Private Roads

[eques]

Honestly, Do you seriously think this will be a possibility?  Can you point to a historical example of something like this happening?

(Other than, of course, the government buying up private roads.)

[error]

No, this isn't a serious possibility. The scenario is virtually impossible in practice, and contrived specifically for the purpose of arguing for government roads (which actually are the only things that would otherwise match the scenario at all).

[Braddogg]

How would it be impossible?

How would it be impossible for Starbucks to hire a bunch of ninjas to kill everyone in Dunkin' Donuts tomorrow?  It's not impossible, it's just not worth worrying about because companies just don't do that.  And I ask this seriously, what makes you think that the "Mr. Burns" scenario is worth worrying about?

[eques]

In the situation you describe, the megalomaniac still has to have some sort of way to make money so that the roads he's purchased are profitable.  With such a draconian requirement (pay to use these roads or I'll shoot you), he's not going to find many willing users of his road and will probably end up losing a lot of money, to say nothing of what sort of reputation he'd garner for himself.

[KBCraig]

The other thing that hypothetical question ignores is simple reality. There's always one or two people who will absolutely refuse to sell at any price.

Refusing to sell at any price is one thing; pigheadedly holding out to be the last piece of the puzzle (and thus demand the highest price) is a gamble that could leave the owner's land worthless when the road builders choose a different route.

People would build private roads for a variety of reasons. When subdivisions are built, it's the developer who builds the streets (they'd have a hard time selling houses without them), and then deeds the streets over to the city. Sometimes this backfires, when the city refuses to take the streets and accept responsibility for maintenance. Gated communities' streets are all private, and remain so.

Business owner coalitions would buy the land and build (and maintain) the roads needed to access their businesses.

The problem is when governments compete for development, by promising land, roads, utilities, and tax breaks. That throws such a wrench into the works that the free market really can't compete.

[eques]

There is an infinitesimal yet calculable probability that my body will quantum tunnel through the earth and I'll end up in the middle of India (obviously very confused, if I'm still alive).

It's not to say that the scenario you're describing couldn't possibly happen, but there are factors that stand in the way of such a scenario.

The individual that goes around buying up property and ends up closing off access to one or more residences is opening himself up for a lawsuit.  By closing off access and threatening to shoot anybody who trespasses onto his land, he is effectively imprisoning that person (or committing an act of theft if they happen to not be home at the time).  Such an act would directly violate that individual's right to self-ownership.

Nobody in their right mind would undertake such a venture!  Not only would one be opening oneself up to (highly legitimate) lawsuits, the cost to monitor what would amount to a vast area of disjointed property would be astronomical.  He would go broke faster than he could blink.  None of his security teams he hired would want to continue working for zero pay, assuming he was able to hire anybody for such a ridiculous scheme.

There are a number of solutions to the problems of road ownership and maintenance.  If government did not exist, there would be no way to enforce non-ownership of roads.

Lastly, if nobody owned the roads, there would be very little incentive for just anybody to maintain them.  In such a scenario, roads would quickly become unusable, far worse than the worst roads in Massachusetts and New York City.

[eques]

I suggest that you spend some time reading about the principles of self-ownership.  At least then, if you don't agree with the premises and conclusions thereof, you can provide rebuttals of my arguments instead merely reiterating your stance.

[Tom Sawyer]

The assumption is that private enterprise would be more restrictive than government ownership.

Ever restaurant, shopping mall etc. you go in is privately owned they don't keep you from using them. In fact the businesses that the roads service would most likely want to fund the roads that their potential customers would use to come to there business.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Damned few Mainers I know take the Turnpike in lieu of 295, which closely parallels the pike. The only explanation that I can think of is its routing through Lewiston/Auburn, Maine's third largest population center.

Disclaimer- my facts and figures might be incorrect, as I am shooting from the hip as usual.

I always take 295 because it avoids population centers and is 9 miles shorter.

It removed a load from Rt.1

[David]

When gov't grows bigger and more dangerous (hosea padilla and the MCA, kelo and new london), why do we talk about the what ifs, of what can go wrong, and ignore the 99% of what can be a vast moral improvement to the rights of others.  Other than the land deeded to gov't, all roads today are built by using eminent domain, which is recognized as legal theft by all but the most hardcore gov't cheerleader, and uses money that was stolen in various ways.  Nobody cared about eminent domain when it was used on poor farmers in the country, and on (primarily) minorities in the inner cities, to build their precious interstate highways.  But it was being used with impunity then as it is today, the only thing that changed is the target. 
Reality, we don't have anything close to a 'free' society today.  If someone did 'takeover' all the roads of keene, that is a city of 22000 people in a state of 1.5 million.  There will always be things that happen that we don't like.  But lets deal with it as we go.  The what if scenarios are great intelectual expiriments, but if we are not even remotely close to the final goal, then the what ifs are not even close to reality. 
Property Rights are the basis of a prosperous civilization.  The danger of pragmatism, is that in the sacrifice of some persons property (or liberty) rights for the percieved benifit of the majority of society, will result in ever increasing encroachment onto all rights.  This is reality.  It is happening now.  All we have is more permissions that the africans or the russians at the moment.  but as every year passes we lose more permissions every year. 

[Pat McCotter]

"If someone bought all the roads, someone else would build a new road and let people pay to use it."

I don't think answer takes into consideration all aspects. For example, if a company were to buy up all the public roads in Keene and then stated "You can either pay us some large sum of money or we'll shoot you if we catch you on our roads." Some people would be screwed. All the houses in the downtown area are entirely encompassed by the roads, which would make it impossible to leave one's property, well, more like island. This would actually be a good way to take over the city because most people would try to escape in some manner and would allow the company to take over the abandoned property.

The someone who bought up all the roads in Keene would become an island in the state of NH.