> Can you show a single developed country with a successful private transportation system?
Not on a national scale, no, unless you count any passenger rail or air systems as "successful" and "private." But that's not really a sufficient argument. Obviously, it would be nearly impossible to compete with taxation and eminent domain at the scale they are used in modern developed nations.
> Showing that public roads lead to inefficiency and perverse incentives doesn't point to a solution. It just points to a problem. You still have to find a solution that works.
What do you mean I have to find a solution that works? Does that mean I don't get to propose new solutions and argue for why I think they should work?
> I think this argument is bit of cop-out, well we can't make argument how libertarianism would work so we can poke at something government subsidized and tell everyone how it is broken.
I can make an argument for how libertarianism (or rather, a specific societal organization that some might consider to be "libertarian") could work.
> To me it seems this is not unlike Communism argument...
Well, I don't think communism works well in theory or in practice. I am advocating for markets, and there is a great deal of theoretical and practical evidence for why markets perform well.
> no, unless you count any passenger rail or air systems as "successful" and "private." But that's not really a sufficient argument.
Well actually that is not bad. I mean air systems are private and they work. So a good argument. Not without heavy regulation but nevertheless. Now, one can argue that looking at just aircraft flying in the sky is not enough, one has to obviously look at airports. And there it is back to government allocating and sponsoring development.
What about passenger rail? I can't think successful modern national-level private passenger rail systems.
> Does that mean I don't get to propose new solutions and argue for why I think they should work?
Sorry, I meant the difference between just showing that highways produce some inefficiencies. That is not hard to do, it is a simple argument in a way. Some imminent domain is taken, government paid for some of it. Makes rail more expensive, so can't quite compete with it. Is that a basic rehash? A more interesting argument is to propose something that works. Say, privatize roads. How would that work and why are there no large scale examples of it, if it is supposedly a good idea.
> I can make an argument for how libertarianism
I guess I misunderstood your argument as more being about showing an inefficiency in a government run project. That is not too hard. But what to do about it. It might seem "privatise" is the clear answer. But the other answer is "not have it at all" or have something else, or even enhance government control over it.
We are almost there with the post office. It is inefficient, outdated, and dying. But it still delivers mail to places where it makes no financial sense to deliver for someone like FedEx. If USPO shut down, I think necessarily in many places there would anything in its places. Maybe that is the correct answer or maybe it isn't.
Not on a national scale, no, unless you count any passenger rail or air systems as "successful" and "private." But that's not really a sufficient argument. Obviously, it would be nearly impossible to compete with taxation and eminent domain at the scale they are used in modern developed nations.
> Showing that public roads lead to inefficiency and perverse incentives doesn't point to a solution. It just points to a problem. You still have to find a solution that works.
What do you mean I have to find a solution that works? Does that mean I don't get to propose new solutions and argue for why I think they should work?
> I think this argument is bit of cop-out, well we can't make argument how libertarianism would work so we can poke at something government subsidized and tell everyone how it is broken.
I can make an argument for how libertarianism (or rather, a specific societal organization that some might consider to be "libertarian") could work.
> To me it seems this is not unlike Communism argument...
Well, I don't think communism works well in theory or in practice. I am advocating for markets, and there is a great deal of theoretical and practical evidence for why markets perform well.