I say privatize the roads, parks, and utilities. To which they reply, ‘Oh, then all the rich people will take them over for their own benefit.’ But wouldn’t roads still be used for free, by locals at least? I saw a speech Hoppe gave recently where he said, ‘taxpayers would become shareholders of the roads and could sell them to a private company if they wanted.’ But the ‘roads would still be used for free as before’ for locals (or he might have said for everyone. I don’t remember exactly.) Any help here is appreciated. Thank you.
I’m racking my brain, and I can’t remember the last time a mall charged me for entry.
Yes, the rich would likely be the ones to own most of the roads, parks and utilities. And yes, they would employ them for their own benefit.
But unless all these rich people like roads and utilties in and of themselves, their benefit translates to trading the use of their roads and utilities for other goods. That is to say, their benefit depends on your benefit, their gain on your gain.
As for how privately owned roads might be used in the marketplace, we cannot know ex ante. Some roads may charge drivers directly (like we see with toll roads), others may be paid by local individuals and businesses (like we see in malls), others may be part of a larger package (like we see in private residential communities and industrial parks). These are just examples from our own society - who knows what schemes entrepreneurs would think up in a stateless (or near stateless) society. Some road owners might get their funding partially or solely from advertising, or renting space to utility companies (“Pay us $X a month and we’ll let you lay cable or pipes under our roads.”).
do hospitals have fee parking?? airports??
Don’t know if this pertains to your argument, but I tend to avoid the word “privatization” because when people today hear it they think of private companies receiving government contracts rather than a truly free market.. For example, when I spoke of privatizing education to a person once he assumed I was arguing that the government subcontract educational services to a private company to run the monopolistic school system.
Weird, but people think this when they hear the term.
Thanks everyone. Yea, Lewis it’s like when people think of anarchy, but a spade’s a spade.
Hypothetically speaking, if the roads and parks did become services only for the “rich” after privatization, then it would only prove the extent of the waste of government, which had diverted so many resources from more urgent needs in order to foist upon us the illusion of “affordable” roads and parks.
Now, I don’t think that’s what would happen. There is so much inefficiency in our subsidized roads that roads are bound to become cheaper in the long run. Of course, people may feel they are paying more because it will actually come out of their pockets. But the resources freed from all the waste of subsidized roads would make other things cheaper. The overall net result will be that the vast public will be better off.
To make those transitions from government to private more effective and more convincing, it is also important to stress that taxes should be always reduced accordingly. In other words, never forget to insist that the portion of government services that is privatized is completely liquidated.
As for the comment about people thinking “privatization” means government sub-contracting, in the case of such things as roads, public construction, etc.., this is already the current state of affairs. I don’t see formal government workers working on those roads. Do you?
It isn’t weird. That is what conservatives advocate on a daily basis.
good point. I would suggest using ‘marketization’ to avoid confusion.
“I would suggest using ‘marketization’ to avoid confusion.”
If somebody agrees to give you a market without private property, will you take it?
We want private property. Market is just one of its consequences. I would hold on to the term “privatization” and take the opportunity to explain the difference between the phony “formal privatization” often referred to and “real privatization” required for a true free market and the free society.