Total Posts:62|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Roads without government?

Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2011 12:40:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Could the private sector be depended on to build roads? Especially to all those out of the way places that still have people living, but not much in way of commodities and products off which profit can be made?

Or is it only a government that will build roads to those places just so that those people will have a way of moving out? And maybe run a nominal transport system (for a lesser price) having buses once a day or something?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2011 1:39:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/27/2011 12:40:30 PM, Indophile wrote:
Could the private sector be depended on to build roads? Especially to all those out of the way places that still have people living, but not much in way of commodities and products off which profit can be made?

Or is it only a government that will build roads to those places just so that those people will have a way of moving out? And maybe run a nominal transport system (for a lesser price) having buses once a day or something?

Private sector will not build roads to everyone, only to areas where they can make more money (through fees and charges) than the roads will cost.

Homes that go way out into nowhere land, will not get roads unless they are willing to pay higher prices to cover the cost of the road.

While it is true that government doesn't place roads everywhere either, because government collects money via taxes, it doesn't have to pay for a vast infrastucture of road monitering to see who is using what roads at what times to know the correct amount to charge (if government tried that, big brother complaints would be never ending).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2011 2:44:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/27/2011 12:40:30 PM, Indophile wrote:
Could the private sector be depended on to build roads? Especially to all those out of the way places that still have people living, but not much in way of commodities and products off which profit can be made?

Or is it only a government that will build roads to those places just so that those people will have a way of moving out? And maybe run a nominal transport system (for a lesser price) having buses once a day or something?

No they wouldn't, like oreEle said.

People like me would be SOL. A lot about the private sector taking the governments place relies on everyone being the same. So communism and socialism. In anarchism I would be left out in many areas. School, roads and probably utilities. It would force me to live a life that I don't want. Security would be another issue, it would cost more for them to patrol or even come out if I had a problem.

It would be an overall bad situation for a lot of people
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2011 3:12:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/27/2011 2:44:52 PM, jharry wrote:
At 7/27/2011 12:40:30 PM, Indophile wrote:
Could the private sector be depended on to build roads? Especially to all those out of the way places that still have people living, but not much in way of commodities and products off which profit can be made?

Or is it only a government that will build roads to those places just so that those people will have a way of moving out? And maybe run a nominal transport system (for a lesser price) having buses once a day or something?


No they wouldn't, like oreEle said.

People like me would be SOL. A lot about the private sector taking the governments place relies on everyone being the same. So communism and socialism. In anarchism I would be left out in many areas. School, roads and probably utilities. It would force me to live a life that I don't want. Security would be another issue, it would cost more for them to patrol or even come out if I had a problem.

It would be an overall bad situation for a lot of people

First off, as our ancom friends would have no doubt told us (and thankfully don't have the chance to try anymore), it is theoretically possible for us to have private companies build streets to our houses. They'd no doubt take neighborhoods as groups and use loans and the like to do it.

But the fact is that roads are not a good thing. Roads are like veins in your arm; undesirable constructs that are best when used in the smallest and most efficient manner possible. Your heart doesn't want to pump blood several meters away to your hand, it would rather just pump it a few feet to get the job done.

Our communities are currently set up in a haphazard fashion, with little effort going into minimizing how much we actually should have to need roads to achieve our goals. Consequently, we have an overabundance of them. When the average person needs to travel at 50 mph for 15 minutes every day, round-trip to work, then we've got a pretty inefficient system!

Roads between cities are one thing but inside city limits they should be used sparingly. Human-powered transportation is the wave of the future, not multi-ton steel cages propelled by internal-combustion gasoline engines. Using one of these bohemoths to conduct every-day business for every one of millions of people within a single city is ridiculous for so many reasons I don't know where to start.

Roads are terrible for the environment, both natural and human, and we need to start figuring out ways to phase them out.
Rob
Andromeda_Z
Posts: 4,151
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2011 3:14:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/27/2011 12:40:30 PM, Indophile wrote:
Could the private sector be depended on to build roads? Especially to all those out of the way places that still have people living, but not much in way of commodities and products off which profit can be made?

Or is it only a government that will build roads to those places just so that those people will have a way of moving out? And maybe run a nominal transport system (for a lesser price) having buses once a day or something?

I think someone would, if the people are willing to pay enough that it would be profitable. There may not be many people there to need the road built, but it's still a demand.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2011 3:32:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/27/2011 3:12:49 PM, Lasagna wrote:
At 7/27/2011 2:44:52 PM, jharry wrote:
At 7/27/2011 12:40:30 PM, Indophile wrote:
Could the private sector be depended on to build roads? Especially to all those out of the way places that still have people living, but not much in way of commodities and products off which profit can be made?

Or is it only a government that will build roads to those places just so that those people will have a way of moving out? And maybe run a nominal transport system (for a lesser price) having buses once a day or something?


No they wouldn't, like oreEle said.

People like me would be SOL. A lot about the private sector taking the governments place relies on everyone being the same. So communism and socialism. In anarchism I would be left out in many areas. School, roads and probably utilities. It would force me to live a life that I don't want. Security would be another issue, it would cost more for them to patrol or even come out if I had a problem.

It would be an overall bad situation for a lot of people

First off, as our ancom friends would have no doubt told us (and thankfully don't have the chance to try anymore), it is theoretically possible for us to have private companies build streets to our houses. They'd no doubt take neighborhoods as groups and use loans and the like to do it.

But the fact is that roads are not a good thing. Roads are like veins in your arm; undesirable constructs that are best when used in the smallest and most efficient manner possible. Your heart doesn't want to pump blood several meters away to your hand, it would rather just pump it a few feet to get the job done.

Our communities are currently set up in a haphazard fashion, with little effort going into minimizing how much we actually should have to need roads to achieve our goals. Consequently, we have an overabundance of them. When the average person needs to travel at 50 mph for 15 minutes every day, round-trip to work, then we've got a pretty inefficient system!

Roads between cities are one thing but inside city limits they should be used sparingly. Human-powered transportation is the wave of the future, not multi-ton steel cages propelled by internal-combustion gasoline engines. Using one of these bohemoths to conduct every-day business for every one of millions of people within a single city is ridiculous for so many reasons I don't know where to start.

Roads are terrible for the environment, both natural and human, and we need to start figuring out ways to phase them out.

I was talking more about villages...outside the cities. The "road" to development (prosperity, at least materially) lies with the ease of trade, i.e. better roads.

Since profitability will come only after connectivity is established, would private firms will be willing to wait for the village to develop so that they can then reap profits by the various businesses that might come to that village, so and so forth, till that village becomes a township, you know.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2011 4:22:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Roads are best left to the government.

I would rather pay a small tax than have to pay some private company thousands of dollars to put a road in front of my house. Government does it better. It's more organized and more easily managed because of the centralized planning involved and no worries about conflicts and who's road belongs to who and who paid for what road and the fines involved for damaging someones road property. It's all just absurd.
"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
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2011 4:57:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/27/2011 4:22:32 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Roads are best left to the government.

I would rather pay a small tax than have to pay some private company thousands of dollars to put a road in front of my house. Government does it better. It's more organized and more easily managed because of the centralized planning involved and no worries about conflicts and who's road belongs to who and who paid for what road and the fines involved for damaging someones road property. It's all just absurd.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2011 9:01:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I suppose one could make the case that having an extensive road network is vital to National Defense in order to move armies and material quickly in the event of a war, thus leaving that responsibility to the federal government.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2011 12:03:51 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
it doesn't have to pay for a vast infrastucture of road monitering to see who is using what roads at what times
This is the age of GPS, the expense is pretty much null next to that of cars.
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.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2011 2:34:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
As has already been said, monopolies enforced through violence on and good or service and allocating resources by ignoring demand and supply have time and time again shown itself to be the best model. In private markets no-one ever bothers catering to niches, and communities certainly can't get together to form corporations to buy their own roads if there are no entrepreneurs willing.

Too trolly? =P
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2011 8:25:06 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/27/2011 4:22:32 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Roads are best left to the government.

I would rather pay a small tax than have to pay some private company thousands of dollars to put a road in front of my house. Government does it better. It's more organized and more easily managed because of the centralized planning involved and no worries about conflicts and who's road belongs to who and who paid for what road and the fines involved for damaging someones road property. It's all just absurd.

Government may manage/pay for it better, but i believe that it should still be bid out to the best contractor who can do the best job at the most competitive rate.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2011 9:04:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/27/2011 12:40:30 PM, Indophile wrote:
Could the private sector be depended on to build roads? Especially to all those out of the way places that still have people living, but not much in way of commodities and products off which profit can be made?

Or is it only a government that will build roads to those places just so that those people will have a way of moving out? And maybe run a nominal transport system (for a lesser price) having buses once a day or something?:

There's little doubt that the private sector could make extremely efficient roads. The problem arises from how they receive money for those funds, since they are publicly used. They could establish toll roads, as the government already does. But there becomes an issue when the private corporation owns those roads.

Potentially that means they can do whatever they want with it, even deny people access, if they were so inclined. They could also prevent local law enforcement from operating on what is, essentially, their land. In which case, who has jurisdiction over the roadway? Who enforces speed laws that affect motorists?

As a minarchist and a libertarian, I feel there are some legitimate areas where government is a better option. Critical infrastructure and law enforcement are two examples.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2011 9:26:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/28/2011 12:03:51 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
it doesn't have to pay for a vast infrastucture of road monitering to see who is using what roads at what times
This is the age of GPS, the expense is pretty much null next to that of cars.

Ragnar, I was in fact looking forward to your response. How would roads be built in your minarchist system?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2011 2:19:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/28/2011 9:26:18 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 7/28/2011 12:03:51 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
it doesn't have to pay for a vast infrastucture of road monitering to see who is using what roads at what times
This is the age of GPS, the expense is pretty much null next to that of cars.

Ragnar, I was in fact looking forward to your response. How would roads be built in your minarchist system?

The government may or may not choose to build certain roads for strategic purposes, but it would have no monopoly, and would not subsidize people who live in the middle of nowhere. Tolls would be charged, likely based on an industry standard GPS-based device that tracks how much you drove on whose road (The standard would be in the device's protocol, different device manufacturers could of course exist). Getting caught driving without an appropriate GPS device to track your usage would be about comparable to getting caught driving without a license or insurance today, though the penalties might go up if necessary. (License, insurance, speed limits, such things would no doubt be just as required by private road owners as government ones).
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.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2011 2:22:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Potentially that means they can do whatever they want with it, even deny people access, if they were so inclined. They could also prevent local law enforcement from operating on what is, essentially, their land. In which case, who has jurisdiction over the roadway? Who enforces speed laws that affect motorists?
If an owner wants to operate a speedway they can reap the natural consequences of attracting only customers with a suitable amount of disregard for safety, so long as the rules are clearly posted.

As for allowing law enforcement through-- who has de facto "jurisdiction" over your house today? You, unless they have a warrant. Seeing this as a problem is a declaration of war against all private property, not just roads.
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.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2011 2:54:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/28/2011 8:25:06 AM, innomen wrote:
At 7/27/2011 4:22:32 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Roads are best left to the government.

I would rather pay a small tax than have to pay some private company thousands of dollars to put a road in front of my house. Government does it better. It's more organized and more easily managed because of the centralized planning involved and no worries about conflicts and who's road belongs to who and who paid for what road and the fines involved for damaging someones road property. It's all just absurd.

Government may manage/pay for it better, but i believe that it should still be bid out to the best contractor who can do the best job at the most competitive rate.

Government designs and owns them and private corporations builds and maintains them?
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2011 3:06:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/27/2011 9:01:29 PM, quarterexchange wrote:
I suppose one could make the case that having an extensive road network is vital to National Defense in order to move armies and material quickly in the event of a war, thus leaving that responsibility to the federal government.

I suppose one could make the case that having a supply of energy is vital to National Defense in order to power military vehicles and machines in the event of a war, thus leaving that responsibility to the federal government.

I suppose one could make the case that having a supply of food is vital to National Defense in order to keep everyone in the army alive and strong in the event of a war, thus leaving that responsibility to the federal government.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2011 3:28:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/28/2011 2:34:13 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
As has already been said, monopolies enforced through violence on and good or service and allocating resources by ignoring demand and supply have time and time again shown itself to be the best model.

That begs the question are services by the private sector allocated via supply and demand analysis. It also ignores other problems such as coordination problems (e.g. who is going to make the roads) and transaction costs. Also, how would the highways be made without the ability to use eminent domain?

It also questions whether all communities must be created via violence. For example, If I willingly agree to live in an area that contains a monopoly on force, does that really make it "enforced through violence". After all, one does not have to live in the US. One can simply live in another country.

In private markets no-one ever bothers catering to niches, and communities certainly can't get together to form corporations to buy their own roads if there are no entrepreneurs willing.

Why can't a community that forms a corporations to buy their own roads be the government? Also to create an international highway system, would involve a larger organization then just a small community.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2011 3:31:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/28/2011 8:25:06 AM, innomen wrote:
At 7/27/2011 4:22:32 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Roads are best left to the government.

I would rather pay a small tax than have to pay some private company thousands of dollars to put a road in front of my house. Government does it better. It's more organized and more easily managed because of the centralized planning involved and no worries about conflicts and who's road belongs to who and who paid for what road and the fines involved for damaging someones road property. It's all just absurd.

Government may manage/pay for it better, but i believe that it should still be bid out to the best contractor who can do the best job at the most competitive rate.

I'm not positive, but doesn't the government hire private contractors to build the roads? Or is there some special corps of government "road-builders" with special income?

I honestly don't know, I've just never heard of one.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2011 3:39:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/28/2011 12:03:51 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
it doesn't have to pay for a vast infrastucture of road monitering to see who is using what roads at what times
This is the age of GPS, the expense is pretty much null next to that of cars.

And if the government used the argument that they want to put GPS in everyone's car? I think I can hear the cries of totalitarian dictatorship oppression already.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2011 8:46:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/28/2011 3:06:43 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 7/27/2011 9:01:29 PM, quarterexchange wrote:
I suppose one could make the case that having an extensive road network is vital to National Defense in order to move armies and material quickly in the event of a war, thus leaving that responsibility to the federal government.

I suppose one could make the case that having a supply of energy is vital to National Defense in order to power military vehicles and machines in the event of a war, thus leaving that responsibility to the federal government.

The U.S. does have a large amount of oil reserves for that purpose.

I suppose one could make the case that having a supply of food is vital to National Defense in order to keep everyone in the army alive and strong in the event of a war, thus leaving that responsibility to the federal government.

That's why they use farm subsidies. They prevent farmers from over producing certain food products and going out of business because they want to be able to have farms operating above and beyond in the event of a war. I'm not saying it's good to pay to not grow food, but it prevents farms from going out of business by over producing a certain type of food and forcing to sell that food for less than it's worth.

I'm not arguing for all of those things, but the U.S. govt. does get involved in certain areas of the economy for the primary purpose of national defense and it's not all that radical of a notion.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2011 9:07:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/28/2011 8:46:01 PM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 7/28/2011 3:06:43 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 7/27/2011 9:01:29 PM, quarterexchange wrote:
I suppose one could make the case that having an extensive road network is vital to National Defense in order to move armies and material quickly in the event of a war, thus leaving that responsibility to the federal government.

I suppose one could make the case that having a supply of energy is vital to National Defense in order to power military vehicles and machines in the event of a war, thus leaving that responsibility to the federal government.

The U.S. does have a large amount of oil reserves for that purpose.

But are those oil reserves at all used for the public, or do they exist just for the army?

I suppose one could make the case that having a supply of food is vital to National Defense in order to keep everyone in the army alive and strong in the event of a war, thus leaving that responsibility to the federal government.

That's why they use farm subsidies. They prevent farmers from over producing certain food products and going out of business because they want to be able to have farms operating above and beyond in the event of a war.

Wait, they think the US is at any risk of food shortage? Due to what, blockade? There isn't a country out there today that could blockade the United States for any longer than an hour without being destroyed in warfare.

I'm not saying it's good to pay to not grow food, but it prevents farms from going out of business by over producing a certain type of food and forcing to sell that food for less than it's worth.

I'd rather have a few farms "overproducing" than many farms underproducing.

I'm not arguing for all of those things, but the U.S. govt. does get involved in certain areas of the economy for the primary purpose of national defense and it's not all that radical of a notion.

It may not be radical, but that doesn't stop it from being ridiculous.
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2011 9:24:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/28/2011 9:07:07 PM, mongeese wrote:
But are those oil reserves at all used for the public, or do they exist just for the army?

They can be used for the public but the entire reason we stockpile oil in the first place is to fuel the country if we get cut from our oil supply. We should be drilling for oil here in the first place though.

Wait, they think the US is at any risk of food shortage? Due to what, blockade? There isn't a country out there today that could blockade the United States for any longer than an hour without being destroyed in warfare.

They think that since farms go out of business rather frequently from overproducing food that they should subsidize them to not grow food occasionaly to prevent that.

Also we couldn't survive if we were forced to rely on outside food sources so it wouldn't take a blockade. Europe doesn't have 300 million extra meals on hand to send us every 8 hours.

I'm not saying it's good to pay to not grow food, but it prevents farms from going out of business by over producing a certain type of food and forcing to sell that food for less than it's worth.

I'd rather have a few farms "overproducing" than many farms underproducing.

They don't subsidize all farms and they don't subsidize all that frequently nor is the amount they pay farms a significant sum of money.

It may not be radical, but that doesn't stop it from being ridiculous.

I wouldn't say it's all that ridiculous either. I'd hate to not be able to move tanks around in a war because the road building business hasn't been doing so great at a certain time of the year.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2011 9:37:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/28/2011 9:29:31 PM, Contradiction wrote:


Yea I saw the video. However, it seems to be something that only the more wealthy could afford.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2011 9:47:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/28/2011 9:29:31 PM, Contradiction wrote:


Well, you see, private firms are pretty good at maintaining a road if there is already a lot of traffic on it.

But what about building new roads to places that won't give you returns, at least in a generation?

The first step for any place to develop is connectivity. Unless you build roads, a place cannot develop.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2011 9:49:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/28/2011 2:19:29 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/28/2011 9:26:18 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 7/28/2011 12:03:51 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
it doesn't have to pay for a vast infrastucture of road monitering to see who is using what roads at what times
This is the age of GPS, the expense is pretty much null next to that of cars.

Ragnar, I was in fact looking forward to your response. How would roads be built in your minarchist system?

The government may or may not choose to build certain roads for strategic purposes, but it would have no monopoly, and would not subsidize people who live in the middle of nowhere. Tolls would be charged, likely based on an industry standard GPS-based device that tracks how much you drove on whose road (The standard would be in the device's protocol, different device manufacturers could of course exist). Getting caught driving without an appropriate GPS device to track your usage would be about comparable to getting caught driving without a license or insurance today, though the penalties might go up if necessary. (License, insurance, speed limits, such things would no doubt be just as required by private road owners as government ones).

Well, in this case, how would you go about developing new places? Do you want everybody to come into this one big supercity? That doesn't sound efficient to me.

Every place was in the middle of nowhere at some point of time.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2011 9:49:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/28/2011 3:39:42 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/28/2011 12:03:51 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
it doesn't have to pay for a vast infrastucture of road monitering to see who is using what roads at what times
This is the age of GPS, the expense is pretty much null next to that of cars.

And if the government used the argument that they want to put GPS in everyone's car? I think I can hear the cries of totalitarian dictatorship oppression already.

If it's any consolation, I'm sure the government can already hack into car GPSs.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2011 9:58:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/28/2011 9:37:13 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 7/28/2011 9:29:31 PM, Contradiction wrote:


Yea I saw the video. However, it seems to be something that only the more wealthy could afford.

Yeah, my major issue is if corporations are allowed to control the major roads, companies can have roads off to the side but people should still be left with the alternative of having free publicly funded road [especially in consideration of the harsh economic times we currently have].
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.