Issue: Different Ownership and Different Rules
|
Question: "If every road is owned
by different people and different rules are imposed, would
it not be too confusing?"
Answer: Standardization of rules often happens to a
significant extent in private markets. For instance,
railroads standardized many of their practices in the 19th
century by mutual agreement of private railroad companies.
In any business, it is useful and profitable to enable the
customers to rely on some common and well-known elements and
practices, and it is quite likely that many rules of the
road will be extremely similar. On the other hand, this
similarity will not be of the rigid, ossified sort that
currently exists on government roads—where the rules are
uniform and immutable, irrespective of how well they
actually work in facilitating safe and efficient roadway
use. Entrepreneurs would be free to experiment with new
rules and arrangements, and if consumers do not like a
particular arrangement, they would always be free to use a
competing road. Entrepreneurs will be aware of this and so
will hesitate to adopt measures that would be difficult for
users to understand and to follow. Roads that do things
differently and continue to attract traffic will likely need
to prominently advertise the aspects that make them unique,
so that potential users are well aware of the peculiarities
in advance and in a concise, easy-to-understand manner. The
best road innovations will take hold among other
entrepreneurs and will eventually become part of a new set
of evolving standards.
Issue: Private Road Monopolies
|
Question: "Can a road monopoly be
allowed to charge exorbitantly if there's no alternative to
a place?"
Answer: It is extremely unlikely that any individual
business would be able to purchase all possible
access routes to a given place, as this would be
extraordinarily expensive. If any alternative route exists,
and a non-coercive monopoly currently charges exorbitant
prices, this will be a strong signal for competitors to
enter the market, buy up land on the alternative route,
build their own roads, and charge lower prices than the
former monopolist. If there is a single provider of a road
to a particular place, even the potential of this
kind of competition would keep such a provider charging
reasonable prices.
In the odd event that competition does not enter the field,
people might simply choose not to go to the place for which
the only road requires an exorbitant fee for its use. In
this case, many individuals will come to see the benefits of
going to the place in question as being outweighed by the
costs, and so the place will cease to become popular, and
the road provider's revenue will diminish greatly. At that
point, the road provider will either need to lower its
prices to attract more business or go out of business
entirely.
It is important to recognize that a road monopoly is
precisely what exists virtually everywhere in many
countries today. This monopoly, unlike the transitory
monopolies that may sometimes occur on the free market, is
supported by law. The consequences of a coercive monopoly in
the provision of any good are easy to foresee and identify:
lower quality at a higher price. It is reasonable to believe
that taxpayers are already being charged exorbitantly for
the use of government roads today.
|