Who owns the roads?

[Whoisjohngalt]

I have a couple of questions:

Provided that Objectivism posits the necessity of a "rights-protecting government", would this government own the roads and/or other public places? In other words, would some form of "public property" exist in an Objectivist society?

If so, would collecting taxes from the people for maintaining these places also be practised?

Thanks in advance for your answers.

[mrocktor]

A proper government would own only that which is necessary to perform its function. Courthouses, police stations, military airfields, naval bases, training grounds and so on. Transportation is not one of the functions of government, the government would own no roads, airports or sea ports.

A proper government would not tax, not even to finance its proper functions. Voluntary donations are the only way a proper government can be financed. Any proposed method that involves engaging the government in some business (such as a lottery or insurance) means the government will be uncompetitive (its private competitors don't have to finance a government). Any proposed method that makes government service (its proper functions) contingent on payment is de facto taxation (your rights are unprotected unless you pay).

[JMeganSnow]

I think there are a few topics where this is discussed already, so I'll just give you a short answer and encourage you to use the Search function to look for those other topics.

No, the government shouldn't own roads (apart from those for strictly government use like the ones in military installations), nor should it tax to provide roads.

[John Walters]

I would like to ask the following question to increase my understanding of Objectivism. Suppose it could be shown that by some empirical criteria that rational individuals would be "better off" in economies where the government, with taxes, builds and runs the roads. Would an Objectivist still choose to live in the economy where the government does not build roads because they do not want to violate the rights of others? Alternatively, could it be argued that since Objectivism is "inductive," the most prosperous society (defined by this criteria) is the morally best society. That is, a rational person "should" favor the government that taxes and builds road if, perhaps, in a probabilistic sense, all rational selfish persons would on net be better off in such a society.

Stated another way, my question is this: is the "best" society by definition one where the government does not violate the rights of individuals (by, for example, not collecting taxes) or is there some alternative empirical criteria of what the "best" society is which one can use to show that if the government does not violate the rights of individuals, then this will produce, by this empirical criteria, the best society?

[DavidOdden]

I would like to ask the following question to increase my understanding of Objectivism. Suppose it could be shown that by some empirical criteria that rational individuals would be "better off" in economies where the government, with taxes, builds and runs the roads.

Then pigs could fly.

Would an Objectivist still choose to live in the economy where the government does not build roads because they do not want to violate the rights of others?

No, the reason is that Hell would have frozen over.

In other words (and this in aid of the goal of you understanding Objectivism better), if you assume a falsehood under a "just suppose" clause, you will get answers from the "Hell has frozen over" repository. Your presupposition isn't valid -- it essentially says, "Deny all of Objectivism, now what would an Objectivist say?". Objectivism isn't pragmatism.

An Objectivist would recognise the value of living in a society where rights are respected; that means, no taxation, eminent domain, or restrictions on free enterprise. An Objectivist would thus almost certainly chose to move to such a society. The short-term economic advantages are real, but not primary: the primary consideration is living in a rational society, one designed around man's nature.

[Miles White]

I would like to ask the following question to increase my understanding of Objectivism. Suppose it could be shown that by some empirical criteria that rational individuals would be "better off" in economies where the government, with taxes, builds and runs the roads. Would an Objectivist still choose to live in the economy where the government does not build roads because they do not want to violate the rights of others? Alternatively, could it be argued that since Objectivism is "inductive," the most prosperous society (defined by this criteria) is the morally best society. That is, a rational person "should" favor the government that taxes and builds road if, perhaps, in a probabilistic sense, all rational selfish persons would on net be better off in such a society.

Stated another way, my question is this: is the "best" society by definition one where the government does not violate the rights of individuals (by, for example, not collecting taxes) or is there some alternative empirical criteria of what the "best" society is which one can use to show that if the government does not violate the rights of individuals, then this will produce, by this empirical criteria, the best society?

"Best", has a relative meaning in your question. In reality, there is no such thing as good or evil unless your comparing to the amount of coercion that is being enflicted upon one. So if your question is are we better off being coerced in a safe society than living in a dangerous objectivist oriented one, then I can't really answer that for you. That is for you to decide how much coercion your willing to put up with, however I would like to quote Benjamin Franklin for this: "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither".

[DarkWaters]

Welcome to the forum John. I will try to help answer your question.

Suppose it could be shown that by some empirical criteria that rational individuals would be "better off" in economies where the government, with taxes, builds and runs the roads. Would an Objectivist still choose to live in the economy where the government does not build roads because they do not want to violate the rights of others?

Objectivism holds that Capitalism is the only true moral system of government. As far as in what country an Objectivist should choose to live, this would depend on the available alternatives amongst numerous other crucial factors. However, if Objectivists were able to design an ideal society for Objectivists, I imagine that the government would never force everyone to contibute to a government-run, centrally planned highway transportation system, even if you could analytically argue that all citizens would "save money" according to numerous comprehensive cost analyses. To do so would be to support the principle that individuals should not be free to decide what to do with their money. Under Capitalism, governments are created to protect the rights of its citizens; not to dictate how citizens should spend their money.

From a game theoretic point of view, coordinating and designing a road network for an entire city would most likely result in less congestion if it was done by an intelligent central planner. Consider Braess' Paradox. In layman's terms, this means that the total congestion of a traffic network may increase if a new road is added. Just imagine building a shortcut that a large number of motorists would want to take to work.

That being said, in my personal opinion I suspect in a quasi-ideal Capitalist nation there would be some privately owned cities, analogous to the privately owned gated communities which exist today, that would subcontract the design and maintenance of the city roads to a single central planner. Roads between cities would most likely be still be operated by competing companies and hopefully would not game themselves into gridlock.

It is worth mentioning that roads in cities would have to compete with other mediums for the local transportation market. This would include a subway system and possibly eventually aerial taxies if companies such as DayJet really take off.

Lastly, without digressing too much into speculation about the privately owned cities of the future, I think that fees roads are likely to be packaged along with residence fees because I suspect roads in a city will most likely be more efficient if run by a central planner. The same would certainly not be true with other markets such as healthcare, various levels of education, mail carrying and the like. With respect to these sectors, consumers would have highly specialized demands. In the context of a quasi-ideal Capitalist society, I cannot envision citizens voluntarily choosing to live in a city where they would possess virtually no consumer choice in these industries.

Edited May 15, 2007 by DarkWaters

[JMeganSnow]

"Best", has a relative meaning in your question. In reality, there is no such thing as good or evil unless your comparing to the amount of coercion that is being enflicted upon one.

Say what?

Oh, and Objectivism and Objectivist are both proper nouns, please capitalize.

[Whoisjohngalt]

A proper government would not tax, not even to finance its proper functions. Voluntary donations are the only way a proper government can be financed.

Could you elaborate a bit on the "voluntary donations". I personally do not like the word donation as it subtly implies protection only for those who donate. So, pretty much everyone who does not want their houses to be robbed will have to "voluntarily" donate to the state. This is just another tax, IMO.

Any proposed method that involves engaging the government in some business (such as a lottery or insurance) means the government will be uncompetitive (its private competitors don't have to finance a government). Any proposed method that makes government service (its proper functions) contingent on payment is de facto taxation (your rights are unprotected unless you pay).

That is what I am saying above. How exactly is "donation for protection" different from paying "protection money" payed to thugs, since the government does hold a coercive monopoly on force?

No, the government shouldn't own roads (apart from those for strictly government use like the ones in military installations), nor should it tax to provide roads.

I would like to know how these military installations will be maintained, unless by having at least a minimal tax?

[mrocktor]

Could you elaborate a bit on the "voluntary donations".

"Donation" is the voluntary transfer of a value for nothing in exchange. Of course when donating to support an Objectivist government you expect it to continue performing its proper function. But the money you gave is a donation - you are not buying government service, you are not entitled to anything by the fact that you donate.

I personally do not like the word donation as it subtly implies protection only for those who donate.

No, it does not so imply. A proper government would be "blind" to the donating practices of individuals just as it should be "blind" to race, gender, wealth etc. Its rules should make clear that its function is to protect the rights of all individuals. Period.

That is what I am saying above. How exactly is "donation for protection" different from paying "protection money" payed to thugs, since the government does hold a coercive monopoly on force?

It is different in that if you don't pay, no one comes to bash your kneecaps. And in fact they will come to arrest anyone who tries.

And the government does not hold a coercive monopoly on force. You don't have a right to initiate force against others to start with. The government keeping you from doing it is not coercion.

I would like to know how these military installations will be maintained, unless by having at least a minimal tax?

If you think protecting your country from raving islamist fanatics is important, and if your current government seems to have a policy in that regard that you agree with, you take some of your money and give it to the government.

If you don't, you don't get sued, arrested, you retain all your rights, you still get police protection and the military will still try to fight off the crazies. If enough people are irrational enough to choose not to fund the Objectivist government, it will not have the resources to protect the country against foreign aggression. And they'll get what they deserve when the ayatollahs take over.

Edited May 17, 2007 by mrocktor

[Whoisjohngalt]

Thanks for your reply, mrocktor.

[JMeganSnow]

I'm not really keen on the word "donation" either because it implies that you're giving a gift instead of paying for a service. The recipient of a gift can do whatever they like for it; if you're being paid for a service you have incentive to a.) keep the service in operation and b.) provide the best service you can. I much prefer methods of government financing where you're actually buying something with your money.

[Clawg]

I think private roads are somewhat 'second-rate' private property because a road-owner cannot deny the government access (e.g. police cars) and cannot deny access to government buildings. In addition there needs to be the possibility for peaceful public demonstrations without consent of the road-owners under certain conditions.

The latter is somewhat problematic because it includes a use of force - but a public demonstration is (actually) only necessary if the government no longer acting rationally so I would see it as a safe-guard for free speech.

[Alon Tsin]

I think private roads are somewhat 'second-rate' private property because a road-owner cannot deny the government access (e.g. police cars) and cannot deny access to government buildings.

Private roads are not "second rate" property, because a road owner would have no logical interest to deny the government the use of police cars. More so, should an irrational road owner deny the police access to his roads, the citizens will not fund him because their security would be hampered. The same goes for government buildings, ambulances etc.

[mrocktor]

I think private roads are somewhat 'second-rate' private property because a road-owner cannot deny the government access (e.g. police cars)

To expand on what Alon said, a road owner certainly can deny the government access. And the police should stay out, if he so chooses. Now if there is some evidence that a crime has been commited on this person's property, the police can get a warrant to enter and do their job. Exactly like with your house.

Only an irrational road owner would refuse the police access, though - unless there is something very wrong with the police to begin with.

In addition there needs to be the possibility for peaceful public demonstrations without consent of the road-owners under certain conditions.

Who needs? And how exactly does their need create an obligation for the property owner? If someone wants to demonstrate, they can demonstrate on their own property, or find someone willing to host them (for rent, or for free). You don't have a right to comandeer a radio station to broadcast your protest, nor do you have a right to use someone's road against their will.

[Clawg]

Ok, I've thought about that again:

The only reason why someone would deny access is either because he's a criminal (then, with reasonable suspicion / search warrant the police can still access the roads / his property) or if he doesn't need the police protection. In addition there are the usual emergency situations (I would count a 911 call as 'reasonable suspicion').

But all that applies to 'normal' property, too, so I agree.

Who needs? And how exactly does their need create an obligation for the property owner? If someone wants to demonstrate, they can demonstrate on their own property, or find someone willing to host them (for rent, or for free). You don't have a right to comandeer a radio station to broadcast your protest, nor do you have a right to use someone's road against their will.

Ok, I'll reword it:

The right for public demonstration (and public (state-owned) places) would be one of the last things I would abolish.

Edited May 18, 2007 by Clawg

[mrocktor]

The right for public demonstration (and public (state-owned) places) would be one of the last things I would abolish.

Why?

[Clawg]

Why?

Because any form of government needs safe-guards against despotism. A despotic state can easily target single voices and censor them while a public demonstration cannot be censored.

The whole idea of public demonstration is that it is public, i.e. that it can be seen even by people who did not chose to see it.

[KendallJ]

Because any form of government needs safe-guards against despotism. A despotic state can easily target single voices and censor them while a public demonstration cannot be censored.

So we need public spaces so people can gather en masse. Shoot, some of the largest public spaces are private, actually. If by censored, you mean put down, then you must not have seen Tiananmen Square in 1989.

The whole idea of public demonstration is that it is public, i.e. that it can be seen even by people who did not chose to see it.

Can you explain why being seen by those who don't want to see it is the essential here? And why such a thing cannot happen in a private space where lots of people congregate (of which there are bunches)? That's really what you mean by "public" right?

[Clawg]

So we need public spaces so people can gather en masse.

A public demonstration doesn't need to involve thousands of people. I don't see any reason for large scale demonstrations either. Mostly such demonstrations are simply a demonstration of force, sometimes with the explicit goal to block and disturb. I think these types of demonstration are only justified if there is no other option left but to use force against the government: when the government uses force, for example by restricting other forms of free speech or by rigging the election.

Actually I had smaller demonstrations in mind, I would count a single person distributing leaflets as a public demonstration.

I want to stress that I've said that public places would be one of the last things that I would abolish. I'm all for privatized roads and space, in a free society public space can neither be justified nor is 'needed'. I also agree that the state should stop building new roads and that all newly privately build roads should be (real) private property. If, for instance, you want to build a road system for new part of a town and do not provide any space where people can meet without any major restrictions, you are free to do so. People who move to your town voluntarily agree to the lack of public space.

But you can't just simply privatize all existing roads by selling it to the highest bidder because this would force all residents in a contract with a certain company. This problem does not exist with newly build roads, rational people would not want to move into an area where free speech is under major restrictions so the prices would have to be lower.

Personally I do not know any solution to privatize existing roads which does not involve force. Of course the original source of the problem is that the government has built the road by using force in the first place.

And because this use of force harms the communication (which is a prerequisite for argumentation which is the only way to progress to an Objectivist society) I would not abolish government-owned public space until more pressing issues are corrected that do not affect communication.

It would also be one of the first rights I would break when the society falls back into statism and despotism. With that I mean I would ignore the property rights of the owner of the public place if he acts irrational by forbidding me to demonstrate for property rights and my own property rights were violated (for example when my books get burned, my newspaper gets shut down etc.).

If by censored, you mean put down, then you must not have seen Tiananmen Square in 1989.

Well, force is force, whether you intimidate someone or shoot him dead.

Concerning the Tiananmen massacre I think that despite its ultimate failure and the thousands dead the demonstration was a success. China would be in a worse shape today if that demonstration didn't happen. Unfortunately, due to massive government censorship, today's many students in China don't even know for example the 'Tank Man' picture.

Can you explain why being seen by those who don't want to see it is the essential here?

No, I can't explain that. You can hardly convince those who actively don't want to see your message / your information. Besides, if you use a passive demonstration - e.g. distributing leaflets - noone is forced to hear or read what you want to say.

What you can do is to make it easier for those are interested in your information but wouldn't have found you by other means.

Basically it is a form of free (as in 'free beer') advertisement. In a free society I don't see that it is justified or necessary to support such a free advertisement by government force. But when the government heavily taxes you and destroys jobs any democratic control of the government becomes more difficult if not impossible because it needs more time investment for you to communicate with a larger audience.

And why such a thing cannot happen in a private space where lots of people congregate (of which there are bunches)? That's really what you mean by "public" right?

It can happen if there is private property, yes. It's just that currently (at least here in germany, I guess the situation in the USA is better) the 'good' places (i.e. major roads and places where many people cross) are already taken by the state. Sure you can start a campagin in your backyard, it's just that it is much less cost-effective.

[mrocktor]

It seems that by "good" protest spaces you mean "spaces where mobs can best annoy and disrupt the lives of others". It appears that you are defending the idea that the protestors have a right to waste my time, impede my work. There is no such right and such an action serves no worthy purpose.

[KendallJ]

Well, force is force, whether you intimidate someone or shoot him dead.

Concerning the Tiananmen massacre I think that despite its ultimate failure and the thousands dead the demonstration was a success. China would be in a worse shape today if that demonstration didn't happen. Unfortunately, due to massive government censorship, today's many students in China don't even know for example the 'Tank Man' picture.

Well, but your point was that mass demonstrations are more difficult to put down than individuals, and so leave it open to more success with them. But if the actuall putting down of a mass demonstration is still a success, then why can't the putting down of an individual still be a success? Example is the shuttering of a prominant newspaper publisher who uses is PRIVATE newspaper to disseminate contrary ideas? In fact, it is these PRIVATE institutations that actually do the dissemination of even the most PUBLIC demonstrations.

It can happen if there is private property, yes. It's just that currently (at least here in germany, I guess the situation in the USA is better) the 'good' places (i.e. major roads and places where many people cross) are already taken by the state. Sure you can start a campagin in your backyard, it's just that it is much less cost-effective.

I would submit that you aren't using your imagination, that in fact the private efforts are actually MORE cost effective. That is because the mechanism of dissemination (the media) is mosly private anyway. So why to you have to go to the effort of getting mass movement (which is costly, and dangerous) when you simply get the sympathetic ear of a private mass media type.

There's nothing fundamental about public spaces for this purpose and no reason to wait until last...

[Clawg]

Well, but your point was that mass demonstrations are more difficult to put down than individuals, and so leave it open to more success with them. But if the actuall putting down of a mass demonstration is still a success, then why can't the putting down of an individual still be a success?

No, my point was that any demonstration of any size in public is more difficult to put down (with 'put down' I mean that you are removed before you can deliever your message) than for example writing a book or writing articles for a newspaper. The simple reason is that a demonstration needs less preparation (and costs less), you can deliever your message directly. Using a seperate medium allows the government to stop you more easily (e.g. a government censor at a newspaper that checks the contents before it gets printed).

But I am talking about non-free societies and I guess that is the main point here.

Would you be happy about a right to demonstrate on government streets in a country like North Korea? Yes, of course, because all other forms of expression are forbidden and there is no private property where you could demonstrate without getting put in a concentration camp.

Would you be happy about a crowd exercising their 'right for demonstration' by destroying cars and shop windows in a free society (like it's currently at the G8 the case)? No, of course not, because there are other legal non-violent forms of expression.

Thus the question is where to 'draw the line'.

There's nothing fundamental about public spaces for this purpose and no reason to wait until last...

Except for the fact that they are 'public', i.e. a privatization effort of the state will not result in the same legal situation for the residents as newly build roads would because they are forced into a contract by the state.

Other than that - if the state does not heavily censor the media, forbid demonstrations on private property, heavily tax the population and/or own most of the property itself - I agree.