Total Posts:53|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Another free market road question

Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 9:03:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I originally thought of this in regards to AnCap, but it really applies to anyone that believes that all roads should be privatized.

The idea of a free market only works when there are plenty of options. That is how competition works. But my house only connects to one road. My driveway does not empty into 6 different roads. So what happens if a company buys a road that has 100 people living on it? If they own the road, do they not have every right to charge whatever price they want for the service of driving on their road? Do they have the right to say "it now costs $50 a day per person to drive on my road?"

If they do, how would that effect the economy? Also, is there any reason that this wouldn't happen?

If they don't, why not?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 9:16:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 9:03:24 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I originally thought of this in regards to AnCap, but it really applies to anyone that believes that all roads should be privatized.

The idea of a free market only works when there are plenty of options. That is how competition works. But my house only connects to one road. My driveway does not empty into 6 different roads. So what happens if a company buys a road that has 100 people living on it? If they own the road, do they not have every right to charge whatever price they want for the service of driving on their road? Do they have the right to say "it now costs $50 a day per person to drive on my road?"

If they do, how would that effect the economy? Also, is there any reason that this wouldn't happen?

If they don't, why not?

In your scenario perhaps. I suppose if there was a person who only had the skill set to do one job and in their town there was this mega corporation and it was the only corporation that provided the job that the person had the skill set and then oh no he would just be a slave roads roads social contract etc.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 9:23:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 9:16:00 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 7/10/2012 9:03:24 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I originally thought of this in regards to AnCap, but it really applies to anyone that believes that all roads should be privatized.

The idea of a free market only works when there are plenty of options. That is how competition works. But my house only connects to one road. My driveway does not empty into 6 different roads. So what happens if a company buys a road that has 100 people living on it? If they own the road, do they not have every right to charge whatever price they want for the service of driving on their road? Do they have the right to say "it now costs $50 a day per person to drive on my road?"

If they do, how would that effect the economy? Also, is there any reason that this wouldn't happen?

If they don't, why not?

In your scenario perhaps. I suppose if there was a person who only had the skill set to do one job and in their town there was this mega corporation and it was the only corporation that provided the job that the person had the skill set and then oh no he would just be a slave roads roads social contract etc.

Yeah, but roads are a little more universal. Regardless of my "skill set" or how many different skills I can do, I have to get to work somehow. And that means driving on a road, biking on a road, walking on a sidewalk, whatever. If there is only one road, what do you do?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 9:25:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 9:23:40 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/10/2012 9:16:00 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 7/10/2012 9:03:24 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I originally thought of this in regards to AnCap, but it really applies to anyone that believes that all roads should be privatized.

The idea of a free market only works when there are plenty of options. That is how competition works. But my house only connects to one road. My driveway does not empty into 6 different roads. So what happens if a company buys a road that has 100 people living on it? If they own the road, do they not have every right to charge whatever price they want for the service of driving on their road? Do they have the right to say "it now costs $50 a day per person to drive on my road?"

If they do, how would that effect the economy? Also, is there any reason that this wouldn't happen?

If they don't, why not?

In your scenario perhaps. I suppose if there was a person who only had the skill set to do one job and in their town there was this mega corporation and it was the only corporation that provided the job that the person had the skill set and then oh no he would just be a slave roads roads social contract etc.

Yeah, but roads are a little more universal. Regardless of my "skill set" or how many different skills I can do, I have to get to work somehow. And that means driving on a road, biking on a road, walking on a sidewalk, whatever. If there is only one road, what do you do?

Nowhere I'd assume unless you decide to opt out of traveling on the road.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 10:00:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I need to know more to analyze your question. For starters: Was your house there first or the road there first? Were there any agreements between you and the previous road owner?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 10:03:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 9:03:24 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I originally thought of this in regards to AnCap, but it really applies to anyone that believes that all roads should be privatized.

The idea of a free market only works when there are plenty of options. That is how competition works. But my house only connects to one road. My driveway does not empty into 6 different roads. So what happens if a company buys a road that has 100 people living on it? If they own the road, do they not have every right to charge whatever price they want for the service of driving on their road? Do they have the right to say "it now costs $50 a day per person to drive on my road?"

If they do, how would that effect the economy? Also, is there any reason that this wouldn't happen?

If they don't, why not?

1) The fee of $50/day+person would disuade people from using the road. The members of the community would likely find a way to get around the fee by riding bikes to where their cars are parked away from the road. They may also drive through their back yards or on another path until they get to another road. The point is that, if the price is too high, people will find ways of getting around it; they're clever.

2) You conceded the choices and competition in the free market. A company cannot stay competitive if it charges 20000% a reasonable rate, and will lose money when people refuse to pay it via the aforementioned ways in '1)'. Furthermore, another company may acquire the road which charges a more reasonable price that people are willing to pay after the former's bankruptcy, or that new company may build two roads on the back sides of people's house, providing another, more reasonable option for people to choose.

3) If the people in the community/rows of houses payed for the building of the road themselves and pay for the repairs in a pool, then a company taking the road from them would break the community's contract, which they would bring to an arbitrator if necessary to resolve the dispute.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 10:41:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
WSA, the point of the OP isn't to actually arrive at a legitimate answer. It's to prod anarchists into trying to defend each and every little problem that could possibly arise under anarchism. It's a useless question and doesn't deserve an answer.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 10:45:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 10:03:10 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 7/10/2012 9:03:24 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I originally thought of this in regards to AnCap, but it really applies to anyone that believes that all roads should be privatized.

The idea of a free market only works when there are plenty of options. That is how competition works. But my house only connects to one road. My driveway does not empty into 6 different roads. So what happens if a company buys a road that has 100 people living on it? If they own the road, do they not have every right to charge whatever price they want for the service of driving on their road? Do they have the right to say "it now costs $50 a day per person to drive on my road?"

If they do, how would that effect the economy? Also, is there any reason that this wouldn't happen?

If they don't, why not?

1) The fee of $50/day+person would disuade people from using the road. The members of the community would likely find a way to get around the fee by riding bikes to where their cars are parked away from the road. They may also drive through their back yards or on another path until they get to another road. The point is that, if the price is too high, people will find ways of getting around it; they're clever.

How many places outside your home is there free parking on private property? There is a single road in my town that services 600 homes (gotta love suburbia). There is nowhere near by that can hold 600 cars, and if there was, there would be charges for it.

Simply saying "eh, people will figure it out" is intellectual laziness. No one is going to allow 1,000 to walk through their back yard day in and day out.


2) You conceded the choices and competition in the free market. A company cannot stay competitive if it charges 20000% a reasonable rate, and will lose money when people refuse to pay it via the aforementioned ways in '1)'. Furthermore, another company may acquire the road which charges a more reasonable price that people are willing to pay after the former's bankruptcy, or that new company may build two roads on the back sides of people's house, providing another, more reasonable option for people to choose.

Why would company A go bankrupt? Is your idea that people would simply steal services that they feel are too expensive? Do you really believe any other company would then purchase that road of those people?

Further, the company would have justification to forcefully take payment (if you steal a service, the company can force payment). And thus, not go bankrupt.


3) If the people in the community/rows of houses payed for the building of the road themselves and pay for the repairs in a pool, then a company taking the road from them would break the community's contract, which they would bring to an arbitrator if necessary to resolve the dispute.

If the community owned the road, then that is the case. But mathematically, a group of 600 middle class people cannot out spend a single large company. The only option would that the previous owner made a selling decision based on ethical grounds, rather than capital grounds.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 10:47:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 10:41:48 PM, socialpinko wrote:
WSA, the point of the OP isn't to actually arrive at a legitimate answer. It's to prod anarchists into trying to defend each and every little problem that could possibly arise under anarchism. It's a useless question and doesn't deserve an answer.

It's not for anarchists, it for free market. So AnCom doesn't really need to respond.

Are you suggesting that in a completely free market, this wouldn't happen? That road is, by definition, a monopoly. You must be aware of what happens when there is a monopoly, it is the very reason you are against the state (monopoly of power).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 10:50:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 10:00:18 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I need to know more to analyze your question. For starters: Was your house there first or the road there first? Were there any agreements between you and the previous road owner?

For the most part, roads are built first.

In a housing development, they build the roads first.

Lets say the government goes bankrupt or an minimalist government president takes office and says "all roads are for sale we are not going to be in that business anymore."
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 10:53:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 10:47:38 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/10/2012 10:41:48 PM, socialpinko wrote:
WSA, the point of the OP isn't to actually arrive at a legitimate answer. It's to prod anarchists into trying to defend each and every little problem that could possibly arise under anarchism. It's a useless question and doesn't deserve an answer.

It's not for anarchists, it for free market. So AnCom doesn't really need to respond.

Are you suggesting that in a completely free market, this wouldn't happen? That road is, by definition, a monopoly. You must be aware of what happens when there is a monopoly, it is the very reason you are against the state (monopoly of power).

You're equivocating two types of monopoly, forced monopoly (State) and unplanned natural monopoly. And I conceded that in the scenario you described it probably would. You didn't really even try to say it would necessarily or even probably happen though. You just threw out a what if scenario and expect it to prove something.

I got one for you. Let's say the State is a big d1ck and takes away all our freedoms and taxes are 100% percent and anyone who does so and so is killed and it's all bad and stuff. Don't you see this would happen with a govment? Anarchy please.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 10:56:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 10:47:38 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/10/2012 10:41:48 PM, socialpinko wrote:
WSA, the point of the OP isn't to actually arrive at a legitimate answer. It's to prod anarchists into trying to defend each and every little problem that could possibly arise under anarchism. It's a useless question and doesn't deserve an answer.

It's not for anarchists, it for free market. So AnCom doesn't really need to respond.

Are you suggesting that in a completely free market, this wouldn't happen? That road is, by definition, a monopoly. You must be aware of what happens when there is a monopoly, it is the very reason you are against the state (monopoly of power).

I can't speak for other, but I am not against monopolies per se. Rather, I am against an institution using force or coercion to keep their monopoly.

I understand your point though, and the dilemma you brought up is one of the reasons I don't think anarchism would work. I wouldn't mind being proven wrong though.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 10:57:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 10:56:32 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 7/10/2012 10:47:38 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/10/2012 10:41:48 PM, socialpinko wrote:
WSA, the point of the OP isn't to actually arrive at a legitimate answer. It's to prod anarchists into trying to defend each and every little problem that could possibly arise under anarchism. It's a useless question and doesn't deserve an answer.

It's not for anarchists, it for free market. So AnCom doesn't really need to respond.

Are you suggesting that in a completely free market, this wouldn't happen? That road is, by definition, a monopoly. You must be aware of what happens when there is a monopoly, it is the very reason you are against the state (monopoly of power).

I can't speak for others, but I am not against monopolies per se. Rather, I am against an institution using force or coercion to keep their monopoly.

I understand your point though, and the dilemma you brought up is one of the reasons I don't think anarchism would work. I wouldn't mind being proven wrong though.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 11:06:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 10:53:00 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 7/10/2012 10:47:38 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/10/2012 10:41:48 PM, socialpinko wrote:
WSA, the point of the OP isn't to actually arrive at a legitimate answer. It's to prod anarchists into trying to defend each and every little problem that could possibly arise under anarchism. It's a useless question and doesn't deserve an answer.

It's not for anarchists, it for free market. So AnCom doesn't really need to respond.

Are you suggesting that in a completely free market, this wouldn't happen? That road is, by definition, a monopoly. You must be aware of what happens when there is a monopoly, it is the very reason you are against the state (monopoly of power).

You're equivocating two types of monopoly, forced monopoly (State) and unplanned natural monopoly. And I conceded that in the scenario you described it probably would. You didn't really even try to say it would necessarily or even probably happen though. You just threw out a what if scenario and expect it to prove something.

I got one for you. Let's say the State is a big d1ck and takes away all our freedoms and taxes are 100% percent and anyone who does so and so is killed and it's all bad and stuff. Don't you see this would happen with a govment? Anarchy please.

Difference, in a free market, the road needs to be owned by someone or someones. History has shown that companies will often engage in price gouging and market manipulation.

In the government senerio, the people would rebel. In all likeliness, the people in the military (they are, after all, people too) would not support, or at least have internal conflicts. After all, in Egypt, during the protests, the government ordered that people out after curfew be shot, and the military refused the order. It was at that point I knew the revolution would be successful.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 11:08:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 10:56:32 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 7/10/2012 10:47:38 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/10/2012 10:41:48 PM, socialpinko wrote:
WSA, the point of the OP isn't to actually arrive at a legitimate answer. It's to prod anarchists into trying to defend each and every little problem that could possibly arise under anarchism. It's a useless question and doesn't deserve an answer.

It's not for anarchists, it for free market. So AnCom doesn't really need to respond.

Are you suggesting that in a completely free market, this wouldn't happen? That road is, by definition, a monopoly. You must be aware of what happens when there is a monopoly, it is the very reason you are against the state (monopoly of power).

I can't speak for other, but I am not against monopolies per se. Rather, I am against an institution using force or coercion to keep their monopoly.

But just like current companies using security guards to protect their company (prevent people from not paying for services and/or goods, etc), wouldn't the company do the same here?


I understand your point though, and the dilemma you brought up is one of the reasons I don't think anarchism would work. I wouldn't mind being proven wrong though.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 11:08:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 11:06:11 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/10/2012 10:53:00 PM, socialpinko wrote:

You're equivocating two types of monopoly, forced monopoly (State) and unplanned natural monopoly. And I conceded that in the scenario you described it probably would. You didn't really even try to say it would necessarily or even probably happen though. You just threw out a what if scenario and expect it to prove something.

I got one for you. Let's say the State is a big d1ck and takes away all our freedoms and taxes are 100% percent and anyone who does so and so is killed and it's all bad and stuff. Don't you see this would happen with a govment? Anarchy please.

Difference, in a free market, the road needs to be owned by someone or someones. History has shown that companies will often engage in price gouging and market manipulation.

I got a good idea. Let's just let one institution which has historically been hopelessly corruptible take care of it all then.

In the government senerio, the people would rebel. In all likeliness, the people in the military (they are, after all, people too) would not support, or at least have internal conflicts. After all, in Egypt, during the protests, the government ordered that people out after curfew be shot, and the military refused the order. It was at that point I knew the revolution would be successful.

What the what are you talking about?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 11:09:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 11:08:12 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 7/10/2012 11:06:11 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/10/2012 10:53:00 PM, socialpinko wrote:

You're equivocating two types of monopoly, forced monopoly (State) and unplanned natural monopoly. And I conceded that in the scenario you described it probably would. You didn't really even try to say it would necessarily or even probably happen though. You just threw out a what if scenario and expect it to prove something.

I got one for you. Let's say the State is a big d1ck and takes away all our freedoms and taxes are 100% percent and anyone who does so and so is killed and it's all bad and stuff. Don't you see this would happen with a govment? Anarchy please.

Difference, in a free market, the road needs to be owned by someone or someones. History has shown that companies will often engage in price gouging and market manipulation.

I got a good idea. Let's just let one institution which has historically been hopelessly corruptible take care of it all then.

You mean human nature? In iRobot, I was rooting for the robots because of that corruptible human nature.


In the government senerio, the people would rebel. In all likeliness, the people in the military (they are, after all, people too) would not support, or at least have internal conflicts. After all, in Egypt, during the protests, the government ordered that people out after curfew be shot, and the military refused the order. It was at that point I knew the revolution would be successful.

What the what are you talking about?

The Egyptian protests, in modern history, kinda made the news for awhile.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 11:36:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 10:50:45 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/10/2012 10:00:18 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I need to know more to analyze your question. For starters: Was your house there first or the road there first? Were there any agreements between you and the previous road owner?

For the most part, roads are built first.
In that scenario, you couldn't possibly be stupid enough to build a house next to a single road without contracting to secure your road access-- there's your reason it won't happen.


In a housing development, they build the roads first.
In that scenario, well, the people marketing the homes are the people owning the roads. Bad idea for them to screw up their own product.


Lets say the government goes bankrupt
and ceases to exist with no creditors or...? If so.... the road becomes non-property, and if someone should happen start maintaining it and thereby, the house was "there first"-- there before the road becomes property. Such acquisition is subject to an easement, as they have no right to obstruct the way you used your property (such as going from or to your house) before they get there. They have, in a sense, a limited property claim already-- not enough to bar all use by new acquirers,but enough to bar obstructive use. (much like a minarchist government has a right to exclusive jurisdiction of the courts over your land, without a right to take it away from you).

or an minimalist government president takes office and says "all roads are for sale we are not going to be in that business anymore."
Honestly, when you're in the business of righting a historical wrong like that, there's a number of ways you can go about it. You can say "Shouldn't have relied on the govt, we ain't bailing you out on the risk (just like you say in this scenario to pensioners and foreign creditors of the govt such); you can give the homeowner an easement like above if you're going for a more gradual transition (which implies that you'd be slowly weaning pensioners off or honoring their pensions completely instead of just saying f*** you;, and that you'd honor foreign debts)-- when you're on the path to legitimate government, what's important is that you set a rule about how the past is dealt with, are consistent about applying it, and do no new wrongs. Radical change vs gradual change isn't a moral issue so much as a practical one. My thoughts: If this president were elected through the normal means, he'd probably be best off going with the gradualism-and-easements option. If he took power in a violent revolution, probably best off with the f*** you option. If he took power in a constitutional convention or something, could go either way, all depends what the general consensus is-- what's most likely to keep enough support to allow the transition to actually happen? Priority 1: Transition gotta happen. How it happens is secondary.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 11:49:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 11:36:53 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/10/2012 10:50:45 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/10/2012 10:00:18 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I need to know more to analyze your question. For starters: Was your house there first or the road there first? Were there any agreements between you and the previous road owner?

For the most part, roads are built first.
In that scenario, you couldn't possibly be stupid enough to build a house next to a single road without contracting to secure your road access-- there's your reason it won't happen.


In a housing development, they build the roads first.
In that scenario, well, the people marketing the homes are the people owning the roads. Bad idea for them to screw up their own product.

They sell the homes first, then sell the road. Ideally, the people would make sure to get a contract, but you know how well people read and understand contracts and fine print.



Lets say the government goes bankrupt
and ceases to exist with no creditors or...?

The liquidate and sell all assets, including roads in the process.

or an minimalist government president takes office and says "all roads are for sale we are not going to be in that business anymore."
Honestly, when you're in the business of righting a historical wrong like that, there's a number of ways you can go about it. You can say "Shouldn't have relied on the govt, we ain't bailing you out on the risk (just like you say in this scenario to pensioners and foreign creditors of the govt such); you can give the homeowner an easement like above if you're going for a more gradual transition (which implies that you'd be slowly weaning pensioners off or honoring their pensions completely instead of just saying f*** you;, and that you'd honor foreign debts)-- when you're on the path to legitimate government, what's important is that you set a rule about how the past is dealt with, are consistent about applying it, and do no new wrongs. Radical change vs gradual change isn't a moral issue so much as a practical one. My thoughts: If this president were elected through the normal means, he'd probably be best off going with the gradualism-and-easements option. If he took power in a violent revolution, probably best off with the f*** you option. If he took power in a constitutional convention or something, could go either way, all depends what the general consensus is-- what's most likely to keep enough support to allow the transition to actually happen? Priority 1: Transition gotta happen. How it happens is secondary.

Is that not basically saying that government of some form is still needed to provide some regulations?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 12:36:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 10:41:48 PM, socialpinko wrote:
WSA, the point of the OP isn't to actually arrive at a legitimate answer. It's to prod anarchists into trying to defend each and every little problem that could possibly arise under anarchism. It's a useless question and doesn't deserve an answer.

That's what it looks like. "Butt wut if da roadz came b4 anda turdle iz crossing da road, doncha nede guvrenment 2 make zure da turdle can haz babiez? Den dey nede incubation! Butt wut if a dood chargez $50 fer da incubation?"

It gets very tiring, especially after doing this with several people. I'll have to make one excellent debate on the subject to make the 'roadz zombies' shut up.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 12:39:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/11/2012 12:36:05 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 7/10/2012 10:41:48 PM, socialpinko wrote:
WSA, the point of the OP isn't to actually arrive at a legitimate answer. It's to prod anarchists into trying to defend each and every little problem that could possibly arise under anarchism. It's a useless question and doesn't deserve an answer.

That's what it looks like. "Butt wut if da roadz came b4 anda turdle iz crossing da road, doncha nede guvrenment 2 make zure da turdle can haz babiez? Den dey nede incubation! Butt wut if a dood chargez $50 fer da incubation?"

It gets very tiring, especially after doing this with several people. I'll have to make one excellent debate on the subject to make the 'roadz zombies' shut up.

Please do.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 12:45:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 10:45:46 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/10/2012 10:03:10 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 7/10/2012 9:03:24 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I originally thought of this in regards to AnCap, but it really applies to anyone that believes that all roads should be privatized.

The idea of a free market only works when there are plenty of options. That is how competition works. But my house only connects to one road. My driveway does not empty into 6 different roads. So what happens if a company buys a road that has 100 people living on it? If they own the road, do they not have every right to charge whatever price they want for the service of driving on their road? Do they have the right to say "it now costs $50 a day per person to drive on my road?"

If they do, how would that effect the economy? Also, is there any reason that this wouldn't happen?

If they don't, why not?

1) The fee of $50/day+person would disuade people from using the road. The members of the community would likely find a way to get around the fee by riding bikes to where their cars are parked away from the road. They may also drive through their back yards or on another path until they get to another road. The point is that, if the price is too high, people will find ways of getting around it; they're clever.

How many places outside your home is there free parking on private property? There is a single road in my town that services 600 homes (gotta love suburbia). There is nowhere near by that can hold 600 cars, and if there was, there would be charges for it.

Simply saying "eh, people will figure it out" is intellectual laziness. No one is going to allow 1,000 to walk through their back yard day in and day out.

FVCK FVCK FVCK GOOD ARG!!! I'm now a minarchist + infrastructure. Thanks for the excellent points during my conversion process.


2) You conceded the choices and competition in the free market. A company cannot stay competitive if it charges 20000% a reasonable rate, and will lose money when people refuse to pay it via the aforementioned ways in '1)'. Furthermore, another company may acquire the road which charges a more reasonable price that people are willing to pay after the former's bankruptcy, or that new company may build two roads on the back sides of people's house, providing another, more reasonable option for people to choose.

Why would company A go bankrupt? Is your idea that people would simply steal services that they feel are too expensive? Do you really believe any other company would then purchase that road of those people?

Are you familiar with the concept of companies paying people to work? Also, it turns out if something is unprofitable, it tends to stop the unprofitable part of the operation or go bankrupt.

Further, the company would have justification to forcefully take payment (if you steal a service, the company can force payment). And thus, not go bankrupt.

That has happened on every private road I've ever driven on. Good argument.


3) If the people in the community/rows of houses payed for the building of the road themselves and pay for the repairs in a pool, then a company taking the road from them would break the community's contract, which they would bring to an arbitrator if necessary to resolve the dispute.

If the community owned the road, then that is the case. But mathematically, a group of 600 middle class people cannot out spend a single large company. The only option would that the previous owner made a selling decision based on ethical grounds, rather than capital grounds.

I'm guessing you've avoided my solution of pooling resources to finance the construction another road or path. Another problem with your scenario is that in free market capitalism, reputation is more important. What would it do to that company's reputation if several news stories were published detailing the company's terrible behavior. That would damage the company and less business would be done with such a company. Furthermore, if that's how this company expected to do ALL of its business, it would go bankrupt within a quarter.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 1:53:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think the point is there would be a geographical, necessary monopoly.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 2:38:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 10:41:48 PM, socialpinko wrote:
WSA, the point of the OP isn't to actually arrive at a legitimate answer. It's to prod anarchists into trying to defend each and every little problem that could possibly arise under anarchism. It's a useless question and doesn't deserve an answer.

Actually no, it is a major point that any anarchist defending the whole "all roads should be privatized" idea should have answers to. I have never seen a house built with two driveways, yet this would be necessary for every house in the country to keep from falling prey to the monopoly scenario the OP brings up. If you have no answer to such a basic question then your entire privatized roads theory is unsustainable.

Also, while we are on the subject of useless questions that apparently don't deserve answers, I always wondered how exactly all of these private roads would make money. I live on Parker St. in the Bronx. To get to Papa Johns down the street (I walk there all the time) I would have to start on Parker St., turn right onto Lyon Ave, turn right onto Zerega Ave, then turn right onto Westchester Ave just to drive about 4 blocks to get there. If they were all privatized would I have to stop and pay a toll on each of them? And since we are talking about anarchism, I assume there are no police so if I fail to pay the toll what happens?
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 2:59:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/11/2012 2:38:39 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 7/10/2012 10:41:48 PM, socialpinko wrote:
WSA, the point of the OP isn't to actually arrive at a legitimate answer. It's to prod anarchists into trying to defend each and every little problem that could possibly arise under anarchism. It's a useless question and doesn't deserve an answer.

Actually no, it is a major point that any anarchist defending the whole "all roads should be privatized" idea should have answers to. I have never seen a house built with two driveways, yet this would be necessary for every house in the country to keep from falling prey to the monopoly scenario the OP brings up. If you have no answer to such a basic question then your entire privatized roads theory is unsustainable.

False, she was talking about an unlikely scenario that would be improbable for several reasons that I and others have brought up. From your post it seems you do not understand how monopolies function in a free market. Please name a monopoly that arose and was sustained for a reasonable length of time without government help.

Monopolies:
http://mises.org...

Also, while we are on the subject of useless questions that apparently don't deserve answers, I always wondered how exactly all of these private roads would make money. I live on Parker St. in the Bronx. To get to Papa Johns down the street (I walk there all the time) I would have to start on Parker St., turn right onto Lyon Ave, turn right onto Zerega Ave, then turn right onto Westchester Ave just to drive about 4 blocks to get there. If they were all privatized would I have to stop and pay a toll on each of them? And since we are talking about anarchism, I assume there are no police so if I fail to pay the toll what happens?

You don't understand market anarchy either. O___O

Private law in anarchy:
http://mises.org...
http://www.daviddfriedman.com...
http://jim.com...

Private police in anarchy:
http://www.ozarkia.net...
http://mises.org...

Prive roads in anarchy:
http://www.strike-the-root.com...
http://mises.org...
http://c4ss.org...
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 8:57:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The surrounding neighborhood homeowner association would own the road and be responsible for its maintenance, a similar situation to local parks and such things. The community would then choose from multiple road maintenance companies for the best policy. Homeowners would pay some monthly fee for the upkeep of the roads; whether outsiders may use the roads without a toll is up to the owners.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 8:36:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/11/2012 12:45:49 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 7/10/2012 10:45:46 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/10/2012 10:03:10 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 7/10/2012 9:03:24 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I originally thought of this in regards to AnCap, but it really applies to anyone that believes that all roads should be privatized.

The idea of a free market only works when there are plenty of options. That is how competition works. But my house only connects to one road. My driveway does not empty into 6 different roads. So what happens if a company buys a road that has 100 people living on it? If they own the road, do they not have every right to charge whatever price they want for the service of driving on their road? Do they have the right to say "it now costs $50 a day per person to drive on my road?"

If they do, how would that effect the economy? Also, is there any reason that this wouldn't happen?

If they don't, why not?

1) The fee of $50/day+person would disuade people from using the road. The members of the community would likely find a way to get around the fee by riding bikes to where their cars are parked away from the road. They may also drive through their back yards or on another path until they get to another road. The point is that, if the price is too high, people will find ways of getting around it; they're clever.

How many places outside your home is there free parking on private property? There is a single road in my town that services 600 homes (gotta love suburbia). There is nowhere near by that can hold 600 cars, and if there was, there would be charges for it.

Simply saying "eh, people will figure it out" is intellectual laziness. No one is going to allow 1,000 to walk through their back yard day in and day out.

FVCK FVCK FVCK GOOD ARG!!! I'm now a minarchist + infrastructure. Thanks for the excellent points during my conversion process.

Not a problem.



2) You conceded the choices and competition in the free market. A company cannot stay competitive if it charges 20000% a reasonable rate, and will lose money when people refuse to pay it via the aforementioned ways in '1)'. Furthermore, another company may acquire the road which charges a more reasonable price that people are willing to pay after the former's bankruptcy, or that new company may build two roads on the back sides of people's house, providing another, more reasonable option for people to choose.

Why would company A go bankrupt? Is your idea that people would simply steal services that they feel are too expensive? Do you really believe any other company would then purchase that road of those people?

Are you familiar with the concept of companies paying people to work? Also, it turns out if something is unprofitable, it tends to stop the unprofitable part of the operation or go bankrupt.

The thing is, it is more unprofitable for the people to not go to work. People also tend to have less free capital to be without income.


Further, the company would have justification to forcefully take payment (if you steal a service, the company can force payment). And thus, not go bankrupt.

That has happened on every private road I've ever driven on. Good argument.

All current private roads have optional choices. That is not the case if the private road is the very road that your house is on.



3) If the people in the community/rows of houses payed for the building of the road themselves and pay for the repairs in a pool, then a company taking the road from them would break the community's contract, which they would bring to an arbitrator if necessary to resolve the dispute.

If the community owned the road, then that is the case. But mathematically, a group of 600 middle class people cannot out spend a single large company. The only option would that the previous owner made a selling decision based on ethical grounds, rather than capital grounds.

I'm guessing you've avoided my solution of pooling resources to finance the construction another road or path.

I'm looking out my window right now, and can see that it is physically impossible to connect a new road to my driveway. So yes, I ignored the physically impossible solution.

Another problem with your scenario is that in free market capitalism, reputation is more important. What would it do to that company's reputation if several news stories were published detailing the company's terrible behavior. That would damage the company and less business would be done with such a company.

How would less business be done? The road is residential, not a highway or freeway. The only people that do business are doing it because they have no realistic choice. Sure, there may be people that simply use that road for the "fun sunday drive" that they would lose, but the people that live on that street would not be able to simply not use it. So, regardless of their reputation, there would still be customers.

It is kinda like loan sharks. No one uses them because they "want" to, they use them because they have no better options.

Furthermore, if that's how this company expected to do ALL of its business, it would go bankrupt within a quarter.

And if all the people living on that street stopped going to work, nearly all of them would be bankrupt in a month.

If I make $150 a day going to work, then a sudden charge of $50 a day would leave me with only $100 a day. That is still better than not going to work and making $0 a day.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 8:45:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/11/2012 8:57:49 AM, mongeese wrote:
The surrounding neighborhood homeowner association would own the road

Why would they "own" the road above someone else? Ethically, if the government liquidated, it should do this specifically to prevent this problem. However, under liquidation, the liquidating authority often sells to the highest bidder.

As some liquidators may be more practical, it is unlikely that every single one would, so this situation would still likely happen in various locations.

and be responsible for its maintenance, a similar situation to local parks and such things. The community would then choose from multiple road maintenance companies for the best policy. Homeowners would pay some monthly fee for the upkeep of the roads; whether outsiders may use the roads without a toll is up to the owners.

If the Homeowner's Association owns the road, then I would agree with all of this.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 9:05:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/11/2012 8:45:01 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/11/2012 8:57:49 AM, mongeese wrote:
The surrounding neighborhood homeowner association would own the road

Why would they "own" the road above someone else?

Same reason you own your own house to some degree. Because you use it so much, and it's the best solution.

Ethically, if the government liquidated, it should do this specifically to prevent this problem. However, under liquidation, the liquidating authority often sells to the highest bidder.

Well, the road should belong to the neighboring houses regardless, so what's the conflict.

As some liquidators may be more practical, it is unlikely that every single one would, so this situation would still likely happen in various locations.

So a problem may be inherited from the time when government ran the roads. What do you want us to say?

and be responsible for its maintenance, a similar situation to local parks and such things. The community would then choose from multiple road maintenance companies for the best policy. Homeowners would pay some monthly fee for the upkeep of the roads; whether outsiders may use the roads without a toll is up to the owners.

If the Homeowner's Association owns the road, then I would agree with all of this.

Excellent.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 9:16:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I would prefer to live in a neighborhood that owns the only road to my house. We could collectively maintain it at a very low cost.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light