1. No. Private property doesn’t mean you get to use other people’s property for free. We’re talking about *voluntary* society, not *pacifist* society. You’re still allowed to use force to defend your person or property. It’s the *initiation of aggression* that’s the problem, which just happens to be the foundation of all government, that’s the point.

3.
Interesting about the roads. Most people have never given it a minute’s thought in their entire lives. However
a) a *certain* monopoly *now* to avoid the mere *possibility* of a *future* monopoly does not make sense, and
b) it is likely that the worst-case scenario of private roads and highways would be far better than the dysfunctional slaughter-a-thon we now have: see http://mises.org/daily/3416, precisely because now, no-one responsible for roads has any personal incentive to stop killing people and causing chaos, nor loses money when they do.

Tolling under a fully private system would probably be by by electronic scanning, and monthly billing by credit card. It is laughable to suggest that bureaucratic rule reduces traffic congestion; why do you think they’re trying to mimic markets by introducing congestion charges? It is precisely government providing roads for “free” to everyone that makes them turn to speed cameras for revenue raising. Private owners would simply exclude offenders. Other owners would offer no speed limits.

Against a public system
2 Assumes we can all get something for nothing by using government. We can’t. Or assumes that some should be forced to pay for others, without saying why?

You have not advanced the argument one iota in favour of coerced co-operation, and have simply assumed everything in issue, which is a logical fallacy.

Government is a monopoly of the use of force and fraud. It brings nothing else, no caring, knowledge, or competence that is not
a) already available, and
b) better brought into the service of society by voluntary means.

We all remember the German democratic republic, and all others that claim to be an alternative to democracy.

we will subvert the will of the people?

Israel send 50,000 African Mercenaries to Libya 03-03-2011
http://www.dailypaul.com/158871/us-to-spill-marine-blood-against-50000-pro-gaddafi-mercenaries-who-is-recruiting-funding-them-youll-never-guess

The US demands immunity for foreign mercenaries
in the International Criminal Court.

The UK Telegraph reported that African mercenaries hired by the Gaddafi regime to kill Libyan protesters would be immune from prosecution for war crimes due to a clause in this weekend’s UN resolution that was demanded by the United States.

Israel authorizes a security firm to send 50,000 mercenaries to Libya to crush anti-government protesters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbvz2mTUDWA

demon-autocracy 101

http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/israels-intentions-in-the-new-egypt/

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/gilad-atzmon-american-bloody-pragmatism.html

http://poorrichards-blog.blogspot.com/2011/03/david-icke-truth-about-middle-east.html

The Zionist Agenda (Full Speech) David Kelly BBC Murdered for Truth http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MjMhO_hUiY

http://www.revoltoftheplebs.com/categories/news-analysis/israel-on-the-wrong-side-of-history/

0- Peter how convenient that you ignored the point where direct democracy ties back into the equation- thus providing the incentive and accountability to improve functionality- rendering any political beneficiaries redundant as they no longer hold the monopoly powers.
The principle is that as everyone uses or benefits from the infrastructure being in place, and society would quickly crumble without the infrastructure in place, the assumption that society must pay by default- considering they would ultimately be required to pay to use the roads one way or another if they are to be maintained, than either let it crumble or expect a minority of users to carry the full burden.

1- Firstly, 'private property' is quite a broad brush to make, especially when comparing.
a- a dirt track or avenue that extends through a privately-owned piece of land (a farm or office building estate)
b- a highway funded by taxpayers, or on public property.
The justification of a is generally percieved as a right, but how exactly does one justify exclusive holding of (b).
With forced-coercion to pay for use established in both public and private roads, where exactly does the volunteering or general moral superiority come into play?

2- No- it assumes costs are minimized for the individual as they are shared broadly, and with no costs outside maintenance, presuming -0- is in place (as the title would suggest).

3- Generally in terms of efficiency, our own history of public assets-turned-private is quite substantial evidence in the cost of the service increasing, or present tolling remaining permanent instead of temporary, and the service coverage being rolled back. The difference in death toll might have something to do with the fact that 99.99% of our roads are state roads, and only a minute amount is private property.
Under any system where an exclusive owner is in charge and bears little public accountability, there is nothing stopping them from de-prioritizing management responsibilities and pushing for profit- just as much as the Lane Cove tunnel has extensive speed cameras installed (and the road above mysteriously shrinks to a one-lane road at 60kmh).

Hazza
0-
I didn’t ignore direct democracy providing incentive and accountability – I denied it does or can, asked you to prove how it can or does, and you haven’t done so.

Firstly we don’t have a direct democracy so it seems common ground that appeal to the benefits of government as is are problematic.

As for accountability, when did government ever send you an account of how much of your money they have taken, and what they spent it on?

And as for incentive
“It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.” Thomas Sowell

Secondly, let’s suppose we had a theoretically perfect direct democracy: each adult has a secret vote on any question of public interest. We assume they will not vote on every action of every public service, every bus route, every condition of every job, every office procedure, etc. Direction will be vested, as now, in an employed executive, right? As with private enterprises, they will buy labour, land and capital goods earlier in time, and after a process of combining them, will sell or give away a finished good or service later in time.

Now.

0-1 Ethically, why should the majority be able to vote themselves the fruits of other people’s labour?

0-2 Practically, *HOW* are the people or the executive going to *know* how best to combine the factors of production in such a way as to satisfy the most urgent wants of the people as a whole (not just the majority) and minimise loss and
0-3 *HOW* are the people or the executive going to have any incentive to do so?

Just because people use a service, doesn’t mean they should be forced to pay for it, and you have not justified your assumption that, just because government does provide a service, therefore
a) it should, or
b) it does so better than competing private providers would.

1-
“The justification of a [private road on private land] ] is generally percieved as a right, but how exactly does one justify exclusive holding of (b) [ a public road on public land’].”

One does not justify private holding of “public” [translation: state] property. One justifies replacing coerced social arrangements with voluntary social arrangements.

“With forced-coercion to pay for use established in both public and private roads, where exactly does the volunteering or general moral superiority come into play?”

It doesn’t. The whole purpose of coerced services is to exclude the voluntary sector which would be ethically and pragmatically superior.

But are you asking how to go about the approach to a voluntary society?

2- “No- it assumes costs are minimized for the individual as they are shared broadly, and with no costs outside maintenance, presuming -0- is in place (as the title would suggest).”

Even if direct democracy were in place, still you can’t assume the cost for the individual are minimized. Why not? Because *there’s no use saying the money cost is minimized if the person preferred something other than what the money was spent on in the first place.*

In a voluntary transaction, we know that the person prefers the thing they buy to the alternatives – otherwise the transaction wouldn’t take place. With coerced transactions, we know that the person prefers something else more than they prefer the service they were forced to pay for, otherwise coercion wouldn’t be necessary.