Question on the "Privatization of Roads"

[jmorris84]

@Angurse

@jmorris84

Your last statement, I agree with 100%. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not in favor of a government solution, just wanted to see how others would answer my question, as the question is surely one that would be asked from someone who IS in favor of a government solution.

The only thing worse than demanding second sight is pretending to have it.

What does that even mean?

[jmorris84]

@Giant_Joe

Jammer isn’t the same thing as zapper. It would just cause the cell phone to have no signal, not blow up in people’s hands. But of course, that’s what you’d envision, as capitalists are evil. When I say “you can’t have your cake and eat it, too” I am saying that you can’t let people drive and talk on their cell phones and claim that the government has effectively solved the problem of driving and talking on the phone.

No. You claim that there is no solution, so the government should handle the issue. There is no implicit or explicit logical connection there. We have a slew of solution generating mechanisms known as “entrepreneurship” and “free market” and “consumer choice” that would find out better solutions to problems and allow consumers to chose as they wish.

The government option is not an option at all. Whoever wishes to drive is at the full mercy of the government and its rules. The market option will reveal in time what the most preferred solution is.

What I don’t get is WHY the government should be in full management and ownership of the roads and WHY the market shouldn’t.

See my second to last post. I’m not in favor of public roads, just wanted to see the responses to the questions I presented. I never said there was no solution either, I just didn’t see your signal jammer as being one that would be such a good idea. The only way I can see that working is if owners of nearby roads did the same thing.

[Catalan]

@jmorris84

What is the manager supposed to do about people who text or talk on their cell phone while driving? I don’t see how pristine road conditions are going to stop people from doing this.

I’m not sure what the government has done about this, either. Everything the government has done so far could easily be replicated by a private company.

[liberty_student]

@jmorris84

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not in favor of a government solution, just wanted to see how others would answer my question, as the question is surely one that would be asked from someone who IS in favor of a government solution.

Refuse to play the “who is a better central planner” game. It is unwinnable.

[Angurse]

@jmorris84

What does that even mean?

People who ask such questions are asking for a psychic, because its impossible to actually know the answer.

[meambobbo]

For one thing, road managers would have a much better incentive structure to keep known risky drivers off the road. They would likely require licenses that they themselves administered or were administered by a professional, private third party. They would likely monitor their roadways better, identifying potential risky drivers before they collided into other drivers or the road owner’s property.

There are logical reasons to try to avoid accidents on your roads that have no bearing on consumer preference. Traffic accidents impede the flow of traffic, decreasing usage…and thus profit.

Finally, there will be trade-offs for consumers and the process of determining what roads are most preferred will have to work itself out. No one should pretend that allowing people to move at high speeds in heavy metal objects won’t occasionally cause bodily injury, independent of the administration system. Yet there are tolerance levels for the inherent risks. In a competitive market, different producers can specialize in diverse products. Just as we have organic food markets/stores in the same market as regular groceries, we could have highways that charge a premium for their record in providing the safest roadways. Others might specialize in the least congestion, or the fastest for some pair of points.

[Lawsome]

In some of Robert A. Heinlein’s books, he talks about roadways that move, and the engineers who keep it moving. I thought this idea was interesting, to say the least. How often does the government improve the methods of road building? Doesn’t seem like much as changed in the past 50 years. Or am I wrong?

[liberty_student]

Without competition, there is little incentive to innovate. You should check out the myth of science as a public good video posted here several times recently, if you have not already. The public goods arguments are about science, but could be applied to other “public goods”.