I know who will make the roads, but HOW will they make roads? Paving roads will require Right of Way(RoW) acquisition most of the time, meaning some people's property, be it unused land or residences, will have to be bought and sometime shave the structures present demolitioned. Now, not everyone is willing to abandon their homes, so how the fuck would would a private company be able to acquire RoW then when they can't violate muh NAP?
protip: LOL JUST MAKE THE ROAD SOMEWHERE ELSE XD is not an argument or answer because almost all public works projects are bound to meet RoW issues
>Now, not everyone is willing to abandon their homes, so how the fuck would would a private company be able to acquire RoW then when they can't violate muh NAP?
the company can offer more money to the people who refuse to leave OR simply 'build around it'.
>pic related
RoW, imminent domain, public works, etc are all problems regardless of government type.
libertarianism/ancap/any system that respects the NAP is superior to any system that would violate the NAP over land disputes and 'muh roads'
if your argument against libertarianism is 'they dont have a government authority to forcibly kill/remove people from their homes to build roads!' your argument is shit bro.
>the company can offer more money to the people who refuse to leave OR simply 'build around it'. I already fucking said it, public works are bound to face RoW problems, especially in densely populated cities that are in need of flyovers and elevated light rails. >muh more money Apply that to maybe 1000 families, and you see this is fucking retarded when they have to be given a minimum of atleast $3-500.000 for their substandard housing. Even worse in metropolitan areas where real estate prices are through the roof
>RoW, imminent domain, public works, etc are all problems regardless of government type. But unlike muh freedom society, government can forcibly make settlers move away from the RoW my friend. You have no proper argument here. Only "if you want government to make me move out of my shitty home in favor of building an urban rail that will benefit millions, then you are fucking bootlicker!!!!"
Austin Parker
TOP LEL I CAN'T BELIEVE SOMEONE WOULD CONSIDER THIS A FUCKING ARGUMENT LMAO HAHAHHA
Camden Green
This...this supports your position?
Alexander James
yes it does, this thing is acceptable in a libshitarian society
Jonathan Clark
>yes it does, this thing is acceptable in a libshitarian society
except it happened in authoritarian socialist shit superpower
Bentley Flores
>forced relocation doesn't happen in China
Jose Carter
>I really love sucking cock muh utilitarnism is the best the argument.
You clearly already know the philosophy of why people support libertarianism and I'm convinced you're just here to shitpost. So what's the point of this thread?
sage
Aiden Mitchell
That must be in China. No way that house is still standing. Some gook ran a semi thru it
Lincoln Campbell
>mfw whenever lolbertarianshits are confronted with arguments they can't refute, they resort to incoherent screeching
Hunter Perez
>I know who will make the roads, but HOW will they make roads?
Simple. Property owners create a corporation that owns the roads. They now own shares of the road and earn dividends from any revenue it brings in.
The road corporation leases its land out to a "road management company", just like the property management companies of today. The road management company grants access to its network, takes care of the paving, the toll collection, the negotiation with other road management networks, and it probably owns a number of roads itself.
As for acquiring land for roads, there's a legal concept called "ad caelum" which means a property owner is currently considered the owner of everything both above and below his property. In an ancap society, this doctrine is rejected because you only own what you homestead. This means a road company can build bridges or tunnels anywhere as long as they don't hurt someone's property.
Hunter Torres
If you can't find another place to build this road then it is irrelevant if it is for the greater good because infringing on somebody else's property rights is wrong. It's as simple as that.
>BUT THAT'S NOT AN ARGUMENT! THAT DOESN'T SIT IN THE LOGICAL BOX I'VE CONSTRUCTED BOO HOO
Utilitarianism is not the goal of libertarianism. Libertarians value their own liberty and freedoms over utilitarianism. You are literally asking "why?" and that's on a case by case basis. The government should not be able to force me out of the place where I was born and raised a family because "IT HAS TO BE HERE MAN THERE'S NO POSSIBLE WAY" (which would be total bullshit. New York got around this with subways. Underpasses have become more popular. We might even live to see flying vehicles in our lifetime. So keep crying lol)
Luis Flores
>As for acquiring land for roads, there's a legal concept called "ad caelum" which means a property owner is currently considered the owner of everything both above and below his property. In an ancap society, this doctrine is rejected because you only own what you homestead. This means a road company can build bridges or tunnels anywhere as long as they don't hurt someone's property.
Uhm, mate wouldn't you claim it hurt your property if someone made a huge flyover above your 2 floor house?
>If you can't find another place to build this road then it is irrelevant if it is for the greater good because infringing on somebody else's property rights is wrong. It's as simple as that. Wanna know what this sounds alot like? Philippines. Where illegal settlers hampers infrastructure projects due to their libertarian entitlement to that their ugly shanties shall not be infringed by the government and should stay no matter how much time and money should be wasted on getting rid of them. Plenty of them are standing even to this day because the past government were almost powerless in relocating them to proper housing units.
Infact, 1990'-2015 Philippines would be the ultimate AnCap society. Overly entitled poorfags, horrendous urban planning due to private entities creating residences that don't comply with each others' infrastructure. > New York got around this with subways. Underpasses have become more popular Are you brainlet even remotely aware of how insanely expensive subways and underpasses are? New York's latest subway branch cost fucking $2.2 billion PER KILOMETER.
Libertarianism would only work fine in an almost completely barren wasteland where there's no significant urban development yet
Jeremiah Jones
And before someone misinterprets my post, the important thing about the ability to legally build tunnels and bridges is this: it reduces the negotiation power of property owners to natural levels.
A property owner is more likely to compromise with a road company if he knows they have a second best option.
In libertarian ethics you can "homestead" sunlight, and you can "homestead" peace and quiet if you, say, move out into the country. This means you can sue someone who builds a bridge over your house. But for example if you build a new house next to a garbage dump or next to a skyscraper, you can't sue the garbage dump for being smelly and you can't sue the skyscraper for restricting your sunlight.
Tunnels are more likely when it comes to residential areas.
Bridges are more likely over undeveloped land.
Nolan Myers
>A property owner is more likely to compromise with a road company if he knows they have a second best option. I forgot a pic which demonstrates what can happen if you don't resort to eminent domain. This happened thanks to rational people negotiating.
Asher Baker
>This means you can sue someone who builds a bridge over your house. But for example if you build a new house next to a garbage dump or next to a skyscraper, you can't sue the garbage dump for being smelly and you can't sue the skyscraper for restricting your sunlight. Of course I am not that fucking retarded to not know this, but how are you supposed to make a flyover across the middle of a city above areas already inhabited by people? Before you say "durr make it outside the city, then you miss the point of flyovers. Flyovers are usually designed to let the traffic flow in/out in certain trafficated areas within the city. Having it outside ruins this purpose as cars would have to traverse out of the city before they can enter the flyover. Tunnels are rarely an option due to their price and that real estate owners can still legally charge for RoW acquisition going under their properties. Reason why the new New York Subway is so ridiculously expensive
Jacob Roberts
>how are you supposed to make a flyover across the middle of a city above areas already inhabited by people? People in the city (not in quiet suburbs), are less likely to win a lawsuit if, for instance, there's another overpass nearby.
But the fact is, in the free market you generally don't need to build a lot of new roads in the city, and when you do, they will be so extremely profitable that it'll make sense to buy expensive land and expensive rights. Now you may say that new roads are needed all the time, but the problem here is that using the roads is generally free, so traffic has no upper bound. In a libertarian order, using a road can be very expensive. This is good because it reduces traffic and allows buses, trains, and other more efficient modes of transport to be very profitable. In a libertarian order, when a road is overused, its cost goes up, which means another bus company can spring up.
>Tunnels are rarely an option due to their price and that real estate owners can still legally charge for RoW acquisition going under their properties. We're talking about a future libertarian society, not today. Ad Caelum is still in effect today.
Logan Gomez
>durr make it outside the city, then you miss the point of flyovers I guess you're the type of person who is okay with destroying the atmosphere of cozy historical districts. Overpasses should only be put in where the atmosphere is already ruined, or where road companies can come up with extreme amounts of money to make up for ruining them.
Jeremiah Scott
>But the fact is, in the free market you generally don't need to build a lot of new roads in the city 10/10 shitpost m8
> they will be so extremely profitable that it'll make sense to buy expensive land and expensive rights. This will result in McTollbooths all over the place charging 1 bitcoin for each trip. Except if there's another private entity that creates another tunnel/flyover somewhere else which means more need for RoW acquisition Expressways are generally not very profitable. The profit mostly comes from governments bidding out contracts to private companies, either through roads planned by government or unsolicited proposals by the private companies. Making tollroads very expensive kinda ruins the purpose of having one in the first place. Sure they are meant to offer as a premium solution to traffic, but it should nonetheless be affordable so it can be used atleast more than once a month. Thus, only supremely rich people can use them, while the rest of the city remains congested to the brim with like 10% improvement in traffic
>I guess you're the type of person who is okay with destroying the atmosphere of cozy historical districts. Overpasses should only be put in where the atmosphere is already ruined, or where road companies can come up with extreme amounts of money to make up for ruining them. Ain't that exactly what Libertarians would be fine with in a libertarian society? :^)
Jaxon Hill
pay the person more.
Most people would sell their left arm for the correct price.
Isaac Cox
>implying the superior autism of a libertarian brain won't simply invent teleportation
>Ain't that exactly what Libertarians would be fine with in a libertarian society? :^) Fuck no. Go read the libertarian canon.
>This will result in McTollbooths all over the place charging 1 bitcoin for each trip Why do people think this? Sure, maybe there'll be a toll booth when you enter a new network, but it's in the interest of the company to keep traffic flowing. Eventually toll booths will disappear as we get better methods of tracking and billing. Maybe 1 bitcoin would be a fair price for certain roads. In such a case, only buses with 30 people would take that road so they can split costs.
>Expressways are generally not very profitable. Why would that be? Might that be because people have a basically FREE second best option? Make every road private, and profitability will not be lost. Currently, we have no way of saying "I want to put my money into trains/subways/buses/etc rather than into subsidizing cars. There's no way for public roads to go out of business, and that's the very definition of unfair competition.
>10/10 shitpost m8 The fact that you refuse to address my very rational argument means you're not really committed to finding the truth. So this is my last response. Read this. mises.org/library/privatization-roads-and-highways
Benjamin Thomas
>Why do people think this? Sure, maybe there'll be a toll booth when you enter a new network, but it's in the interest of the company to keep traffic flowing. What I meant is that there would be "some means which will charge the driver for utilizing the road" >Maybe 1 bitcoin would be a fair price for certain roads. In such a case, only buses with 30 people would take that road so they can split costs. >1 bitcoin mfw >Why would that be? Might that be because people have a basically FREE second best option? Because tollroads throughout the world are relatively "cheap" to the point where people are fine with using them atleast once a week, and that's mostly because either >the profit for the private company came from the government handing out the contract, or >the government made the road themselves, and use tollfees to downpay the expenditures used to construct the toll road. This process in itself can take almost a decade depending on the traffic And all this even comes with government subsidies.
Besides there's plenty of expenditures in operating expressways: maintenance, electricity for the lightposts, running the systems that , paying employees hired to maintain the road. It's estimated that most tollroads in the US runs into an annual deficit of between 20% to +100% of the incomes reasonrail.blogspot.no/2011/06/do-toll-roads-make-profit.html
>The fact that you refuse to address my very rational argument means you're not really committed to finding the truth. So this is my last response. No, it's just reasonable to know that brand new roads would have to be made one day or another in any growing city, unless that city remains stagnant which is probably not the case in a Libertarian society.
