How I profited from efficient use of resources: and how the state ruined me

The problem

Leaving my subdivision you arrive at a "T" in the road.  You can turn left or right and there are two lanes to turn into which ever direction you choose.  As you approach the intersection you may move into the right lane to turn right, move into the left turn lane to turn left, or scratch your head about the ambiguous middle lane.  Upon a 5 second reflection, you realize that this middle lane can be used to turn either left or right without interfering with traffic (illustrated below).

Every morning this middle lane remains free of traffic.  I choose to use this lane.  Most people are trying to turn right so I often pass 15 cars waiting foolishly to turn right.  Some of these drivers disobey the rules of the road and cross into my lane as they turn.  Horns honk and I've found myself in 1 yelling match with a lady who didn't understand what is meant by staying in one's lane.  This kind of driving is reckless on their part and is against against the law - I know, I've downloaded and read the Texas drivers manual.

We live in a world of socialist roads, and yet I was still able to profit even under this system of compulsory monopoly.  I was an example for all my fellow drivers, showing them how we can better use the roads.  Unfortunately, most of them ignored me, buying into the value of "fairness" and "equality".  If one person has to wait 3 minutes to turn right then we all should!  Furthermore we should honk and yell and hate those 1% that efficiently use the roads, who seek out ways to expedite our commutes, and thus keep congestion down for everyone.  Bah! I say, I'm a libertarian, I'm about maximizing social utility, not making sure we're all equally miserable.

Truly, I felt like an entrepreneur every morning, profiting from others inability to see opportunities in front of them.  At the same time, I was teaching my fellow driver how to better use the roads while reducing the traffic problem.  I was astonished how few followed my lead, after about a year of being an example every morning, I saw only one other person use the middle lane.

WWTMD

Given the congestion, one might ask, What Would The Market Do?  A road company may observe the problem and then hire someone to stand out at the intersection for a few mornings and direct people to the middle lane.  After all, these are commuters i.e. repeat customers, so a few mornings is all it'd take to completely alleviate the problem.  The road company could hire me, but I'd probably end up yelling "come on you idiots, what do you think this lane is here for!?"  I'd then promptly, and appropriately, be fired.

Such a road company would have the goal of keeping costs down, congestion down, and safety up.  The solution would cost no more than a couple hundred dollars, perhaps even less if they just hung a sign that read, "Use the middle lane moron!"

What the state did

After one becomes a libertarian it takes roughly 6.8 minutes before someone asks, "But what about roads!? Herp derp!"  Yes, I'm being purposefully condescending, and disrespectful.  But it's because of what the state did that this kind of treatment is wholly justified.  It is absolutely disgusting and disturbing to witness what the state did to "alleviate" the congestion "problem".  Therefore, I say, anyone who praises the state for roads, must also love buying houses with broken windows.  They will witness the furthest extent of my wrath for their economic ignorance.

The state installed a goddamn stop light!  They spent tens of thousands of dollars, perhaps hundreds of thousands, to install a useless stop light!  This means that now all directions have to stop and wait for 550nm wavelengths to start radiating from the new electronics before drivers can be assured they have state permission to move their vehicle.  Previously, drivers driving along the straight (top of the "T") part of the road drove by without slowing down, further allowing traffic to flow rather than be regulated in a jolty, awkward manner.  Now, each morning and evening, they pray that their commute isn't needlessly slowed by this completely unnecessary contraption of the state.  

But I haven't even come to the most egregious part of the story.  The state, in their infinite wisdom have decided to outlaw turning right from the middle lane on a red light!!  Even though this causes no traffic problems at all, and is done all over the city, we are not allowed to turn right on red from the middle lane at this intersection!  Why couldn't they have hung my sign that read "use the middle lane, moron" and saved the tax payers thousands of dollars!?  Now I sit, on my way to work, and on my way back, at this stupid light, this beacon of government waste.  The community now needs more brakes to stop, more fuel to reaccelerate, and more thumbs to stick up their butts while we wait idling at a red light.  They should just inscribe and hammer and sickle on red to make sure we all know we're under state control and supposedly helpless without them. 

This light typifies the state in every aspect: the waste, the inefficiency, the compulsion, the favoring of socialism over entrepreneurship, and more as I explain below.  Sure, I could write the local authorities and ask them to remove the light, but the capital has already been used up, the light is installed and running.  Just like all new government programs, it is now a permanent fixture of life almost impossible to reverse.  I will have to continue paying for its upkeep, the electricity used to power it, the gas now being wasted sitting at a light.

Will the state lose market share for it's squandering of resources?  It can't, it outlaws competition and mandates payment for its poor management.  At the same time it will vilify those who speak out against it, it'll point to the roads and the Stop Lights all over town and ask, "how would these be provided if it were not for the state?"  Obviously, I could run things better.  Does this mean I should run for office?  Of course not, my skills are far more useful and productive being employed writing software to bring cheaper energy to all of society.  Furthermore, politics rewards those who are good at manipulating others, lying, gaining political favor, not those keen on efficiently employing scarce resources.

Why did the state install a light?  There was a congestion problem.  Inept and reckless drivers, those unwilling to stay in their lane or use the middle lane, are being bailed out by the state.  Just like the reckless banks or poorly managed auto companies, a moral hazard is being promoted by the state.  Drive poorly?  No problem, we'll install a light so you can continue endangering other drivers.  Responsible drivers, those that follow the rules, are being punished and forced to pay for the light and the bad behavior.

This example illustrates everything that's wrong with the state and everything that's right with the market.  I came up with a simple, cost effective solution to help congestion.  I profited from it and the state came along and ruined me.  On a very minor scale I experienced the frustration Joe Stack must have felt before flying his plane into an IRS building.  This monstrosity, the leviathan known as the state destroys all that is good and peaceful and replaces it with machinery that hinders social progress and suppresses human flourishing.  So in summary, fuck the state, fuck our socialist roads, and fuck the moronic drivers that don't know how to turn from a fucking middle lane!

Your worst fears of business are already realized in the state

I don't make a habit of appealing to conspiracy theories, but it seems that public schools has some 'splainin' to do.  The logic of my fellow American and fellow earthling is lacking severely in the realm of political thought.  When you take a step back and view the world and its inhabitants for what they are you realize what a waste of time high school civics was.  Who needs a theory of legislating when the concept of the state is inconsistent with and a revolt against nature and humanitarianism?

Saying that we were brainwashed would discredit what I have to say, but I have not yet been able to come up with a better way to explain the absurd arguments for the state and against freedom.  For it seems to me that all the objections I hear opposing free markets are tens times more applicable to the state.  Here are a few examples.

1) "If roads were private we'd have corporations buying up all the roads and charging whatever they want"

So to avoid a monopoly of road ownership we need to establish from the onset a monopoly of road ownership given to the government.  This new monopoly has the power to extract funds from everyone, even those that rarely use the road or do not use the road at all.  This monopoly has the right to claim whatever land it wants to build new roads, and it gets to determine what the "fair" price of this land is.

With privatized roads perhaps a monopoly would arise, but competition would not be outlawed, eminent domain would not trample private property, and opting out of road use and thus road funding would be possible and legal.  Government is not liable for deaths that occur on their roads and they are less accountable in general because roads are bundled into a thousands of other government functions many of which (such as war) overshadow the inefficiencies of roads.  Is there any doubt that government roads are the worst possible solution?

2) "You want corporations to run the military?  You're an idiot"

Ad hominem attacks are all I ever get in this situation so this is the best I can do at representing the argument.  My same response about roads applies to this but it is even more important to have a private military than private roads.  Why?  Our military (or foreign presence in general), believe it or not, is responsible for a lot of bad stuff.  They assassinate, torture, murder, and provoke.  The first time I hear that my defense contractor is torturing people I cancel my subscription as I'm sure many others would.  We wouldn't have to wait 8 years to elect a new president who promises our war money back only to betray us when he takes office.  Such a military leader is liable for fraud and would be prosecuted.

The current military is funded by coercion, not consent.  Drafts add in the element of kidnapping by conscription.  Politicians are kept in power by the massive military industrial complex.  The synergy that exists with publicly funded military interests such as Blackwater, Ratheon, Halliburton, Boeing, etc. could not exist as they do today with private defense.  Defense companies that try to spend a trillion dollars in a year would find it impossible to find a customer base willing to agree to such a ridiculous scope of foreign entanglement.

I also hear that our defense is only as good as it is because people are forced to pay for it.  My response is (a) there's so much "defense" that we endanger ourselves by putting troops where they don't belong (b) there's far too much potential for abuse (see comments of torture above) and (c) a free society would be so prosperous that defense costs would be minimal expenditures and would most likely be handled by insurance companies.

3) "Without the FDA we'd be eating poisoned food"

No one says this, right?  Sigh, I'm afraid they do.  Chris Mathews said it about two weeks ago.  Guess what?  Businesses don't want to kill their customers!  It's bad for business!  I'm all for private regulation and of course competition in private regulation.  Why would we think a monopoly on regulation would be a good thing?  They can't go out of business, if they do a bad job they can say it's because they had insufficient funding and get more money... why would we expect this to be a good solution?

4)  "All that business cares about is the bottom line."

Lew Rockwell has said that "profits are an indication that services are being rendered on a voluntary basis".  "The Bottom Line" is how business calculates whether or not it is putting its resources to good use and serving people.  In this sense, all businesses should care about is it's bottom line; it provides a metric of how they benefit society.

How does this apply to government?  "All politicians care about is a vote".  While businesses daily have to fight for your vote, for your confidence, politicians only have to do it every 2, 4, or 6 years.  But more importantly than this is that politicians can be elected by benefiting the majority at the expense of the minority.  Businesses are putting their own resources on the line while politicians confiscate others' resources for the benefit of their constituents.  Businesses do not pander to the majority because profits are often found by serving a minor niche in society previously unfulfilled.  It is a far more efficient and ethical way of human interaction and cooperation.

5) "Business pollutes and destroys the environment"

Yes, some businesses pollute, but government is in charge of upholding private property rights.  The US government has, since the industrial revolution, found that it was in the public's interest to allow producers to pollute family farms and households.  For over a hundred years the individual has had little recourse when it comes to polluted land.  Businesses that pollute should be fined and these fines will make it prohibitively expensive to continue doing business.

The tragedy of the commons is not a problem of the free market it's the problem of collectivism.  Consider a basket of shared resources.  Human nature and scarcity being what they are, it is only natural to consume as much of these resources as possible because not doing so results in someone else consuming the scarce resources.  Only through property rights can resources be conserved, replinished, and rationed.  Today's modern and most disturbing examples of pollution and tragedy of the commons are found in our water ways.  Government does not allow ownership of the oceans, rivers, lakes etc. and so we have massive pollution and over fishing.  Buffalo were nearly wiped out because the US government opened the middle of the country to every cowboy (real ones, driving cattle) which used up the vegetation and left the land barren.  The buffalo were hunted for meat and this open country was in bad sorts.  The establishment of property rights in the plain states saved the buffalo and it can save our oceans, lakes, and rivers. 

I might continue this to another post.  Other topics would include money creation, courts, police, banking and the FDIC, healthcare, social security, parks, and I'm also open to suggestions.