[SteveA]

Well, does the right of the owner to collect come from a user consenting to pay or from being the owner? ... etc.

From being the owner, but how is ownership rightly defined?

Let's jump back a bit further. What's a "right"? A right is something you feel is a moral/natural/just action you should be able to perform, unimpeded. Rights can only be universal in that they interact peaceably with others granted the similar right. For example the right to stand absolutely anywhere you desire is not a universal right because two people could desire to stand in exactly the same location with conflict/harm resulting.

So back to the question of ownership. Merely stating one is an owner of something isn't moral/natural/just etc. and enforcing such an arbitrary view of ownership could not be universal in that anyone could claim to own anything they wanted with a lot of conflict ensuing.

So why were ownership rights created in the first place - as a common respect for the endeavors/pursuit of happiness/privacy etc. of others. It's a mutual benefit to everyone to allow private ownership of things, but what's the criteria of this? Like the hypocratic oath - Do no harm. You can create/discover/possess most anything and claim ownership of it as long as these don't conflict with the prior interests of others, and if they do then such transfer of control needs to be agreed to by both parties. This is the manner in which we protect our private interests under a system that ensures each such transaction at least appears to be beneficial to both/all parties and often called free markets.

So, let's go back and look at who owns the road - those with vested interests in it that haven't already been compensated for these. An employee doesn't own a product they assisted in creating if they've voluntarily received compensation for it. They owned their labor and sold it in a voluntary manner. The employer paid resources in exchange for this labor and owns the product of it. The employee owns the wages received and has no claim over the product.

Now, who is the paid employee and who is the employer in the road scenario? Were the construction crews paid wages? Yes. Was the police officer paid wages? Yes. Were the politicians performing administrative functions paid wages? Yes. So it appears as though all of them have been paid compensation for their labors with regard to the road. Ah ha! I have it. The taxpayers that paid for this are the true owners as they still have resources invested in this and have not been paid wages in any voluntary exchange for their interest.

The claim by the police officer of owning the road is obvious false, just as I don't own the engineering department at work - my employer does.

So, do you not agree with it because it is illegitimate or is it illegitimate because you don't agree with it. You've already told me that a owner may charge fees for use of his property. Must these fee be voluntary also?

I view legitimacy of an authority as the extent to which one has voluntarily accepted it (which could be a contractual or implicit agreement as well, though explicit agreements are much preferred). If I marry my wife and make commitments because I entered into the agreement willingly, then the marriage is legitimate. Whereas if someone use threats of force or incarceration or other non-valuable methods of motivation to marry someone else then I would consider the marriage illegitimate. Agreements are only valid when both parties have something at risk and at least the potential for gain. Someone must over something of value, not merely an absence of harm, in the exchange. (For example, if someone gives there milk money to another to avoid the threat of being beaten up, it's not a binding agreement because one party offered nothing of value to motivate this exchange voluntarily from the other person).

I disagree with the legitimacy of the police officer claiming to own the road. I also disagree with the legitimacy of any specific public representative claiming ownership of it. They are both representative employees of the owners and receive compensation for their efforts.

Charging fees to use a road is a voluntary transaction between the owner and the user. Using a road without permission can violate the rights of the owner.

Though I'd like to encourage, and not merely for the sake of this discussion that people refrain from taking too black and white a view of ownership. There have often been times, in my opinion, when it has seemed that too strong a private claim, and right to deny access to others, has been asserted over something while ignoring prior interests of others in that resource. Though it may be true that noone in particular has a large claim relative to the person making it, many people have a small interest and the total prior interests of people outside this claim are significant. To put it simpler, someone might claim a space of ocean with keep out signs and as long as it's not too large an area likely no real conflicts result but many other people could have an interest passing through there and though each person passing by individually could easily go around this blockade, the costs of such to multiple people over time is greater than any benefit of privacy to the individual claiming to own that area. Land is a little different in that most people don't assume a right to walk through someone elses yard, but there have been historical examples of people placing unfounded claims on land much larger than this, irrespective of the interests of natives already living there.

Anyway, as long as the creation of the road didn't harm any prior interests, the owner has a rightful claim to charging others to use, and when/if they do, they do so in a voluntary fashion. Not paying to use it, despite the owners desire, would be violating the prior interests of the owner.

(Sorry if I'm so dang long winded. It's just a bad habit developed over time )

What private issues? Whether you can operate an automobile on those roads without wearing a seatbelt? How is that anymore of a private issue than Burger King requiring you to wear clothing and shoes inside their restaurant?

Point taken though a few other factors need to be consider. Buying food at a Burger King is optional - Burger King doesn't send the IRS to your house if you didn't pay enough for their burgers, also you didn't pay to help build the Burger King so have no claim to be a coowner, and to a minor extent, wearing shoes and a shirt has more of a public esthetic and sanitary effect, people in violation of this are often not even harrassed and when it is enforced it's merely a matter of leaving without being fined. I admit there are similarities but the primary mistake is that the underlying relationship is not based upon voluntary actions by the parties, with regard to the public road. It's very likely that someone who enjoyed eating at a restaurant with no shoes or shirt would NOT support Burger King, yet such a natural ability to "vote" in a free market is denied when it comes to public institutions - whether or not you like the public education system or even use it, you're paying for it, even if you send your children to private schools or don't have children. That's the crux of the issue.

Well, you are definitely helping me to understand some parts of libertarianism that I had been confused about. So, if a private parking garage charges owners more for parking expensive or frequently stolen cars than the lesser types, is that an injustice as well?

No. He invested the resources and took the risk, it's up to him to see whether or not others view this as valuable enough for him to earn a profit.

I think this is a discussion (the distinction between public and private) that I should avoid getting much deeper into until after I am able to get a better grasp of the libertarian worldview.

There is no single "Libertarian" view really but just a lot of similar complaints from people. I've been trying to see more sides of the issues to see if much of the complaints from similar root causes, and I believe this is the case.

Make up your own view and test it against others and see what makes the most sense. That's the beauty if libertarian views, in general, we only have to be able to agree on a few issues to ensure a peaceful respect for others interests and can then leave the rest to be privately addressed as each individual sees best.

A site you might want to look at also is:
www.mises.org

They have a lot of semi-technical posts regarding many economic and ownership issues centered around free markets.