These people are our future

[Lyric]

I agree, it would be cool. I can't really point a finger at anyone for not producing this list, as I admitted in my previous post that I just don't have the time to fully participate in this thread. However I would be happy with even a rough list.

Asking for this list is like asking a no-mosque-at-ground-zero'er, "at what distance from ground zero would it be acceptable to build a mosque?" Until we quantify this, the "debate" (quotes used in reference to the ground zero mosque "debate") cannot continue, at least it can't continue down this path..

Government should be empowered to enforce laws prohibiting murder, theft, and enslavement, maintain courts of law, and maintain a military. That's it.

[boost]

Government should be empowered to enforce laws prohibiting murder, theft, and enslavement, maintain courts of law, and maintain a military. That's it.

You can't be serious in proposing that all infrastructure be left to the private sector. Please explain how utility monopolies are kept in check? We already have this problem to an extent, but imagine if it wasn't just your phone company, but the roadways too. What stops the road owners from installing tolls wherever they please? You can argue this robotic drivel about "always having a choice", but even you wouldn't be able to say it with a straight face.

[Numbr2intheWorld]

You can't be serious in proposing that all infrastructure be left to the private sector. Please explain how utility monopolies are kept in check? We already have this problem to an extent, but imagine if it wasn't just your phone company, but the roadways too. What stops the road owners from installing tolls wherever they please? You can argue this robotic drivel about "always having a choice", but even you wouldn't be able to say it with a straight face.

You think the government handles these things well? I'll give you a prime example. In San Francisco, the metro system is run by the gov. All the prices are super high, you can't go one stop without paying $4 (Talk about taxing the poor and middle class). The reason for this is the Bay area metro system is trying to raise the governments income, when on it's own it could easily pay for itself. In Washington DC, the metro system is privately owned. It's a) a fucking awesome metro system and b) Costs less than $2 to go to most places.

The private sector would probably handle many of these things better. We don't know this for a fact, but what I do know is for the most part, the government runs businesses terribly.

I'm not really sure it makes sense for roads to be privately owned. The same goes for utilities... I think we tried that years ago and there were a clusterfuck of powerlines because all the companies ran there own. But if someone showed me a logical argument for why they should be private I'd be open to it.

[Lyric]

You can't be serious in proposing that all infrastructure be left to the private sector. Please explain how utility monopolies are kept in check? We already have this problem to an extent, but imagine if it wasn't just your phone company, but the roadways too. What stops the road owners from installing tolls wherever they please? You can argue this robotic drivel about "always having a choice", but even you wouldn't be able to say it with a straight face.

Utilities are monopolies from the start because of government intervention. Before running the phone lines or power cables they get an agreement from government to protect their monopoly on power generation via regulation. It's a contract agreed upon beforehand with the express purpose of keeping competition away and monopoly level pricing.

We can see what would have happened without the government's support with the current fiber optic, cable, and dsl internet expansion. My small town currently has three high speed fiber companies, all running their own fiber to private homes redundantly. Without the gov't we get lower prices, competition, and redundant networks should any of them fail.

Without gov't propping up the auto and oil industries when they created the national highway system post WW2, we would have more varied transport systems all competing to provide faster and more convenient transportation at lower prices, like Europe and Japan. The reason we don't have cheaper short air travel and high speed trains is precicely because the free gov't roads made auto travel so much cheaper because the road cost was socialized. Now we have cheap auto travel and high priced air and trains.

You would not be forced to travel by car in a free market. You could fly, take a train, or drive, and the roads would be tolled to encourage more even traffic flow. The only reason we have traffic jams today is that road use is the same price at all times. With a pricing system traffic can be spread out and diverted to the readily available trains and planes.

All of this is not as simple as it seems. Think a little deeper and imagine a world before gov't on our island, work your way up, and see if you don't like the end result better than the muck pile we have today.

[boost]

Utilities are monopolies from the start because of government intervention. Before running the phone lines or power cables they get an agreement from government to protect their monopoly on power generation via regulation. It's a contract agreed upon beforehand with the express purpose of keeping competition away and monopoly level pricing.

We can see what would have happened without the government's support with the current fiber optic, cable, and dsl internet expansion. My small town currently has three high speed fiber companies, all running their own fiber to private homes redundantly. Without the gov't we get lower prices, competition, and redundant networks should any of them fail.

Without gov't propping up the auto and oil industries when they created the national highway system post WW2, we would have more varied transport systems all competing to provide faster and more convenient transportation at lower prices, like Europe and Japan. The reason we don't have cheaper short air travel and high speed trains is precicely because the free gov't roads made auto travel so much cheaper because the road cost was socialized. Now we have cheap auto travel and high priced air and trains.

You would not be forced to travel by car in a free market. You could fly, take a train, or drive, and the roads would be tolled to encourage more even traffic flow. The only reason we have traffic jams today is that road use is the same price at all times. With a pricing system traffic can be spread out and diverted to the readily available trains and planes.

All of this is not as simple as it seems. Think a little deeper and imagine a world before gov't on our island, work your way up, and see if you don't like the end result better than the muck pile we have today.

On utilities: In some cases it is necessary to have a monopoly, such as the waterworks, sewage, gas, etc. In other cases I certainly agree with you.. there is no reason to have state sanctioned monopolies in the telecommunications industry.. at least no reason that I can fathom.


On roads specifically: How do you imagine tolls would be paid? I know we have the tech to allow you to just drive by.. but would there be a nationally accepted standard? Would I be able to drive cross country?

What would stop someone from buying up a small enclosure of roadway and hiking the tolls to insane levels? What choice would the people living or working within the enclosure have but to pay up? Its things like this that are such obvious abuses of a true unregulated free market that I would think would raise red flags for any rational person.

Also the idea of heavily discouraging travel is a very bad idea overall. It would serve to create closed off stagnant micro economies/societies. Furthermore the availability of relatively cheap travel allows the down and out to uproot and head out for greener pastures. When an industry dries up, people can move on to find work elsewhere. With all roads being toll roads, the price of cross country travel would be unimaginably high. That is, if a universal system was even settled on to allow for cross country toll-way travel. Furthermore, under your system, the idea of any decent amount of competition (read: choice) on cross continental roads can not be expected or even hoped for.

Lastly, who would police these roads? You are in support of having a police and military force, but what roll do they play in this highly privatized world? Whose rules do they follow? Does the government still set the speed limit? Or are you against all road safety laws and regulations as well?

edit: As I was thinking about private roads and the possibility of having competing private cost to cost highways, a big problem that I realize you run into is national parks. That got me to thinking... without government intervention (admittedly this was sparked, financially, by charitable donations by the Rockefeller family) industry would have run over the last remnants of pristine natural expanses long long ago. And while The Rockefeller family was integral in the start of the national parks service, it would be silly to think that, without the aid of government, the parks would have lasted to this day. If the land were privately owned and protected, it would only take so long for it to fall into the hands of someone who only saw dollar signs in the landscape.

Please, please, please take the time to explain either why it doesn't matter or how a National Park system fits into your libertarian world view. This is really important to me because I cannot see how this fits into your ideals, nor can I imagine that you think it doesn't matter.

[Numbr2intheWorld]

How about you answer questions now...

On utilities: In some cases it is necessary to have a monopoly, such as the waterworks, sewage, gas, etc.

Why?

On roads specifically: How do you imagine tolls would be paid? I know we have the tech to allow you to just drive by.. but would there be a nationally accepted standard? Would I be able to drive cross country?

Are there more efficient and "cleaner" ways to get across the country?

What would stop someone from buying up a small enclosure of roadway and hiking the tolls to insane levels? What choice would the people living or working within the enclosure have but to pay up? Its things like this that are such obvious abuses of a true unregulated free market that I would think would raise red flags for any rational person.

Couldn't someone just build another road? Why are they forced to use this road or use a car at all?

Also the idea of heavily discouraging travel is a very bad idea overall. It would serve to create closed off stagnant micro economies/societies. Furthermore the availability of relatively cheap travel allows the down and out to uproot and head out for greener pastures. When an industry dries up, people can move on to find work elsewhere. With all roads being toll roads, the price of cross country travel would be unimaginably high. That is, if a universal system was even settled on to allow for cross country toll-way travel. Furthermore, under your system, the idea of any decent amount of competition (read: choice) on cross continental roads can not be expected or even hoped for.

How much does it cost to build a road and then maintain it? Where are you getting these numbers, how do you figure the prices would be unimaginably high?

Regarding the last sentence, do you think trains are competition for cross continental roads? Are planes? Do you think if people complained about a bad cross continental road that someone may build another one because of the opportunity to make good money?

Lastly, who would police these roads? You are in support of having a police and military force, but what roll do they play in this highly privatized world? Whose rules do they follow? Does the government still set the speed limit? Or are you against all road safety laws and regulations as well?

Let's pretend you own a privatized road company with a road from Chicago to Columbus. There are two other highways that travel from Chicago to similar locations, so you do not have a monopoly. Now, with that being said, is there incentive for your road to have private highway patrol? Is there incentive for you to set a certain speed limit?

edit: As I was thinking about private roads and the possibility of having competing private cost to cost highways, a big problem that I realize you run into is national parks. That got me to thinking... without government intervention (admittedly this was sparked, financially, by charitable donations by the Rockefeller family) industry would have run over the last remnants of pristine natural expanses long long ago. And while The Rockefeller family was integral in the start of the national parks service, it would be silly to think that, without the aid of government, the parks would have lasted to this day. If the land were privately owned and protected, it would only take so long for it to fall into the hands of someone who only saw dollar signs in the landscape.

Please, please, please take the time to explain either why it doesn't matter or how a National Park system fits into your libertarian world view. This is really important to me because I cannot see how this fits into your ideals, nor can I imagine that you think it doesn't matter.

Is it the absolute truth that keeping parks and nature preserves as they are is the "right" thing? Does everyone want this? If they do as you imply, would they then be preserved in a free market?

[Lyric]

Please, please, please take the time to explain either why it doesn't matter or how a National Park system fits into your libertarian world view. This is really important to me because I cannot see how this fits into your ideals, nor can I imagine that you think it doesn't matter.

The National Parks would be protected by private owners more effectively than they are managed today by the government, which has made a string of errors by trying to actively "manage" the park, preventing natural fires and removing wolves from the park, etc.

Yellowstone was recognized for its value as a tourist attraction in the late 1800's, and the Northern Pacific Railroad wanted to protect it and promote it as an attraction for their railroad which ran next to it. They convinced government to foot the bill and a National Park was born, we pay for it and the railroad gets the benefit -- gov't at its best.

National park - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia