One of the more interesting arguments for socialism is the argument from sectoral successes, that is, with particular socialistic enterprises, the prime example being roads. As libertarian economist Walter Block chided Milton Friedman once, Friedman’s support for public roads amounted to a “road socialism.” And most folks, upon hearing that, would raise an eyebrow and pull out of the driveway and say, “if this be socialism, make the most of it.” That is why socialists bring up the roads as an example of how all-sector socialism could work.
And they have a point: our road system is awfully socialistic. Of the main features of socialism, it has all but two*: the economic good, road access, is not now provided on an egalitarian or needs basis, but instead (1) to all permitted drivers as much as they want, (2) funded by a fairly efficient set of use taxes, on fuel and licensing, etc.
Now, Professor Block has done important work showing not only that private roads do work and have worked, here and there, and could work if universalized. But, let us admit it, his (and similar) writings notwithstanding, road socialism has not been a complete disaster, and is widely popular, unquestioned.
Does road socialism provide a good blueprint for generalized, all-sector socialism? No. But instead of providing the many usual reasons given, I will suggest another way to look at it.
Road socialism in America is an excellent example of how we tend to “regulate a commons”: ruthlessly and with special attention to prosecution (and overburdening) of the poor.
Have you ever been to a traffic court? It is apparent: every unwanted or slightly dangerous behavior is criminalized. The cops are oppressive. The rules are numerous. And the system is exploitative, often nothing more than a shake-down operation. Pleading before the court, the general run of those who challenge the system tend to be abject in their petitions. And the general theme of oppression stinks up these venues, as the states and municipalities nickel-and-dime the least successful in our society.
Think of that system writ large!
On the private roads, there is a perceptible tendency for road owners to provide help, not deliver beat-downs and stick-ups. Road service is more useful than cops, in most cases. Suggestions and highway engineering that encourage safe driving have been found to be more effective than patrolling, but our commons regulators insist upon tickets, property confiscations, and even prison terms.
So there you have it. Road socialism provides a blueprint for social tyranny.
For the good of society at large, the roads should be privatized, just to make life more peaceful and less deadening. Driving need not be regulated by fear. The fact that our most socialistic sector of society is run along authoritarian and exploitative lines should indicate what a bad idea imitating public roads would be for yet more sectors of society.
Go to traffic court, and come to your senses: no more of this! No more socialism. Please.
twv
* Not counting sector limitations, of course.
Wirkman Comment 
Of course, you’ve made some valuable points. But those who were looking for an argument for socialism are unlikely to learn from them.
Those who argue for socialism by pointing to state-funded and managed roads imagine, based upon a complete or nearly complete lack of familiarity with private provision, that roads provide an empirical case. Some of them simply fail to consider that state provision crowds out private provision; others regard the whole idea of private provision as utterly implausible in any case. For the latter group, roads are what light-houses were in the mind of Paul A. Samuelson.
In that context, one can point them to the realities that you note, and they will either imagine that the present order is about the best possible in the peculiar case of roads, or that it would be relatively easy to adopt a better sort of road socialism.
However, I think that if one has an audience who are not so eager to imagine private provision as untenable, then your point is one that should be made forcefully, and I will carry it with me.
The crowding-out factor is something I like to call attention to by recourse to the bully scenario, where the taunt is “why don’t you get up?” while the questioner repeatedly kicks the person he has knocked down.
Why has there been no free society in the manner we specify? Because you, Sir Ruffian (speaking to a challenger), prevent it. Why keep kicking us and then demand that we prove to you that we could manage just fine … without your kicks?
[…] reminded of an argument against socialism: government-run enterprises tend to be run “ruthlessly and with special […]