TheWorkingMan

There is not always someone who can make things cheaper or more efficiently. At some point, it's as cheap and efficient as it will be - you're simply assuming that you'll never find the best way. You can't honestly believe that infrastructure works the same way as commodities.

Not everyone lives close to work and has access to those options. A simple "I don't think that would happen" is not really a response to the concern anyway. In addition, you have those options (at least partially) because the roads are centrally planned and funded, and there's no incentive to prevent you from utilizing other routes.

The more I read of this book, the more convinced I am that I've been trolled.

From the foreword of the book you linked, the argument is made that if a particular road-builder gets a reputation for having poor roads, people will simply choose other roads. My problem with this is that there is a shortest distance between two points, and it's a straight line. The idea that there would be lots of competing roads with route distances/times that are even remotely comparable (and for some reason owned by other companies) is patently absurd. Where are they building these competing roads? If a company buys all of the practically viable land for building roads between two locations (your home and your place of work) and then proceeds to build and maintain bad roads, what's your recourse? Drive however many miles out of your way as is necessary to bypass the best route? Hope that the company holding the land on THOSE routes isn't doing the same thing?

My question relates to the method in which a fully privatized infrastructure (water, roads, electricity, sewers, etc.) would operate. A major reason that government regulated monopolies exist in these sectors is to prevent multiple sets of pipes/wires from occupying a particular area. How would private companies compete with one another without a mess of roads/pipes/wires clashing? How would we have a functional and complete system of transportation/resource distribution without the system being centrally planned?

Thanks for your responses, guys. I'm new to the philosophy of objectivism, and still trying to figure out if I agree with all of it. Your input is greatly appreciated.

It is my understanding that, under Objectivism, it is the government's responsibility to protect its citizens and that this includes law enforcement and military. However, I posit that this includes regulating the food and drug industries as well, as well as most industries related to public health and safety. I argue that the average consumer does not have the tools needed to determine the safety and quality of these particular products on their own, and that private regulatory agencies would lack the authority to enforce standards. So my question is this: do you agree or disagree with the regulation of the food and drug industries? Why? Ex. A person purchases a drug from a pharmaceutical company and its use results in their death. In the absence of the FDA (or similar regulatory agency) how is this mitigated or prevented?