What About The Roads?

If I ever write a book about my conversion to anarcho-capitalism, I think this will be its title. Because this is easily the number one most-uttered response by those to whom I explain my belief that centralized government is immoral and must be abolished. What about the roads, indeed.

On the one hand, it is encouraging that most folks feel the most important service provided by government is transportation infrastructure -- a service that is easily provided by private interests. On the other hand, it is unfortunate that so many people have come to rely on their government for something so simple. I should point out that no government anywhere has ever built a road (or anything else for that matter). Private companies build roads and bridges. Governments simply write the checks.

The recent bridge collapse in Minneapolis, as well as last year's Boston tunnel incident, serve as evidence that as much as we might want to, government *cannot* be relied upon for the safety of these vital systems. That is not to say that private companies would be inherently more reliable (indeed the same contractors and engineers would likely be hired in both cases), but there are plenty of reasons to believe they would at least do a comparable job.

So who would pay these private companies? The obvious answer is those who use the roads and bridges that they build. Yes, that's right, tolls would be collected from those who actually use these elements of transportation infrastructure. Rather than saddling the entire population with the cost of building and maintaining roads that they may never use, the cost would be born by those who actually use them. There was a time when many would object to the notion of tolls because the impractical means of collection would snarl traffic and impose an undue burden upon drivers. Even if that were true, it is no worse than the undue tax burden on non-drivers. And in reality, technology has reached a point where cars needn't even slow down to pay a toll anymore, so this argument has been rendered moot.

Some would also argue that everyone benefits from the roads, so it is only fair that we all share the cost. By this same logic, my neighbors all benefit when I make improvements to my home (as it increases the property value of the entire neighborhood), so should I be able to send all of my neighbors a bill for the cost of these improvements? There are obviously direct and indirect benefits from virtually every action, but this doesn't necessarily justify coercing others to finance those actions. Keep in mind that there was a long period in this country before there were any formal roads constructed, and the country still managed to prosper commercially. There is no question that transportation is at the heart of any good economy, however, should the cost of the infrastructure be shared by everyone, or just by those who directly benefit from its use?