Say the government violently prohibited the private production of roads, but does not build any roads itself. Say also that it is possible to convince the government to produce public roads, but much harder to convince them to allow private roads.
What is the appropriate anarchist solution?
1- Agitate for private roads, but suffer a low standard of living.
2- Agitate for and get public, government roads, and enjoy a higher standard of living.
Is it permissible to advocate a government solution in order to get a higher standard of living?
I’ve thought about something similar when I observed the odd phenomenon of so-called anarchists (espeically of the social persuasion) advocating certain government action for whatever reason. I forgot what conclusion I ultimately came to, it’s a very complex issue anyway, but I just felt like mentioning this.
In my opinion the right choice is simple: #1 because all gov. handouts are equal to our current welfare system. If the latter is wrong then logically the former has to be and as the road system falls under the former catagory, it too is wrong.
You don’t need to convince the government to allow private roads, you just need to prevent it from disallowing it.
Anyway that is not the problem with roads. The government pays for roads out of taxes, so no private competition can possibly arise. It also regulates municipal corporations into a single model.
Very good point, and the one I intended to make. If the government didnt force our money away from us, we could find other ways to do the things we do everyday. Roads may be cheaper, quicker and better, because of the competition that would arise in road building, where the lowest price would ultimately win.
Yes, this. The OP presented a false dichotomy. If roads were made illegal, there would be black market transportation that circumvents the problem. Probably lots of ATVs and small helicopters.