I've thought of this too, what libertarian hasn't?
The idea of tolls on every block would certainly be possible with transponders or number plate readers. There's another way: parcel owners own the road in front of their parcel, from curb to center. The figures I had were $2/sq ft for two inch thick repaving. A 100 foot wide parcel extending 20 feet to the center is $4000 to completely repave. Residential streets seldom need anything so serious; if it were every ten years (still more than necessary), that's only $400/year.
I lived on a private road at the time, paved for 3/4 mile then 1/2 mile dirt. Pothole maintenance every spring was a nuisance but done in a day, although I forget now how much the material cost. In addition, road contractors would make every effort to fix all potholes on a block at the same time. When the county road needed pothole repairing, the crew covered many miles in a day.
Thus I don't see any need for tolling on residential streets.
Business districts would be the same, but more contracted repair than parcel owner. They would pay the cost as just another business expense instead of transponders and plate readers.
The cost would be the same at worst, less if government inefficiency is taken into account.
As for access, I do not see that as a problem. Even if there is only one road to a house, any road company which blocked access would have in effect stolen your parcel from you. Legal recourse is already available for other disturbances, such as a pig farm or sewage treatment plant next door, all night construction, or other actions which make it impossible to live in your home; barring access certainly qualifies. Exorbitant toll increases would qualify too.
(People who worry about big box stores or factories or warehouses or skyscrapers amuse me; do they really think any such business is going to plop down in a residential neighborhood whose infrastructure can't support the building itself or the customer traffic? Morons!)
Really, big ole factories and warehouses employing hundreds of people just show up in residential neighborhoods with tiny streets and no power, water, or other infrastructure?
Is this what you actually think happens -- quite a lot?
"Businesses build factories and warehouses where the infrastructure can't support them."
You actually think businesses waste their money building what the infrastructure doesn't support? What do you think the businesses do with these factories and warehouses which can't get power and water and the roads are insufficient?
Never mind. At this point it's just a rhetorical question. You obviously didn't read what you replied to.
I suspect that the problem of an overly avaricious monopolist road owner would be resolved by home and business owners along the route. Libertarians, being generally opposed to violence, may underestimate its probable role in resolving such conflicts. Up to a point, thevcaptive property owners would put up with price increases, but violence is always a resort. And the rational monopolist should know that.
Surely there's the problem of natural monopoly captured by a private entity. The valley can only support one road in and out. A privately owned river isn't likely to have a nearby one to compete. The problem with government ownership is the lack of the discipline of competition which not only bounds prices but inspires innovation. Politics is all that's left to limit government, but in the absence of competition, it does work. It works especially well for things with natural limits like how big the flood control dam needs to be. Water can be metered. That is self limiting. Just keep government away from things that have no end such as equality.
Surprisingly mainstream. Seems like Rothbard at his most neoclassical. Almost everything he mentions in this chapter could be from Samuelson optimization and be in a University course. I guess it’s unsurprising then that this is the chapter you disagree with most lol.
I think there are two strategies libertarians could approach privatization while mitigating monopoly concerns. Both fall under the category of shared ownership, or can be viewed as partial access and egress. Number one: perhaps overnight travel could be free, along with a few midday hours, while pricing during peak hours remains unrestricted. Number two: cost plus pricing guarantees tied in perhaps to property, local citizenship or both (I say citizenship as a transitional consideration meaning its tied in with persons who are local to the region). Finally I think a hybrid of both considerations should probably be implemented. For example, access might be free from 9:00 PM to 5:00 AM, cost plus regulated during normal daytime traffic (perhaps for locals only), but limitless pricing during rush hours, say for instance from 7:00 AM–10:00 AM and 4:00 PM–7:00 PM. Any solution will be lumpy, but we shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of improvements. Free nighttime access would likely ensure that virtually all OTR commercial traffic is relegated to the evenings, this alone would significantly ease traffic pressures. I think the larger concern would be empirical experimentation such that we can determine what is enough of a window to allow private owners to recoup maintenance costs and encourage new construction, while at the same time creating substitute pressure in the form of alternative time and cost structures. This accomplishes two things, it allows for both much higher demand elasticities (for tolling hours), as well as reducing social welfare loss with 2nd degree price discrimination. I also lean on the side that this highways only, local streets and avenues should be tied in as a club good, this keeps them somewhat politicized, but at least avoids the bundling problems typical of traditional government (your representative is responsible for one "political" issue instead of tens or hundreds of them), and likely more closely models the pricing structure of what realistically would have obtained if this industry started and remained free market.
The point of libertarianism is to substitute private property rights for politics. But as the example of HOA which are association of private home owners shows, it is simply not possible to entirely eliminate politics.
Impractical. Look at the footprint of an R22, a 2 seat helicopter. 500 sq ft, four times a sedan, and weighs half as much. A flying sedan would need 8 times the air downrush per sq ft, and no one would tolerate that anywhere near their homes or other cars, not even a roof -- imagine the damage it would do.
Piloting one can be automated. Radar etc can guard against collisions. But nothing can mitigate that downrush of air.
I've thought of this too, what libertarian hasn't?
The idea of tolls on every block would certainly be possible with transponders or number plate readers. There's another way: parcel owners own the road in front of their parcel, from curb to center. The figures I had were $2/sq ft for two inch thick repaving. A 100 foot wide parcel extending 20 feet to the center is $4000 to completely repave. Residential streets seldom need anything so serious; if it were every ten years (still more than necessary), that's only $400/year.
I lived on a private road at the time, paved for 3/4 mile then 1/2 mile dirt. Pothole maintenance every spring was a nuisance but done in a day, although I forget now how much the material cost. In addition, road contractors would make every effort to fix all potholes on a block at the same time. When the county road needed pothole repairing, the crew covered many miles in a day.
Thus I don't see any need for tolling on residential streets.
Business districts would be the same, but more contracted repair than parcel owner. They would pay the cost as just another business expense instead of transponders and plate readers.
The cost would be the same at worst, less if government inefficiency is taken into account.
As for access, I do not see that as a problem. Even if there is only one road to a house, any road company which blocked access would have in effect stolen your parcel from you. Legal recourse is already available for other disturbances, such as a pig farm or sewage treatment plant next door, all night construction, or other actions which make it impossible to live in your home; barring access certainly qualifies. Exorbitant toll increases would qualify too.
(People who worry about big box stores or factories or warehouses or skyscrapers amuse me; do they really think any such business is going to plop down in a residential neighborhood whose infrastructure can't support the building itself or the customer traffic? Morons!)
You have probably not lived in the Third World where such things, plopping factories and other things bang in midst of neighborhoods is routine.
Really, big ole factories and warehouses employing hundreds of people just show up in residential neighborhoods with tiny streets and no power, water, or other infrastructure?
I kinda doubt it.
It is a miracle but it happens--quite a lot.
Is this what you actually think happens -- quite a lot?
"Businesses build factories and warehouses where the infrastructure can't support them."
You actually think businesses waste their money building what the infrastructure doesn't support? What do you think the businesses do with these factories and warehouses which can't get power and water and the roads are insufficient?
Never mind. At this point it's just a rhetorical question. You obviously didn't read what you replied to.
Hey Bryan, the link to your Rube Goldberg solution appears to be broken. It just points to your website.
I assume it's this: https://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/road
I suspect that the problem of an overly avaricious monopolist road owner would be resolved by home and business owners along the route. Libertarians, being generally opposed to violence, may underestimate its probable role in resolving such conflicts. Up to a point, thevcaptive property owners would put up with price increases, but violence is always a resort. And the rational monopolist should know that.
Surely there's the problem of natural monopoly captured by a private entity. The valley can only support one road in and out. A privately owned river isn't likely to have a nearby one to compete. The problem with government ownership is the lack of the discipline of competition which not only bounds prices but inspires innovation. Politics is all that's left to limit government, but in the absence of competition, it does work. It works especially well for things with natural limits like how big the flood control dam needs to be. Water can be metered. That is self limiting. Just keep government away from things that have no end such as equality.
Surprisingly mainstream. Seems like Rothbard at his most neoclassical. Almost everything he mentions in this chapter could be from Samuelson optimization and be in a University course. I guess it’s unsurprising then that this is the chapter you disagree with most lol.
I think there are two strategies libertarians could approach privatization while mitigating monopoly concerns. Both fall under the category of shared ownership, or can be viewed as partial access and egress. Number one: perhaps overnight travel could be free, along with a few midday hours, while pricing during peak hours remains unrestricted. Number two: cost plus pricing guarantees tied in perhaps to property, local citizenship or both (I say citizenship as a transitional consideration meaning its tied in with persons who are local to the region). Finally I think a hybrid of both considerations should probably be implemented. For example, access might be free from 9:00 PM to 5:00 AM, cost plus regulated during normal daytime traffic (perhaps for locals only), but limitless pricing during rush hours, say for instance from 7:00 AM–10:00 AM and 4:00 PM–7:00 PM. Any solution will be lumpy, but we shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of improvements. Free nighttime access would likely ensure that virtually all OTR commercial traffic is relegated to the evenings, this alone would significantly ease traffic pressures. I think the larger concern would be empirical experimentation such that we can determine what is enough of a window to allow private owners to recoup maintenance costs and encourage new construction, while at the same time creating substitute pressure in the form of alternative time and cost structures. This accomplishes two things, it allows for both much higher demand elasticities (for tolling hours), as well as reducing social welfare loss with 2nd degree price discrimination. I also lean on the side that this highways only, local streets and avenues should be tied in as a club good, this keeps them somewhat politicized, but at least avoids the bundling problems typical of traditional government (your representative is responsible for one "political" issue instead of tens or hundreds of them), and likely more closely models the pricing structure of what realistically would have obtained if this industry started and remained free market.
The point of libertarianism is to substitute private property rights for politics. But as the example of HOA which are association of private home owners shows, it is simply not possible to entirely eliminate politics.
Flying cars.
Impractical. Look at the footprint of an R22, a 2 seat helicopter. 500 sq ft, four times a sedan, and weighs half as much. A flying sedan would need 8 times the air downrush per sq ft, and no one would tolerate that anywhere near their homes or other cars, not even a roof -- imagine the damage it would do.
Piloting one can be automated. Radar etc can guard against collisions. But nothing can mitigate that downrush of air.
P.S. I know you are joking.