http://townhall.com/Columnists/JohnStossel/2009/04/01/sell_the_roads!?page=1
Normally, Libertarian or other similar circles of thought are the only places you’ll hear the idea of road privatization. I was pleasantly surprised to see this article on the Republican/Conservative website, townhall.com. It’s a tiny step, but it’s encouraging to think that the idea may be spreading.
Isn’t Mr. Stossel an Austrian?
I’m not sure I want them to sell–and profit from–stolen property.
Right. Stolen property should be returned to its rightful owners, not auctioned off.
Good point. Return the property which was taken through imminent domain. However, for the property for which the previous owner and his kin no longer survive, should there be an auction or should the property be abandoned for homesteading?
“Public” property shouldn’t be privatized. It should remain "public, i.e. in the hands of the people, to usestatist language, by being distributed in equal shares to all citizens. That isn’t privatization, it’s just a decentralization of management. Even commies should have difficulties arguing against that. Then each and every can choose to sell or keep his/her share in roads and whatever is public property.
That solution seems to provide maximum freedom of choice for everyone. Government agents selling stuff isn’t only immoral, as pointed out above, but it also smells of corruption with all the degrees of freedom given to the politicians who arrange such processes.
(I assume that it is impossible to return any substantial amount of public property to the rightful owners from which it was originally stolen, but where possible, that’d be the best solution. I simply propose that the loot otherwise better be divided by all citizens rather than left to the discretion of the elite bandits.)
Privatization is just turning socialism into fascism. The problem with the roads is that the government has a monopoly on who can build a road, where and how those roads will be run.
Monopoly by any other name, is still monopoly.
My only objection to this is the fact that the roads were built with taxpayer money - the risk is borne by the public, while the company just takes on a money fount. The big stink here in Texas was almost entirely over the fact that partially and totally completed roads were made tollways.
I have no objection to toll or private roads, but they should be built privately and made known as tollways before the pavement gets put down. Of course, without eminent domain, building the things will be more expensive and the layouts will be suboptimal*, but that’s a small price to pay.
*Either that or raised highways will become much more common; actually, that might be the best way - the ground won’t have to be dedicated solely to moving heavy chunks of steel.
Agreed. Another solution that may apply in some cases is for statist property to be recognized as the property of those who currently use it.
So if the government steals in taxes from people in Toronto, and builds public housing with the money in Montreal, then the people in Montreal have a homesteading claim to that public housing?
You just made a great argument for getting on the dole. I’ve been going about this all the wrong way.
Perhaps. Depends on the specifics of the situation. If the government stole the money, say, 100 years ago, and the heirs can’t be found, then the people in Montreal would have a good claim.
What the fuck does it matter. Just sell the roads.
Only the owners can sell them.
Or maybe, for the sake of total fairness, we should maybe just burn everything publically owned and start from a clean sheet?
Great historical examples were the railways of the United States. They were built with public money, 4-5 times the price of what they cost, yet they remained private property. Sometimes it was cheaper to have something shipped from London to San Francisco, than from Chicago to San Francisco. (Not to mention the horrible history of water-way monopolies)
The railroads of Europe were state-owned, cost a lot less, and provided a lot better service for lot less than the American private railways.
There was nothing wrong with public high-ways until governments started all sorts of socialist programs and wasted all tax monies. If gasoline taxes were used soly for road building and maintenance, there would be plenty of money for roads and the users would be paying for it as they go.
The owners are going to suffer a tax increase if the roads aren’t sold.
Bull! Where did you make that fairy tale up, pussy cat?
If the roads are privately owned under a government monopoly, the former (sic) owners will still be on the hook for inefficiency and bureaucracy.
Well, it’s impossible to determine where each individual dollar expropriated goes. Government is the great property and morality launderer.
But what I am asking you is, wouldn’t tax payers have a higher claim than welfare parasites who benefit from redistribution? What incentive then is there for me not to become a government parasite, when the libertarian solution to property distribution post state, means I must have already secured my spot at the feed trough early? You’re basically saying that a post-state libertarian property distribution solution, validates parasitism under the state.
Seems to me your egalitarianism conflicts with what would be a moral and rational redistribution of stolen property. It is absolutely ludicrous that someone who had nothing stolen by the state, could receive property compensation over someone who was stolen from.
I know these aren’t your ideas originally or exclusively, but you are clever enough to see they are wanting.
Sounds like the Obama Tax Cuts that are not Tax Cuts for people who pay taxes, but for people who do not pay taxes.
That sounds like an oxymoron. Cutting taxes for people who pay none. But, there is truth to that statement.