[ShadowAce]

The one argument I've been having with a socialist is federally funded highways.

He claims I'm a hypocrite for espousing very limited gov't while still using interstate highways and other federally funded roads.

My position, though very unrealistic at this point, is that federal gov't should be responsible for national defense and nothing else.

[BitWielder1]

The argument is of course that roads are a shared resource and how else would you pay for them.
After all, everyone benefits. Even those who don't drive benefits from goods and services delivered by road.
Tolls and Fuel taxes work, as long as the gov't does not loot it for other things.
Government could easily contract private companies to do the actual construction and maintenance work, wherever they don't do so already.
(Someone in the business enlighten us please?)

...federal gov't should be responsible for national defense and nothing else.

Agree. But even that could be contracted to a professional force.

[William Tell]

ShadowAce said: "My position, though very unrealistic at this point, is that federal gov't should be responsible for national defense and nothing else. "

I seem to recall that the specifications for the interstate highways enabled them to withstand the weight of a column of tanks, as would be needed to reposition a sizeable armored force anywhere within the U.S.