I'm not attacking your intelligence, I am saying that you are not qualified render a judgments on all possible solutions that could be achieved in the private market. That you are negative regarding the idea is undeniable. And, you may have an imagination, but you certainly do not wish to apply it here. I would say on this subject you have the opposite of an entrepreneurial, "can do" attitude.

I myself am also unqualified, which makes it curious that you are demanding a detailed plan and business case from me. As I say, you expect me to invent the Iphone before I can advocate the existence of private cell carriers.

If you still consider the idea of private roads impractical, and would like to be sure it could work before implementing it in any widespread manner, I suggest you reread what I said in my first post:

"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 maintenance, 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."

Security guards are just one possibility among many. Restricted access is just fine, and is used all the time, on government run toll roads for example. If security was used in certain cases, they would be different than traffic police for two important reasons:

1: They would be patrolling only certain roads on behalf of a company or organization that legitimately owns them, and which were obtained by purchasing them from willing sellers.

2: They would be funded by fees obtained by voluntary business. A gasoline seller cannot choose not to do business with the government, nor can a homeowner. If you did not wish to use a particular road system, however, you would not have to.

Roads are not a "natural" monopoly. There can be many ways to get from point A to point B, as indeed there are now. There is no reason that the routes have to all be the same. I will yet again quote something from my first post, in hopes that you will read it this time:

"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."

Far from being impossible, private road systems have happened, in this country, and formed the basis of much of our road and highway system today. Yet, you continue to ignore these facts and pretend we would be somehow incapable of developing roads without a monopoly run by you.

The difference is this, for the umpteenth time: A private system does not depend on using force to make people pay into it — force on gasoline sellers, force on homeowners, or force on auto owners. A person is free to use, or not use, whatever roads they choose, and will only pay for what they use. This opens up competition, and causes the three benefits I described above.

You are effectively charging me some number of cents per mile to drive on government roads, through taxes. All I want is the opportunity to instead choose a different road, and pay the owner of that road, if I find they can offer me a better value.

I encourage you to read my post from 10:38 yesterday, where I outlined the arguments you had not responded to, which you still have not responded to.

I also fear you may never find a practical solution, however, given that you have a blindfold on, plugs in your ears, and apparently a wage that depends on you never discovering it.

That's why I say, I might like to subscribe to a road system run by people with a bit more imagination and creativity, and a bit more skin in the game, than the current group. Unfortunately, the people who run the monopoly will throw the guy who runs the corner store in jail if he doesn't make me pay for their roads when I buy gas, throw me out of my house if I don't pay for their roads when I pay my taxes, and compound my car and fine me if I don't pay for their roads by registering my car and buying a license (even to drive only on my own roads).

And now I'm going to say this once more, because you seem to like to ignore things you don't like: You still have not responded to any of the points I listed in my post before last, among other points. It would be courteous of you to respond to these points, rather than picking one tiny portion of a post out of context, ignoring the rest, and then proclaiming that no solutions have been offered. This is what makes me frustrated — you are ignoring the bulk of what I say, picking a nit out, and then throwing up your hands in frustration, as if you had tried your absolute best, but just couldn't see a possible solution. It's very disingenuous.

Oh, and I've been a part of enough bureaucracies in my life. I encourage you to think creatively about ways to meet people's needs without forcing them into one system. Open your mind, and perhaps some day I could be your happy, willing customer, instead of your coerced and unwilling one.

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.

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.

Paul,

Is that the best you can do is attack my intelligence?

I never once made attacks on people, only their ideas relating to road privatization.

Paul,

People are not slow to embrace change. The road privitization idea put forth , in my opinion, have no merit and have not been thought out to the point where people can embrace them.

You want to privatize the road maintainence system and when I point out what i believe are impediments to making the change the best you can come up with is:

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?

Or the best one is , the private road association will flourish because becasue the neighbors will take care of it while some of the neighbors just right a check and go about their business.

I do not understand why you believe that these types of solutions are any different than a municorp.

A municorp is you neighbors getting elected to an office to oversee the very things you want to privatize. how is it you believe that the same neighbor is a tyranical oppress when he has his authority under a government municorp but when you label him an officer of a private/geographically limited improvement association he will behave in a benevolent manner looking out for his neighbors money and the road in front of his house.

How will the roving security guard looking for private road scofflaws be any different than the paid municorp cop looking for traffic violators?

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?

It is no wonder you guys aren't making any progress in sharing your ideas. I am critical of your ideas and you attack me personally.

I get acused of having a mental disease or defect and of having a negative and an unqualified brain.

I am still waiting for a practical solution to the private road system but I suspect I will never find it.

I challenge you to get elected or appointed to a department of public works board, the board that is responsible for road maintainence where you live, and see it from the inside of the government you so dispise and then see about privatizing the road network.

Arguing with me will or attacking me will not change my mind or move any road closer to being privatized.

I am sure you have figured out that I am involved with a municorp. I am appointed to the zoning board of appeals and as we discuss this I am on the ballot for a seat on the planning board.

I dont seek office or involvement in public service becasue i want to oppress people. I put myself forward in public service becasue I dont like the very same things you dont like. People abusing the power they have.

Is there really any difference between the private road improvement association and a municorp? I dont think so but I also believe you do think there is a difference. I just dont understand why you think there is a difference.

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.

Not a privately owned and operated road then is it?

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.

What legit agruments have I ignored?

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

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.

I pointed out a major flaw with the "private" roads of Sweden. Not one of you touched that one with a ten foot pole. that sxccheme requires a national government subsidy and the use of force is authorized if a share holder defaults on his fair share.

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.

We will never do away with government inefficency and waste until people hold the government accountable and until people provide real solutions and not just concepts.

The concept of a toll road only works when the road is limited access.

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)

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.

I am trying to tell you that changing the structure of how our roads are maintained is only as good as the people involved with it. People are not actively engaged in holding government accountable. Do you really believe they will magically rise up to the task of making sure the road in front of their house is maintained properly becasue the legal fiction called a private road maintainence corp that they have a vote in is drastically different than a government municorp.

I pointed out that the Swedish system is flawed and that the claim of privatized government services in neighborhood inprovement associations in St Louis is an urban myth.

I spoke to the President of the oldest established improvement association and he informed me that the government is alive and well in the government services business and the roads are part of the responsibility of the county government.

"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".

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.