couldn't afford to take a day off to shovel snow. I realize the apartments had no legal requirement to mantain the cul de sac snow free, no should they. I'm just showing privatized roads would be subject to the whims of landlords, and as such their condition would be unreliable.
  • Temlako... Warren ... 2012/06/11 18:44:17
    Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
    +1
    Didn't you read the lease agreement? You should have gotten the snow clearance thing settled before you signed the lease.
  • Warren ... Temlako... 2012/06/11 19:40:41
    Warren - Novus Ordo Seclorum
    It was usually not an issue, and they do plow the snow when classes were in session. This was during the winter holiday. But in any case, I had no beef with the apartments, the city provided an adequate public transportation system anyway. My point is that privatization of roads is not necessarily desirable. Roads, by their nature are monopolies, and therefore the consumer has very little leverage. To use econ-speak, markets do not maximize utility when there is limited competition.
  • Mike 2012/06/11 16:18:46
    No. Public roads have to stay public to be accessible, or well-kept.
    Mike
    +1
    That;s happened on toll roads in Florida, and they're continuously raising the tolls
  • Matt 2012/06/11 16:01:59
    Undecided
    Matt
    +1
    All of this wouldn't be necessary if we could take our government back from the private sector.
  • Contarded Chickenhawk Con S... 2012/06/11 15:52:51
    No. Public roads have to stay public to be accessible, or well-kept.
    Contarded Chickenhawk Con Slayer
    +2
    I've seen private neighborhoods destroyed because they wanted private roads... a lot of people lost millions $$$ because after they FAILED to take care of the roads and made traveling through the neighborhood a riot, the real estate market bottom out... and the neighborhood died.
  • RageFury 2012/06/11 15:43:33
    Undecided
    RageFury
    +1
    We will still be paying for it either way so perhaps a private company might be able to do it cheaper. My only issue is what happens when one or more of these companies, for whatever random reason, tries to refuse someone the use of the road and inhibits free travel?
  • Chance 2012/06/11 14:25:41
    No. Public roads have to stay public to be accessible, or well-kept.
    Chance
    +3
    It is one of the few things gov IS supposed to do. It's in the Constitution. Don't change our Constitution!
  • Annette 2012/06/11 14:18:33
    Undecided
    Annette
    +1
    Has anyone ever driven some of the streets and roads (cough, cough) that are in and around say - Chicago - Ft.Worth - Baltimore - Akron - St, Louis - and I am sure there are many more places that could be named? If you think they are badly kept now - LMAO - just try to privatize them and see what happens.
    Sorry, this is one Ayn Rand is way out of orbit on. I would have chosen the "NO" answer except it was stipulated that public roads under our states, cities, and counties would be accessible and well-kept. The best thing I can say there is at least they are "there"! Could you imagine asking a small company, or even several small companies to build and maintain a road? What happens if they go out of business? Who picks it up then?
  • OPOA912 2012/06/11 14:18:20
    Yes. We've done it before; we can do it again. And how else can we even affor...
    OPOA912
    +3
    I'm sorry but if any of you lived in San Diego you'd vote for privatization. The City roads are a disaster, and all the City wants to do is spend money on a library, which is great for the homeless, but does nothing for the tax payers. Street maintenance is provided by City Employees who get huge pensions and benefits, the private sector is more competitive and is better at performing that job.
  • Kiosk Kid OPOA912 2012/06/11 19:00:02
    Kiosk Kid
    +1
    Maybe, it is the decisions of the government officials that are the problem. Maybe you need to elect government officials that have a clue. Liberals generally only understand how to buy votes with welfare programs.

    They aren't geared toward creating a sound private market environment.
  • OPOA912 Kiosk Kid 2012/06/11 20:20:36
    OPOA912
    +2
    About 4 years ago I left the City of San Diego and moved to El Cajon. You're absolutely right, El Cajon has conservatives on the City Council and they know how to run a government and create a positive environment for business. The City has a surplus and has some of the best roads in the County. It is one of the best places to live considering the services and support from the City.
  • Kiosk Kid OPOA912 2012/06/11 21:44:40
    Kiosk Kid
    It would be difficult to make the roads private because corporations are successful only because they make intelligent decision to make profits. However, if they have a monopoly, people are really going to loose. If they have competition, you are going to see two roads owned by two different companies next to each other.

    Why would private companies fix the roads? With the government, people that aren’t satisfied can at least vote for new management. You voted with your feet and moved out.

    The problem with San Diego is that people are more concerned with lining their pockets with welfare programs then they are about descent roads.
  • Temlako... Kiosk Kid 2012/06/11 22:56:05
    Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
    +1
    A thoroughfare can never be a monopoly, because there always is an alternate route, and no operator can guarantee that a given traveler will not find that alternate route.

    The street where you live would be an extension of your house. Or so you would make clear before you signed a deed.

    In either case, of course the private companies would keep those roads in repair, to please their clients. Their clients are either the home or business owners along the road, or the motorists who use them.

    Indeed the whole "natural monopoly" theory fails when you stop to consider: What did people do before they built the road, or whatever?
  • Kiosk Kid Temlako... 2012/06/12 00:28:08 (edited)
    Kiosk Kid
    Wasn't the title of your post; Privatize streets and roads? Are you talking about a contract to fix roads or are you talking about privately owned roads?

    If one company owns all of the roads then you have a monopoly. If two companies own all of the roads you will have a mess.

    Before they built roads they walked on dirt or whatever Nature laid down.
  • OPOA912 Kiosk Kid 2012/06/11 23:55:15
    OPOA912
    +2
    Since we passed Prop A, now anyone who is qualified can bid on these projects. So we should start seeing the advantage of competition. A couple of points;

    1. Companies should not own a road. They should bid on the maintenace of that road and any repairs. Very easily done, since I manage millions of dollars of assets I can tell you that outside resources are more efficient and cost effective.

    2. Your right about San Diego, the Mayor's race has Brian Billbray in the lead and if he gets in, stand by. Can you say Detroit?

    3. Last, no one understands about maintenance of roadways. You need to maintain them in order for the roads to last. The longer you let them go, the more it costs to fix them. A good maintenance program is really what is needed.

    Just my 2 cents worth.
  • Kiosk Kid OPOA912 2012/06/12 00:37:59
    Kiosk Kid
    Now I understand your point. You are talking about contractors building roads and making major repairs such as repaving.

    That has been going on in America for ever.

    The city sometimes fills in potholes but the government does own the roads except roads on private property.
  • Philo-CommieHater! 2012/06/11 13:58:47
    Yes. We've done it before; we can do it again. And how else can we even affor...
    Philo-CommieHater!
    +3
    As long as the gub'mint gives back the taxes they collect via gasoline, etc.

    Not likely...IMHO
  • Striker Philo-C... 2012/06/12 17:40:02
    Striker
    +2
    Gubmint can't give back the money, they redistributed it and spent it. They'd have to borrow more trillions to pay it back, and THEN they will claim that WE must pay that Tdebt!
  • Philo-C... Striker 2012/06/12 18:19:54
    Philo-CommieHater!
    +2
    Good point. Doesn't matter, once DC has a tax dollar, it's gone...
  • Kiosk Kid 2012/06/11 13:35:32 (edited)
    No. Public roads have to stay public to be accessible, or well-kept.
    Kiosk Kid
    +3
    It is one thing to build a private road or bridge with controlled entry and exits. It is an entirely different matter to build roads that serve the entire community. The roads just wouldn’t make sense if there wasn’t a city planner working on the big picture.

    What would motivate a private company to build a road to hook up a business to the current road system? The government would be motivated because they get tax money from the business. What if two companies decided to build roads right next to each other?

    Then you have sewer systems, different pipes, and under ground cables crossing roads. Who is going to decide where the lines go?

    Private companies are motivated by profit. You don’t want them to have a monopoly. Roads to serve a community have to be a monopoly or you are going to have a mess.
  • FeedFwd 2012/06/11 13:18:49
    Undecided
    FeedFwd
    +4
    I'm torn on this issue. Certainly some roads are better off privatized, but I'm not sure all are. One of the things that makes privatization effective is competition or the fear of competition. I'm not sure many alternatives or competitive threats will appear for the one who owns a road. That means the prices may be as high or higher than government charges us with no guarantee of better performance. You have to have a way to motivate private businesses to work in the interest of their customer. when barriers to new competitors are high and there are no competitors, there is no sure benefit to the public.
  • Striker FeedFwd 2012/06/12 17:42:47
    Striker
    +2
    The best interest of the consumer is best served by the businesses which compete for their business. Government doesn't compete because it doesn't have to - it's a monopoly.
  • FeedFwd Striker 2012/06/12 17:58:50
    FeedFwd
    +1
    In theory, that is true, In practice there may be situations where a community prefers to seek collective public solutions. If we are to be a free society, we need to allow the freedom to choose a public solution. Generally, this makes a lot more sense at the local level, but having a national military is an example that works on the national level... unless you are a complete anarchist.
  • Striker FeedFwd 2012/06/12 18:02:59 (edited)
    Striker
    +1
    which I am. Voluntary trumps Force, every time. That is where Liberty is true Liberty.
  • FeedFwd Striker 2012/06/12 18:07:27 (edited)
    FeedFwd
    +1
    Thought I remembered you mentioning that before. I'm afraid anarchy inevitably ends up with "might makes right" and that just ain't right. YMMV. ;)
  • Striker FeedFwd 2012/06/12 18:10:48
    Striker
    +1
    That's were you go wrong. Anarchy is naught but No Ruler, aka no GOVERNment. What the people do with that Liberty is up to them, not to anyone else.
  • FeedFwd Striker 2012/06/12 18:29:49
    FeedFwd
    +1
    No government means nobody to protect your person or property or settle disputes between you and others. You will have to go to the market and hire protection and arbitration. It might be possible, but impractical for most and a colossal waste of resources for all. You keep your anarchy, and I'll keep my constitutional republic, even with its democratically elected officials.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2013/05/26 09:34:46

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals