Let's explore each of these elements in more depth and see why the state apologist's lament of "Who would care for the roads?" really should be "Who would care for the roads so abysmally and have the audacity to steal to do it?".
In addition to being funded involuntarily through the violence of taxes, government roads departments often provide substandard service and even worse results, which is usually my first point when someone brings up the mindless gotcha of "Who will take care of the roads without government?" Well, judging by the condition of the roads I see, I'm not sure who is taking care of them right now.
More specifically, spending per capita seemingly has, at best, a tenuous connection to road quality, but why is that? Most proponents of big government take it as axiomatic that spending and results are completely correlated, but even without the overwhelming data to the contrary, such a belief is specious on its face.
Without competition, the state's roads departments can always rely on their apologists to offer the canard of "Think these roads are bad? Just imagine what they'd be like without the government's involvement" in response to any questioning of the state's competency in this arena.
On the other hand, no government roads department offers any such features or even a semblance of consistency.
Do you have any guarantee that roads in your area will be plowed and safe by the time you head to work? Do you even know when the plows will be out so that you might plan accordingly? Even a basic concept such as communicating with customers is absent for the government monopoly because they simply have no reason to do otherwise.
The real answer to the bromide of "Who will care for the roads?" should be "Any entrepreneurs interested in profiting by providing value." Let's do away with government monopolies and let those entrepreneurs get ready for the next snowfall.
No comments:
Post a Comment