How could an AnCap road system work? Wouldn't people end up having to pay a toll every 10 meters?

How could an AnCap road system work? Wouldn't people end up having to pay a toll every 10 meters?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=eSj_aNX_gN4
mises.org/library/privatization-roads-and-highways
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Do you think the consumer would agree to pay a toll every 10 meters?

subscription.

>company X wants people to be able to access their store
>company X buys and paves a road from where people live to their store and let people use it for free

Well, if i had a business that I wanted people to drive their cars to, maybe I'd build a road that leads to my business.

it doesn't work, this is a false dead-end road meant to distract you from the truth

>How could an AnCap road system work?
It wouldn't.

The important thing is that the roads make money for companies who need people to drive to them. Losing a few million dollars is nothing if you make a few billion in the long run. Think of roads as a giant free sample.

Also if you own the road you can charge other companies for putting up advertisements.

AnCaps would never build any piece of infrastructure. Why? Because thr basic premise of roads, bridges etc is that anyone can use it.

Every bussiness, wheter being a cellphone manufacturer or a food delivery service has access to it.

An AnCap would never build somethig that benefit it's competitors.

It wouldn't.

There would be different grades of road depending on how nice you wanted them/how much you wanted to pay, and you would get a membership for the company that has the road that suits you. If you're happy to 4wd everywhere you don't get a membership. If you want safe family roads you go with them, if you want to speed limits you choose that company. Insurance would be built into it, if you break the rules or something and crash it voids your insurance. This is a better solution than being force to use one type of road and pay with (((taxes)))

Most roads you drive on every day we're build by private companies during the construction of buildings and homes. These "side streets" as we call them in the US are usually given to the state so that the property owner doesn't have to maintain them.

In an AnCap society, the property owners would retain ownership of those side streets. Residents have an interest in free movement and so wouldn't charge, or if they want the roads private could up up a gate (gated communities already exist)

In areas if commercial or industrial property, it is an advantage to be tied to the residential roads so customers and employees can reach your business.

In reality what we call side streets were invented by private property holders so we know the system works.


As for roads that go places without owned and maintained property along the route. (Like hwys etc) these would be build on a toll system.

Don't forget the English turnpike system was privately owned and constructed for many many years before the king appropriated it.

where we're going, we dont need roads

Anarchy does not work, that is how.

youtube.com/watch?v=eSj_aNX_gN4

> company X now owns all the transport infrastructure, hindering with the competition, instead of improving quality or lowering the prices
> company X CEO becomes the supreme leader
> anarchy ends

> 40 minutes of roads are for fags t. movie

Also, if you are not an AnCap remember that in the early days if Rome's expansion citizens only payed an average of 2 work days worth of money per year to the government.

That small payment financed a huge army that was put to work building roads, aquaducts and other architecture.

The Romans would invade, conquer an area then lower it's taxes and vastly improve the quality of life and life expectancy.

(You can imagine the invaded population.

Visitor: hey, weren't you guys invaded? Arnt you being occupied and oppressed.

Conquered man: well after our army fled their army camped just out of town. We we're scared of them rapeing our daughter, but the next day their general had some meetings with the town elders and now the army is building us a new Grainery, and started packing the roads! Oh and they lowered our taxes.

Visitor: so are you going to rebel and restore your king?

Conquered Man: fuck the king I like these Romans
So even if you are not AnCap just know taxes are too high and go government to invasive

company x cant buy the land cause its private owend and it wont be sold no matter how much money company x offers. company x doesnt have eminent domain powers. compnay x is fuked and the costumers are fuked aswell.

> muh roads
If it wasn't for patents and governments we'd already have flying vehicles and nobody would need roads

See TurnPike Trust in Britain around the time of the industrial Revolution.
Before the idea of collecting tolls most roads outside cities were shit, Peasants were too fix local roads 6 days out of the year. A classic tragedy of commons. Thus Parliament passed an act to allow toll collecting.
The new toll roads created nicer roads but at a cost. Poor farmers trying to get livestock to market get boned, as road conditions don't matter for them. In Britain Toll roads were so hated that they were often destroyed by peasants. Parliament had to pass a law that people caught destroying Turnpikes were to be executed.
not to long later Roads were nationalized.

And b4 muh rail. Muh rails were often heavily subsidized by governments and government's would allow violation of private property to build muh rails as it was in government's national interest for rail.

I don't believe the utility of private road ownership(private companies already build the roads) is any greater than public ownership.
In rent seeking services the marginal utility of public to private is far less in the private's favor.

>company Y builds a store right next to the road company X built, thus profiting off of company X's labor without paying for it

it wouldn't

>muh roads
>ancap road system
>arguing about roads
This is how I know you're retarded. No one cares about the roads. It's just something left-liberals and left-libertarians like to bring up because they can't function as normal human beings and realize that there are way more important things for libertarians to discuss than "HUR DUR WHO WILL BULD DA ROADS?" Though it would be good to talk about as one thing that could exist in some hypothetical utopia, there are much better things for anyone to focus on than just some retarded hypothetical utopia that no one really cares about.

I can see AnCap roads as being so wasteful and disorganized.
>No organization because competing road companies have different plans and are more interested in being rich than making an efficient highway system
>This could be fixed by giving one company a monopoly but then toll roads could be put everywhere
>Can only drive where I’ve previously paid for subscriptions or I have to stop to pay a toll all the time
>If a road company charges a fee that some poor people can’t pay but they need to use the road to get somewhere, then the only way to fix it would be to build another road to the same destination. This would lead to even more cluttered roads going this way and that way without organization
Sounds like a pain in the ass. You can make about all sorts of theories about individual rights and how the state is illegitimate but nobody gives a shit if they have to take a 3 hour detour to get to work. AnCaps can’t understand that people will take statism over their beliefs if it means statism is way more convenient for them. That’s just how people are

I imagine it would be like phonelines where not every company has laid it's own, they share the same physical infrastructure.

Require people to install devices in their cars that track how many miles they drive on your roads to access your roads. Send them a bill at the end of every month calculated based on the number of miles driven.

You forget that the road system which has been developed only turned out the way it did because of the crony system which fostered it. If, during industrialization, the Ancap ideology was followed, transportation systems would have evolved far differently.

You can't hold a radically different ideology to the same standards as your own, because the way they handle such core functions (such as morality) differently.

Then I’d take the device out of my car lol

>monopoly in anarchy
>competition is bad
>people would pay for roads
like they weren't super expensive now payed by taxes
>poor people would build the roads cos they can't afford already existing

dafuq man, you need some reality check

But the current road system we have is already a thing. You can say “what if” but what we have now is just the way it turned out. Implementing AnCap now would probably be very hard and most people wouldn’t want it. I think I could live successfully in AnCap but most people would hate it

>No one cares about the roads
Without roads we wouldn't have the most important technologycal development of the past 2000 years: the car.

Our cities are literally modeled after this invention, yet you want to toss it aside just because it hurts your meme ideology.

Nice job taking everything I said out of context and misinterpreting it.

nice job using woman logic

Because it's already a thing, we can take advantage of it. The Romans had a certain system of maintenance for their roads. When the legions finished building them, they would plant olive trees along them, and allow citizens to own the land and harvest the trees, given that they maintain the road. I believe a system similar to this can be implemented for the modern day without a government.

So, seeing how it's in your interest as you believe you can succeed in it, why would you not advocate for its implementation? The strong eugenic effect it would have would certainly be worth it in the long run.

>being this autistic
>falling for left-liberal, left-libertarian autism
Please reread the post so you can see the context of what's actually being said. I'll paraphrase what I said before. The arguments about "who will build the roads" in a hypothetical utopia are the same thing as argument some space alien race is better in some fictional sci-fi novel universe. It's literally arguing about fiction. Hence, it is a non-issue. There are better thing to talk about than who will build the roads in muh an-cap fictional utopia that so many left-liberals and left-libertarians love to focus on. We have roads. People build roads through various organization. No one really cares. It's not an issue to anyone who actually has anything going for them will care about.

Roads are a symbol of oppression.

My personal tax rate is 30%. Corporate tax rates re 21%.

Who uses the roads? I own a quarter ton Kia Rio. The corporations run a million 5 ton semitrucks a day.

I make no profit from the roads. The corporations make billions from transporting crap.

The police patrol the street handing out fines and monitoring me. I am constantly harasses by the state on the road.

Roads? Damn the roads. Give me my money and freedom. I don't want to give the government and corporations welfare and the ability to limit my freedom.

Rimworld, which is basically an AnCap simulator, does it well; you either leech off existing infrastructure, or disregard it and get your goods through at a slower pace.

>Map of major trade routes in the Afro-Eurasia during the Middle Ages
>0% central planning

I would imagine that much like we see in businesses today, that the adoption of prepaid passes or subscription based models would spring up to increase ease of use of private roads and similar services.

Much like how on already existing toll highways there are lanes which allow you to proceed at a reduced sped and a camera takes a picture of your toll pass that is displayed on your windshield and you are charged for it later, or if you don't have the funds or aren't in the system they then have evidence of you using there services without compensation and can then find you and charge you, or perhaps pay a third party who deals with collecting such payments.

Not saying I fully endorse this philosophy, just my thoughts on how it may play out.

If you couldn't leave your house, they would.

>thinking the silk road was an actual road

Oh, sweetie, no.

Toll roads have existed since antiquity. And a Brazilian with your terrible traffic in Sao Paolo and Rio should know better than anyone how shitty the government is at logistics and maintaining and planning infrastructure.

We would also be so wealthy were pure capitalism unleashed that we wouldn't notice. We would probably have a little clicker on our dashboard with different companies and contractors bidding on roads and infrastructure services. Here in FL, our partially privatized turnpike is so much better than I95.

Trade routes.

Walked on by foot and by cart.

However, if 4x4 offroaders became the norm, I don't see why roads need exist.

You would likely have to pay every time an owner changes, unless the owner's during a particular stretch of road have agreed otherwise. Which, in turn, is probable because if it's extra difficult to drive down their 100 meters of road there's no reason Joe Schmoe wouldn't choose to drive on the other Ancap's road instead.

There's a lot of things that could go wrong with an Ancap system, such as anything involving the NAP. Anything involving capitalist principles ain't it.

Look at how many modern businesses also run charities, or make sizable donations to them. Most people prefer to buy from ethical companies even if they have to pay marginally more for their products. Businesses can monetize perceived good will even when they subtly make donations that nobody really mentions, and even when they make no immediate return on investment from the donations. Roads on the other hand are a massive public service which everyone will immediately notice. They get immediate return on investment since they create the means for customers to get to their store. They can get more return on investment by plastering the roads in advertisements. Hell, they could crowdfund donations to help pay for THEIR roads, while they get the credit.

Also, they could easily buy a few feet of extra land to the side of their roads, then put up blockades to cuck DoucheCo™ for trying to profit off their roadways. You'd need to make an agreement with them in order to profit off their roads.

Nobody could realistically get a monopoly on roads in ancapistan. Businesses would practically be fighting for the privilege of building roads as I mentioned above.

Almost everyone would sell their land, at least to a degree, if offered enough money. Let's say some farmer didn't want to sell his land but someone offered him $25,000,000 to build a tunnel under his shit, do you think he'd refuse? Even if he did refuse his son would probably sell the land after HE inherited the land, and in the mean time roads could be built around him.

>shitty roads that force everyone to sit in traffic for 3 hours to get to work
>businesses making a profit off roads

Pick one and ONLY one. Businesses would work together to make roads that aren't shit, because shitty disorganized toll road clusterfucks would lose everyone money and piss off consumers.

>Also, they could easily buy a few feet of extra land to the side of their roads, then put up blockades to cuck DoucheCo™ for trying to profit off their roadways. You'd need to make an agreement with them in order to profit off their roads.

So now, every person/firm who invests in public goods needs to spend extra to prevent freeloaders. This extra needed spending further disincentivizes investment in public goods. Wouldn't it be great if he we had some sort of structure which "governed" these corporations and just forced them to pay for these public goods. That way, everyone would save money, including the corporations, because they wouldn't have to spend money on keeping out freeloaders. Oh wait...

>need to build road
>buy land from other individuals where you want to build the road
>hire roadlaying company to build the road for you
>set a small fee for anyone using your road
>alternatively make a contract with other private road owners to create a standardized system where clients only need to buy 1 pass for all roads include in the contract

the only kind of anarchist I like

true, look at how easy the Gauls accepted their new overlords and even dropped their own language in order to emulate them and be part of their society

>he doesn't know about the Gallic wars!
>but there's so much documentation on them and they gave rise to Caesar's power!
>do you think he can read?

Here's a free scholarly book about how to privatize roads & highways.
mises.org/library/privatization-roads-and-highways
You can also find talks given about the topic on YouTube. Search for something like "walter block roads".

...

.

,

I like how you ignored the first 3/4 of my reply to you, then reworked the last line into some retarded system where all businesses would need to build Trump style walls along their entire roadways to stop freeloaders.

Imagine if I own the company that built a certain roadway, and you own DoucheCo. You build a store on land next to my road and try to capitalize on my roads without paying me or asking my permission. I could put up a few concrete road blocks on the roadside next to your property to stop cars from getting from my road to your business, this will cost me a tiny fraction of what you paid for the land/store. Then I could put up a few signs next to your storefront, shaming your business for being too greedy to contribute to the roadway that the public is driving on, and advertising my more ethical business practices.

Do you REALLY think selling your products for a few cents cheaper than mine would be enough to offset that? Do you really think practicing business like that on a wide scale would be in the financial interests of your company?

...

by driving through a sea of advertisements

>I could put up a few concrete road blocks on the roadside next to your property to stop cars from getting from my road to your business, this will cost me a tiny fraction of what you paid for the land/store. Then I could put up a few signs next to your storefront, shaming your business for being too greedy to contribute to the roadway that the public is driving on, and advertising my more ethical business practices.

What incentive would you have to even do that in the first place? DoucheCo isn't actually hurting you at all. Its profiting off of the investment you /already/ made. People can still take the road to your store just fine.

America was never AnCap, it just didn't have an income tax.

...

DoucheCo is violating the NAP by stealing access to my road, if they circumnavigate my concrete pylons I will put 4 kilos of plastic explosives on a drone and drop into your HVAC and gun down anyone who comes running out in a multi-direction killzone.

Going back to your first post, the thing I was originally addressing when I brought up the concept of DoucheCo:

>AnCaps would never build any piece of infrastructure. Why? Because thr basic premise of roads, bridges etc is that anyone can use it.
>Every bussiness, wheter being a cellphone manufacturer or a food delivery service has access to it.
>An AnCap would never build somethig that benefit it's competitors.

DoucheCo is my competition. If I've invested money in infrastructure (which by the way has an upkeep cost), why would I then let my competitors use my roadway for free when their business model is to try to undercut me by not building roads?

And remember that's only one possible solution to who could build roads. A dedicated roadway company could charge businesses to connect to their roads, they could plaster their roadway in adverts, and they could charge drivers ~1/10th of what they're paying for government roads right now, and they'd probably still make more than enough money to profit.

In general the "WHO WILL BUILD THE ROADS" meme is one of the dumbest arguments against anarcho-capitalism but it never seems to die no matter how many times it gets refuted.

...

>DoucheCo is my competition
Not necessarily. McDonald's isn't really competing with CVS Pharmacy or Best Buy. Not every company is competing with every other company- only companies in the same industry.

>undercut me by not building roads
They wouldn't build roads anyway, even if they didn't exist. Nothing DoucheCo does actually "undercuts" you. It just profits off of labor you have already done. Its a problem with the system, because you had to /already/ pay for the full cost of the roads, but after the fact of making that payment, DoucheCo isn't hurting you at all.

>They wouldn't build roads anyway, even if they didn't exist.
*DoucheCo wouldn't fund the building of roads anyway, regardless of its presence or absence adjacent to your road.

I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make here. The point behind me bringing up DoucheCo was to show that businesses that pay for roads don't need to worry about being undercut by businesses that don't build roads. It demonstrates that companies won't necessarily benefit from their competition building roads, and it provides one possible model for roads to be created in an an-cap system.

Now you're talking about businesses that aren't in direct competition, like a phone company and McDonalds or some shit like that. That's basically irrelevant but fine I'll humor you. The company that owns the road, say McDonalds, would have a choice - bill the other business for using their McRoads, to offset their expenses and maybe make a bit of a profit on the side. Or let them connect their businesses up to the McRoads for free and provide a sort of public service, while increasing the value of the roadway.

Either way roads get built in ancapistan, and either way McDonalds could provide the public with toll free roads while continuing to dominate fast food. It would probably just come down to which method they figured would make them the most money.

Don't violate the NAP or you will be nuked

Or you could just use your Mcapp to order lunch and a drone flies it into your office.

where would one get that kinda SPACE

>bill the other business for using their McRoads
But they don't own the land adjacent to the road where DoucheCo sets up shop. The business itself isn't using the road technically, its customers are.

>Or let them connect their businesses up to the McRoads for free and provide a sort of public service
This is exactly my point. This would be a PUBLIC service, so it stands to reason that the PUBLIC should pay for it. When you have potential for freeloaders, then there are a whole bunch of roads that should be built because it is in the public interest, but will never actually be built because any business model would be in the red when footing the entire cost of road construction and upkeep. If you distribute the cost across firms, you rule out any possibility of freeloading and get a more appropriate amount of funding for the roads.

Sure. A business like McDonalds might opt for a delivery based model over paying for roads, and that's fine. If you don't think they'd need roads you could substitute McDonalds in that example out for another company that does need the roads.

In any case I can't imagine a future where all businesses are able to operate without roads, but where people still need roads for transportation. If we have hovercars for example, then fuck building roads, we just need places to park our hovercars.