These stories are interesting. In Washington, an oversize truck bumped into a support beam for a bridge over the Skagit river, leading to the bridge collapsing. In Missouri, two freight trains derailed and collided, leading to a bridge collapse.
It isn’t clear if the accidents caused the bridges to collapse, or there already were structural deficiencies due to poor repairs.
A pro-State troll says “Without the State, who would build and repair bridges?” That assumes that people are too stupid to repair bridges, without being forced at gunpoint to do it.
Many bridges are 50+ years old. It’s tempting to cut corners and do less maintenance. Then, where there’s a crisis, a big pork contract can be awarded to rebuild or repair the bridge.
What happens if the State does a lousy job repairing bridges? The people who are injured and inconvenienced by the lost bridges can’t file a claim to collect reimbursement. The State workers have immunity. They aren’t going to lose financially after a bridge collapse. In fact, after a disaster, they can get their budget increased.
There are plenty of ways to handle bridges and roads without the State. It requires a shift in thinking from what you were conditioned to believe. Local roads would be jointly owned and paid for by the residents in the area. Major roads would be toll roads, exactly as is done now. It’s possible to form a limited organization to handle roads, empowered to repair roads but do nothing else.
A pro-State troll says “The State taxation monopoly is required to build and repair roads.” The State has no “market feedback”, to ensure that resources are allocated appropriately. If the State overpays for a bridge, building an unnecessary bridge, that doesn’t matter because the pork project is funded via taxes. If the State is negligent and a bridge collapses or becomes unusable, the workers don’t suffer any negative consequences.