Without a Government, who will fund our Highways...?

[Xdreamist]

I've had an idea for the free-market "highway" scenario, after the question was put in the video "Government: An Unnecessary Evil". One of Stef's answers was that we maybe won't need highways at all, who's to say; I agree we'll probably need them less and less, but often people are stuck in the current system's mentality, and this answer is not good enough for them.

 

So my goal here is to formulate a reasonable, planned out answer, as it seems to be an incredibly common question ask to an Anarchist.

 

I think this is the right section to post in, let me know if not. (And the idea may have already come through the forum before, so my apologies if I'm re-treading old material.)

 

Proposal:

A kick-starter type program over the internet could fund this project, and be sold as a solid and wise investment for backers. Not saying it has to be that website, but there could be similar sites as it grows more prevalent. 

 

The person putting forward the idea maps out the planned highway, shows which towns would be linked under this plan. Shows all costs involved in hiring of work crews, machinery, materials for the road, traffic lights, electronic systems, maintenance for the first 5 years, or however long they calculate they'll need with traffic volume, etc. - and has a "goal" to be reached to fund all this. Once this is reached, construction will start.

 

The creator's plan involves that at the entrance to this new highway, there will be a dedicated lane for a toll booth at both sides, with an automated checkout service like they have in supermarkets, in which you can make a quickly make a once off payment, and continue on if you're a temporary visitor; or set up a scanner bar-code to place on your window with credit attached to it, so you don't have to stop at a toll booth after the first time through (They already have these on highways in Australia; I'm thinking a much more efficient way of charging via scanner could be found with a cryptocurrency system.) There will also a electronic pulley boom-gate, that can very quickly go to any section of the first 100 meters of highway, travelling along the top of the lane barriers - with another boom-gate and a turn-off at the 100 meter mark, that allows a driver to turn around and travel back parallel past the highway, to the entrance that he came from; which I'll explain in a moment.

 

As a reward for their investment in the Highway, backers are guaranteed that they will receive a 300% return on their investment (or whatever is stipulated on the program), with the "amount until highway backers are paid" to be displayed on a electronic billboard sign at both ends of the highway, counting down live as the scanned tolls are individually added. 

 

This total amount, if they've promised backers a 300% return, will be 3x the total amount for the cost of the original kick-starter type program (a bit over if needed). The backer stipulates beforehand, that as a part of the contract with his backers, he will drop the prices of the highway to mere cents per car (or an equivalent in cyptocurrency) after this goal has been reached, for the first 25 years of the highways life, and the profit from there will be his, with the cost of maintenance from then on being his responsibility also, and to come out of this own profit. Not following this drop in price after the reaching of the goal, will constitute a breach of contract, and the reputation system advocated in free-market, will be trashed for that owner.

 

In this way, backers will have a program that will continue for as long as it takes for their 300% take on the investment to be made, guaranteeing that the owner of the highway won't make any money unless they are paid out first, increasing their confidence in the project's validity.

 

There will be warnings that the highway is not usable without paying a toll, and directing new / temporary users to the tollbooth lane.  If someone attempts to use such a Private highway without setting up scannable tolling account or once-off credit, traffic lights go orange, and a boom-gates covered in warning lights and a sound signal (like a train crossing) starts to slowly lower in front of traffic at around the 100 meter mark. 

 

Once traffic has come to a complete stop, the boom gate on a electronic pulley will whips down the length of the barrier-top that it's mounted to, stopping at the side of the car that hasn't paid, and lowers the gate directly in front of it. Any traffic between this car, and the boom-gate at the 100 meter mark, is allowed to continue, and once this is gone, the offending car has the pulley boom-gate released. It is then allowed to continue to the re-lowered 100 meter mark boom-gate, where an electronic billboard will direct them to take the turn off back to the entrance. 

 

After it does so, traffic will resume. The entire process should take about 45 seconds.

 

 

So; Does anyone see any glaring flaws in such a plan? Feedback appreciated.

 

Cheers!

[Daniel Unplugged]

Sounds like a good plan. Ultimately the market will decide the best way to manage roads in a free society. Who could possibly know how it will work best? Where there is demand, there will be supply. Whomever can satisfy the demand for roads at the lowest price will ultimately produce the roads. Hopefully one day the government will get out of the way, and you can try out your idea. Of course, the competition will be fierce.

[dsayers]

Welcome to FDR. I like your name.

with the cost of maintenance from then on being his responsibility also, and to come out of this own profit. Not following this drop in price after the reaching of the goal, will constitute a breach of contract

Contract with who?No offense, but his idea is too rooted in how things are right now. Your plan seems to want to be one of property and "public property" at the same time. A road in a free society wouldn't be public property any more than a restaurant is. If the owner fails to maintain their road/restaurant, people will simply stop going there. This is a good thing for the consumer since "public property" would not be maintained via the same incentives or maintaining private property. A homeowner repairs his roof, a road owner repairs his livelihood.

[Xdreamist]

Welcome to FDR. I like your name.

 

Haha, cheers...!  

 

Contract with who?

No offense, but his idea is too rooted in how things are right now. Your plan seems to want to be one of property and "public property" at the same time. A road in a free society wouldn't be public property any more than a restaurant is. If the owner fails to maintain their road/restaurant, people will simply stop going there. This is a good thing for the consumer since "public property" would not be maintained via the same incentives or maintaining private property. A homeowner repairs his roof, a road owner repairs his livelihood.

 

...My Idea behind a promise of limitation placed on charges for the road-use, was to make the plan seem even more desirable to potential investors in the towns such a project would link - the thought of a low cost highway project that will both yield them both initial money from investment, and then very low cost travel. Such a bonus incentive is (to my mind) more likely to find the required amount of backing funds from locals to go through. And if the highway was still yielding profits to the owner alone after the backers agreed returns are met (rather than a board of investors to pay and answer to)  - the incentive for maintenance for his highway has not been removed. It wouldn't have to be an official document with "the public", but you could say your original proposal that you'll put a big signs off to the side your highway entrances, promising the maintenance of that low charge for the specified time.

 

As Daniel says; Competition will be fierce - this bonus incentive might weed you out from other offers. The project also heightens the trust in your project builds, and scores you brownie points with your local community in the form of reputation, which might be helpful in gaining the funds for similar projects in the future (always nice). In this way you're only held to your word; by how much you value the goodwill of the people in your community.  

 

(It's also easier to pitch to socialist types you have these conversations with...)        

 

...But I agree, it's not a essential facet for the rest of the business plan to be viable.

[dsayers]

It wouldn't have to be an official document with "the public"

 

I feel this either doesn't answer my question of contract with who or ignores the comparison I made to restaurants without actually addressing why it should be ignored. Anybody can walk into a restaurant. That doesn't mean it is public property. Nor does it mean that the owner has to answer to the customers. If he doesn't meet their expectations of good, safe food and service at a reasonable price, his customers will simply stop lining his pockets.

[Xdreamist]

I feel this either doesn't answer my question of contract with who

...Yeah, you're right, my bad, it's no "contract". That's a poorly chosen phrase. "Assurance", maybe...?  ( "Bribe"...?   )

 

...or ignores the comparison I made to restaurants without actually addressing why it should be ignored. Anybody can walk into a restaurant. That doesn't mean it is public property.

Nope, not public property, as it's making no-one but him money (and whoever he hires on occasion for roadworks) after the initial time period.

 

 

But at the same time...

 

 Nor does it mean that the owner has to answer to the customers. 

This line, seems to conflict with this...

 

If he doesn't meet their expectations of good, safe food and service at a reasonable price, his customers will simply stop lining his pockets.

...That, to some degree, is able to be defined as "answerable", isn't it? "Please them, or don't succeed"...?

 

Potential investors in the two towns might also know that such a road (particularly if it's winding around any sort of private properties on the way between these towns) will only have so many efficient paths available to it. The thought of "if he overcharges, they'll stop using it" like a restaurant example, isn't as valid to them. You open up a better restaurant next door / down the road to a competitor, people have to walk / drive a few extra seconds maybe twice a week, to get a better service deal. Whereas a competitor road springing up might have to take a large detours to forge a path around the large private rural properties, lengthening the time it takes to reach the same destination - causing great inconvenience if it's a common route, regardless of if they'd rather the price it takes to use the alternative or not. So it's in their best interests to support someone who'll both "get it right" the first time, and offer low charges for a long amount of time in doing so.

 

The owner of such a road would have a constant source of income, that he has to manage very little upkeep on. He's also held in high regard by people in the towns, enhancing other business opportunities, and having an inheritance to pass to his kids, which in their day they'll be able to raise the price to whatever they feel is reasonable, without breaking any "assurance".

 

To my mind it seems a smart business move, but, again, not an essential facet.

[dsayers]

"Please them, or don't succeed"...?

 

This is an effect. Different from "please me, or I take action against you."

 

There was a time where the city was where it was at. As our wealth grew, suburban malls became the preferred method of shopping and entertainment. Now, the internet has made it to where geography isn't as important in such mattes. You don't even know what our dependence on roads will be in the future.

 

All the more reason to regard it as a private owner of property engaging in voluntary trade with other people. That way, the conclusions will be sound and not limited to just roads. I don't think "people want to go from A to B" is reason enough to say a road owner would be a slave to his customers anymore than "people need to eat" is reason enough to say a restaurant owner is a slave to his customers.

[Xdreamist]

Oh god.

 

I'm going to make enemies on this board already at this rate.  

 

 

I'm sorry if you're finding me annoying, but I have to respond if I'm seeing an issue.

 

This is an effect. Different from "please me, or I take action against you.

Yes, it is. Doesn't change that it can still be defined as "being answerable", do you agree? You "answer" to your customer base's wants.

 

There was a time where the city was where it was at. As our wealth grew, suburban malls became the preferred method of shopping and entertainment. Now, the internet has made it to where geography isn't as important in such mattes. You don't even know what our dependence on roads will be in the future.

Agreed, and thus the opening of the original post:

 

"One of Stef's answers was that we maybe won't need highways at all, who's to say; I agree we'll probably need them less and less, but often people are stuck in the current system's mentality, and this answer is not good enough for them. So my goal here is to formulate a reasonable, planned out answer, as it seems to be an incredibly common question ask to an Anarchist." 

 

All the more reason to regard it as a private owner of property engaging in voluntary trade with other people.

I'm sorry if I implied otherwise. Could you point to where I did...?

 

That way, the conclusions will be sound and not limited to just roads.

Went into specifics of this situation, as "my goal here is to formulate a reasonable, planned out answer".

 

I don't think "people want to go from A to B" is reason enough to say a road owner would be a slave to his customers anymore than "people need to eat" is reason enough to say a restaurant owner is a slave to his customers.

...Dare I claim "Strawman" when you jump from my position of "answerable" to the term "slave"...?    

 

If, as I said, it's a voluntary condition stipulated in the original project proposition, it's adopted with the self-interest of beating competitors - and then it's not an anti-capitalist, "selfless" philosophy. It's just good business. And at any time he could break it, as he owns it; It's just that investors have the assurance of a very public breaking of his word, which will damage his chances for future projects (who wants to go into business with someone who publicly told a huge lie?)

 

It's putting something personal on the line, to increase customer confidence.

[dsayers]

I'm going to make enemies on this board already at this rate.  

 

I'ma cut you! 

 

 

Yes, it is. Doesn't change that it can still be defined as "being answerable", do you agree? You "answer" to your customer base's wants.

 

I don't agree. I'm sorry I used a relatively ambiguous word like answerable. Being answerable to somebody is a positive obligation. This is fine in terms of a contractual agreement between entrepreneur and whomever provides the startup capital, since the entrepreneur gives that positive obligation.

 

The entrepreneur (be he restaurateur, road owner, or otherwise) has no contract with the users of his product/service and therefore has no positive obligation. In the context of roads, this is true to some extent even with the state. If somebody's about to go on a trip, they plot their course. If they find a section of highway is deep under construction where there's constant traffic jams, they'll choose a less efficient surface road route. The other day, I was a passenger in my dad's truck. I told him he wanted the left lane as we were eastbound on Alexis Rd because I knew the right lane was busted up due to recent ice. If it were only one lane, I would've recommended an alternate route.

[Mike Fleming]

I always thought that a good idea for highways is the same kind of thing you see at a Grand Prix with advertisements all along the side.  Think of all that advertising space!!

 

If you could make a highway that you know a lot of people would use and you could get good throughput on it (ie. little to no traffic jams) so in order to get as many eyes as possible in a given time period I could imagine that being very valuable for advertisers and so would attract a reasonable amount of money.  No need for tolls, kickstarters or anything like that.

[Xdreamist]

No need for tolls, kick-starters or anything like that.  

 

...There's an assumption here then of having initial capital sufficient to start a highway on the project owner's part; and investment of his own money until the advertising covers the initial cost, and starts making him money. Or sufficient reputation to enable backing from a bank. (Unless I overlooked another possibility?)

 

...Neither of those are in any way wrong, but with a program funded by voluntary backers, anyone with a sufficiently researched plan and the correct advertising pitch, highlighting benefit to said backers, could do such a project - coming from merely self taught studies, costing them very little initial capital.  Basically, anyone motivated and smart enough could do this, regardless of previous humble economic means.

 

And the highway owner could absolutely attempt advertising as well, to generate more capital, and maybe get experimental as to the balance - of how many people use the highway, and see advertising, when they're not trying for alternative paths that don't use tolls. You might find it's more profitable not to have tolls at all.  But I would argue for the initial start-up, that a toll is a solid and predictable return, that investors are going to put more faith in.

[dsayers]

Until roads have chips embedded in them and cars are programmed to manage most of its operations based on its position relative to those chips and the chips of other cars, I think it's a bad idea to place things alongside a road that would distract a driver. Informative things like nearest hospital and the like can be handy, as well as food and lodging near exits for example should be fine.

 

The race track can manage them because it's for the spectators, not the drivers.

[Xdreamist]

"I don't agree. I'm sorry I used a relatively ambiguous word like answerable. Being answerable to somebody is a positive obligation..."

 

...Ahh cool, I see what you mean. It's just the semantics then that I was confused on.

 

"If somebody's about to go on a trip, they plot their course. If they find a section of highway is deep under construction where there's constant traffic jams, they'll choose a less efficient surface road route. The other day, I was a passenger in my dad's truck. I told him he wanted the left lane as we were eastbound on Alexis Rd because I knew the right lane was busted up due to recent ice. If it were only one lane, I would've recommended an alternate route."

 

This circumstance supposes that it's a "trip". But if it was an everyday travel for employees between the towns in question, suddenly a 25 minute stretch to take the alternative route around the rural properties between towns, instead of the 15 minute highway weaving between them, is a lot more bothersome, and you're going to care much more. 

 

And if there were multiple plans to build this highway, all of who need the capital raised to start building the road, you're certainly going to want to back the one that has put his reputation on the line in regards to keeping any tolls very low, and for a long stretch of time. 

 

That's in essence all I'm saying here.