Infrastructure

[Black Wolf]

Can the Interstate Highway System be considered a national defense need? Can it be argued that it's necessary to move troops around in an efficient matter?

[SD26]

Define efficient?

"Now" might be more important for some defense purposes, thus a plane might be more efficient in that case.

Having been in a convoy, rail might be more efficient than driving.

[Robert J. Kolker]

Can the Interstate Highway System be considered a national defense need? Can it be argued that it's necessary to move troops around in an efficient matter?

That was the original intention when the Interstate System was built. General Eisenhower saw the German autobahns (which were built for moving troops and material) and he probably thought to himself -- "I just have to have one of these!". In any case the Interstate was named in honor of Dwight Eisenhower and the Interstate is and is modeled closely after the autobahn.

Bob Kolker

[freestyle]

Can the Interstate Highway System be considered a national defense need? Can it be argued that it's necessary to move troops around in an efficient matter?

I think that is a very good question. That argument could be made convincingly. Defense planners could surely benefit from direct and specific road/highway access in specific and strategic locations.

I think, assuming an Objectivist society, that argument might be accepted. However, there are some very practical reasons why it might not be the government who has to fund the building of and/or maintain these roads...

(I need to bookmark this thread because I don't have time to respond in full)

One note though.

I'd assume that most roads which would provide valuable point to point transportation would already exist. In an emergency, defense forces could use those.

[Black Wolf]

So, roads can be privately owned and funded, but in the case of a national emergency, the government can force the roads to let the soldiers through. Assuming that we're still archaic enough to need roads.

What about an ambulance? Would an ambulance have the right to go beyond the rules of the roads to hurry up and get someone to a hospital? It wouldn't necessarily be a case of national defense, and it would assume that a person has the right to be treated at a hospital, at the expense of the road owner's rights. Sure, the doctor wants to treat someone, and the other person consents to being treated, but should the vehicle that transports that person be above the rules of the property in this case?

Or would you argue that there are less people on the private roads, thus it would be easier to get an ambulance there? Or that it would be in a road owner's rational self-interest to make exceptions for ambulances?

[Robert J. Kolker]

Can the Interstate Highway System be considered a national defense need? Can it be argued that it's necessary to move troops around in an efficient matter?

The Interstate Highway System was conceived to be exactly what the Autobahn was to the Third Reich, an efficient system for moving troops and their weapons about the country. In a way, when Eisenhower saw the Autobahns in Germany he said to himself; "I just have to get me one of these!". The Interstate was sold to Congress as a commerce enhancing program as well as a public works program, but its initial motivation was military.

Bob Kolker