Typically, road construction is among the first concerns expressed by statists when confronted with the idea of anarchism. Even some people who support liberty in general frequently shift their thinking to another plane in regard to this state monopoly, dismissing the same logic that they apply to almost everything else.
Some common objections to private road construction are the following:
- Roads are too expensive for any company to handle.
- It will be inconvenient for motorists to stop and pay a toll at every road they encounter.
- A company might encircle an entire city and charge outrageous prices for access to that city.
The “too expensive” argument is unfounded, because the sustainability of any good or service hinges on the number of people who demand it (i.e. supply and demand). Unless one can demonstrate that demand for roadways will plummet in the absence of a state monopoly, there is absolutely no basis for citing cost as justification for coercive socialization. Even if demand for roads, for some odd reason, drops drastically without a state, proponents of the state monopoly are then forced to take the position of stealing from those who do not want roads in order to provide roads for those who do. Service at gunpoint is a separate issue altogether, but it proves the point anarchists have been making about statism for roughly 150 years.
Convenience will almost certainly be in demand along with the roads themselves. Road operators, assuming such entities might exist, have nothing to gain by forcing people to stop every half-mile to pay a new toll. If they do implement such policies and ignore demand, they are open to being pushed out of business by someone who will meet customer demands (e.g. by constructing alternate routes or luring residents and businesses into relocating by providing better service). Most likely, road outfits will enter agreements and lease their roads to one another for the sake of convenience. In business and residential districts, an affiliation of individuals might serve their interests by funding a local road or roads collectively, providing the necessary land is appropriated in a manner that comports with voluntarism. This concept can be extended to the community level, whereby towns and cities work mutually to maintain highways between their respective areas. SpeedPass technology is another option, and other systems are sure to evolve over time.
The monopoly concern is somewhat hypocritical, as a state-owned road system is perhaps the biggest monopoly of all. A statist is perfectly happy to turn sole power over to a coercive body and to trust that body to act in his or her interests, yet the prospect of voluntary and open competition causes knee-jerk concerns about monopolistic takeovers.
Nonetheless, the “encircle the city” fear persists, but it is irrational for several reasons. First of all, unreasonable access charges are a burden that may, in all likelihood, cause residents and businesses to flee en masse (not unlike the effect of an inconvenient revenue model). Such a development is not in the best interests of anyone attempting to make money in a given locale and could, ultimately, lead to a local economic collapse, which is not in the best interests of anyone. Secondly, as cooperation among road owners is imperative for connectivity, other owners may exercise their right to not associate with any aspiring monopolist, as such a burdensome plan serves to damage their own businesses, which may, in turn, hasten the departure of customers. Perhaps most importantly, it should be noted that the appropriation of land in order to surround a city is not something that might be done secretly. Customers of existing road companies exercise the right to petition for the halt or prevention of any such takeover attempt. This may occur in the form of their companies taking land out from under the would-be monopolist and/or forming contracts with construction firms to not build roads that block access to certain areas.
Finally, and perhaps most ideally, the lack of a coercive state monopoly in no way precludes voluntary community agreements to maintain public roads in a given locale.
If the demand is there, it can be met.