Total Posts:77|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Who would build the roads question.

Koopin
Posts: 12,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2012 9:10:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I've heard this a lot. And I know it's seems to be a running joke. However I would like someone to explain this to me. If the government was not involved in the transportation industry, how would we make sure that everyone has roads? Like, what if some smuck decides he doesn't want to pitch in to get this road? I am totally lost on this subject and would like someone to explain IN DETAIL how it would/would not work.

Please, answer the question BEFORE we go into an argument about feminism, religion, and Royalpaldins breasts...
kfc
imabench
Posts: 21,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2012 9:12:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/11/2012 9:10:54 PM, Koopin wrote:
I've heard this a lot. And I know it's seems to be a running joke. However I would like someone to explain this to me. If the government was not involved in the transportation industry, how would we make sure that everyone has roads? Like, what if some smuck decides he doesn't want to pitch in to get this road? I am totally lost on this subject and would like someone to explain IN DETAIL how it would/would not work.

Please, answer the question BEFORE we go into an argument about feminism, religion, and Royalpaldins breasts...

Youre doomed
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2012 9:12:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Answer Is This

This is gold right here.

http://www.debate.org...
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2012 9:13:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It would be desirable by and profitable for everyone if there were a general consensus on road rules, i.e., who should be able to use them, for what purposes, and so on.
Koopin
Posts: 12,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2012 9:21:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/11/2012 9:12:56 PM, Contra wrote:
Answer Is This

This is gold right here.

http://www.debate.org...

This is what I'm talking about though. Anarchists and lots of libertarians don't want the tax payers to be forced to pay anything.
kfc
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2012 9:22:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Once I said this in another thread (copied and paste):

"Roads? Private markets can solve this issue as well. One solution is that all of the landowners in a block or street become the joint owners of that area. So, the road is owned by all of the landowners who will have an incentive to have efficient, well paved, safe roads to help improve their land values.

A second idea is a private-street ownership, owned by private companies. The street companies would charge landowners for the service of providing and maintaining high quality streets.

Again, safe, well paved and well lit streets will attract landowners to the area, and increasing land values. Poor streets have a different, contrary effect. Street-owning companies have a strong incentive to provide good quality streets to maximize their profits.

And all of this is ensured by contracts, and street companies that are not as good as a competitor would lose once their contract expires.

See, the private sector would provide well paved, safe streets while maximizing efficiency, which would benefit landowners and local businesses."
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2012 9:32:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/11/2012 9:21:36 PM, Koopin wrote:
At 11/11/2012 9:12:56 PM, Contra wrote:
Answer Is This

This is gold right here.

http://www.debate.org...

This is what I'm talking about though. Anarchists and lots of libertarians don't want the tax payers to be forced to pay anything.

We all have different concepts of how it would work.

One way that roads may be built and maintained is that insurance companies would pay the construction workers who would build and maintain roads. Safe, well-maintained roads would save them money in the long run and they can pass on the expenses to the businesses who rely on the roads to get customers to them as well as motorists who have car insurance.

But I don't know. Probably aliens.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2012 9:51:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The current paradigm of laying roads everywhere cannot survive. Roads create impermeable surfaces that stop rain from draining properly, stop plants from growing, destroy and divide wildlife habitats, create dust and particulates, and collect lots of heat from the sun as well as oil from autos.

Autos that use roads waste energy in horrific rates. Imagine the environmental comparisons of a society using horses (which don't require paved roads) to autos. A car with a 200 HP engine is using as much energy as hundreds of travelers on horseback. While I don't think we should do away with gas engines altogether, they are obviously not appropriate for the personal transportation of billions of individuals. Depending on products that are transported across the world is also another huge waste of energy.

Instead of just assuming that roads are good and trying to build them as much as possible, we should instead be learning smart designs that minimize their need. If we succeed, then we'll all spend less time in dangerous autos (how many hours a week do you drive?), cause less damage to our ecological resources, and balance our energy usage while weening ourselves off of oil.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2012 9:52:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"They'd like to eliminate highway taxes because they force you to pay for a road you may never drive on. As an alternative, they suggest that if you and I want to get somewhere, we should build a road there and charge people tolls on it. Just try generalizing that. Such a society couldn't survive, and even if it could, it would be so full of terror and hate that any human being would prefer to live in hell."
-- Noam Chomsky
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2012 10:01:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
And yet Ike will still call me a Right-winger.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2012 10:12:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/11/2012 9:52:54 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
"They'd like to eliminate highway taxes because they force you to pay for a road you may never drive on. As an alternative, they suggest that if you and I want to get somewhere, we should build a road there and charge people tolls on it. Just try generalizing that. Such a society couldn't survive, and even if it could, it would be so full of terror and hate that any human being would prefer to live in hell."
-- Noam Chomsky

I don't see any substantiation ther.
: 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.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2012 10:24:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/11/2012 9:51:03 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
The current paradigm of laying roads everywhere cannot survive. Roads create impermeable surfaces that stop rain from draining properly, stop plants from growing, destroy and divide wildlife habitats, create dust and particulates, and collect lots of heat from the sun as well as oil from autos.

Autos that use roads waste energy in horrific rates. Imagine the environmental comparisons of a society using horses (which don't require paved roads) to autos. A car with a 200 HP engine is using as much energy as hundreds of travelers on horseback. While I don't think we should do away with gas engines altogether, they are obviously not appropriate for the personal transportation of billions of individuals. Depending on products that are transported across the world is also another huge waste of energy.

Instead of just assuming that roads are good and trying to build them as much as possible, we should instead be learning smart designs that minimize their need. If we succeed, then we'll all spend less time in dangerous autos (how many hours a week do you drive?), cause less damage to our ecological resources, and balance our energy usage while weening ourselves off of oil.

Get the fvck out of here you tree hugging hippy trash.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2012 10:44:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Who will pick the cotton when the slaves are freed?

In the nearly impossible event that they are freed and suddenly, despite a HUGE societal need for cotton and cotton being hugely crucial to the economy, nobody in the non-government sector can figure out how to pick the cotton without institutionalized coercion to force people into doing so... Well, even if this was the case, does it matter that nobody will pick the cotton? No. According to our values system we deem it more important for institutionalized slavery to be more important than the roads.

Everything I just said is directly applicable to the roads question, just to a less extreme degree (taxation being less coercive than full scale slavery, but still a minor form of slavery; i.e. the state having primary ownership of your property and the ability, ultimately, to do what it wants with it).

If there is a need in society, a need important enough that most people are dependent on seeing that need fulfilled, and people could find employment in construction industry for building roads, it's kind of absurd to propose that in such a wealthy society, the private sector would find NO response to this huge problem - it would just sit there and we'd all be twiddling our thumbs as the conditions of the roads deteriorated so much that we couldn't get to work, dents/bumps/cracks in the roads were leading to car explosions everywhere, etc. In every domain of society, when problems like that arise, we find a way to fix them, and use the need to fix it as a means of employing others to actually do the fixing. That's just how supply and demand works. It works in nearly every non-government area; private defense and justice systems are logically consistent and morally superior to state-corporate defense and justice, but there you might run into some problems with practicality. Here, you find no such issues, and roads are a commodity just like everything else, like food and clothes.

If governments relationship with food delivery/food markets/convenient stores was the way it apparently, supposedly is with the construction of the roads, where government role is apparently so important and without it we'd just eventually die from lack of roads, people would be asking "But who will deliver/store the food?"
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2012 10:51:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Honestly, I never understood what was so hard to understand about this. We have private companies making other things, yes? Why not roads too?
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2012 10:53:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/11/2012 9:52:54 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
"They'd like to eliminate highway taxes because they force you to pay for a road you may never drive on. As an alternative, they suggest that if you and I want to get somewhere, we should build a road there and charge people tolls on it. Just try generalizing that. Such a society couldn't survive, and even if it could, it would be so full of terror and hate that any human being would prefer to live in hell."
-- Noam Chomsky

I'm ashamed of the usually intellectually honest/consistent Chomsky for saying this. Everything he said is technically and logically consistent: the problems are his implications. He uses a rational objection to the solution anarcho-capitalism proposes, but ignores the problem that anarcho-capitalism tried to solve in the first place: in our society, road construction is apparently dependent on massive, widespread, coercion. Chomsky is dismissing this problem and basically being an apologetic for state tyranny by saying "they propose a solution I disagree with, therefore because their solution has flaws, their objections/problems that necessitated the proposal of their flawed solution is not even worthy of consideration."

I am certain that Noam Chomsky is 100000000x smarter and more knowledgeable about politics/history/philosophy than I am or will be for a long time, so I wish I could ask him about the apparent difficulties in his logical implications here, because it doesn't make sense that he could be so transparently stupid. Unless of course the quote is incomplete and I'm missing context, or he wasn't implying what I'm pretty sure he was implying.

Is Chomsky not the radical I thought he was? Is he okay with state tyranny/power over the masses to an extent?
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2012 10:56:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/11/2012 10:44:32 PM, jat93 wrote:
Who will pick the cotton when the slaves are freed?

In the nearly impossible event that they are freed and suddenly, despite a HUGE societal need for cotton and cotton being hugely crucial to the economy, nobody in the non-government sector can figure out how to pick the cotton without institutionalized coercion to force people into doing so... Well, even if this was the case, does it matter that nobody will pick the cotton? No. According to our values system we deem it more important for institutionalized slavery to be more important than the roads.

Epic communication fail here. I should have said we deem it more important to dismantle institutionalized slavery than to get the cotton picked or the roads built. Or... We should.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2012 11:06:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/11/2012 10:53:57 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 11/11/2012 9:52:54 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
"They'd like to eliminate highway taxes because they force you to pay for a road you may never drive on. As an alternative, they suggest that if you and I want to get somewhere, we should build a road there and charge people tolls on it. Just try generalizing that. Such a society couldn't survive, and even if it could, it would be so full of terror and hate that any human being would prefer to live in hell."
-- Noam Chomsky

I'm ashamed of the usually intellectually honest/consistent Chomsky for saying this. Everything he said is technically and logically consistent: the problems are his implications. He uses a rational objection to the solution anarcho-capitalism proposes, but ignores the problem that anarcho-capitalism tried to solve in the first place: in our society, road construction is apparently dependent on massive, widespread, coercion. Chomsky is dismissing this problem and basically being an apologetic for state tyranny by saying "they propose a solution I disagree with, therefore because their solution has flaws, their objections/problems that necessitated the proposal of their flawed solution is not even worthy of consideration."

I am certain that Noam Chomsky is 100000000x smarter and more knowledgeable about politics/history/philosophy than I am or will be for a long time, so I wish I could ask him about the apparent difficulties in his logical implications here, because it doesn't make sense that he could be so transparently stupid. Unless of course the quote is incomplete and I'm missing context, or he wasn't implying what I'm pretty sure he was implying.

Is Chomsky not the radical I thought he was? Is he okay with state tyranny/power over the masses to an extent?

If you don't want the government there for roads and infrastructure why would you want a government at all. If you want to admit to being an Anarchist, just say it.

Noam Chomsky believes that there should be no authority unless it can first prove its legitimacy. I think the government can make a fair case for being in charge of the nations highways and infrastructure.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2012 11:14:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/11/2012 11:06:48 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I think the government can make a fair case for being in charge of the nations highways and infrastructure.

How will it force people to give it money?
It has to be in charge of the police and legal system as well.

THAT'S when we have a problem, bro.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2012 11:18:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/11/2012 11:06:48 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I think the government can make a fair case for being in charge of the nations highways and infrastructure.

Explain.
: 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
11/11/2012 11:45:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/11/2012 9:22:29 PM, Contra wrote:
Once I said this in another thread (copied and paste):

"Roads? Private markets can solve this issue as well. One solution is that all of the landowners in a block or street become the joint owners of that area. So, the road is owned by all of the landowners who will have an incentive to have efficient, well paved, safe roads to help improve their land values.

A second idea is a private-street ownership, owned by private companies. The street companies would charge landowners for the service of providing and maintaining high quality streets.

Again, safe, well paved and well lit streets will attract landowners to the area, and increasing land values. Poor streets have a different, contrary effect. Street-owning companies have a strong incentive to provide good quality streets to maximize their profits.

And all of this is ensured by contracts, and street companies that are not as good as a competitor would lose once their contract expires.

See, the private sector would provide well paved, safe streets while maximizing efficiency, which would benefit landowners and local businesses."

How do you resolve conflicts within joint ownership? Companies resolve conflicts by voting and having a democracy and voting on issues. Of course, if you have a contracted arbitrator, then you have a monopoly on the legal system (cough, government, cough)
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2012 11:47:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/11/2012 9:32:43 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 11/11/2012 9:21:36 PM, Koopin wrote:
At 11/11/2012 9:12:56 PM, Contra wrote:
Answer Is This

This is gold right here.

http://www.debate.org...

This is what I'm talking about though. Anarchists and lots of libertarians don't want the tax payers to be forced to pay anything.

We all have different concepts of how it would work.

One way that roads may be built and maintained is that insurance companies would pay the construction workers who would build and maintain roads. Safe, well-maintained roads would save them money in the long run and they can pass on the expenses to the businesses who rely on the roads to get customers to them as well as motorists who have car insurance.

But I don't know. Probably aliens.

Unless you have multiple roads entering your business, you won't have competition and so market forces to keep costs down will not function.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2012 11:51:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/11/2012 11:47:17 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/11/2012 9:32:43 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 11/11/2012 9:21:36 PM, Koopin wrote:
At 11/11/2012 9:12:56 PM, Contra wrote:
Answer Is This

This is gold right here.

http://www.debate.org...

This is what I'm talking about though. Anarchists and lots of libertarians don't want the tax payers to be forced to pay anything.

We all have different concepts of how it would work.

One way that roads may be built and maintained is that insurance companies would pay the construction workers who would build and maintain roads. Safe, well-maintained roads would save them money in the long run and they can pass on the expenses to the businesses who rely on the roads to get customers to them as well as motorists who have car insurance.

But I don't know. Probably aliens.

Unless you have multiple roads entering your business, you won't have competition and so market forces to keep costs down will not function.

...Wat?
Of course people have to take multiple roads to get to a business.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2012 11:52:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/11/2012 10:51:32 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Honestly, I never understood what was so hard to understand about this. We have private companies making other things, yes? Why not roads too?

Because with other things, you can easily have competition which is supposed to drive quality up and price down. How many roads enter to your house? How many roads enter to any business? You are physically limited to a lack of competition which undermines the entire concept of competition in the market.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2012 11:54:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/11/2012 11:06:48 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/11/2012 10:53:57 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 11/11/2012 9:52:54 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
"They'd like to eliminate highway taxes because they force you to pay for a road you may never drive on. As an alternative, they suggest that if you and I want to get somewhere, we should build a road there and charge people tolls on it. Just try generalizing that. Such a society couldn't survive, and even if it could, it would be so full of terror and hate that any human being would prefer to live in hell."
-- Noam Chomsky

I'm ashamed of the usually intellectually honest/consistent Chomsky for saying this. Everything he said is technically and logically consistent: the problems are his implications. He uses a rational objection to the solution anarcho-capitalism proposes, but ignores the problem that anarcho-capitalism tried to solve in the first place: in our society, road construction is apparently dependent on massive, widespread, coercion. Chomsky is dismissing this problem and basically being an apologetic for state tyranny by saying "they propose a solution I disagree with, therefore because their solution has flaws, their objections/problems that necessitated the proposal of their flawed solution is not even worthy of consideration."

I am certain that Noam Chomsky is 100000000x smarter and more knowledgeable about politics/history/philosophy than I am or will be for a long time, so I wish I could ask him about the apparent difficulties in his logical implications here, because it doesn't make sense that he could be so transparently stupid. Unless of course the quote is incomplete and I'm missing context, or he wasn't implying what I'm pretty sure he was implying.

Is Chomsky not the radical I thought he was? Is he okay with state tyranny/power over the masses to an extent?

If you don't want the government there for roads and infrastructure why would you want a government at all. If you want to admit to being an Anarchist, just say it.

I am an anarchist and my profile on this website has me listed as such, and has for 3 weeks.

Interesting though that in your response to my criticisms of Chomsky, you, in your eagerness to defend Chomsky and attack me, attacked me by basically saying "dude, you're not libertarian enough. You're an anarchist, just admit it." First of all, people use labels like that (libertarian and anarchist) as a way of not really thinking about the complexity of the issue at hand. It's easy to write people off by just saying "oh, they're ideology X, so their point is refuted," or "oh, they're not ideology Y-ish enough, so their point is refuted." My political philosophy is irrelevant to my criticisms of Chomsky's criticisms of anarcho-capitalisms criticisms of a coercive, government-run institution: Namely, taxation.

Noam Chomsky believes that there should be no authority unless it can first prove its legitimacy.

This is very interesting, I had never realized this, but it makes sense given what I've read and watched of Chomsky. Note: There was a several week period where I was absolutely obsessed with everything Noam Chomsky; within that period I bought 5 of his books, read all of them, and watched a sh!t ton of chomsky vids on youtube. He is an intellectual hero of mine.

I think the government can make a fair case for being in charge of the nations highways and infrastructure.

That's very cool but no offense, I care about what you think less than I care about what Chomsky thinks. I would genuinely like to see Chomsky make a case for government being in charge of highways and infrastructure. It seems to me in contradiction with many of his other ideas: i.e., the state being in bed with big corporations/financial institutions so in general doing things, in everything they can exert their control over, to serve state-corporate interests, rather than the actual interests of the "common" people.

His support of government run highways and infrastructure just seems to me so... Arbitrary. Why support government strongly in this situation but object to it even more strongly in other situations - where granted the effect of the domination of state-corporate interests might be worse than with roads: with war, for example, the state might kill a few hundred thousand innocent human beings; with taxation and state-run roads, the government will just steal a little more money and make the roads a little more inefficient for millions of people. therefore, I wonder, what exactly does Noam Chomsky base his seemingly arbitrary support of government coercion on? I wish I could ask him this... Maybe I'll write him an e-mail.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2012 11:55:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/11/2012 11:51:51 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 11/11/2012 11:47:17 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/11/2012 9:32:43 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 11/11/2012 9:21:36 PM, Koopin wrote:
At 11/11/2012 9:12:56 PM, Contra wrote:
Answer Is This

This is gold right here.

http://www.debate.org...

This is what I'm talking about though. Anarchists and lots of libertarians don't want the tax payers to be forced to pay anything.

We all have different concepts of how it would work.

One way that roads may be built and maintained is that insurance companies would pay the construction workers who would build and maintain roads. Safe, well-maintained roads would save them money in the long run and they can pass on the expenses to the businesses who rely on the roads to get customers to them as well as motorists who have car insurance.

But I don't know. Probably aliens.

Unless you have multiple roads entering your business, you won't have competition and so market forces to keep costs down will not function.

...Wat?
Of course people have to take multiple roads to get to a business.

Multiple roads entering the business. If the company is on Jackson street, then if you want to go to that business, you have to pay the toll for Jackson street. You can't physically get to the store without going on that street.

For example, I live on 114th. There is no other road I can go on to enter or leave my apartment, so there is no competition for my transportation.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2012 11:58:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/11/2012 11:55:21 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/11/2012 11:51:51 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 11/11/2012 11:47:17 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/11/2012 9:32:43 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 11/11/2012 9:21:36 PM, Koopin wrote:
At 11/11/2012 9:12:56 PM, Contra wrote:
Answer Is This

This is gold right here.

http://www.debate.org...

This is what I'm talking about though. Anarchists and lots of libertarians don't want the tax payers to be forced to pay anything.

We all have different concepts of how it would work.

One way that roads may be built and maintained is that insurance companies would pay the construction workers who would build and maintain roads. Safe, well-maintained roads would save them money in the long run and they can pass on the expenses to the businesses who rely on the roads to get customers to them as well as motorists who have car insurance.

But I don't know. Probably aliens.

Unless you have multiple roads entering your business, you won't have competition and so market forces to keep costs down will not function.

...Wat?
Of course people have to take multiple roads to get to a business.

Multiple roads entering the business. If the company is on Jackson street, then if you want to go to that business, you have to pay the toll for Jackson street. You can't physically get to the store without going on that street.

For example, I live on 114th. There is no other road I can go on to enter or leave my apartment, so there is no competition for my transportation.

I never said anything about any tolls.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 12:04:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/11/2012 11:58:06 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 11/11/2012 11:55:21 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/11/2012 11:51:51 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 11/11/2012 11:47:17 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/11/2012 9:32:43 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 11/11/2012 9:21:36 PM, Koopin wrote:
At 11/11/2012 9:12:56 PM, Contra wrote:
Answer Is This

This is gold right here.

http://www.debate.org...

This is what I'm talking about though. Anarchists and lots of libertarians don't want the tax payers to be forced to pay anything.

We all have different concepts of how it would work.

One way that roads may be built and maintained is that insurance companies would pay the construction workers who would build and maintain roads. Safe, well-maintained roads would save them money in the long run and they can pass on the expenses to the businesses who rely on the roads to get customers to them as well as motorists who have car insurance.

But I don't know. Probably aliens.

Unless you have multiple roads entering your business, you won't have competition and so market forces to keep costs down will not function.

...Wat?
Of course people have to take multiple roads to get to a business.

Multiple roads entering the business. If the company is on Jackson street, then if you want to go to that business, you have to pay the toll for Jackson street. You can't physically get to the store without going on that street.

For example, I live on 114th. There is no other road I can go on to enter or leave my apartment, so there is no competition for my transportation.

I never said anything about any tolls.

Oh, so all our roads are going to be charity? Awesome, I totally trust the free market, which is driven by supply and demand to reach a balance of maximum profit to build roads and not charge people to drive on them.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 12:10:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/12/2012 12:04:35 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/11/2012 11:58:06 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 11/11/2012 11:55:21 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/11/2012 11:51:51 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 11/11/2012 11:47:17 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/11/2012 9:32:43 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 11/11/2012 9:21:36 PM, Koopin wrote:
At 11/11/2012 9:12:56 PM, Contra wrote:
Answer Is This

This is gold right here.

http://www.debate.org...

This is what I'm talking about though. Anarchists and lots of libertarians don't want the tax payers to be forced to pay anything.

We all have different concepts of how it would work.

One way that roads may be built and maintained is that insurance companies would pay the construction workers who would build and maintain roads. Safe, well-maintained roads would save them money in the long run and they can pass on the expenses to the businesses who rely on the roads to get customers to them as well as motorists who have car insurance.

But I don't know. Probably aliens.

Unless you have multiple roads entering your business, you won't have competition and so market forces to keep costs down will not function.

...Wat?
Of course people have to take multiple roads to get to a business.

Multiple roads entering the business. If the company is on Jackson street, then if you want to go to that business, you have to pay the toll for Jackson street. You can't physically get to the store without going on that street.

For example, I live on 114th. There is no other road I can go on to enter or leave my apartment, so there is no competition for my transportation.

I never said anything about any tolls.

Oh, so all our roads are going to be charity? Awesome, I totally trust the free market, which is driven by supply and demand to reach a balance of maximum profit to build roads and not charge people to drive on them.

What the fvck are you talking about? I don't know how roads would be built in an Anarchist society nor do I need to to justify being an Anarchist; I was just proposing one possible way that it may happen. As jat already said, removing the Government's monopoly on power and force is more important than who will build the roads.
More to the point, you haven't once actually commented on what I said about insurance companies, you're just strawmanning what you believe my view is based on a Anarchist stereotype. Stop that!
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...