"Who Will Build the Roads"

"''Who will build the roads?' is the question that's belongs at the top of every libertarian drinking game. If we didn't have state coercion, the argument runs, there would be no roads. There's a Sears store over there, and your house over here, and everyone would just be standing there scratching their heads.' - Tom Woods""Who will Build the Roads" is the most common question/argument made by a statist. This is a basic question for libertarians across the spectrum. This question has led to a small circle deeming it as the "who would build the roads fallacy."

Explanation:
A statist doesn't know better when they make this argument. Since the government has a monopoly over who gets to build roads they assume that nobody else would. When you argue with a statist you will likely do so in a place that is close to a road and will have likely used a road to get there. It is the monopoly on shoes issue.

Basic Roads
The government does not build the roads. The people who the state gives the contracts to will do it, but with the buyers being businesses, neighborhoods, and communities instead. Why would they do this? Because they have fucking cars and need to go places. A business will want to maintain roads to drive up traffic. A neighborhood and community will want to link up their houses and other resources.

Everything will be a toll road
Paying for roads is something that already occurs its called mass robbery(taxation). Do not pretend as if things are free(there's no such thing as a free lunch). It makes no sense that someone should pay for a service they use less. Why should an 80 year old lady pay for a road she won't use versus a businessman who must drive to work every day. The assumption is that someone will take a left turn and immediately get stopped at a toll booth. This makes no sense. If something is stupid it will not happen. There are already passes that people use at toll roads which speed up traffic. This could be installed in cars on mass given the right incentives

Eminent Domain
Aside from the moral issues (NAP) and violation(aggression) of property rights this is dubious. The argument presented usually goes as this:

"If Company X wanted to build a road from NYC to Boston then there would be people they need to buy the land, what if someone refuses?"

The answer is simple, go around it. A company could use mechanisms such as options when planning out how to build roads. Options being agreements saying, "I will pay you money now for the right to buy this land within a few years if I choose to exercise it." If the road runs through certain places such as businessess this could drive up their traffic, which could cause businesses to ask these companies to build through. Lets make this harder.

"What if the the amount of people who refuse is so great that Company X could not go around them."

Tunnels and bridges can be built. Under the principals of homesteading this is an acceptable practice.

"What if they homstead all around and it would be impossible for the company to build the road?"

At this point they're playing anti-everything shield. This is what we call "physically impossible."

How Good are the Current Roads?
More than 38,000 people die on the roads per year in the US. Less people died in 9/11 than in fatalites on the roads per year. The roads are underfunded and decreped. To see proof go to Detroit or any other city in Michigan.

When the government screws up the roads the people advocate, "we need the government to step in and fix this." If they succeed (never happens) the narrative is, "the government has solved the issue."

MUH ROADS
The roads argument is used so often it has become a meme among libertarians. They will autistically yell "MUH ROADS" to mock statists and joke with each other. It is a litmus test to ask the question, "who will build the roads" and see the response to find out if somone is libertarian or lolbertarian.

Why this pisses off libertarians
"'This is level 1 shit. You're not fooling any libertarians with the fucking roads'- Zuby"The roads ultimately shows a profound lack of imagination and thought. There is a genuine failure to understand that the market solves the problems that are presented to it. A certain pedophile (Keynes) pushes the notion of "market failure" and other nonsense of kiss up the the powers that be. It also shows how indoctrinated the statists are when they all repeat the exact same bullshit they were taught in the public school system.