Lets say hypothetically, all roads were privatized, and I bought

>>479163
>All roads were privatized

The government would seize it or you would go bankrupt due to there being no government for a while.

>>479163
Assuming there are no guidelines for road ownership. I suppose so.

>>479163
>would it be within my moral and ethical right to prevent trespassers and demand a fee for people who made use of my land to traffic goods and people.
yes, if you own the road you can do literally anything you want with it. You could just tear it up and turn it into a large circle of corn around the city and practically no one could stop you.

>would it be within my moral and ethical right
you'd be a dick, but you would have both a moral and ethical right to do so.

File: lexi.jpg (68KB, 641x360px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 641x360px

>>479163
Yes anon. Suddenly transfering to private hands control over structures that were not developed within and for the market would have negative side-effects.
Good job.

>>479163

You would be disrupting trade and the flow of commerce, and most countries have laws and statues that deal with such an issue. The government would be in its right to seize your property under eminent domain.

>>479259
>that video

fuck muh dik is diamonds

>>479163
People would no longer want to go to your Trumpville and it would economically collapse into ghettoes.

Good job m8

>>479375
But they're trapped inside because you won't let them out. Either they live in serfdom within the borders on your lands, or they die off.

>>479190
>bankrupt
That's a legal term, if the government ceases to exist there are no laws and thus it is impossible to be bankrupt. It still may be the case that you will be unable to pay your creditors, but they may also be unable to force you to repay.

>>479865
If laws there are no laws, then forcing you to repay = murdering your family

>>479190
>bankrupt
That's a legal term, if the government ceases to exist there are no laws and thus it is impossible to be bankrupt. It still may be the case that you will be unable to pay your creditors, but they may also be unable to force you to repay.

Yes.

Libertarianism would self-destruct within an months if it was ever tried, and we'd be back in full feudalism.

>>479259
Whereas private owners would never do this despite there being a complete incentive to?

>>479914
Yes, at that point it's a matter of armed force, but you can pay for security from the toll money that you collect. You can reallocate those guards from the patrol needed to guard your toll roads. All in all this enter prise becomes far easier if the town you are blockading
is surrounded by mountains.

>>479163

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

Hypothetically: yes
Realistically: people will tell you to go fuck yourself and not pay because its totally unreasonable

>>479923
It wouldn't self destruct, it's just that a sufficiently powerful organization is indistinguishable from government.

>>479190
>bankrupt
That's a legal term, if the government ceases to exist there are no laws and thus it is impossible to be bankrupt. It still may be the case that you will be unable to pay your creditors, but they may also be unable to force you to repay.

>>479163
This pretty much happens in modern day Catalonia as far as I know.

>>479936
What is stopping your guards from conspiring to kill you for your money?

>>479163
If no government stops you, then go ahead and try. Nothing stops them from trying to lynch your ass except guards that you have to pay for. And if they pool together what they have to bribe the guard...

>>479943
But you have armed guards, or even better if it is a libertarian police state that guards your property rights for you.

File: gg.jpg (54KB, 600x392px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 600x392px

>>479163
>and demand a fee for people who made use of my land to traffic goods and people

The state does it in France with highways
It was initially to get back the money used to build them, but eventually they remained even though everything had been paid back

>>479190
>>479865
>>479914
>>479936
>lol what if we had no laws
>government collapses
>country is unable to maintain their own sovereignty
>other polity invades and establishes rule over your country
>the only thing that changes is that now your government is run out of another country

>>479163
>moral and ethical
>right

Morals and ethics are opinion, not everyone has a set of universal morals and ethics. No one can answer this question except you.

>>480653
> Muh Error theory
Go away Sweden.

>>480504
>libertarian police state

>>480538
paying for maintenance?

>>480685
Libertarians believe in property and property rights.

>>479163
No,
essentially the roads would act as hypothetical walls as they are private property and their main use is to be walked on hence none would be allowed to cross them.
There are laws preventing you from walling off a public area.

>>479163
This used to be fairly common in many parts of the world. In old Ethiopia, for example, it was the greatest problem traders across the country faced. Whenever they entered a new area, they basically had to pay a bribe to everyone along the road. This was both extremely expensive and time consuming, often tripling the length an ordinary journey would take.

This essentially led to an extremely underdeveloped trading system. Why pick up trade as a profession if it'd barely profitable and a massive time waste? Which eventually led to a weak economy and disorganised government.

The same thing would happen if roads were privatised here. A small elite would profit shortly, after which the whole system of trade would collapse with the general welfare along with it. You could consider this morally apprehensible.

>>480766
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

>>480777
No, that's what happens. Unless roll roads are managed by government edict it will be a gong show.

>>479454
Then they would revolt

>>480538
Toll roads are not an alien concept to anyone. You should have read the rest of his post.

>>479924
Monopolies do not form in perfectly competitive markets.

>>480504

Thats fucking retarded

>>480766
>they basically had to pay a bribe to everyone along the road.
>A small elite would profit shortly

>tollbooths
>taxes
>not bribes going to a bureaucratic elite who in tun don't keep up their end of the bargain of keeping the roads up
>private businesses somehow have no incentive to keep prices low/keep up on maintenance of roads despite not having the legal monopoly that governments have

>>481115
Why not?

>>480504
>armed 'guards' demanding a fee to pass safely on a road
Sounds an awfully a lot like bandits. The local lords wouldn't tolerate it at any rate, since it'd reduce trade and the flow of wealth to their cities.

>>481115
How would services such as railways operate then?

>>481349
No competition = no reason to keep prices low and quality of goods high
Overpriced, low quality products = competition will emerge to profit off disgruntled customers

>>481062
Then you kill them for trespassing

>>481386
>implying perfectly competitive markets exist or are possible

>>481399
They don't need to be perfect, but competition is very good for consumers and product development.

>>481417
You only claimed monopolies don't form in perfectly competitive markets. Since that is impossible, the assertion is meaningless

>>481569
Not him.
Name one monopoly that came to be without the help of the government.
You know what the protip is.

Most likely there would be an armed uprising against your idiotic rule and there is a chance you would be lynched.

>>481392
And you'll soon have a war to deal with

>>481726
>HMM
>I WONDER WHY IN A MODERN STATE WITH ANTI TRUST LAWS AND A GOVERNMENT THAT ACTIVELY BREAKS UP MONOPOLIES AND PREVENTS THEIR FORMATIONS
>WHY DOES EVERY EXISTING MONOPOLY SEEK THE STATES BLESSING
>IDK LOL

>>479163
and then suddenly people start building bridges over your roads.

Yes. That is how you create a government.

>>482477
But then they're trespassing.

>>482481
never touches his land

Property rights aren't moral rights, they're basically a system where people don't have to fight over shit because they agree on the same rules that say which person owns which shit. People aren't going to think it's immoral to essentially go over a wall that is imprisoning them nor are they going to think the question of not being caged has anything to do with property rights. If you start shooting "trespassers" then their going to think you're a bandit at that point.

Your question is retarded because you think that building a wall somehow means you have the right to prevent people from crossing that wall. Fences and walls in real life are to designate that the property beyond the fence is yours and you don't want people coming in; it's not climbing the fence that is breaking the property right, it's trespassing onto the land.

tl;dr: your question is retarded and no one is going to respect some absurd extension of property rights that is being used to cage them.

>>479163
That scenario is kind of like saying "if someone was selling a ton of gold for $0.50, would it be my moral right to resell the gold for $10 million"?

The answer is yes if the person selling the gold is aware its value is far greater and hasn't been defrauded in any way.

>>482562
That scenario has absolutely nothing to do with OP's scenario. One guy being a sucker isn't the same as violating people's rights.

>>481386
Well, competition will eventually arise, but I can imagine that it could take over a decade of staling to happen.

I mean, in practice, consumers show that they have difficulty telling objective quality of products apart from publicity. See any Mac consumers. And then you have good-old business partnerships, useful marketing strategies such as retro-compatibility of products, just plain prize/media bullying, all of which can easily scare smaller businesses into allowing buyouts.