Originally Posted by BucEyedPea
No you don't. You suffer from mainstream in-the-box thinking which omits a lot of economic history. Most historians don't write about economic history. You have not not studied alternatives and are closed to new ideas.
Again, I am NOT a libertarian.
Cities maintained city roads, not companies, in early America. The toll roads you are talking about were between cities and mainly over water-ways (A bridge can act like a monopoly, if you have to cross a river and that bridge is the only way, well there you go) They died out as the governed sponsored canals and railroads - Sponsored because of the economic benefit to the entire country of transportation infrastructure that would connect the whole country.
In your free market idea, What happens when a segment of the country is not cost effective to bring infrastructure? What happens if a company can't make a profit off a road. Here is an example using electricity:
"Although nearly 90 percent of urban dwellers had electricity by the 1930s, only ten percent of rural dwellers did. Private utility companies, who supplied electric power to most of the nation's consumers, argued that it was too expensive to string electric lines to isolated rural farmsteads.
Anyway, they said, most farmers, were too poor to be able to afford electricity.
The Roosevelt Administration believed that if private enterprise could not supply electric power to the people, then it was the duty of the government to do so. Most of the court cases involving TVA during the 1930s concerned the government's involvement in the public utilities industry."