Freedom, Society, and State - Ludwig von Mises Institute

. Eminent Domain.
If the r e we r e non rig h t 0 f em i n en t doma in" the
result would be that (a) the costs of road construction
would skyrocket, making the entire system economically
untenable, and (b) roads would have to be built around
those refusing to sell, resulting in numerous bends and
detours.
c. Inconvenience.
The owners of roads would have to charge their
customers for the use of their roads. Methods of collect
ion, such as toll booths, would render such a system
far more inconvenient than public roads, financed
by taxes and permitting unlimited use by drivers.
d. Price Gouging.
Since there can be only a limited number of roads
ina n y g i v e n area, rna r ketcom pet i t ion wo u 1d bel imit ed,
enabling road owners to charge exorbitant prices. Simi­
I a r I y, i n d i v i d ua I s wo u I d be p I aced a t the mer c y 0 f the
owner of the road onto which their driveways entered.
e. Safety"l
Since an owner could set any regulations he desired
for the use of his roads, private roads would
result in a confusing array of regUlations that would
jeopardize the safety of the drivers.
Libertarians, both anarchists and minarchists, bel
i eve tha t a pr iva tely owned and operated road system
is not only practical but attractive, and offer the
following rebuttals:
a. Cos t.
Libertarians see this argument as the least tenable
of the five and give it short shrift. The cost of
construction and maintenance is high, they agree, but
then so is the number of drivers using the roads. This
cost pro-rates out to roughly $130.00 per person per
yea r (i n 1 9 7 5 dol 1 a r s ). To a r g ue t hat t his wo u 1d be
too expensive IS to ignore the fact that we are already
paying this amount through gasoline taxes and the like.
Hen c e, "i f the cos t 0 f us i n g p r i vat e r oa d s we ret h e
same or even somewhat more than the cost of using pub­
1 ic roads," argues Jarret Wollstein, lIdrlvers obviously
274