If it is, on their page discussing roads and infrastructure, http://importanceofphilosophy.com/Bloody_R…astructure.html, they complain about how too many people are dependent on government operated roads, and then they just leave it at that without offering any solutions to their problem, and go on to say how roads would be operated if they had always been privately owned.
Would someone be able to pick up where they left off?
There’s about a zillion sites run by amateur Objectivists, which make even more amateur errors and omissions. If you worry about this one, you’ll have a zillion more worries.
What more is there to say? The article doesn’t introduce any new ideas or even truly radical ideas (in regards to Objectivism, that is). It’s not exactly wrong to only suggest one way to achieve private roads.
Does it not look suspiciously like this site? Yes, it does, some of the same people are behind both of them…people whom if either site is anything to go by are not serious Objectivists at all. Both sites are frankly terribly designed and have nothing interesting to say whatsoever.
I think that the authors of “Rebirth of Reason” are trying to set up another site that isnt largely ignored by serious Objectivists after their earlier failure. I do not think that their latest attempt is any way an improvement (it even looks about as bad, you would think they might have learnt to design a slightly less ugly website by now, but evidently not ).
What is there to “pick up”. Roads currently owned by the government should be sold off at whatever price the market determines as fair.
Wouldn’t merely selling to the highest bidder be improper, considering that people developed properties on/near government-owned roads only because they believed that the roads would always be freely accessible? For example, a bidder could win a road and charge a high toll to all residents near it who have no other possible way to travel; on the other hand if roads had always been private, the property developers would have made sure before building that there were more favorable policies over road usage.
Wouldn’t merely selling to the highest bidder be improper, considering that people developed properties on/near government-owned roads only because they believed that the roads would always be freely accessible? For example, a bidder could win a road and charge a high toll to all residents near it who have no other possible way to travel; on the other hand if roads had always been private, the property developers would have made sure before building that there were more favorable policies over road usage.
There are numerous threads on this topic. If you want to discuss roads in particular, go to one of those topics.