Government is not necessary to build roads.

I'd like to offer thanks to my opponent for bringing up this debate, and bring this debate to a close. This debate is about whether, or not our Public Road System could be done by a private entity instead of the government. It's an easy claim to state, but a difficult one to prove. My opponent has claimed that private companies would do the repair work better. It is an interesting point, but it is irrelevant to the debate. If the private sector could build the interstate highway system of the United States then my opponent would have a point even if they were worse at maintenance. The Mid-State Tollway could not be completed by the private company building it because it lacked the government power of Eminent Domain. Without that power landowners can refuse to sell at any price, or make it so that it will never be profitable in a reasonable period of time. The Government isn't concerned with profit, and, in the US, can force a sale at fair market value per the 5th amendment. "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Clearly I don't care if someone believes Somalia is a success, or failure of anarchy. This debate is about roads, and not the quality of life of Somalis. Now my opponent has flip flopped in regard to Somalia. First he claimed it shouldn't be counted because it was controlled by an evil government. Now because I cited the lords of anarcho capitalism he's willing to see it as a success. However, that does not change the fact that the decade of stateless rule resulted in a cessation of paved road development. Somalia has since reestablished its government. It is still fairly weak, but even a weak government has taken action to bring what little it has under control up to more modern road standards[14]. My opponents entire argument about private entities doing the work better is based on a naive notion of capitalism. Capitalism works because a private entity has to compete with others. This forces them to create a better product, and for a cheaper price. However, this does not apply to roads because they are a natural monopoly. If I built a road that was the shortest distance between two points there would be no alternate route that could be built to be cheaper, or faster. It's not a problem with Government, but rather a simple fact of geometry. If I owned the road leading to the hospital, and wanted to charge a 100 dollar toll nothing, except government, could legally stop me. I could easily neglect the road until it was just a bit better than going a much longer scenic route because there would be no competition that could make their road shorter. I wouldn't have to accept vouchers, and I might only accept gold one ounce coins. Unless a government mandated me to do otherwise. If they could be done, Private roads, on a large scale, present an obstruction to one of our basic rights. The Freedom of Movement may not be explicitly granted in the US Constitution, but it was apart of the articles of confederacy, and has been recognized by the US Supreme Court as far back as 1823 as an interpretation of Article IV Privileges and Immunities Clause[15]. If all roads are private it would give those private entities the power to restrict movement. Ether by only accepting special currency like gold, or by simply refusing to let someone pass. There is no harm if it's a private road to a resort, but it becomes an issue when it's the roads between cities, states, hospitals, and homes. In other words, our Interstate Highway System is a vital part of our freedoms, and critical that it stay in the hands of the public, and not private entities. I'd like to thank the voters, and my opponent for their time. I rest my case. [14] http://sabahionline.com... [15] Corfield v. Coryell (6 Fed. Cas. 546, no. 3,230 C.C.E.D.Pa. 1823)