Where did it all go wrong?

[Frood]

The "but who will build the roads?!" rebuttal has been a go-to by the personal autonomy averse since governments took over pre-existing roads

I'm not rebutting. I am asking for more detail.



And quit plagiarising my shit!  

 



I just re-employed it towards a more deserving character.

[Anonymous]

Who pays for the roads in a libertarian society? This is one of those questions that pretends to be the undoing of libertarian philosophy, arguing by implication that in a stateless society (without government) roads would not get built, or that they would only be accessible to the privileged few. What this point of view ignores is the fact that many people of wealth and substance take it upon themselves to create and/or sponsor public resources, the most notable being the modern public library system, which would not exist but for the voluntary philanthropy of people like Andrew Carnegie. Indeed, the undoing of most philanthropic efforts is that they seek to lobby the government for their fair share of government largess rather than just doing what needs to be done.



In early America, the first paved roads were generally developed by private companies. The first long distance paved road in America was Philadelphia and Lancaster Turnpike, which effectively still operates to this day, but which more specifically operated as a toll road from 1795 to 1917, when it was purchased by the state.



It's also worth noting that, whatever negatives private toll roads may have, they tended to stay in excellent states of repair. Economically, a private road in disrepair reflects a loss of revenue, while the opposite is true of public roads. A fiscally responsible government would defer the repair of a public road as long as they possibly could.

[Bricktop]

Who pays for the roads in a libertarian society?

This is the thin edge of the "road" debate.



If all that was required is who pays, then private investors would build toll roads and all would be well.



But life is no longer that simple.



Who decides where the road will be built, and on who's property?



Who decides the physical layout of the road?



Who decides and enforces how the road will be used and the rules to be applied?



If the private investor goes out of business, what happens to the road?



Now, each question probably has a reasonable answer...but the problem of our modern world is the journey to that answer is problematic, complex, confrontational, political and divisive, such is the madness we've built for ourselves.

[Anonymous]

Who pays for the roads in a libertarian society?

This is the thin edge of the "road" debate.



If all that was required is who pays, then private investors would build toll roads and all would be well.



But life is no longer that simple.



Who decides where the road will be built, and on who's property?



Who decides the physical layout of the road?



Who decides and enforces how the road will be used and the rules to be applied?



If the private investor goes out of business, what happens to the road?



Now, each question probably has a reasonable answer...but the problem of our modern world is the journey to that answer is problematic, complex, confrontational, political and divisive, such is the madness we've built for ourselves.

If a company is bought by another company they take responsibility for it's assets.

[Bricktop]

Nope. They can exclude assets in the purchase contract.

[Anonymous]

Nope. They can exclude assets in the purchase contract.

I find it hard to believe a road with traffic would not be part of the package or the main part that another company would want to acquire..



I'll defer to Seoul though.

[Anonymous]

Governments need to find new sources of revenue besides picking the pockets of the people. Better yet, shrink the size of government.

[Bricktop]

As I have said repeatedly and is relevant to your country, abolishing State governments is a good start.

[Frood]

Never....



The worst thing a society can do is centralize power.

[Zetsu]

Never....



The worst thing a society can do is centralize power.

That idea is even worst than a company without a boss

[Bricktop]

Never....



The worst thing a society can do is centralize power.

I get your point...but which is the lesser of the evils...one government with one set of laws and policies, or multiple governments with multiple laws (which we have in Australia) pulling in opposite directions. And, of course, double the cost of governance with duplicated bureaucracies all over the country. I don't know about Victoria, but 17% of the workforce in SA is employed directly by the Government. That's a LOT of money when you multiply it by a factor of 9.



It's a question, not a rebuttal of your statement.

[Frood]

Never....



The worst thing a society can do is centralize power.

I get your point...but which is the lesser of the evils...one government with one set of laws and policies, or multiple governments with multiple laws (which we have in Australia) pulling in opposite directions. And, of course, double the cost of governance with duplicated bureaucracies all over the country. I don't know about Victoria, but 17% of the workforce in SA is employed directly by the Government. That's a LOT of money when you multiply it by a factor of 9.



It's a question, not a rebuttal of your statement.

...and I get your point, but powers are meant to be delegated to respective groups or government levels limited by overarching basic guidelines.



Mission creep and broad interpretations of power should be stymied and reversed. It is not an excuse to remove separations.

[Anonymous]

I would like to gut Ottawa of nearly all powers and put it in the hands of our provincial government legislature in Regina.

[Zetsu]

I think a government is critically needed, but instead of a wealth/capital drain every country should model their system after Hong Kong.

[Bricktop]

What is that system?