this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2023
392 points (99.7% liked)
196
16745 readers
3317 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They don't want to admit it but they are just a few steps away from anarchy.
Soo the, we got problems to big for one person alone to solve. If we let every fucker do whatever he wants we going down fast. We need inteligente population orientated to something good, organizerd trough democracy.
bUt i wANt mY GuNS AnD My moNEY.
They say driving in public rides with protection from a government that doesn't let companies poison their air, or drink from lead pipes .....
The way Libertarians claim, in the broad sense, they are literally the same as anarchists.
However, most of the time when you get into the details, they just want the government to protect them doing whatever they want and oppress others. They're literally the same as conservatives.
I kind of get your post, but you should seriously proof read it. I don't even know what the last sentence means
They say while driving on public roads provided by a government that doesn't let companies poison the air or install lead pipes for drinking water
Poisoning the air or water is against the non-aggression principle of libertarianism. People who are okay with harming others are not libertarians, they are just LARPing Republicans.
Public roads is a difference of opinion. If there were private toll roads everywhere with a wireless chip for payment (to fund upkeep of the road) I would not be against that. The government has toll roads as well so I had to get the wireless chip anyway in California since I don't have exact change on me every time I drive on a bridge. If his higher cost of roads went to keeping them in better order and discouraged people from driving, that would be actually a benefit.
You have every right to your opinion, and you're welcome to ignore me, but I really don't understand where you're coming from on that. I can think of so many issues with having a privatized road system. Just off the top of my head,
How do these companies get the land? Every libertarian I've asked this of has gone on about how the railroads didn't need government help to get their land, which is provably false (sources 1,2,3). So given that the land is taken by the government then given or sold to the railroads, (or in our case roads) the government is still in the position of forcing the trade and choosing which companies get it.
Then we get to the topic of necessary monopoly. If we don't have a monopoly in charge of a large chunk of land, turning right will cost you an extra $10 as opposed to going straight. For that matter going straight more than 5 miles may cost you an extra $10. (I'm hoping this is uncontroversial enough to not require a source). This is the reason that we have utilities (of which private roads are - at least in my state- already one (source 4)), but this means that the government gets to say how much they're allowed to charge (source 5). If they don't place this regulation, people that live at one end of a private road and work at the other will be required to pay extortionist prices, because there can only be so many roads to get from point a to b. If we do keep those requirements then this is no longer a benefit of using private roads.
Then there's the price difference for the consumer. This one requires some pre-amble.
New Jersey has a population of 9.288 million
Michigan has a population of 10.077 million
(both source 6)
Michigan roads are funded primarily through a (shockingly high) gas tax of 19c/gal (7). (It's largely so high because the wild temperature varrations damage the roads.) The average American uses 489 gal/year (8) for a total average tax of $92.91/year.
The average new Jersey resident pays very little in gas tax, but they do pay for tolls. I can't find an average, but last year the state got ~2 billion (9) in tolls divided by the total number of residents from earlier we can roughly estimate they paid 215.33/year. (This fails to take into account visitors, but in the reverse direction it also fails to account for children and those not driving)
This is in a toll system that, unlike a private one, does not need to turn a profit. To your point on road maintenance being better for toll roads - according to Consumer Affairs NJ is raked 27th in the country for it, while Michigan is 20th (10). US news has NJ at 40, and Michigan at 30 (11).
In the end of the day, it seems to me that people will pay more to drive, and the government will still have such a high level of control of the road system that any benefit that could be found in privatization is lost.
Sources:
These companies would have to buy the land from the government or from people who own the land, like everyone else. If you say that the government gets it with imminent domain and that sucks, well, that's another topic, isn't it? Since that's what it currently does. We're only discussing selling the roads to private owners that the government currently owns.
This is already the case, if you miss your turn you might be on your way to a toll bridge since you missed the last exit and there's no way to turn around. Of course, you would be using an app that can either optimize for driving time OR cost. This is also the case now as you can go around a toll bridge, but you'd have to go all the way around the bay to save a few dollars. This isn't something new or materially different
you can stop using a road that's too expensive and take a bus from a road that is cheaper, the land owner will be forced to decrease the prices until people stop avoiding it
This isn't necessarily a bad thing if it causes cheaper public transport options to become available.
Overall, I don't know if it would be better, I'm just saying it's not as ridiculous as people might think.
*I realized this is a reginal phrase so I figured I should clear it up at the beginning. When I say freeway or interstate I always am referring to roads that get federal funding and meet the US interstate code.
Yeah, my only point here is that this is regularly brought up as a benefit (although I recognize that you personally never did), and I don't think that it does have that benefit to any degree.
For each of your next two points I think we may be talking about different things. My understanding of your argument was that all roads can (and maybe should be) privatized. With "all" being operative. In that case the road my house is on is not optional for me to not pay for. If you're only suggesting that highways and freeways should be privatized I don't think that is as ridiculous a notion.
I do think even in that case it's worth noting that this would end up being a tax on people who live in rural areas but work in cities. Which is a roundabout way of saying mostly less wealthy people. I also understand that you're in California while I'm in North Carolina so for you it probably means people that live in the suburbs, while for me it means people living in towns that the industry left 30 years ago and have to commute.
I also think it's worth pointing out that the freeway system is a military operation with economic benefits, not vice versa. Part of the US interstate code requires that a tank be able to drive on every part with many locations (I don't recall how often they're required to be) that a fighter jet can land and take off in case we ever have a war on the continent. (This is just for freeways, not highways.)* (see edit)If it does that I agree, but in most of the country that system doesn't exist. Within cities we've spent the last 50 years eliminating every cost effective public transit option. And for rural areas it's never existed. I would be far less opposed to it if we created those options, but I have seen the government take away our options with the promise to give us new ones that never come far too many times to trust it.
Once park and rides in rural areas, free or cheap bus systems in cities, good sidewalk networks, bike lanes, and bike paths (ideally also trollies if we can somehow swing it) exist across the country, I'll change my tune. But not until they exist, and definitely not on the promise that "we'll make them next".
I guess I don't have strong opposition to private highways, but roads with residences I do. I still don't see the benefit of them, but I don't think the downsides are that dramatic.
Getting sources was really time consuming and I'm replying on my phone so I'm not gonna bother this time, but if I've used any facts that you doubt the validity of let me know and I'll find sources.
Also, just wanna say it's nice getting into a respectful debate online. It's been a while. Thanks!
EDIT:
I can't figure out how to strike through text on kbin, so I'm using code text to emphasize the paragraph instead. I apologize, this is commonly repeated misinformation. The US interstate system was built with military and economic ideas concurrently not with the military at the forefront and economics benefits secondary. There is no requirement that tanks be able to drive on the interstate (apparency paved roads are actually bad for the treads), on top of that there is not a requirement that airplanes be able to land and/or take off from it. Apparently the idea was proposed and rejected when the interstate act of 1956 was in front of congress. The closest this paragraph comes to the truth is that Eisenhour did propose the interstate system to congress after a test of military readiness that came to the conclusion that military vehicles could not cross the country in a timely manner with the currently existing infrastructure in the 1950s. Given this the paragraph is barely relevant to the debate.
Pretty much everyone admits it. Minarchist (pro minimal govt) flag is literally ancap with black changed to blue.
Free Market is essentially a "continuous democratic process". If what somebody does benefit people, he gets incentivised with profits. If people see no value in what he's doing – he gets losses. And if in the process of " doing whatever he wants" he does any harm to others ge gets sued.
And all of this happens constantly instead of once in a couple of years, without almost any accountability from those who're in power as it works in republic.
I disagree that the free market is democratic because hedge funds and the richest people in our society control all of the "votes" in a free market, even after taxes. This can probably be blamed on capitalism, stock markets, and money-driven lobbying.
First of all lobbying and any other intrusion into fair competition is incompatible with free market.
As for the "rich" — without government enforced monopolies, their wealth is a representation of how much value they provide to society. Which roughly translates into their support by society. A bit like representative democracy, but more decentralized.
By that logic, thieves are virtuous and valued by society. In reality, the wealthy are creating value for themselves and their peers, and we operate on a system more like $1 = 1 vote, rather than 1 person = 1 vote. This system is usually called a plutocracy.
Thieves are forced to return what they stole, they don't (usually) accumulate capital
Could you please provide an example? Even something like Apple products (luxuries) are used by people that can't be called rich. So it's hard for me to understand how wealthy could create their separate economy
Depends on your definition of theft. I define theft to include the net profits that are not shared with the workers.
Most of us don’t get to participate in IPOs and hedge funds. The capital needed for that has been stolen from us by people who refuse to share with us the fruits of our labor.
“But you work for a wage that you agreed to take”
Because the other option is to starve to death.
That's pessimistic... Food can be grown...
How businesses would innovate without accumulating capital? What happens if they suffer a loss? What would they pay their workers?
IMO it's not theft, it's just a price you're paying for someone else to deal with risc possible losses while providing you stable income.
Not talking about reserch, marketing and realization of goods/services, that someone without capital can't do on their own.
If I don’t work for the system then I starve. I’m not talking’s about a Malthusian disaster. I can’t grow food because I don’t own land.
I specifically said net profits should be given to the works. They can then invest in new ventures and become decision makers. That would maintain innovation. By only having those at the top make decisions you actually limit the things getting innovated because you only have a few minds working on it. There is nothing that would prevent a company from having a research fund like they currently do. I said net profit for a reason. The issue is money exiting via exorbitant corporate salaries and dividends and investments in unrelated things that do not benefit the workers.
When was the last time a billionaire went broke they aren’t assuming any risk. The workers who you say aren’t assuming a risk go homeless and starve when the company fails and they can’t find a job.
This argument always makes me laugh. On what land? Most of us live in cities. "So don't live in a city!" OK great, how do I afford property? "Work a different job to save". OK but now I have the money I need. We live in a specialized society. Not everyone needs or wants to be a farmer, and that is a good thing.
Strawman. Nobody is saying money is bad. We are saying regulated markets are more egalitarian and more representative of societal value than free ones. Implicit in every neo-liberalist argument is this assumption that money is the only market for societal value. But that is not an established fact. How much monetary value does your grandmother make for you? Your kids? I thought so.
Exactly it's not democratic. So what is wrong here would be the way we force our elected leaders to campaign, by having to accept donations you imediatly bring money into the table.
If all candidates had the same air time/publicity and couldn't do more outside of that budget the gov gave them. I believe it could improve, you could denounced oponets who are moved by money, and wouldn't be forced to accept non
Some people having exponentially more votes than others is not democratic.