City to Steal Four Homes from Families, Kick them into Street

If this isn't stealing, then I don't know how to spell stealing. I have never heard of a property tax law that allows a city to keep the property or decide to sell it.

Talk about power over the people. How can any of these city employees or elected officials sleep at night? I wish just one of them would loose their job and not pay the property taxes and let the city steal their home and keep it. Makes you want to wish for a lightning strike and let that sucker burn to the ground when it is in the cities hand.

And shame on Cynthia and Fred and those other politicos that claim to have never heard of their government stealing a home. This makes me want to leave Austin tomorrow and get up there to get these said facts in front of all of the people of Keene and those snakes called government.

Where is justice? How are they helping the people?

The free market car companies, you know the ones going broke and almost bankrupt, will let you miss three payments if you loose your job, plus they will even let you bring the car back with nothing negative on your credit file history.

How did government get so screwed up? How can they even walk around the town and look at people or talk to them?

The next thing we know they will be hiring bodyguards to protect going to and from work or anywhere else.

Hi Geo,

The difference is this: The government forces you to be a customer. If I don't want to use a certain mortage company, I don't have to. If I don't want to shop at K-Mart, I don't have to. No one from K-mart is going to show up my door demanding money, if I never choose to shop there. Not so the government — you are forced to be their customer, and no alternatives are allowed.

Here's another analogy that might help you understand the difference: Suppose you choose to buy some flowers from a street vendor. That vendor will expect you to pay the agreed upon price, as he/she should. No agression there.

Now suppose instead that the street vendor sticks a gun in your face, and demands that you buy his flowers, or he will throw you in his cage. That's called a mugging, and it is agression.

The only people or organizations in society who use the latter approach are criminals and government. But then I repeat myself The rest of us manage to get along with our neighbors voluntarily, without using agressive force take their property, or force them to live the way we want them to.

Good questions, and I share your concern about the advance of corpratism and socialism. Effectively, the government is now forcing us to be customers of the banks, and of the auto companies as well. Choice creates competition, and innovation — and freedom. Government is about using force to eliminate choice.

People should not pay their real estate taxes until they can do so, using "Lawful Money" as cited by the United States Constitution, Article I. Sec. 10.

Where it says "No State shall make anything but Gold and Silver coin a tender in payment of debts.

Cities are creations of the State and the State can grant no more authority to that which it creates that that which it possesses.

Government officials took an oath to support the Constitution….lets hold their feet to the fire.

Provide lawful Money,and we will pay, withhold it and we charge them with "Official Oppression."

geo,

there is a huge flaw in ur reasoning. u asked what the difference is between a banker foreclosing on a house and a govt for non payment of services.

if i sell a house to u and u stop making ur payments, i have every right to foreclose on u and take that house back. u do not own it until u have paid for it in full.

the govt does not own any part of the house so it has no property rights to it at all.

and if i was a business which provided them services and they stopped paying, i would just stop providing them service. i would not have the ability to take their home!!!

no business would ever be able to FORCE them to continue to take my services even if they refuse to pay and then take their home from them saying they owe that business a debt!!!

there is zero parallel to the way private businesses operate and the way govts operate.

in a free society, no business would be able to do the things that govt currently gets away with.

Geo Says

"When you can tell me how to transition from paying a municorp in the form of

property tax to provide these things so I my continue to live in this house and

have a choice on how I get my water and how I remove my grey water and how I get

to keep the street plowed and how I get to be served when my house catches fire

I might listen."

All of your concerns above can be contracted out to the highest bidder in the private sector. And much more cost effectively.

Under the current system,"private property" is really "Public Property" because no one can own their property without a perpetual lien due the Government Thugs….These same thugs and government bureaucrats who eat out of the substance of those who actually work for a living.

Can you say "Communism?"

My first specific concern is the street. It is a public right of way and the public has a right to pass and repass. How would a business create a revenue stream to take care of it and to make a profit? I already have the right to use it without paying a user fee every time I leave my driveway. So I dont think the toll road model would work.

If you are a business owner and people use the road to get to your store, you could charge a fee for parking OR incorporate road maintenance costs into your products OR you could get together with other business owners next door and across the street who also depend on the road for customers and form a contract to share the costs (which could again be recouped via fee parking or built-into your prices).

Considering you'd no longer be forced into paying taxes as a business owner, your products are still likely to be significantly cheaper than they are now what with taxes and licenses and registrations and other fees all the way down from manufacturer to retailer going away.

And these are only the ideas I came up with in about 60 seconds. Much brainier people than I (market forces with money on the table) are likely to come up with even better methods. That is the power of a truly free market. Unlike the old "steal from others, delay until the next election or shove the problem onto someone else" solutions you get from politicians and bureaucrats, the free market provides solutions that are actually effective.

Here's an interesting article on the subject from CATO: http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv25n3/v25n…

Interesting Fact: Two-thirds of Sweden's road systems are run by Private Road Associations. There are similar organizations called "Street Associations" in St. Louis.

What if you had property owners that have road frontage on a road that is to be privatized in the manner you speak of and they dont have a business, how do they raise revenue for the portion of the road in front of their property? Who do they get to pass the costs onto? How do they make a profit?

What if I sold or leased the ownership interest of my road frontage to a Private Road Association (or similar type of group or individual that wished to maintain the road) on the condition that I get a free pass for travel as long as I continue to own property along the road? In this manner, I would not only profit but also be free to travel unmolested and not have to worry about road maintenance and all the other issues related to it?

I don't pretend to know what the market will come up with but I do know that competitive individuals seeking honest profit have far more incentive to think outside the box and opt for efficiency than government does.

Government does not care how much it spends (because it's your money, not theirs and they can always raise taxes) so it has no motive to be efficient or cost-effective. Government tends to reward its friends with lucrative construction/maintenance contracts rather than companies that offer the best value. The companies that get these contracts often do a shoddy job with inferior materials because there is no expectation of quality and efficiency and it is in their interests to spend the least amount of effort in order to keep the largest amount of those government dollars.

I'm sure others will add more ideas to this conversation that I haven't even considered.

I dug alittle deeper into the Improvement Associations in St. Louis. I found the oldest on online. There is no evidence that they are responsible for any government services that have been privatized. As a matter of fact one of there news letters explains how to contact the government to have free trees planted in front of their hosues.

I believe that these associations are nothing more than people banding together in a non profit corporation to influence the government and the free market to facilitate the best possible neighborhood they can live in. It is citizens working with the government to keep the government from falling into error. It is citizens being involved and holding the government and their neighbors accountable for the vitality of the neighborhood.

There is no evidence that this entity owns the street and contracts to maintain them or charges people to use them as a revenue stream to maintain them.

A private road is a road owned and maintained by a private individual, organization, or company rather than by a government. Consequently, unauthorized use of the road may be considered trespassing, and some of the usual rules of the road may not apply.

The most common type of private road is a residential road maintained by a homeowners association, housing co-op, or other group of individual homeowners (e.g. the private places of St. Louis, MO, Rossmoor, CA, Celebration, FL, Laredo, TX, and Ford's Colony near Williamsburg, VA.

There are also networks of private highways in Italy and other nations. Such highways typically are toll roads whose upkeep is paid for with user fees. England and Wales are thought to have about 40,000 private roads.

Zeus wrote:

A private road is a road owned and maintained by a private individual, organization, or company rather than by a government. Consequently, unauthorized use of the road may be considered trespassing, and some of the usual rules of the road may not apply.

——————————————————

You statement , as far as Massachusets is concerned , is not acurate. Subdivision that go before a planning board usually have a connection point to an existing road in the road netwrok.

They then create a road on paper and then have lots fronting that road. The developer constructs the road according to the specs put forth by the municorp having jurisiction over the land the subdivision is proposed.

The developer builds the road and then gets lot releases from the planning board to construct the houses or buildings along the road frontage.

The land and the road is still in private ownership and remains in private ownership until the municorp's executive branch government officers take a vote to accept the street as a public way.

Until that vote, the property owners along the frontage of the newly created road own to the centerline of the road along their frontage. They are forever responsible for the upkeep to the roads condition. They have no say on the enforcement of the motor vehicle laws becasue the road can be used by the general public and has the right to pass and repass. When they put a gate up they accept all responsibility for both the surface of the raod and the strucures buried underneath. Water and sewer pipes. they also accept resonsibility for trash removal. the municorp will still send a fire truck and an ambulance as well as a police officer but they will not plow the road or maintain it.

If the municorp and its executive branch officers vote to "accept" the road, the municorp will control the mainainence and the buried infrastructure. They will pick up the trash and plow the road. They will fix a water or sewer leak as well.

To have a completely private road in the newly created subdivision the property owners that buy houses there would have to vote to become a homeowners association. They would have to understand what responsibility they will have when they vote to keep the road truly private, without the public having the right to pass and re pass.

So you see the ownership rights and the maintainence responsibility for a newly created road is bifurcated from the start and has to have positive action from both the homeowners/property owners and the government to be truly private.

Remember, just becasue it is private, it doesn't get the property owners out of paying property taxes.

Geo,

I don't think road privatization is something that will probably happen in the near future — there are much more important fish to fry. That said, I think a good approach would be to start with rural, residential roads, and turn them over to a neighborhood association, or perhaps give everyone on the street a share. I do think that these roads would be maintained. Suppose I have a road repair business, and I notice one of these rural streets is in bad shape. I could get a clipboard, and go door to door along the street collecting pledges towards the road repair. No one pays unless there are enough pledges collected to get the work done — so that no one is afraid of being stuck holding the bag. If it's important to the people along the street to improve the road, I am sure that the pledge goal could be met. So, I fix the road, and move on to another. Neighborhood associations could even take the initiative in collecting pledges to hire road repair, or improvement. Perhaps a few particularly industrious neighborhoods would do it themselves. Also, why not try this out gradually? We could choose a rural road, with willing participants, exempt them from any taxes related to road building or maintanance, and turn over to them the management of their road. We could see how well it works, so we could learn useful lessons before attempting this on a larger scale.

Larger, busier roads would probably be better off auctioned off. There are many ways the owner of a road could recover the costs of repairs and improvements. Advertising is one. Tolls are another — and automatic scanners these days mean tolls don't need to slow you down. Also, you certainly don't need to be rich — it does no good for owners to price their customers out of the market, and examples of private expressways that exist today, usually charge no more than a couple bucks per trip — far less than we pay for roads now. Check out this, for some examples of basic public services that are being offered more sucessfully privately, including water, air traffic control, emergency services, etc. Roads are briefly covered at 5:45: http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=j….

Here's more on private roads — I encourage you to watch the rest of this six part series as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtwdVInR1Gw

Examine what happens in sparsely populated areas in this country already: Farmers, or loggers, etc, clear dirt roads connecting their property to a local town or highway. These roads are often quite long — providing plenty of new rural areas with road access, and locations for new houses, for those who want to live in the country.

Furthermore, did you know that private turnpikes made up much of our early road system? In fact, as a percentage of GDP, the amount invested in these roads from 1790 to 1830 was greater than the total amount invested by all levels of government in the interstate highway system between 1956 and 1995. These investments produced at least 40,000 to 50,000 miles of road, and built many of the covered bridges we see today, without any government involvement. In fact, in New Hampshire, there were 51 turnpike incorporations, representing more than 1/6 of all incorporations at the time. The very first connected Portsmouth to Concord, and formed the basis of what is now route 4.

Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859), visiting the country at the time, noted that,

"If it is a question of taking a road past his property, [a man] sees at once that this
small public matter has a bearing on his greatest private interests, and there is no
need to point out to him the close connection between his private profit and the
general interest. . . . Local liberties, then, which induce a great number of
citizens to value the affection of their kindred and neighbors, bring men
constantly into contact, despite the instincts which separate them, and force them
to help one another. . . . The free institutions of the United States and the political
rights enjoyed there provide a thousand continual reminders to every citizen that
he lives in society. . . . Having no particular reason to hate others, since he is
neither their slave nor their master, the American’s heart easily inclines toward
benevolence. At first it is of necessity that men attend to the public interest,
afterward by choice. What had been calculation becomes instinct. By dint of
working for the good of his fellow citizens, he in the end acquires a habit and
taste for serving them. . . . I maintain that there is only one effective remedy
against the evils which equality may cause, and that is political liberty. (Alexis de
Tocqueville, pp. 511-13, Lawrence/Mayer edition)

You see, people can help each other out of benevolence, both for their own sakes, and the sakes of others, rather than because of government force, and accomplish real, and significant good.

I think, Geo, it's hard to imagine it simply because we haven't experienced it. Suppose all TV and Radio were run by government, and we had never experienced anything else. No doubt we would say, "Of course TV and radio can never be private — how on earth could anyone make any money providing a service that anyone can tune into for free any time?" But, we would not have imagined the possibilities of ads, or of satellite radio and TV, which can operate by subscription. Suppose all food were provided by government. We would surely say, "Of course food distribution can never be privatized — only the rich would eat!!" but, we would not have imagined the possibility of the food kitchen, or the homeless shelter, or church based and secular charities — or the greater efficiencies in food production that we have because of competition. Any idea how much a McDonald's hamburger would cost, if government produced it, and people were forced to buy them, no matter what? A lot more than a dollar, I can tell you that. If we lived in such a world, as in the soviet system, it would be difficult to even imagine the food options we have available today, just as we have difficulty imagining the possibilities of private roads. That's really the point, and the reason central planning doesn't work — people being free produces things we could not otherwise imagine, at prices we would not have believed possible. You may not be able to sit in soviet Russia and imagine a modern supermarket — but someone will, and will build it, given the chance. We may not be able to sit here and imagine all the advantages of a private road system, but someone will, and will build it.

Many of the things we take for granted as being run by government in this country were run very successfully privately, in the past. We only assume government must do it today, because we haven't seen the potential of the alternatives — we haven't seen the food kitchens, the WKBKs, and the one dollar hamburgers.

The problem is in this country, whenever there is a problem, we look to more government to solve it — despite the fact if we dig just a little, it's usually government that caused the problem in the first place. Do we like the way the country has headed, based on this policy, with ever increasing Government in all aspects of our lives, and ever increasing debt? Has it helped our economy? Has it helped our foreign policy? Are our civil liberties more or less protected? Do we have more or less freedom, and wealth, in our finances? Do we have more or less choice in our lives?

Let's try the alternative, if only in certain ways, and if only in certain areas. Let's not keep doing the same thing, hoping for a different solution.

Maybe freedom works after all .

Geo,

I really am convinced you are not open minded on the topic, by your tone, the way you ignore legitimate arguments, and your repetition of arguments which have already been repeatedly debunked. I hope I am wrong, but I feel that even if I were to make an outstanding argument, you would not be willing to consider it — were I to make an airtight case, you would imagine or invent a leak. That said, I will respond, if only for the benefit of others reading.

I will say this again: I am not a road manager, nor road builder. I will not be the expert designing these systems, so it is unfair to expect me to create a business case. If I lived in the Soviet system, I would not need to invent McDonald's in order to realize that central planning and bread lines were not working.

Did you even consider my example? You are the man who stands in the bread line, asserting that private food production could never work, because you haven't seen a business plan for Shaw's, or imagined the trucks and farms who could supply it. You are the man listening to state radio, asserting that private broadcasting could never work, because you haven't seen the business plan for WKBK, or imagined the advertisers, or free content that would drive it.

I will indulge you with some of my ideas about how things might work, but please understand that history and common sense demonstrate that the truly free market outperforms central planning and bureaucracy every time it's tried, producing solutions beyond the imagination of the central planners. The people figuring this out will be smarter and more qualified on the subject than I, and their and their customers' collective intelligence will be greater still.

If a road did charge electronic toll, it would make complete sense, because the cost of maintenance should be borne by the users. Such fees would only be a few cents, and would not significantly affect travel plans — certainly not more than gas does currently. Does having to pay for gas "curb your freedom based on your income", or do your objections somehow only apply when critiquing free competition and choice? Or, people could pay for a subscription, which would allow unlimited driving on a particular network.

The free market is not based on the idea that people will always be fair, or benevolent. It is based on the idea that a business or organization competing for customers in price and quality is far more accountable to the people than a bureaucrat who will get money no matter how incompetent he is, because he prohibits alternatives.

The advantage is threefold, at least:

1. Road maintenance would be cheaper. Currently, government wastes a great deal of money on bureaucracy, administration, and other inefficiencies, which would be eliminated by someone with skin in the game.

2. Competition would encourage innovation. Which aspects of our economy are most stagnant? That's right, the government provided ones. Schools have deteriorated, if anything, over the years, road technology is decades old, etc. Meanwhile, autos, computers, etc, improve all the time. The government has no motivation to innovate, because it is guaranteed business no matter what — not so a private company, competing by rate and quality.

3. People's freedom would be respected. Roads would no longer be run by a forced monopoly. Instead, people would be free to use or not use any road they chose, based on the quality and price of the service.

People DID work together to maintain roads in our early history. Some toll roads failed, as they should have because they were not benefiting the public enough. Other toll roads were doing just fine, but were usurped by government, and people became lazy. If people today do not fit Alexis de Tocqueville's description any more, then it falls to us to inspire them to do better. It is foolish to abandon a right cause because it may not be successful. Would an abolitionist abandon the goal of ending slavery because, "people are just too lazy … they seek the easy way out"? No, he would work all the harder to inspire people to abandon their indolence.

The government screws up most everything it does — the war on poverty, war on terror, war on drugs, DMV, FEMA, Katrina, education, health care, retirement, etc ad absurdum. Why would we expect that a monopoly, able to forcefully prevent competition, and in many cases force patronage, would be the best solution for anything? It's frankly irrational.

If you are not truly closed minded, as I fear you are, but are only concerned that the people have irrevocably lost all vigilance in defense of their freedoms, I suggest you assist in trying to restore it, rather than attempting to assert the impossibility of sucess.

The people do believe in liberty, and the giant that beat back the British empire will reawaken, and peacefully, I hope, reclaim the liberty which is the natural right of every man. I hope you do not find yourself standing on the side of monopoly, force, and tyranny on that day or any other.

To Mr. Geo:

"You would have to plan your life differently."

Keen observation. Its called living within your means. You have to do that now, for the most part. What would do if your neighbor who didn't have as much money as you demanded that you give him some because you were restricting his freedoms? If you would give it to him, I'll be needing all of your personal info ASAP.

"It seems the advocates of getting the government out of the road system cant come up with a good business model to make it work"

Care to back up that claim? Many feasible business models have been presented to you. And, as always in a free market, the most efficient system would rise to the top. Surely you wouldn't argue that current system
is efficient?

"All of the free market stuff is based on the idea that people will be fair and equitable and benevolent. That is pure bullshit becasue people are not that way. People seek the easy way out."

You're statement is half true. Free market "stuff" is not based on the good in people at all. Surely you've heard talk of free market courts. But people seeking the easy way out is very true. Selfishness is human nature. Good thing too. Everything you own was made in pursuit of the dollar. Problem is, you create government and you make a position of power that one of these selfish people can abuse. Then, seeking the easy way out turns using violence against your neighbors. You are trying to argue the destructive nature of man justification of government. Cute, but holds no water. Read AnarchoJessse's blog post "The Fiction of Good Gevernment".

Geo,

You ask, "What legit agruments have I ignored?"

Here's one scenario I proposed, I'll re-quote here:

"Suppose I have a road repair business, and I notice one of these rural streets is in bad shape. I could get a clipboard, and go door to door along the street collecting pledges towards the road repair. No one pays unless there are enough pledges collected to get the work done — so that no one is afraid of being stuck holding the bag. If it’s important to the people along the street to improve the road, I am sure that the pledge goal could be met. So, I fix the road, and move on to another."

You also seem not to have viewed either of these videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry2p1dTQ6Zo&fe… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtwdVInR1Gw

You also ignored my point that much rural road development already happens without government:

"Examine what happens in sparsely populated areas in this country already: Farmers, or loggers, etc, clear dirt roads connecting their property to a local town or highway. These roads are often quite long — providing plenty of new rural areas with road access, and locations for new houses, for those who want to live in the country. Many of these roads are not maintained by government."

You ignored my point that expecting a business plan from an amateur like myself is not reasonable — rather, it is enough to note that government has been, and continues to be inefficient, while private services continue to improve:

"I will say this again: I am not a road manager, nor road builder. I will not be the expert designing these systems, so it is unfair to expect me to create a business case. If I lived in the Soviet system, I would not need to invent McDonald’s in order to realize that central planning and bread lines were not working.

Did you even consider my example? You are the man who stands in the bread line, asserting that private food production could never work, because you haven’t seen a business plan for Shaw’s, or imagined the trucks and farms who could supply it. You are the man listening to state radio, asserting that private broadcasting could never work, because you haven’t seen the business plan for WKBK, or imagined the advertisers, or free content that would drive it.

I will indulge you with some of my ideas about how things might work, but please understand that history and common sense demonstrate that the truly free market outperforms central planning and bureaucracy every time it’s tried, producing solutions beyond the imagination of the central planners."

You ignored Alexis de Tocqueville's observation regarding early America, which directly contradicts your view that people cannot cooperate without being coerced into it:

“If it is a question of taking a road past his property, [a man] sees at once that this
small public matter has a bearing on his greatest private interests, and there is no
need to point out to him the close connection between his private profit and the
general interest. . . . Local liberties, then, which induce a great number of
citizens to value the affection of their kindred and neighbors, bring men
constantly into contact, despite the instincts which separate them, and force them
to help one another. . . . The free institutions of the United States and the political
rights enjoyed there provide a thousand continual reminders to every citizen that
he lives in society. . . . Having no particular reason to hate others, since he is
neither their slave nor their master, the American’s heart easily inclines toward
benevolence. At first it is of necessity that men attend to the public interest,
afterward by choice. What had been calculation becomes instinct. By dint of
working for the good of his fellow citizens, he in the end acquires a habit and
taste for serving them. . . . I maintain that there is only one effective remedy
against the evils which equality may cause, and that is political liberty. (Alexis de
Tocqueville, pp. 511-13, Lawrence/Mayer edition)"

You ignore my argument that our behavior should be dictated by what is right, and that if people are indolent, we should work against it, not accept it:

"If people today do not fit Alexis de Tocqueville’s description any more, then it falls to us to inspire them to do better. It is foolish to abandon a right cause because it may not be successful. Would an abolitionist abandon the goal of ending slavery because, “people are just too lazy … they seek the easy way out”? No, he would work all the harder to inspire people to abandon their indolence."

You ignored my point that government has been consistently less efficient than voluntary efforts in many areas, and that, as has been demonstrated in other areas, removing these aspects of life from government control has led to unimaginable improvements:

"I think, Geo, it’s hard to imagine it simply because we haven’t experienced it. Suppose all TV and Radio were run by government, and we had never experienced anything else. No doubt we would say, “Of course TV and radio can never be private — how on earth could anyone make any money providing a service that anyone can tune into for free any time?” But, we would not have imagined the possibilities of ads, or of satellite radio and TV, which can operate by subscription. Suppose all food were provided by government. We would surely say, “Of course food distribution can never be privatized — only the rich would eat!!” but, we would not have imagined the possibility of the food kitchen, or the homeless shelter, or church based and secular charities — or the greater efficiencies in food production that we have because of competition. Any idea how much a McDonald’s hamburger would cost, if government produced it, and people were forced to buy them, no matter what? A lot more than a dollar, I can tell you that. If we lived in such a world, as in the soviet system, it would be difficult to even imagine the food options we have available today, just as we have difficulty imagining the possibilities of private roads. That’s really the point, and the reason central planning doesn’t work — people being free produces things we could not otherwise imagine, at prices we would not have believed possible. You may not be able to sit in soviet Russia and imagine a modern supermarket — but someone will, and will build it, given the chance. We may not be able to sit here and imagine all the advantages of a private road system, but someone will, and will build it.

Many of the things we take for granted as being run by government in this country were run very successfully privately, in the past. We only assume government must do it today, because we haven’t seen the potential of the alternatives — we haven’t seen the food kitchens, the WKBKs, and the one dollar hamburgers.

The problem is in this country, whenever there is a problem, we look to more government to solve it — despite the fact if we dig just a little, it’s usually government that caused the problem in the first place. Do we like the way the country has headed, based on this policy, with ever increasing Government in all aspects of our lives, and ever increasing debt? Has it helped our economy? Has it helped our foreign policy? Are our civil liberties more or less protected? Do we have more or less freedom, and wealth, in our finances? Do we have more or less choice in our lives?"

Finally, you failed to respond to my three examples of ways a private system would improve things:

"The advantage is threefold, at least:

1. Road maintenance would be cheaper. Currently, government wastes a great deal of money on bureaucracy, administration, and other inefficiencies, which would be eliminated by someone with skin in the game.

2. Competition would encourage innovation. Which aspects of our economy are most stagnant? That’s right, the government provided ones. Schools have deteriorated, if anything, over the years, road technology is decades old, etc. Meanwhile, autos, computers, etc, improve all the time. The government has no motivation to innovate, because it is guaranteed business no matter what — not so a private company, competing by rate and quality.

3. People’s freedom would be respected. Roads would no longer be run by a forced monopoly. Instead, people would be free to use or not use any road they chose, based on the quality and price of the service."

Instead of dealing substantively with these points, you continue to focus on the examples of Sweeden and St. Louis, which no one has claimed are ideal models, and which I never even mentioned.

This is not the behavior of someone interested in discovering the truth, or honest dialogue, it is the behavior of someone interested in demagoguery.

Now, despite you ignoring my other arguments, I am feeling patient, so I will answer your questions:

You ask, "If the free market system of private roads is so great and efficient why do we still have government controlled and maintained roads?"

Because people are slow to embrace change, and it's very difficult to remove government, or other force-based control over something once it has taken hold. It's the same reason the soviet union lasted 69 years, and slavery lasted centuries. It takes time for people to wake up to more practical, moral ways of doing things. The trend through history is the increase of liberty … I have no doubt that one day people will look back on coercive government the same way we look back on slavery.

You ask, "How does competiton come to play if there is only one road my driveway is attached to. I have to travel that road to get to other roads."

When a developer builds a road to a number of buildings, he/she will most likely let the road be used for free, and this would become part of the contract for purchasing the house. He/she would do this in order to increase the value and attractiveness of the property he/she is selling.

Even if there were a rare case where no contractual agreement existed, the road owner would need to keep costs low lest his best customers — the people living on his road, move away.

Also, I do think community organizations could own roads and maintain them quite effectively, by means I have described. In addition, I think you underestimate the effect of social pressure. If all of your neighbors, who you very likely rely upon for business, consider you a bad actor in the neighborhood, it's bad news for you.

These are only three of my ideas, but I am sure that in real life, there would be solutions I cannot dream of. Just as, I would not be able to imagine the iPhone prior to the beginning of cellular networks.

To expect everything to be planned ahead of time by one person is the fallacy of central planning, and it leads to disaster, as it did in the USSR. Freedom leads to unforeseeable growth and innovation, as seen at the end of the 19th century.

As far as Sweeden and St Louis go, they are interesting, and good examples of how things can be done differently, but they are far from ideal.

You state, "I believe that the road privatization requires people to get of off their couches and say enough is enough. I believe that people are full of apathy and are not interested in private roads, they are not interested in alternative ways to get potable water to their house or an inovative way to remove grey water from their property. they vote with their silence that govvernment is the way to provide these services."

Yes, and we can change that, if you are willing to try. Furthermore, they have no right to force their neighbors to pay into a system against their will.

You state, "The concept of a toll road only works when the road is limited access."

This is not true. There could instead be security vehicles who patrol for unpaid vehicles. How do you think carpool lanes work all over the country? What happens when you blaze through an Ipass without paying? These are not limited access roads. In fact, an electronic scanner could even send an alert when a car passes which does not have a toll transponder.

Again, I'm an not a civil engineer, nor a road designer, nor electrical engineer, nor an inventor. Some of these people would come up with innovative solutions that do not occur to either of us — our history is littered with innovative solutions to problems that were considered intractable.

You say, "You will never sell the idea of a property owner being responsible for the road in front of their property becasue it would mean that they would have to pay more attention to the details. They just write a check to the municorp now. They would have to go to a meeting regularly to see how the money in the sinking fund was being managed or how the maintainence contractor is living up to their contract with the roas maintainence association of neighborhood property owners. They dont get involved with the municorp now, what makes you so sure they would be involved in the road maintainence property owners association."

Fine, they could just write a check to the neighborhood organization, remain on good terms with their neighbors, enjoy a maintained road, and not be involved in the details. You're trying really hard to make this not work, aren't you?

You say, "You will never sell the idea of a transponder in every vehicle and a reader at every intersection until a model can be presented to the people and it can be shown how it will benefit their wallet and their freedom. (I will not take it on faith that this scheme could work, I want it shown to me on paper that it is a legitamete model and it cost less than what we have now and it protects my freedoms more than waht we have now)"

Some road owners might require an Ipass like device, others would not. Maybe they would provide traditional toll options, or subscription services for those disinclined to use an Ipass. They would figure out what the customers want, and give it to them, same as every other industry on the planet.

It would save money because government is ALWAYS inefficient, and does not innovate. You seriously think the road maintenance effort in this country is anything close to efficient, or optimally effective!?

Seriously, on what planet is a monopoly that is allowed to forcibly eliminate competition and force patronage expected to be more efficient than a company forced to compete?

Mr Statist: "Well you know, those cell phones are really cool, and get better and cheaper every year, but if we really want to improve service and reduce cost, let's outlaw everyone but AT&T, and make a law that everyone has to use them no matter what. That ought to improve things".

Is this some kind of mental disease?

In the cases where people do own the roads in front of their houses, they will maintain it because, *gasp, they don't want to drive on nothing but potholes.

Read Alexis de Tocqueville’s account one more time, and remember that he was reporting on what he SAW in early America. We can work together without using the threat of violence. Yes, there are antisocial people, who will refuse to work together with others. They are the exception though, not the rule.

Now, please consider the things that I have said, both here and before, and respond to them directly, and do not rehash your same exact false points yet again.

If your overly negative and unqualified brain cannot imagine a working voluntary road system, it is no big surprise. I don't expect to use your road system anyway.

The Swedish private road system was shown to be an example of how we should privatize the roads in America. I pointed out the part that says the "private road is really a national subsidized road.

This is not a true statement. The Swedish private road system was pointed out as an example that privatization of roads exists to some degree or another. One possibility out of many. It was never once said to be a perfect system or "how we should privatize the roads in America". You are being disingenuous.

Security guards will patrol the road for unauthorized vehicles, issnt that the same as a cop? won’t he be using force and frear to impose the private road system on someone that dint conset to it?

Here you are either being disingenuous or revealing an incredible lack of even the most basic tenets of libertarianism/voluntaryism.

No, it is not the same as a cop. A cop works for the state, whereas a security guard works for the property owner. Property rights trump all. I don't need the consent of trespassers to remove said trespassers from my property and neither do the employees I've hired to do that for me. If you do not want to pay my toll (which would likely be in the cents), you should seek another route.

Roads are immovable and by there very nature there is a geographical monopoly. You cant build parrallel road so you could have competition can you?

This is by far the silliest statement. Just because it isn't parallel doesn't mean there can't be another half dozen roads nearby that take you to the same destination. Some may be out of the way, some may be a quicker shot, some may be better maintained. That's where competition comes in. If you don't want to be inconvenienced by the going "the long way around" or whatever, then you should pay the fee for driving down my road.