Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Roads and National Parks

Rate this topic


Hangnail

Recommended Posts

ex_banana-eater,

You wrote: "Infact, why wouldn't this happen with all industries? Why isn't everything a monopoly right now, is it because we have anti-trust to save us?"

No, it's because smaller companies are more creative and flexible, and able to deliver goods (and especially services) in a way that ensures their continued existence in most sectors (not all). Small business fosters entrepreneurship; big business stifles it. However, in order for small businesses to survive, they need relatively equal access to roads. If roads were owned by big companies (the only ones likely to have the capitalĀ  to buy the land, build the road, and maintain it), I can see the gradual snuffing out of competition by those big companies. (And in answer to your other question, yes, I am referring to roads in this case when I speak of infrastructure.)

Why should big companies try to "snuff out" the small businesses? Remember that competition exist only between firms providing the same or similar goods and services at the same general location (if they are small to mid-sized firms). It would be ridiculous for, say Walmart, to "snuff out" the restaurants and gas stations

along the road it may own, if it could make even more money renting it to them. Why couldn't big businesses who own the roads profit by "renting" it to the small businesses? And why should roads be owned by big businesses who compete with smaller business? Wouldn't it be more likely that a business will own and operate roads only? If so, it would be even more ludicrous to "snuff out" small businesses along it because that would destroy the very reason for driving on the road in the first place--to get to those small businesses--and thereby destroy any possibility of making money off the road!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom Rexton,

You asked, "So do you think that roads should be privately owned?"

Theoretically, yes, as I have a preference for private over government ownership. But I have some concerns and questions about how this would translate from theory into practice, and instead of answering them, my motives are questioned and positions that I do not in fact hold are attacked instead. If I can't get a rational response to these simple questions, then to be honest, I sure in hell wouldn't trust you to own any road that I have to travel on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom Rexton,

You asked, "So do you think that roads should be privately owned?"

Theoretically, yes, as I have a preference for private over government ownership. But I have some concerns and questions about how this would translate from theory into practice, and instead of answering them, my motives are questioned and positions that I do not in fact hold are attacked instead. If I can't get a rational response to these simple questions, then to be honest, I sure in hell wouldn't trust you to own any road that I have to travel on.

I have addressed your concerns (as I understand them) in my last post, as has Tom. Do you disagree with our points, and if so, why?

If my responses do not address your concerns, perhaps you should restate them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... If I can't get a rational response to these simple questions, then to be honest, I sure in hell wouldn't trust you to own any road that I have to travel on.

Well, here's a consolation for ya: I don't intend to own and operate any road should the remote possibility that the government will privatize them materialize. :confused:

I for one have no problem putting my trust in millions of self-interested, rational businessmen, engineers and scientists who for the past 300 years have continuously come up with unexpected and ingenius solutions that propelled economic progress to such unimaginable levels despite the incredible impediments imposed by governments world-wide. Ahh, the power of free minds! :lol:

Besides, if roads become a mess, there's always the flying car option--which is closer to reality than you may think. To repeat an apt bromide: the possibilities are endless...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it's because smaller companies are more creative and flexible, and able to deliver goods (and especially services) in a way that ensures their continued existence in most sectors (not all). Small business fosters entrepreneurship; big business stifles it. However, in order for small businesses to survive, they need relatively equal access to roads.

Then they will do what they need to do to survive, which means ensuring road access before they open their store.

If roads were owned by big companies (the only ones likely to have the capitalĀ  to buy the land, build the road, and maintain it),
Why couldn't collective businesses in a district finance roads, and then allow everyone on them for free to encourage customers at their stores?

Why wouldn't a new business at the end of a road being developed lengthen access to its storefront?

How would a big company make money if it cut off all the access to small businesses in the area? Wouldn't customers then choose to go with another road company that linked to all other roads in order to get to their destination?

Only in some ways: it's true that big companies have more capital at their disposal and have the advantage of bulk purchasing, but they are not as efficient in other, very important, ways.

I know that.

So far, no one has seen fit to address this other than to rail at me for positions that I don't, in fact, hold.

The only Objectivist position is that government ownership of roads outsteps its bounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, let me say that I think I'm convinced on the roads subject. Having carfully thought out the subject... I'm realizing that when I buy strawberrys at the store, 1000's of people have to coordinate themselves to show up for work, grow the food, deliver it, open the store, and have strawberries waiting for me at the precise time I walk into the store and pick them up. This is an amazing accomplishment if you think about it.

Although you can argue that some people will always be irrational, it appears that they become much more rational as they persue their own self interests. There is no reason to believe that roads would not easily acieve the same level of sophistication. To doubt this is really to doubt the inteligence of humanity as a whole... and based on what we've accomplished in the last 2000 years, I think that would be a dangerous stance to take.

So I'm officially now on the private road bandwagan... Since it's never been tried (except in the old west during the plank road boom [by the way, a very interesting subject to learn more about if you're into the idea of private roads]), I would love to see data on a real world test.

I wonder though... lets say hypothetically that New Hampshire decided to become the "private roads only state." And 10 years later New Hampshire is a tangled mess of roads that only go to companies that can afford roads (think of a system were all roads lead to wallmart), 10 different toll boths to travel 1 mile of road and poorly maintained roads that are only kept up to minimum standards... not to mention different traffic laws on each road system that require a college course to explain. If this happened, would Objectivism change it's stance on roads because it's been proven to not work in reality? Or in that case would we still stand on our belief that governments shouldn't own anything, even if that does produce in certain extreme examples a lower quality of life for people?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder though... lets say hypothetically that New Hampshire decided to become the "private roads only state."Ā  And 10 years later New Hampshire is a tangled mess of roads that only go to companies that can afford roads (think of a system were all roads lead to wallmart), 10 different toll boths to travel 1 mile of road and poorly maintained roads that are only kept up to minimum standards... not to mention different traffic laws on each road system that require a college course to explain.Ā  If this happened, would Objectivism change it's stance on roads because it's been proven to not work in reality?

Nothing has been "proven" except for the fact that irrational companies refused to implement electronic RFID automatic toll readers, or bumper-stickers that display a years purchased use of a road, and that they failed to interconnect their roads to obtain customers so they could bankrupt themselves.

Look at the fundamentals of Objectivist political philosophy. Does it say anywhere that economics is the prime motivator of this philosophy? No. All along it has been repeated that laissez-faire capitalism is the only moral system, because it guarantees individual rights. Any political system which does not guarantee individual rights is an immoral one according to Objectivism. Do you think the basis of morality has to be evaluated by year-long, state-wide experiments?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder though... lets say hypothetically that New Hampshire decided to become the "private roads only state."Ā  And 10 years later New Hampshire is a tangled mess of roads that only go to companies that can afford roads (think of a system were all roads lead to wallmart), 10 different toll boths to travel 1 mile of road and poorly maintained roads that are only kept up to minimum standards... not to mention different traffic laws on each road system that require a college course to explain.Ā  If this happened, would Objectivism change it's stance on roads because it's been proven to not work in reality?Ā  Or in that case would we still stand on our belief that governments shouldn't own anything, even if that does produce in certain extreme examples a lower quality of life for people?

To quote Miss Rand, "There are certain questions that should be questioned." And this is one of them.

History is replete, it is brimming, it is downright overflowing with proof that the degree of a country's economic well being correlates closely with its degree of freedom. Mankind has been given repeated demonstrations, all over the globe, spanning all sorts of geography and culture, that government controls on the economy do not work. Communism, socialism, fascism, indeed all forms of statism have failed miserably in proportion to the extent of their implementation.

Economic progress depends on manā€™s mind ā€“ and the mind does not work under compulsion.

In the face of this overwhelming evidence, the proper question is: what will it take to finally convince people that capitalism, because it is the only moral system, i.e. it is the only system consonant with man's nature, is also the only practical system?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at the fundamentals of Objectivist political philosophy. Does it say anywhere that economics is the prime motivator of this philosophy? No. All along it has been repeated that laissez-faire capitalism is the only moral system, because it guarantees individual rights. Any political system which does not guarantee individual rights is an immoral one according to Objectivism. Do you think the basis of morality has to be evaluated by year-long, state-wide experiments?

Help me understand... if it is proven by observation that private roads eventually make transportation between places infeasible or significantly less efficient... you would argue that transportation is therefore immoral and that we simply should give up on effective roads and learn to live with our less efficient private ones?

Listen, I'm not saying that will happen... I'm a firm believer in the intelligence of individuals seeking their own self interest. But we haven't tested private roads, we have no idea what the outcome might look like. What if it's a disaster? Do we follow that course anyway until our economy collapses like lemmings over a cliff?

Here is the thing... we all agree that an Army and a Police force should always be a function of the government. And in order to do this the government has to own boats, planes, guns, etc. We all agree that for various reasons the enterprise of violence needs to be controlled by the government and sanctioned by it. If privatization of roads becomes an economic disaster, why not add one more thing to the extremely small list of things that the government is more fit to do than private enterprise?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your confusion is in thinking, consciously or subconsciously, that Yosemite is owned by "the rest of humanity." I notice that when I eat a cheeseburger that I bought, you don't ask "doesnā€™t the rest of humanity loose something as a whole when this happens?"

Actually, I was thinking the opposite. I was thinking that things which cannot be recreated and things that make our fragile existence possible shouldn't be "ownable" by anyone. Kind of like a "no-man's" land in the game of capitalism.

Of course, this is easy to tear apart, because the earth is unqiue and incredibly important to our lives, but obviously we need to be able to divide it up and own it, otherwise property would be impossible.

Still... there seems to be an unresolved ethical issue here. The question is, should someone be able to own Yosemite. Let's say the answer is yes, does this person then have the right to destroy his property? An Objectivist would say yes. But doesn't this seem incomplete? Doesn't it seem like something is missing here? Are we all willing to say that if we witnesed the destruction of Yosemite, we would be smilling and say that "morality has prevailed?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I was thinking the opposite.Ā  I was thinking that things which cannot be recreated and things that make our fragile existence possible shouldn't be "ownable" by anyone.Ā  Kind of like a "no-man's" land in the game of capitalism.

The more precious a thing is, the MORE it is absolutely vital that it be secured by property rights. Are you at all familiar with the tragedy of the commons?

Doesn't it seem like something is missing here?

Yes, a whole lot of context is missing. Does capitalism reward destructive fools with a lot of money? How could someone afford something precious if they were the kind of person who ruins things? In a mixed economy, people get rich by government favor, so our environment has rich, wasteful people, but this would not so much be the case in a free economy.

Another thing you're missing is the ethics of self-interest. If such a thing was truly precious, then a person could get rich by selling tickets. If he were not able to get rich by selling tickets, then obviously, nobody must think Yosemite is all that precious. Either way, so long as the individual follows the ethics of rational self-interest, then Objectivism would say that morality has prevailed.

I think the scenario you envision is one where the owner does NOT act in his self-interest, so that is therefore NOT a situation in which I would consider morality had prevailed. The law would have been upheld, but that is only part of the equation.

Of course, I don't personally have too much interest in forests. I'm more of a mountain/canyon/big sky country type person. And I never understood how development "marred" the lanscape. Now, I think that empoverished areas are ugly, but I never saw productive people "marr" the landscape. (oh, and which economic system creates poverty and which wipes it out?)

Ah, but I digress. Have I helped clear your concerns?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Help me understand... if it is proven by observation that private roads eventually make transportation between places infeasible or significantly less efficient... you would argue that transportation is therefore immoral and that we simply should give up on effective roads and learn to live with our less efficient private ones?

...

Here is the thing... we all agree that an Army and a Police force should always be a function of the government.Ā  And in order to do this the government has to own boats, planes, guns, etc.Ā  We all agree that for various reasons the enterprise of violence needs to be controlled by the government and sanctioned by it.Ā  If privatization of roads becomes an economic disaster, why not add one more thing to the extremely small list of things that the government is more fit to do than private enterprise?

If it is proven by observation that a certain implementation of private roads doesn't work then you could find another implementation that does work.

When I think of the privatization of roads I don't imagine mass toll booths every quarter mile. I could see toll booths on major highways that travel long distances, but on side roads, I don't think there would be any tolls at all. They could be funded by local business consortiums, or through bonds sold by companies that are in the business of building roads.

Private ownership doesn't mean brick walls and barbed wire fences everywhere. For large-scale projects like roads that are a benefit for everyone, the funding for them would be voluntary instead of our current system of extortion.

This type of speculation is far from reality though. If we do begin moving towards a pure capitalist society, the privatization of roads would be one of the last phases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....

I wonder though... lets say hypothetically that New Hampshire decided to become the "private roads only state."Ā  And 10 years later New Hampshire is a tangled mess of roads that only go to companies that can afford roads (think of a system were all roads lead to wallmart), 10 different toll boths to travel 1 mile of road and poorly maintained roads that are only kept up to minimum standards... not to mention different traffic laws on each road system that require a college course to explain.Ā  If this happened, would Objectivism change it's stance on roads because it's been proven to not work in reality?Ā  Or in that case would we still stand on our belief that governments shouldn't own anything, even if that does produce in certain extreme examples a lower quality of life for people?

The road owners who managed such system would LOSE money--they would go bankrupt and would be forced to sell their business of road-ownership and management. They are running it for profit, are they not? The profit-motive acts in such a way as to provide the best to consumers (according to consumers' judgment).

Don't make the mistake of thinking that toll booths at certain points on the road are the only means of payment.

It is very likely that the following system (or something like it) would instead be implemented:

each car would be equiped with some sort of device such that when the car enters a given private road, sensors on that said road would register that car, its owner, the time of entry and exit, the number times it passed through the road, and send electronically and automatically to some computer database that information, which will be compiled until the day when payment is due (probably at the end of each month), at which time a bill is sent to the car owner, who must then pay his use of the road for that month. The car owner can be charged with a given toll each time he uses the road, but he doesn't have to pay for it every time. Instead, those tolls will accumulate in the computer database over a period of a month, at the end of which he pays for all of his use of that road in that month in a single payment. Other means of payment are of course, possible. Car owners who anticipate daily use of the road might have a pre-paid plan in which they pay the road owner a fixed price which will give them unlimited use of the road for a certain period of time. This kind of system would easily and completely eliminate the need for toll booths at every point of the road where ownership changes.

It's just like the internet use we have today: in most developed countries you pay a fixed price for unlimited use in a given period of time (usually a month). In many developing countries you pay for every minute or hour of internet use.

[edited, clarified the penultimate paragraph]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I'm officially now on the private road bandwagan...Ā  Since it's never been tried [...] I would love to see data on a real world test.Ā 

How about other networks similar, in principle, to road systems such as railroads, telegraph and telephone lines, oil and water pipelines, and the internet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Help me understand... if it is proven by observation that private roads eventually make transportation between places infeasible or significantly less efficient... you would argue that transportation is therefore immoral and that we simply should give up on effective roads and learn to live with our less efficient private ones?

"Efficiency" is not the moral standard in politics. Individual rights is the standard.

Even if government did it more efficiently -- which is impossible -- that would be absolutely no justification for forcing people to use and financially support certain roads nor a reason to forceably forbid people from building roads that compete with the government's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't make the mistake of thinking that toll booths at certain points on the road are the only means of payment.

It is very likely that the following system (or something like it) would instead be implemented: ...

A few of "something like it":

-- The monster-sized mall, where several roads lead to, finances near-by roads so customers can come to shop.

-- The businesses along the routes pay for sections of the road in order to make their stores accessible to the public.

-- The roads are financed by advertising along the route.

These, or combinations of these (or other schemes that not I but private enterprise will creatively dream up) could make the roads accessible without the drivers paying anything directly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before the topic is finished with, I would like to add one more point to it. :)

It is a mistake to think of roads as a market in themselves. Roads are part of a wider industry sector known as transport.

Currently, the transport industry is heavily distorted. The users of roads have their infrastructure paid for them free by government extortion of everybody.

People who prefer to use trains, monorails or other forms of transport have their money extorted out of them to cover the cost of building roads.

Why pay for something twice when you have already paid for one form of transport?

When roads are privatised, I think that we will see a resurgance of profitable subways, trams and other forms of transport appear throughout our cities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...