Government is not necessary to build roads.

I will be responding to my opponent’s arguments and clarifying my own but will not make an entirely new argument that I won’t be able to respond to a rebuttal to. My opponent proves my point with his links to Mises, I am not going to start a new argument this round but my opponent already did it for me. No one is saying they are great off but how they got into the predicament in the first place was an overreaching government that collapsed under its own weight. According to the data in the Mises article many things have improved like life expectancy and GDP since their government fell and have better access to cell phones. But this is a bit of topic since it is not focused on roads specifically but it does show how government does not need to be the one to provide these things. My opponent took my comment about making the trains run on time seriously when it was actually meant rather sarcastically. I hardly see how it qualifies as an ad hominem. The point is whether or not it is accurate, it was the perception just like in “Paradise” the perception is that the government kept them together for better and that just because an oppressive government does something good does that justify it? As for the contract they would not have a contract with each other but rather with their clients and the clients would get to choose which one they go with based on quality, price, etc. Like they would when purchasing anything else. My opponent mentions eminent domain but in order to deal with that, a private company could agree to buy it from the current owners. The government need not be the one to decide who owns what, the person buys the land from someone and gets the deed proving they own it just like any other piece of property. A company could buy up a strip of land from the current owners in order to build the road or train track. Government does not cause it to be cheaper competition does, if it is too much the consumer will go to another company offering to do it for less. How do you deal with someone who is too poor to pay the toll? There are few ways this could be dealt with, there could be a charity set up that provides them with something like a toll voucher that allows for necessary travel. Maybe if they cannot pay the toll, the company that owns the road could have them work for it. Those are just a few options, in that situation there would likely be many more available. My opponent’s final source is a curious one since it doesn’t really work in favor of his case (a Cato article no less), in fact I considered using the same source myself last round but thought the title might give the wrong impression as it seems to have with my opponent. . While he may think by simply reading the headline that it is arguing that sprawl is a good thing take a closer look at the article itself. Take this excerpt for example: “Taxpayers, however, shouldn’t have to pick up the tab for other people’s preferences for suburban living, yet that has been the effect of the federal interstate highway program since the mid-1950s. The construction of free beltways and expressways has subsidized suburban development. The “correct” or efficient amount of suburban development is the amount that consumers are willing to pay for so long as they bear the incremental costs of land acquisition and expressway construction. ” Topped off with this quote “In short, private roads offer far more potential for managed growth than do highways owned by public agencies. ” It goes on to explain why taking government out of the highway business would be beneficial. That doesn’t sound like a shining endorsement of government involvement in roads. In conclusion what my opponent has brought up as reason the government needs to be involved in roads can all be handled by the private sector there is no magic power that gives government the ability to do something others can’t. I thank my opponent for participating. (Handshake) In retrospect I probably should have added another round to this debate.