Cross-posting 
People worry about who owns the roads because they have no idea why roads exist. Nobody who owns a business and a road is going to deny you from driving on that road. Simply put, they want your goddamned money. They don't care if you're going to visit another business or going to see your grandma or traveling to the other side of the continent, denying anyone for any reason of driving on a road is counter-productive and bad for business.
But of course, this is why people who refuse to practice rationalism have such extreme difficulty imagining this. "What if people charge me to drive on their road?" Then people who don't charge will have their roads driven on; those who do charge lose business. You lose more than you gain; the only way to enforce this without loss is with a state, but I won't get into that, as we're assuming it's gone. "What if they make me drive on the wrong side of the road?" Then, even considering they figure out a way to enforce this, you're likely to get into an accident eventually and thus, nobody will be able to drive on that road for a long time, and the same effect occurs as the toll-road dilemma: it's completely inefficient and fruitless, and the market punishes such behavior quite severely, a feature missing or must be enacted artificially in economies lacking a market.
So what about roads connected to no business? Well, if people want them--and I don't know anyone who has an irrational fear or hatred of roads--then they'll build them themselves. You want a road, but your neighbor won't pitch in to help, and so you refuse to build a road until he does? Then so it will be; either find better neighbors or use diplomacy or just build it yourself.
I think it's funny; perhaps a state somewhere in Hypothetiland has taken over ISPs and offers government-owned Internet, and people are saying, "Well if the government didn't provide me with Internet, who would possibly provide it? Who would own the cables? How would we pay for it? There's a good reason why the Internet is paid for with taxes, you know." I'm sure this is the same rap given for socialized healthcare
I could've sworn it was the merchants who built the first roads.
Imagine this: the state went away and nobody worked the roads. They fell into disrepair; nobody drove on the roads anymore and it really started to hurt businesses; nobody would visit the shops and you couldn't get anything delivered.
Who has the greatest monetary incentive to get the roads in shape? If Business A gets their roads built faster than competing Business B, they'll have mad profits; there's a rush to get the roads in shape to get a leg up over the competition. Business C decides to skimp out on the quality and gets their road-builders A to speed the process up. Road-builders A knows that they will lose business to Road-builders B if they don't keep their standards, but are eager to make a quick buck. It is later found out that the road to Business C is already crumbling; Business C loses more business than if they'd just made a quality road and pay the price of it, while Businesses A and B flourish with their quality roads, and refuse to do business with Road-builders A due to their previous incompetence; Road-builders A eventually lose business to B, C, and D, and the labor is scooped up into C, as they're in the metro area and have a ton more roads to build; eager for more work, many laborers of Road-builders A accept the offer. Business flourishes in infrastructure, as every brick & mortar business needs it; the people have their roads and the businesses have their commerce and all is well.
The market works fine, no state required. Who builds the roads?--the people who gain from the roads being built, that being, all of us.
Imagine this: the state went away and nobody worked the roads. They fell into disrepair; nobody drove on the roads anymore and it really started to hurt businesses; nobody would visit the shops and you couldn't get anything delivered.
Who has the greatest monetary incentive to get the roads in shape? If Business A gets their roads built faster than competing Business B, they'll have mad profits; there's a rush to get the roads in shape to get a leg up over the competition. Business C decides to skimp out on the quality and gets their road-builders A to speed the process up. Road-builders A knows that they will lose business to Road-builders B if they don't keep their standards, but are eager to make a quick buck. It is later found out that the road to Business C is already crumbling; Business C loses more business than if they'd just made a quality road and pay the price of it, while Businesses A and B flourish with their quality roads, and refuse to do business with Road-builders A due to their previous incompetence; Road-builders A eventually lose business to B, C, and D, and the labor is scooped up into C, as they're in the metro area and have a ton more roads to build; eager for more work, many laborers of Road-builders A accept the offer. Business flourishes in infrastructure, as every brick & mortar business needs it; the people have their roads and the businesses have their commerce and all is well.
The market works fine, no state required. Who builds the roads?--the people who gain from the roads being built, that being, all of us.
People worry about who owns the roads because they have no idea why roads exist. Nobody who owns a business and a road is going to deny you from driving on that road. Simply put, they want your goddamned money. They don't care if you're going to visit another business or going to see your grandma or traveling to the other side of the continent, denying anyone for any reason of driving on a road is counter-productive and bad for business.
But of course, this is why people who refuse to practice rationalism have such extreme difficulty imagining this. "What if people charge me to drive on their road?" Then people who don't charge will have their roads driven on; those who do charge lose business. You lose more than you gain; the only way to enforce this without loss is with a state, but I won't get into that, as we're assuming it's gone. "What if they make me drive on the wrong side of the road?" Then, even considering they figure out a way to enforce this, you're likely to get into an accident eventually and thus, nobody will be able to drive on that road for a long time, and the same effect occurs as the toll-road dilemma: it's completely inefficient and fruitless, and the market punishes such behavior quite severely, a feature missing or must be enacted artificially in economies lacking a market.
So what about roads connected to no business? Well, if people want them--and I don't know anyone who has an irrational fear or hatred of roads--then they'll build them themselves. You want a road, but your neighbor won't pitch in to help, and so you refuse to build a road until he does? Then so it will be; either find better neighbors or use diplomacy or just build it yourself.
I think it's funny; perhaps a state somewhere in Hypothetiland has taken over ISPs and offers government-owned Internet, and people are saying, "Well if the government didn't provide me with Internet, who would possibly provide it? Who would own the cables? How would we pay for it? There's a good reason why the Internet is paid for with taxes, you know." I'm sure this is the same rap given for socialized healthcare