When debating the continued necessity of the state or the government, we often hear, "But what about the roads? If the government were not there, who would build them? Who could afford to front the capital for such a massive project?"

Other forms of government are more easily argued against. For instance, military aggression can be seen as one negative consequence of centralized power. Drug policy and draconian "social norm enforcement" are seen as others. Blatant power grabs and violations of liberty are not hard to point out.

Even most libertarian-minded folks will concede that, yes, we do need roads, though. How else are we going to get from here to there? Every single one of us uses a road every day. It would seem absurd to argue against the system that subsidizes these roads. Embedded in this belief is a widely held assumption: the system that we have is the system that we should have. Our way of life today is best by virtue of the fact that it is our way of life. A departure from this norm, then, would be going backwards in terms of progress.

Roads, being useful, are not usually identified as an error of the state. This is one of those things we got right...right?

As with all policy analysis, we have to consider the long-term costs of these subsidies. Here are some items for consideration:

-The concomitant development of paved roads and the modern automobile
-Urban sprawl (which has resulted in a vicious cycle where the poor are isolated from the well off)
-Dependence on the automobile for day to day life, thus the need for a continuous supply of natural resources, including oil
-A finite supply of oil, resulting in higher prices over time, and powerful groups lobbying the government to kill and destroy for the sake of securing oil and keeping the price low
-Millions dead, cultures held back, terrorists groups formed
-Any pollution caused during the creation of roads and automobiles

With all of that said, perhaps the answer to the question, "If the government didn't subsidize roads, who would build them?" is "No one" - and maybe the entire world would be better off.

[Edited on May 1, 2012 at 12:32 PM. Reason : ]

5/1/2012 12:31:17 PM

Privatized roads, aka, free market roads would exist if the government were not involved in building, maintaining, and all the other necessities regarding them.

There would definitely still be roads... but the building, maintenance, and costs would be done privately. Rather than having taxes going towards upkeep, etc., likely would have tolls and other forms of payment to use these roads.

5/1/2012 12:40:40 PM

People would still build roads and over time we would end up with a few large companies that owned all of the roads.

Then people would make threads bitching about that.

5/1/2012 12:46:36 PM

How do either of you know that to be true? The government often subsidizes roads that would not be otherwise profitable.

Interestingly, you guys are making the point that we really don't need the government to build roads, because the market would step in to fill that gap. I'm just not so sure.

[Edited on May 1, 2012 at 12:53 PM. Reason : ]

5/1/2012 12:52:07 PM

There are a fair number of private toll roads in the US... I know one, the Indiana Toll Road (1956) is 157 miles long. The Indiana Department of Transportation operated it from 1981 to 2006 before it went back over private.

That might be a good place to research... I think you are asking a "what if" the government had no involvement in DOT/road projects. I really do not know... its highly speculative.

5/1/2012 1:10:40 PM

destroyer, there might be fewer roads, but there most certainly would not be no roads. It is even possible there would be more roads in different places. Roads are fairly cheap to build and ridiculously useful. As such, people would pay what it took to get them. Therefore, even if the government didn't subsidize them, or even provide the negotiation relief of gasoline-tax user fees, the people would figure out how to get them built and secure access to them through their power to contract.

It is instructive to look back to the earliest street-car systems. A developer bought up a lot of farmland, which was cheap because no one would live there without access to town. The developer uses their own investment money to build a street-car line running to town, thus making the land inhabitable. Now the developer can either sell lots or build them. But no one would buy them without securing use of that street-car line, as it is risky to invest heavily in land if access to that land is in someone else's hands: what if they get greedy and jack up the fares? What if they go bankrupt? As such, long-term contracts would be written to bind the street-car operator to somehow be subservient to the new homeowners.

This only lasted awhile, as street-car operators merged and began building lines to already occupied land.

Well, in today's America, it would operate the same way. New roads opening up new lands would be paid for by the developer and then turned over to an existing road company for maintenance, under the long-term agreement for either reduced tolls or toll-free given regular payments by the neighborhood association. Major roads would depend on their history: sometimes built as tolled non-profits, sometimes built as tolled for-profits, and sometimes as free-to-use such as a major road going to a shopping, industrial, or residential area.

Just think about parking spaces in today's cities where parking is not provided by the city. Cars are useful, therefore parking spaces are worth the money; the only question is who pays. Sometimes it is free such as at Walmart, sometimes you gotta pay such as hillsboro street, and sometimes you paid to build it yourself such as your driveway.

5/1/2012 1:55:25 PM

This thread is like debating over what color the upholstery is going to be in the time machine we're going to build.

5/1/2012 2:19:13 PM

Lol Kris. Additionally, governments worldwide maintain most roads as opposed to it being mostly private. There really isn't anything as a source of comparison, in the sense that we could say, "this is likely how it would be if it was all private without government influence, using X, Y, Z as an example."

It really is speculative... and without a solid basis for comparison, I really can't even make an educated guess... its like me arguing with Kris over the color of the upholstery on the time machine we're going to build.

5/1/2012 2:31:52 PM

How "liberally" are we going to carry eminent domain in this fantasy land?

5/1/2012 2:46:46 PM

There's two questions here, both of which I think are worth discussion:

1) What would the country and world look like if roads had never been subsidized?
2) What would the country and world look like if we stopped subsidizing them now or in the future?

As with all subsidies, the industry being subsidized will grow more than it would have in a free market. This is basically a tautology, making it incontrovertible - the subsidy pumps money into an area that would not otherwise have grown at the same rate. So, I would not speculate that there would be no roads without subsidies, only that there would be fewer roads.

I do think it's a safe assertion to say that, with the greater number of roads created by subsidies, there are more cars and thus more of the negative externalities mentioned in the original post. It's entirely possible that road subsidies have prevented technological innovation in other areas. It's hardly debatable that artificially low oil prices (pushed down by foreign policy) have discouraged innovation in more sustainable energy.

On the second question, I don't believe that roads would vanish in the absence of subsidies. Yes, private companies would take over maintenance of some existing roads, performing those jobs at a lower overall cost to society, although perhaps at a higher cost to those that actually use the road. Some roads would fall into disrepair if maintaining them was not determined to be profitable.

A transition away from paved roads and urban sprawl would be hastened by significant shifts in the geopolitical climate. If U.S. foreign policy fell through or the price of gas become otherwise unrestrained, we could see 10 or 15 dollar a gallon gas. Obviously, this would push profit seeking to other energy forms, and city development would tend to focus on public transportation, smaller, more efficient vehicles, or other technology not yet developed.

[Edited on May 1, 2012 at 3:14 PM. Reason : ]

5/1/2012 3:14:12 PM

Quote :

"This thread is like debating over what color the upholstery is going to be in the time machine we're going to build."

nice

5/1/2012 3:23:28 PM

d357r0y3r, I think the people of this site are so used to dictatorial form of government that they can't govern themselves to behave and have fruitful discussion.

All they do is joke around and use the minimum brainpower just enough to make a semi-coherent thought relating to the issue at hand.

Without moderators telling them how to act, they act irresponsibly. They can't govern themselves.

To expand this thought, if you left it up to TWWers to build the roads for the benefit of all TWWers including themselves, the roads wouldn't be built because the people are too lazy to govern themselves and take on the responsibilities themselves. They'd rather cry and whine and live without roads than to build the roads.

5/1/2012 3:43:51 PM

Quote :

"use the minimum brainpower just enough to make a semi-coherent thought relating to the issue at hand."

As opposed to you using maximum brain power to form completely incoherent thoughts.

5/1/2012 3:50:10 PM

Carry on Jazon. You're a comic genius.

5/1/2012 3:54:35 PM

I dare say I'm a cosmic genius

GET IT? LOLOLOL

5/1/2012 4:05:13 PM

In Libertarian UtopiaLand, a monolithic corporation would buy up all the auto repair shops and let the shitty dirt roads they own fall into disrepair.

5/1/2012 4:07:19 PM

Quote :

"d357r0y3r, I think the people of this site are so used to dictatorial form of government that they can't govern themselves to behave and have fruitful discussion. "

Yes because the United States of America is an actual dictatorship.

5/1/2012 4:43:59 PM

Quote :

"As with all subsidies, the industry being subsidized will grow more than it would have in a free market. This is basically a tautology, making it incontrovertible"

You are actually begging the question here. Is it the case that roads have been subsidized? Gasoline taxes serve as a nearly perfect form of user fee, given that the more you drive the more you pay. When we then inject the fact that a huge chunk of the gasoline tax is diverted to non-road building projects such as mass transit every year it turns out that roads and those that use them have actually been taxed in our modern world.

Quote :

"It's hardly debatable that artificially low oil prices (pushed down by foreign policy) have discouraged innovation in more sustainable energy."

This is absolutely untrue. U.S. foreign policy, as best I can tell, has historically pushed world oil prices UP, not down. Bombing foreigners and laying waste to their infrastructure does not bring more oil to market. Just look at the recent embargoes against Iranian oil or the embargo against Iraq in the 90s.

Quote :

"In Libertarian UtopiaLand, a monolithic corporation would buy up all the auto repair shops and let the shitty dirt roads they own fall into disrepair."

In Libertarian UtopiaLand, owners would refuse to sell, opting instead to pursue their own best interests which are not in the best interest of the monolithic corporation. It is only under Socialist DystopiaLand where the men with guns simply seize all the shops and roads, then they fall into disrepair.

[Edited on May 1, 2012 at 6:13 PM. Reason : .,.]

5/1/2012 6:10:15 PM

You're assuming owners are rational and wouldn't jump at the chance for a huge payoff that would satisfy their financial needs for life.

Let's be honest, they're both ridiculous ideas in and of themselves

5/1/2012 6:22:21 PM

I'm sure some would. But to suggest that any large group of humans would all come to the same conclusion independently is ridiculous.

Second point. The company hopes to make money once they have a monopoly. They don't have it yet. As such, where are they going to get the money required to give a large fraction of the population "a huge payoff that would satisfy their financial needs for life."

Especially after you realize that without the government to stop them, people will build more shops and roads, if for no other reason than to sell them to the corporation in exchange for "a huge payoff that would satisfy their financial needs for life." History is full of people that tried to build a monopoly by buying out their competition. Regretfully for them, when you pay more for something, you get more of it. So they more they bought out their competitors, the more competitors they had.

5/1/2012 6:44:47 PM

Quote :

"You are actually begging the question here. Is it the case that roads have been subsidized? Gasoline taxes serve as a nearly perfect form of user fee, given that the more you drive the more you pay. When we then inject the fact that a huge chunk of the gasoline tax is diverted to non-road building projects such as mass transit every year it turns out that roads and those that use them have actually been taxed in our modern world. "

Of course roads are subsidized. Who pays for them?

Gasoline taxes are exactly that - a tax on gasoline. Some of the money is used for road and non-road purposes, but that is not directly a user fee on roads.

Quote :

"This is absolutely untrue. U.S. foreign policy, as best I can tell, has historically pushed world oil prices UP, not down. Bombing foreigners and laying waste to their infrastructure does not bring more oil to market. Just look at the recent embargoes against Iranian oil or the embargo against Iraq in the 90s."

It has pushed the price down for the U.S., which is arguably the most dependent on the personal automobile. What other explanation is there for the disparity between the price of gas in the U.S. and the price of gas in Europe?

5/1/2012 6:49:13 PM

No idea on the whole of Europe, but Germany taxes gas at about $3.25 a gallon (sans VAT) - I'm sure that has a bit to do with it

[Edited on May 1, 2012 at 6:58 PM. Reason : VAT]

5/1/2012 6:55:33 PM

Quote :

"It has pushed the price down for the U.S., which is arguably the most dependent on the personal automobile. What other explanation is there for the disparity between the price of gas in the U.S. and the price of gas in Europe?"

Hmm, are you kidding or something? Even if we assume the US is somehow boosting world oil production by bombing oil producing countries, how the heck would that make gasoline cheaper in the US than Europe?

The answer is that it would not. The owner of the oil tanker does not work for the U.S. Government. He's going to send the tanker wherever it will fetch the highest price, whatever country that may be, whatever their defense budget is. The gasoline tax in Europe is simply that much higher than it is in America.

Quote :

"Of course roads are subsidized. Who pays for them? Gasoline taxes are exactly that - a tax on gasoline."

And a toll is the tax you pay directly to the road's owner. Either way, the road users pay the money. With few exceptions you cannot use a road without paying the gasoline tax, therefore the ultimate outcome is no different from a road usage fee.

Take the government out of the equation and motorists will pay less for gasoline and more for roads. As a whole, society (freed of the cost of supporting failing mass transit systems whenever they use their cars) would now be paying less money for the use of their cars, and therefore be more likely to use cars.

5/1/2012 7:10:50 PM

Quote :

"As with all policy analysis, we have to consider the long-term costs of these subsidies. Here are some items for consideration: -The concomitant development of paved roads and the modern automobile -Urban sprawl (which has resulted in a vicious cycle where the poor are isolated from the well off) -Dependence on the automobile for day to day life, thus the need for a continuous supply of natural resources, including oil -A finite supply of oil, resulting in higher prices over time, and powerful groups lobbying the government to kill and destroy for the sake of securing oil and keeping the price low -Millions dead, cultures held back, terrorists groups formed -Any pollution caused during the creation of roads and automobiles"

And it was all worth it. Besides, we use oil for more than automobile fuel anyway.

5/1/2012 7:32:17 PM

Quote :

"Hmm, are you kidding or something? Even if we assume the US is somehow boosting world oil production by bombing oil producing countries, how the heck would that make gasoline cheaper in the US than Europe? The answer is that it would not. The owner of the oil tanker does not work for the U.S. Government. He's going to send the tanker wherever it will fetch the highest price, whatever country that may be, whatever their defense budget is. The gasoline tax in Europe is simply that much higher than it is in America. "

We're not just bombing them for the sake of boosting production, it's for the sake of getting "first dibs". We're bombing them into submission. It's not coincidence that oil is priced in dollars, and when someone hints at trading oil in some other currency, the U.S. government starts sabre rattling.

Quote :

"And a toll is the tax you pay directly to the road's owner. Either way, the road users pay the money. With few exceptions you cannot use a road without paying the gasoline tax, therefore the ultimate outcome is no different from a road usage fee. Take the government out of the equation and motorists will pay less for gasoline and more for roads. As a whole, society (freed of the cost of supporting failing mass transit systems whenever they use their cars) would now be paying less money for the use of their cars, and therefore be more likely to use cars."

They pay the money, yes, but where the money goes is important. Overall point here: our system of roads and travel have been influenced by subsidies, possibly in a negative way.

5/2/2012 11:03:08 AM

Quote :

"We're not just bombing them for the sake of boosting production, it's for the sake of getting "first dibs". We're bombing them into submission. It's not coincidence that oil is priced in dollars, and when someone hints at trading oil in some other currency, the U.S. government starts sabre rattling."

Bit I see no evidence anywhere that Americans are actually getting "first dibs". Nearly all the oil exported from the middle east goes straight to Europe and Asia, never touching American hands. Also, it is a myth that oil is priced in dollars. Middle eastern exporters will accept payment in Euros, Chinese Yuan, and Japanese Yen. That futures contracts are priced in dollars is because the world's largest trading floor is in New York, not because of the pentagon in Washington.

Quote :

"Overall point here: our system of roads and travel have been influenced by subsidies, possibly in a negative way."

My overall point: you are wrong. It is unclear given the available information whether government has on-net subsidized or taxed the road industry.

5/2/2012 4:26:53 PM

Let's not forget the free market car companies of the early 20th century buying destroying mass transit in cities to make people more dependent on their product. /derail thread.

5/2/2012 4:52:04 PM

No need. the free enterprise mass transit systems of the early 20th were killed by the government.

5/2/2012 5:02:47 PM

Quote :

"In Libertarian UtopiaLand, owners would refuse to sell, opting instead to pursue their own best interests which are not in the best interest of the monolithic corporation. It is only under Socialist DystopiaLand where the men with guns simply seize all the shops and roads, then they fall into disrepair."

Quote :

"You're assuming owners are rational and wouldn't jump at the chance for a huge payoff that would satisfy their financial needs for life."

You're both assuming that the monolithic corporation wouldn't just take it. Why would it need to pay you? It would cost less to threaten you with violence, or better yet, just starve you.

It doesn't matter if it's Libertarian or socialist or quasi-capitalist or what. In any of those systems there will be one entity with a monopoly on force. Force is the most natural monopoly there is. One entity will have all the mens with guns and bend things to serve themselves, I'd just prefer it to at the very least be a democratically elected government that has some level of need to answer to it's people.

5/3/2012 3:32:00 PM

He'd say the government would have the monopoly on power and would protect the little guy, but I don't see it having the ability.

[Edited on May 3, 2012 at 3:46 PM. Reason : ]

5/3/2012 3:45:54 PM

^ It is not credible to believe a corporation could over-power a state in order to steal some land. Far more likely the corporation would have the government take the land and gift it to the corporation (see eminent domain).

^^ If the corporation tries to steal the land, it will have a shoot-out on its hands as the local land owners band together to violently repel the invader. It may win the battle, but it would lose the war, as all neighboring areas armed themselves to an ever stronger degree. In this instance the corporation is a victim of history: guns have been for sale from competitive enterprises for generations. The resultant civil war may end in socialism, but it may just as well end in the collapse of the regime and a return to democratic governance.

Meanwhile, the first thing socialist regimes do is restrict gun ownership, making it impossible to defend yourself against even a bunch of punks with machetes. It is no accident African regimes are prone to such catastrophic political failures given hundreds of years of first colonial and then socialist attempts to suppress markets for self defense.

I'm glad you have so much faith in Democracy. But democracies on occasion suffer invasion or attempts at violent take-over. There is no law that democracies stay democracies. This is a political problem which socialism is terrible at dealing with, due to its fore-mentioned tendency to restrict the means to resist. So if given the choice between an existent democracy or a competitive market in weapons manufacture, I'd take the latter. With guns we can obtain democracy. But without guns we're slaves to whatever group comes along next that wants to enslave us.

5/3/2012 6:19:41 PM

Quote :

"If the corporation tries to steal the land, it will have a shoot-out on its hands as the local land owners band together to violently repel the invader."

Doubtful, people don't walk around like they're at war, just drive by and shoot up some people. You realize this kind of thing ACTUALLY happened in the past right? And it continues to happen in some of the countries with less powerful governments. There are even easier ways when you own the surrounding land, starve them.

Quote :

"The resultant civil war may end in socialism, but it may just as well end in the collapse of the regime and a return to democratic governance."

Ah, a bloody civil war and a 50% chance of a tyrannical overlord, sounds like a winning system.

Quote :

"With guns we can obtain democracy."

Maybe back in the 1800's when firearms were the most powerful weapons around, but even then the wealthy could easily outgun the little guys.

5/3/2012 8:54:22 PM

Without public roads, and instead a patchwork of privately-owned roads, this would result: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_anticommons

5/3/2012 9:09:37 PM

Quote :

"Ah, a bloody civil war and a 50% chance of a tyrannical overlord, sounds like a winning system."

as opposed to the 100% guaranteed tyrannical system offered by socialism? I'll take it. Or do you really think the gulags were awesome places?


^ lonesnark's discussion almost perfectly addresses that.

[Edited on May 3, 2012 at 9:16 PM. Reason : ]

5/3/2012 9:12:18 PM