4 ms·

> To an extent, companies would charge higher prices for performing services that cost more. Out of interest what’s your opinion on roads? City dwellers almost

> To an extent, companies would charge higher prices for performing services that cost more. Out of interest what’s your opinion on roads? City dwellers almost certainly subsidise the construction of roads they may never need to use, and the US doesn’t pull toll gates on their roads to makes sure they’re charging higher prices for services that cost more. Any American (or indeed anyone in the US) can use any road for free, as much as they want, for only the cost of their taxes. Assuming they even paid any.

eru 6y ago
Same as for postal service. Privatize the roads as well. Especially with modern technology for collecting tolls, privatised roads are more feasible than ever. In practice, I would expect roads to be financed by a mixture of pay-for-use and local businesses. Even without privatized roads, it can be useful to charge road users. Here in Singapore we have Electronic Road Pricing in some parts of the city to keep congestion down. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Road_Pricing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Road_Pricing It works very well. Jams are almost unheard of. London has a watered down copy of our system.
- learc83 6y ago
  None of that addresses how you build the road in the first place without government assistance (or expand existing roads). Private companies can’t compel property owners to sell land.
  - eru 6y ago
    History provides many great examples. Your particular concern also comes up in the building of canals or railroads. So see eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rail_transport_in_Great_Britain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rail_transport_in_G... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_British_canal_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_British_canal_s... But also have a look specifically at roads: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnpike_trust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnpike_trust
    - learc83 6y ago
      You need to look a little more carefully into the history of railroads in Great Britain. An act of parliament was required to build most of them. And they approved the routes over the objections of local landowners. In fact many local landowners hired thugs to harass the surveyors and builders. Without government power forcing the sale of land none of those early railroads would have been built. The same thing applies to canal building in the 18th century. Government authority was used to force landowners to allow canals to be built. Again with turnpike trusts, acts of parliament were required to establish each one, and they were generally financed by community bonds. There has never been a history of private entities building a large, road or rail network through land owned by many different private owners without using the power of government to force the landowners to cooperate.
      - eru 6y ago
        You are right that the British example relies on eminent domain to some extent. But private suppliers plus eminent domain is still a far cry from nationalized roads.
        learc83 6y ago
        So the government creates a natural monopoly for the shortest route from A to B, and then hands it off to a private entity to run it. What's the mechanism in place to prevent the private road owner from charging far more than the maintenance costs of the road? The government steps in confiscates more private land to build additional less efficient routes that they refuse to sell to existing management companies to allow for some amount of competition? The government creates regulatory bodies to oversee the private road management companies and ensure they don't charge too much? The government regularly accepts bids from different companies to handle management, and somehow manages to keep this bidding process corruption free, there are no problems from regularly handing off control to different companies, and the transaction costs for switching companies don't overwhelm the savings? The free market depends on competition to work, but with roads built through eminent domain, competition must be artificially engineered. At some point direct government ownership is the most efficient solution.

eru 6y ago

Same as for postal service. Privatize the roads as well. Especially with modern technology for collecting tolls, privatised roads are more feasible than ever. In practice, I would expect roads to be financed by a mixture of pay-for-use and local businesses. Even without privatized roads, it can be useful to charge road users. Here in Singapore we have Electronic Road Pricing in some parts of the city to keep congestion down. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Road_Pricing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Road_Pricing It works very well. Jams are almost unheard of. London has a watered down copy of our system.

learc83 6y ago
None of that addresses how you build the road in the first place without government assistance (or expand existing roads). Private companies can’t compel property owners to sell land.
- eru 6y ago
  History provides many great examples. Your particular concern also comes up in the building of canals or railroads. So see eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rail_transport_in_Great_Britain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rail_transport_in_G... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_British_canal_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_British_canal_s... But also have a look specifically at roads: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnpike_trust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnpike_trust
  - learc83 6y ago
    You need to look a little more carefully into the history of railroads in Great Britain. An act of parliament was required to build most of them. And they approved the routes over the objections of local landowners. In fact many local landowners hired thugs to harass the surveyors and builders. Without government power forcing the sale of land none of those early railroads would have been built. The same thing applies to canal building in the 18th century. Government authority was used to force landowners to allow canals to be built. Again with turnpike trusts, acts of parliament were required to establish each one, and they were generally financed by community bonds. There has never been a history of private entities building a large, road or rail network through land owned by many different private owners without using the power of government to force the landowners to cooperate.
    - eru 6y ago
      You are right that the British example relies on eminent domain to some extent. But private suppliers plus eminent domain is still a far cry from nationalized roads.
      - learc83 6y ago
        So the government creates a natural monopoly for the shortest route from A to B, and then hands it off to a private entity to run it. What's the mechanism in place to prevent the private road owner from charging far more than the maintenance costs of the road? The government steps in confiscates more private land to build additional less efficient routes that they refuse to sell to existing management companies to allow for some amount of competition? The government creates regulatory bodies to oversee the private road management companies and ensure they don't charge too much? The government regularly accepts bids from different companies to handle management, and somehow manages to keep this bidding process corruption free, there are no problems from regularly handing off control to different companies, and the transaction costs for switching companies don't overwhelm the savings? The free market depends on competition to work, but with roads built through eminent domain, competition must be artificially engineered. At some point direct government ownership is the most efficient solution.