I am in the middle of “Ethics of Liberty” and I have a question regarding his explanation for private ownership of roads. Now lets say that the streets are privately owned and that individuals must pay a certain cost to enter onto the owner’s property. I just bought a house on A Street and agreed to a 10 year contract with the street owner for a lump sum $x to gain access to his property. Now once the 10 year contract is up, the owner and I have to agree to a new contract for use of the street. It is possible that he will increase the amount of rent a certain percentage reasonable with market rates. This is not objectionable since it would probably still be less than if the street was being managed by the state. But what if some sort of natural disaster or accident causes the street to need massive repairs and the owner must jack up the price to something that I cannot afford? If we cannot agree to a contract then I cannot trespass on his street. Problem is of course, that my home is on the street and there would be no way for me to access my property (or leave my property) without violating his property rights. Can some Rothbardian reconcile this?
before we offer responses can i ask for clarifaction…
are you asking for justfications that would permit some persons use of a ‘damaged road’ without paying the agreed price of use to the road owner?
Basically I am asking how we reconcile this. If the owner of the road and I cannot agree to a contract then access to my house or from my house is lost. Whether the owner raises the price due to damages or for any other reason is immaterial.
I think you are a little too used to living in a planned economy, so you are used to seeing paved roads everywhere and cannot imagine life without them. In your specific case, if you put your poperty or bought property right next to a road where the only way to get out is through someone’s private road, then I would say that you were stupid. It is one thing to live in a state where one is compelled to do this, but to do it conciously is dumb.
The state tends to over produce roads, having a monopoly on them all. In a free market there would be something like “public” roads, something akin to unowned tracts of land where people only walk or drive to get from place to place, where no one stays around to mix there labor in and make claim. Besides even if someone did make a claim to certain tracts, then people would simply go around, or if people consider the original route more efficient than going around, they may offer to pay the claimant for access to travel through the property.
Ok, enough dicking around. 
You simply are not entitled to violate the property rights of somone else. If you cannot work out an agreement, then the best thing would probably be for you to leave to another location. There can be more to your situation than meets the eye. It is possible you bought insurace against disaster, so that when the disaster occurs you still have access to the road. Or it could be written into the contract, where if there is a disaster, you have access to the road for free, or for the original price. There are many solutions, try not to be so specific.
Communities will tend to be wholly owned by individuals once the state’s monopoly on land has been abolished, as such it is no wonder will provide the roads. In fact, the problem in question is one of many that will be solved by entrepreneurial communities.
hmmmmmmm, I don’t think there is a tendency either way.
With the state gone, people will live how there preferences dictate. If they want to live in close knit communities, then yes I would agree with you that they will probably be privately owned. Why not a corporate community though, where all members of the community have a vote and say? This is contractually viable.
I am of the belief that a form of private socialism would come about where things could be owned by a group of people rather than being owned by a single individual. Why not have a company or residential company be owned by the workers or residents? This would work just fine.
Because that flies in the face of the division of labour.
Yes, there is.
It has nothing to do with that, rather, it’s a matter of profit and loss and of the division of labour. It’s the capital system, which is the most efficient, against a primitive, less efficient form of economic organization characterized by self ownership of the means of production.
Maybe you could get one of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easement
If you lack easements then yes, this would be an issue for you. but as it stands there’s far too little context. What damages would most likely entail is higher insurance premia for the owner. But typically roads adjoined to a house would be jointly owned by the homeowners, and indeed all roads upon the termination of the state would fall under their control (or of businesses in commercial districts &c.), with the exception of intercommunal highways perhaps.
To the original poster:
Keep in mind that the prudent home-owner would seek to renew or extend his contract before his current contract expires. If you could not come to an agreement, then you would have plenty of time to sell your home or seek some other avenue of getting to and from your home.
by the time we get to enjoy anarchy i think there will be hovercars a plenty.
wooooooooooosh!