But who will build the roads?

[madfranks]

"But who will build the roads?"

You've probably heard that one before. Try to tell someone that government does more harm than good, and that it should be drastically cut back in size, and you'll eventually hear this argument. Or that conversation probably went something like this...

http://s7.postimg.org/w7ndd2nij/the_roads.png

Roads, after all, are the quintessential public good.

When I say something is a public good, I mean that there's little incentive for a private firm or individual to invest the time, capital, and resources into building them. It will be hard to earn revenue on your investment, and besides, practically everyone thinks roads should be free.

But there ain't no such thing as a free lunch, right?

If you've ever driven across a bridge with a toll, you should know there are ways to collect money on roads. After all, a bridge is just a specific type of road.

So if the right circumstances arise, there might be an opportunity for an ambitious entrepreneur to build a road, and collect a nice profit in return. Before you call this man a greedy capitalist looking to take advantage of helpless consumers, you'll want to hear this story from the U.K.

Back in February, there was a landslide on the A431, a road between the towns of Bristol and Bath. Cracks in the road made it too dangerous to use, and the government shut it down. Sounds terrible, right?

It gets worse. The local government said they wouldn't be able to repair the road until the end of the year. So all the people who use this road every day were faced with a 10 mile detour.

So, along comes a guy by the name of Mike Watts. He saw the problem. This landslide affected the lives of thousands of commuters. And instead of sitting back and letting the government take care of it, he decided to build his own road.

A 340 yard road.

But it wasn't cheap. Just over 1,000 feet of new road cost the man £150,000 (over $250,000). So to cover his costs, he's charging drivers a toll to use his road. £2 for a car or van, and £1 for any motorcycles. Trucks and other large vehicles, unfortunately, aren't allowed, so they'll have to take the 10 mile detour.

Ask yourself this. Would you be willing to pay roughly $3.30 to avoid the detour? That's the decision these drivers now have to make everyday.

Regardless of your answer, just know that you now have a choice thanks to this entrepreneur. Sure, you can still take the "free" detour provided by the government. And if money was tight, that's a smart choice. But imagine if you're running late to a meeting, or someone you love got hurt and you needed to get to the hospital.

Because of this man's "greed", you have the option to pay a little money to get where you need to go quicker.

That's the essence of the free market. It's not meant to force you into one government prescribed option or the other. It provides the incentives to take a chance, invest the time and money into something, and hope that future customers agree with you. And if they do, they'll freely give you their money.

But Mike Watts and the paying drivers aren't the only ones benefitting from this toll. Businesses along the closed road saw their sales dropping as a result of the closure. So even though they didn't pay for the new road, they're indirectly benefitting from it.

As amazing as this story is, not everyone is happy. A council spokesman, i.e. the local government's mouthpiece, said:

"Why we appreciate the difficulties residents have experiences, it's not just the planning, it's the safety and legal aspects of drivers using the road." He added: "Work has started to deliver a solution as quickly as possible."

In other words, the local government thought they could push off repairing the road into the future because there was nothing customers could do about it. They never expected anyone to have the guts to actually build a competing road.

If this does spur the government to get its act together and fix the road ahead of schedule, then that's great news for drivers... but bad news for Mike Watts. You see, he's already dropped £150,000 to build the road. And he's planning on spending another £150,000 on maintenance and labor costs. So he's going to need to get at least 30,000 paying drivers just to break even.

If the A431 gets fixed before that, then Mike's out of luck. But those are the risks you take when you're out looking to turn a profit.

Entrepreneurs like Mike don't sit and wait for the government to take care of them. If they see a need for something, they'll do what it takes to fulfill that need. It's people like him, and not the bureaucrats and politicians in power, who make the world a better place.

[Glass]

I wonder if Mike did a deal with someone, say in the Roads Department where the road can't get mended for the best part of a year? Maybe the road won't get mended at all. I've never heard of deals done between business people and government crooks to divert/force/coerce people to use a service or a particular road.

In Australia, Toll roads are created with certain guarantees of traffic volume. This protects revenue for the Toll operator. The only way government can deliver this is to divert people onto the Toll roads and they do that by shutting down other routes with repairs. I have never understood road Tolls in societies where they pay taxes. Not that they do it, because crooks will do anything for a buck but that people accept it and pay twice for something. We don't have tolls in this state but there is constant talk that we must have them because the improve congestion. I think that means they create more because there are actually less routes. More of something is always an improvement right?

[Ponce]

Only those who are making a living from the government are afraid to loose the government.....otherwise.....more free you would be.

V

[Sparky]

Food for thought:

1. How was he able to build a road on land that he did not own? Per Glass's comment, was the government a partner in this arrangement?
2. Would the people have been less willing to pay the toll if they thought it wasn't temporary?
3. Who will build the four lane highways, if 1000 feet of road costs a quarter-million dollars?

[madfranks]

Food for thought:

1. How was he able to build a road on land that he did not own? Per Glass's comment, was the government a partner in this arrangement?
2. Would the people have been less willing to pay the toll if they thought it wasn't temporary?
3. Who will build the four lane highways, if 1000 feet of road costs a quarter-million dollars?

To answer your #1, I don't think he built the road over the old one, I think he owned an adjacent stretch of land, which he used, and tied into, the existing road.

[iOWNme]

Food for thought:


3. Who will build the four lane highways, if 1000 feet of road costs a quarter-million dollars?

The same individuals who build it now, only it would be much cheaper, better built and better maintained without the Monopoly of 'Government' in the way. Next, without 'Government' to inflate the currency, said highway would cost 1/10th of what it does now.

Seriously, do you honestly IMAGINE that without 'Government' individuals wouldnt be able to build a flat place? (sometimes called a 'road')

[Shami-Amourae]

The only really use for a government I see is to keep borders to keep out foreign invaders. If they can't do that I don't see how they are not a part of the problem.

[iOWNme]

The only really use for a government I see is to keep borders to keep out foreign invaders. If they can't do that I don't see how they are not a part of the problem.


So what your saying is that the 'Government' owns everything in this country, INCLUDING YOUR private property? Because if you OWNED your house and car YOU would get to decide who gets to go inside and ride. What if you meet an amazing woman in another country and want to bring her back to YOUR home? Should you have to ask the 'Government' for permission? Should you have to pay the 'Government' $10k in order to get her inside the boarders?

When you advocate for 'boarders' you advocate for the 'Government' to CONTROL your private property.

If there were no 'Government' to hand out goodies, NOBODY would come here. LOL

[osoab]

No info on the number of cars per day that were using the now closed road.

That is the number to look at to see how quickly he recovers his investment.

[Glass]

Here is a news article on Tollways from this mornings news down here:

Transurban pays just $3 million tax, despite collecting $1 billion in tolls
Australia's monopoly toll road operator Transurban paid $3 million tax last year despite racking up $1 billion in tolls from motorists.
As the debate rages over "lifters and leaners" in the wake of Treasurer Joe Hockey's federal budget, the Transurban financial statements for 2014 put in stark relief the paltry income tax contributions which some large corporations are making to the Commonwealth coffers.

Transurban Holdings Limited, the umbrella company which holds the lucrative toll-road assets in Sydney and Melbourne, notched up $1 billion in toll revenues last year. The company was able to achieve this thanks to the way in which it structures its financial accounts and runs high debt levels. Some $344 million was paid in interest on Transurban's massive $6.8 billion in borrowings.

Interest payments are tax deductible and have the effect of bringing down profits from which tax is ultimately paid. Earnings (before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation charges) came in at $759 million.

Actual income tax paid was just $3 million, down from $12 million last year.



Corporate tax rate here is 30%. So the tax would be about $300 million. You would think it was somewhere close but these guys can deduct all of that tax away. I have no problem with reducing tax but to go from $300 million to just $3 million suggests something it seriously wrong.

Also note that it is a monopoly which is illegal under law here. We have many duopolies here which aren't much better. Easier to collude when there is only 2 companies in the industry. I hate toll roads. I think they are a scam in the current taxation structure.

[madfranks]

The only really use for a government I see is to keep borders to keep out foreign invaders. If they can't do that I don't see how they are not a part of the problem.

Read "Chaos Theory" by Robert P Murphy, he has a section on private defense.

[Sparky]

...
Seriously, do you honestly IMAGINE that without 'Government' individuals wouldnt be able to build a flat place? (sometimes called a 'road')

No, I mean who could afford to put up the capital? Highways cost a million bucks per lane-mile. Six lanes for 100 miles is a half billion dollars. It would also mean that all such roads would have tolls, which reduce their efficiency as fast transportation. Government isn't needed for anything, but that doesn't mean it can't serve a useful purpose.

And are we using "government" and "society" interchangeably? If a township wanted to collect taxes to build a toll-free road for all the citizens to use, is that different than "government"? Should society not collectively try to achieve anything?

[vacuum]

The problem I see with private roads is that the landscape is unique and limited. If someone is able to buy a key piece of land, such as a valley or pass, and they build a road through it, then they have everybody by the balls and they can charge whatever they want for anyone to use it.

Or, if someone builds a key road, and charge a lot to use it, then "compeitition" will build another competing road and charge less to get more business. But do we really want to destroy that much wildlife so that competition among road builders can flourish? What if the two road builders agree to fix prices? Will then a third competitor be required? I'd rather just have one road be exactly where it needs to be.

As much as I like the free market, I think there are some big flaws when it comes to the concept of land ownership. Henry George described these problems in detail.

[vacuum]

No, I mean who could afford to put up the capital?

Haliburton? Exxon mobile? JP Morgan? Basically those types of companies could probably figure out how to make it profitable.

[Hillbilly]

Fuck Mike Watts, greedy asshole! seriously fuck him and his Kosher Kind!

[Horn]

The Toll at my bridge will only be 3 questions, I promise...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoJ7mfgENLM

Pissoff if you think I'm putting in a sidewalk on my property for girly types, though.

take your chances in the turning lane.

[Horn]

Citation, the op's post neglects a live link, and possibly in violation of applicable copyright laws.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dT0Go7KqUE

[Neuro]

2 fucking quids to use his fucking 12,000 inch road? I would go and shit in Mike Watts toll booth. He probably created the landslide too, the day after he bought a landslide insurance policy...

[Glass]

Should society not collectively try to achieve anything?

It seemed to me that society holds the expectations which government implements. So I think they are different. Who is wagging who is the question. I would like to see that situations where a road is built using tax payers taxes should not become a toll road. IF the operator built an road using no tax payer contributions and people were fairly given the choice and not forced into using it. I don't see that occurring though. At least not here. I think all the Toll roads are public funded built, private operated, I think maintenance costs are picked up by the tax payer as well from what I've seen. It's also clear that non toll routes are degraded or never seem to be built. The worst ones are the ones where they take peoples homes then give the road to a toll operator. There is one being handed over or just been and another where they are outlining what the route is and who is going to lose their home.

The state I am in does not have toll roads and the politicians repeatedly say no but I think that is only because there is some legal impediment. What it is I'm not sure. We seem to have some unique legal issues going as far back as foundation of the original colony. The government has shown a keenness to give private companies public assets and lots of money often paying millions as well as selling the assets. Cash backs or something.

[Neuro]

Here is a news article on Tollways from this mornings news down here:


Corporate tax rate here is 30%. So the tax would be about $300 million. You would think it was somewhere close but these guys can deduct all of that tax away. I have no problem with reducing tax but to go from $300 million to just $3 million suggests something it seriously wrong.

Also note that it is a monopoly which is illegal under law here. We have many duopolies here which aren't much better. Easier to collude when there is only 2 companies in the industry. I hate toll roads. I think they are a scam in the current taxation structure.
Well you only pay corporate tax on your profits. So from the collection of $1 Billion in tolls you have to deduct operating costs, salaries, maintenance, interest...

Some $344 million was paid in interest on Transurban's massive $6.8 billion in borrowings
They payed more than $300 million in bankster tax. Who just created that loan out of thin air...

[iOWNme]

Should society not collectively try to achieve anything?

Why do you confuse individual cooperation and organization with 'Government'? These two things are totally diametrically opposed to each other. 'Government' is a non-voluntary Monopolistic entity with the right to initiate violence.

Do you honestly think without that, we couldnt figure out how to fund and build a 'flat place'? Come on man!

[iOWNme]

The problem I see with private roads is that the landscape is unique and limited. If someone is able to buy a key piece of land, such as a valley or pass, and they build a road through it, then they have everybody by the balls and they can charge whatever they want for anyone to use it.

What you just described is 'Government'.


Or, if someone builds a key road, and charge a lot to use it, then "compeitition" will build another competing road and charge less to get more business. But do we really want to destroy that much wildlife so that competition among road builders can flourish? What if the two road builders agree to fix prices? Will then a third competitor be required? I'd rather just have one road be exactly where it needs to be.

What you just described is 'Government'.


As much as I like the free market, I think there are some big flaws when it comes to the concept of land ownership. Henry George described these problems in detail.

So without a Monopolistic non-voluntary entity with the right to initiiate violence, we wouldnt be able to figure out 'land ownership'? Is this really your position?

[Horn]

So without a Monopolistic non-voluntary entity with the right to initiiate violence, we wouldnt be able to figure out 'land ownership'? Is this really your position?

Are you going to store all the titles, deeds and lot plans at your house?

Then the people will call you govna. or iOWNeverything.

[Santa]

Government is the legislation, implementation and enforcement of Law.

Writing in 350 BC, the Greek philosopher Aristotle declared, "The rule of law is better than the rule of any individual."

Cicero said "more law, less justice".

Marxist doctrine asserts that law will not be required once the state has withered away.

[Horn]

Marxist doctrine asserts that law will not be required once the state has withered away.

State defined as the land and a certain distance off the coast in the above.

Until such time as the land withers away, sympathy is all I can offer hippy volunteers, like Santa.

For if the sea were glass and the land all gone, friends from Yasgur's farm wouldn't be needed.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzHBr0ndKus

I should get paid for these jeweled posts.

[madfranks]

Fuck Mike Watts, greedy asshole! seriously fuck him and his Kosher Kind!


2 fucking quids to use his fucking 12,000 inch road? I would go and shit in Mike Watts toll booth. He probably created the landslide too, the day after he bought a landslide insurance policy...

Then don't use his road, and don't pay the toll. You're forgetting that nobody is forcing anyone to use his privately built road. If you don't mind the 10-mile detour, what's the big deal?

[Santa]

I should get paid for these jeweled posts.

I should get paid to read your posts. :)

[Horn]

I should get paid to read your posts. :)

Friggin roadless hippy.



hoot!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EmD32AQzaQ

Who among us will run upon the magically self-crucified Anarchist's famous alter of ignorance?

^jewels^

[Horn]

Ps. I'm going to ceremonially sacrifice the Horn moniker at post 15,999.

http://numerology-thenumbersandtheirmeanings.blogspot.com/2011/05/number-16.html

[Horn]

Then don't use his road, and don't pay the toll. You're forgetting that nobody is forcing anyone to use his privately built road. If you don't mind the 10-mile detour, what's the big deal?


You see, he's already dropped £150,000 to build the road. And he's planning on spending another £150,000 on maintenance and labor costs. So he's going to need to get at least 30,000 paying drivers just to break even.

We hate seeing people fail for no good reason.

Do you think he will let people access if he does fail, or put up a detour sign out of spite?

[Sparky]

Why do you confuse individual cooperation and organization with 'Government'? These two things are totally diametrically opposed to each other. 'Government' is a non-voluntary Monopolistic entity with the right to initiate violence.

Do you honestly think without that, we couldnt figure out how to fund and build a 'flat place'? Come on man!

If I were confusing the two, I wouldn't have posed that very question about the difference between government and society.

I've already agreed that the building flat places is possible, but it's not clear that it is as efficient or as beneficial to the society as you are claiming. I don't know that I want to be stopping for a toll on every road I travel.

[madfranks]

If I were confusing the two, I wouldn't have posed that very question about the difference between government and society.

I've already agreed that the building flat places is possible, but it's not clear that it is as efficient or as beneficial to the society as you are claiming. I don't know that I want to be stopping for a toll on every road I travel.

I know we've had this conversation before (on the forum), but most if not all of these objections have already been considered and addressed. The best book on the subject is Walter Block's "The Privatization of Roads and Highways", which you can get a copy for free here:

https://mises.org/books/roads_web.pdf

But to answer your question, likely drivers would pay a monthly subscription service which covers the areas they typically drive in, and for special trips they can purchase a la carte tolls, expand their coverage for a short time, or also likely with today's technology, license plate or car ID scanners which identify the roads you take and send you a monthly bill.

[madfranks]

From the introduction of the book I just linked:


Do not be mislead by the oft made contention that the actual cause of highway fatalities is speed, drunkenness, vehicle malfunction, driver error, etc. These are only proximate causes. The ultimate cause of our dying like flies in traffic accidents is that those who own and manage these assets supposedly in the name of the public—the various roads bureaucrats—cannot manage their way out of the proverbial paper bag. It is they and they alone who are responsible for this carnage.

This does not mean that were thoroughfares placed in private hands that the death toll would be zero. It would not. But, at least, every time the life of someone was tragically snuffed out, someone in a position to ameliorate these dangerous conditions would lose money, and this tends, wonderfully, to focus the minds of the owners. This is why we do not have similar problems with bananas, baskets, and bicycles, and the myriad of other goods and services supplied to us by a (relatively) free enterprise system.

If the highways were now commercial ventures as once in our history they were, and upward of 40,000 people were killed on them annually, you can bet your bottom dollar that Ted Kennedy and his ilk would be holding Senate hearings on the matter. Blamed would be “capitalism,” “markets,” “greed,” i.e., the usual suspects. But, in the event, it is the public authorities who are responsible for this slaughter of the innocents.

[Horn]

They only use for a private road is as a thruway to somewhere that is more public.

If all places were private, it would negate their existence.

Or all places private would be public and no places private.

I would camp in the middle of Mike's road for an unlimited amount of time and charge my own toll unless he made me sign a contract otherwise. My claim is that I paid the price of admission, and heaven forbid he ever try to hold a contract without lawful mediator to enforce.

Its just good business.

[mick silver]

you and I build the road with the ass raping we all get from paying taxes

[Horn]

you and I build the road with the ass raping we all get from paying taxes

My idea in the post anarchy world is construction of a mobile bullet proof tortise toll booth with a gate so i can move and park it anywhere.

[mick silver]

I will fix your toll booth with my tank hahahahaha ... that's my idea of a post anarchy world .. any thing go'sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

[Horn]

I will fix your toll booth with my tank hahahahaha ... that's my idea of a post anarchy world .. any thing go'sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

My bullet proof tortise toll booth is gonna be really really big. I mean like big government big, your tank shells will just bounce off it.

All tolls will be accepted in .999 fine silver and incinerated on spot to prevent you from poisoning me...

[Neuro]

My bullet proof tortise toll booth is gonna be really really big. I mean like big government big, your tank shells will just bounce off it.

I will shit in Micks tank barrel so I doubt the 'shells' will bounce, so you can sit there in your big government really really big toll both and enjoy the atmosphere, there, have a good day to you too, sir!

[Horn]

I will shit in Micks tank barrel so I doubt the 'shells' will bounce, so you can sit there in your big government really really big toll both and enjoy the atmosphere, there, have a good day to you too, sir!

Its mobile too, so I can take trips to the nearest private beach for salt and sun dry bleaching.

Gonna call it Toll Hammer


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otCpCn0l4Wo

Is guud bidness

[Neuro]

Its mobile too, so I can take trips to the nearest private beach salt and sun dry bleaching.

Gonna call it Toll Hammer


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otCpCn0l4Wo
Would you take tolls too the beach instead of the road then?

[Horn]

Would you take tolls too the beach instead of the road then?

You'll never know where the Toll Hammer will end up, one day Taco Bell drive thru, the next at the end of your drive-way.

Fees are kept within reason of course, so transgression won't be felt. once paying the gate opens.

[Neuro]

You'll never know where the Toll Hammer will end up, one day Taco Bell drive thru, the next at the end of your drive-way.

Fees are kept within reason of course, so transgression won't be felt. once paying the gate opens.
Remind me to go to Taco Bell before I load Micks tank!

[mick silver]

I bet horn had the toll hammer made in china ..................... junk ......................................

[iOWNme]

Are you going to store all the titles, deeds and lot plans at your house?

Then the people will call you govna. or iOWNeverything.


AGAIN, you conflate cooperation and organization with 'Government'. Your Master has taught you this, and despite my attempts to show you how blatantly irrational, contradictory and insane this premise is, you continue to parrot back to me the easily provable lies that your Master has instilled in your mind. You have never once rebutted anything i have ever said, you can only repeat back to me a cult like mantra about 'limited Government', a contradiction as insane as a 'Glass of dry water'.

You actually IMAGINE that without 'Government' man wouldnt be able to cooperate and organize. But, how did man cooperate and organize in order to create 'Government' before 'Government' existed? Again, you contradict yourself in every post you make.

[iOWNme]

Government is the legislation, implementation and enforcement of Law.

NO it is not. Your repeating back to me what you've been told 'Government' was. Every single individual has the moral right to issue threats of violence (Law) in certain situations. But that is not what 'Government' is. 'Government' is the IMAGINED moral right to initiate violence. And since no mortal man has this right, there is no such thing as 'Government'. Stop IMAGINING that there is.


Writing in 350 BC, the Greek philosopher Aristotle declared, "The rule of law is better than the rule of any individual."

LOL. The 'Rule of Law' has absolutely decimated the human species over the past thousand years. There has never been any form of 'Government' be it Kings, Parliaments or Congress' that didnt use the 'Rule of Law' as a shield to do harmful and destructive things to its 'citizens'.


Marxist doctrine asserts that law will not be required once the state has withered away.

And since you cannot rebut anything i said using reason and logic, you have to bring up 'Marx' in order to try and discredit me. Whats sad is i know you are way smarter than that (You are one of my fav posters). How about you actually try and think about these things and give me YOUR opinion? I dont really give a fuck what the Statist Aristotle, Cicero or Marx had to say on this subject.

[iOWNme]

I've already agreed that the building flat places is possible, but it's not clear that it is as efficient or as beneficial to the society as you are claiming. I don't know that I want to be stopping for a toll on every road I travel.

You act as if every single person is going to build a road and toll you. But, if this was true, then wouldnt YOU have roads that you were charging people to use? The wouldnt this all be a wash? LOL

[iOWNme]

Every excuse and contradictory viewpoint summed up in 1 video. Dont worry, i dont expect rationality, reason and logic to sway the Statist of GSUS. They rely on faith, not reason!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GX4-hdzJwo&list=UUFeK8ZdHbCqAq3gekWs8aEQ

[mick silver]

don't make me have to tell you again to get off of my roads

[osoab]

Marxist doctrine asserts that law will not be required once the state has withered away.


Yeah, everyone is brainwashed proletariat who beat down anyone that is doing better than themselves.

[Horn]

But, how did man cooperate and organize in order to create 'Government' before 'Government' existed? Again, you contradict yourself in every post you make.

First there was God (without contradiction).

Then man set foot on the land, and on the 8th day man made a government.

[vacuum]

What you just described is 'Government'.

What you just described is 'Government'.

So without a Monopolistic non-voluntary entity with the right to initiiate violence, we wouldnt be able to figure out 'land ownership'? Is this really your position?

Without any form of government, I agree it levels the playing field and fixes a lot of these problems of land ownership. In that case, you couldn't simply hold a piece of paper that gives you the right to a large tract of land and allows no one else to use the land. You could only control the land which you personally lived on and used, otherwise you'd have to fight people off of it.

So I agree with you that many of the problems I brought up about restricting others from using a piece of land wouldn't exist and wouldn't be problems.

Henry George had a lot of ideas and discussion on this topic, not sure if you're read about him.

With no government though, I think it would be hard to force someone to pay a toll to use your road. You'd have to have armed guards on both the entrance and exit of it 24/7 to collect the money and turn away those who won't pay.

[Sparky]

Every excuse and contradictory viewpoint summed up in 1 video. Dont worry, i dont expect rationality, reason and logic to sway the Statist of GSUS. They rely on faith, not reason!
...

The video is a silly diversion.

If you want to have a meaningful discussion, the focus should be on the difference between government and group cooperation.

As soon as a group agrees to collectively accomplish something, then someone has to be given authority to execute. This is a mere practicality. Once that happens, the operation then becomes vulnerable to the same corruption as government, because they both involve humans.

I agree very strongly in the principles that you espouse: Self-ownership, freedom, and independence. But I also think that, taken to an absolutist position, it leaves little room for social interaction and cooperation. Some things are best executed via society's enabling and supporting of a sub-group of experts. An example would be the field of medicine, which would have advanced at a much slower pace had it relied on private initiatives. Another would be the commercial aviation industry and air traffic control.

It's true that eventually these "socially supported" endeavors become bloated and corrupt, and need to be flushed. It's also true that there are FAR too many of them, and most of them are bloated and inefficient. I don't think a "statist" would agree that the current intervention of government needs to be at least cut in half.

[Horn]

I don't think a "statist" would agree that the current intervention of government needs to be at least cut in half.

Sparky you should know that you're a "statist" if even accepting the reality that there has never been an example of vacuum anarchy working on the face of the planet for more than brief interim, and never will be anything other than that, a brief interim.

Get your ideals straightened out...

and just Be a belly dancer and ideal snake charmer.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbx3O8NgnHY

[madfranks]

The video is a silly diversion.

If you want to have a meaningful discussion, the focus should be on the difference between government and group cooperation.

As soon as a group agrees to collectively accomplish something, then someone has to be given authority to execute. This is a mere practicality. Once that happens, the operation then becomes vulnerable to the same corruption as government, because they both involve humans.

No, because the head of the group cannot act outside the limited authority given to him by the other members of the group. Government decides what it wants to do unilaterally, then imposes it whether people agree with it or not.

For example, in the private economy, a public bond is issued and eventually funded to allow a road to be built. The terms and conditions of the bond are all very clear, including the cost, and if the head of the group managing the road construction decides he's going to give his construction buddies a favor so he demands more money than before and tries to force the bond holders to put up more money, upon which they demand the head of the group stick to the original terms and refuse to pay more.

Versus in the government example, if corruption comes in and the leader decides his supporters should get paid above market rates, he'll just take as much money as he declares is necessary and pay off everyone, and there's nothing any of us taxpayers can do about it.

[Horn]

and the leader decides his supporters should get paid above market rates, he'll just take as much money as he declares is necessary and pay off everyone, and there's nothing any of us taxpayers can do about it.

Easily traversed by requiring multiple bid/estimate publicly reviewed from the private sector.

Problems arise when only a few or less private sector companies are even able, prepared to offer a bid due to over regulation by those same governing entities, even if by government issued patents and copyright.

[iOWNme]

The video is a silly diversion.

If you want to have a meaningful discussion, the focus should be on the difference between government and group cooperation.

What? Do we need to focus on the difference between a rapist and a rape victim in order to figure out 'cooperation'? You STILL conflate coperation and organization with 'Government'.

Can you please point to me any other entity where individuals cooperating and organizing somehow turn into a non-voluntary forceful entity? This is just plain silly talk. You have been told that when men come together to cooperate and organize that this is 'Government'. NOTHING could be further from the truth. NO man has the moral right to do what 'Government' does, and yet you still try and merge the two into one. The Founders had this exact same problem (While they owned slaves) LOL


As soon as a group agrees to collectively accomplish something, then someone has to be given authority to execute. This is a mere practicality. Once that happens, the operation then becomes vulnerable to the same corruption as government, because they both involve humans.

Nope. There is not a group of men ANYWHERE that you would blindly obey just because they have cooperated and organized. If this were true, then you would call the Bloods and the Crips 'Government'. You would call their threats 'Law' and you would follow them because they have 'cooerated and organized'.


I agree very strongly in the principles that you espouse: Self-ownership, freedom, and independence. But I also think that, taken to an absolutist position, it leaves little room for social interaction and cooperation. Some things are best executed via society's enabling and supporting of a sub-group of experts. An example would be the field of medicine, which would have advanced at a much slower pace had it relied on private initiatives. Another would be the commercial aviation industry and air traffic control.

Again, do you IMAGINE that these groups of 'experts' would have the moral right to FORCE you to comply to their will? Of course you wouldnt. I ant make this anymore clear to you. If you and I agree that i am going to mow your lawn and that you are going to pay me $10, do i somehow magically now have the moral right to violently dominate your neighbor and FORCE him to let me mow his lawn and FORCE him to pay me? No. Again, more silly talk.

So, if we didnt have a group of men who have the moral right to dominate and control us, we wouldnt be able to have airplanes or stop lights? 'Government' is VIOLENCE. Nothing more. The very same individuals would still have the very same incentives to do what they do, without the need for a ganf of violent criminals FORCING us to comply.


It's true that eventually these "socially supported" endeavors become bloated and corrupt, and need to be flushed. It's also true that there are FAR too many of them, and most of them are bloated and inefficient. I don't think a "statist" would agree that the current intervention of government needs to be at least cut in half.


What is the logical progression of individual human liberty? If you follow the logical progression from Religions running the world, to Kings and Parliaments, to self governance, to.......... From the Magna Carta to the US Constitution.....It is only a matter of time until the Most Dangeroous Superstion is laughed off the face of this planet.

Just like the flat earth, superstious belief systems can only last so long, because the TRUTH is always there, staring the individual in the eyes. The time to talk about this stuff is NOW, when nobody elese is talking about it. THAT is how you push humanity forward.

(Your still one of my favorite posters) :)

[Horn]

Fact is it once again boils down to insurance and trust as with most things, both of which are transgressed easily and not always on purpose. Mutual agreement cooperation written and enforced within reason is the "necessary evil" or only viewed as evil by the receiving and less fortunate ends. All contracts need third parties.

So let it be written.

Larkin Rose child actor, as Michael with a toppins.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxyB29bDbBA