But Who Would Pave The Roads?!

There seem to be a few "road socialists" out there. Just because they grew up in a country where the state has kept a tight monopoly on transportation routes, they cannot even imagine what it would be like if road maintenance was taken care of by private groups. The argument for socialized health-care is quite similar. In fact, the same goes for education.

Some people cannot imagine how children would be educated if not payed for by taxes.
This is due to a lack of imagination, and lack of faith in free people, coming together to solve problems.

So what is the solution?

Either pay for socialized roads, or get thrown in a cage with the rapists!

This was part of the argument that was presented to me:

"If a person wants shoes, they have a huge selection of possibilities and even the choice to make their own or go barefoot. If a private company owned the route I take to work or the grocery store, I literally would have no other options than to pay or walk in the grass beside the road."

As of current, if you do not pay the state for licenses, registration, inspection, and the taxes that go towards roads, you cannot travel on them.
Nothing will change in a market-based road scenario.
The only thing that will be different is that we will have MANY different roads that will compete with each other.

This competition will bring roads down to a market-level cost.That means roads would be cheaper in a market based system. YOU ARE PAYING TOO MUCH RIGHT NOW.
And either way, you ARE paying for the roads.

So choose, do you want freer, cheaper roads, or restrictive, expensive roads that are populated by sharks that want to give you citations?

I made this point:

"Hell, if private companies can manage to put satellites into space, manage nation-wide cell phone networks, and build super-powered computers the size of a thin book, then do you think that people can manage to lay a measly strip of pavement down a country lane?"

To this, my opposition said:

"Again.. because your idea works in one area doesn't mean it will work for everything."

Are you supporting the concept of market failure? Because that is one of the cornerstones of the argument for socialized state services. You aren't on their side, are you?

So if anyone out there can present a consistent, cogent argument for the socialization of the roadways, I would love to hear it.

Any takers?