Without government, who would own the roads?

Question

This is a thought experiment. Suppose that you live in a community that has expelled all government. To give perspective, let's say that the population of the community is around 20,000. [I do think the answer to this question could change for larger or smaller communities.]

Most members of the community are simply fed up with government of any kind. Those still in favor of government include former politicians, many former government employees and a small minority of regular citizens. A number of otherwise peaceful citizens have and are willing to again resist any government with violence.

You are a leader in the community. You wish to avoid chaos and are looked upon to help adjust to the new situation. While you have influence, you can not simply mandate a solution. You may expect resistance really, to whatever proposal you suggest.

What do you propose?

Considerations include:

How do assign ownership of roads?

How do you address ownership disputes?

How do you line up incentives? This means, how will you encourage road owners to keep up their roads? How will people be incentivized to travel on others' roads?

How might your proposal differ for residential versus major business roads?

What about interstates passing through your community?

How do you view road safety? If an accident occurs on a road, who is liable?

As I've been adding details, I see that jasonga has already decided to institute another government.

If your solution is government again, how do you propose to put it in power? Keep in mind that some people are prepared to resist your efforts violently. These people are not common criminals. In every other respect, they are not peaceful.

Another consideration, what is in it for you in your proposal? How do you communicate this to others in the community? How do you reconcile your interests to the interests of others in the community? Or do you need to hide your intentions?

I consider the contention that roads are impossible without government to be intellectually lazy and without historical merit. Roads have been built throughout history without government.

The raw materials exist without government. The workers exist without government. Everyone has incentive to have roads without government. Why can we not build roads without government.

Others have expounded on the supposed chaos that would ensue without government. That is extraneous to my question, but okay. So given that people will violently oppose an institution of a new government, how will you keep the peace?

stacia - Yes, the absence of government is called anarchy. But no one ever establishes why anarchy descends into violence.

Come on people. You can do better. Don't tell me how this can't work. Put yourself into the place of this community leader. If you really think that government is the right answer. How do you go about setting one up again?

bradxschuman: But the roads HAVE been built. There's now no government. I suppose that you propose to institute a new government. How do you suggest this given that you may have to fight some of your friends?

Open your eyes: You're right. I could ask without government what would society do about a lot of things - defense, laws, courts, etc, etc. I'm by no means suggesting that any solutions are easy. But I certainly am "going somewhere" - suggesting that government often is a very poor solution.

Right now, let's stick with roads - though I concede your vision that much more would need to be developed.

Your response indicates that you think that there must be some collective ownership of roads. Why?

stacia:

Thanks for responding to my first comment to you. I will now rebute your more substantive resonse:

You say that anarchy descends into violence due to a leadership void. It does when individuals within the community decide that *they* would like to be rulers. That is, anarchy descends into violence because some individuals desire to establish government. It's kind of silly to blame the violence on anarchy in this case.

Even in situations with multiple governments, power struggles with opposing power. The bigger the governments, the bigger the struggles (think World Wars...).

Greed? Come on! You don't think that greed exists among politicians and the special interests that they serve? Under a system in which private ownership is recognized peacefully, your "greed" can only be satisfied by satisfying the "greed" of others.

And making someone else pay for your road? Why, I'm sure that someone else DOES pay for the road in front of your house right now.

I'm not suggesting any form of Utopia. And I think that it should be clear that I am quite against socialism.

It should be noted that our current system of road ownership is socialistic. A number of you have pointed out that without a government entity to enforce it, socialism would crumble. I quite agree with you.

So do you need to reinstitute a system of coercion (government) to continue to uphold your socialist system? Or is there a system of private ownership that would enable this community to continue to maintain its roads? If you think that there is, how would you institute it? [Note, I don't for a moment imagine it would be easy.]

I was hoping that some people would actually put themselves into the shoes of this community leader. An exceptable answer would be to reinstitute a government (I'll admit that this would not be my proposal), but you'll have to face the realities of what a new government would be and would require.

My proposal:

In both commercial and residential areas, extend property lines to the mid-point of the road. At the same time, I would approach businesses that previously maintain the roads. I would ask them to consider business models that would allow them to profit from continuing to provide their services.

What they do would be up to them, but my suggestion would be to purchase the roads from individuals and charge them rent for their use. Non-payment of road rent would be handled just like any other breach of contract. [Yes, most breaches of contract today are handled in PRIVATE courts.]

Such companies would have an opportunity to partner with their communities to enhance their value. By purchasing green spaces next to the roads, they could ensure an attractive neighborhood - increasing home values and enabling the companies to increase their rents.

Answer 1

Your thought experiment is very unlikely, as I'm sure you know.

Here is a possible solution:

I assume this new populist anti-government revolution just loves business, since anti-government people tend to be very pro-business. I would suggest that whatever businesses are on the main roads of your township should have the responsibility of keeping the roads together within the radius of their influence. Then in the suburban or rural areas, each neighborhood has to take care of the road that serves them.

You know, about two weeks of people having to go out and do what government agencies do now, and the whole anti-government experiment would fall apart.

Now here's a rhetorical question for you?

Who 'owns' the roads now?

Well, you would say, the government does...

And who 'owns' the government?

That pesky little contract that we don't mention much says: we the people.

In the end, if the constitution is at all a valid document 'we' own the government. In fact 'we' are the government.

So when people are fed up with government... who exactly are they fed up with?

Answer 2

Whoever is armed at the blockades they set up to demand money from others wanting to use the roads. It's called anarchy.

Anarchy decends into violence due to a leadership void and lack of consensus. Then there is the struggle to fill the leadership void. Power struggles with opposing power. And, of course, greed factor's in. I don't want to pay for my road. I'll make someone else, and while I'm at it, I'll extract funds to pay for my desired standard of living because I have a commodity for which there is demand. If there isn't adequate demand, unchecked, I can coherse what I want anyway.

Utopia doesn't exist for a reason. People only think collectively and for the greater good after their own needs are met. Some don't have so many needs. Others are exceedingly greedy. Government is the collective consensus that keeps the power crazed in check. It is not evil. It is what the majority allow to be. If you don't like it, run for office, seek to change it. I think along the way you would realize that governance is far more complex than most people think. Apathy seems to be the collective will when it should be active participation. *I'll get off the soap box now.*

Answer 3

No. Now look what is the point of this? Are you heading somewhere or merely trying to make a point? This actually doesn't just pertain to roads. You would have to devise a whole new system of trust. You would have to build from the ground up a system whereby the people worked together for each other. The people of the community that didn't want to be a part of this would simply be told to move on basically being if they are not part of the solution they are part of the problem. There would have to be a lot less debate on issues. You would have to quickly come up with solutions to problems and deal with them immediately. There would be room for error as long as there was no fighting involved and the people of the community worked together to solve it rather than squabbling over crap. The community would have to be as one. United. No division. Division breeds contempt and contempt breeds war. The people of the community would have to be sure of one thing that their community comes first over any gains of profit or power. No one man or woman will rule the community. The only voting that will be done will be for deciding any issues that come up in the community as democracy was meant to be. There would be a committee that would delegate some sort of authority but the people of the community would be expected to behave responsibly like decent human beings. It would work only if all people were to behave in a manner befitting a decent human being. I just think in a situation as you stated to just talk about road ownership is just like chucking a bucket of water on a forest fire.

Because then everyone in the community would be responsible for the upkeep of them. If everyone owned the roads they would all want to be sure that they were kept in tip top condition. A sense of pride if you will. When you own your own house you like to keep it nice. The roads are something that everyone in the community would use. I honestly think that if human's are given the chance to govern themselves without outside influences trying to control the population then you would see a very different type of attitude towards your fellow man than you see today. We should be united as a race but the powers that be see division as the best form of control. The people who rule the world don't care about people. They care about money, power, control. Obviously a world without government wouldn't be as fruitful for some but would be give control back to the lives of the people that live in it. Utopia doesn't exist because there is no money in it. The reason I didn't put myself in the shoes of the community leader is because I see myself more of an advisor than a leader. When I allow myself to become a leader in any situation I get extremely annoyed when people don't do as I say. I would much rather someone came to me for advice and took the credit. I am happy with that as long as the advice I give works well.

Answer 4

There would have to be a system of land ownership, and any segment of road that passes through a property, would be owned and maintained by the landowner. Since there is no government, all previous public land would be available for claim.
If it is not claimed, it would be the duty of the community to donate money to hire a contractor to fix any road. They would want to after a while.

Also note the reason land ownership works, is because without government, there is no liability lawsuits. There is a complete lack of court until the community establishes one...which I doubt it will.
This assumption is based on the willingness of the community to work together to establish their ideal town.

Answer 5

No, via fact agencies constantly prefer to lessen costs and develop sales. you're able to without delay discover your street equipment as poorly maintained as available and your consistent with mile costs constantly increasing. Or they could hire some clever product diversification scheme. A single lane on the incredible could fee $0.04 a mile, yet a top classification account for $0.10 could get you into the different 3 lanes. look at cable television for an occasion. It used to fee like $20 a month. Now it has extra crappy channels, even though it expenses 4x as plenty.

Answer 6

If you refer to old ages, you will find that roads are controlled by the most powerful and best armed parties either armies, guardians,or gangs. The history mentioned a lot about land and sea pirates who were powerful and control the roads in places where weak rulers exists

Answer 7

It couldn't work without a leadership hierarchy of some kind as the town would descend into chaos as the stronger (and more well armed) members of the community would start to impose their will on the others and a dictatorial leader would eventually take over.

Answer 8

A real question on YA for a change. Real thought provoking.

Ownership of roads could be determined by who, or whom, decided to purchase them from the public. As with all outright purchases there is hardly any need to solve ownership disputes.

Ownership incentives would be based upon use. If someone doesn't like how a road is maintained, if at all, they will likely drive somewhere else unless they absolutely have to use that particular road. It would be market based.

One thing I like already is the idea of segregating tractor-trailer rigs. Only stupid people want to put their POV up against a train and only stupid people want to tempt the laws of physics in their POV vs. an 18-wheeler. We should already have a 6 route trucker interstate in which POVs are not allowed to travel on. Boston to Miami, Chicago to Houston, Seattle to San Diego, Miami to San Diego, DC to San Francisco and Boston to Seattle.

Any roads passing through a community, if government were not involved, would have to have permission from the land owners in the community.

Are roadways are over regulated as is. Police are not here to protect and serve. They are here to collect and harass. If I 'roll' a stopsign or speed and no one is harmed then what's the big deal? If I don't want to wear my seatbelt and I'm injured or killed then what do bureaucrats care except that if I'm dead they don't get to tax me.

Having said that, I do believe that if you kill someone with your vehicle (intentional or not unless it was self-defense) then you should be tried for murder. If you injure someone with your vehicle (and they press charges against you) you should be charged with intentional manslaughter.

We need no new forms of government in our lives. What we need is to take responsibility for our lives and live with less government. When we do that, we'll find it much easier to keep more of our money rather than pay more in taxes.

What's in it for me? Less government, less taxes, less regulation.

Most of the toll roads in the United States are managed by private corporation so I have no problem with privately owned roads. What I do have significant problems with is corporate welfare where the taxpayers fund the construction of roads and then those roads are ceded to private corporations for their own profit. That's just stupid!

If private corporations (or private owners) owned roads then they would, or could, hire private police. Private security firms already exist and in most states private investigators have much more authority that the regular law enforcement under the law as is.

Some communities will always (likely) maintain that government maintain their roads. Other communities may someday develop a private ownership of roads. Whether public or private the maintenance of the roads is in the hands of those charged with that responsibility. Some communities do a poorer job of road maintenance as it stands today.

Their economy is likely to suffer in some people's eyes as a result. In other people's view however, those communities who fail to maintain their roads to other people's expectations aren't suffering so much as they aren't growing as fast as other communities are.

Some people want their community to stay as it is. Whether others want to label that as a no-growth position is up to them. But if a community, whether government or private, wants to maintain their community as is instead of 'encourage growth' all they likely have to do is not maintain the roads to other's expectations.

If the key roads traveling through your community are not maintained chances are those who are passing through will not consider "this" to be a place they would like to visit again much less move into.

Answer 9

By appointing ownership of the roads to any one person or group you begin again replicating a government situation.

Answer 10

Build an island, call it Atlantis, live there for a while, create a perfect society, live happily ever after.

And then sink it.