31.01.2013 Views

The Privatization of Roads and Highways - Ludwig von Mises Institute

The Privatization of Roads and Highways - Ludwig von Mises Institute

The Privatization of Roads and Highways - Ludwig von Mises Institute

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

414 <strong>The</strong> <strong>Privatization</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Roads</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Highways</strong><br />

is the antidote to this wrongdoing? Do “we” the current owners<br />

<strong>of</strong> this l<strong>and</strong> give it back when <strong>and</strong> where an heir to the original<br />

owners can be found? Can there be parallels drawn between<br />

property stolen from the Russian or Cuban aristocracies in the<br />

communist revolutions with property stolen from Indians in<br />

North America? What’s the difference? <strong>The</strong>se questions are all<br />

relevant to road building, since if the Native Americans really<br />

own virtually all the l<strong>and</strong>, <strong>and</strong> they do not wish to sell it for<br />

roads, that pretty much ends exp<strong>and</strong>ing this form <strong>of</strong> transportation.<br />

If reparations are paid to them in the form <strong>of</strong> l<strong>and</strong>, we may<br />

be forced to destroy most <strong>of</strong> our highways.<br />

WALTER BLOCK: First <strong>of</strong> all, even if I accept your premise in its<br />

entirety, that the Indians really own most <strong>of</strong> the territory <strong>of</strong> the<br />

U.S., it is by no means clear that they would wish all or even most<br />

<strong>of</strong> the roads to be turned back into farml<strong>and</strong> or forests or hunting<br />

preserves, or whatever. Surely, most <strong>of</strong> this acreage is worth far<br />

more in support <strong>of</strong> highways <strong>and</strong> streets than for these other purposes.<br />

If the Natives own it, why would they want to suffer the<br />

vast economic losses entailed in such conversions? Because farms<br />

<strong>and</strong> woodl<strong>and</strong>s are more consistent with their “culture”?<br />

Unlikely in the extreme. <strong>The</strong>y now preside over a plethora <strong>of</strong><br />

western, oriented, gambling establishments, due to loopholes in<br />

the law, <strong>and</strong> it is difficult to argue that these are part <strong>of</strong> their traditions.<br />

No, pr<strong>of</strong>it maximization is no monopoly <strong>of</strong> white, blacks<br />

or orientals.<br />

Second, it is by no means clear that the Indians are the rightful<br />

owners <strong>of</strong> anything like the entire U.S. Under libertarian law,<br />

they could justly claim only those parts <strong>of</strong> the l<strong>and</strong> that they<br />

homesteaded, or occupied, not hunted over. <strong>The</strong>y owned those<br />

paths that they used to get from their winter to their summer<br />

places. This is based on the Lockean-Rothbardian-Hoppean<br />

homesteading theory. I estimate that they owned, in this way, at<br />

most 1 percent <strong>of</strong> the l<strong>and</strong> in the US. 3<br />

3 See on this several articles I wrote on the topic: Walter Block, “On<br />

Reparations to Blacks for Slavery,” Human Rights Review 3, no. 4

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!