How would roads work in the absence of taxation?
It’s an honest question even if the questioner may be angling toward the false conclusion that it is impossible. In such a case, this is the conclusion of someone who has not honestly tried to think of an answer, who has not tried to do anything more than regurgitate concepts, systems and mechanisms already in place. On the other hand perhaps he is honestly inquisitive, either way, sooner or later questions like this do have to be answered.
In a laissez faire capitalist (LFC) nation all property is private property this includes roads. It seems unlikely to me that private individuals and individual business interests would be terribly interested in owning the thoroughfares in front of their homes and business’. It is far more likely that they would only own their private laneways, the parts meant for their private use, and the rest would be controlled owned and maintained by Road Companies (RC).
After all why on earth would a company like Wal Mart spend millions of dollars to own, maintain and control roads when its focus and niche is household consumer products? I’m not saying that they couldn’t but just that it’s unlikely they would, after all, currently they don’t even plow or maintain their own private parking lots…
Anyway…
So how could a Road company control something as large and as public (for want of a better word) as a roadway?
In order to control and generate revenue from the roads they own the RC would need to be able to control access and assess use. In order to do this fairly the RC would have to be able to assess the frequency and type of use, (how many kilometers, what kind of vehicle and so on). In order to maximize their profit the RC would have to make this process as transparent to the user as possible and as seamless between one RC and another as possible.
Due to the nature of roads, all roads, the ability to control access is limited. Building a barrier along each section of road or street to prevent unauthorized use would be cost prohibitive as well as a logistical and administrative nightmare. The solution then is to control the means by which roads are used, namely the motor vehicle.
I suggest vehicle registration as a method that can be used to accomplish this. But that creates a problem assessing the actual type and duration of use. The practical solution is to make the method of payment retroactive. Here is how I see the system working.
Using existing technology all motor vehicles would be fitted with a GPS transponder that would track the distance traveled by the vehicle according to road ownership. By this I mean that where RC “A” owns a series or section of road the GPS in the vehicle, working as a transponder notes when it is on that Company’s road. As soon as the vehicle moves onto a road controlled by Company "B" then that is noted by the transponder too.
All the information would be stored on the vehicle in a tamper proof attachment. Once a year, when the owner of the motor vehicle registers his vehicle the data from the GPS transponder is downloaded and the cost of the travel is calculated according to the prices set by the individual RC’s and the actual usage of their roads. This fee would become the cost (retroactive) of licensing your vehicle to drive on the Road Company’s roads for the next year.
Please note that the “licensing” of the vehicles is NOT a government function but a function of the RC’s working in co-operation to ensure their self-interests are met.
However the information stored on the GPS/transponder would be useful to police, who could request a warrant for the data from a specific vehicle if there was probable cause…But that is a question for laws…and another day.
”What about if someone doesn’t register their vehicle?”
Well that problem would be ultimately decided by courts, but there is no reason why RC’s couldn’t or wouldn’t control the usage and security of their property though the use of private traffic security. Same as any other temporary use commodity such as a rental car, the RC would have the right to impose rules regulating the use of their property including speed limits and requirements for registration/operational GPS/Transponders. They could even seize unlicensed vehicles illegally using their property.
“What about rights of way and easements?”
First off, hypothetically if Joe owns a piece of land and builds a road to connect to the privately owned road network then there is no doubt that the road he built on his property is his property and he has every right to deny or grant the use of it. Though Joe would have to coordinate with the RC owning the road in front of his property to ensure that they agree for his private laneway to join to their roadway.
If Bill buys a piece of land past Joe’s (read farther from the road) and does not confirm that he has deeded or contractual access, and Joe refuses Bill permission to cross his land to get to the road, then Bill is out of luck. Buyer beware! Any other solution that involves the forced compliance of Joe to submit to Bills request to gain access to the road is a violation of Joe’s right to property.
So, let’s say for the sake of explanation that Joe, being the nice guy he is, allows Bill to have deeded access. Further lets say our fictional location of “Highway Hollow” experiences a population explosion. Pretty soon, Joe, being the nice guy he is, has deeded access of his road to an entire community.
Soon the road is being traveled and worn and people start complaining to Joe that it’s in poor shape and he really should take better care of it. The logical result of this would be that Joe would begin to look for some enterprising soul to buy the road from him. Or he goes into the road business formally himself. So lets say Joe doesn’t want or need the hassle. All he wants to do is raise Dobermans and fire his guns.
The property, being Joe’s and Joe’s alone would be his and only his to sell. Once sold the “easement” granted by Joe to the other residents of Highway Hollow would be null and void and each user of the road would either have to negotiate a permanent easement with the RC, pay on a per use basis, or find another way to get to his property.
“What if the deeds were worded in such a way that the easement was in perpetuity?"
Then in all likelihood Joe would never be able to sell that road because no company would buy a road if they could not expect to be paid for the service. Again buyer, or in this case owner beware. This could lead to a community owned/operated road but again anyone that didn’t agree to pay his or her share could be denied use of the road.
So what about the worst-case scenario? What if you buy a piece of property with no access to a road and someone else buys all the property surrounding yours and refuses you the right to cross their property?
What are you stupid? Why on earth would you buy land and not ENSURE that you had access to it? Buyer Beware!!!
NB. There is no provision for protection from stupidity in a truly capitalistic society. That mindset is a construct of the socialism and collectivism that has been forced into our societies framework by the same people that to this day claim that Communism is “a perfect form of government because everyone is equal and everyone has access to the means and method of production…”
What about the eco-nut scenario, where a group buys a portion of land just in order to hinder growth, commerce or what have you?
Well, I know it seems like there are a lot of these nuts out there but I seriously doubt that there are enough to seriously hinder any growth. Like water, capitalism will always find a way to seep in/through/around the damn idiots. (pun intended)
Also in a capitalistic society anyone who did this/belonged to a group that did this, could just as easily be denied the ability to buy food from an affected grocery store, or purchase gas from Jim’s gas station which has to get it’s fuel carted in “the long way around” etc, etc, etc… There is always more than one way to skin a cat and I think personal responsibility for ones actions would be a blessed consequence of a completely capitalistic society.
I would think that the concept of innocent use would be sufficient to allow non-commercial pedestrian traffic like kids riding bikes or folks going for a walk. Bicycle couriers and the like though I would think would be subject to charges.
This is just one option, I'm sure there are many others. The possibilities of a free market are endless.
No comments:
Post a Comment