I’m sorry, but I’m smiling about this Chris Christie “Bridgegate” scandal. I’m smiling because one of the most loved reasons to reject private ownership of roads is the chance that an owner may not give you access to his road for some reason, maybe because he doesn’t like you.
Well, this is what people are accusing the government of doing. And even though it hasn’t been proven that the lanes of this road were closed for political reasons, people seem very willing to believe that it was.
So if you believe that the government would close a road because they don’t like someone, how can you use that as an argument against private roads?
And I have to say it: without government, who would block access to the roads?
Don’t get me wrong. I hate pretty much everything government does and don’t believe they have the ability to property look after the roads. I do share the concern that you might denied access to a road for any number of reasons. Of course if the road owner pulls a dirty trick like that-others will hear about it. The media will report it and he will pay the consequence for being an idiot.
The government as the owner of most roads can do anything they want-and they do, blocking roads all the time!
“Without government who would block access to the roads?”
Why are you assuming there would be roads without government?