You wouldn't need to put electronic toll booths everywhere?  Just lease tracking time from sattelites.

Outside which... that's more expensive then GPS would be... and most cars going foward are going to have GPS put in them by default anyway, as GPS technology is getting quite cheap.

Countries actually already do this on a smaller scale.  Germany is an example.  They use it to tax heavy trucks who they state are causing more undue burden on the roads.

Aside from which, again you proved yourself wrong with a specific, then tried to retreat behind a broad generalization... I mean, I'm not trying to disprove you.  You've already disproven yourself.

Besides, where you are from... you should know about how the government doesn't always provide paved roads either.

I mean, you've literally brought up the main point that proves you wrong... then tried to ignore that fact... and in general ignore that there are places with private roads, and other countries where the goverment uses functions that would work just like private methods would.

With the defense seemingly being "Because some roads wouldn't be built without the government, all roads should be built by the government."

Which seems like a poor arguement to say the least.  The "Bridge to Nowhere" is a project your familiar with... and were against being built afterall.  It's true that without government it would of never even been considered being built... and shouldn't of been.  Taxes collected nationally but spent locally on roads are just a bad idea.

2/3rds of swedish roads are private as was mentioned above.

Apparently they do a better job... for cheaper.

http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=783498

Just one datapoint of course(since it's one country)... but something to consider.

Personally, i'm more for all road taxation to come directly from local governments.  I feel like it's the best way to handle things to prevent corruption, but also keep roads where people want them.

However, I'm not dismissing private roads like you are... when they are perfectly viable in most cases.

So your solution is to make a new law requiring GPS on all vehicles, then spend trillions of dollars to put GPS devices on all vehicles, then spend trillions of dollars monitoring vehicles to make sure they have GPS devices on them, all while hampering economic activity by greatly increasing the cost of consumption.  Thats a great idea, you should be president.  Wait, lets privatize that to and name you king, since you seem to be an expert on everything.

The second sentence shows your general misunderstanding of economics.  What else should I say other than, "think about what you are arguing here."

So you are making a flawed argument that you don't agree with?  I guess it explains why it comes off as being so silly, but not why you'd bother making it.

Except... you wouldn't need to?  It's going to get to the point of where the GPS is already in everyones car already, fairly shortly.

In a good 10 years or so... it actually would be quite easy to pull off.  Heck, Germany is already pulling it off with trucks and a few cameras on various parts of the road to match up with GPS data and see who doesn't have GPS.

Again you keep saying "Can't happen!"

With things... that are happening.   In a few years Germany doesn't expect to need the cameras either.

Also, no, i'm not an expert on everything.  I just actually bother to research stuff before I post an opinion on something.

That's the advantage of the internet.  If you want you can inform yourself on a subject before you take a side.

I hate government. I hate businesses much much more.I have recently noticed that Amricanism is about as close to Capitalism as Communism was to Socialism. It only so happens that America's econimic system is sustained by $13 trillion, otherwise the US would have gone downhill in the 80s as well. Good thing Raegan decided to spend a crapton of money to bail it out. Furthermore, the most basic principle of "the best for cheapest prevails" has stopped working for well over a decade ago. It is no longer about which product is better, it's about who can lie to the consumer best. I laugh every time someone decides to praise capitalism.

I am slo extremely tired of the whole bullshit of how privatizing something that is a need, such as power, water, health, infrastructure, etc.will reduce costs. Yes, it will reduce costs, because that's what businesses do. Then a tsunami comes around and you cutting costs on the nuclear power plant just fucked the entire region. The business cuts costs and the next thing you know a whole new incurable disease, mad cow, appears.

I am not saying that government is inefficient, however I will take an inefficient government over a business ANY day. Businesses should stay in everything that isn't a need, and should never be allowed to come even close to such services/products.

So whats preventing people from not putting GPS on their vehicles so they don't have to be charged for driving on roads?  And why haven't you addressed the fact that directly charging people whenever they leave their homes would greatly reduce economic activity? 

What about "right of way" laws?  Everyone would immediately be a prisoner in their own homes, with no right to travel elsewhere.

How are you going to charge pedestrians to pay for sidewalks along the roads in urban areas?  GPS ankle bracelets on everyone?

This is getting more and more stupid as we go...

Double post.

What prevents it is... GPS are going to be in your car regardless.  Old cars won't by default have a GPS, but old cars will be gone shortly?

And... because it wouldn't?  Afterall, it's not like people are just outright losing money.  They're getting the money back they would be paying in road taxes... money that can be more efficently spent.

Furthermore

A)  By car... yeah.  Seems like a positive when it comes to cutting down on global warming and would lead to a rise of more use of public transporation and private buses.  Sounds like a good thing to me.  Don't see how it's much different at all from how things work now.  Outside the fact that you would be charged based on how much you use the road vs being overcharged for responsible use of a car, and undercharged for irresponsible use.

B) Why would you charge pedestrians?  Who was talking about privatising sidewalks?  If anything, just slap on a government regulation mandating that sidewalks have to be up to a certain code.

It only keeps sounding more ridiculious becuase you keep adding in things i've never said, simply out of an inability to notice the fact that this already exists and happens.

Not to mention you've completely ignored http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_road_association.

Which do things better with minimal government involvement.

Furthermore, doesn't your arguement agaisnt electronic tolls suggest that gasoline should be provided by the government for free?

All the same arguements you made in the above could be argued against private ownership of gasoline.

I don't see how electric tolling would be any different. 

What prevents people from hacking computer games and satellite television?  Oh wait...

Economics are all about human decision making.  By charging someone everytime they leave their home you greatly reduce their desire to travel and consume goods, hurting businesses and economic activity.

Not only by car, but by any means of travel.  Private roads are owned by businesses who don't what you to use their products for free.  That means if you want to leave your house in any form of transportation, even by foot or by bicycle, you are going to need to pay.

Who is going to pay for the sidewalks?  They aren't free you know.  What your purposing is that people who drive vehicles should pay for sidewalks for pedestrians.  Thats a 'free rider problem' (you read the 101 stuff didn't you), now we need to account for them somehow.  Ankle bracelets it is.  ssj12 will learn first hand about the free rider when he goes around collecting money for the road he is going to build.