How about you answer questions now...

Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
On utilities: In some cases it is necessary to have a monopoly, such as the waterworks, sewage, gas, etc.

Why?

On roads specifically: How do you imagine tolls would be paid? I know we have the tech to allow you to just drive by.. but would there be a nationally accepted standard? Would I be able to drive cross country?

Are there more efficient and "cleaner" ways to get across the country?

What would stop someone from buying up a small enclosure of roadway and hiking the tolls to insane levels? What choice would the people living or working within the enclosure have but to pay up? Its things like this that are such obvious abuses of a true unregulated free market that I would think would raise red flags for any rational person.

Couldn't someone just build another road? Why are they forced to use this road or use a car at all?

Also the idea of heavily discouraging travel is a very bad idea overall. It would serve to create closed off stagnant micro economies/societies. Furthermore the availability of relatively cheap travel allows the down and out to uproot and head out for greener pastures. When an industry dries up, people can move on to find work elsewhere. With all roads being toll roads, the price of cross country travel would be unimaginably high. That is, if a universal system was even settled on to allow for cross country toll-way travel. Furthermore, under your system, the idea of any decent amount of competition (read: choice) on cross continental roads can not be expected or even hoped for.

How much does it cost to build a road and then maintain it? Where are you getting these numbers, how do you figure the prices would be unimaginably high?

Regarding the last sentence, do you think trains are competition for cross continental roads? Are planes? Do you think if people complained about a bad cross continental road that someone may build another one because of the opportunity to make good money?

 Lastly, who would police these roads? You are in support of having a police and military force, but what roll do they play in this highly privatized world? Whose rules do they follow? Does the government still set the speed limit? Or are you against all road safety laws and regulations as well?

Let's pretend you own a privatized road company with a road from Chicago to Columbus. There are two other highways that travel from Chicago to similar locations, so you do not have a monopoly. Now, with that being said, is there incentive for your road to have private highway patrol? Is there incentive for you to set a certain speed limit?

 edit: As I was thinking about private roads and the possibility of having competing private cost to cost highways, a big problem that I realize you run into is national parks. That got me to thinking... without government intervention (admittedly this was sparked, financially, by charitable donations by the Rockefeller family) industry would have run over the last remnants of pristine natural expanses long long ago. And while The Rockefeller family was integral in the start of the national parks service, it would be silly to think that, without the aid of government, the parks would have lasted to this day. If the land were privately owned and protected, it would only take so long for it to fall into the hands of someone who only saw dollar signs in the landscape.

Please, please, please take the time to explain either why it doesn't matter or how a National Park system fits into your libertarian world view. This is really important to me because I cannot see how this fits into your ideals, nor can I imagine that you think it doesn't matter.
Is it the absolute truth that keeping parks and nature preserves as they are is the "right" thing? Does everyone want this? If they do as you imply, would they then be preserved in a free market?