But...But...But Who Will Build All The Roads?

I've been trying to convince a particularly bright friend of mine of the benefits of market rule in all areas, including roads and defense. Unfortunately, he seems to be hung up on the question of roads. He agrees that a system of private roads "could work" but says it couldn't be as convenient as a system of government roads (different toll booths each time you go onto another person's road, what if someone just arbitrarily decided to block their section of road, the usual arguments). I've tried to explain that in a free market people would likely band together to build roads that they own shares of, thus eliminating the "block the road" problem and the "toll booth" problem, at least among the members of that road association. The main argument I'm coming against is that there is no guarantee that would happen; statists never seem content with the fact that something will PROBABLY happen... My question is: How does one go about arguing against the "no guarantee" argument?

Check the reading list; there are some articles on the matter that might help.

 

Theres a book by the same title, minus two 'but's' and the 'all'. I happened to come across a video by Franc28, an avowed anarchist. In one video he told us he'd finally gotten his book published and it called, 'But Who Will Build The Roads'. He's got some decent videos and a very unusual manner of speaking. You should hear him say, 'etcetera'. lol. Franc, if you're reading this, don't take it as a criticism. I told him he should consider voice work in the animated community. I'm very serious. I think he could make it.

Here's the book description listed at Amazon:

Market Anarchy Explained lays down a fearless, logical, rigorous yet accessible case against the State, against the democratic system, and the case for Market Anarchy and complete, unbridled, stateless freedom. Tremblay gathers all the important arguments and pieces of evidence from the literature, and builds a much-needed bridge between the Market Anarchist academia and the common reader. To the freethinker, this book is a breath of fresh air in a propaganda-soaked society. Chapter 1 starts with a bang: by proving that the State's existence cannot be justified, and then detailing anti-State arguments. The premises of the democratic system are exposed and analyzed, and the State, in addition to being unjustifiable, is found to be supremely immoral. Other topics include: exploitation, propaganda, perpetual wars, the Non-Aggression Principle, the "social contract," the State as monopoly, State Capitalism, poverty, and "social justice." Chapter 2 defines Anarchy and dispels the illusions and hypocrites associated with the concept, shows that the State is the enemy of society, as well as some issues associated with the concept of Anarchy. Chapter 3 concerns the thorny issue of morality, and it also starts with a bang: by daring to disprove major conceptions of morality, proving the true nature of morality, and defeating Hume's famous "is-ought" problem. Not content with this task, it also proves that political rights are a necessary fact of society, and dismisses statism as an example of value-arrogance. Chapter 4 discusses Market Anarchy specifically, how Market Anarchist societies of the past functioned, and how the future Market Anarchist societies will function. Topics include: accountability, coordination, cost-driven policy, roads, police and courts, a new method of decision-making to replace democracy called Informed Consensus, and the general plan for Market Anarchist victory.

Here's the link:

http://www.amazon.com/Market-Anarchy-Explained-Build-Roads/dp/1425769403/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198455099&sr=8-1

Right now it looks like it's around $19 new and $18 used.

Oh, here's a link to his Youtube video about the book's release:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHAcjKU1xDs

 Free will implies that there is no guarantee that anyone will do anything at any point. All that we can judge is that under certain incentives, people are more likely to do something than under other incentives.

For example, what guarantee is there that the government will build roads? Absolutely none. What about building roads in the right place for the right cost? That's even less likely than under the free market.

So in practice it boils down to...

More Free Market

results in your getting more of what you want

Less Free Market

results in your getting less of what you want

More Free Market

results in your getting more of what you want sooner

Less Free Market

results in your getting less of what you want later

 

Someone somewhere has got to come up with some simple 'axioms' like this and distribute them as widely as possible. The power of liberty is not being sold very well. I deal with people every day that haven't the first clue about economics and it's destroying us.

with all due respect pairunoyd , i appreciate what you are trying to do but im afraid those statements you chose dont quite pass muster as axiomatic statements, although the broad sweep of their gist is broadly accurate.

 

as a simple counter example. if you want product X, and you are the only individual who places a subjective purchase value on that good, then the market might not give you the good as speedily or in as much abundance as if you lived in a state controlled economy where the central planners have made a mistake and set aside an overabundance of resources to provide X to an appreciative public (who in reality dont want X).

I'd like to read Walter Block's book on Roads, im sure he kicks ass.

nirgrahamUK:

with all due respect pairunoyd , i appreciate what you are trying to do but im afraid those statements you chose dont quite pass muster as axiomatic statements, although the broad sweep of their gist is broadly accurate.

Ouch! You know how to hurt a guy. I find your, "with all due respect" statement quite suspect. jk, of course.

Yes, that's why I put the word inside those thingamajigs, '  ' , to insinuate my so-called 'axioms' dubiousness. However, aren't axioms subjective? I believe they're axioms for ME!   But yes, we do need some clear-cut statements of supposed fact to represent the gist of liberty and her promises. Maybe release some simplistic dogma? In fact, I may have accidentally hit upon a good idea. We can personalize liberty - Mrs. Liberty incarnate! She can be attractive, but in good taste and just enough age (40?) to show a little wisdom. GREAT IDEA!!! Some artist out there needs to work on a picture of Mrs. Liberty or rather, Liberty (wouldn't wanna upset the feminists). She should probably be human, but whatever. She needs to be uncontroversial yet have a little bit of rebel in her. She needs to be original, yet maybe somehow someway have a little Statue of Liberty in her soul. I do believe I've found THE campaign to begin the enlightenment of our ambivalent, apathetic friends and neighbors! Also, she might have a SMALL touch of deification about her, but should strongly be common, yet heroic. "Liberty, will you marry me?"

In case you're not being facetious, axioms are not subjective, in any sense of the word. They are merely those starting points which we must take for given, and in some cases they are those facts which cannot be otherwise.

 Maybe your Lady Liberty could do a Nina Williams - i.e. be cryogenically frozen, thus having an age of 40 and a physical age of 23.

Inquisitor:

In case you're not being facetious, axioms are not subjective, in any sense of the word.

 

Yes, quite facetious was I. (Although I won't turn this into some sort of God debate, I do believe the only way to know or honestly approach objectivity is by believing in God. Yes, I know there are plenty of what I call 'God surrogates' etc. But in my opinion everything is meaningless w/o an eternal, sovereign being) 

Yea, somebody needs to come up w/ some sort of counterrevolution to the liberal media and liberal public schools. Also, I think a slight emphasis on how Liberty is always an underdog might inspire a few more minds.