NationStates Jolt Archive

In libertarian philosophy, the government's sole legitimate existence is the protection of life, liberty, and the product of one's life and liberty, property. This serves as justification for the creation of public goods, law and order, police protection, levees, etc.

But what about roads? They don't necessarily protect any of the above, but we still need them (obviously). Because of the free-rider principle, the market cannot necessarily be trusted for the creation of public goods. For the first goods that I mentioned, this is fine, as the government is supposed to provide them. But the government has to make roads- what is the philosophical justification that can go along with the realistic justification? Thank you.

Pure Anarcho-Capitalists would probably say that roads serve a community, correct? So if there is no road, the community might get together and all put in a little bit of money. Then they'd charge, probably higher rates to those who didn't help the construction.

In a libertarian or minarchist situation, the provision of public goods could be a legitimate reason for a government to exist. Of course those goods would be rigorously defined, but I believe that is the view Adam Smith and the modern CSE take.

Found this stuff on mises.org:
http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/7_1/7_1_1.pdf
http://www.mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae7_2_1.pdf
http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=202
http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/3_2/3_2_7.pdf

But the government has to make roads- what is the philosophical justification that can go along with the realistic justification? Thank you.

I don't know about "philosophical" justifications, but, considering myself a libertarian, I'd think that having to stop and pay a toll every 100 meters would be extremely inconvienient.

Also, there is the problem of scale. Sure, private individuals can handle road ownership, construction, and maintainance on their own property just fine. But what about major highways/freeways? Is a private company supposed to go and voluntarily buy every possible piece of private property that falls in the way of a such major road construction? Would such a venture ever be successful? While I would advocate extreme (extreme) restrictions on its use, eminent domain, as exercised by government, seems like an obvious need in such a case. (edit: while I put on my flame-proof bullet-resistant body armor, I'll say that I did recently vote "yes" on a local county measure to prohibit the transfer of seized property to another private party. The Kelo decision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London) was wrong. I'm not going to throw eminent domain out completely, however).

Also, I'm not sure that administration of a road system is a good application of the competitve free market. It's not like we build 10 different roads running parallel to each other that I can choose from. There is only room for so much road, and this reduces (in fact, eliminates) any advantage competition might provide. Sure, there are privately owned and operated toll roads and such. However, completely replacing the public system with a private one will not create a competitive market; it will most likely create an oligopoly or cartel of several large companies, if not an outright monopoly (basically putting us right back where we were with a single government running a public system, except for private profit). Just as it is completely impractical or run a seperate power grid for every possible electricity company that can operate in a competitive market, it is impractical to try to apply the competitive market to a road system in toto.

Now, contracting out to private/competitive construction companies and such to perform construction or maintainance work can, of course, work perfectly well. But actual ownership and administrative control? I remain unconvinced that turning it all over to the private sector is a good idea. This is one of the increasingly many places where my party and I disagree. :D

This is where the problem of ideology becomes a problem. I agree with the libertarian philosophy in principle but its not a set rigged all or nothing thing. If collecting taxes to fund public roads will make transport better and get people to work increase tourism ect... than its obvious it should be done.

Same with education and health. If making sure everyone has good health to stop the spread of disease and make sure people get back to work better than forget ideology if the evidence is there you have to accept it.

Sure keep taxes as low as possible and make sure a healthy economy exists. But just in the same way tax cuts can in turn produce more government revinue in the long run, sometimes investment from the government can produce a stronger economy and better society.

In the neoliberal weltanschauung it's also the state's duty to provide public goods, such as infrastructure.

This is why people think Libertarianism is silly. They hear people debating something that most people were fairly sure was decided fairly conclusively hundreds of years ago and they just find the whole thing pointless.

In the neoliberal weltanschauung it's also the state's duty to provide public goods, such as infrastructure.
Well see, that's another issue. Modern Liberalism is widely accepted to be the nessacary compromise to Classical Liberal Thought, as apose to Libertarianism, which takes a much more hardline approach

This is why people think Libertarianism is silly. They hear people debating something that most people were fairly sure was decided fairly conclusively hundreds of years ago and they just find the whole thing pointless.
Rather acurate actually.

Adding to the above, transport infrastructure could be justified on national defence grounds, this applies not only to roads, but ports, and regional airports, the latter is common in Australia, Newcastle Airport for example has a civilian airport on one side of the runway, and RAAF Williamtown on the other.

These do serve the "protection of life, liberty, and the product of one's life and liberty, property" because they allow the operation and movement of the men and equipment required.

Also, I'm not sure that administration of a road system is a good application of the competitve free market. It's not like we build 10 different roads running parallel to each other that I can choose from. There is only room for so much road, and this reduces (in fact, eliminates) any advantage competition might provide. Sure, there are privately owned and operated toll roads and such.

Roads do compete. Within a city (for example) there are different routes to destinations, and other forms of transport. Within (and without) a country, there is certainly less scope (if any) for competing roads, but more alternative forms of transportation.

Roads do compete. Within a city (for example) there are different routes to destinations, and other forms of transport.


True, some routes are certainly better than others. However, turning the public road system completely over to private entities is, again, only likely to result in oligarchy or monopoly. Such an organization might be more "economically efficient," but it would hardly be competitive and it would most certainly not be free (as in freedom).

And again, those who possess the appropirate private property are completely free to construct and operate their own toll roads and such. Such should certainly not be prohibited. However, the other extreme, completely private, is not a good solution either. The trick is finding the balance.


Within (and without) a country, there is certainly less scope (if any) for competing roads, but more alternative forms of transportation.

There is most certainly room for competitve use of the public road system. Private taxi, bus, carpool, or other ventures (air travel?) should absolutely be encouraged. One place, in fact, where serious consideration should be made concerning breaking the state/public monopoly is in mass transit applications like taxis, busses, and carpool (not, however, in the case of rail or subways...again, the scale of infrastructure and other problems prohibit a completely privitized/competitive solution).

Maybe a public good could be classified as something to which competition does not aid?

And maybe roads etc. would be justified, as it is providing a hospitable business environment, which helps to protect property?

According to the system of natural liberty, the sovereign has only three duties to attend to ... first, the duty of protecting the society from the violence and invasion of other independent societies; secondly, the duty of protecting, so far as possible, every member of the society from the injustice or oppression of every other member of it, or the duty of establishing an exact administration of justice, and thirdly, the duty of erecting and maintaining certain public works and certain public institutions, which it can never be for the interest of any individual, or small number of individuals, to erect and maintain...
Found it.

A toll booth at the edge of town, a toll booth at the intersection of a major highway, a tollboth at the Interstate. It's all fair. If you use the road, you pay.

I don't think there is a justification for the government being in charge of roads. I think that it is perfectly feisable that a privatized road system could be successful.

Competition would be present in roads because they would become toll roads, and if you were going to pay to drive on a road, it had better be well maintained, and well engineered. There are several different routes I can take to work each morning. If they were privately owned by competing companies than they would be better maintained and engineered, because the companies would be compeating for my business. While you cannot build two roads on the same plot of land you can build roads that are on different plots and provide an alternate route to compete with existing roads.

The tolls would be an improvement over taxes, because you would know that the company that recieved the money would have to use it to improve the service they provide in order to stay competitive, a far superior situation to roads falling into disrepair because the taxes that should have gone to their maitenance are going to some foreign war or some senator's pet project.

If this is an issue that everyone thinks was decided long ago, perhaps it was decided wrong. The complacency of the average person is not an excuse for saying that, just because something is agreed upon it is right.

If people hate libertarianism because it makes them think about what they are taught to accept, this to me is merely evidence of its greatness.

Competition would be present in roads because they would become toll roads, and if you were going to pay to drive on a road, it had better be well maintained, and well engineered. There are several different routes I can take to work each morning. If they were privately owned by competing companies than they would be better maintained and engineered, because the companies would be compeating for my business. While you cannot build two roads on the same plot of land you can build roads that are on different plots and provide an alternate route to compete with existing roads.


There are several problems (some of which I have already mentioned):

1) Only a relatively few can enter such a "market." Because there is only so much geographic space upon which to put road, the size of the potential market is seriously limited. This necessarily restricts possible competition; an oligarchy or monopoly is a far more likely situation. As such, public regulation and control is the better solution.

2) Making every road a toll road can have serious negative effects on traffic flow, and can also prove excessively expensive. Having to stop constantly to pay tolls delays movement of traffic. Toll booth areas are a traffic bottleneck. Yes, there are RFID (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:FasTrak_transponder.jpg) type solutions that allow a vehicle to pass by without stopping, however, not everyone will want to use such a system (many object to the potential loss of privacy or other issues regarding tracking of one's movements), or not everyone will travel a particular route enough to justify the trouble of maintaining (potentially countless numbers of) necessary accounts. And due to the problems presented by the lack of competition described above, a potential oligarchy/cartel can conspire to keep prices at an excessively high level. This situation is made even worse in a monopoly situation.

In a situation where the potential "market" is severely limited in nature, and therefore naturally uncompetitive, where attempts to privatize are likely only to result in making operation of the larger system very difficult or impossible, as well as to encourage uncompetitive and non-market pricing, public regulation and operation is the best option.


The tolls would be an improvement over taxes, because you would know that the company that recieved the money would have to use it to improve the service they provide in order to stay competitive, a far superior situation to roads falling into disrepair because the taxes that should have gone to their maitenance are going to some foreign war or some senator's pet project.


Misuse of taxes is a serious problem. However, as I describe above, the prescribed cure is worse than the disease. The solution to misuse of taxes is to stop misusing taxes.


If people hate libertarianism because it makes them think about what they are taught to accept, this to me is merely evidence of its greatness.


Interestingly enough, this drive to examine one's beliefs has actually begun to cause me to start rejecting various Libertarian (<--- the capital "L" is important (http://www.lp.org)) positions. :D

Maybe a public good could be classified as something to which competition does not aid?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good

Generally, a public good is a good that is non-excludable and non-rival. In other words, a person cannot be excluded from consuming the good, and consumption of the good by one person does not remove the amount of the good available for others to consume.

For example, a loaf of bread is not a public good, because if I eat it, it is no longer available to anyone else. Also, I can very easily exclude others from consumption; I can lock it away or prevent access by many other possible means.

I think one can make an excellent argument for roads as a public good:

First, roads are non-rival in nature. My driving over a piece of road does not instantly consume the road out of existance. The road remains for others to pass over as well. (Yes, eventually a road will wear out and, if not repaired, cease to exist. However, this occurance is not instantaneous as is, say, eating a loaf of bread. Many numbers of people can make use of the same bit of road before wear occurs. Is it perfectly non-rival? Perhaps not. Is it close enough? By far)

Second, my individual freedom depends on the freedom to move. What freedom do I have if all the property owners around me can absolutely deny me travel over their land, thus preventing me from ever leaving my own (assuming I even have any such property of my own)? To deny me such access is to make me a prisoner. My freedom and prosperity depend on my ability to travel, my ability to move. As such, either property owners must be made to allow me passage free of charge (what right have they to charge me for exercising an action essential to my individual liberty? Why should I pay a ransom for my liberty?), or public passage ways must be made available to allow the general public to move about and pursue their individual endeavors. Such public passageways, thus, are non-excludable in nature as they are essential to individual liberty. I cannot be excluded, as to do so is to make me a prisoner.

(edit: In case someone responds with something like "am I denying your freedom if I refuse to give you a job or sell you bread?" here is a preemptive response. No you are not required to give me a loaf of bread or a job because I might starve and therefore lose my liberty. Jobs and bread are rivalrous in nature, and therefore are instantly disqualified as public goods. It is still necessary, however, to create the public passageways because otherwise it becomes extremely difficult, or even impossible, for me to supply myself with a job or bread in a self-sufficient manner. As such, my individual liberty and responsibility to provide for myself not at the expense of others depend on the existance of public passage.)

Ergo, public roads as public good. Q.E.D. :D

There are several problems (some of which I have already mentioned):

1) Only a relatively few can enter such a "market." Because there is only so much geographic space upon which to put road, the size of the potential market is seriously limited. This necessarily restricts possible competition; an oligarchy or monopoly is a far more likely situation. As such, public regulation and control is the better solution.

2) Making every road a toll road can have serious negative effects on traffic flow, and can also prove excessively expensive. Having to stop constantly to pay tolls delays movement of traffic. Toll booth areas are a traffic bottleneck. Yes, there are RFID (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:FasTrak_transponder.jpg) type solutions that allow a vehicle to pass by without stopping, however, not everyone will want to use such a system (many object to the potential loss of privacy or other issues regarding tracking of one's movements), or not everyone will travel a particular route enough to justify the trouble of maintaining (potentially countless numbers of) necessary accounts. And due to the problems presented by the lack of competition described above, a potential oligarchy/cartel can conspire to keep prices at an excessively high level. This situation is made even worse in a monopoly situation.

In a situation where the potential "market" is severely limited in nature, and therefore naturally uncompetitive, where attempts to privatize are likely only to result in making operation of the larger system very difficult or impossible, as well as to encourage uncompetitive and non-market pricing, public regulation and operation is the best option.



Misuse of taxes is a serious problem. However, as I describe above, the prescribed cure is worse than the disease. The solution to misuse of taxes is to stop misusing taxes.



Interestingly enough, this drive to examine one's beliefs has actually begun to cause me to start rejecting various Libertarian (<--- the capital "L" is important (http://www.lp.org)) positions. :D
Yeah you are probably right about most of what you said. The solution to misuse of taxes was especially clever. Sorry about the lowercase L.
You are regecting Libertarian positions? Good stuff.
As long as you are fully aware of your own beliefs you've definiately achieved greatness regardless of the decisions reached.

Sorry about the lowercase L.


I should have explained better. I intended to draw a distinction between political party policy ("Libertarian") and general political philosophy ("libertarian"). I find that I reject political party positions more and more, however, I still consider myself a libertarian in the general sense.

There will be no roads under libertarianism. Libertarianism will free the mind from all constraints and allow it to reach its full potential and people will psychicly teleport everywhere.