A World Without Regulation Roads

Ask why libertarianism is so widely disliked and the answers come back remarkably consistent. One recent survey of the criticism sorts them into a few bins: the philosophy is said to put individual rights above any collective claim, to favor people who already own things, to have no workable answer to pollution, monopoly, or climate, and to be argued with a confident, single-principle tone that irritates the left and right alike. Its sharpest line is that minimal government expands liberty "in theory" while shrinking it for many people in practice.

That complaint is usually made from inside the opposite frame, by someone who assumes the answer is a government with the authority to decide. The defender answers from inside their own frame, by pointing at what that authority has done. Both arguments are about theory, and both sides win them easily, because each frame looks coherent from inside.

The better test is to stop arguing about the theories and look at what each one has actually built. Not the brochure version, but the roads, rivers, neighborhoods, and courts that exist because someone ran the frame in the real world. Set side by side, they don't look like opposites. They look like two routes to the same place.

One caution before the table. Neither column is a country. It's tempting to cast this as America against the old communist East, with the United States standing in for liberty, but the United States is nowhere near the liberty this site describes. It is a heavily regulated, heavily subsidized, deeply landlord-friendly state that runs both frames at once, often on the same block. Most of the examples below are American for exactly that reason: the libertarian column shows the frame's logic in the pockets where it has been allowed to run, and the authoritarian column shows the same country's permit offices and planners doing what they do.

The side-by-side

	What the libertarian frame builds	What the authoritarian frame builds
Roads	Toll turnpikes that mostly lost money, and a veto for every landowner along the route	Expressways driven through neighborhoods by whoever holds eminent domain
Rivers and air	Pollution as "trespass" that courts decline to stop when the polluter is big enough	Permits that license pollution up to a limit, and rivers that burn anyway
Land and housing	Land held idle for speculation; the rent on public investment goes to the titleholder	Zoning, permits, and land taken for private developers who never build
Safety	Freedoms that are real individually and let the shared world wear away	A process that scores itself only on the harms it fails to prevent
Enforcement	Private protection that drifts back into a monopoly, then calls for a tribunal	A monopoly on force answerable mostly to itself
Who holds the keys	Whoever owns the chokepoint	Whoever issues the permit for the chokepoint

The rest of this piece walks down the table one row at a time.

Roads

The libertarian version has been tried. In the first half of the nineteenth century, hundreds of turnpike companies in New England, New York, and Pennsylvania built toll roads with private capital. The economist Daniel Klein, who studied them closely, found that many were built voluntarily by local subscribers, which libertarians like to cite. He also found that most of them lost money. People bought the stock anyway, out of civic duty, social pressure, and the hope that the road would raise the value of land they already owned. And every one of them needed a state charter, and usually the state's power to take a right-of-way from owners who didn't want to sell.

That last part is the whole problem. A road has to be continuous. If a thousand owners sit between two towns and one of them refuses, there's no road. Pure property gives that one holdout a veto over everyone else's ability to travel, trade, or reach a hospital. A world without regulation roads isn't a world of free movement. It's a world where whoever owns the narrowest strip decides who goes anywhere.

The authoritarian version solves the holdout by removing the holdout. Robert Moses pushed the Cross Bronx Expressway through the East Tremont neighborhood in the 1950s, displacing thousands of residents, over their organized objections, on a route chosen for reasons they had no say in. The interstate program repeated the pattern in city after city, and the routes ran disproportionately through Black and immigrant neighborhoods whose residents had the least power to object. The road got built. The veto moved from the holdout to the planner.

Side by side: the libertarian frame gives the chokepoint to whoever holds the land, and the authoritarian frame gives it to whoever holds the pen. Neither gives it to the people who have to use the road.

Rivers and air

The libertarian version is, on paper, the more radical environmentalism. Murray Rothbard argued that pollution is trespass, that smoke crossing a property line is aggression like any other, and that victims should be able to sue or win injunctions. Followed strictly, that would shut down most industrial activity, since nearly every chimney and drainage ditch sends something across somebody's line.

In practice, courts didn't follow it strictly. In Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Sanderson (1886), a woman whose stream had been ruined by acid water pumped from an upstream mine lost her case. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that small private inconveniences had to give way to the needs of an industrial community. The legal historian Morton Horwitz documented how that reasoning spread across nineteenth-century American nuisance law. A property regime can protect the upstream owner's use or the downstream owner's river, but not both, and the courts picked the one with the bigger payroll. And the tort model doesn't scale anyway: it works for one smokestack and one farmer, not a million tailpipes and a hundred million lungs, where no emitter causes a provable harm and no victim can afford to sue.

The authoritarian version replaces the lawsuit with the permit. Pollution becomes legal up to a number the agency sets, and the number is negotiated with the people doing the polluting. The Cuyahoga River caught fire more than a dozen times while Ohio regulated it, the last in 1969. When the authority itself is the polluter, the frame has nothing left to appeal to. In 2014 a state-appointed emergency manager, who had displaced Flint's elected government, switched the city's water to the Flint River to save money. Lead leached out of the pipes and into children, and residents who complained were told for over a year that the water was fine. The people who made the decision had never been elected by the people drinking the water, and the legal immunities around public officials made them far harder to hold to account than any private polluter.

Side by side: in the libertarian frame, the river belongs to the biggest owner along it. In the authoritarian frame, it belongs to the ministry, which usually decides the biggest owner was right.

Land and housing

The libertarian version treats a land deed as if it were self-ownership extended outward, as untouchable as a coat someone sewed. But nobody made land, and most of what makes a parcel valuable was built by everyone except the owner: the transit line, the school, the neighbors, and the road that reaches it. As an earlier essay here argued, a lot beside a new interchange can double in value without its owner lifting a finger. Under absolute property that gain is the owner's to keep, and the most profitable thing to do with a well-placed lot is often nothing: fence it, wait, and collect the public's investment at resale. This is the mechanism behind the critics' charge that libertarianism "advantages the privileged," whether or not the critic can name it.

The authoritarian version decides what gets built by permission. Zoning, parking minimums, and discretionary review determine that most of a city may hold only detached houses, and then the same authority wonders why housing costs so much. When it wants a project badly enough, it takes the land outright. In Kelo v. City of New London (2005), the Supreme Court upheld the city's taking of Susette Kelo's home and her neighbors' to make way for private development planned around a new Pfizer research facility. Pfizer later left town, the development never came, and the site sat empty for years.

Side by side: the libertarian frame produces the vacant lot held for speculation. The authoritarian frame produces the vacant lot cleared for a plan that never came. Either way, the lot is empty.

Safety

The libertarian version is best told by Grafton, New Hampshire, where libertarian migrants in the 2000s took over the town meeting and cut the budget hard. Matthew Hongoltz-Hetling's account, A Libertarian Walks Into a Bear, is usually told as a joke, but it's a precise picture of an unpriced cost. Residents were free to leave food out and free not to secure their garbage. The black bears drawn in by those freedoms were a cost laid on every neighbor, with no rule to allocate it. Roads went unrepaired and services thinned out. Each liberty was real. The shared world they depended on wore away.

The authoritarian version goes the other way and keeps going. A system that scores itself only on the harms it fails to prevent will cut the old tree, shorten recess, and script discretion out of every job, because each prevented risk counts in its favor and nothing it destroys counts against it. It doesn't wear the shared world away by neglect. It takes the world apart one liability at a time.

Side by side: one frame can't see the harm people do to each other. The other can't see the harm it does itself.

Enforcement

The libertarian version tries to get property protection without a state, and keeps rebuilding one. Robert Nozick showed in Anarchy, State, and Utopia that competing private protection agencies would drift toward one dominant association with a de facto monopoly on force in a given territory. The experiments bear it out. The best-known seastead, a platform off the Thai coast in 2019, lasted a few months before the navy removed it and its occupants faced charges of threatening national sovereignty. Próspera, the charter city on the Honduran island of Roatán, was built to escape the state under a special Honduran law. When a new government repealed that law, the project's backers answered with an arbitration claim against Honduras for roughly ten billion dollars. A project designed to escape the state ended up needing a treaty, a tribunal, and the enforcement machinery of the international order to hold onto its property.

The authoritarian version starts with the monopoly and skips the drift. It's the enforcer the libertarian frame kept rebuilding, but with no market, no exit, and no one outside it to appeal to.

Side by side: the libertarian frame reaches a monopoly on force by accident and denies it. The authoritarian frame reaches it on purpose and calls it order.

Why the frames can't be reconciled

Down every row, the two columns fail as mirror images. Each frame's failure is the other frame's best argument. The libertarian points at Kelo, Flint, and the Cross Bronx Expressway and says: this is what authority does. The authoritarian points at the Sanderson stream and the Grafton bears and says: this is what freedom does. Both are right about the other column and blind to their own. That's why the argument never ends, and why the hostility the factually.co survey describes runs so hot. Each side is looking at a real injury.

But reading the table across the rows instead of down the columns shows something neither frame admits. In every row, the loser is the same person: the one who has to use the road, drink from the river, rent near the lot, or live beside the bears, without owning the chokepoint or holding the permit. And the winner is the same person too. Under the libertarian frame, it's whoever holds the land. Under the authoritarian frame, it's whoever holds the office that decides about the land, and in practice that office is lobbied, staffed, and very often captured by the same landholders. The frames disagree about who should control the chokepoint. They agree that somebody should, and that the people passing through it should pay whatever that somebody decides.

That's the real irreconcilability. It isn't between liberty and order. It's that neither frame has a place for the commons as a thing with its own claim, and so each one hands it to a keeper, private or public, and the keeper collects.

A third column

The way out isn't a midpoint between the two columns. It's a column neither one draws.

Property in what people make stays secure, the way the libertarian frame demands: the coat, the harvest, the house, the business, and the invention are the residue of free acts, and no permit office should stand between a person and them. Land stays securely held too, but carries a rent owed to the community that created most of its value. That's the land value tax Thomas Paine sketched in Agrarian Justice and Henry George built into a program, and it's the natural way to pay for the roads, courts, and enforcement both frames turn out to need. It also takes the profit out of the idle lot, whether it's being held for speculation or for a plan. Costs laid on others, like smoke, runoff, and bears, get priced by a general rule that applies to everyone, not negotiated permit by permit and not left to lawsuits nobody can afford.

That column has an enforcer, since every working version of either frame did. But the enforcer is paid from the value of the commons rather than handed the commons to manage, and nobody along the road holds a veto over everyone else's right to travel it.

A world without regulation roads isn't a free world. It's one where the owner of the right-of-way decides who goes anywhere. A world of nothing but regulation roads isn't a safe one either. It's one where the holder of the permit decides. The road worth building belongs to neither.

---

A note on how this piece was written: every argument, source, and structural decision in this essay is mine. I chose the examples, worked out the logic connecting them, and directed what each paragraph needed to say. The sentences themselves were drafted with AI assistance from that outline and then edited by hand. I'd rather say that plainly than have a reader guess at it.