travel,roads,and free access

3/8/96 9:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Just something to think about...a question someone may ask: (as I am asking)

Ultimately, the libertarian platform advocates the privatization of roadways.

The owner of a road that many could be the only way to an individuals place of employment may charge an exorbitant toll--reminiscent of the Dark Ages. I realize that this is a market driven phenomenon (ie. only those able to aford the toll will be able to live, work or shop on the road) but one owner of a large section of roads could effectively block traffic to a section of businesses in order to eliminate competition in a given industry.

Subject: Re:travel,roads,and free acces Date: 3/9/96 3:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: WaltFT Message-id:

It's an interesting question, but I wonder how cost-effective it is. I suspect that it's not. Also, I'm sure the negative publicity the monopolist would clearly attract would probably do his business a lot of harm.

Subject: Re:travel,roads,and free acces

Date: 3/9/96 4:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time

From: BKSIII

Message-id:

Response to the above scenario in a truly free society:

An entrepenuer would build a new road, start a shuttle flight service, or other means of transport at a lower cost than the monopolist's toll road and the blockade would be broken.

Subject: Re:travel,roads,and free acces Date: 3/12/96 4:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: Dangfitz Message-id:

And in a free market, that road owner would quickly face competition; if the return was good, someone else would build a road, or the businesses would relocate, leaving a road no one ever needed to use again.

Subject: Re:travel,roads,and free acc

Date: 3/17/96 12:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time

From: DonCL2

Message-id:

It is well known fact that almost 98% of private residences only have ONE access point to public roads (a few have access to an alleyway at the back).

But most homes are surrounded by other homes on three sides and only have ONE access point to public roads.

If a greedy capitalist bought the road and wanted to charge a blackmailer's ransom to access his road, 1) could he legally do this, 2) how does competition break this monopoly, after all he has a monopoly on the only means of access?

Subject: Re:travel,roads,and free acc

Date: 3/20/96 1:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time

From: Asbestos

Message-id:

>

Who is he buying this road FROM? Under the common law, if you've been using a road unimpeded for a certain length of time, you own passage rights across it. Therefore, you would have to sell your "right to pass" to this capitalist before he could rent it back to you.

If you don't like the terms he's offering, don't sell.

Note that in many private housing developments the same company builds the house and the local roads, so the cost of road maintenance is simply part of your rent or local service contract.

Glen Raphael asbestos

Subject: Re:travel,roads,and free acc

Date: 3/20/96 2:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time

From: TObrien321

Message-id:

"Easement" has been a property rights consideration for as long as there has been common law, private property ownership. Is there some expectation that a libertarian society would overturn this aspect of property rights? Is there really any need to reinvent a centuries-old wheel?

Subject: Re:travel,roads,and free acc

Date: 3/21/96 2:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time

From: DDFr

Message-id:

In a world where roads were privately owned, people who built houses would make sure they also had easements or contractual guarantees of access. One way that happens is that the developer who builds the houses also builds the road, and includes rights to use it in what he sells.

David Friedman

Subject: Re:travel,roads,and free acc

Date: 3/24/96 1:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time

From: DonCL2

Message-id:

Don>> If a greedy capitalist bought the road and wanted to charge a blackmailer's ransom to access his road, could he legally do this?

Asbestos>> Who is he buying this road FROM? Under common law , if you've been using a road unimpeded for a certain length of time you own passage rights across it. Therefore, you would have to sell your "right to pass" to this capitalist before he could rent it back to you.<

1) Most local roads are owned by the local city, county or municipality.

2) I doubt your 'right of passage' is applicable, and if it is then what incentive would a capitalist have in buying the road from the city in the first place?

3) Would this right of passage clause apply to all roads I have use in the last few years? If so, it includes just about every major freeway system in Southern California, because I have been using them all.

Tobrien>> 'Easement' has been a property rights consideration for many years...<

How would an easement resolve this predicament? Would I get an easement through my blockwall fence in my backyard, over my neighbor's swimming pool, through his living room to finally have access to HIS road?

DDFr>> In a world where roads were privately owned, people who build houses would make sure they also had easements or contractual guarantees of access.<

That's a great idea for the world of tomorrow. However we don't live in that world. The world we live in today has virtually all PUBLICLY owned roads. How would you deal with the imminent monopoly problems that privatization of these roads would create.

Subject: Re:travel,roads,and free acc

Date: 3/31/96 2:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time

From: Asbestos

Message-id:

>

Beats me; YOU were the one postulating that he chose to buy it!

My point was that in order to get *complete* control over the property the capitalist would have to buy the road from the city AND from the people who live along the road or travel along it every day.

For this reason, the simplest way to privatise the roads is to simply make it legal for people to build NEW roads (or new lanes on old roads) and operate them privately. Old roads pose some problems, and because of that it would be impossible (and stupid to try) for the city to just sell the entire bundle of rights associated with the road outright, without any restrictions grandfathered in to protect the passage rights of the people who live on the road.

Glen Raphael Asbestos

Subject: Roads, etc..

Date: 7/30/96 10:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: Randomthot Message-id:

Believe it or not, I've actually read all the posts in this forum (over several sittings and several nights). As a new convert (mostly) to libertarianism I find the need to ask a couple of questions that struck me.

My first question concerns monopolies. In Harry Browne's treatise "Why I want to be President", he states that monopolies are created by governments.

While I agree that some monopolies are government created, it seems to me that certain activities are just naturally monopolistic. Fer instance, while I may be able to choose among several competing routes to drive to Chicago, a trip to the corner grocery is a haul down Rt. 85 no matter how I look at it.

If this road were privately owned I, and all my neighbors, would be locked into using this particular private service (barring private helicopter or something). That is a natural monopoly.

Now I've read a lot about how you would have private contracts, or maybe easements, or whatever, but frankly I'm not convinced. I really don't see the point. Maybe the service would be better -- maybe not. Maybe it would be cheaper -- again, maybe not. In any case, it sure would be lot more complicated to get to work in the morning.

The same can be said for other municipal services or franchised monopolies such as sewers, water, electricity. While it may be theoretically possible to dream up ways to make these things private and competitive, is it worth the trouble? Do I really need to have 2 or 3 competing sewer lines running under the street? Or am I willing to pay whatever a monopolistic owner wants to charge? At least the way it is now we have the opportunity to go down to city hall and raise hell when they raise the rates.

Part of the appeal of libertarianism is to rid ourselves of this enormous tax burden we're carrying around. But am I really better off? Wouldn't I just end up paying the same or more for all these services anyway?

Comments (tomatoes, eggs, loosely veiled threats.... whatever) are cheerfully appreciated. Randomthot

Subject: Re:Roads, etc..

Date: 7/31/96 9:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: WaltFT Message-id:

I consider the roads, municipal services issues to be much more minor issues than cutting the Federal government down dramatically and slashing taxes.

That said, here are a few comments for your consideration.

Private roads and highways currently exist throughout the country. True, there aren't many of them. But they cause no real problem for getting around.

Haven't you ever seen a small back road labeled "private road"? Have you ever driven on it? Almost no one is ever hassled by the road's owners.

In Texas, Houston businesses combined forces to build a highway into their city. It paralleled a government highway. They built it because they wanted customers to shop in Houston. Not only are people not barred from using it, they are actually encouraged to do so.

As for municipal services: the Los Angeles area brokers power through a number of electrical companies. They share the same infrastructure, but they charge competiting rates and contribute to maintenance proportionately to their usage. Similar arrangements can also be made for power.

Your main question seems to be, "Is this all necessary?" Like I said, I think these are minor issues, and I would be happy to put them on the back burner while we tackle the more important issues of Federal spending, the income tax, Social Security, Medicare, etc.

Subject: Re:Roads, etc..

Date: 7/31/96 11:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time

From: Randomthot

Message-id:

Thanks for the reply Walt. You're absolutely right of course that these are relatively minor issues compared to Income taxes, Social Security, etc..

There just seems to be a lot of debate on this sort of thing in this forum and they're the sort of things my wandering mind takes on as I'm driving to work.

On the other hand, our presidential candidate thinks at least some of them are important enough to bring up in his "why I want to be president" thesis, so they deserve some consideration. (as opposed to the stupid "pocket nukes" debate)

Randomthot




 

 



this website copyright scars publications and design. All rights reserved. No material may be reprinted without express permission from the author.



this page was downloaded to your computer