The question of transportation infrastructure is often posed to those who reveal themselves to be anarchists. “Without government, how would roads be built?” One can give plenty of reasons and examples concerning why coercion is not needed to construct something in such high demand. But let’s start with “Without government, how could roads be worse?”
Roads are currently built according to political demand in an economy dominated by the state, which exists to secure power and ultimately answers to the powerful.
The US Interstate and Trans-Canada highway systems, which owe their existence to government intervention, appear to be a comparatively efficient and safe way to travel. But what is not seen are transportation methods that could have developed in a society free of state controls. For example, high-speed roads might have been built over existing throughways. Some might be exclusive to smaller passenger vehicles and some might expand vertically to accommodate more traffic without stealing from people who live beside them. Connected networks of local rail systems might be prominent, or more people could travel by personal aircraft (which could of course be shared).
Considering the numerous ways that certain modes of transportation are subsidized by state force shows the difficulty of calculating what method would be most efficient in a free society. Governments use the power of eminent domain to take land for roads and for the massive commercial and residential developments they are built to serve. Large commercial airplanes are likely more economically viable because their production lines depend on military contracts. In the past, large rail companies were subsidized. And governments have always controlled the use of land on behalf of the politically powerful.
Interstate highways might reduce trip time when compared to other options in the state-controlled transportation infrastructure, but they are an integral part of a state-dominated economy that makes it necessary to drive farther, drive more often, and drive at certain times. If authoritarian obstructions were done away with, it is likely that people could work for less time, and at hours more of their choosing. And it would be easier to support oneself from home or neighborhood economic activity. A free economy would increase available options and the opportunity to create new arrangements.
As for local roads in suburbia, some may have originally been built as mixed-use roadways back before the internal combustion engine caught on, but they now often function to limit the types of travel that can be practiced. When government roads make motor vehicles the only safe way to travel between home and work or the store, then government roads work together with zoning laws to enforce the use of motor vehicles. And those who are not able to afford cars or are not permitted by the state to operate cars have their choices further limited. So government action converts roads from tools of personal mobility into means of controlling the movement and settlement of people.
Roads were often constructed in American frontier towns before the arrival of formal government. Recognizing that having an accessible throughway would be in their interests, local residents constructed and maintained roads and benefitted from the labor they put into them. More recently, residents of the Hawaiian island of Kauai bypassed the state bureaucracy to repair a road vital to the local economy, using much less time and money than the state said would be needed.
But the issue of transportation should be considered in terms of all transit options. New York’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which constantly fails to support itself financially, recently announced more service cuts after increasing fares last year. Amtrak is expensive and frequently delayed. New Jersey Transit train lines have experienced service cuts and fare increases. This will cause more congestion on trains as well as on the roads as the costs of using trains outweigh the benefits for many potential customers.
Clearly government is not very good at managing something that is in high demand — convenient mobility. Maybe railway workers know more about managing trains than politicians do.
In a stateless society, transportation infrastructure would be built and operated on a consensual basis according to the demand of users. Any form of transportation that could be operated without coercion would be free to develop, and human creativity and cooperation would no longer be restrained by political domination. Without state control and state privilege, roads would be better.
Citations to this article:
- Darian Worden, Who Would Maintain Roads Worse Than the State?, Le Quebecois Libre, 15 Aug 2010
- Darian Worden, Who would maintain roads worse than the state?, Woodstock, Ontario Oxford Review, 24 Jun 2010
Most seem to want to explain how much more or how much better things would be in the absence of the State intervention. However, without road subsidies it's very possible that the would be fewer transportation option. But I don't know if this would be such a terrible thing. I went home for the weekend which by CA standard is a fairly small, secluded city. Pretty much all the more intelligent and responsible people leave when they can to get better jobs. As a result, the town is starved of entrepreneurship and motivation. It's quite miserable. It could be argued that subsidized transportation, industry, and university education could be partly to blame for such flight of human capital. I know that if I stayed, I'd be unemployed and unmotivated. (There are a lot of other factors for why the town is getting so crappy, but this may be an important one.)
Just a thought. The absence of something seen as "necessary" may actually be beneficial in some respects.
Chris, I would say that rather than an absence of certain transportation options, a stateless society would see transportation options that functioned differently – ie to satisfy the demands of individuals looking to increase and secure their personal autonomy. That would probably mean better functioning communities in most cases, but if transportation systems fostered the abandonment of undesired economic situations, that would just be a way they would contribute to the greater flexibility and adaptability of a free society.
I agree, I just wanted to point out that it's possible roads aren't actually as desired as they are made out to be. I totally acknowledge that I might be wrong, probably am, but I wanted to share the thought anyway.
I grew up in middle-of-nowhere, Pennsylvania. This area, probably about 100 square miles, was probably the LAST item on the list of roads that the state/county plowed after a snowstorm. Often, by the time the state/count got around to attempt to plow the roads, the locals had already plowed all the roads…. those people with snowplows on their trucks just did it, gratis.
The access road to where we lived was about 1/4 long, with two families living at the end of the road. We paid a local contractor to asphalt the previously-dirt road, because the state/county wouldn't do it.
Sure, these are small-scale examples, but maintaining roads without the state is possible, and even if the "official" state/county roads hadn't been built in the first place, they would have been built by the people that lived in the area, as had some of the non-"official" access roads throughout the area.
"If Men Were Free To Try" is a brilliant essay by John C. Sparks, written for FEE maybe 45 years ago but reprinted, or maybe updated, in 1977. I urge everyone to seek it and read it.
Like Darien, I believe if the governments had stayed out of the way, there would be many more transportation options available, maybe by now something resembling a matter transmitter.
Still, the most important aspect is freedom, freedom of choice, freedom to innovate.
It is true governments do everything badly, but that is secondary to the fact they do everything from behind a gun.
Skunk, David Friedman's ideas on competitive governance should resolve most of the problems. Plus, I think you'd be able to find plenty of anarchists who advocate for public roads, just not State roads.
In conversations on the issue of state ownership vs private ownership of roads, the following frequently arise:
1 – What would stop private owners (or a cartel of them) from discriminating and not letting people use their roads?
—- Viz., this is a lot of power to give to an individual. At least with the state you have one entity to deal with and not a new owner every 50 feet (presuming you own your residence and the road in front of it).
2 – Without corresponding zoning laws that can only be enforced in a State and not an Anarchy, what would stop someone from building a house in the middle of the street?
—- Viz., it only takes one bad egg to ruin the whole batch.
3 – Similar to above, without a State who will enforce uniform building and safety standards and make sure there are no giant drops in the side walk or street?
—- Viz., how can a non-interventionist Anarchy enforce building standards if an individual just plain refuses in regards to his private property, the road?
These need to be concretely and logistically addressed. A follow-up article on this would be nice.
Its simply difficult for people to trust a Free Market and its Theory of Self-organization to actually work and not be utterly wrecked by even just one bad egg, much less thousands or millions without some kind of mandatory intervention and enforcement of laws and standards (i.e. a State). And when it comes to something so important as roads and travel, it really pushes the issue. There are, after all, a lot of bad eggs out there.
The common reply that a State can cause the same issues as numbered above but at a mass level is rarely satisfying because a State is one entity to deal with while private owners number in the thousands, millions, billions. It seems intuitively easier to deal with and a better guarantee for enforcement when dealing with one entity as opposed to millions. The response that an Anarchy has laws and enforcement (just not a monopoly thereupon) is rarely satisfying for the same reasons: better to deal with one entity than millions.
The pessimistic intuition is that:
Anarchy = a million little despots
State = one big despot
one < million
.: State is better than Anarchy
Given this commonly pessimistic perspective, where then is the convincing guarantee and the evidence that something as fundamental as roads can work better in an Anarchy?
—- Viz., like most people I am pragmatic, not principled, consequentialist, not deontological, and want positive evidence, not theoretical deductions. I.e. stop promising and show me the money, please.
In a sense this issue of the private ownership of roads is possibly the most important question addressed to Anarchists because it really refines us, puts our feet to the fire, and forces us to shape up or ship out. As Anarchists, if we want to win hearts and minds we need more convincing and sound replies to such questions.
Skunk1980 :
"What would stop private owners (or a cartel of them) from discriminating and not letting people use their roads?"
Who cares if they do? Use another road. If they don't have tollbooths or a way to block people, then anyone is able to use the road. If they charge for access, then it's their road and they can limit who uses it. If you don't like it, use someone else's road. Of course, if anyone is stupid enough to discriminate in who they sell to, they will probably eventually go out of business.
"Viz., this is a lot of power to give to an individual. At least with the state you have one entity to deal with and not a new owner every 50 feet (presuming you own your residence and the road in front of it)."
A store owner has a lot of power too. Should all stores be owned by the state so that everyone only has to deal with one store owner?
"Without corresponding zoning laws that can only be enforced in a State and not an Anarchy, what would stop someone from building a house in the middle of the street?"
The owners of the land the road sits on maybe? If it's "public" land, or really state owned, then you're vandalizing a public street to build your house on it. Obviously you'd have a hard time getting contractors willing to build a house in the middle of the street.
"Viz., how can a non-interventionist Anarchy enforce building standards if an individual just plain refuses in regards to his private property, the road?"
Building standards are overblown. They were initially created to protect home buyers from shoddy contractors. Currently they are abused and used for "licensing" people who merely have a water heater replaced. Some places you can't even get a copy of the building codes without paying $300, as some cities accepted "free" building standards that happened to be copy written, and republishing the standards is illegal due to copyright laws.
Worse, some of these standards prevent innovation on homes. If you want to design a new house with various features and improvements, it has to be approved against the "standards".
Rather than insisting on standards written down by politicians, it would be better to simply use contractors that are honest and both know and care about what they are doing, with a free market designed protection for buyers.
As for 1 big despot being better than 1 million little despots, I disagree. A million little despots will have to compete between themselves to win your business. 1 giant despot doesn't.
The roads in my area are so bad, even though we have higher sales taxes now, and higher income taxes in washington state. The roads look like garbage, the sidewalks are litter with trash. And when it snows all commerce cease to exsist.
Im one of the many people who say screw the IRS we shouldnt pay.
[…] Update, 06/26 I just noticed that Darian Worden’s commentary “Who would maintain roads worse than the state?” published at C4SS on June 22nd, appeared in the Oxford Review — a Canadian paper published […]
[…] From C4SS […]
[…] a previous column, I responded to the question of roads in anarchy by asking Who Would Maintain Roads Worse Than the State? But focusing on the failures of the state left little room for describing some examples of how […]
NO, NO, NO, really! WHAT ABOUT THE ROADS?