Voluntaryist and Statist Compromise
Those of us who wish the violent monopoly known as the state would disappear are not going to see our goal met for what I believe is an extended amount of time.
Question: Would you as someone who believes in liberty (or as someone who agrees with the state) be willing to make the following compromise:
The state will be unable to enforce “crimes” against someone unless there is a bona fide complaining victim who was harmed or endangered. The punishment for endangering or harming someone will be twice that is currently is.
The state would still be allowed to use violence to enforce coercive taxation.
I’m curious to your thoughts/opinions.
Comments
108 Comments on Voluntaryist and Statist Compromise
I’m not in favor of negotiating with terrorists.
I am not going to consent to their extortion, forced monopolies, or other aggressive coercion over my life.
Now, if a bill existed to stop enforcing victimless crimes, or to force those who harm others make restitution to those people (rather than just being thrown in jail), I would vote for it.
I’m happy to gradually move in the right direction. I’m not going to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
But, as Whammo said, I will not consent to their abuse in any way shape or form.
Nope. That’s not a compromise I’m willing to make.
Remove the protectionism and monopoly of government “services”, and let private companies compete, and THAT’s a compromise I’ll make.
I’m perfectly happy to allow “The State” to continue to exist and offer it’s services… in the free market.
I do not know how comfortable I feel with that. I think I can see some areas I can agree with the statist on, but that is not one. I may agree to the elimination of the abstract victimless crime, I may even vote for a candidate promoting it. I do not know if I can accept the coercive monopoly of force.
It would only be temporarily better than what we have now, yet not enough to make me happy. That the state would still have the final say in it and of course whether any edict issued from then on, was *fair* or not, troubles me very much. Because of the constantly proven ghastly nature of the state, they would eventually push things in a direction to where any short term gains liberty loving people would make, would eventually be eliminated.
“I have altered the bargain, pray I don’t alter it any further” – Darth Vader
We have to peacefully strive for no state, even if it involves moving from one single open mind to the next, planting the seed and hoping it will grow. Rulers turn into bullies and thieves and the new “society” will have to build itself up with this in mind. Lest we replace a system of rampant injustice and abject cruelty with one that has equal potential for such evil to grow in time.
I agree with Marty here. What is your position, Brad?
Your question is at best vague and at worst meaningless unless you define what you mean by your use of the terms “the state,” “allowed,” and “unable.”
Yes, of course, then just like the Leftists – Statists – Rightists – Socialists do, we can begin to negotiate a NEW compromise. Stealing from the Charge of the Light Brigade — half the distance compromise, half the distance compromise, half a league onward, Gallant 600. Err, I mean gallant 10,000 Free Staters. Honor the Charge they made.
See, like a sneaky Chicago politician, say what you need to and keep compromising until we have the whole salami. If caught, say: “That compromise was with those sneaky bastards; this one is with me. You can trust me. (To renegotiate the deal faster than an All Star Rookie with a hungry agent!)
Agh!
But who is the complaining party if I don’t pay my taxes?
No for the same reason I am against a compromise that would only allow slave owners to whipp their slaves on fridays.
It is totally missing the point, slavery and all the atrocities would still exists just as the state would still continue to oppress and tax. I can not compromise in such an issue of grave moral wrong doings.
What a terrible compromise considering most of the existing punishments enrich the state, punish the people being taxed to pay for imprisoning people and do not serve as restitution to the victim. I also disagree that our unified goal of individual liberty and personal responsibility is all that far away considering the state is now in its economic death throes and has begun to feed on itself. Give it another 12 months.
How about instead the state be dismantled, various Arbitration Agencies arise to compete in a free market whose ethics are governed by the Philosophy of Liberty, and those involved in the disputes fund their resolution voluntarily in those courts (else be ostracized)?
Compromise is good for minor matters, such as what topping to get on a pizza. In matters of life or death, or more relevantly, liberty or slavery, no such compromise can exist other than living separately and at peace.
How’s this offer:
The state continues, with no libertarian reforms whatsoever, but the state must recognize those who opt out of EVERYTHING, from all taxes to all state-made law. Let the voluntarists have their voluntary society, let the syndicalists have their communes, and let the statists have their state. Any infringement originating from one society and victimizing a member of another is an act of war.
XYLOTRON! I accept your offer! What you’re suggesting is a form of “parallel development”, is that correct?…The idea that, just as, say, Canada, the U. S., and Mexico, can all share borders, but still retain unique identities?…Like that?…or maybe more like “American Indian” tribes having sovereign states and borders within the U.S.???…Hmmm…let’s keep working on that one, OK?…#
xylotron on Mon, 5th Jul 2010 6:21 pm
Compromise is good for minor matters, such as what topping to get on a pizza. In matters of life or death, or more relevantly, liberty or slavery, no such compromise can exist other than living separately and at peace.<-Your words speak so well, that I want to repeat them…I like to think of the idea of "diplomatic immunity"…Does that work for you? Works for ME!…
Bradley – can you explain what you mean by “endangered” and how it would be determined?
I think that’s going to be the tricky part, since different people would feel endangered by different situations.
I might think driving faster than 70 mph is endangering, while bungee jumping is a lot of fun. You might think the protection of being encased by an automobile allows you to drive at whatever speed you desire, while bungee jumping is dangerous.
Bungee jumping typically only endangers the jumper, however. Running around the street with a live grenade, driving recklessly down the road, etc. endangers others who have to share your vicinity. And that leads us directly into private vs public property…
Bradley – can you explain what you mean by “endangered” and how it would be determined?
Well.. If I simply drive 70MPH down a road and no one is around, I’ve not endangered or harmed anyone.
If I drive 70MPH down a road and there is a pedestrian…. and I round a corner while driving like a bat out of hell, there would be a good argument that was I was doing was reckless….. no?
Yes, what you’re doing is Reckless. But I don’t think you should be stopped. You’re not harming anyone. Should you lose control of the vehicle, and harm someone or cause property damage, You’re responsible for those costs.
That’s the speed limit in a Free society: “How fast do I think I can drive and remain in control of my vehicle, to avoid incurring costs for reparations?”
If you mis-judge the speed limit, you pay the costs.
Private property is what’s going to determine — in a free society — who does what where. If my rules on my property are that its a speedway free-for-all and may God have mercy on your soul, cool. You been warned. If my neighbor’s rule on his property is that everyone has to wear a belt, travel 15 mph and wear a hat from the 1950′s, well there you go. He gets to decide that because he owns the property. That’s his right as owner. Don’t like it? Find another road or dirt trail or whatever.
In this way (with the rules known to all and personal responsibility in effect), we avoid a bunch of mishaps *before* they happen rather than afterward when its too late for the dead and maimed.
Exactly right zeus. Rules are good — they just need to be rules put in place by a property owner over his/her own property — rather than one sized fits all rules jammed down everyone’s throat. This way, diverse people have diverse options available to them. Crazy zeke the motor head with the death wish can drive on dukes of hazard speedway, and old mrs Johnson whose car hasn’t broken 20mph in ten years can drive in the elderly lane on Safeway blvd.
You know you liked my made up names, don’t even pretend you didn’t 
.
Bradley –
That’s an interesting answer, but you basically avoided the question. Please allow me to restate it: How would you determine what is considered “endangering” someone?
In other words, Quick-Walking Quincy might feel comfortable crossing the road with you coming towards him at 70 MPH, while Slow-Shambling Sally might feel endangered if you’re a hair over 25 MPH.
(Paul – the gauntlet has been thrown. Your move, Creative Charlie… )
I’d say a good definition of “endanger” would be a course of conduct, absent consent, which *actually* places someone in danger of bodily injury and/or death…
The *actually* part of that equation is a problem since its subjective. While I personally think there are universal truths, the *actual* danger posed in this particular problem depends on the perspective of multiple individuals as mentioned by Gabe above: The driver, Quincy and Sally. Next thing you know, Democracy rears its ugly head and they decide to vote on it. And with voting, someone always loses.
Again, I go back to the basics of property ownership. It’s really the only way to objectively determine the proper course of action.
Ahhh good point….. In speaking of the government paradigm.
There would be no voting…. if we were talking about the 50 miles of road that my company owns.
To drive on my road is conditioned on the fact that you agree to binding arbitration… and that you agree to surrender your ability to use defensive force against my police that patrol it. The police have the authority to cite or arrest you if you endanger another motorist on my roadways. You have the obligation to stop if they signal you to do so, if you do not, they have the authority to force you to stop. This authority they have due to your specific consent.
As you’ve agreed to binding arbitration…. If the arbitrator decides you did endanger someone, you must comply with the punishment.
Sorry…. Just went on a voluntaryism-day dream into roadway regulation.
There you go. This is why I like the General Public License used by open source software. There’s a line in the old 2.0 version that says something like (and I paraphrase): “You are not required (there’s the gun in the room) to follow my rules, since you and I have not contracted for you to do so in return for something of value. However, nothing else beyond agreeing to follow my rules grants you permission to do X, Y & Z with my property.”
I always thought that was a very powerful and telling declaration. It’s a bit watered down in the 3.0 version and loses a bit of clarity but its still there and it works well. No one has ever challenged the GPL and won. Likely because its logic is unassailable: I get to determine what is done with my property and you get to determine what is done with yours. As long as people respect the property rights of others, theirs will be respected in turn and disputes will be fewer and resolved more quickly than in the current statist paradigm.
Devils advocate here.please answer all questions to the best of your ability.extra points for well thought out answers.
1.You feel safe to drive at 70 MPH.It turns out you were wrong.Little johnny gets run over and has a broken arm.How do you make it up to him-what sort of reparation will make this right?
2.Same scenario,except little johnny is dead.Now what.He is in no position to accept any reparations.Do you just pay his family?Or is there another solution.
3. You are again driving as you please.This time you put Mr. Johnson in the hospital.He is out of work for 6 months.His house payment is due,and he has 5 kids to feed.Now what?
4.In any of the above scenarios,you have about 50 bucks saved up-obviously each will cost more than that.What happens now to A you and B the victim?
5.You are the one hit by Speedy Sam (I can do the name thing too) He has also hit Daring Dora while she crossed the street,and he wrecked a parked car,too.All seperate incidents over the last year.He has the money and has paid the damages,but the time lost has been yours.There is no indication he intends to change his behavior.His dad,Richie Rich,has plenty of money.Should he be allowed to continue driving?After all,he has paid all the bills.^. In the event you answered that he should not be allowed to drive on your road,suppose he decides to ignore you,and do it anyway.How should he be punished-he obviously doesn’t care what it costs,or what you think! Is jail an option?
Ehough for now.I look forward to any answers. —bil PS please indicate the number of the question answered.Answer as many as you feel like.
To drive on my road is conditioned on the fact that you agree to binding arbitration… and that you agree to surrender your ability to use defensive force against my police that patrol it. The police have the authority to cite or arrest you if you endanger another motorist on my roadways. You have the obligation to stop if they signal you to do so, if you do not, they have the authority to force you to stop. This authority they have due to your specific consent.
Good luck with that. Your road will be out of business real quick.
Good luck with that. Your road will be out of business real quick
I respectfully disagree. I think rules and enforcement of rules is very important in a society. I just disagree with ruleRS.
In a free market society there will still be situations where an individual has a monopoly on the initiation of force. The big difference is that it will have been agreed upon in advance.
Use my property, agree to my rules.
1.Multiple possibilities from paying his medical bill to tutoring him, coaching his little league, donating a liver or whatever else you, Johnny, his family, and the arbitration court mutually agree is “just compensation”. Plus, keep in mind some DRO’s will likely offer insurance for just his kind of scenario should the damages be monetary.
2.Same result only the family is much more likely to be unforgiving in their grief and thus the punishment more severe. But then, maybe you shouldn’t have been speeding recklessly? Welcome to Personal Responsibility.
3. Same thing. Go to court, see who is at fault (probably you), brainstorm a reasonable penance between you, the victim and the arbitration court.
4.Likely a non-monetary punishment like garbage pickup, little league coaching. Something where you donate your time and skills to make up for what you’ve done. Throwing you in a cage when you aren’t a raving, frothing-at-the-mouth savage lunatic just wastes your ability to provide restitution and punishes the public paying for your incarceration.
5.What makes you think money is going to be the punishment? You don’t think people can be a bit more clever than that? Think of the Gordian Knot. Good luck paying off non-monetary damages, Richie Rich.
Ultimate Answer: The market will decide. People, in all their wonderful creativity (and necessity being the mother of invention) will decide on a case by case basis punishments that can be agreed upon between the aggressors, the aggressed and the arbitration court.
Also keep in mind that while we cannot predict what resolution will occur in each and every case (“Ha! You can’t predict the future therefore liberty won’t work!” As if statism does/is?), the current alternative is to toss someone in jail, rob the people to pay for their imprisonment, make up crimes that have no victims, and give no restitution to the victims. Toss in additional sludge such as being a Hollywood actor or an “important” politician and other favoritism, corruption and so on. I’ll take the gamble on liberty every time over that unjust mess of a system.
When you enter someone’s property, you agree to the rules of that property — if you don’t comply, they have a right to kick you off. They don’t gain arbitrary power over you — for example, it’s not like you agree to let their agents kill you on whim.
So, if I break the speed limit too often, or do so without paying their fine, a road owner may ban me. If I show up anyway, that’s trespass.
Good questions Bil 
1.You feel safe to drive at 70 MPH.It turns out you were wrong.Little johnny gets run over and has a broken arm.How do you make it up to him-what sort of reparation will make this right?
Step one would be for me to talk to little Johnny and his parents, to see if we can come to an agreement on our own — that would be the best solution. At minimum, I’d expect to pay for medical bills, as well as extra for inconvenience/discomfort. It may be that a partially non-monetary solution could be reached. Maybe they also want me to work on their farm for a while, or attend their church.
If we can’t agree, then we should try to select an arbiter we both believe is fair, to determine restitution.
If we can’t agree on that, we’ll use the arbitor designated for disputes between my protection agency, and theirs. Likely, these agencies will also supply some level of representation.
Alternately, if for some reason all other options are not working, we could each select an arbitor, who will work together to select a third.
2.Same scenario,except little johnny is dead.Now what.He is in no position to accept any reparations.Do you just pay his family?Or is there another solution.
Yes, I would say if you accidentally kill someone, restitution goes to whomever the beneficiaries of their will would be. In this case, it’d probably be the family.
3. You are again driving as you please.This time you put Mr. Johnson in the hospital.He is out of work for 6 months.His house payment is due,and he has 5 kids to feed.Now what?
You’ve got to pay all that, plus extra for inconvenience/suffering.
4.In any of the above scenarios,you have about 50 bucks saved up-obviously each will cost more than that.What happens now to A you and B the victim?
In the worst case scenario, if you have no insurance, and no other way to pay, you’d be likely entered into a work program, where all the proceeds of your labor, other than room and board, would go to the victim(s), until the debt is paid.
It’s likely that many protection services would have a standard service to front the money for damages, if their client is the victim. So, the victim’s protection agency would front them the money for damages, and then you’d work to pay back the protection agency.
It’s also possible the perp’s protection agency would front the money.
5.You are the one hit by Speedy Sam (I can do the name thing too) He has also hit Daring Dora while she crossed the street,and he wrecked a parked car,too.All seperate incidents over the last year.He has the money and has paid the damages,but the time lost has been yours.
Firstly, let me say that he should pay for lost time as well — that’s part of damages.
There is no indication he intends to change his behavior.His dad,Richie Rich,has plenty of money.Should he be allowed to continue driving?After all,he has paid all the bills.^.
I probably wouldn’t allow him to drive on my road, because my customers would feel unsafe.
In the event you answered that he should not be allowed to drive on your road,suppose he decides to ignore you,and do it anyway.How should he be punished-he obviously doesn’t care what it costs,or what you think! Is jail an option?
I’d say jail is an option for those who are a continuing and eminent danger to others — not so much property, because that can be replaced — but there’s no real compensation for debilitating injury or death. To take the extreme case, yes, I believe a psychotic axe murderer, arsonist, serial rapist, etc, should be thrown in jail (and while in jail, they should still work to make restitution to their victim(s)).
So, if speedy sam will not stop putting people in serious, imminent risk of injury or death, he should be restrained from doing so.
If he’s just repeatedly trespassing, without putting others at risk, he should just continue to pay the fines.
I respectfully disagree. I think rules and enforcement of rules is very important in a society. I just disagree with ruleRS.
In a free market society there will still be situations where an individual has a monopoly on the initiation of force. The big difference is that it will have been agreed upon in advance.
Use my property, agree to my rules.
Your rules would indicate I need to agree to an arbitrator of your choosing. Why would I agree to that? Why would I surrender any leverage I possibly had?
You might counter that you own an important road, and so it might be in my best interest to agree to your terms. This harkens back to a discussion Paul and I were having in the comments of another thread.
So what if you, as the owner of the important road, instead of wanting us to agree to your arbitrator, want to ban all Jews or Blacks from the road? What recourse do we have?
Sure, you can say that you wouldn’t do something like that, because it’s wrong. And I believe that you’re probably telling the truth. But not everyone will have the same belief system.
To be clear, I am not opposed to private road ownership. I just don’t think it’s so simple as private ownership of other things. And frankly, I don’t really get how it would work.
2.Same scenario,except little johnny is dead.Now what.He is in no position to accept any reparations.Do you just pay his family?Or is there another solution.
Yes, I would say if you accidentally kill someone, restitution goes to whomever the beneficiaries of their will would be. In this case, it’d probably be the family.
Paul –
Re-read what you wrote. Do you think Little Johnny has a will? And since we’ve eliminated the notion of a specific age of consent, how are we to determine who his legal guardians actually are, and thus who would be the recipients of this restitution?
Furthermore, what if you can’t pay? Is the only viable recourse monetary renumeration?
Paul –
Re-read what you wrote. Do you think Little Johnny has a will?
No, of course not — or not usually anyway. People die all the time without wills. Their stuff goes to the nearest kin.
And since we’ve eliminated the notion of a specific age of consent, how are we to determine who his legal guardians actually are, and thus who would be the recipients of this restitution?
Most kids live with their parents/siblings, and the restitution would go to them. I think you’re making this more complicated than it is .
If the kid is adopted, I’d say the restitution would go to their adoptive family.
Furthermore, what if you can’t pay? Is the only viable recourse monetary renumeration?
I thought I outlined some alternatives, in my original post. If you can’t pay immediately, the victim’s defense agency would likely front the money, and you’d pay them back. If you and the victim (or in this case, family of the victim), can reach some alternative, non-monetary arrangement, that’s fine also.
I thought I outlined some alternatives, in my original post. If you can’t pay immediately, the victim’s defense agency would likely front the money, and you’d pay them back. If you and the victim (or in this case, family of the victim), can reach some alternative, non-monetary arrangement, that’s fine also.
Sorry, I wasn’t clear. I meant what if you’re dead too?
Or what if the accident also caused injury to you? Is Little Johnny’s family going to owe you restitution, along with you owing some to them?
So what if you, as the owner of the important road, instead of wanting us to agree to your arbitrator, want to ban all Jews or Blacks from the road? What recourse do we have?
I’m a little confused — I thought we resolved this question. It’s the same as would occur if you had racist policies for any business. You have a right to have them, but everyone else has a right to boycott and/or picket you until you change your policies or go out of business.
To be clear, I am not opposed to private road ownership. I just don’t think it’s so simple as private ownership of other things. And frankly, I don’t really get how it would work.
It seems like most of the questions you have apply equally to any private business or store.
Sorry, I wasn’t clear. I meant what if you’re dead too?
I’d say that if the accident is my fault, money from my estate should be used to restitute the family of the victim.
If I had no property, they’re out of luck. I mean, you can’t get water from a stone. The same would be true today — if a penniless dead guy harmed you, good luck trying to get a meaningful settlement.
Hopefully charitable people would step in in such cases.
Or what if the accident also caused injury to you? Is Little Johnny’s family going to owe you restitution, along with you owing some to them?
I think the question is, whose fault was the accident? If it’s my fault, nobody owes me restitution, even if I was injured.
Your rules would indicate I need to agree to an arbitrator of your choosing. Why would I agree to that? Why would I surrender any leverage I possibly had?
Your protection agency would work on your behalf with their protection agency to find a suitable arbitrator. You would agree to settle your dispute by arbitration in order to avoid ostracization or vigilante justice. Without an agreement to settle a dispute, you have no other societal protection against retaliation. Of course, if they harm you, they’re going to face damages and the burden of proof in arbitration for doing so. Hence it is in everyone’s best interest to play by the rules.
So what if you, as the owner of the important road, instead of wanting us to agree to your arbitrator, want to ban all Jews or Blacks from the road? What recourse do we have?
Beyond ostracizing them as a racist? Find another road. Or make your own and compete with them. I’m sure some clever people will come up with other methods but that’s all I can think of at the moment.
But what if… You can go through what ifs all day long until you turn blue. The question you really need to ask yourself is whether or not you accept the Philosophy of Liberty, the Non-Aggression Principle, Individual Sovereignty and Personal Responsibility as true and reasonable or if you’re just giving them lip service. Your alternative is what we have now and where that’s headed. Take your pick. None of us will blame you if you choose the devil you know. Not everyone is ready to make a stand and stick to their principles.
I’m a little confused — I thought we resolved this question. It’s the same as would occur if you had racist policies for any business. You have a right to have them, but everyone else has a right to boycott and/or picket you until you change your policies or go out of business.
So you and the rest of the moral majority use your common beliefs to engender a change in the situation.
Now flip the situation around. What if you are the road owner and you allow anyone of any race, gender, color, or creed, to drive on your road. Then, a bunch of people decide they don’t want to share the road with whatever identifiable group, and so they boycott your road, which threatens to put you out of business.
Do you sell? Do you give in to their beliefs?
“But what if… You can go through what ifs all day long until you turn blue. The question you really need to ask yourself is whether or not you accept the Philosophy of Liberty, the Non-Aggression Principle, Individual Sovereignty and Personal Responsibility as true and reasonable or if you’re just giving them lip service.” EXACTLY!
Asking how disputes would be resolved in a free society is like someone from the 18th century asking how food would be distributed today. We don’t know for sure! But I do know that stealing is wrong and so is telling people how to live their lives.
If there were really enough racists/bigots around to drive me out of business, I’d probably move somewhere with fewer racists/bigots.
On the other hand, it’s likely I could make it just by catering to the minority those people are bigoted against. For example, many businesses who allowed blacks in the south did just fine, because they got business from both the blacks and the non-bigoted whites.
That was actually a big reason for jim crow laws — the racists didn’t like the fact that the non-racists were often able to survive and thrive in the market.
It seems like most of the questions you have apply equally to any private business or store.
I’m struggling to come up with another example of something that:
(A) is so ubiquitous and entrenched in the way we go about our daily lives,
(B) conveys the same level of convenience,
(C) is used independently by everyone (for the most part), but at the same time requires tacit interactions with others,
(D) has the same potential for causing harm,
and (E) requires (at least currently) the use of an ancillary device (a vehicle) to take advantage of it.
A fast food drive-thru meets all of those requirements. Just because you can’t think of them doesn’t mean they don’t exist. And the answer is still the same: More Liberty.
I agree that roads are a sticky wicket — probably the most sticky wicket — but they absolutely can be done voluntarily — in fact, it’s been done in the past already, on a number of occasions. We need to be thoughtful about how we transition, of course, and probably do so gradually.
“I agree that roads are a sticky wicket — probably the most sticky wicket — but they absolutely can be done voluntarily — in fact, it’s been done in the past already, on a number of occasions. We need to be thoughtful about how we transition, of course, and probably do so gradually.”
There is no leader, so there is no one to decide how gradual it should be done. When enough people get together that understand taxation is wrong, they will all probably decide to stop paying taxes around the same time. But my guess is they will stop paying different taxes at different times. For example, they might all decide to stop paying car registration fees, but still keep paying other taxes until they win that fight. And then move on to another tax/fee.
it’s been done in the past already, on a number of occasions
And it’s still being done — quite successfully — in places like the Dulles Greenway: http://www.dullesgreenway.com/
There is no leader, so there is no one to decide how gradual it should be done. When enough people get together that understand taxation is wrong, they will all probably decide to stop paying taxes around the same time. But my guess is they will stop paying different taxes at different times. For example, they might all decide to stop paying car registration fees, but still keep paying other taxes until they win that fight. And then move on to another tax/fee.
And hopefully, those in government will be liberty minded, or at least smart enough to use that opportunity to start rolling back the state, and transitioning certain services to work on a voluntary basis, in a thoughtful, mostly seamless, and organized manner, including roads and highways.
A fast food drive-thru meets all of those requirements. Just because you can’t think of them doesn’t mean they don’t exist. And the answer is still the same: More Liberty.
I drive on “public” roads several times every day. On the other hand, I haven’t been to a fast food drive-thru in about a year and a half.
Right, and I go 3 times a week. Everybody’s different.
I’m struggling to come up with another example of something that:
(A) is so ubiquitous and entrenched in the way we go about our daily lives,
(B) conveys the same level of convenience,
(C) is used independently by everyone (for the most part), but at the same time requires tacit interactions with others,
(D) has the same potential for causing harm,
and (E) requires (at least currently) the use of an ancillary device (a vehicle) to take advantage of it.
Shopping at a Bulk Food store (eg, sam’s club) Also meets all those requirements. A 50 lb bag of dog food on the top shelf has a lot of potential energy. And accidents happen everywhere, You could miss the “wet floor” sign at the 7-eleven and slip and break your ass. Or the employee could have just not put the thing up.
Bottom line: It’s private property, and the owner can decide what restrictions they want to apply to those who enter.
Goodness marty, I just realized, the local Stop N Shop does not have grocery cart speed limits!!! Or stop signs! Why, surely without those, people will push their carts at 20mph and blindly careen around corners!! Think of the children!
Then again, I’m pretty sure if you go careening around the store recklessly, they’re going to have something to say to you, as just about any owner would. 
Right, and I go 3 times a week. Everybody’s different.
Zeus –
Your contention was that a fast food drive-thru met all the criteria I mentioned. My response was meant to indicate that I disagree. I’m not sure how what you wrote is either here or there.
Shopping at a Bulk Food store (eg, sam’s club) Also meets all those requirements. A 50 lb bag of dog food on the top shelf has a lot of potential energy. And accidents happen everywhere, You could miss the “wet floor” sign at the 7-eleven and slip and break your ass. Or the employee could have just not put the thing up.
Marty –
That’s an interesting suggestion. To make sure I understand you, are you saying that the completely voluntary action of shopping at a Sam’s Club (where, to be clear, a paying membership is required), is analogous to driving on “public” roads?
As it is, I LOVE Costco. Love, love, love, love it. I’m there about once a week. When I’m there, that is the end goal, to shop there. It’s not a conveyance to get somewhere else.
I drive on “public” roads at least twice, if not more times, per day.
I would wager to say the vast majority of people I come within 25 feet of while driving are not members of a big box store. In fact, I would say “public” roads are far more “ubiquitous and entrenched in the way we go about our daily lives” than the big box stores.
Furthermore, if I had to choose between giving up driving on “public” roads, or giving up shopping at Costco, I would give up Costco and not look back. Why? Because in no way would I say that Costco “conveys the same level of convenience” as “public” roads.
As for the potential to cause harm, while your examples are valid, I think they miss the point. Yes, accidents happen. However, when I wrote the “potential for causing harm”, I was referring to the fact that someone is in control of a large piece of metal weighing several thousand pounds, and is operating it at a high rate of speed, and can willfully (or negligently) choose to ram it into another object of their choosing. Frankly, I think the potential for harm is much higher there. However, I will admit this is somewhat subjective.
Lastly, can you tell me what “ancillary device” is required to shop at a big box store? Before you answer “shopping cart”, please note that I wrote “required“, not just “would be helpful”.
Zeus –
Your contention was that a fast food drive-thru met all the criteria I mentioned. My response was meant to indicate that I disagree. I’m not sure how what you wrote is either here or there.
And I was pointing out that you’re in the minority. Most Americans go to fast food joints on a regular basis, several times a week. Over 25 percent of Americans consume fast food every day. So the example still stands whether it specifically applies to you or not.
I’m still not sure what the point of writing up a list of conditions and saying “No other situation is like this.” Are you trying to say that because you’ve come up with such an impossibly narrow situation that liberty somehow doesn’t work? That doesn’t make any sense.
You are not entitled to OPP, even if the owner is a despicable racist. As owner, they decide what happens with their property because they earned it and you didn’t. Respecting private property ownership serves as a great guide on how to handle situations like the ones posed in this thread.
Marty –
That’s an interesting suggestion. To make sure I understand you, are you saying that the completely voluntary action of shopping at a Sam’s Club (where, to be clear, a paying membership is required), is analogous to driving on “public” roads?
Yup. Is not a paying “membership” card required to drive on roads? Also, I was under the impression that driving is a completely voluntary act, as well, or did the Gov’t ban walking while I wasn’t looking?
As it is, I LOVE Costco. Love, love, love, love it. I’m there about once a week. When I’m there, that is the end goal, to shop there. It’s not a conveyance to get somewhere else.
You didn’t say “conveyance” you said “convenience”. Surely you’re not about to argue buying food in bulk isn’t a convenience?
I would say “public” roads are far more “ubiquitous and entrenched in the way we go about our daily lives” than the big box stores.
Furthermore, if I had to choose between giving up driving on “public” roads, or giving up shopping at Costco, I would give up Costco and not look back. Why? Because in no way would I say that Costco “conveys the same level of convenience” as “public” roads.
I would rather have a Costco card than a Driver’s license. Convenience is relative.
As for the potential to cause harm, while your examples are valid, I think they miss the point. Yes, accidents happen. However, when I wrote the “potential for causing harm”, I was referring to the fact that someone is in control of a large piece of metal weighing several thousand pounds, and is operating it at a high rate of speed, and can willfully (or negligently) choose to ram it into another object of their choosing. Frankly, I think the potential for harm is much higher there. However, I will admit this is somewhat subjective.
The safety devices and procedures in place are greater, too. Falling pallets of foodstuffs don’t have airbags.
Lastly, can you tell me what “ancillary device” is required to shop at a big box store? Before you answer “shopping cart”, please note that I wrote “required“, not just “would be helpful”.
Next time you go shopping at Costco, do so without the use of a shopping cart. Have fun!
All that aside, I agree with Zeus. I’m sure I could find set of requirements that rules out everything but, say, living in a gated community. That doesn’t make living in an apartment building not an option. There are other ways to get where you’re going than using the public road system.
Don’t count on it.Say you have had too much to drink-play it safe and don’t drive home.Many places it is not legal to be drunk in public or on a public roadway.Use a horse-same thing.Cut across? You are trespassing on someones property.Walk beside the road/ You are in the public right of way..Almost every area is surrounded by a public road.You have to cross it,and in the short period you are doing so,you are supposedly under the jurisdiction of any laws pertaining to that road.No hitch-hiking or bicycles on the Interstate system.Maybe by water? Jet-pack? —bil
Or maybe people in a free society will be kinder like they were in the old west when strangers were often greated with a tip of the hat, a “Howdy-Do”, and an offer to stay for supper?
How quickly people today assume that *other* people will be unreasonable, insane, savage monsters.
While that may indeed be true of some groups or individuals in a lawless, post-government collapse where people don’t know the Philosophy of Liberty, we have that foundation, that unassailable logic and reason to guide us. And I expect that if we continue to stand by the principles of liberty, we will one day soon form a better society than exists today. It may not be a Utopia, but it will certainly be a kinder, gentler association than the statist paradigm we have now.
You are not entitled to OPP, even if the owner is a despicable racist. As owner, they decide what happens with their property because they earned it and you didn’t. Respecting private property ownership serves as a great guide on how to handle situations like the ones posed in this thread.
At no point did I make any claim to the contrary.
I think the notion of privatized roads is very intriguing, but I’m having trouble coming up with how even the basics of it reasonably could be implemented.
We spend a lot of time on this site talking about what’s wrong with the current situation. (Incidentally, most of the time I agree with that assessment.) In this case, I’m trying to ask how things would work if they were right, instead.
It’s easy to say “everything should be privatized” and “coercion and oppression are wrong”. Mostly because these are true statements. On the other hand, it’s a lot more difficult to come up with a tenable and tractable alternative.
And to answer the question from a few different comments: yes, I think roads are a very unique situation. I earnestly do.
Gabe, I can understand that explaining how private roads can work practically is important, and that it’s a challenging issue, but to be perfectly frank, your objections don’t seem that substantive.
Rather than arguing about what situation meets what critera … can you describe a practical, specific, realistic scenario which you believe could not be handled with private roads — or a practical, specific, realistic problem you fear would arise?
Alternately — and perhaps this would be better — you should read the following books:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100708/ap_on_fe_st/us_odd_drunken_mower_ride
Iowa drunk driving.I certainly don’t think this is a good idea,maybe he could have been held until sober.The line I was interested in is where it says it is illegal to drive ANYWHERE in Iowa while drunk.Would this include private property/ —bil
The history of private roads indicates that each section was not owned by each individual,rather a company would buy the land on which the road ran.Right nearby there is the road from Walpole.The original road snaked from house to house,built in sections as need arose.it was later replaced by a toll road that straightened it out and it is written that it was a great improvement to commerce.I would assume the old road was also active,at least until the advantages of the new one became apparent.
Where I lived last,in the town history there is a story of a man passing through that had a wagon accident in front of a house.He was badly injured,the family took him in,the doctor was called,and he was put up there until he was well enough to continue his journey.
There are many practicle solutions to this problem of private roads,there are turnpikes that are privately owned,there are car pool lanes that gives an economical benefit-quicker travel-in return for less congestion-the car pool.Although owned by the state,you are essentially paying to use a quicker road.It would be easy to have a private company lease median space,build their own lane,and charge for it.(this is not getting into the arguement that the land under the highway was stolen or any of that theory)Until recently,the bridge across the river to Springfield,VT was a private toll bridge.There was one in the news yesterday near Detroit,leading to Canada,privately owned.There are solutions,just look.And while this is a fine form of mental..exercise..I don’t think it is something we will be worrying about any time soon.The people in charge of the roads will remain in charge,and if everything goes to crap,that would be the least of our worries.We would just continue to use the roads that exist.Looking through history,first things fall apart,there is a period of chaos or major disorder,then it becomes more organised after time.We are still in the falling apart stage. —bil
Interesting stuff bil – good info, ideas, and examples. Yeah, I agree we probably won’t be dealing with this for some time. Hopefully, it won’t take a total collapse in order to move to something better, though. We’ll see.
Paul –
Thank you. In general, thank you. I continually appreciate our thought-provoking, earnest, and stimulating discussions.
it’s been done in the past already, on a number of occasions
And it’s still being done — quite successfully — in places like the Dulles Greenway: http://www.dullesgreenway.com/
If that’s what you mean by private roads, then that seems pretty good to me. To be honest, it’s a lot less “private” than what I had in mind.
Don’t count on it.Say you have had too much to drink-play it safe and don’t drive home.Many places it is not legal to be drunk in public or on a public roadway.Use a horse-same thing.Cut across? You are trespassing on someones property.Walk beside the road/ You are in the public right of way..Almost every area is surrounded by a public road.You have to cross it,and in the short period you are doing so,you are supposedly under the jurisdiction of any laws pertaining to that road.No hitch-hiking or bicycles on the Interstate system.Maybe by water? Jet-pack?
One option:
http://continentaldaily.com/1051/faa-approved-flying-car-terrafugia-transition/
just need a reeeeeealy long driveway.
Wow, thanks Gabe! Same to you!
Rather than arguing about what situation meets what critera … can you describe a practical, specific, realistic scenario which you believe could not be handled with private roads — or a practical, specific, realistic problem you fear would arise?
I feel that I’ve give some examples already. I guess one’s definition of “practical” or “realistic” is subjective though. I can accept that.
My more general, short answer would be: lack of uniformity in driving conditions, allowable vehicles (or horses?), enforceability of any specific driving rule.
Also, a big one would be practicality of freedom of movement. What I mean is this. Let’s say I want to get from Keene to Bellows Falls, and then back. On the way there, I take this route, basically along NH State Route 12. I’ve already obtained all the necessary permissions from the owner, and paid all the fees to him, and everything like that, since I’ve driven along Route 12 many times before. On the way back, I hear that a big fire broke out in Walpole, and so I want to avoid passing nearby Walpole because of the danger. Instead, I’d like to take this route, via NH State Route 12A and Walpole Valley Road. But I’ve never needed to go this new way before, and so I’ve never gotten any of the requisite permissions from the owners. I would imagine this might turn into a big headache and could get rather time-consuming.
Or what if I decide to take a weekend trip to Portsmouth? Do I need to plan my entire route ahead of time, and make sure I’m covered and paid up the entire way? What if it’s a really nice day out, and my wife says “Gabe, let’s stop at Bear Brook State Park and have a picnic.” But I don’t have the necessary agreements in place with the owners of the roads leading to the park.
This all seems like a big pain in the ass, for something that (whether the roads are “public” or not) right now we take for granted.
Maybe regional road owners would form a Road Association so they could better coordinate between themselves so that there aren’t any such disruptions to your journey or their services? Who knows what clever people in search of honest money might come up with in a free market? As long as it doesn’t involve force or coercion, I don’t really care. If I knew the answer to every possible problem, I’d not only have a good case for being crowned benevolent dictator but also for godhood.
Let’s say I want to get from Keene to Bellows Falls, and then back. On the way there, I take this route, basically along NH State Route 12. I’ve already obtained all the necessary permissions from the owner, and paid all the fees to him, and everything like that, since I’ve driven along Route 12 many times before. On the way back, I hear that a big fire broke out in Walpole, and so I want to avoid passing nearby Walpole because of the danger. Instead, I’d like to take this route, via NH State Route 12A and Walpole Valley Road. But I’ve never needed to go this new way before, and so I’ve never gotten any of the requisite permissions from the owners. I would imagine this might turn into a big headache and could get rather time-consuming.
I think it’s likely that there would be electronic tolls, or physical ones. The owner of a road must know that much of the traffic is going to be spur of the moment — they’d need to accommodate these people one way or another.
Think of it like a restaurant, or a box store, or any other business. You don’t need to get express permission from the owner first, just show up. Many may even be run by community organizations and/or local businesses, and be free — in order to encourage customers to come.
Also, it’s likely there could be widespread road associations/networks. For example, if you contribute to the maintainence of your local, rural road that you live on, you get a sticker on your car that enables to you to drive on any other rural road, while the people who maintain those roads get to drive on yours.
These are just a few ideas.
Or what if I decide to take a weekend trip to Portsmouth? Do I need to plan my entire route ahead of time, and make sure I’m covered and paid up the entire way? What if it’s a really nice day out, and my wife says “Gabe, let’s stop at Bear Brook State Park and have a picnic.” But I don’t have the necessary agreements in place with the owners of the roads leading to the park.
Again, there’s going to be huge demand for spur of the moment road use, so I’m sure that demand would be accommodated.
In general, in the marketplace, if there’s a demand for a good or service, it will be provided. There’s huge demand for easy, worry free travel, without pre-arranged agreements with individual owners.
Another option would be that you pay for one subscription, which allows you access to nearly every road — kind of like rhapsody, or another online music service. In order for the owners to be compensated proportionate to the amount of traffic, there may be a ipass type device, just to record how many cars used a particular road.
Consider also how ATMs work. If you’ve got a card from another bank, the new, strange bank will simply communicate with your current bank to withdraw the funds (and perhaps charge a small fee). This works worldwide — you can go to Hong Kong and use the same bank card you’ve got in your pocket.
Businesses have a motivation to work seamlessly together, for the benefit of both of their customer bases.
This all seems like a big pain in the ass, for something that (whether the roads are “public” or not) right now we take for granted.
I think there can be many creative solutions, including many neither of us has thought of. Imagine a man who has lived his whole life in the USSR, confronted by the idea of no government supplied food, or bread lines. It would be a shocking idea — he’d probably suppose that he’d starve — but he couldn’t imagine the efficiencies in food supply, and the variety in supermarkets, enabled by the free market.
Or, 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.
Come to think of it — there’s another possibility for roads — advertisements. Of course, you could have billboards. But, how about this: you put a tuner in your car that automatically plays advertisements every so often, broadcast at various intervals on the road you’re driving on. You could have really specific ads this way: “Turn off at the next exit for the best grand slam breakfast in the state! Only $4.99 for the next ten minutes”. And, if you choose to pay a toll, or a subscription, you’d get a code to turn off the ads.
The fact is, people are fully capable of working these things out among themselves, and they’ve done so in the past — including on the issue of roads. In the first few decades of the1800s, there were over 40,000 miles of road built by voluntary organizations. Just about every covered bridge you see was not built by governemnt.
We’ve just become over-reliant on government to the point where we don’t think we can solve these issues ourselves, and this over-reliance (on all issues, not just roads), has been a very destructive force to community cohesion. We used to have to come together to work these things out. Now we just call a cop or consult a municipal, state, or federal code or law.
No comment from me, only the observation that the voluntarist brain trust is unable to solve the most basic things, despite “infallible logic.”
The utter weakness of the “property worship” philosophy, is that it’s more likely to converge on totalitarianism than any hypothetical “free” outcome the best thinkers of the movement contemplate. Show me otherwise.
BTW, just love Zeus’s suggestion for a “Road Association”. This will be good. How will they organize? Will they vote, or does the one with the most property get to be the dictator?
The lameness of it all hardly needs any more comment from me. Just read the thread.
Please, Mr. “Big Scrotum” (really? that’s the best name you could come up with?), Enlighten us. How would YOU do it?
Just because we can’t decide whether roads would be Ad-supported or toll, or some other method of paying for the upkeep, or even if there will be roads where we are going, doesn’t mean we’re a bunch of morons. It just means that the Market will decide on it’s own. Likely, All these options that we’ve suggested here (And probably some we could never think of) will be tried, and the best ones will sort themselves out.
Even the worst of them will be better than Stealing money to pay for roads.
There are lots of ways this could be done, many of which have been suggested. If you want more, why don’t you read the books I suggested to Gabe, bigS? Actually, you can start with this article, first: http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/klein.majewski.turnpikes
You’re speaking from ignorance, frankly.
The utter weakness of the “property worship” philosophy
Liberty minded people don’t worship property. We just don’t delude ourselves into believing we have a right to rob our neighbors. We actually respect the decisions other people make about their own lives, rather than using threats of violence to employ them as a tool to our own ends.
Once again, here’s what Toqueville wrote when he visted the U.S.
There are lots of ways this could be done, many of which have been suggested. If you want more, why don’t you read the books I suggested to Gabe, bigS? Actually, you can start with this article, first: http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/klein.majewski.turnpikes
You’re speaking from ignorance, frankly.
The utter weakness of the “property worship” philosophy
Liberty minded people don’t worship property. We just don’t delude ourselves into believing we have a right to rob our neighbors. We actually respect the decisions other people make about their own lives, rather than using threats of violence to employ them as a tool to our own ends.
Once again, here’s what Toqueville wrote when he visted the U.S.
“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)
He visited a time when communities were strong, because they worked together to solve problems, including transportation. Now, we’ve replaced community relationship with mandates from the state and federal level.
I wonder what he would write if he visited today.
He visited a time when communities were strong, because they worked together to solve problems, including transportation. Now, we’ve replaced community relationship with mandates from the state and federal level.
I wonder what he would write if he visited today.
Gah, sorry about that. I noticed a typo and goofed the quote up. If some admin wants to delete that post I’d appreciate it. Here’s a clean version:
There are lots of ways this could be done, many of which have been suggested. If you want more, why don’t you read the books I suggested to Gabe, bigS? Actually, you can start with this article, first: http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/klein.majewski.turnpikes
You’re speaking from ignorance, frankly.
The utter weakness of the “property worship” philosophy
Liberty minded people don’t worship property. We just don’t delude ourselves into believing we have a right to rob our neighbors. We actually respect the decisions other people make about their own lives, rather than using threats of violence to employ them as a tool to our own ends.
Once again, here’s what Toqueville wrote when he visted the U.S.
“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)
He visited a time when communities were strong, because they worked together to solve problems, including transportation. Now, we’ve replaced community relationship with mandates from the state and federal level.
I wonder what he would write if he visited today.
Yay, another statist spewing the “OMG! You don’t know how EVERY LAST PROBLEM EVAR WILL BE SOLVED!!! Liberty=FAIL!!!!!” claptrap.
Look Comrade Scrotumvitch, if you’d rather live in a society based on force and coercion, be my guest. Better the devil you know, right? Those of us sick of being robbed, assaulted and killed by parasites who think they’re entitled to our blood, sweat and tears will continue to work toward more freedom whether you like it or not.
@Zeus on Thu, 8th Jul 2010 6:19 pm
“..Yay, another statist spewing the “OMG! You don’t know how EVERY LAST PROBLEM EVAR WILL BE SOLVED!!!”
I’m waiting for a proposal that might be workable within the framework of the philosophy.
Throw your hands up, Zeus my friend, but this, along with your name calling only betrays the naivete of your belief and the aggression you hypocritically can’t control.
Each and every one of those proposals are workable. Some might work better, some worse. Since none of them have yet been tried, We don’t know which are which, though.
Like I said before, even the worst voluntary system (Such as Bradley’s “You agree to obey my Cops” idea) Is better than stealing from people to pay for roads they don’t use. And even that system will likely get customers, because they like the security, or don’t mind the police presence.
That’s the beauty of the free market: everyone can get what they want, unless they are such a small minority that it’s simply not possible to provide for them and stay in business.
@Paul on Thu, 8th Jul 2010 6:14 pm
Thanks, I took a look at the Majewski link. I was disappointed to find in the very first sentence, “Private turnpikes were business corporations..”
So historically, the sovereign granted rights in the form of a corporation to the private turnpikes. This article does not even help your “no government” case. I’ll look over the other links you provided and see if the outline of a workable private road solution is there. Thanks.
With respect to de Tocqueville, roads and road systems aren’t built by political idealism, as much as there is to admire in his writings.
I’m waiting for a proposal that might be workable within the framework of the philosophy.
Put some money on the line and you’ll get one. Otherwise, it isn’t worth anyone’s time and effort to play your game of Gotcha.
As for naivete, which is more childish? Believing you can make the world do what you want by harming and intimidating others or working peacefully with others to achieve individual liberty, personal responsibility and prosperity?
What’s the average lifespan of a despot?
Roads, like anything else of value, are built by those who can benefit from them. A corporation or a company is just a group of people with money (usually looking to make more money). The difference between that and government is that government has a monopoly on force and uses it excessively.
Yes, bigS … they existed in the context of a society with a government … what’s your point? It’s not as if they couldn’t have conducted business without being incorporated. Frankly, it seems you’re looking for superficial reasons to dismiss alternative arrangements which are worthy of examination, because of your bias on this issue.
The point is to examine possible solutions to the management of roads on a voluntary basis, including historical cases. Of course no example is perfect .. if we already had a totally voluntary society, it wouldn’t be much of an evolution, would it?
And Tocqueville was writing about what he observed.
“Mmm yes, I was disappointed to find that private turnpikes were business corporations so I’m going to equate that with government to deflate your argument even though you’re not against people doing business honestly, just those who do it by force and coercion i.e. government.”
Here’s another example that’s instructive, although also not perfect:
Two thirds of all sweedish roads are managed by “Private Road Associations” or PRAs. In fact, the PRAs are doing such a great job in many cases, that local municipalities actually ask them to take over municipal roads.
Here’s the break down, in Sweeden, by distance:
National Roads: 98,000km
Municipal Roads and Streets: 38,000km
Private roads with some state subsidies: 73,000km
Private roads with no state subsidies: 210,000km
The costs are borne by the PRA members — local community members who use the road, who want to have a nice road to drive on. In some cases the government provides some compensation for through traffic, but many roads, as shown in on the chart, are not funded by government at all. In Finland, three quarters of all roads are privatized, on which 700,000 of Finland’s 5 million in habitants live, and another 500,000 use regularly for vacation. This example is imperfect, because there is often aggressively forceful recourse against a person who lives on a PRA road but will not contribute to its upkeep — but it’s not difficult to imagine nonviolent solutions to this (e.g simply refuse to let them use the rest of the road).
“It is true that no advocate of liberty can guarantee Utopia. So what? No advocate of any political view can guarantee Utopia. Utopia is not an option.”
“Of all the obstacles to clear thinking about politics, I have found that the “Utopian Fallacy” is the worst. It comes up all the time. At some point, I realized that when people argued against liberty, they often did so by testing it against a Utopian standard. Their argument is that since liberty doesn’t guarantee that everything will be perfect, it must be rejected. They never say it that clearly, of course. What they do is rattle off a list of problems that might still exist in a libertarian society — and then assert that this proves liberty is fatally flawed. What they forget is that no political system can create Utopia. Utopia is not one of the options. Liberty is simply the best of the available options. It is crucially important for libertarians to be aware of the Utopian fallacy because it is so frequently thrown up as an argument against libertarian solutions.”
- David Bergland, Author of Libertarianism in One Lesson
@Paul, Zeus, Marty et al,
You’ve thrown your hands up on roads. Maybe a smarter societal engineer will come along.
Time to move on to water supply. I bet this one is easier.
@Paul, Zeus, Marty et al,
You’ve thrown your hands up on roads, maybe a smarter societal engineer will come along. Time to move on to water supply. I bet this one is easier.
Hahahahah! Look Mr. Bergland! There’s one now! Hahahahah!
“Oh well, a handful of you can’t perfectly solve this perplexing problem because I’ve ignored or cherry-picked from your examples and refuse to acknowledge anything else you say! Statism and tyranny for the win!”
@Zeus on Thu, 8th Jul 2010 7:20 pm
Who’s talking utopia? I can buy a car, pay lots of taxes, and if I follow the rules get anywhere in North America without further impediments to my liberty.
What is your equivalent plan – specifically?
What, precisely, do you mean by “thrown up our hands”?
I’ve simply stated we can’t predict the future, and that the Market will determine which option of those above (or ones we haven’t come up with) is the best. Personally? My money’s on Ad-supported. Let KFC spray-paint their logo on all my pot-hole patches to pay for the upkeep costs.
What’s your favored model? Let the gov’t steal from you to pay for a road you’ll never likely use?
What is your equivalent plan – specifically?
Continue to support individual liberty, personal responsibility and the non-initiation of aggression towards others. To be producers rather than parasites.
We call it the Philosophy of Liberty. Those who support murder and thievery need not apply.
Wow, you read books quickly bigS.
Zeus: “Those who support murder and thievery need not apply.”
You must be one of those arbitrators I often read about. Glad I didn’t have to wait the years it sometimes takes “the other” process to produce a verdict.
Please let me know what the sentence is. Maybe you can shun me, or get really tough and not sell me bread.
So this is a libertarian debate? So far, “state bad, the roads will take care of themselves”, isn’t an argument.
I’ll read the books Paul. You are right that a presumption on my part, that you or others have summarized the arguments contained in the references, may not be warranted. Fair enough.
So this is a libertarian debate? So far, “state bad, the roads will take care of themselves”, isn’t an argument.
You’ve been offered many examples of how things could work, as well as examples of how things have worked differently (and much more freely) in the past. But, if you want to plug your ears and hum, that’s up to you.
Thanks for promising to read the article and books, at least .
Oh, and even if you’re not convinced, I’m fully anticipating that you’re planning to be a liberty activist on every issue but the roads, right?
Odd. I don’t remember saying that YOU support murder and thievery. I simply made a broad, declarative statement. Supporting murder and thievery (such as that which the state conducts on a daily basis) are completely contrary to the Philosophy of Liberty.
How strange that you would identify with those labels. Well, if you think the shoe fits your foot I’m not going to argue with you about it. Who knows your foot better than you and your podiatrist? Not I.
Paul on Thu, 8th Jul 2010 7:12 pm
“Here’s another example that’s instructive, although also not perfect:”
Very interesting examples, but again it hardly supports the stateless free market road solutions being discussed. In fact it is more an example of “Libertarian Socialism” aka Chomsky. See:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxPUvQZ3rcQ
I’m not choosing to ignore the points and examples, but it is difficult to argue with a proposed system whose end-point is a matter of degree, of more freedom from the status quo. So what, that privates roads that might be profitable exist, you and I sometimes want a road that is subsidized by someone. Any solution less than this is a failure. And for some here to simply retreat into ad homonym and sloganeering does not convince me. That’s for sure.
I’m sorry… I thought I suggested a “Subsidized” model. Maybe you missed it. Let me make sure it’s clear:
My money’s on Ad-supported. Let KFC paint their logo on all my pot-hole patches to pay for the expense of upkeep.
Or maybe you meant subsidized through Theft (Taxes)?
you and I sometimes want a road that is subsidized by someone
I’m not sure what you mean by this. I’m happy to pay for transportation, although free options involving some sort of ads, or community or local businesses sponsorship, might be a good options too.
What do you mean that you and I want a “subsidized” road?
You are beyond convincing. You’ve shot down every proposal and example as imperfect. If you have a better solution wherein people are not robbed in order to pay for something they don’t want, haven’t consented to and/or do not use, feel free to post it here. I will trust that innovative people will solve the problem without harming others. Utopia is not an option. It’s a truth, not a slogan.
As you said before in your own ad hominem attack, there have been far more clever people than this “voluntarist brain trust” who have been thinking about this far longer than we have. Try reading their books. Maybe you’ll find a solution that agrees with you. You can get the Tannehill’s book The Market For Liberty for FREE right here on this website and I know they cover roads so it should be right up your alley.
Then you can say with great enthusiasm: “Gee willikers! Now I can support not hurting people and taking their stuff AND be able to travel the roads!”.
Because you know, if you there isn’t a perfect solution to the roads, well, that just means we need to keep beating people and taking their hard-earned cash to pay for all this stuff that makes the great engine of statist society run so well.
Regarding Chomsky — I support many of the goals of so called left-libertarianism, my only concern is as to the means utilized. I like local people working together, without having to rely upon major national or international businesses (indeed, I think the government enables such behemoths, by favorable policies, as Chomsky seems to recognize in that clip.
I think the best solution is likely for rural roads to be owned and maintained by the local homeowners, for example — in a situation not far removed from the PRAs. I even support cooperatives, or communes, for those interested in participating in them.
I do respect property rights, however — so if the “left libertarian” advocates stealing from employers, for example, or forceful redistribution of wealth and property, that’s where they lose me.
I think the goal of local economies, with small businesses, and many self employed people, freely trading goods and services among themselves, and acting cooperatively on community projects, is a worthy one, and one attainable without resorting to violence against persons or property.
I know I will intentionally choose to barter with a local craftsman or farmer, rather than spend FRNs at a major box store, even if the former is more expensive, because how I choose to consume affects the kind of community I live in.
Having lived on two roads that were privately owned,both by property owner associations,I can only imagine how it would work for all roads.It sounds good-the costs of summer repair and winter plowing were combined,and averaged over several years.From that,an amount for each was settled on.Before anyone bought land on these roads,they had to join the association and sign in.The land they bought was privately owned,and the road was privately built.An assessment was made depending on if you had an empty lot,or had built a house on it.It was not based on how far along the road you went.All payments were due twice a year.Note that this is not involuntary,nor is it a tax.On one of the roads,any legitimate work you performed could be deducted from your assessment.Fair enough.No one made you buy there.HOWEVER…after a while,some folks cried poverty when the due date came.There was the option of road work,they were too ‘busy’.Another had a piece of crap car with bad tires.When they couldn’t make it up the hill,they got out and walked.The plow guy couldn’t do his second run,and no-one else could get through.In the morning someone on their way to work pulled it out to get through.’Great,not I don’t have to dig!’Others didn’t take it easy in mud season,tearing the road up.The increased costs were borne by the neighbors.There were plenty of excuses,but if you really didn’t want to pay,then what/ Small claims court,at the expense of others.Judgement for the road owners,still no payment.Another day in court with lawyers.There was the option of a lein,which is no good until they sell the place.I guess the point is that we are all thinking everyone will do what is right,what they agreed to,or even what is in their own best interest.People are not like that.Just look around.People let their houses fall apart because they don’t feel like fixing them.Driveways wash out because they are too lazy to take the sticks out of the culvert.And this is their own personal property.I always carry a shovel in my truck.Many times I have stopped and turned the water back into the ditch because it was running over.How many stop and remove a branch that has fallen compared to those that drive around or even over it?I had one guy ask why I was standing in the ditch full of water,unplugging a culvert.It was the road crews job.But the road would be washed out before they got there.”So then they will fix it’.WTF??? Who pays for that? Does no one feel any responsibility for doing something that needs to be done,just because you are there when it happens?Let someone else do it.What about the volunteer fire departments? They are always lacking members,and most new folks from places that have town departments don’t join or contribute.Let Daryl Dumbass get up at 4 AM and put out the fire,I am staying in my warm bed.But he had better get here PDQ when I need him.I would like to believe that people are basically good,and would act in their own and their neighbors interest.I would be better off believing my lottery ticket is the big winner-it is more likely.No,I am not a cynic.I am a realist,and have seen how people really work.Not very hopeful. —bil (now lets talk about the water supply and how folks would keep that safe!)LOL!!!
Wow, thanks for the personal account — it’s great to hear from someone who’s actually experienced an arrangement like this.
I don’t know if you’ll agree, bil, but perhaps what is needed is more accountability for the freeloaders. This could include:
1. A more efficient justice system, with less overhead, capable of effectively enforcing contracts.
2. Pre-arranged collateral for these contracts.
3. More reliance on reputation in the community (as I believe there used to be) — real economic impact, and even ostracism, for being known as a bad actor.
4. Habitual bad actors, or those who don’t pay dues, banned from using the road — perhaps banned vehicles using the road could be towed.
It would be interesting to study what techniques successful PRAs use, in Sweden or Finland for example, or elsewhere.
It should also be noted that statists and other ne’er-do-wells aren’t going to be forced into a free society (dichotomy anyone?). Only those who accept the peaceful tenets of the Philosophy of Liberty et al would choose to live in such a voluntary society (and be wanted) and would be expected to live by those principles or face the consequences of their aggression toward others. The statists can rob and murder each other on their own land and on their own dime if that’s what they want to do. Just leave the rest of us out of it.
Does this mean we can’t murder and rob on OUR land? Aren’t you impinging on my rights now?? Shouldn’t I be free to do as I please on my own land? —bil
Lol
To take a tongue and cheek post seriously … no, I certainly for one don’t think you have a right to murder and rob on your land.
I mean, just because a person enters your land doesn’t mean they lose all rights. They just have to abide by your rules if they want to stay.
I already have that rule,without any society changes.Step on my property at your own risk.Keeps the neighbors off the lawn. —bil
PS-can you put a picture in a post? If so,how?
I suppose it’s been a bit of a contentious point with me as to the whole “I shoot trespassers on sight” mindset.
Wouldn’t you just hate it if one night you got shineola faced and just happened to walk onto your angry armed neighbor’s property without even knowing that you had breached a boundary he had set up?
It’s one thing to step onto a person’s land with ill will in your heart and mayhem on your mind, I get that & fire away with my blessings if that is what you have to do. Yet is it something that a person should lose his/her life if they were just innocently collecting butterflies or sniffing the flowers?
The “Peaceful Society” needs a bit more peace in it’s society, if nothing else than to more readily sort us out from the real aggressors and murder men we are attempting to *not* emulate. I’d hate to think a number of us could end up being just as bloodthirsty as the statist pricks we have won out over. That just won’t do.
Personally, I believe grossly excessive, unnecessary violence is just as bad as aggressive violence. You have the right to do what’s necessary for defense — to intentionally escalate clearly beyond what’s necessary, however, is akin to aggression.
If someone’s breaking into bil’s house, I think shooting them would be well within his rights. If some ten year old puts a foot on his lawn accidentally, not so much (not that he’d do anything like that anyway, of course, just using extremes to illustrate the point).
And again we’re into obscure hypotheticals. Will we ever learn?
But yeah, Chaz, I agree with your sentiment wholeheartedly. There’s more to creating peace in society than just eschewing aggressive violence.
I would hope you would see that my first comment was intentionally far out,and my second was a late-night joke with paul. After all,if I had a policy of shoot on sight,I would be in my cell at 5am,rather than posting here.That said,it was partially because of some other posts that I responded like that.There was an entire thread either here or on the forum side that got real deep into that very aspect.The theory must be able to exist in the real world,along side of the theories of those that think differantly.I like to borrow the words of the Who-meet the new boss-same as the old boss.That is what we have to watch for,as many of societies have found out. —bil
Wow. I really regret the turn this discussion has taken.
Paul – the one thing I’d say is that you seem to be a bit more of an idealist than I. Yes, there’s a good chance that things would move upwards towards a nice, reasonable harmony. However, I think there’s also a good chance things might degrade towards protectionism, skyrocketing prices, racketeering, etc.
I guess you put more faith in humanity than I do.
I would hope you would see that my first comment was intentionally far out,and my second was a late-night joke with paul. After all,if I had a policy of shoot on sight,I would be in my cell at 5am,rather than posting here.That said,it was partially because of some other posts that I responded like that.There was an entire thread either here or on the forum side that got real deep into that very aspect.The theory must be able to exist in the real world,along side of the theories of those that think differantly.I like to borrow the words of the Who-meet the new boss-same as the old boss.That is what we have to watch for,as many of societies have found out.
Absolutely, I agree.
Wow. I really regret the turn this discussion has taken.
Why?
Paul – the one thing I’d say is that you seem to be a bit more of an idealist than I. Yes, there’s a good chance that things would move upwards towards a nice, reasonable harmony. However, I think there’s also a good chance things might degrade towards protectionism, skyrocketing prices, racketeering, etc.
Well, let’s be thoughtful in how we transition, I say. We don’t necessarily need to jump in to any particular solution with both feet. But, surely we can try some alternative solutions in certain areas, and see how it goes .
I guess you put more faith in humanity than I do.
Perhaps. In general, I guess I’d say I put more faith in average people, than politicians. The more we can move control to local communities, away from Washington, Concord, or even downtown, the better off I think we’ll be.
Just wanted to add… this is the 108′th comment on this blog.
Probably a Free Keene record setter.
Personally, I’ve enjoyed the conversation between Gabe, Paul, Chaz, and bil. Very insightful. All of you have excellent opinions on these very important matters.
Thank you.
Post your comment below. Login in the far right column to get rid of CAPTCHA. If you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!
Want to discuss rather than just comment? Visit the Free Keene Forum.
Supporters of FK
Recent Forum Topics- Free Minds Radio 02/05/2012 February 5, 2012
- HELP . . . Still unable to access . . . February 5, 2012
- Marijuana decrim bills up for vote February 5, 2012
- Episode 35 - Anarch-Elitism February 5, 2012
- HB 1533 -- fines for hurting legislators' feelings February 4, 2012
- HB 1494 -- "Your papers, please" February 4, 2012
- Legislation discussion? February 4, 2012
- What is the latest on Sam Dodson February 3, 2012
- Pet Doctor February 3, 2012
- Free Minds TV February 3, 2012 - EP 239 [S7E04] February 3, 2012
- Recent Forum Posts
- Re: Sorry, I misunderstood "Introduce yourself format" . . . Re-do, here we go! February 6, 2012
- Re: For the politically inclined February 6, 2012
- Re: Bearcat petition at city council meeting February 6, 2012
- Re: What is the latest on Sam Dodson February 6, 2012
- Re: What is the latest on Sam Dodson February 6, 2012
- Re: HELP . . . Still unable to access . . . February 6, 2012
- Re: Sorry, I misunderstood "Introduce yourself format" . . . Re-do, here we go! February 6, 2012
- Free Minds Radio 02/05/2012 February 5, 2012
- Re: HELP . . . Still unable to access . . . February 5, 2012
- HELP . . . Still unable to access . . . February 5, 2012