I didn't really want to get into this on this board, but would love to hash it out at length if you want to open a thread elsewhere. I love this stuff.

I find the most enlightening and challenging arguments on this subject are with people who are generally economically conservative, but are still convinced that without government managing the economy to a great extent, an economy could not function. I've had some really good discussions along these lines with Mark Eby, though they have already flowed into the great beyond. I regret that some really good stuff just fades away here--it's out there but hard to find-- although the bookmarking helps sometimes. It also helps to adopt a philosophy of impermanence, like Navajo sand paintings.

What I am finding fascinating is how deeply the idea of using government force to provide things is now ingrained in even the most reasonable people, ones who would not qualify as socialist under almost any definition. It's an odd thinking pattern. I know people pushing for a Federal prescription drug program who would cut their right arm off before they went door to door to ask for money for Granny's pills. Somehow laundering it through the Treasury changes something. I'm not sure what.

Your idea that the right to move about freely implies a moral imperative to use government force to build roads is another example. Where does the "right to move about freely" imply the right to a particular mode of tranportation? Or to allow one to force others to build roads? The exact same justification could be used to promote a government program to provide free automobiles for everyone. Heck, how many people walk down those highways? Obviously an automobile is essential to the "right to move about freely" if a highway is.

Monopolies are often touted as a natural result of free economies, but how many monopolies are you aware of through history that were not somehow enforced or facilitated by government? Usually with the enthusiastic support of the monopoly? There have been a few purely private monopolies, but they were earned by performance, not by threats.

It's a moot point anyway. If all the roads were privately owned, they would be owned by many different entities, combinations of large organizations and small ones. Rural roads might be built and run by local cooperatives. Car companies might own roads, and would be encouraged to maximize traffic use with low tolls. A company that built a road in a geographically-limited area and then charged ruinous prices would not make as much money as a high-volume, low cost approach. And you can be damn sure no one would hire him to build any other roads. There would be many different solutions in many different areas. Standards of width, signage and such would be set, not because they are forced by government, but because they are a good idea. Private industry has a long, successful history of setting standards and policing themselves before government became the default for it. There were abuses, sure, but they were exceptions, not the rule.

Look around you at how many things are provided for you without government force. Essential things, like food.

In five years time, will people in rural areas have a range of communications options roughly equivalent to those enjoyed by people in the cities, and at roughly equivalent cost? That "equivalent cost" part may sound like a setup, but it's implicit in your assertion that free market forces will automatically solve the problem, because the problem isn't solved unless you address the cost issue along with the technology. Looking at technology alone is too easy; a technology can't really be considered successful unless it also is economically successful.

If you insist that everyone gets to pay the same price for a service, regardless of what effort and cost it takes to deliver it to different places, then the free market will probably never meet your standards.

If you are willing to accept that a person in the boondocks will be able to get services at an affordable price, although probably a higher price than someone living next to the phone company will pay, then you're on. It goes without saying that unless people can afford the service, the company providing it isn't going to sell many units. Here is just one example of a private company working this problem that I found with a search.

You're last sentence in the quote above is eminently true, which is why electric cars went down the toilet. For now...