Zombie statists: ‘But if there’s no government, who’ll build roads?!’

By David McElroy · April 28, 2012

It’s a bad movie that you might have seen before. It tends to show up whenever an advocate of voluntary cooperation explains how society could operate without state coercion. Right on cue, the zombies from “Night of the Living Statists” rear their heads and mindlessly intone, “But if there’s no government, who will build the roads?!”

The zombies can’t hear your response, so it’s useless to try to give them facts and explain how things could be done in a way that’s better for everyone if roads and other such things were provided as private services rather than as coercive government monopolies. For those who are open to the facts, though, is there any evidence that people can actually cooperate voluntarily for their own interests?

As a matter of fact, there’s quite a bit of evidence of that.

Three years ago, the businesses and residents of the Hawaii island of Kauai were in trouble. The livelihood of the local people depended on tourism, but a state park they relied on to funnel business to them was closed. Flooding several months before had destroyed an access road to Polihale State Park and damaged park facilities.

The state said the repairs would cost $4 million that it didn’t have. So the park was going to be closed that summer — and probably even the next year. This wasn’t acceptable to the business people and the residents, because they needed that park open in order to earn their living. So they got together and decided to do something on their own.

In just eight days, the businesses put their resources together and performed all the necessary repairs — for free. The park re-opened. The businesses survived, because they cooperated to do what was best for all of them, without waiting for someone else to do it for them.

“We can wait around for the state or federal government to make this move, or we can go out and do our part,” said the owner of a local kayak business. “Just like everyone’s sitting around waiting for a stimulus check, we were waiting for this but decided we couldn’t wait anymore.”

This is a great little story, but maybe it only worked because of the small scale. Surely big projects require the federal government to take money from people and pay for projects. Right?

People frequently point to the example of the 19th century railroads as evidence that government loans and other assistance are necessary for such large-scale projects. The Union Pacific and Central Pacific railroads were built with federal subsidies by politically connected businessmen. Doesn’t that prove it’s the only way?

The free market way was shown by a great businessman named James J. Hill. While some of the other major railroads were slapped together in shoddy ways — because government was subsidizing their construction on a per-mile basis, not a long-term basis — he built the Great Northern Railway without a dime of government help.

Hill was obsessed with building a business for the long term. While his competitors slapped together useless miles of track on longer routes, he found shorter routes and built more sturdy rail beds. He invested money in the communities around his railroad’s territory, understanding that his long-term success was directly tied to their success.

As a result, the Great Northern was the only railroad to avoid receivership after the Panic of 1893. The others were built on a shaky foundation by robber barons who just wanted quick profits from the public treasury. (Please read this excellent article by libertarian historian Thomas J. DiLorenzo for many more details.) Hill and his company understood the long-term success provided by the free market. Which is a better model?

Just because you’re accustomed to seeing things done by coercive governments taking money from people by force (or threat of force) doesn’t mean it’s the only way to do those things. It doesn’t even mean it’s the best way to to those things.

Who will build the roads? That question makes no more sense than asking who will grow the food and who will build the cars and who will operate hardware stores. People will voluntarily create arrangements and companies that suit their own needs. If there’s a need for grocery stores, someone will start companies to fill the need. If there’s a need for cars, someone will build and sell them. If there’s a need for roads, someone will build them and sell the service. The providers and the customers will do all those things because they’re in their own interest — not because some coercive, paternalistic government decides for them.

Simply put, government coercion short-circuits the ability of voluntary cooperation to work. In other words, the government you’re counting on to fix the problems is getting in the way. They’re not only failing to solve the problems, but they are the problems.

When I tell people that coercion is wrong and that people have the right to be free and make their own voluntary decisions, they frequently tell me that there are no alternatives. The truth is that voluntary cooperation is a viable alternative, but many people don’t want to see it — because it would mean giving up many of the assumptions they have about how society is structured. It would require them to face the reality that the current system is not only immoral, but it’s unnecessary.

Voluntaryism is the notion that every person is free to make his own choices about how he interacts with others. If anyone tells you that coercion is necessary, he hasn’t looked closely at the evidence. Individual freedom is not only moral, but it’s pragmatic.

Note: Thanks to Lou Gignac for finding the great graphic that sparked this idea, along with providing links to relevant research.

Share on Social Networks

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

Related Posts