in all fairness countries with very low taxes frequently have atrocious roads. Ukraine for example has a 2% tax rate, 5% prewar, and anyone who has ever taken a bus from Kharkiv to Odessa can explain for you how fucking miserable it is. this kind of libertarian rhetoric exists in a theoretical vacuum. As if, in the absence of government intervention, hundreds of private enterprises sprout from the aether not only fervently desiring to operate toll roads but also competent at doing so. finally, good road networks generally operate atop the ability of the state to force parties to reasonable terms. I’m sure we can all imagine utopian societies in our head that have nice roads and no taxes or state authority to lay roads regardless of what people who have the land underneath them say. It just turns out that all of the available evidence contradicts our dreams.

Lmao

I would add to this list the constant, unrelenting theft in the form of: * inflation * regulations (licenses and permits) that make any product/service more expensive = this extra cost goes into the pockets of politicians and those who control them

Where we are going, we don't need roads...

The Dutch think differently about this, especially roads.

so your evidence against the free market is a broken government? hundreds of private enterprises have sprout from aether to operate businesses of any imaginable kind, as long as they were allowed, including railroads, historically, but no, roads no

> including railroads The idea that railroads of any regional importance happened without the cooperation and intervention of government is absurd and hilarious. The closest thing to your libertarian vision that existed was the First transcontinental railroad, which went largely through uninhabited territories in the Western half of the United States, and was still initially done by the Department of War as a result of a Congressional query, as well as the initial seed funding by the government. It was later funded significantly by Union Pacific (Mormons) — but it all hinged on the right of way corridor granted by Congress. If the railroad hadn’t had the authority to force its railway, it would have had to negotiate with everyone who owned land along the route, and would have been held up indefinitely. Regardless, we aren’t in the frontier anymore. Africa is the last place you would potentially be able to do something in regards to rail and roads as lassie-faire as the (still incredibly government involved) first transcontinental railroad, but you’re going to need the materiel and the will to genocide the locals, because they aren’t going to just let you do it.

there are at small examples of private roads everywhere in the world, but sure no highway anywhere that doesn't constitute an argument against the free market though because nowhere in the world there has been a free market in roads and land with decent contracts and institutions, so it's no surprise no one would try to build a highway also why is that important anyway? a free market of small airplanes would be cheaper, easier and yield better results

>there are at small examples of private roads everywhere in the world, but sure no highway anywhere oh wow, well, I guess my hobby model rail counts as a free market rail system. > that doesn't constitute an argument against the free market though because nowhere in the world there has been a free market in roads and land with decent contracts and institutions so you are saying that real capitalism has never been tried? I’ve heard this exact kind of rhetoric from the other utopian thinkers, communists. It’s never been achieved before so it hasn’t been disproven! The ultimate tautology of utopians! You can’t refute them, because nobody’s ever done what they say could trivially be accomplished! well, it seems to me that you should use the free market to convince investors to create your libertarian paradise where there will be no government assurances of transit thoroughfares. I am sure you can make it happen using the infinite power of the free market! > also why is that important anyway? someone else started with roads. You brought up rail. you all keep bringing this stuff up. I’m just saying why I think the thinking here is fallacious.

laissez faire capitalism has been tried, not fully, but in different aspects and degrees, and it's always a complete success the more you free the markets the more success you get it just hasn't been tried with roads, that's just a fact, can we agree about that? communism, on the other hand, maybe wasn't tried fully either, but every bit of communism you introduce anywhere makes everything worse in fact it just wasn't tried fully because people were dying too much so lenin and mao had to stop the implementation otherwise no one would remain to tell the story

> the more you free the markets the more success you get Liechtenstein, Singapore, and Luxembourg do not have free markets. They are not lassiz-faire libertarian utopias. They have a shitton of regulation, and Liechtenstein particularly has the most authoritarian nationality law in existence — after 30 years of residency, your neighbors get to vote in a ballot referendum whether you become a citizen or not. Go try to open up a restaurant in Luxembourg — you literally need a certified chef by French standards to do so. Banks won’t accept your cash deposits. AML standards there are the most rigorous in Europe. Singapore has a massive welfare state. Most people live in government housing (80% of them!) and the few people that own something private have a leasehold that expires. You can say this stuff, and maybe you have fooled yourself into believing it, but these are in actuality examples of the richest countries on Earth that have numbers that people can verify. Arguably there are other countries that don’t publish numbers so we can’t verify their success. In contrast, if you want to find countries that are not regulated very much you can look at Somalia, Yemen, and South Sudan. You should move to one of these charming unregulated locales and show us the success that a lack of government regulation generates.

I will verify your claims about these places, for now I can only guess they have parts of the economy that are heavily laissez faire while others are controlled like you say now about sudan obviously that is not a laissez faire place, it still has a state, and while the state probably won't enforce contracts or protect you from criminals it will nonetheless actively prevent you from creating the institutions that would do that in the first place

So very well put!