Memes aside, on a libertarian society, who builds the roads?

Memes aside, on a libertarian society, who builds the roads?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnpike_trusts
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

The people

Property owners

why would they build something for others to use for free?

Same people who built the roads in early America. The states would set up Turnpike Trusts:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnpike_trusts

They build it for their own purposes.
If you want to use it, pay their toll.

jewish capitalists

Also mutual agreements with fellow road owners to use their road.

...

so in order to go from A to B that is 50miles, would I have to pay 70 different tolls?

Depends on how good you are at negotiating.
Ask the property owners, not me.

I guess private companies who would later charge a toll.

this symbol does not belong to you

delet

...

Slaves, of course.

That's a joke. What is stopping big corporations from buying thousands and thousands acres of land and charge $1000 per mile?

You own stock in a road or a neighborhood's roads. The stockholders contract with a road management company. Stockholders earn dividends from the tolls after the road breaks even.

That's a fantastic business idea.
I think you're ready.

If the toll road owners are sane and logical, there would be a payment system that you just drive through. Like normal toll booths today.

What if they don't want to let you use it.

What if that someone owns all of the important roads and you can't even travel around the country anymore because you would trespass one of his roads and get shot dead?

Surely a pure libertarian society wouldn't work, no? A semi-leave it to the free market system would be dope, with still a basic tax rate for shit like roads and state schools.

Just buy a jeep faggot you won't need roads.

the free market. companies will only charge what they're actually able to get from people

what if they are not logical and sane? What if someone buys all the land around your property and doesn't let you exit from their land? Will that person have the right to shoot you?

...

Trespassing.

But then he can shoot me legally because I violated his property. I don't want to die. This isn't a solution.

Apparently the same people who build them now. Since all new roads are toll roads.

> he can shoot me legally
That's a hearty assumption.

Then they would go out of business very quickly. Also it would increase demand and innovation for flying cars. Road owners want traffic because they can't earn money otherwise. The road doesn't pay for itself if it's degraded by the environment. It only pays for itself if people use them.

supposedly every road belongs to someone, that means that in a city, you would have to pay 30000 different tolls to owners to get from A to B. How is that feasible ?

>implying there is anyone to enforce the NAP in an anarchist society
just shoot him. then you can take his land

Ask yourself, why are roads even necessary?(at least to the extent we have them now)
Without the massive subsidies to our freeway system would cities decide it's not worth importing stuff from halfway across the world when you could easily make it yourself? Would people decide to live closer to work if they had to directly pay to maintain the highways they take 40 minutes each way from their suburban McMansions?
In an AnCap society you would probably see an uptick in railways, and people would move within walking/cycling distance from their workplaces. Private roads would each serve a purpose and create real value for their users while not taxing those who aren't using the roads

Traders, just like how trails and roads were made before the west was won

Contractors paid by the government

I've been wondering myself, but I don't browse every /lrg/ thread and I'fd assume somebody would have replied to this meme already.
>there would be a payment system that you just drive through
Here we have Telepass for highway toll which does exactly that, but unless everyone owns some roads it would be an economic suicide
>What is stopping big corporations from buying thousands and thousands acres of land and charge $1000 per mile?
This too nobody really answered

If the toll roads were that expensive someone would have an incentive to build a railway or some other alternative. Why do you "need" to go 70 miles anyways?

with so much shit passing on kickstarter dont you think a community will be able to crowdfund a fucking road?

but in a big city like NY, it is not possible to have everyone live in a walking distance from their work. Also the trains would have to pass through people's properties and there is nothing stopping the owners from charging $100.000 every time the train passes by

Jesus Christ, libertarianism is not the same thing as AnCap for fucks sake.

According to the NAP I was the aggressor in that situation.

>Then they would go out of business very quickly.
Just because he doesn't let me or you use it doesn't mean he doesn't let other people use it. He might actually make more money by monopolizing traveling and transport itself.

>The road doesn't pay for itself if it's degraded by the environment.
Why would he even bother to keep it in good conditions?

>flying cars
nice try kiddo i purchased the air space

You would shoot them because they don't let you travel freely.

The slaves

Oh well, then you get shot. Roll 1 die for damage.

>buys air space
>now airplanes have to do maneuvers to avoid millions of properties such as yours or else they will get shot down

Not being retarded, for example.
"Ha-ha, people can't leave their houses, me so ebul".

Civil courts would rule against me because of the NAP.

Also the guy owns all of the roads, he is obviously more powerful than I am and just hires so many armed goons that I have no chance.

>humans
>sane
>logical
what a naive world view especially for an American, considering you guys live among rednecks and niggers 24/7

most roads would be inaccesable unless for a very, very high fee

The national highway system killed the rail system, which is a damned shame because rail tech is easier to advance. We could've had privately operated bullettrains everywhere by now, but not for yet another stupid government intervention.

My position is that a bris on an 8-day old baby necessarily violates the NAP. It is an unnecessary surgery, and despite the benefits of circumcision, there are also drawbacks. Never mind what they are, the fact is that the kid has no say in whether to do it or not, and it should be his decision. Other issues such as dressing, bathing, feeding, putting in a crib by force, disciplining, etc. are issues of safety and child rearing, and if these are not done, a child will have serious problems in life.

The other side claims as this commenter did, that it is a clear benefit to the child socially. Perhaps so, but a child can decide this when he is, say, 6 or 7 when he may begin becoming embarrassed by having an ערלה (foreskin) for whatever reason. If he decides to do the surgery then voluntarily then fine. That wouldn’t violate the NAP at all, assuming a 7 year old has the capacity to voluntarily do something. (Let’s not complicate things.)

But this kind of argumentation is beside the point. There are obviously ways to justify circumcision as not violating the NAP, whether you make a medical, social, or child rearing argument, none of which I accept, but let’s assume I do. Still, there is the halachic issue of what a bris actually is, and here we get into a more Talmudic form of argumentation.

Taking the case of a child born circumcised, or an adult conversion where the man is already circumcised, we clearly see that one קיום (fulfillment aspect) of a bris is itself the violence of the act. Why? Because a child born circumcised still needs to be wounded by his father. A convert who is already circumcised also needs to bleed in order to be converted. Without a הטפת דם ברית, (drawing of covenant blood) a father does not fulfill the mitzva of circumcision on his son who is born circumcised.

>Civil courts
shoot them

>Why do you "need" to go 70 miles anyways?
For 1000 +1 reasons why do you care? Is that the reasoning you use?

Now say what you want about circumcision itself. Wounding a baby for the sake of wounding a baby for no purpose other than to fulfill a mitzvah is clearly a violation of the NAP. And it is an integral part of the bris. Blood must be drawn. This is also why a Gomco clamp is considered פסול (unsatisfactory) for circumcision, because with a Gomco there is no bleeding.

Clearly then, one kiyum of a bris is violence. Certainly, it is absolutely minimal. One prick, one drop of blood, and nothing more than that. But it is still there. One point of a bris is to violate the NAP, and therefore my point still stands. Judaism forces me to be a minarchist of a sort, and draw a line demarcating violence from within myself.

Indeed, to say עד כאן. “Up to here, and no further.”

To reinforce the idea that above the NAP is God Himself, and as sure as He is the One Who commanded me to observe the NAP, He is also the One Who commanded me to violate it in the case of circumcision.

most libertarians are minarchists, not anarchists.

Fucking this. This man gets it. Privatizing the roads would make EVERYTHING more efficient.
They'll give you a little transponder to track you. Just like a credit card. Maybe with an integrated gps to help route you on today's cheapest route.
Also you can subscribe to a billing zone or specific route or city at a discount.

Major transit companies would be wise to buy/lease long strips of land to build toll roads and/or use of the airspace for flight.

Can't afford enough men, guns and ammo without traveling around and doing business first. Also I have heard the road guy might use his private nukes.

Technically there's.nothing stopping 7/11 from charging $6,000,000 for a candy bar. There's nothing stopping United Airlines from charging $12,000 for a domestic flight. Except there is the fact that people won't pay that much, so you won't make any money.
What is the point of charging so much for something that nobody can reasonably pay for it?

The world will be filled with privately owned roads and there wont be room for anything else.

How would the state set that up if they had no power

In theoretical models with frictionless negotiation, it costs nothing for land owners to organize a logical system of payment. Also, the payment process from the road-user is also assumed effortless.
In real world negotiation is bothersome, so those models won't work.

follow up question, who funds education and a large army?

People will wonder as they see you cutting through their yard.

monopoly. If you are a big corporation or an airline that owns specific, crucial areas that are very important to the rest of the population such as lakes for water, air space etc, there is nothing stopping you from charging that amount of money. Imagine owning all the south coast of US of A and someone wants to travel abroad.

>state schools
hows it going goldman?

Those with the vision and means to do so.

Look, you can make up excuses whatever you want, point is that tyrannical landowners, or roadowners for that matter won't last without degrading themselves to oblivion due to concurrency mostly. And if the free market does not work there's always opposition, you shoot them, it's that simple. You can always make any kind of tyranny cause more damage to the practitioners than the slaves. If you decide to not be a slave that is.

peak capitalism

None of your fucking business am I being detained?

>Also I have heard the road guy might use his private nukes.
this is where your "excuse" got out of hand completely, you're just a pussy

>or roadowners for that matter won't last without degrading themselves to oblivion due to concurrency mostly
I have just pointed out why that wouldn't happen. But you are delusional like all ancaps, so I am wasting my time it seems.

Utopian idealists are the worst.

Ancaps can't into jokes it seems

Read Ethics of Liberty for my thoughts on Airspace. on mobile rn

a company owned by a person, will employ several engineers who will create a machine that will automate road building.

as for where the roads go, that will be left up to a vote by citizens that will use the road

You don't. You're confusing things you need for things you don't need. You don't understand incentives, and basic wants vs fundamental needs. A landowner won't charge $1000 per mile on his private road because then nobody can use it. Roads cost money to maintain just due to weathering and so he'll be losing money. If nobody can pass through his land, other land owners will open up routes around it and what do you think he'll do when he sees them making all this money when he could offer a quicker route for the same price and get that money?
Wealthy people aren't the spiteful goblins you think they are.

Who said it would be free?

You are approaching this thought experiment with victim mentality.
See yourself as the shark, not the minnow.

>privately funded armies
yea theres nothing wrong with this scenario

I am not a psychopath so I don't want other people to be tuna, even if I can be a shark. Also there no reason to assume you even have the opportunities to become a shark in such a society. The sharks have no reason to share and there is nobody who forces them to allow competition.

Private security forces and private education already exist.

What if the government is not logical and sane? Would that be better or worse? A government has more power and could do even more harm than some individual.

What if the company's privately funded army invades all properties and assumes power?

Monopolies like that only exist because the State props them up and creates barriers to entry for competition. You don't understand how pricing works, and competition. Even if you are the only one selling a product, there is a certain point where the people who want that product can't afford it, so by charging more you make LESS money because you can't sell enough volume.
Your example also is retarded. Like saying "what's stopping some ebil corporayshun from buying up the entire planet and then shooting you into space to get you off their property?" First off, you're assuming everyone one earth would sell their land to the big ebil corporayshun, and that one entity would somehow have enough money to buy up that much land.
What happens when the owner of the last piece of land that they need to create the monopoly refuses to sell it?

Are you talking about the free state of Walmartia?

>private security
yea but theyre not a private ARMY.

Then that happens.

The government. Libertarians are not ancaps, so the government is still a thing just limited. Why does this stupid meme exist?

Sort of irrelevant what you call it. You could call it a mob of men with guns, if you want.

>Libertarianism = anarcho capitalism
No, you still have police which will do the job for him.

Building the roads isn't the problem, it's having a road layout that isn't pure madness

You don't need a private army in a libertarian society.

Reminder govt is needed to prevent monopolies so there can b conpetition and free market

what i mean is tht theyre only hired for security and not as a means to impose ur will on someone else. That is because govt funded police/ army exists to preserve this order and prevent them from doing tht

I'd say ancap is a subset of libertarianism. But yeah.

its just farther down in the purple

The equivalent or asking "without chairs,how will you sit?"

>Memes aside, on a libertarian society, who builds the roads?

It's the same as it is now: private contractors. They are no longer financed by jewish central bank issued debt. What's so fucking hard to understand?

Not really, because it ventures into a territory that assumes authorities are never needed. Libertarianism does never assume this.

just dont let niggers, jews, gooks, or muds do the layouts.

This