When government monopolization of the roadways is discussed by economists, the “externalities” argument is usually raised. The argument is said to be simple, clear, and irrefutable. In fact, none of these terms really applies. Let us consider the argument closely.

The highway safety record in the United States is unfortunate, where some 50,000 people lose their lives every year and some 2,000,000 more are involved in serious accidents. This phenomenon has evoked a response from the social science community: try to find the causes and hence the cures.

Under present institutional arrangements, there is a modicum of competition, which takes place with regard to our nation’s roads. Sad to say, however, such competitiveness is superficial, very limited and only indirectly related to these transportation corridors.

What are the best institutional arrangements for roads, streets, highways, sidewalks and other such thoroughfares for human and vehicular traffic? The economics profession can be divided into two camps with regard to this issue.

Libertarian, political, and economic philosophy is based on the nonaggression axiom.

There is a debate now raging within libertarian circles concerning the immigration issue.1 Should government restrict immigration, or should people be allowed to cross international borders with impunity, without any leaves or permissions granted by the state?

Newly arrived in New Orleans from Arkansas, one of the first things I did after settling in was to attempt to register my automobile and get a Louisiana license plate (I can’t pass for a native with an out of town vehicle).

I say “attempt” advisedly, because this quest, as it turned out, was quite a struggle.

Across the United States, more than four million roads, streets, and highways tie cities and states together and enable citizens to work, travel, and shop. Americans enjoy unprecedented freedom and convenience, as our whole economy is directly dependent upon this mobility.