3 ms·

They don’t because the government is already confiscating their money to do (supposedly) exactly that.

by nickpp 1y ago

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.

They don’t because the government is already confiscating their money to do (supposedly) exactly that.

by nickpp 1y ago

They don’t because the government is already confiscating their money to do (supposedly) exactly that.

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.