Sorry to bust your twisted ill logistics about private roads, But any road that is not the driveway on the front yard or backyard of your house is a public road.
Don`t give me this mess about road privatization when everybody who drives a vehicle uses these roads to get from point A to point B.
Private Roads ..... nothing. Stop doing what you're accusing our government of doing which is acting like they control everything and everyone in an invasive way.
Just because people are not granted the option to use private alternatives to a government good and are forced to use and pay for it does not make that the best way for providing that good. An example is the postal service monopoly on mail delivery.
I find it ironic that you insist government does NOT control everything invasively, yet you also use the fact that it DOES as proof that government is somehow the only way to provide that good.
Maybe because you do not insist that it costs our government money that our goverment prints and presses which we all share as Americans to provide the proper materials needed to do that good .
With the Postal Service Monopoly, Some Politicians are making postal workers overpay to keep the benefits of their job to a level where it brings them down.
Difference, Investing in infrastructure and safer roads, good. Sucking money out of postal workers, bad.
@djthereplay - I never said it does not cost money, I did say that claiming government is the only way to provide a given good is essentially a question-begging argument that forecloses the possibility of all other alternatives.
But I do agree that open-access property and public goods in general are a more complicated problem for market actors to provide than most other goods and services. What Benson describes here certainly cannot be implemented in a day or two.
I'm not so sure about this. When you think about it, there's only one best way to get from point A to point B. Only one person can own that road. It's not like another firm can come in and build a second "most efficient road". So it's by nature, a non-competitive industry.
also your not meant to say that they COULD restrict access, u have to t6hink WOULD they restrict access. why the fuck would a business STOP people from PAYING them. that makes no sense, its the stupidest thing ive ever heard. you dont understand economics, go learn something before you argue with someone on a topic like this.
The very fact that there is both unused roads and overcrowded heavy traffic roads shows massive amounts of waste- not to mention many govt roads are overpaid & underlaid
@swu880 thankyou, i like it when somebody else can see that we dont need the government to run our lives, i swear the amount of communists online that dont know how economics works *sigh* its not even just economics, they barely understand morals...
@ShwangShwing "What will happen if I buy all the roads around someone's house and restrict access to them?" "Mr. libertarian" Walter Block answers that here: mises.org/daily/3431
This problem can be foreseen, and hence in an era of private roads you would buy access insurance. No one would buy any real estate at all unless he were sure that this sort of entrapment couldn't happen to him.
@ShwangShwing youll go bankrupt because noone will move to your area, and the people already there will move away. this isnt even a hard one... as if u couldnt figure this our yourself...
@ShwangShwing the people that have already bought property will LEAVE, and when u move in u would make sure ur contract doesnt allow them to change the price at any time. watch walter blocks lecture on privatising roads...
@LordCadby If you have enough money to buy an apartment and then just leave it and buy a new one somewhere else then you obviously don't have this problem.
" And the buildings can be built by private Contractors." AS THEY ARE. Is this so hard to understand? Especially the guys who're advocating 'the community' should get involved. The government IS the community. Now I get the standpoint in a utopian wealthy suburb, but hey, downtown NY is just fucked then right? Or will you Make people contribute? Like say, with taxes?
You don't even need to be a citizen recieve healthcare. Private schooling in America would improve the quality of the education of our young people, and increase the quantity of those that receive it. Why do you think we have such great universities? Universities which people come across all over the world for. But they don't just come here because for our universities. I can make a ridiculously long rant because i finished my finals and Im on break!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@pureaggression Again, I agree with you in general. But the government would still be involved in your private schools idea if it was going to pay for students of poor families. And just as the government harms the private health care industry with its bureaucratic methods, it would continue to harm schools. Only this time it would be harming PRIVATE schools, damaging the current best option for those who can afford them.
@pureaggression Not sure. All I said was that I was on the fence about the government's role in education. That means I'm unsure what part, if any, the government should play in funding schools.
You suggested that I was using 'flawed logic' based upon that statement, I believe. In any case, we pretty much agree on stuff :). Have a great life!
In the U.S, people who can't afford food don't starve, and those who can't afford housing don't die in the cold. Government buys products for individuals in trouble and would be able to the same if we had private schools. Its the same concept of foodstamps, the government isn't providing the food, just the valueless money it prints to serve as credit for those who can't afford it. We don't have universal healthcare and people are not going without treatment.
So the taxpayer has paid a decade of education for a student to make to the finally make it to the last years of HS, and then they dropout and have nothing to show for it. AND look how high the dropout rate is among High Schoolers so that point is worth consideration. And you have to realize that if we let the free market organize the school system their would a range of schooling as far as quality and expenses go, as any other market.
But it is only because of public schools that I am forced to call myself "lucky" for many children don't have parents of a nourishing nature or parents at all. And the quality of that education has also continually deteriorated, as an example of that deterioration, teenage unemployment has increasingly risen because dimplomas don't mean anything, except that if you don't have one, youre definately unqualified.
Ive had 12 years of full public schooling and I'll admit I've had wonderful teachers, but the vast majority of them were ineffective and some, at best, useless and undoubtedly would not be teaching if they were held accountable of their failure and incapability. I have learned far more from my parents and personal studies then what I've thrown at me in public schools. Yes, Im a lucky one.
Meh. Roads are one of the tiny group of things I believe the government should provide/handle. Roads, military, police, and food regulations (I'm on the fence about schools).
Private roads these days would create imminent domain battles. And I'd side with the current land owner every time.
@blogegog please do me a favor and search and watch a very short clip named " David D. Friedman on Government Education". Just a small peak at your flawed logic. Not trying to be insultive but give it a chance. Great thinkers, such as his father Milton Friedman, battled through out their lives that private education, roads, and others would improve the lot of the average man.
@pureaggression I mostly agree with you and Mr. Friedman. But he left out a key point when he said that he thinks education is too important to be left in the hands of the government - millions of children would receive no schooling at all without the government.
@blogegog You have no, and I mean absolutely no, evidence for making such a claim that "millions" would go without schooling if were to privatize the school system. First of all, I don't think thats quite a valid point, because it is inevitable that some don't recieve an education, even in our entirely nationalized system of public schools. Just look at severe the dropout rate is. We can't even fire bad teachers, or judge a teacher on THEIR PERFORMANCE.
What this idiot doesn't understand is that we can't have efficient roads as long as governments continues to regulate land through zoning laws, and continue damaging the energy and transportation market. Not only that but he does a poor job explaining the need for private roads. Walter Block does a better job explaining this.
First time I've seen someone try to float the idea that we're not paying for our roads via our gas tax. I think it's kind of an absurd point. If the tax pays for the upkeep of the roads, then mission accomplished. If the tax does that and still doesn't change behavior, then obviously the cost of maintaining roads isn't high enough that it SHOULD change our behavior.
A contract is an agreement between two parties. Government does not constitute a real contract because we never voluntarily agreed to it so to take money from us is theft. When you use a private road you do so voluntarily knowing the cost so it is not theft and both parties win
If people wouldn't kill, if people alway would donate enough money to charities, etc, we wouldn't need government to organize our common life. But the world is not alice in wonderland, the world is brutal and wild west without government, which has the power to show the individual the consequences of their behavior. Government laws/force exists to make barriers for social life. We don't live alone on this planet. Freedom without government which has to protect it, isn't possible.
... as we are not living alone on this planet. Private persons will replace the government with their own dictatorship government. The strongest will rule over the weak. I prefer a democratic government guaranteeing our freedom rights by prohibting killings, make sure that everybody has access to healthcare, free education, infrastructure, etc.
There is no real argument for libertarianism. Nearly everything from reasontv and co is refuted here.
I pay gas taxes and I'm well aware that's part of the cost of roads. The examples of private roads are cherry picked - two or three blocks in St. Louis - give me a break! And I love the shot of free flowing Lexus lanes with those who can afford it zipping by the poor saps bogged down in the public lanes. Once you have enough of these private lanes for the privileged few, no reason to support improvements of public roads.
I don;t get it. He makes a argument that private roads exist, but makes only a weak argument as to why private roads are better then public roads. Political influence is not enough of a reason.
And he leaves out a big problem. How does private companies purchase land to create new roads without government use of emanate domain?
I think this guy should stay were he is, between the ivory towers and leave the real world to the rest of us.
I disagree that privatization of roads would take the politics out of them. Private companies would seek political influence to win contracts or be provided access in the public domain areas. Why, today we see private firms leveraging political clout to take private property to develop them into something else. When it comes to money, everything is political.
While completely private roads may be debatable, especially in the current situation where the public ones are so highly subsidized and payed for by taxes. Having privately run and maintained public roads seems logically much less contentious.
@bullpcp You're assuming that the present system must continue.
Have a "debt" sale. Sell everything govt owns to the highest bidders.
Road corporations will find a way to profitably (or non-profitably, if that's there thing) run the road or they will go out of business and sell the road to someone who thinks they have a better idea.
See the Sierra Club buy the Grand Canyon and/or Yellowstone, and do a better job of conservation!
@CurtHowland I don't disagree with you. I was only stating a less extreme alternative for those less radical than you or myself. I find being right is much less important than many libertarians, minarchists, anarchists, would like to think. We need to learn to compromise and slowly attain our goal. We should learn from the statists how to move slowly towards our goals. Those who will settle for all or nothing will almost always achieve nothing. Peace.
@CurtHowland Wouldn't lost ground imply a move away from our goal of complete privatization and toward more government control and a gaining ground imply a shift towards more privatization and less government control? Those with socialist agendas have very effectively taken incremental steps toward their goals. Ideally I would love to have it all completely privatized but I understand any progress is something to be celebrated. Hopefully we will achieve our common goals through different means.
@CurtHowland You fight the grand all or nothing battle with success giving you everything you want, and failure giving you nothing at all, and I will cheer you on and support you in that endeavor. I will fight smaller battles and towards the same goals and hope that you will support me in them. I would like to think a combination of the two approaches would give the best results. I'm for the complete privatization of the education system without any government interference...
@CurtHowland But I would settle for a step in the right direction. Privatization of the schools by attaching money to the students or even vouchers and charter schools would be better than what we have now. I'm pragmatic about achieving my goals. Peace.
@bullpcp "But I would settle for a step in the right direction."
And that is the sum of the difference in our approaches.
I would NOT settle.
Accept, certainly, and then go on to the next step in the right direction.
Never forget that THAT is how the Socialists, Progressives, et al, have turned America from near Free Market to near total Fascism: Incremental steps but never forgetting their final goal of total control.
I like Reason's posts a lot, but this one confuses me. Generally roads are things that the government does well. A private firm could make money on toll roads, but I doubt they would be preferable to parallel "free" roads.
That I-90 goes up into Montana isn't that surprising. It can't exactly go through Yellowstone. It's not like Gerrymandering. Not a whole lot of politics there. More misses than hits in this vid.
@msudave54 40,000 people per year die on the roads in the USA. Besides, it's not so much a question of whether or not gov roads are good enough; it's a question of whether or not roads are as good as they could be. As in all things, the gov cannot do it as well as the market.
@JohnColt 40,000 out of 300,000,000. And most of those are related to driver error, not the road itself.
Look, I'm not saying government is answer. If there is a strong case for private roads, this vid didn't make it. Just random hypothetical ideas don't really connect.
Government can do some things well. This is why the founders put the post office in the constitution. What government does and how it does it is up to an informed citizenry.
@msudave54 LOL - 300,000,000? Err... you might want to rethink that one :D
So, you're a fan of the post office monopoly?
The whole Libertarian argument is that what the Government does and how it does it is NOT in practice determined by "informed citizenry". What's more, Libertarians see the "market" as a collective noun for all the personal choices of the citizenry - so the market is actually far more democratic than the political process; that is the Libertarian opinion.
@JohnColt There are 300,000,000 (Three hundred million) people in the United States. The post office was enshrined by the founders. You are embarrassing libertarians.
@msudave54 So everything that made it into the Constitution is automatically the perfect policy? What about those founders who argued against government owned mail delivery? What about libertarians who don't even live in the US?
@msudave54 " roads are things that the government does well" Reeeeeaaallly? Potholes, parking, traffic, access these are not a problem?
I live on a privately owned road (250 townhouses on a network of 5 streets) and we pay for repairs, for snow removal and so on. It's the county run roads and the interstate that is always full of traffic and holes and snow.
I'll give the interstate a pass as a special case (built for the military). But as with all communal property, there's no care for it.
@bsabruzzo How bad are potholes really? I can't remember the last time I even saw one. My hypothesis is problems with roads correlate with other problems. I.E. Communities with other more serious problems, also have problems with roads. I feel that the communal roads are well cared for in all of the places I've ever lived.
I like Reason, I'm not some troll. I support a lot of their ideas and the work they do. This video was not their best work.
@msudave54 As I live in Washington DC (Northern VA, really) I can tell you that potholes are a continuing problem, but yeah, I'd say you are correct that there are other problems that take attention away from the potholes. But isn't that the point? If you have to do other things, then why not let others deal with the pothole problem?
I agree Reason has been slacking on the videos. They seem to put conflicting topics on.
@msudave54 Does well? 40,000 deaths per year and construction that costs more than it would have compared to private firms doing it? Not to mention government has to seal (taxes) in order to give some people a free ride (not everyone drives).
@msudave54 Of course there is no reason that private companies couldn't run toll roads. What a stupid statement. So what? Why should we have toll roads???? Road should be free. They are infrastructure. Typical university professor. Idiot. Never done a honest days work in his life.
Just answer my question! Why a private owned road is more efficient than a government owned road?
You don't know it, bc there is no real reason to privatize roads, just that some billionaires increase their profit. Profit which can the government better spent on the road itself. Private infrastructure = inefficient
@B190489 Public infrastructure is inherently inefficient because it has no immediate mechanism by which it can allocate resources, while private firms are able to adequately respond to prices, which are the amalgamation of consumer preference. Economic efficiency is the ability to respond to consumer demand, which is NOT what the government does. The government provides roads regardless of the degree to which they are demanded.
And the gov't isn't a monopoly? What does the gov't compete with? What is the gov't incentive to maintain the roads?
And the gov't is efficient?
Please... the gov't can't do anything right. Just needs to butt out and let The People do their thing which is how we got to the most powerful nation in the world in a very short time. (but that is for another discussion).
@B190489 No those are not empirical facts as much as assumptions. We don't know for certain with any degree of certainty that moon flight and the interstate system would not exist without government intervention. Moon flight would exist when and if it became pragmatic to do so, something that has not been proven even today, and the interstate does not produce wealth it as other countries have produced cross country roads and railroads that DID NOT increase wealth. continued...
There was no private moon flight, that is an empirical fact.
The Interstate does not increase wealth??? Hello??? Do you know how much trucks from private companies uses the interstate in a year??? The interstate and the railroads are bringing very much wealth to everybody. Billions of Dollars every year.
@B190489 In fact economic historians have proven time and time again that the railroads did not produce wealth and only became practical because of HUGE government grants and subsides, and even some forced monopolies. Again interstate, and cross continental, roads and railroads are natural sign of the need for transport not a cause of wealth. Building them prematurely just misalocates resources inefficiently and forces private entities to compete with government monopolies, crowding out effect.
You're so beyond stupid you tried to insult me by calling me a gun owning Nazi. You're so beyond stupid you cannot understand that Nazis were 100% against private ownership of firearms - LIKE YOU!
@B190489 Nazis, that is national socialists, were very much about welfare. A combination of socialism and fascism that subsidized all sorts of activities.
The Nazis END welfare for people for weak people like you would. They END welfare for "hopeless" people. That is what the Nazis did. They killed thousands of disabled humans. If you end social security they also have lower opportunities to survive.
And not every socialist system has welfare idiot. The Nazis were social darwinists, they've showed how a babaric inhuman society without government would look like.
@B190489 They killed weak people. They did not consider them to be worth living or even human beings. That is the worst sin of all.
First of all. Welfare is immoral. I own no property and have a moderate income, yet half of it is taken by the state to pay for welfare, warfare and its bureaucrats. And I get nothing back. That's what Mafia does.
What exactly is a welfare idiot? You do not realise that your ideal society has to have dictators such as Stalin or Hitler to tell everyone what to do.
@B190489 Private roads would be competition. If someone with a road would charge exorbitant prices then every other form of transportation would become comparatively cheaper and reduce their profits. If they continued to charge exorbitant prices and make well over 10% profit, the standard in investing, then creating new roads would become a great investment and competition would ensue. In other words if they charged too much they would eventually destroy their profit. Many poor assumptions.
No, if ONE company owns a road it is NOT competition, it's a monopoly.
Libertarians are so funny. Do you know what the reality is? In the reality roads can not be build like iphones. You can not go to a roadshop to choose the road you want to have. Check out the reality! Competition would be a fucking mass of wasting resources.
@B190489 No. A monopoly implies NO ALTERNATIVES. If a company owns a road the only way this would be a monopoly is if there existed literally no other means to get to the destination. This is laughably false. I do check reality constantly.. you should try it sometime instead of assuming your intuition is correct in direct CONTRADICTION OF REALITY. Why don't you check your local map and see how many routes their are to your destination, ground, air, sea, underground, ect. Monopoly indeed :)
What a stupid argument. The monopoly doesn't mean that there are no different roads, it just means that there is only one road possible which has exactly the same route = monopoly. People HAVE TO drive on this road, bc it is the route they HAVE TO drive or do you want to have two parallel roads = waste of space and resources ???
@B190489 BTW I'm not implying all roads everywhere should be owned by private companies only that they idea does have merit when you take into account a dynamic cybernetic reality instead of an intuitive static, i.e. incorrect, reality. The world adapts unless some barrier to that adaptation exists. You assume that if you change one aspect all or at least most other aspects will remain the same... I don't.
@B190489 Competition already exists. But due to subsidies and tax breaks the forms of transportation currently utilized are not necessarily utilized according to resource consumption or allocation or even convenience or preference their use is in fact heavily distorted. How we use cars, trains, buses, airplanes, subways, ect. should be based all factors of quality and cost and the free market does a superior job of this.
@bullpcp If you really worry about private abuse then at least have private organization run the transportation infrastructure. If at any time they were deemed to be inefficient or abusive they would simply be "fired" and another firm would take over.
No, competition doesn't exist here. ONE route can only owned by ONE company = monopoly.
By the way, even there would be competition it wouldn't make sense in REALITY, bc the profit could better spent on the road itself by the government. Tolls waste time or cost money. Some parts of society HAS TO be in government ownership. It is more efficient, that's the REALITY.
And the allocation theory isn't valid in this case here, bc the allocation is economically. People with ...
... lower wages or people who are living in poor parts of cities would have a worse traffic connection bc, of lower potential for profit. The government has to make sure that everybody has the same access to good roads.
Poor people would get poorer, just bc they don't come to work as fast as others or something else.
@B190489 "Roads are not built like i-phones" well no kidding :) Houses are not built like i-phones, cars are not built like i-phones, food is not grown like i-phones. This is in fact my point. Since all these utilize different resources over time different costs should be uncured over time with all of them. The basic assumption that everyone should pay the same price for something regardless of resource consumption is ludicrous. Peace out mi amigo :)
Check out the reality, roads are better in government hands. It's the most efficient way, even if you forget all the social aspects.
Ask yourself: Why this video wants to tell you that private roads are better? It's just because the donators to reasontv want to increase their own profit and not the profit of the society.
@B190489 well, I think that's nonsense... but for the sake of argument.... what is the difference between individual profit and social profit? Surely when we say that a society has experienced economic growth, we just mean that, on balance, more individuals have created wealth than have lost wealth. No?
The fact that a space exploration or interstates would not exist without the government to prop them up is evidence that they are not valued by consumers. Saying money should be spent on things that could not be supported if people were given the choice to support them is advocating an inherently inefficient use of resources [...]
@B190489 The pyramids wouldn't exist had there not been a large slave population. Would you use that as a justification for establishing slavery.
Furthermore, it makes no sense to claim that in order to prevent a private monopoly which is 'inefficient' we need a public monopoly. First off, private monopolies cannot exist long term without structural barriers unless they are able to provide goods at equilibrium prices, meaning they earn no profit. [...]
@B190489 the interstate highway system has been blamed for causing the destruction of inner-cities. it was never intended for public use but for army use in the case of an emergency that required mass mobilization. just because government does something that seems good doesn't mean that all of its unseen effects are good as well.
@B190489 If by "are against" you mean "do not want to force people to pay for" then we "are against" every noun you can come up with.
Libertarians try to minimize the amount of force in a society, while socialist try to maximize it. The two are completely incompatible and will never see eye-to-eye. We don't even begin at the same basic axioms, so what's the point of arguing? Go create the Fourth Reich; we wont involve ourselves as long as you leave us alone.
The gov. has a monopoly of LEGAL forces. Legal forces are made by a DEMOCRATIC government. To kill is a ILLEGAL force. A legal force is the force to avoid killings. End the government ability to use legal forces (=voluntarily based), the illegal forces of individuals will rise, bc if you kill, nobody would force you into prison.
@B190489 "A legal force is the force to avoid killings."
Again, you make no sense.
Murder has been illegal since before history started being recorded. How is that working out for you? Are there still murders? Yes. So your assertion is false, your use of force is not preventing murder.
But your use of force is hurting people, the definition of force.
Stop that, and the amount of force drops by definition. Self defense prevents crime, logically and statistically proven.
Murder are illegal, bc a government law make it illegal. If the government would allow it, MORE people will kill, bc there is no government which forces them into prison. We have still killings, but less killings than without government, bc the gov reduces killings by force the people into prison if they kill. That's not hard to understand or????
It makes no sense to discuss with so stupid people like you are.
@B190489 Your argument about prison reducing killing has about as much correspondence with reality as the arguments for capital punishment. Retributive State action does not deter actions like murder because murders are almost universally committed by people who don't care about the consequences either because of temporary or total irrationality or thinking they wont get caught.
Those of us who do not commit murder already wouldn't take it up as a hobby in the absence of a State.
People who don't care about the consequences are the people who still kill, yeah, that's right, but the people who care about it don't do it, that's also right. The world is not as easy as you libertarians want to have it.
Self defense is ALREADY allowed. Have you ever been to Somalia??? This is a country without government. People have the right of self defense, they have guns etc, but they the people are dieing like animals BECAUSE THERE IS NO GOVERNMENT WHICH PROTECTS THEM.
Idiot, how hard is that to understand you fucking stupid dumbass???????
@B190489 And then on the other side of the continent you have Liberia, where the government robs and murders its subjects as freely as it wishes, as well as the people of Sierra Leone.
Over 177,000,000 people have been murdered by their own governments in the last century, not even counting international wars. Yes, such protection, I wanna get me some of that!
Police and other govt agents kill every day, legally.
Please, make up your mind. Either it's legal, or it's not. Under your system, it's perfectly legal to kill if you're a govt agent, which contradicts your assertion that killing is an illegal use of force.
Government agents kill in self defense, here in Germany. Murder rate of government agents 0,001%. Murder rate of the private persons, 1%.
No, it is not legal for government agents to kill, bc the government LAW prohibits it.
THE STATE HAS A MONOPOLY OF LEGAL, LEGAL, LEGAL, FORCES!!!!!!!
Without government everything would be legal, also killings, bc people will kill without that government forces you into prison. Write it down moron!!!!
@B190489 "THE STATE HAS A MONOPOLY OF LEGAL, LEGAL, LEGAL, FORCES!" Do you understand what that means? I don't think so. Having the monopoly on the legitimate initiation of force means that a govt can do, legitimately, what it is illegitimate for a private person or group to do. Here's a short list. Govt, private: Taxation, robbery; Eminent Domain, robbery; Civil forfeiture, robbery; Conscription, slavery; Arrest, kidnapping; Search, trespassing and theft; Collateral damage, murder.
Of course the government can tell us what we have to do. That's its task. Laws telling us what we have to do and the goverment is the law. The question is not, can government tell us what we have to do, the question is do we need government. And yes i think we need government to organize our common life.
For you taxation is robbery, but you are not making the laws.
Oh no, i'm no obey. Why? I'm one of the voters who decide how our society should look like. I'm a selfmade man and i'm not hearing at my Führer, the capital. I have a vote. I'm one of the most free person on this planet and you american think it too, but you aren't free. You whole media is already under control of the capitalists. Libertarians are brainwashed like teabaggers, just without the religion bullshit.
For me not paying taxes is theft. This money is owned by the government, because the law says it. If you don't pay taxes you are thefting the government.
We need to organize our common life, because i believe that private person without the government which forces them into prison if they do a crime, will get criminal and i believe that private companies will rule the world without a democratic government.
Strictly speaking, a world without government isn't possible as long ...
You are no god who decides what is wrong and what not. You are living in a society and you have to accept the laws the society make. You are not living alone on this planet.
You can not live with other people in a house and making party at night, because you think that this rule would be against your freedom.
@B190489 "Why you arw against force? Without force we don't have a stable funding."(sic)
This is what I mean. We just begin at too much of a divide. It's one thing to argue with moderates, but arguing with a socialist is just a waste of time. You will use force again and again until people are perfectly the way the majority want them. This supresses individuality. It supresses art. It surpresses genius. I don't want to live in that world.
You are the one who also want to use force. The force of the market, the force of money, net worth, the force of private media, the force of the strongest, the force of dieing (cutting welfare), etc.
I want to force the humans to respect the democratic laws.
@B190489 To clarify: I'm talking specifically of physical force. Of those things you've mentioned, only forcing 'the humans' to respect authority falls under the category of physical force.
To reduce the definition of force on physical force is your failure of thinking. People can force you by owning something in capitalism. Force without physical force is also force and it's not what i want. I want a society where everybody is free from the force of capital and money.
@B190489 "From your point of view, not to subsidize is to abolish, because, proceeding from the premise that nothing exists except by the will of the state, you conclude that nothing lives that taxes do not keep alive."
-Frederic Bastiat
There is private welfare
There are private roads
We are even headed towards private space travel
Does it not astound you, like it does me, the willingness of humanity to go out towards the frontier without the mandate of a bureaucrat or an elected official?
@B190489 So government does not have a monopoly on pretty much all roads? If there is one thing we've learned empirically, it is that government wastes resources because it uses coercion to steal, then redistributes according to political, not economical reasoning, and lastly, consumes a big portion of collection resources itself.
@B190489 My vote is one of millions or even billions. Counts for nothing. In the market though, I can choose to patronise a business or not.
Any sector that is under government control suffers - utilities, education, healthcare. Government redistributes and takes a cut for itself. I'm not your regular Joe so your swinging with Fox or Reason is pointless.
People are not born to be serfs to others (welfare). There is nothing wrong with voluntary cooperation or charity. State is the opposite.
Better one vote of millions (mass intelligence) than no vote = private monopoly.
And it works or are the roads inefficient? (This is stupid question i know but i'm sure you will answer to it, bc you are still in love with your captialist theories).
In a market you can choose, but there is no market possible in roadways. One special route = one company = no choose = monopoly = no competition.
Of course government suffers, all your money is spent on war and the taxes are too low.
"People are not born to be serfs to others" Who says it? God? You should read the bible again, god is pro welfare. I don't want that people are poor while i'm rich, bc freedom is valid for every human, it's a universal right and welfare means guaranteeing that right for everybody, i'm just respecting the human rights.
Voluntary? Do you want to make it a voluntary choice if you people shall kill or not? No, we are not living alone this planet, we need rules and laws to organize the ...
... common life. State exists, bc voluntary doesn't work. If everybody would respect other humans life, we wouldn't need laws and government. That's logical or?!
You get nothing back? No free education, no roadways, no military which protects you, no police, ...??? Of course you get no free healthcare. That's the problem, you have too less government in the US.
My ideal society is Germany TODAY and not Hitler, which was a social darwinist like libertarians.
@B190489 Of course you get people who kill and rob others. I don't need monopoly to protect me, I'll find people who respect property rights and will protect me for a fee, voluntarily.
I don't drive yet I have to pay taxes to pay for the roads. I did get "free" state education - there was no other choice, it was forced
Hey Bruce Benson !,
Sorry to bust your twisted ill logistics about private roads, But any road that is not the driveway on the front yard or backyard of your house is a public road.
Don`t give me this mess about road privatization when everybody who drives a vehicle uses these roads to get from point A to point B.
Private Roads ..... nothing. Stop doing what you're accusing our government of doing which is acting like they control everything and everyone in an invasive way.
- Dwight
djthereplay 4 months ago
@djthereplay - Then that needs to be changed.
Just because people are not granted the option to use private alternatives to a government good and are forced to use and pay for it does not make that the best way for providing that good. An example is the postal service monopoly on mail delivery.
I find it ironic that you insist government does NOT control everything invasively, yet you also use the fact that it DOES as proof that government is somehow the only way to provide that good.
StateExempt 3 months ago
@StateExempt
Maybe because you do not insist that it costs our government money that our goverment prints and presses which we all share as Americans to provide the proper materials needed to do that good .
With the Postal Service Monopoly, Some Politicians are making postal workers overpay to keep the benefits of their job to a level where it brings them down.
Difference, Investing in infrastructure and safer roads, good. Sucking money out of postal workers, bad.
- Dwight
djthereplay 3 months ago
@djthereplay - I never said it does not cost money, I did say that claiming government is the only way to provide a given good is essentially a question-begging argument that forecloses the possibility of all other alternatives.
But I do agree that open-access property and public goods in general are a more complicated problem for market actors to provide than most other goods and services. What Benson describes here certainly cannot be implemented in a day or two.
StateExempt 3 months ago
I'm not so sure about this. When you think about it, there's only one best way to get from point A to point B. Only one person can own that road. It's not like another firm can come in and build a second "most efficient road". So it's by nature, a non-competitive industry.
Distortion0 4 months ago
also your not meant to say that they COULD restrict access, u have to t6hink WOULD they restrict access. why the fuck would a business STOP people from PAYING them. that makes no sense, its the stupidest thing ive ever heard. you dont understand economics, go learn something before you argue with someone on a topic like this.
LordCadby 11 months ago
@LordCadby
agreed! most of these cingy statists are just that- clingy & dumb. They falsely assume that government could even get itself out of a paper bag
swu880 10 months ago
@swu880
The very fact that there is both unused roads and overcrowded heavy traffic roads shows massive amounts of waste- not to mention many govt roads are overpaid & underlaid
swu880 10 months ago
@swu880 thankyou, i like it when somebody else can see that we dont need the government to run our lives, i swear the amount of communists online that dont know how economics works *sigh* its not even just economics, they barely understand morals...
LordCadby 10 months ago
Other FSU professors play. Bruce Benson kills!
Ksabrs45 1 year ago
What will happen if I buy all the roads around someone's house and restrict access to them?
ShwangShwing 1 year ago
@ShwangShwing, the sky will fall and we will all die. Obviously.
Houshalter 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ShwangShwing "What will happen if I buy all the roads around someone's house and restrict access to them?"
A tunnel.
xearther 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ShwangShwing "What will happen if I buy all the roads around someone's house and restrict access to them?" "Mr. libertarian" Walter Block answers that here: mises.org/daily/3431
This problem can be foreseen, and hence in an era of private roads you would buy access insurance. No one would buy any real estate at all unless he were sure that this sort of entrapment couldn't happen to him.
ErikLiberty 11 months ago
@ShwangShwing youll go bankrupt because noone will move to your area, and the people already there will move away. this isnt even a hard one... as if u couldnt figure this our yourself...
LordCadby 11 months ago
@LordCadby No body will move in, but there are already people that bought property there.
ShwangShwing 11 months ago
@ShwangShwing the people that have already bought property will LEAVE, and when u move in u would make sure ur contract doesnt allow them to change the price at any time. watch walter blocks lecture on privatising roads...
LordCadby 11 months ago
@LordCadby If you have enough money to buy an apartment and then just leave it and buy a new one somewhere else then you obviously don't have this problem.
ShwangShwing 11 months ago
@LordCadby
You just made @ShwangShwing's point.
- Dwight
djthereplay 4 months ago
Gubmint roads! Socialism!
nhojflow 1 year ago
@FiveofHearts1
" And the buildings can be built by private Contractors." AS THEY ARE. Is this so hard to understand? Especially the guys who're advocating 'the community' should get involved. The government IS the community. Now I get the standpoint in a utopian wealthy suburb, but hey, downtown NY is just fucked then right? Or will you Make people contribute? Like say, with taxes?
wimscheers 1 year ago
Uhh... those specialized roads do mostly exist. They are called trains. They are worthless in terms of moving people.
safariad 1 year ago
You don't even need to be a citizen recieve healthcare. Private schooling in America would improve the quality of the education of our young people, and increase the quantity of those that receive it. Why do you think we have such great universities? Universities which people come across all over the world for. But they don't just come here because for our universities. I can make a ridiculously long rant because i finished my finals and Im on break!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
pureaggression 1 year ago
@pureaggression Again, I agree with you in general. But the government would still be involved in your private schools idea if it was going to pay for students of poor families. And just as the government harms the private health care industry with its bureaucratic methods, it would continue to harm schools. Only this time it would be harming PRIVATE schools, damaging the current best option for those who can afford them.
I'd vote for vouchers as a first step though.
blogegog 1 year ago
@blogegog Uh, so, what do you not agree with me about..?
pureaggression 1 year ago
@pureaggression Not sure. All I said was that I was on the fence about the government's role in education. That means I'm unsure what part, if any, the government should play in funding schools.
You suggested that I was using 'flawed logic' based upon that statement, I believe. In any case, we pretty much agree on stuff :). Have a great life!
blogegog 1 year ago
In the U.S, people who can't afford food don't starve, and those who can't afford housing don't die in the cold. Government buys products for individuals in trouble and would be able to the same if we had private schools. Its the same concept of foodstamps, the government isn't providing the food, just the valueless money it prints to serve as credit for those who can't afford it. We don't have universal healthcare and people are not going without treatment.
pureaggression 1 year ago
So the taxpayer has paid a decade of education for a student to make to the finally make it to the last years of HS, and then they dropout and have nothing to show for it. AND look how high the dropout rate is among High Schoolers so that point is worth consideration. And you have to realize that if we let the free market organize the school system their would a range of schooling as far as quality and expenses go, as any other market.
pureaggression 1 year ago
But it is only because of public schools that I am forced to call myself "lucky" for many children don't have parents of a nourishing nature or parents at all. And the quality of that education has also continually deteriorated, as an example of that deterioration, teenage unemployment has increasingly risen because dimplomas don't mean anything, except that if you don't have one, youre definately unqualified.
pureaggression 1 year ago
Ive had 12 years of full public schooling and I'll admit I've had wonderful teachers, but the vast majority of them were ineffective and some, at best, useless and undoubtedly would not be teaching if they were held accountable of their failure and incapability. I have learned far more from my parents and personal studies then what I've thrown at me in public schools. Yes, Im a lucky one.
pureaggression 1 year ago
Meh. Roads are one of the tiny group of things I believe the government should provide/handle. Roads, military, police, and food regulations (I'm on the fence about schools).
Private roads these days would create imminent domain battles. And I'd side with the current land owner every time.
blogegog 1 year ago
@blogegog please do me a favor and search and watch a very short clip named " David D. Friedman on Government Education". Just a small peak at your flawed logic. Not trying to be insultive but give it a chance. Great thinkers, such as his father Milton Friedman, battled through out their lives that private education, roads, and others would improve the lot of the average man.
pureaggression 1 year ago
@pureaggression I mostly agree with you and Mr. Friedman. But he left out a key point when he said that he thinks education is too important to be left in the hands of the government - millions of children would receive no schooling at all without the government.
And that's why I'm on the fence about it.
blogegog 1 year ago
@blogegog You have no, and I mean absolutely no, evidence for making such a claim that "millions" would go without schooling if were to privatize the school system. First of all, I don't think thats quite a valid point, because it is inevitable that some don't recieve an education, even in our entirely nationalized system of public schools. Just look at severe the dropout rate is. We can't even fire bad teachers, or judge a teacher on THEIR PERFORMANCE.
pureaggression 1 year ago
What this idiot doesn't understand is that we can't have efficient roads as long as governments continues to regulate land through zoning laws, and continue damaging the energy and transportation market. Not only that but he does a poor job explaining the need for private roads. Walter Block does a better job explaining this.
FireGuyX 1 year ago
@FireGuyX we hadded thy itches
SeeProfileForDetails 1 year ago
@SeeProfileForDetails what?
FireGuyX 1 year ago
Comment removed
FireGuyX 1 year ago
First time I've seen someone try to float the idea that we're not paying for our roads via our gas tax. I think it's kind of an absurd point. If the tax pays for the upkeep of the roads, then mission accomplished. If the tax does that and still doesn't change behavior, then obviously the cost of maintaining roads isn't high enough that it SHOULD change our behavior.
Izzymandias 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ B190489
A contract is an agreement between two parties. Government does not constitute a real contract because we never voluntarily agreed to it so to take money from us is theft. When you use a private road you do so voluntarily knowing the cost so it is not theft and both parties win
DeanApril14 1 year ago 9
Comment removed
DeanApril14 1 year ago
If people wouldn't kill, if people alway would donate enough money to charities, etc, we wouldn't need government to organize our common life. But the world is not alice in wonderland, the world is brutal and wild west without government, which has the power to show the individual the consequences of their behavior. Government laws/force exists to make barriers for social life. We don't live alone on this planet. Freedom without government which has to protect it, isn't possible.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 "we wouldn't need government to organize our common life"
Circular logic.
You are using the environment that exists under a regime of govt to justify the existence of govt.
Look, instead, at those times, places and even industries which had less govt compared to those that have more.
What you will find is great charity, compassion and innovation. Until, that is, govt crushes it.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@CurtHowland
... as we are not living alone on this planet. Private persons will replace the government with their own dictatorship government. The strongest will rule over the weak. I prefer a democratic government guaranteeing our freedom rights by prohibting killings, make sure that everybody has access to healthcare, free education, infrastructure, etc.
There is no real argument for libertarianism. Nearly everything from reasontv and co is refuted here.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 "Private persons will replace the government with their own dictatorship government."
By what leap of infantile naiveté do you think that's not what is going on right now?
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@CurtHowland
That's the problem man, people are fighting against government to replace it with their own government. That are you;) haha
B190489 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@B190489 "That are you;) haha"
What's funny is the way you continue to make the same mistake after it's been pointed out to you.
If I believe coercion is wrong, I cannot then wish to use coercion against others.
I'm not a hypocrite.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
I pay gas taxes and I'm well aware that's part of the cost of roads. The examples of private roads are cherry picked - two or three blocks in St. Louis - give me a break! And I love the shot of free flowing Lexus lanes with those who can afford it zipping by the poor saps bogged down in the public lanes. Once you have enough of these private lanes for the privileged few, no reason to support improvements of public roads.
PeasantPundit 1 year ago
I don;t get it. He makes a argument that private roads exist, but makes only a weak argument as to why private roads are better then public roads. Political influence is not enough of a reason.
And he leaves out a big problem. How does private companies purchase land to create new roads without government use of emanate domain?
I think this guy should stay were he is, between the ivory towers and leave the real world to the rest of us.
henleythecat 1 year ago
I disagree that privatization of roads would take the politics out of them. Private companies would seek political influence to win contracts or be provided access in the public domain areas. Why, today we see private firms leveraging political clout to take private property to develop them into something else. When it comes to money, everything is political.
Otherwise, nice vid.
mikestermike 1 year ago
While completely private roads may be debatable, especially in the current situation where the public ones are so highly subsidized and payed for by taxes. Having privately run and maintained public roads seems logically much less contentious.
bullpcp 1 year ago
@bullpcp You're assuming that the present system must continue.
Have a "debt" sale. Sell everything govt owns to the highest bidders.
Road corporations will find a way to profitably (or non-profitably, if that's there thing) run the road or they will go out of business and sell the road to someone who thinks they have a better idea.
See the Sierra Club buy the Grand Canyon and/or Yellowstone, and do a better job of conservation!
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@CurtHowland I don't disagree with you. I was only stating a less extreme alternative for those less radical than you or myself. I find being right is much less important than many libertarians, minarchists, anarchists, would like to think. We need to learn to compromise and slowly attain our goal. We should learn from the statists how to move slowly towards our goals. Those who will settle for all or nothing will almost always achieve nothing. Peace.
bullpcp 1 year ago
@bullpcp Very good, you go right ahead and compromise.
I will hold the most extreme position I can, making sure that some of us never have to regain any lost ground from "compromise".
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@CurtHowland Wouldn't lost ground imply a move away from our goal of complete privatization and toward more government control and a gaining ground imply a shift towards more privatization and less government control? Those with socialist agendas have very effectively taken incremental steps toward their goals. Ideally I would love to have it all completely privatized but I understand any progress is something to be celebrated. Hopefully we will achieve our common goals through different means.
bullpcp 1 year ago
@bullpcp Not at all. "Lost ground" is anything other than complete success.
By moving the goal away from complete success, even if the goal is reached there is then an entirely new fight over the space left to actual success.
By maintaining sight upon the final goal, no such change in tactics must take place.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@CurtHowland You fight the grand all or nothing battle with success giving you everything you want, and failure giving you nothing at all, and I will cheer you on and support you in that endeavor. I will fight smaller battles and towards the same goals and hope that you will support me in them. I would like to think a combination of the two approaches would give the best results. I'm for the complete privatization of the education system without any government interference...
bullpcp 1 year ago
@bullpcp "and I will cheer you on and support you in that endeavor."
Which, indeed, is what I also said in my first reply to you.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@CurtHowland But I would settle for a step in the right direction. Privatization of the schools by attaching money to the students or even vouchers and charter schools would be better than what we have now. I'm pragmatic about achieving my goals. Peace.
bullpcp 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bullpcp "But I would settle for a step in the right direction."
And that is the sum of the difference in our approaches.
I would NOT settle.
Accept, certainly, and then go on to the next step in the right direction.
Never forget that THAT is how the Socialists, Progressives, et al, have turned America from near Free Market to near total Fascism: Incremental steps but never forgetting their final goal of total control.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
I like Reason's posts a lot, but this one confuses me. Generally roads are things that the government does well. A private firm could make money on toll roads, but I doubt they would be preferable to parallel "free" roads.
That I-90 goes up into Montana isn't that surprising. It can't exactly go through Yellowstone. It's not like Gerrymandering. Not a whole lot of politics there. More misses than hits in this vid.
msudave54 1 year ago
@msudave54 40,000 people per year die on the roads in the USA. Besides, it's not so much a question of whether or not gov roads are good enough; it's a question of whether or not roads are as good as they could be. As in all things, the gov cannot do it as well as the market.
JohnColt 1 year ago
@JohnColt 40,000 out of 300,000,000. And most of those are related to driver error, not the road itself.
Look, I'm not saying government is answer. If there is a strong case for private roads, this vid didn't make it. Just random hypothetical ideas don't really connect.
Government can do some things well. This is why the founders put the post office in the constitution. What government does and how it does it is up to an informed citizenry.
msudave54 1 year ago
@msudave54 LOL - 300,000,000? Err... you might want to rethink that one :D
So, you're a fan of the post office monopoly?
The whole Libertarian argument is that what the Government does and how it does it is NOT in practice determined by "informed citizenry". What's more, Libertarians see the "market" as a collective noun for all the personal choices of the citizenry - so the market is actually far more democratic than the political process; that is the Libertarian opinion.
JohnColt 1 year ago
@JohnColt There are 300,000,000 (Three hundred million) people in the United States. The post office was enshrined by the founders. You are embarrassing libertarians.
msudave54 1 year ago
@msudave54 So everything that made it into the Constitution is automatically the perfect policy? What about those founders who argued against government owned mail delivery? What about libertarians who don't even live in the US?
Beljora 1 year ago
@msudave54 Yes, and how many of them drive? :D
Do you really think the P.O. should be "enshrined"? I mean, it's not the Arc of the Covenant :P
JohnColt 1 year ago
@JohnColt Imagine how much better our roads would be now had we not shitted away the last ten years.
ralphinator2 1 year ago
@msudave54 " roads are things that the government does well" Reeeeeaaallly? Potholes, parking, traffic, access these are not a problem?
I live on a privately owned road (250 townhouses on a network of 5 streets) and we pay for repairs, for snow removal and so on. It's the county run roads and the interstate that is always full of traffic and holes and snow.
I'll give the interstate a pass as a special case (built for the military). But as with all communal property, there's no care for it.
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
@bsabruzzo How bad are potholes really? I can't remember the last time I even saw one. My hypothesis is problems with roads correlate with other problems. I.E. Communities with other more serious problems, also have problems with roads. I feel that the communal roads are well cared for in all of the places I've ever lived.
I like Reason, I'm not some troll. I support a lot of their ideas and the work they do. This video was not their best work.
msudave54 1 year ago
@msudave54 As I live in Washington DC (Northern VA, really) I can tell you that potholes are a continuing problem, but yeah, I'd say you are correct that there are other problems that take attention away from the potholes. But isn't that the point? If you have to do other things, then why not let others deal with the pothole problem?
I agree Reason has been slacking on the videos. They seem to put conflicting topics on.
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
@msudave54 Does well? 40,000 deaths per year and construction that costs more than it would have compared to private firms doing it? Not to mention government has to seal (taxes) in order to give some people a free ride (not everyone drives).
rumco 1 year ago
@msudave54 Of course there is no reason that private companies couldn't run toll roads. What a stupid statement. So what? Why should we have toll roads???? Road should be free. They are infrastructure. Typical university professor. Idiot. Never done a honest days work in his life.
LaRoucheisright 1 year ago
@msudave54 "Generally roads are things that the government does well."
Well?
400,000 (four hundred THOUSAND) people have died on govt roads since 2000 in the US alone!
How can that possibly be called done "well"?
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@CurtHowland
What a stupid argument. Do you really think that drunken drivers have its reson in government roads??? lol
lol another stone age libertarian who hates the interstate highway system.
Government is an monopoly, but controlled by the voters. It is not inefficent, it is more efficient in some tasks.
B190489 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@B190489 "What a stupid argument."
That's true, you are making no sense.
"Do you really think that drunken drivers have its reson in government roads?"
The roads are govt owned and managed. What happens there is their responsibility.
"but controlled by the voters"
Your infantile naiveté is laudable, but if you're old enough to type you have no excuse other than deliberate ignorance.
Name ONE thing govt is more efficient doing.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@Libertarians
Search: red light runners
That are you, people who don't respect government regulations.
LOL!
B190489 1 year ago
@i2aymond
Just answer my question! Why a private owned road is more efficient than a government owned road?
You don't know it, bc there is no real reason to privatize roads, just that some billionaires increase their profit. Profit which can the government better spent on the road itself. Private infrastructure = inefficient
End!
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 Public infrastructure is inherently inefficient because it has no immediate mechanism by which it can allocate resources, while private firms are able to adequately respond to prices, which are the amalgamation of consumer preference. Economic efficiency is the ability to respond to consumer demand, which is NOT what the government does. The government provides roads regardless of the degree to which they are demanded.
TehBANN3D 1 year ago
Comment removed
B190489 1 year ago
Comment removed
B190489 1 year ago
@TehBANN3D
This are just theories from a book.
Without government there would be no moon flight and no interstate system. That are empirical facts.
Yes, a private company can allocate resources efficiently, but on the other side it would have a monopoly on this road. No competition no efficiency.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 That you think going to the moon was a good use of $170 billion dollars tells me everything I need to know about you.
Beljora 1 year ago
@Beljora
You think that the moon flight was wasted money??? lol That tells me everything i need to know about you. lol libertarians...
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489
And the gov't isn't a monopoly? What does the gov't compete with? What is the gov't incentive to maintain the roads?
And the gov't is efficient?
Please... the gov't can't do anything right. Just needs to butt out and let The People do their thing which is how we got to the most powerful nation in the world in a very short time. (but that is for another discussion).
trmentry 1 year ago
@trmentry
The government is a monopoly, but it s controlled by the voters. Here,competition is not needed. The citizen has indirect impact on the decisions.
You are the most powerful nation in the world, just bc you are the largest industrial country.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 No those are not empirical facts as much as assumptions. We don't know for certain with any degree of certainty that moon flight and the interstate system would not exist without government intervention. Moon flight would exist when and if it became pragmatic to do so, something that has not been proven even today, and the interstate does not produce wealth it as other countries have produced cross country roads and railroads that DID NOT increase wealth. continued...
bullpcp 1 year ago
@bullpcp
There was no private moon flight, that is an empirical fact.
The Interstate does not increase wealth??? Hello??? Do you know how much trucks from private companies uses the interstate in a year??? The interstate and the railroads are bringing very much wealth to everybody. Billions of Dollars every year.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 In fact economic historians have proven time and time again that the railroads did not produce wealth and only became practical because of HUGE government grants and subsides, and even some forced monopolies. Again interstate, and cross continental, roads and railroads are natural sign of the need for transport not a cause of wealth. Building them prematurely just misalocates resources inefficiently and forces private entities to compete with government monopolies, crowding out effect.
bullpcp 1 year ago
@bullpcp
Libertarians don't want:
-roads
-government
-welfare
-rules
-moon flight
-etc
Libertarians = people who want to live in the stone age
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 - Still here with your Soviet Agit-Prop?
You're so beyond stupid you tried to insult me by calling me a gun owning Nazi. You're so beyond stupid you cannot understand that Nazis were 100% against private ownership of firearms - LIKE YOU!
thomaserossi 1 year ago
@thomaserossi
Nazis were 100% against welfare LIKE YOU!!!
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 Nazis, that is national socialists, were very much about welfare. A combination of socialism and fascism that subsidized all sorts of activities.
Welfare is theft.
rumco 1 year ago
@rumco
The Nazis END welfare for people for weak people like you would. They END welfare for "hopeless" people. That is what the Nazis did. They killed thousands of disabled humans. If you end social security they also have lower opportunities to survive.
And not every socialist system has welfare idiot. The Nazis were social darwinists, they've showed how a babaric inhuman society without government would look like.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 They killed weak people. They did not consider them to be worth living or even human beings. That is the worst sin of all.
First of all. Welfare is immoral. I own no property and have a moderate income, yet half of it is taken by the state to pay for welfare, warfare and its bureaucrats. And I get nothing back. That's what Mafia does.
What exactly is a welfare idiot? You do not realise that your ideal society has to have dictators such as Stalin or Hitler to tell everyone what to do.
rumco 1 year ago
@B190489 LOL you non-libertarians are fucking stupid.
itachi705 1 year ago
@B190489 Private roads would be competition. If someone with a road would charge exorbitant prices then every other form of transportation would become comparatively cheaper and reduce their profits. If they continued to charge exorbitant prices and make well over 10% profit, the standard in investing, then creating new roads would become a great investment and competition would ensue. In other words if they charged too much they would eventually destroy their profit. Many poor assumptions.
bullpcp 1 year ago
@bullpcp
No, if ONE company owns a road it is NOT competition, it's a monopoly.
Libertarians are so funny. Do you know what the reality is? In the reality roads can not be build like iphones. You can not go to a roadshop to choose the road you want to have. Check out the reality! Competition would be a fucking mass of wasting resources.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 No. A monopoly implies NO ALTERNATIVES. If a company owns a road the only way this would be a monopoly is if there existed literally no other means to get to the destination. This is laughably false. I do check reality constantly.. you should try it sometime instead of assuming your intuition is correct in direct CONTRADICTION OF REALITY. Why don't you check your local map and see how many routes their are to your destination, ground, air, sea, underground, ect. Monopoly indeed :)
bullpcp 1 year ago
@bullpcp
What a stupid argument. The monopoly doesn't mean that there are no different roads, it just means that there is only one road possible which has exactly the same route = monopoly. People HAVE TO drive on this road, bc it is the route they HAVE TO drive or do you want to have two parallel roads = waste of space and resources ???
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 BTW I'm not implying all roads everywhere should be owned by private companies only that they idea does have merit when you take into account a dynamic cybernetic reality instead of an intuitive static, i.e. incorrect, reality. The world adapts unless some barrier to that adaptation exists. You assume that if you change one aspect all or at least most other aspects will remain the same... I don't.
bullpcp 1 year ago
@B190489 Competition already exists. But due to subsidies and tax breaks the forms of transportation currently utilized are not necessarily utilized according to resource consumption or allocation or even convenience or preference their use is in fact heavily distorted. How we use cars, trains, buses, airplanes, subways, ect. should be based all factors of quality and cost and the free market does a superior job of this.
bullpcp 1 year ago
@bullpcp If you really worry about private abuse then at least have private organization run the transportation infrastructure. If at any time they were deemed to be inefficient or abusive they would simply be "fired" and another firm would take over.
bullpcp 1 year ago
@bullpcp
No, competition doesn't exist here. ONE route can only owned by ONE company = monopoly.
By the way, even there would be competition it wouldn't make sense in REALITY, bc the profit could better spent on the road itself by the government. Tolls waste time or cost money. Some parts of society HAS TO be in government ownership. It is more efficient, that's the REALITY.
And the allocation theory isn't valid in this case here, bc the allocation is economically. People with ...
B190489 1 year ago
@bullpcp
... lower wages or people who are living in poor parts of cities would have a worse traffic connection bc, of lower potential for profit. The government has to make sure that everybody has the same access to good roads.
Poor people would get poorer, just bc they don't come to work as fast as others or something else.
Private infrastructure = inefficent bc.
-costs time and money
-competition isn't possible
-profit could spent better
-geographic social diversity
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 "Roads are not built like i-phones" well no kidding :) Houses are not built like i-phones, cars are not built like i-phones, food is not grown like i-phones. This is in fact my point. Since all these utilize different resources over time different costs should be uncured over time with all of them. The basic assumption that everyone should pay the same price for something regardless of resource consumption is ludicrous. Peace out mi amigo :)
bullpcp 1 year ago
Comment removed
B190489 1 year ago
Comment removed
B190489 1 year ago
@bullpcp
Check out the reality, roads are better in government hands. It's the most efficient way, even if you forget all the social aspects.
Ask yourself: Why this video wants to tell you that private roads are better? It's just because the donators to reasontv want to increase their own profit and not the profit of the society.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 well, I think that's nonsense... but for the sake of argument.... what is the difference between individual profit and social profit? Surely when we say that a society has experienced economic growth, we just mean that, on balance, more individuals have created wealth than have lost wealth. No?
JohnColt 1 year ago
@B190489 No. They are apodictic truths.
The fact that a space exploration or interstates would not exist without the government to prop them up is evidence that they are not valued by consumers. Saying money should be spent on things that could not be supported if people were given the choice to support them is advocating an inherently inefficient use of resources [...]
TehBANN3D 1 year ago
@B190489 The pyramids wouldn't exist had there not been a large slave population. Would you use that as a justification for establishing slavery.
Furthermore, it makes no sense to claim that in order to prevent a private monopoly which is 'inefficient' we need a public monopoly. First off, private monopolies cannot exist long term without structural barriers unless they are able to provide goods at equilibrium prices, meaning they earn no profit. [...]
TehBANN3D 1 year ago
@B190489 Second, if it were true that private roads must be monopolized, there would be no competitive private roads today, which there are
TehBANN3D 1 year ago
@B190489 the interstate highway system has been blamed for causing the destruction of inner-cities. it was never intended for public use but for army use in the case of an emergency that required mass mobilization. just because government does something that seems good doesn't mean that all of its unseen effects are good as well.
jhawkins90 1 year ago
@jhawkins90
So you are against interstate highways?
Ok, let sum up, libertarians are against:
-welfare
-roads
-moon flight
-government
libertarians = stone age people
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 If by "are against" you mean "do not want to force people to pay for" then we "are against" every noun you can come up with.
Libertarians try to minimize the amount of force in a society, while socialist try to maximize it. The two are completely incompatible and will never see eye-to-eye. We don't even begin at the same basic axioms, so what's the point of arguing? Go create the Fourth Reich; we wont involve ourselves as long as you leave us alone.
Beljora 1 year ago
@Beljora
Why you arw against force? Without force we don't have a stable funding. Respect easily the law made by the democratic government!!!
Libertarians would maximize the force, bc without government there would be other forces which are non democratic, without your vote.
You are creating the fourth Reich with youtr social darwinist nazi idea. Libertarians = Nazis.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 "Without force we don't have a stable funding."
No.
Without force, govt doesn't have funding, because no one wants it.
What people actually want gets funded voluntarily, without force.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@CurtHowland
Everybody in your country wants a interstate highway system. Your opinion is not the majority one.
Voluntarily? I can't here it no longer. Do you want to allow people to kill each other, bc we don't want that the government forces us into prison???
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 You contradict yourself. First you say "everybody", then you say "majority". Please make up your mind.
"Do you want to allow people to kill each other"
Non sequiter. If force is wrong for everyone, then killing each other is also wrong.
Now, govt agents kill and it's not "murder", because their use of force is legal while it's illegal for non-govt individuals.
That is the barbarity, the hypocrisy, the evil that is the state.
Abolish it.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@CurtHowland
I said everybody like every human has a brain, we know that this isn't 100% true;)
It doesn't matter, majority, everybody, we all know that you are a minority.
How do you want to avoid killings without force??? Do you know understad what i mean???
A government agent can also murder, that doesn't mean that every government agent murders.
A world without state? We have to organize our common life.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 "How do you want to avoid killings without force?"
Let's see if you can grasp this:
Killing is the use of force to take a life.
If the use of force is wrong for everyone, then killing is wrong for everyone by definition.
The state is the institution with the legal monopoly on the "legitimate" use of force. Abolish that monopoly, the state is abolished.
If people want a service, they will pay for it voluntarily.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
Comment removed
B190489 1 year ago
Comment removed
B190489 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CurtHowland
The gov. has a monopoly of LEGAL forces. Legal forces are made by a DEMOCRATIC government. To kill is a ILLEGAL force. A legal force is the force to avoid killings. End the government ability to use legal forces (=voluntarily based), the illegal forces of individuals will rise, bc if you kill, nobody would force you into prison.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 "A legal force is the force to avoid killings."
Again, you make no sense.
Murder has been illegal since before history started being recorded. How is that working out for you? Are there still murders? Yes. So your assertion is false, your use of force is not preventing murder.
But your use of force is hurting people, the definition of force.
Stop that, and the amount of force drops by definition. Self defense prevents crime, logically and statistically proven.
Give it up, you lose.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@CurtHowland
You make no sense again and again.
Murder are illegal, bc a government law make it illegal. If the government would allow it, MORE people will kill, bc there is no government which forces them into prison. We have still killings, but less killings than without government, bc the gov reduces killings by force the people into prison if they kill. That's not hard to understand or????
It makes no sense to discuss with so stupid people like you are.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 Your argument about prison reducing killing has about as much correspondence with reality as the arguments for capital punishment. Retributive State action does not deter actions like murder because murders are almost universally committed by people who don't care about the consequences either because of temporary or total irrationality or thinking they wont get caught.
Those of us who do not commit murder already wouldn't take it up as a hobby in the absence of a State.
Floridanon407 1 year ago
@Floridanon407
People who don't care about the consequences are the people who still kill, yeah, that's right, but the people who care about it don't do it, that's also right. The world is not as easy as you libertarians want to have it.
B190489 1 year ago
@CurtHowland
Self defense is ALREADY allowed. Have you ever been to Somalia??? This is a country without government. People have the right of self defense, they have guns etc, but they the people are dieing like animals BECAUSE THERE IS NO GOVERNMENT WHICH PROTECTS THEM.
Idiot, how hard is that to understand you fucking stupid dumbass???????
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 And then on the other side of the continent you have Liberia, where the government robs and murders its subjects as freely as it wishes, as well as the people of Sierra Leone.
Over 177,000,000 people have been murdered by their own governments in the last century, not even counting international wars. Yes, such protection, I wanna get me some of that!
Floridanon407 1 year ago 2
@Floridanon407
I've never said, that a government always protects your rights. I say that just a government CAN protect our rights.
Shall i count how much people died because of private killings??? I think it's more than government has killed.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 "To kill is a ILLEGAL force."
Police and other govt agents kill every day, legally.
Please, make up your mind. Either it's legal, or it's not. Under your system, it's perfectly legal to kill if you're a govt agent, which contradicts your assertion that killing is an illegal use of force.
Hypocrite.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@CurtHowland
Government agents kill in self defense, here in Germany. Murder rate of government agents 0,001%. Murder rate of the private persons, 1%.
No, it is not legal for government agents to kill, bc the government LAW prohibits it.
THE STATE HAS A MONOPOLY OF LEGAL, LEGAL, LEGAL, FORCES!!!!!!!
Without government everything would be legal, also killings, bc people will kill without that government forces you into prison. Write it down moron!!!!
B190489 1 year ago
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@CurtHowland
Of course the government can tell us what we have to do. That's its task. Laws telling us what we have to do and the goverment is the law. The question is not, can government tell us what we have to do, the question is do we need government. And yes i think we need government to organize our common life.
For you taxation is robbery, but you are not making the laws.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 "Of course the government can tell us what we have to do."
Ah, you're a Good German. One who obeys.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@CurtHowland
Oh no, i'm no obey. Why? I'm one of the voters who decide how our society should look like. I'm a selfmade man and i'm not hearing at my Führer, the capital. I have a vote. I'm one of the most free person on this planet and you american think it too, but you aren't free. You whole media is already under control of the capitalists. Libertarians are brainwashed like teabaggers, just without the religion bullshit.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 "I'm one of the voters who decide how our society should look like"
Then shut up and obey, you chose this.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@CurtHowland
For me not paying taxes is theft. This money is owned by the government, because the law says it. If you don't pay taxes you are thefting the government.
We need to organize our common life, because i believe that private person without the government which forces them into prison if they do a crime, will get criminal and i believe that private companies will rule the world without a democratic government.
Strictly speaking, a world without government isn't possible as long ...
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 "For me not paying taxes is theft."
Then go ahead and pay. If you use force to take from someone else, that's theft.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@CurtHowland
Theft is what privates do. The government is legitimated to take all your money away without asking you and it's still no theft, but law.
Where are your arguments against this?
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 "Where are your arguments against this?"
The so-called "argument" against this is quite simple, but you have to pay attention.
If it is wrong for me to do something, I cannot then delegate that power (which I do not have) to anyone else.
If theft is wrong, then it is wrong. No vote can make it right.
YOU may grant to someone the power to choose for YOU, but you cannot grant someone else the power to choose for anyone else, since they are not you.
CurtHowland 1 year ago 2
@CurtHowland
You are no god who decides what is wrong and what not. You are living in a society and you have to accept the laws the society make. You are not living alone on this planet.
You can not live with other people in a house and making party at night, because you think that this rule would be against your freedom.
B190489 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@B190489 "You are no god who decides what is wrong and what not."
Of course I get to decide, for me.
You, who crow about voting and democracy, are the one playing God and choosing for others.
What a miserable hypocrite you are.
CurtHowland 1 year ago 2
@B190489 "Why you arw against force? Without force we don't have a stable funding."(sic)
This is what I mean. We just begin at too much of a divide. It's one thing to argue with moderates, but arguing with a socialist is just a waste of time. You will use force again and again until people are perfectly the way the majority want them. This supresses individuality. It supresses art. It surpresses genius. I don't want to live in that world.
Beljora 1 year ago
@Beljora
You are the one who also want to use force. The force of the market, the force of money, net worth, the force of private media, the force of the strongest, the force of dieing (cutting welfare), etc.
I want to force the humans to respect the democratic laws.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 To clarify: I'm talking specifically of physical force. Of those things you've mentioned, only forcing 'the humans' to respect authority falls under the category of physical force.
Beljora 1 year ago
@Beljora
To reduce the definition of force on physical force is your failure of thinking. People can force you by owning something in capitalism. Force without physical force is also force and it's not what i want. I want a society where everybody is free from the force of capital and money.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 Anyone who advocates coercion and stealing by the hand of a few (government) is not even a stone age person, but a cave man, barbarian.
Libertarians and anarchists have the upper moral high ground because they believe in non-aggression principle. There is no point for you to argue.
rumco 1 year ago 3
@B190489 "From your point of view, not to subsidize is to abolish, because, proceeding from the premise that nothing exists except by the will of the state, you conclude that nothing lives that taxes do not keep alive."
-Frederic Bastiat
There is private welfare
There are private roads
We are even headed towards private space travel
Does it not astound you, like it does me, the willingness of humanity to go out towards the frontier without the mandate of a bureaucrat or an elected official?
jhawkins90 1 year ago
@jhawkins90
Every private wealth on this planet exists, because of the preconditions the government made.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 this is true. does it give government carte blanche? there's a difference between enforcing our rights and subsidizing our actions
jhawkins90 1 year ago
@jhawkins90
For me having healthcare is a right.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 So government does not have a monopoly on pretty much all roads? If there is one thing we've learned empirically, it is that government wastes resources because it uses coercion to steal, then redistributes according to political, not economical reasoning, and lastly, consumes a big portion of collection resources itself.
rumco 1 year ago
@rumco
The government has monopoly, but you can affect the decision of that monopoly by your vote.
Where the government waste resources? That is toal bullshit. Just bc Fox and reasontv said it, it isn't true.
Everyone who earns his money at the preconditions the society made without paying taxes is a thief and a heartless egoistic stone age cowboy.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 My vote is one of millions or even billions. Counts for nothing. In the market though, I can choose to patronise a business or not.
Any sector that is under government control suffers - utilities, education, healthcare. Government redistributes and takes a cut for itself. I'm not your regular Joe so your swinging with Fox or Reason is pointless.
People are not born to be serfs to others (welfare). There is nothing wrong with voluntary cooperation or charity. State is the opposite.
rumco 1 year ago
@rumco
Better one vote of millions (mass intelligence) than no vote = private monopoly.
And it works or are the roads inefficient? (This is stupid question i know but i'm sure you will answer to it, bc you are still in love with your captialist theories).
In a market you can choose, but there is no market possible in roadways. One special route = one company = no choose = monopoly = no competition.
Of course government suffers, all your money is spent on war and the taxes are too low.
B190489 1 year ago
@rumco
"People are not born to be serfs to others" Who says it? God? You should read the bible again, god is pro welfare. I don't want that people are poor while i'm rich, bc freedom is valid for every human, it's a universal right and welfare means guaranteeing that right for everybody, i'm just respecting the human rights.
Voluntary? Do you want to make it a voluntary choice if you people shall kill or not? No, we are not living alone this planet, we need rules and laws to organize the ...
B190489 1 year ago
@rumco
... common life. State exists, bc voluntary doesn't work. If everybody would respect other humans life, we wouldn't need laws and government. That's logical or?!
You get nothing back? No free education, no roadways, no military which protects you, no police, ...??? Of course you get no free healthcare. That's the problem, you have too less government in the US.
My ideal society is Germany TODAY and not Hitler, which was a social darwinist like libertarians.
B190489 1 year ago
@B190489 Of course you get people who kill and rob others. I don't need monopoly to protect me, I'll find people who respect property rights and will protect me for a fee, voluntarily.
I don't drive yet I have to pay taxes to pay for the roads. I did get "free" state education - there was no other choice, it was forced