I was discusing what would happen if my country was to become capitalist with my brother yesterday and he brought up a very good point.
what would happen to publicly owned things like roads and the like.
I said that they would be sold of, but I am not sure about that. If someone has any idea, then I would very mch apreciate it.
They would be sold off. Auction would be best, as honest auctions would prevent sweetheart deals such as happened in Russia and China.
That is what my dad said would happen, but then who gets the procedes of the auction?
The government would get it initially. They could use it to pay down their debt, or they could give it back to individual members of the public, perhaps in proportion to the taxes each had paid.
The idea of privatizing roads and general infrastructure is very bizzare and foreign to most people, but there is nothing about infrastructure which makes it inherently different from any other economic sector. As such, the best thing that can be done for roads is to place them in private hands so that they are constructed and maintained by market standards.
Privatization of roads will never happen. Any such entity would be, in fact, a public corporation – so saddled with conditions and restrictions that it would not resemble a true “private” business. It would be a sham to even attempt to do so. Corruption would be endemic to the process.
The government would get it initially. They could use it to pay down their debt, or they could give it back to individual members of the public, perhaps in proportion to the taxes each had paid.
This seems to me an odd answer to the question of “who should get the money.” Firstly, why should the debts contracted by the government that exceeds its bounds be considered legitimate? (But no need to answer that, that could be another topic, the point is merely that if you held the view that the government’s debt be liquidated, there would be no reason on these grounds to even hold an auction.)
Secondly, what is the point in holding an auction in the first place, and then taking the money gained through said auction, and giving it to the road-taxpayers? Why not just give said taxpayers ownership titles of said road and let them decide whether or not to hold such an auction, after all, they might not even want to!
Privatization of roads will never happen. Any such entity would be, in fact, a public corporation – so saddled with conditions and restrictions that it would not resemble a true “private” business. It would be a sham to even attempt to do so. Corruption would be endemic to the process.
In the first place, this seems to contain the assumption that to be a “true” private business, you must be free of all “conditions and restrictions.” But since there is no such thing as reality without conditions and restrictions, this seems an incorrect assumption, until further clarification.
Secondly, the charge that the process of transferring assets to their rightful owners might be corrupted seems empty. So it might be corrupted. But it doesn’t follow from this that we ought not to do such a thing. A murder trial, or the Nuremberg trials, can also be corrupted. It seems strange to say, hey, judges can take bribes, therefore it would be a sham to even attempt to try murderers!
That’s the whole reason for public proceedings and objective standards. So if you have a procedural objection, then you can only suggest a better way. Seems to me that the same open proceedings and standards can be used in courts to show evidence one is a tax victim and to claim a just title of ownership over some formerly governmental asset.
Privatization of roads will never happen. Any such entity would be, in fact, a public corporation – so saddled with conditions and restrictions that it would not resemble a true “private” business. It would be a sham to even attempt to do so. Corruption would be endemic to the process.
Read the OPs question more carefully: he is asking what would happen in a capitalist country. In a capitalist country, by definition, the government may not impose any special conditions or restrictions on any private property owner.
So no, if in a capitalist country the roads were privatized, the new owners would not be saddled by conditions and restrictions.
It would be a sham to even attempt to do so. Corruption would be endemic to the process.
There are countless examples of government property being auctioned off in an open, orderly, honest fashion. And, to the extent the process would be corrupt, at least it would be a process that would have a starting and ending point.
The alternative you seem to be arguing for (keeping roads under government ownership) would result in just as much corruption, but this time the corruption would last for as long as the roads are maintained. Unless of course you’re arguing for just abandoning all roads and infrastructure, and letting the private sector start from scratch. That would horrible.
The way our Cities have been laid out (by the State) is such that roads interconnect private property. A corporation or company that actually owned the roads could charge anything they wanted to the people using them – unless the State regulated the fees charged. Also, in our modern Cities, roads cover water, sanitary sewer lines, telecommunications lines, storm lines, etc. Access to these lines would also have to be a condition of ownership imposed on the road company and regulated by the State. A City in which roads were owned by multiple companies would only complicate matters further.
My argument is not one in favor of State ownership – it’s an argument that our Cities are such creatures of the State that there is no feasible way to “convert” them. We can privatize “services” i.e. road maintenance, garbage pick up etc., but we would have to dismantle a significant amount of infrastructure and re-Title almost every piece of property in the U.S. if all Public Utilities were to be sold off. That’s never going to happen, so it’s just talk.
Some roads (access roads to private homes and buildings, and in fact the majority of city infrastructure owned by government) would have to be handed over to home owners’ associations and the owners of the buildings surrounding them, instead of sold to the highest bidder, absolutely. When multiple owners are involved, owners’ associations should be set up, with each party receiving whatever share they have contributed in taxes, in the past. And that would be a fair solution, after all city roads were mostly built by local governments, on property taxes.
Everything else should be auctioned off, however, and the money used either to pay off government debts or paid out as restitution to whoever the money for it was taken from.
My argument is not one in favor of State ownership
Your argument is either in favor of state ownership, private ownership, or no ownership. And it’s not private ownership, so it’s one of the other two.
Either way, it doesn’t matter, since the OP wasn’t asking for an opinion on what political system is best. He asked about Capitalism. In a capitalist country, the roads would be privately owned.
The original post actually asks what would happen to roads if his country were to become capitalist. I agree with you that in a capitalist country the roads would be privately owned. My position is that, in a capitalist country, Cities would look nothing like they do today. Cities would of course be possible, but they would be shaped by entirely different forces. The difficulty (if not impossibility) lies in converting an existing City. it would cost more than it’s worth (in my opinion).
Unlike most Objectivist, I’m not much of an opponent of the Municipal Corporation form of government that most Cities in the U.S. follow. City ownership of roads and utilities is not very high on list of things to change when I become King. It took me many, many years to form that opinion. I’ve designed, built and remodeled buildings in over 70 cities in the West (Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Alaska, Arizona) and, for the most part, cities are fairly well run, maintain balanced budgets and don’t impose too great of a burden on their citizens. It’s more at the State and, of course Federal, levels where we truly begin to see the waste and abuse. I’m not saying all cities are great (I live in the Peoples Republic of Portland, for Gods sake), but they aren’t the primary problem facing our country. Let’s get a sound monetary system first, and then we can sell off the roads, parks and water departments
The original post actually asks what would happen to roads if his country were to become capitalist. I agree with you that in a capitalist country the roads would be privately owned. My position is that, in a capitalist country, Cities would look nothing like they do today. Cities would of course be possible, but they would be shaped by entirely different forces. The difficulty (if not impossibility) lies in converting an existing City. it would cost more than it’s worth (in my opinion).
Unlike most Objectivist, I’m not much of an opponent of the Municipal Corporation form of government that most Cities in the U.S. follow. City ownership of roads and utilities is not very high on list of things to change when I become King. It took me many, many years to form that opinion. I’ve designed, built and remodeled buildings in over 70 cities in the West (Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Alaska, Arizona) and, for the most part, cities are fairly well run, maintain balanced budgets and don’t impose too great of a burden on their citizens. It’s more at the State and, of course Federal, levels where we truly begin to see the waste and abuse. I’m not saying all cities are great (I live in the Peoples Republic of Portland, for Gods sake), but they aren’t the primary problem facing our country. Let’s get a sound monetary system first, and then we can sell off the roads, parks and water departments
The OPs question isn’t about monetary systems, or about alternate reality capitalist countries, it’s about what would happen with government built roads if a country became capitalist. The answer is: the roads would have to become privately owned. They could not continue to be government owned, because that is not capitalism.
Unlike most Objectivist, I’m not much of an opponent of the Municipal Corporation form of government
Ok, good to know. I guess. But the question wasn’t about what forms of government you support. The OP specified the form of government his question is about. It wasn’t a municipal corporation form of government (actually, that form of government already has a name: corporatism - a mostly fascist theory of government), it was about capitalism.
City ownership of roads and utilities is not very high on list of things to change when I become King. It took me many, many years to form that opinion. I’ve designed, built and remodeled buildings in over 70 cities in the West (Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Alaska, Arizona) and, for the most part, cities are fairly well run, maintain balanced budgets and don’t impose too great of a burden on their citizens. It’s more at the State and, of course Federal, levels where we truly begin to see the waste and abuse.
The Objectivist argument against fascism isn’t that it’s wasteful, it’s that it violates individual rights.
Nobody can charge anything he wants for anything. As the price moves up, people buy less; as it moves down, they buy more. Economics calls this elasticity of demand. People can’t quit using the roads altogether when driving becomes more expensive, but they have plenty of choices as to how often they drive and how far, how many passengers ride in a single car (or bus or what have you), whether to go out to shop or order home delivery and so on. In the longer run they have choices as to which car to buy, how many cars, how long to keep them and where to live and work. We’ve already seen this in practice when the price of gasoline fluctuates.
Sellers try to maximize revenues (units sold X unit price). To this end they try to hit the optimum price; below this, they sell more units but bring in less money. Above it, they bring in more per sale, but less in total. The optimum price is not the highest price.