The argument is simple: If road builders are claiming they are obligated more money than they were paid initially because the road led to a successful business than that same road is also obligated for the money spent/lost on unsuccessful businesses. You can't say it's good for the goose and bad for the gander.


Really this logic of yours means that the road builders pay is dependent on the future success of businesses that locate on or close to that road. The pay they initially receive is fluid. If that's going to be the case then let it be the case- my logic would be the same as your but takes the logic to it's logical conclusion: if the pay is fluid depending on the success of future businesses then it should be fluid on the failure as well.

However that is just wealth redistribution. The road's expenses are finite and if the road builder is in the business to make a profit then like everyone else they need to do so at the time of monetary exchange- the time they are paid. The store you bought something from cannot come to you some undetermined time later and claim you owe them more for the purchase. Investors cannot claim they are owed more money for a financial instrument they sold earlier. The road builder cannot tell people and businesses who succeed or fail on that road that they owe him unless those people came to a prior agreement regarding said success or failure.