Yes. Roads will still exist without a government.

.....aaaaaaaaaaaaand who exactly fills in the potholes when the local council doesn't?

Indeed. Installing guard rails, repainting dividing lines, putting up signs and signals to keep traffic going orderly, cleaning up after accidents, etc etc...governments...

The answer is free associations of workers.

Even just agreeing on what the speed limit is.

Wait, not even that... even just getting everyone to agree which side of the road to drive on! How is the invisible hand of the free market supposed to enforce THAT for a moment and a half?

We needed that Infrastructure Bill just so we can supply Iowa with Rust-Oleum

that should be fairly obvious. Do you want to crash into another car? no? then drive on the side of the road people are already driving on.

the government didn't invent which side of the road to drive on when roads were first created, it just happened on its own and then governments made laws after the fact. This is a phenomenon called 'spontaneous order' and is the reason why humans form societies, rules and norms.

I think you'll find that most or all of the things government in charge of can be done or has been done in the past, by private individuals and business on the market.

"the government didn't invent which side of the road to drive on when roads were first create"
uhhhhhhhh... yes they did! They got sick of people not being able to pass each other in crowded streets and getting into fights instead of selling things in markets.

Ancient Romans, Ancient Greeks, Persians, Mayans... all of them quickly realized that they needed road users to stick to a side of the road by convention. I can't think of a civilization that had roads but didn't have an official designated side to use. Because you CAN'T! People just aren't as amicable as you're making them out to be!

1. wrong. roads pre-date the concept of states. Hell, land trade-routes existed before governments.

2. in the US at least, it was a private individual who came up with the solution to people having those problems. She also did it illegally, as the state government of California told her that 'painting stripes in the middle of the road is stupid.' They then later took the credit for her invention.

3. Jee, all these different states realized that its better to go one way instead of the other way to prevent problems? Its almost like state intervention wasnt necessary at all, because people all came to the SAME CONCLUSION AROUND THE WORLD.

Why are you changing the discussion from roads to land trade-routes? OBVIOUSLY that's a red herring.

And YOU said roads predate governments. States are a relatively modern invention. OBVIOUSLY that's changing the goalpost.

Why do you think this kind of intellectual dishonesty is worth your own time?

1.its not a red herring, land routes often used roads made by previous travelers. A good example of these roads would be the wagon-trails of the western expansion period in the united states.

2.its not changing the goalpost seeing as your argument was that government invented the concept of which side of the road people should go on. I pointed out that roads existed before the invention of governments. My point being that your argument is ludicrous as this would mean that people, before governments came into being or created laws pertaining to the usage of roads, would be too stupid to figure out how to use roads properly.

"uhhhhhhhh... yes they did! They got sick of people not being able to pass each other in crowded streets and getting into fights instead of selling things in markets"

3. you attempting to label my counterpoints as red-herrings and goal post shifting when they are clearly not means you have to do more research into what those terms mean.

Yeah - AFTER local governments invented roads!!!!

I can just tell you're getting this off of a FEE or Mises Institute article

Do away with gov'ts and laws and no car accidents will occur?
Sure, makes sense.

that's not what I said, I dont argue against things I haven't said.

Course it wasn't, that's why my name heads it.
But the phenomenon called "spontaneous order" ordains it!

either the people who own the roads or people who take it upon themselves to do it if the road is unowned

...the people who own the roads? So... the government!

without a government, roads would be privately owned

The ones that get built, sure.

I don't have money to build my own road to work. Do you?

no, but large companies who want people to be able to get to their businesses do. Dominoes chipped in several years ago to fill in potholes and repave roads that lead to their restaurants or were in delivery zones. Why? because it was in their interest to do so for customer service, which brought in revenue.

This isnt rocket science. If your customers are unhappy, they go elsewhere, so what do companies do to fix this? solve the problem. If there is a demand, the market will provide.

Dominoes Pizza aren't interested in building a road from my house to my office!!! That wouldn't boost their profits by a wooden nickle!

But with their under-30-or-it's-free delivery deal, Dominoes Pizza has a vested interest in the building and maintenance of roadways.

Picture Dominoes Pizza in pre-New Deal unpaved and unwired South. They'd be operating at a significant loss getting stuck in muddy ditches and dirt road ruts giving away free pizza like that without a cob of corn to show for their troubles. So it would be in their best interest to do what a non existing gov't ain't.

Plus with highwaymen looking to rob deliverymen blind, Dominoes would also have to hire guards, and if customer tips are big enough, perhaps they might let them linger a bit thus providing protection to others.

I'mmo write to my Representative AOC and see if they can make a law to outlaw gov't and get this gig going!

Dominoes Pizza, we'll make it to the other side of the county in no more than 2 days or the pizza is free!

I was gonna bring up the cost it would take an individual to send a mere letter any distance without the USPS to do it.

Hence why PE went under after like two years

Of course, and owners would just love maintaining them for free and public use while someone with a bigger club comes waltzing through and takes it from them and proceeds to hijack anyone else that comes through after,,,

they wouldnt be for free in all likelihood, the road owners would likely charge big companies to have access to the roadworks or have some contract mechanism in place. Secondly, there already ARE private roads in existence, whats stopping this hypothetical 'bigger club' person from just taking the already privatized roads? In fact, since government is the bigger club in our already existing society, why dont they do that? maybe its because violence is expensive, and there is no real incentive to do so?

Really? So you're going to build and maintain the street and sidewalk in front of your house and charge a toll which no doubt big corps will cover the charges for all because they're so awesome like that? That's great! You let me know how that goes.

toll? no, a contract for monthly or yearly payment, a subscription if you will.

makes it far cheaper in the long run.

and in addition, your government already does charge tolls on some roads, so which is better for you ? a big company paying to maintain the roads where you have to pay nothing, or you, through a direct toll?

That's silly. No one is going to do that. What next, you're going to hire your own toll workers and security and legal team to enforce laws that do not exist bcause there's no gov't and so will your next door neighbor and their neighbor and....? Do you even know how much asphalt costs and how much it would be without that 50% discount coutesy of the US Gov?

first, silly? hardly. Just because you cant conceptualize it doesnt mean its 'silly', just that your unable to think about it without the bias of having been under a government system all your life, which says more about you than it does the idea.

secondly, private law and security already exist and require no government to manage.

lastly, most of those high prices are due to the way government pays companies to build the roads FOR THEM. By keeping the companies the government contracts with or auctions jobs off to a monopoly on the services, the companies which make materials FOR road building have an interest to make the materials higher cost knowing that the tax payers are footing the bill. Its also why all companies the government partners with in its corporatist system get bailout and subsidies, they have an incentive to produce inferior products at higher costs knowing that they cant go out of business because the government pays to keep the doors open and the lights on.

without government, those prices will decrease to market levels, making it much more cheap and higher quality

Without goverment, you wouldn't have law, let alone the enforcement of them.

But anyways, ok, I'll play. Ted Kaczynski had lived by himself off the grid in a cabin out somewhere in the middle of nowhere in Montana. Try that (sans the killing, of course), and let me know how that goes. And this without the non-law laws and regimented structure somewhow without such you keep referring to.

You're talking about BIG corporations, fer cryin out loud, as if they didn't have their own governing bodies. Humans can't even function on the nomadic tribal level without rules and order enforced by an established hereditary hierarchy yet somehow billions can function and coexist in anarchy. Sure, that makes sense.

See how much access to the web you can afford with the toll outside your window for 20ft of road.

its seriously mind boggling how brainwashed the average person is where they cant understand basic things that operate outside the box. Gotta give the government credit where its due, they really know how to make people blindly obedient and stupid.

"Nobody accepted the arguments I couldn't support with evidence. They're clearly brainwashed."

Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism. Read Kropotkin before you embarrass yourself further.

Ive read Kropotkin, I suggest you read KOB again