|
And another thing Another counter-argument has occurred to me: "Even if a private company is the
first to build the road, the consumer (ie motorist) is still worse off
than under a socialist system because they will end up paying monopoly rent
forever." However on closer inspection, this one doesn't really hold up. There is
nothing stopping socialist-minded people (they are so much smarter and more
compassionate than the rest of us) from forming Socialist Enterprises Inc,
ignoring the private roads, and just building roads on a 'social needs'
basis,as they would in a Social Democracy. The existence of a private
(capitalist monopolistic) alternative needn't affect them - they have the
option of simply not trading with it. Further, Socialist Enterprises Inc could charge their members the 'fair'
cost of using the road, and charge others (the evil capitalist scum) the
monopoly price on their own roads. Can the members of Socialist Enterprises Inc claim to be worse off under
this system? Well, yes - but only because they are unable to steal other
people's wealth as they can under the existing system. How sad. Of course, this is really a variation of the argument that a capitalist and
socialist system can co-exist in a free market. People can join a socialist
collective, and pool their resources for health care, unemployment payments
etc.
| 
