As a libertarian, I believe that you have a right to live your life as you see fit as long as you don’t violate somebody else’s right to do the same. Libertarianism represents the only non-coercive political/economic philosophy in the universe. All other such philosophies: democracy, republicanism, monarchy, dictatorship, socialism, and communism employ the brute force (violence) of government to enforce compliance of one group’s wishes on another group.
Many Americans believe that libertarianism is an unworkable framework because without government to provide and enforce laws, society would be in chaos. Additionally, opponents of greater freedom question how the services currently provided by government would be handled in a free market environment.
It is understandable that many Americans hold these doubts about libertarianism. As a society, we are socialized through the government-dependent schools, universities, and mass media to accept that we need big government to protect us from the excesses of capitalism and freedom in general. If that doesn’t get the job done, those members of society who, for a long time, have held statist views, and are therefore closed to thinking for themselves, ridicule us for believing such “nonsense” in an effort to get us to conform. After all, normal human behavior requires that we want to be liked, or at the very least, not thought to be a weirdo.
One of the biggest questions raised against a totally free society is, who would build roads and regulate their use? Where would we be without government-provided speed limits, traffic signals, and road construction?
Well, in the early 1800s, America actually had a huge network of private roads and highways. According to Thomas J. DiLorenzo, hundreds of private road building companies invested over $11 million in turnpikes in New York, $6.5 million in New England, and over $4.5 million in Pennsylvania. By 1840, this resulted in the private production and operation of about 3,750 miles of road in New England, 4000 miles in New York, and 2400 miles in Pennsylvania. In fact, in real dollar terms, this production exceeded the interstate highway program financed and run by the federal government after World War II.
And we still have private roads in America today. Besides examples like the Reedy Creek Improvement District and Dulles Greenway, the National Bridge Inventory, a database compiled by the Federal Highway Administration, lists approximately 2200 privately owned highway bridges in forty-one states! Many of these thruways charge tolls which are fairer because they are user fees. All are proof that government is not necessarily needed to build and maintain roadways in America.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Glenn Contrarian
Sooooo...Kenn!
You're a big believer in market forces, right? I mean, the ones who operate the most efficiently generally succeed, whereas those who are less efficient are generally less successful, right?
So tell me again exactly how it is that the most successful nations in the world - you know, the ones where the populations have the highest standards of living - are (except for certain OPEC nations) the ones that are almost anathema to libertarianism.
I mean, I think you'd have to agree that governments of all stripes usually bend to market forces - you and I both know that such has often led to war (see Pearl Harbor). So given that market forces are so powerful, and given that you believe that libertarianism would enable the market to operate at top efficiency, why is it, then, that there are zero - none, nada, nil - first-world nations that operate on libertarian principles?
I mean, you can't say that it hasn't been tried, because in the long view of history, pretty much all social systems started out on libertarian principles, right? And through the centuries, I think the case could be made that there were entire empires (not including Rome, IMO) which largely operated on such.
But what happened, Kenn? These empires - whose economies functioned on what we would today consider libertarian principles, which would have allegedly allowed them to have significant economic advantages - were in time ALL overtaken by what we know today as socialized democracies.
Why is that? If libertarianism - which was by necessity already largely entrenched in many economic systems - enables the most efficient use of the market, then libertarianism should be the dominant system today!
But it's not - in fact, it's largely extinct in the modern First World, sorta like dinosaurs diminished over time while mammals flourished. Why is that? You couldn't be working with the wrong paradigm, could you? Naaaaahhh....
2 - Glenn Contrarian
And remember - when we get rid of all the government interference in business, there'll be nobody around like the EPA...and we can all be breathing in canned air. Hey, but at least we'd be free from evil guv'mint interefernce in business, right?
3 - Kenn Jacobine
Glenn, your boilerplate response to all my articles is real old.
Perhaps you should read this article and determine if you can intellectually argue against it. That should be yet another challenge for you.
4 - troll
Kenn - I don't see how transferring legal authority to monopolize and employ coercive force from the Public to the propertied class would be much of an improvement...you might take a look at anarchist philosophy which also tries to minimize the use of coercion
Glenn - which empires largely operated on the libertarian principles that Kenn lays out here would you say?
5 - Glenn Contrarian
Kenn -
The 'boilerplate response' is the same response that I've brought up so many times...that NONE of you have been able to explain away, not even once. You can call it 'old' if you like, but if you can't address the conundrum I presented - and you apparently can't - then it's every bit as effective as the first time I presented it.
So...how are you going to address it?
6 - Doug Hunter.
"As a society, we are socialized... to accept that we need big government to protect us from the excesses of capitalism"
You do. Just because the lion has been kept safely behind bars for a long time doesn't mean it still won't eat you if you take away the cage.
Roads to me fall under that narrow category of things that it is better to have the government run (or at least regulate to the point they might as well be running them), things I would term as 'utilities'. Now, I'm not using this term in the usual sense, so let me explain. My definition of what a utility should be is something that is impractical to bring from multiple sources. For example, one set of electrical lines in a neighborhood is enough. In order to have actual competition you'd have to have 2, 3, or more companies build redundant capacity to your house... by my definition a true utility. Water and sewer is the same way. It's silly to have 3 water systems competing with lines to your house. Roads are another example. If one major highway will carry the traffic from Dallas to Oklahoma City, it's inefficient and silly to build three, yet that's what you'd be forced to do to prevent a monopoly and the accompanying abuse. The internet framework itself is a utility, but internet and television access are not (at the core of net neutrality) as there are multiple mediums available everywhere to tie in to them. Utilities, by my narrow definition, must be protected from monopoly power as even minimal competition would require maintaining redundant systems at an overall greater cost.
So let's follow your idea of private roads full circle. I suppose to dispose of it's interest the government would auction off it's roads to the highest bidder. A conglomerate formed by Carlos Slim, Exxon Mobile, and Walmart puts the highest bid for major parts of the former Interstate Highway System, with the purchase of a major tolltag company they set up shop. A system is quickly implemented where everyone shopping recently at Walmart or refueling at Exxon stations gets discounted access on the interstate highway system. Additionally, under the guise of preserving their quality road system they institute onerous fees for trucking on their system, except of course the Walmart and Exxon fleets are exempted. Now what are Target, Dollar Tree, et al. supposed to do? Some of the big ones that aren't in direct competition will be able to strike a deal, any real competitors or small fish will simply disappear. Now, you say they wouldn't do something like that.... haha. They wouldn't now under a system where the government would come down hard on them for grossly unfair practices, but we're in your tiny government dream world.
Ok, so society quickly realizes the problems monopoly access to a major thoroughfare creates and rightly authorizes their tiny government to enforce some equal access provisions, so we do want the government at least a little involved in our roads.
7 - Doug Hunter.
We need government to enforce some equal access lest megacorporations abuse this to stomp smaller competitors (as well as up and coming innovators) completely out of business.
That's just the major roads, now let's get back to your neighborhood. Good for you that you are willing and able to pay $300 for road maintenance even when your neighbors aren't. There are lots of wealthy and middle class communities with strong neighborhoods and healthy social interaction and plenty of people willing and able to sacrifice for the greater good and their roads would be fine. These are areas where any "-ism" would work as even the most inefficient government system can easily stand on the back of that sort of community.
What about the others though, you know the ones I'm talking about. Lots of dilapidated houses, people relying on government support, etc., etc. Who's going to maintain the roads there? Those portions, even the collector streets draw no bids at auction as the cost of maintenance exceeds the profit potential. People that can't afford to clean the graffiti off their house, can't afford to patch the pothole in their street either. These roads would lay unmaintained further imprisoning the people who lived there. A few years down the line in a poignant national moment a news crew captures a stream of poor, downtrodden children emerging from the rubble formerly known as Washington street to their school and a public outcry emerges for a tax, just a small one, to fund some streets to give these people a chance to escape their surroundings and so it is done.
Now, we have rules requiring open access and just a little tax for universal service we're quick on our way back to government oversight which begs the question. Why fix what isn't broke? The country has much more serious issues than roads.
8 - Dr Dreadful
Even if you hired a private security company to police your community's property rights, Kenn, in your libertarian Utopia with its abhorrence of any governmental "force" whatsoever, I can simply choose not to recognize the security officers' authority - as well as, for good measure, the authority of your community to make rules.
At the very least you'd have to have some sort of court system to give your policing some teeth.
9 - Kenn Jacobine
Doug #6 Thanks for the refreshing challenge. I would see business districts (i.e. downtowns)operating like residential neighborhoods. The land of the owners of malls and just plain old stores would extend out into the streets like the property of homeowners. Each mall/store owner would be responsible for their portion of road. This would encourage collaboration not unfair trade practices as you suggest.
In terms of interstate/toll roads, like right of way issues in regards to residential property, deed restrictions could be employed to prevent Walmart from setting up sweetheart deals for its customers to the detriment of Dollar Tree's etc...
As far as poor neighborhoods are concerned, if we had a truly free market poverty would decrease. In 1959 the poverty rate in the U.S was about 22 percent. It went down to about 14 percent at the time of enactment of the Great Society in 1965 and has averaged about that ever since. Now we didn't have a true free market in the 50s but when government got even more involved the poverty rate stopped falling - coincidence? I don't think so.
Thus, under current circumstances you are correct - what would happen to poor neighborhoods? I only propose bringing in a libertarian society all at once. It is impossible for it to co-exist with the current statist society we have now. For instance, as long as the Fed is around fixing the price of the dollar for the big bankers we will always have inefficiencies in our economy and the boom and bust cycle which makes the rich richer, erodes the middle class, and makes the poor poorer. So no, under the current regime poor neighborhoods would pose a huge problem for privatized streets.
10 - Kenn Jacobine
Dr,
There is a school of libertarianism that would privatize police, courts, and the military.
I am Lockean. For me the purpose of government is to protect its citizens' natural rights. Thus, government could play a role with regard to law enforcement. It could play a role with regard to adjudicating disputes. Prisons could be private and subject to government enforcement of the natural rights of inmates. I object to government owning things and providing services outside of protecting the rights (safety) of citizens.
11 - Dr Dreadful
There's a case to be made that a decent, safe and efficient transportation system is a natural right of the people.
And I think an American objecting to the government owning things when you own the government is a bit strange.
12 - Kenn Jacobine
The Constitution doesn't give the government the right to own anything. The government is based on the Constitution. Thus, you are really strange for believing the government should own anything.
13 - Dr Dreadful
But the government doesn't own anything. The people do; the government is just the people's agent.
14 - Glenn Contrarian
Kenn -
There is a school of libertarianism that would privatize police, courts, and the military.
I would hope that's not something you buy into, because that would quite literally bring us back to the last decades of the Roman republic, back when the rich owned their own armies - Pompey the Great, Julius Caesar, and Marcus Crassus owned their own armies...and what happened?
What would happen, Kenn, when the owners of one police force or court system or army decided they could run things better than the other guy, and decided to take them out? Don't say it wouldn't happen...because it has before.
And you still have never given me a straight answer as to my "boilerplate" point above - but don't feel bad - neither has anyone else on BC who strongly opposes socialized democracy. But I'll keep asking you that question in the hopes that someday you'll actually take a crack at answering it.
15 - Glenn Contrarian
And let me point out what seems to be going on with your train of thought here: you're apparently starting with the paradigm that privatization is best in all things and that government is (almost) never good, therefore...
...but what you're not doing is looking at the grand march of history through the ages, at what has worked and what has not worked, at which societies flourished and which did not. When it comes to the human animal, Kenn, there is nothing new under the sun - therefore the key is to see what has worked the best for humanity before, and learn from that.
But you're not looking at what's worked best before, are you?
16 - Glenn Contrarian
troll -
Glenn - which empires largely operated on the libertarian principles that Kenn lays out here would you say
Essentially any empire where there was not government oversight of business, where there was no social safety net, where 'civil rights' were a non-issue.
I think it would be an accurate statement to say that most empires before the industrial revolution operated on largely libertarian ideals - not by desire, but by necessity. Heck, in the days of Rome - which was in most ways not libertarian - even the collection of taxes was privatized, and with little or no government oversight from Rome itself; a patrician would buy the contract (from Rome) to collect taxes from a certain province, and then he'd go collect those taxes (using his private army to back up the tax collection)...and he'd keep whatever 'taxes' he collected over and above what he owed Rome per the contract.
But in the vast majority of cases, one never needed a permit or license to do much of anything. There are many exceptions to the rule of course - even in time of Hammurabi there were strict rules when it came to real estate, and China was requiring written exams for civil service positions centuries before Christ was born - but for the most part, licenses and permits were not needed, there was no social safety net, and the very idea of civil rights would have been considered a joke.
Think on this - before the modern era, what were the greatest and longest-lived kingdoms? Rome, England, and the dynasties in China...and one might also include the Tokugawa Shogunate which had the longest peace of any kingdom or nation in history. And none of these were libertarian.
There is nothing new in the world when it comes to the human animal. Kenn should remember that, and pay more attention to what has worked best. He of all people should be remembering the lessons of history.
17 - Doug Hunter+
#9
Poverty, at least as used wealthy nations, is an utterly useless construct. It measures nothing objective about a person's situation, does not account for assets, does not account for certain government transfers, does not account for local cost of living and on and on. The term poverty carries the baggage of cardboard shanties, dying of diseases treatable with $.50 worth of antibiotics, malnutrition, starvation, no clean water or sewage facilities and that is how it is used internationally.
What we now call "poverty" is some increasingly meaningless and arbitrary measure of income inequality. It means something along the lines of 14% of 3 member households made less than $19,436 or whatever so we had to provide them assistant... well duh! Did you really expect that every single human being was ready, willing, and able to go to work and earn that amount? Come on. Some people are a half step away from being classified as mentally retarded, others are battling addictions, others have assets to draw on, a few more were raised in minimal lifestyle and are perfectly content remaining that way, and a few further still... don't tell anyone, this is a secret... a few more get paid cash under the table and don't report it. Added together, there's no practical way to eliminate poverty aside from the government writing a check to those who don't earn whatever the set amount is to be.
Poverty over time is even sillier. You mention 1965 to today. In 1965 middle class houses were far smaller, averaging 1150 square feet while TV's were prevalent they were largely black and white, air conditioning was not yet universal, health care was, well, 1965 quality. In 1960, 73% of all households owned cars according to the census bureau while 74% of 'poor' families do today. As a practical matter, the poor today probably have more material things, better services, and an objectively higher standard of living than a middle class family in 1965, but again poverty doesn't measure objective stuff, only relative. Likewise, it makes no difference to our 'poor' that half the world (who trul live in poverty) would give virtually anything to trade places with them, all that matters is their relative station in life. No matter how high in the air the ladder is, they're still on the bottom rung.
Now I realize I've gotten way off topic, just the long way of saying arguments regarding poverty hold little sway with me. You have to get specific about what situation and hardship you're talking about.
To the larger point, yes as a general rule the larger the welfare net, the more/easier people find it to slide off into it. If you take away all benefits, some of those borderline people will find their way back to work. That's not going to suddenly make them valuable contributors to society, but they may be able to overcome their issues enough to slide your groceries across a checkout counter or something... to others it also might make the option of robbing your house become comparably more attractive or just shooting you in the street and taking your wallet. Not everyone is capable of contributing to society in any meaningful (or paycheck earning) way, it's a fine balancing act to deal with that and not easily handled with libertarian principles.
18 - Glenn Contrarian
Doug -
As much as I usually disagree with you, you're making a lot of good points here.
19 - STM
Another complete jibberfest from Kenn.
I live in a country that makes inordinate use of toll roads. It wasn't so bad when you pay your two bucks at the tollgate, but in the past 10 years they've introduced eTolling.
One thing that really pissed me off about the state government and the city I lived in until a year ago was that for my wife and I to get to work, becau8se we work outside normal hours and public transport was out of the question, we had to run the gauntlet of the bridge, tunnel and expressway tolls.
These roads were built in partnership with private corporations. What's happened here is the complete opposite of what Kenn thinks might happen, especially since the state government is a partner in these enterprises and collects the cash via eTolling.
First, you have to put down a deposit on an eTag ($80 when we got ours, each that is), then the government collects the dough.
I really object to governments siphoning $200 every two weeks out of my bank account.
I pay enough in direct and indirect taxes and the federal government, the states and the local councils as it is - they need to manage their money (ours actually) a bit better and provide decent roads out of that pool of funding.
The Sydney Harbour Bridge toll is a classic example - now at between $2.50 and $4 a crossing depending on time of day.
The bridge was built in the 1930s. When I first started using it, a crossing cost 20 cents. It was paid off in 1985, therefore should have been free to use from then on.
But state governments saw it as a cash cow.
Then they had to up the toll - because they'd gone into parnership with a private corporation to build the Harbour Tunnel.
That was because: they didn't want everyone "rat-running" using a free Harbour Bridge and dodging the tunnel toll.
So, yeah, Kenn's idea has worked just fabulous here in the Great Southern Land.
I moved interstate a year ago to get away from all that bollocks, plus $10 per hour parking (to rent a block of fresh air) in the city central business district, and legions of parking goons hammering ordinary people.
Whenever they start talking about building toll roads in my new home, which at least is an easy-living city, I feel like screaming.
Toll fees are like cane toads and cockroaches - they never get smaller, only larger and more annoying, and the bloody things never go away.
Stick to fully funded roads paid for with your tax dollar.
That's why you pay them.
Way more bang for your buck in economic terms and standard of living than you get spending it on a whole host of stuff used to blow shit up.
20 - Dr Dreadful
Stan, as big a bunch of nongs and drongoes as the NSW state government sounds like, I have a suspicion Kenn's going to feel you're only strengthening his case here...
21 - Dr Dreadful
Still, I do get where you're coming from. It's not just road tolls either. I was in the grocery store a couple of hours ago and they had a sign up in the fruit 'n' veg section explaining that because of the widespread frost damage to crops this winter, I the consumer could expect to see higher food prices temporarily.
I thought, "Temporarily my arse."
We shall see...
22 - Clav
the government is just the people's agent.
Hah!
23 - Kenn Jacobine
Doug, I don't understand why the rest of society has to live with leviathan because a smaller subset is disabled in some way or just unlucky? There would be less suffering in the world in general with less government. Who killed more people in the 20th Century? - government. Who kidnapped and imprisoned more people in the 20th Century? - government. Who overcharges for everything?- government. Whether it is STMs tolls or Obamacare, government makes a mess of everything. Hey Glenn, those socialized democracies you speak of, how many need bailing out from central banks? Many are insolvent including the U.S. All that printing devalues the dollar and Euro and Yen and hurts the very people that Doug referenced above. But somehow that system is good and all others are crazy? I realize that having beliefs you have held for a long time be challenged is insulting or downright scary. But, I've done it. I use to believe that government was great. Then I started working, owned a home, then a business, and then watched as Uncle Scam micromanaged large parts of peoplee' lives. Hell, Washington wants to manage the whole world. But that's okay. That is what is crazy or "jibberfest".
24 - Glenn Contrarian
Kenn -
Hey Glenn, those socialized democracies you speak of, how many need bailing out from central banks?
Doesn't matter. Why? Because when all is said and done, the socialized democracies will STILL be on top and you know it. Or do you need to be reminded of the many, many times that the other nations have gone through their own much worse financial troubles? The common monetary unit - the Euro - seems to have been a bad idea, true...but that by NO means disproves the strength and success of socialized democracies, as anyone from Canada, Australia, and New Zealand (not to mention the Scandinavian nations) can tell you! And the ongoing troubles in England and Europe are according to the head of the IMF due more to austerity measures than anything else - the more austerity measures Greece and Spain and England institute, the more problems they're having. Oh, but I forget - you wouldn't want to listen to anything the IMF said.
But in the end, the socialized democracies are still on top by a LONG shot - their peoples' standards of living - the only REAL indicator of a nation's success - will still be much higher than that of the third-world nations...and you know it.
You're trying SO hard to keep from addressing the conundrum I presented...and you CAN'T without blowing up your own belief system.
25 - Dr Dreadful
@ #22: Scoff if you like, Clav, but I'm being no more nor less idealistic than Kenn here.