Total Posts:110|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Muh Roads

Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2013 1:31:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Do you post anything relevant or argumentative? Not trying to offend, but the point has in fact been made. Multiple times over the course of multiple threads.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2013 9:05:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Alright, I'll start by citing the free rider problem. How does your plan account for this?
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2013 9:20:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/21/2013 9:05:51 AM, drhead wrote:
Alright, I'll start by citing the free rider problem. How does your plan account for this?

The free rider problem doesn't really apply to roads, because there are ways of restricting their access to only paying customers (e.g windshield sticker, toll booth, etc).
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2013 10:09:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/21/2013 9:20:18 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2013 9:05:51 AM, drhead wrote:
Alright, I'll start by citing the free rider problem. How does your plan account for this?

The free rider problem doesn't really apply to roads, because there are ways of restricting their access to only paying customers (e.g windshield sticker, toll booth, etc).

But this results in either an unaccountable monopoly or a horribly inefficient system with twice as many roads as are needed, or one where consumer choice means taking a longer route on purpose. In addition, toll booths cost more money to put up, so the amount of money needed to pay off the cost of the roads is already inflated by the costs of the means to pay it back. How is this more efficient or better than giving one organization authority to construct and regulate roads that everyone can use underneath a leader elected as a representative of the people in exchange for either a (in the case of roads alone) trivially small portion of everyone's income, or a fee requested of people who wish to have a license to drive on said roads? With a government constructing our roads, we can have the efficiency of having only one road system, along with the people tasked with administrating it being directly accountable for their actions.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2013 10:22:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/21/2013 10:09:01 AM, drhead wrote:
At 10/21/2013 9:20:18 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2013 9:05:51 AM, drhead wrote:
Alright, I'll start by citing the free rider problem. How does your plan account for this?

The free rider problem doesn't really apply to roads, because there are ways of restricting their access to only paying customers (e.g windshield sticker, toll booth, etc).

But this results in either an unaccountable monopoly or a horribly inefficient system with twice as many roads as are needed, or one where consumer choice means taking a longer route on purpose. In addition, toll booths cost more money to put up, so the amount of money needed to pay off the cost of the roads is already inflated by the costs of the means to pay it back.

Government costs a lot to run as well, the difference being they don't care as much about minimizing that cost, because they aren't privately responsible for paying it. No matter what the system is, you can bet that when people themselves are paying for it, it'll be as resource efficient as possible.

How is this more efficient or better than giving one organization authority to construct and regulate roads that everyone can use underneath a leader elected as a representative of the people in exchange for either a (in the case of roads alone) trivially small portion of everyone's income, or a fee requested of people who wish to have a license to drive on said roads? With a government constructing our roads, we can have the efficiency of having only one road system, along with the people tasked with administrating it being directly accountable for their actions.

You've eliminated competition. Those administrating competing roads are accountable because they lose money every time someone decides to use a competing road rather than their own. They'll have a huge incentive to make their road absolutely at efficient as possible.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2013 10:26:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/21/2013 10:23:58 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Yeah, you're right sdavio.

Really? Thank you.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2013 10:50:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/21/2013 10:27:25 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Yeah, no.

Sarcasm is immoral, as I have explained to imabench. You should explain your position earnestly rather than trying to scare people out of holding ones you disagree with by mocking them / saying the opposite of what you actually think. Also, you've said that you agree with the NAP, so actually you do think I'm right, since private roads would follow from that, unless you've changed your position..

If you're gonna argue pro-violence, you should have some good reasoning for your statements, not just argue on an emotional basis.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2013 11:36:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/21/2013 10:50:30 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 10/21/2013 10:27:25 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Yeah, no.

Sarcasm is immoral, as I have explained to imabench. You should explain your position earnestly rather than trying to scare people out of holding ones you disagree with by mocking them / saying the opposite of what you actually think. Also, you've said that you agree with the NAP, so actually you do think I'm right, since private roads would follow from that, unless you've changed your position..

If you're gonna argue pro-violence, you should have some good reasoning for your statements, not just argue on an emotional basis.

I've explained this to you over and over again, dude. There has to be some order. If you get rid of government, just have money as your vote as you say, then what happens when all the money pools in one place? Oh hey, you've got government again, only potentially more tyrannical than before, inconspicuous and pretty much ubiquitous.

And then NAP is just dumb. Preach NAP to those being sold as sex slaves. Preach it to the parents whose children have been kidnapped for the f*cking baby section of the black market. How are you so dumb? Straight competition is straight competition, f*ck the other guy.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2013 11:39:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Oh, people will always compete, you can't stop that can you? Shut up, retard. You literally stand for absolutely nothing.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2013 11:40:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Oh, we'll just stop the black baby market somehow, no government? People will be like, "Hey, no... I mean yeah we're in competition, but let's not kill for these limited resources that we're not sharing"?

Yeah, no.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2013 11:41:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Oh hey, that guy has bested me fairly, capitalistically but in accordance with the NAP. I'll just starve then I guess".

Haha, are you f*cking stupid?
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2013 11:45:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
"What we should do, guys, is take the power from these guys and give it to these other guys over here, then everything will be all right".

Oh, why didn't I think of that? So that's how you beat the evils that go with competition: you just keep putting down the tyranny that arises from it every time it does. Wait.....no. That's dumb. Oh, you also say things like "NAP," gotcha.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2013 11:51:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Where did government come from, sdavio? People trying to protect themselves against others, right? Hey, that's competition, right?
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2013 12:12:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/21/2013 11:36:22 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 10/21/2013 10:50:30 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 10/21/2013 10:27:25 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Yeah, no.

Sarcasm is immoral, as I have explained to imabench. You should explain your position earnestly rather than trying to scare people out of holding ones you disagree with by mocking them / saying the opposite of what you actually think. Also, you've said that you agree with the NAP, so actually you do think I'm right, since private roads would follow from that, unless you've changed your position..

If you're gonna argue pro-violence, you should have some good reasoning for your statements, not just argue on an emotional basis.

I've explained this to you over and over again, dude. There has to be some order. If you get rid of government, just have money as your vote as you say, then what happens when all the money pools in one place? Oh hey, you've got government again, only potentially more tyrannical than before, inconspicuous and pretty much ubiquitous.

There would be competition between currencies, so all that inflation wouldn't amount to anything but paper.

But the real issue here is; there are resources, and someone got to them first, and we're near the back of the line. How do we resolve this? Do we simply smash our way through to the front (because we're the good guys, and whoever's and the front must be the bad guy..) or do we maintain 'order', staying in line (AKA respecting private property)? Well, if we smash our way through, the problem is everyone else is going to do the same thing as well. And who's going to end up with the resources is not the most valuable people, not the most needing, but those with the most power. The means do not change anything, it is thought which changes things. Changing the means from non-violent to more violent does nothing to improve thought itself..

And then NAP is just dumb. Preach NAP to those being sold as sex slaves. Preach it to the parents whose children have been kidnapped for the f*cking baby section of the black market.

Those things are against NAP... so, yeah, I would? I don't know what your point is.

How are you so dumb?

When people are dumb, it is usually because people have made comments like yours to them, and they have subsequently developed mental blocks, cemented into their mind out of fear of being judged or disliked.

Straight competition is straight competition, f*ck the other guy.

I am advocating non-violent competition, while you are advocating, whether or not you might realize it, violent competition. See my explanations of the 'problem of evil' issue in the libertarian thread.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2013 12:21:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/21/2013 10:22:12 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 10/21/2013 10:09:01 AM, drhead wrote:
At 10/21/2013 9:20:18 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2013 9:05:51 AM, drhead wrote:
Alright, I'll start by citing the free rider problem. How does your plan account for this?

The free rider problem doesn't really apply to roads, because there are ways of restricting their access to only paying customers (e.g windshield sticker, toll booth, etc).

But this results in either an unaccountable monopoly or a horribly inefficient system with twice as many roads as are needed, or one where consumer choice means taking a longer route on purpose. In addition, toll booths cost more money to put up, so the amount of money needed to pay off the cost of the roads is already inflated by the costs of the means to pay it back.

Government costs a lot to run as well, the difference being they don't care as much about minimizing that cost, because they aren't privately responsible for paying it. No matter what the system is, you can bet that when people themselves are paying for it, it'll be as resource efficient as possible.

You are ignoring the latter half of what I said in the above quote. The payment models available to a private road system would start them off as more expensive, and all optimizations to cost would never be able to eliminate this. You also seem to ignore that we elect the people who make our laws, and we prefer that our tax money is used efficiently. If someone made a specific program more efficient and used the savings to cut taxes a bit, they would probably get re-elected. However, the fact that private roads would be forced to use an inefficient payment model is the main point here, and it doesn't help that you didn't address it and instead gave a general explanation that explains nothing relevant to the point I was trying to make.

How is this more efficient or better than giving one organization authority to construct and regulate roads that everyone can use underneath a leader elected as a representative of the people in exchange for either a (in the case of roads alone) trivially small portion of everyone's income, or a fee requested of people who wish to have a license to drive on said roads? With a government constructing our roads, we can have the efficiency of having only one road system, along with the people tasked with administrating it being directly accountable for their actions.

You've eliminated competition.

No sh!t. If you actually read my post, you'd see that I was arguing that competition either wouldn't exist or would result in lower overall efficiency. But since you don't actually read my posts...

Those administrating competing roads are accountable because they lose money every time someone decides to use a competing road rather than their own.

And government owned roads are accountable since voters get p!ssed off when their roads are poorly made.

Plus, you're ignoring the bigger problem here:
The fact that there are two competing roads in the first place means that the roads are taking up twice as much space as would be needed, and it makes them cost twice as much since they each get about half of the customers in the area (assuming the majority of maintenance costs are due to weathering and not wear from use). So much for this "efficient use of resources", huh?

They'll have a huge incentive to make their road absolutely at efficient as possible.

They might be as efficient as a set of two competing privately owned roads could be, but they still won't be as efficient as one set of government owned roads that everyone uses.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2013 12:40:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/21/2013 11:37:10 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
And you say I'm immoral because I'll try any means to cop you the f*ck on? WRONG

I definitely do detest this 'any means to cop you on' way of thinking; which is the same thing imabench thinks.. that he is helping people to become smarter by attacking them. IMO it's extremely immoral and unhealthy.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2013 12:40:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/21/2013 12:12:13 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 10/21/2013 11:36:22 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 10/21/2013 10:50:30 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 10/21/2013 10:27:25 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Yeah, no.

Sarcasm is immoral, as I have explained to imabench. You should explain your position earnestly rather than trying to scare people out of holding ones you disagree with by mocking them / saying the opposite of what you actually think. Also, you've said that you agree with the NAP, so actually you do think I'm right, since private roads would follow from that, unless you've changed your position..

If you're gonna argue pro-violence, you should have some good reasoning for your statements, not just argue on an emotional basis.

I've explained this to you over and over again, dude. There has to be some order. If you get rid of government, just have money as your vote as you say, then what happens when all the money pools in one place? Oh hey, you've got government again, only potentially more tyrannical than before, inconspicuous and pretty much ubiquitous.

There would be competition between currencies, so all that inflation wouldn't amount to anything but paper.

What about the resources/manpower bought by that "inflation"?

But the real issue here is; there are resources, and someone got to them first, and we're near the back of the line. How do we resolve this? Do we simply smash our way through to the front (because we're the good guys, and whoever's and the front must be the bad guy..) or do we maintain 'order', staying in line (AKA respecting private property)? Well, if we smash our way through, the problem is everyone else is going to do the same thing as well. And who's going to end up with the resources is not the most valuable people, not the most needing, but those with the most power. The means do not change anything, it is thought which changes things. Changing the means from non-violent to more violent does nothing to improve thought itself..

Oh, why didn't I think of that? Thought changing things, hmmm. Yeah, I guess what we need to do is keep competing for our very survival, not think "Hey, why are we competing in the first place?"

And then NAP is just dumb. Preach NAP to those being sold as sex slaves. Preach it to the parents whose children have been kidnapped for the f*cking baby section of the black market.

Those things are against NAP... so, yeah, I would? I don't know what your point is.

This is all competition and outside of government. What the f*ck are you preaching? You're preaching the destruction of government, nothing more. Everything stays the same otherwise, you're just saying "Hey, let's all not murder each other after we get rid of government". Yeah, good plan bro.

How are you so dumb?

When people are dumb, it is usually because people have made comments like yours to them, and they have subsequently developed mental blocks, cemented into their mind out of fear of being judged or disliked.

I've approached you rationally, explained my case to you at length, you didn't budge. I need you now to realize your retardation, because you are in fact retarded. Do us a favour, bro.

Straight competition is straight competition, f*ck the other guy.

I am advocating non-violent competition, while you are advocating, whether or not you might realize it, violent competition. See my explanations of the 'problem of evil' issue in the libertarian thread.

Oh, non-violent competition? Excellent! You're making a game out of survival and did you not read CarefulNow's posts on basic Game Theory?
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2013 12:41:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Non-violent competition is a game of checkers, not competition for the means of survival. How can you not get this? You are pitting people against each other for their very lives and just expecting them to play nice.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2013 12:43:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/21/2013 12:40:04 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 10/21/2013 11:37:10 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
And you say I'm immoral because I'll try any means to cop you the f*ck on? WRONG

I definitely do detest this 'any means to cop you on' way of thinking; which is the same thing imabench thinks.. that he is helping people to become smarter by attacking them. IMO it's extremely immoral and unhealthy.

No, you're a retard. That's not what bench thinks, he's stated over and over that he thinks what he's doing is fun, etc. He's just looking for attention, pathetic child that he is. I'm sick of f*cks like you f*cking up the world.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2013 12:46:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
sdavio, do you concede that you're pitting people against each other for their very lives?
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2013 12:49:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Do you know why people derive fun from putting others down, sdavio? It's because we're in competition for survival.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2013 12:51:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Do you know why calling children dumb has a negative impact on their educational growth? I do, it's because we're in competition for survival and they're directly confronting feelings of inadequacy. It's because we're in competition for survival, you f*cking idiot.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2013 1:00:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I was listening to this lady on the radio coming home there a while ago. She's a single parent with two kids and she's a nervous wreck because of it pretty much. She became hugely depressed after the birth of her second child, became agoraphobic and pretty much just sits at home all day now, shaking. What she was doing on the radio was campaigning against our government, because they're not housing her and her kids appropriately she says. Why is she like this? Because we are in f*cking competition for survival. She's directly confronting feelings of inadequacy and hoping she and her kids pull through.