4 ms·

Somehow when the county maintains them, the "virtually free" roads somehow become enormously expensive. You can see the government having a monopoly and captiv

Somehow when the county maintains them, the "virtually free" roads somehow become enormously expensive. You can see the government having a monopoly and captive buyer causes them to be horribly inefficient, as they have no competition (and no private competitor will emerge when the price at point of use by their competitor is zero).

estearum 1y ago
Yes it’s an imperfect system, but literally anyone anywhere can do what you’re describing. They don’t, hardly anywhere, because people don’t want to.
- nickpp 1y ago
  They don’t because the government is already confiscating their money to do (supposedly) exactly that.
  - estearum 1y ago
    Anyone can go buy a gigantic plot of land for dollars on the acre and do it. What are you talking about? Here's a lovely 160 acre plot for $100,000: https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/E1-4-Sec-15-T-24-R-89-Bk-1307-33-Tax-Code-100-Rawlins-WY-82301/456898415_zpid/ https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/E1-4-Sec-15-T-24-R-89-Bk-... Or do you mean people can't try this out in areas that have already been developed by generations' worth of other people's private and public investments?
    - mothballed 1y ago
      In places where there are already public roads, private roads cannot generally compete because the price at point of use is $0 and the maintenance cost are sunk. Imagine for a moment I had a private school that was equal in all ways to a nearby public school including cost. People would say "why I already paid taxes for the public school, why would I go there and then have to pay yet again." No one would go to the private school. Whereas if they were not made to pay the taxes, they'd be about as equally likely to go to the private school as the public one, and the overall costs would be same. It is very difficult to establish a robust private road system in a place with public roads. The public views the public road as an established asset rather than the reality (they are an ongoing subscription of maintenance costs). The costs are invisible to the public, even if they might be worse, they just see the road as "free" when they drive on it. This means the public can end up spending even more money with worse results than use of private roads, but be stuck in a local minima they will never escape from.
      - estearum 1y ago
        Why are you ignoring what I just said? You can go buy land anywhere you want (i.e. where there are no public roads) and your private roads can compete just fine. Anyone has always been free to do this since this nation was created. What's the problem?
        mothballed 1y ago
        Alright, lets imagine what you say. I build a private interstate next to a public interstate. Lets say it costs me $0.20 / mi per honda civic that travels on it, and the public road costs $0.30 / mi per honda civic that travels on it in amortized costs. At the point of use, the user sees my toll of say, $.25 / mi with some profit, and at point of use the user sees $0.00 for the public highway. Who on earth would bother to take my toll road, even though it is more efficient and cheaper? They've already paid the tax, and not only that, it is largely invisible to them. The government will literally imprison them or take their shit if they don't pay it, it is a sunk cost, the government has violently usurped my competition via payment under threat of violence. You can't compete with 'free' at the point of use enforced by a violent actor against a sunk cost. Yes if you buy a plot of land that appears to not even be accessible by vehicle without some kind of unknown corner-crossing easement (one linked), then you will win out vs the non-existent competition there, but of course if the government shows up and taxes you to build a road even then you would lose.
        estearum 1y ago
        Again, you keep suggesting that you're going to benefit from existing infrastructure someone else paid for. It's not the public's job to provide customers for your toll road. You can build your toll road and have unencumbered competition elsewhere.
        mothballed 1y ago
        >Again, you keep suggesting that you're going to benefit from existing infrastructure someone else paid for. No I'm talking about using infrastructure a private entity has paid for as competition. Would you call it "unencumbered" competition if I started stealing a few bucks from everybody that goes to the gas station, then paid people to take my road with the ill-gotten gains instead of the public interstate, then declared that the government is free to compete unencumbered? Of course you wouldn't, I can't just take money from everyone at the gas pump, but the government can so that their public "toll" is already paid and I can't compete even if my road is cheaper. The end result is public roads have a mobster-type clamp on the encumbered market. You can't compete with them because they have a monopoly on violence and use it to prepay the toll to game the price at the point of use.
avmich 1y ago
Are you questioning the idea of having goverments to solve tragedy of commons problem?
- mothballed 1y ago
  I don't believe you can 'solve' the tragedy of the commons by increasing the size of the commons. Public government is a tragedy of the commons and shrinking it as close to, if not to the size zero, would reduce not increase the tragedy of the commons. I'm not opposed to say, privatizing many functions of government so that they are no longer commons. I feel this would solve that problem better than making the commons larger.

estearum 1y ago

Yes it’s an imperfect system, but literally anyone anywhere can do what you’re describing. They don’t, hardly anywhere, because people don’t want to.

nickpp 1y ago
They don’t because the government is already confiscating their money to do (supposedly) exactly that.
- estearum 1y ago
  Anyone can go buy a gigantic plot of land for dollars on the acre and do it. What are you talking about? Here's a lovely 160 acre plot for $100,000: https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/E1-4-Sec-15-T-24-R-89-Bk-1307-33-Tax-Code-100-Rawlins-WY-82301/456898415_zpid/ https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/E1-4-Sec-15-T-24-R-89-Bk-... Or do you mean people can't try this out in areas that have already been developed by generations' worth of other people's private and public investments?
  - mothballed 1y ago
    In places where there are already public roads, private roads cannot generally compete because the price at point of use is $0 and the maintenance cost are sunk. Imagine for a moment I had a private school that was equal in all ways to a nearby public school including cost. People would say "why I already paid taxes for the public school, why would I go there and then have to pay yet again." No one would go to the private school. Whereas if they were not made to pay the taxes, they'd be about as equally likely to go to the private school as the public one, and the overall costs would be same. It is very difficult to establish a robust private road system in a place with public roads. The public views the public road as an established asset rather than the reality (they are an ongoing subscription of maintenance costs). The costs are invisible to the public, even if they might be worse, they just see the road as "free" when they drive on it. This means the public can end up spending even more money with worse results than use of private roads, but be stuck in a local minima they will never escape from.
    - estearum 1y ago
      Why are you ignoring what I just said? You can go buy land anywhere you want (i.e. where there are no public roads) and your private roads can compete just fine. Anyone has always been free to do this since this nation was created. What's the problem?
      - mothballed 1y ago
        Alright, lets imagine what you say. I build a private interstate next to a public interstate. Lets say it costs me $0.20 / mi per honda civic that travels on it, and the public road costs $0.30 / mi per honda civic that travels on it in amortized costs. At the point of use, the user sees my toll of say, $.25 / mi with some profit, and at point of use the user sees $0.00 for the public highway. Who on earth would bother to take my toll road, even though it is more efficient and cheaper? They've already paid the tax, and not only that, it is largely invisible to them. The government will literally imprison them or take their shit if they don't pay it, it is a sunk cost, the government has violently usurped my competition via payment under threat of violence. You can't compete with 'free' at the point of use enforced by a violent actor against a sunk cost. Yes if you buy a plot of land that appears to not even be accessible by vehicle without some kind of unknown corner-crossing easement (one linked), then you will win out vs the non-existent competition there, but of course if the government shows up and taxes you to build a road even then you would lose.
        estearum 1y ago
        Again, you keep suggesting that you're going to benefit from existing infrastructure someone else paid for. It's not the public's job to provide customers for your toll road. You can build your toll road and have unencumbered competition elsewhere.
        mothballed 1y ago
        >Again, you keep suggesting that you're going to benefit from existing infrastructure someone else paid for. No I'm talking about using infrastructure a private entity has paid for as competition. Would you call it "unencumbered" competition if I started stealing a few bucks from everybody that goes to the gas station, then paid people to take my road with the ill-gotten gains instead of the public interstate, then declared that the government is free to compete unencumbered? Of course you wouldn't, I can't just take money from everyone at the gas pump, but the government can so that their public "toll" is already paid and I can't compete even if my road is cheaper. The end result is public roads have a mobster-type clamp on the encumbered market. You can't compete with them because they have a monopoly on violence and use it to prepay the toll to game the price at the point of use.

avmich 1y ago

Are you questioning the idea of having goverments to solve tragedy of commons problem?

mothballed 1y ago
I don't believe you can 'solve' the tragedy of the commons by increasing the size of the commons. Public government is a tragedy of the commons and shrinking it as close to, if not to the size zero, would reduce not increase the tragedy of the commons. I'm not opposed to say, privatizing many functions of government so that they are no longer commons. I feel this would solve that problem better than making the commons larger.