I was debating a "refomist Libertarian" about whether roads should be privatized, and he asserted that if roads were privatized, local road monopolies would grow. He also said that these monopolies would practice de facto eminent domain by blockading anyone who doesn't sell their property to the road owner by buying the surrounding property and refusing to let them leave. How could one rebut this argument?
shazam:these monopolies would practice de facto eminent domain by blockading anyone who doesn't sell their property to the road owner by buying the surrounding property and refusing to let them leave.
More efficient, and lucrative, would be to let the recalcitrant homeowner keep his home, and make him pay an ogoing bribe to the road company for the priveledge of keeping his home, whether he uses the road or not. Or, if the property is really necessary to their plans, they could just take the house. I mean, who's gonna complain? Nobody wants to p-off the monopollistic road owner and risk the same tactics being used on them.
Yup, those road monopolies suck. Good thing we don't have any.
The state won't go away once enough people want the state to go away, the state will effectively disappear once enough people no longer care that much whether it stays or goes. We don't need a revolution, we need millions of them.
I am not sure what it is called in english, but you can own the right to use a road on someone else property. This is not that uncommon for various dirt roads next to peoples property. It should really apply for greater distances too.
In a free society you get this right by using a piece of property for transport before anyone else comes and along and does something on that spot. They can set up shop there but they can never block your from using it for transportation in the future cause you where there and did that first, or the person can buy or negatioate a permanent right to transport to there property if the others where there first and this can never be removed.
Even if these agreements arn't always explicit today because the road in question is owned by the governement they are still there and you can't just cut someones property of without violating this.
It's called 'right of way' which allows people to do things like block construction because they walk their dog on a path that crosses your property.
My parents were indirectly involved in a case like this between their neighbor and a jogger. There was destruction of property, lawsuits and restraining orders. Lots of fun.
I was staying with them for part of this and Dude is lucky I wasn't the one who saw him running across the property in head to toe camo (to make a point) because I would've shot his dumb ass.
Same neighbor wouldn't let the people who bought the property below them run power and water across their land because of this so they wouldn't gain access rights and decide to build a road or something.
It's called 'right of way'
Thanks.
And yes obviusly there are a lot of problems with how this is implemented today.
But it has some basis in a right that is real, and in some form it could still be there in a free society to be able to stop some of these issues with small private roads. As for big private roads no-one will stop traffic on them for the same reason GM isn't likley to shut down there car plants for 1 day just because they feel like it...
shazam: I was debating a "refomist Libertarian" about whether roads should be privatized, and he asserted that if roads were privatized, local road monopolies would grow. He also said that these monopolies would practice de facto eminent domain by blockading anyone who doesn't sell their property to the road owner by buying the surrounding property and refusing to let them leave. How could one rebut this argument?
Two thoughts on this one.
First, this is exactly what the govenment does when it wants to build a road. It first tries to buy the land and if that does not work eventually confiscates it. So the state wanting to build a road turns out to be a monopoly - bad bad bad if it is private, good, good, good if it is public? - . The idea, that a monopoly is always a threat is not correct. Monopolies are a threat if they are coercive monopolies only, that is if they can employ coercion to ensure no one else can enter their market segement. This usually can only be achieved through priviliges granted to such a monopoly by the state. Which in turn is not free market, but mercantilism.
Second, If someone has a property already than buying the surrounding property to block the way is not a valid option. Because the use of the property depends on getting to and from it, is part of the property itself. So, if the original property owners had a right to use the access to their property, which is usually the case :-), the denial of using that way by a new land owner would harm the original property and as thus is an aggression which is not acceptable under free market rules.
The only way to get out of the dilemma is either to come to favourable terms with the old property owners, or don't build the road.
In real life this, however, is a no brainer. Private roads are build to make profits. Profits are gained by customers that voluntarily decide to use that road. In a free market they would be free to do so or try to build another road they prefer to use. Hence, the monopoly faces competition and will employ every means it has on a free market( that means no priviliges whatsoever to coerce), to not outrage their customers, but to make sure they make as much profit as possible, which is only possible if customers love them roads enough to spend the tolls asked for.
The only road builder I am aware of that has no incentive to act like this, is the state. He has a coercive monopoly and no need to make profits from building whatsoever. His gains are reelection and increase of coercive power.
This exact question is answered below.
Minarchism failed because it is socialism || A challenge to minarchists || Private roads and cities || A two-stage strategy for freedom
nhaag: shazam: I was debating a "refomist Libertarian" about whether roads should be privatized, and he asserted that if roads were privatized, local road monopolies would grow. He also said that these monopolies would practice de facto eminent domain by blockading anyone who doesn't sell their property to the road owner by buying the surrounding property and refusing to let them leave. How could one rebut this argument? Two thoughts on this one. First, this is exactly what the govenment does when it wants to build a road. It first tries to buy the land and if that does not work eventually confiscates it. So the state wanting to build a road turns out to be a monopoly - bad bad bad if it is private, good, good, good if it is public? - . The idea, that a monopoly is always a threat is not correct. Monopolies are a threat if they are coercive monopolies only, that is if they can employ coercion to ensure no one else can enter their market segement. This usually can only be achieved through priviliges granted to such a monopoly by the state. Which in turn is not free market, but mercantilism. Second, If someone has a property already than buying the surrounding property to block the way is not a valid option. Because the use of the property depends on getting to and from it, is part of the property itself. So, if the original property owners had a right to use the access to their property, which is usually the case :-), the denial of using that way by a new land owner would harm the original property and as thus is an aggression which is not acceptable under free market rules. The only way to get out of the dilemma is either to come to favourable terms with the old property owners, or don't build the road. In real life this, however, is a no brainer. Private roads are build to make profits. Profits are gained by customers that voluntarily decide to use that road. In a free market they would be free to do so or try to build another road they prefer to use. Hence, the monopoly faces competition and will employ every means it has on a free market( that means no priviliges whatsoever to coerce), to not outrage their customers, but to make sure they make as much profit as possible, which is only possible if customers love them roads enough to spend the tolls asked for. The only road builder I am aware of that has no incentive to act like this, is the state. He has a coercive monopoly and no need to make profits from building whatsoever. His gains are reelection and increase of coercive power.
Thank you for all the responses. First of all, I've already pointed out that the same thing happens with government road monopolies. However, he said that private road monopolies could artificially lower the market value of the house by blocking it from the rest of society. That is where he used a straw man argument saying that an anarcho-capitalist wouldn't bar anyone from buying the surrounding property and denying you the right to leave.
shazam:private road monopolies could artificially lower the market value of the house by blocking it from the rest of society. That is where he used a straw man argument saying that an anarcho-capitalist wouldn't bar anyone from buying the surrounding property and denying you the right to leave.
He might as well argue that the "road monopoly" could infest your property with miniature unicorns who burrow into your ear and give you a disease that makes monkeys come out of your butt while making you sing "There's no business, like show business" at the top of your lungs in your best Ethel Merman impression. The Aristocrats.
Without coercion, the scenario he describes is impossible. If you have an easement across the neighbor's property, then the road company can't take that from you even if they buy the property. That would be coercion. If you don't have an easement, the point is moot because you aren't able to leave your property now, so the monopoly has nothing to threaten you with.
shazam: Thank you for all the responses. First of all, I've already pointed out that the same thing happens with government road monopolies. However, he said that private road monopolies could artificially lower the market value of the house by blocking it from the rest of society. That is where he used a straw man argument saying that an anarcho-capitalist wouldn't bar anyone from buying the surrounding property and denying you the right to leave.
That is akin to saying that Ben & Jerry's would sell you an ice cream cone filled with razor blades.
The road company's business is to sell you road access. They stand to lose everything and gain nothing by arbitrarily evicting you from your property.
shazam:He also said that these monopolies would practice de facto eminent domain by blockading anyone who doesn't sell their property to the road owner by buying the surrounding property and refusing to let them leave. How could one rebut this argument?
Its illegal to trap someone on their property.
Stranger: That is akin to saying that Ben & Jerry's would sell you an ice cream cone filled with razor blades.
LOL! I'm going to start calling this the "razor blade" argument, as in, "If we didn't have health inspectors, McDonald's would be stuffing their hamburgers full of razor blades!"
Kind of like Rothbard's wisecrack that if price controls on beef were removed, prices would rise to five, fifty, nay, five thousand dollars a pound!
The State has suddenly and quietly gone mad. It is talking nonsense; and it can’t stop. —G.K. Chesterton
Zeddicus: It's called 'right of way' Thanks.
A more proper term is "easement".
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
The real owners of the road are the surrounding proeprtyu owners who have been paying property tax all these years to support it. I see no reason to turn the road over to a single owner.
twistedbydsign99: The real owners of the road are the surrounding proeprtyu owners who have been paying property tax all these years to support it. I see no reason to turn the road over to a single owner.
The surrounding owners would have to incorporate themselves into a single owner in order to own the road they share.