On November 29, 2014, Indian libertarian professor(?) Jaimine Bezboznik answered the half-century-old go-to question brought up by critics of libertarianism, “Who would build the roads?” in my opinion, very lazily, though the article itself is quite wordy and lengthy. His answer was dogmatic, one-size-fits-all, Rothbardian tripe that was so distant from reality, it would have only made less sense if read through a kaleidoscope. Unfortunately, with it being so accessible and cloaked in academicism, libertarians and anarcho-capitalists use it as a citation for how roads will function in Ancapistan, in many a symposia, much to the chagrin of their leftist counterparts, and even those who wish to be proselytized into libertarianism by having all their questions answered thoroughly.
The article concludes that complete capitalism will lead to privatization of turnpikes, to which the user could subscribe before use, and show some sort card at the tollgate as proof of their subscription before proceeding. Bezboznik’s argument for taking this route, in a manner of speaking, was multifaceted, in stating that it would lead to a reduction in congestion since there would be “no free riders”; that it would lead to less crime, citing private roads that are rarely utilized by comparing them to public roads utilized by nearly everyone; that it would hold road owners to more responsibility for maintaining both order on, and sustentation of the roads compared to that of government monopolies, a free market point I won’t refute; that it will encourage construction of infrastructure, which goes without saying; and that it will encourage small business, which brings me to the alternative that will later be discussed.
My issue with this article is as manifold as his reasoning. Let me start by pointing out how unrealistic it is to expect people to subscribe to road use. The average driver doesn’t prefer public roads to toll roads because they would charged if they were to do so; they are seen as a hindrance. The last thing an ideology which frowns upon the sin of sloth and aspires to make wage labor a more appealing mode of production, should neglect to consider is the daily commute of the average worker and the punctuality expected of him and how, amidst Bezboznik’s ideal road system, would an employee have gotten to work if they have yet to pay for their subscription to use the roads? The concern as to who will build the roads is, in itself, borne from the need for roads as they exist under monopolistic state control, roads that are free of charge, with the only obstacles being signs and signals which ensure the safety of other drivers, and not people who want money.
While I don’t like that these roads are funded through means of taxation, in which the state extorts hard-earned cash from the working class and small businesses and raises the tax rate as more corporate entities opt out of taxes, essentially living under anarchy at the expense of their workers, I’d be an idiot to claim that I do not understand the cyclical path this transaction follows. Taxation is immoral and unfair, but there’s a reason it exists: It works. If businesses pay property taxes already, why would a fee charged by the road companies that they would need to function affect them differently? Aside from it being a more ethical exchange of services, in that the charge is more direct, with the fees going directly to the company itself and nowhere else, in addition to the fee possibly being less of an expense than property tax, there really isn’t much of a difference. On those roads, ride the customers, employees, patrons, club members, etc., all of whom are complicit in the company’s success.
Freight roads would also eliminate the option of price gouging, where toll roads would make that option dangerously likely. Toll roads will create more competition, but when a road company fails to compete, but where it very well may be viable in some cases, deconstruction wouldn’t be an option for large roads that are only utilized regularly by a handful (i.e., residential areas, rural areas, cliff roads, etc.). Conversely, these types of roads could go unclaimed until bought out by a road company endowed with enough accretion to do so, which would likely be companies with networks that run through or lead into metropolitan areas.
There wasn’t much to refute, as the main problem was with the outcome of Bezboznik’s reasoning, not the reasoning, itself. He was on the right track in apropos of why privatization would be better than public funding, but he absolutely shit the bed when proposing his farce of a solution, either in a possible attempt to distance himself from any semblance of taxation as much as was decipherable and sound, or, and more reasonably, because it was natural to him.
- Josh J. Bowens
/mmxvi jul. xviii/
I think the problem lies in trying to find "one size fits all" solutions; without a state forcing only ONE solution, people would be free to try MANY solutions and - hopefully - arrive at the most efficient possible solution or at least the solution they can live with.
My response was merely a suggestion, but a step in the right direction, nonetheless.
In a state-less world, the organic solution to road construction and maintenance might look something like this: institutions that profit directly from the existence of roads, ie: gasoline marketers, would undertake funding roads. The cost of gas would reflect this, and you would pay more at the pump. But in this scenario of a state-less world, there's no income tax, so you can actually afford it. Pros: the funds go straight to entities that have a direct interest in efficient roads; people can't freeload (gotta buy fuel to use the roads); you're in control: don't want to pay, take the train.