but....who will build the roads?

[NoStateofMind]

Back in the Depression we had people who were unemployed and paid to do work. That was their job. Today we just hand people checks, but what does not exist is a sufficient number of people who do not have to earn a living and can contribute the time to fix and maintain millions of miles of roads.

Right we don't have enough people to use their leisure time to fix roads and that's not what I'm trying to imply here. Road construction would still exist. People will be employed just as they are now to build and maintain those roads. The difference is in how its implemented. No central authority forcing people to pay.

That means a system needs to be in place to do so. We have people who can do minor repair and don't use them and we have those who think we can just have the infrastructure done by the equivalent of fire brigades.

There's no problem with a "system" so to speak (personally a fan of contracts, contract system?) so long as its not enforced by coercion. Voluntary interaction or its immoral and has no place in a civilized society.

Instead I think we can use people who want to help, have those who are getting paid to do nothing do something, and hire professionals for the rest. Nothing is mutually exclusive here.

Those getting paid to "do nothing" first have to have it stolen from someone else. So that's wrong on its face. What I'm trying to get people to think of here is that nothing changes other than the central scrutinizer is removed. All the excess money and wasted time is funneled to the project instead of some leech's back pocket.

 

[Capt Caveman]

The only point you're proving is that you're ignorant as well as stupid, but keep on digging.

No, but you definitely are. B/c we know that the Homestead Act of 1862 and the Transcontinental Railroad that was created afterwards didn't bring the mass numbers to the west. Oh wait...

 

[NoStateofMind]

Who is talking about Blind Faith? Holding the position that Government is not needed is what is Blind Faith.

Err no. lol

The very definition of blind faith is the thought that government will take care of it. Just like the bible thumping religious. Your god is government and anything that challenges that belief if heresy.

HAHHA! That was a good laugh. Thanks. Blind faith is lack of government HA!:biggrin:

 

[NoStateofMind]

Where did I say that government was not needed at all? Oh yeah you just pulled that out of your ass.

However I would state for myself that for the vast majority of society, having a broad and overreaching government presence in almost every aspect of their life is not required or needed. That government often is the would-be patient zero of societal and economic problems that are spread around as government grows and grows and attempts to justify its uncontrolled growth at the expense of other people's ability to do without or motivation to do for themselves.

Unfortunately governments that you can drown in a bathtub do not exist. They may start there but never stay. They always overgrow their pants and collapse. Rinse repeat throughout history. Time to change that cycle.

 

[sandorski]

Where did I say that government was not needed at all? Oh yeah you just pulled that out of your ass.

However I would state for myself that for the vast majority of society, having a broad and overreaching government presence in almost every aspect of their life is not required or needed. That government often is the would-be patient zero of societal and economic problems that are spread around as government grows and grows and attempts to justify its uncontrolled growth at the expense of other people's ability to do without or motivation to do for themselves.

As did you.

 

[DominionSeraph]

You seem to have missed a very important factor:

"Their livelihood was being threatened"

This was not proactive creation, it was reactive repair. The road had existed, its existence allowed them to create their businesses, and only after these businesses were created did the road become linked to the survival of said businesses.

No road in the first place = no businesses there = no businesses whose livelihood is dependent on the existence of a road = no one to build the road.


>Join date 2005
Unless you registered in elementary school, if you're still this stupid there's probably no helping you. /pol/ is thataway -->
Enjoy your rantings about "the jew."

 

[Doppel]

Except all of them have "governments". Is this a failure of "government"? In your world view its a shame that their ruling class doesn't steal from them right? You know, to build roads?

Also see my reply to the thoughtlessness above by Theb.

Contrary to your point, a lot of the roads in Africa are NOT maintained by the government.

If you really want to know why this will never work on any significant scale you can google Tragedy of the Commons. As you add more people to a project and its success relies upon equal voluntary adherence to its rules you'll be increasingly challenged and likely to see it fail.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Night of the Living Statists -- that's almost as bad as "Night of the Living Free Market Dogmatists".

One of the first statist arguments you hear is "who will build the roads".

One of the big problems with roads under laissez-faire is the lack of eminent domain. You are liable to end up with a weird and inefficient road system. The other issue is whether or not government-funded roads that would otherwise not exist result in a net increase of economic activity that might not otherwise occur. Also, to what extent does having to pay for tolls constantly hinder the economy?

Unable to think past their indoctrination of needing someone to tell them to build a road the above article demonstrates exactly how roads will exist or come into existence. Where there is a need it will be done.

What makes you think that supporters of laissez-faire capitalism haven't themselves been indoctrinated? Is it possible that some may have rationalized their belief in absolute individual rights and accept it as an unquestioned dogma?

Certainly, it's possible to point to instances of government ineptitude and inefficiency just as one can point to certain horrors of a laissez-faire economy.

 

[dank69]

OP combines ignorance and arrogance in levels I've not seen before on these forums.

 

[halik]

Heh 3 pages and no one caught my trolling NoStateOfMind.

Here's a clue: pooling our money together to organize and pay for things like roads, utilities etc is a metaphor for government. The notion of "community" building and paying for public goods like roads is what the idea of government was founded upon...

 

[QuantumPion]

I have no problem with government roads. Roads is one thing governments are useful for. The problem is roads should be taken care of by LOCAL governments. When the federal government gets involved is when things become bloated and corrupt. Why should the people of Virginia have to pay their hard earned tax dollars so that the union contractors in California can have a high-speed-rail-to-no-where indefinite boondoggle?

 

[hal2kilo]

Idealists are cute.

Wonder what he'll look like when he grows up though.

 

[Anarchist420]

Contrary to your point, a lot of the roads in Africa are NOT maintained by the government. If you really want to know why this will never work on any significant scale you can google Tragedy of the Commons. As you add more people to a project and its success relies upon equal voluntary adherence to its rules you'll be increasingly challenged and likely to see it fail.

that's because the people there cant or wont build them. theyve always had very little infrastructure in Africa and that's because there is no will to make the roads.

also, just because roads are dirt roads doesnt mean that transportation mediums cant be made by the market to make those roads easier. what about tiny personal planes that fly in the air (or something different that i cant invent) to replace the generations old automobile we have now?

EDIT: it's true that roads can be a huge project, but the solution is to not have a completely hierarchical model if you have too many people and to have as few people as possible who want to control everything. Che Guevara was anti-hierarchy and he was kicking ass until the u.s. govt executed his ass... not that i support Che Guevara's ideology other than on guerilla defense, but he really proved that hierarchy wasnt necessary while the centralization of the Continental Army lengthened the Anglo War Against Secession of 1776.

 

[Anarchist420]

I don't think anyone is saying that (well, aside from that anarchist guy). But government isn't needed for near as much as many seem to think it is.

there are at least two voluntaryists in here and there are many more who have the potential to become voluntaryists.

[...]

Wow, you might be more dumb than A420.

not, my friends are all much smarter than i am, ive only been a 100% voluntaryist for ~5 years, while Mr. Voluntaryist (No State of Mind) has been one for at least 8 years. i used to think that govt could help people out, i was even an ardent supporter of the State of Israel, i went along with most of what i thought Bill Clinton wanted (except the death penalty) until i realized in the first half of '06 that govt was already huge and mean and that it hadnt helped people out so then i became a libertarian (although not a pure one until about 2.5 years later when i first went to the mises forums and learned about Rothbard) when i realized the State would always be mean.

 

[Dannar26]

Back in the Depression we had people who were unemployed and paid to do work. That was their job. Today we just hand people checks, but what does not exist is a sufficient number of people who do not have to earn a living and can contribute the time to fix and maintain millions of miles of roads. That means a system needs to be in place to do so. We have people who can do minor repair and don't use them and we have those who think we can just have the infrastructure done by the equivalent of fire brigades.

Instead I think we can use people who want to help, have those who are getting paid to do nothing do something, and hire professionals for the rest. Nothing is mutually exclusive here.

And we have a winner.

Getting money = work. That's an equation we so desperately need to get back to.

 

[Zaap]

Cool little bridge.

Hey since these guys have experience we should contact them when it's time to repair this bridge.

I wonder if they have a bigger crane.

The Bay Bridge was built by the American Bridge company. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Bridge_Company

It amazes me that people think governments actually build bridges and infrastructure. LOL. It would be nice if the politicians were actually so useful, like they and their armies of overpaid bureaucrats got out out there with pick and shovel and actually earned their keep.

As said, they just suck up public money, skim off the top, borrow more at over-inflated rates that future taxpayers will have to be enslaved to pay, and hire private companies in often the most inefficient ways to build things.

 

[chowderhead]

Republicans and Democrats all want to spend money. I rather they spend the money here in the US on road/bridges and dams, etc than in stupid pointless wars aboard.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/water-projects-flow-despite-tea-party-98821.html?hp=l9

8.2 billion dollar water project bill passed the House 417-3.

 

[fskimospy]

The Bay Bridge was built by the American Bridge company. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Bridge_Company

It amazes me that people think governments actually build bridges and infrastructure. LOL. It would be nice if the politicians were actually so useful, like they and their armies of overpaid bureaucrats got out out there with pick and shovel and actually earned their keep.

As said, they just suck up public money, skim off the top, borrow more at over-inflated rates that future taxpayers will have to be enslaved to pay, and hire private companies in often the most inefficient ways to build things.

Uhmmm, I'm pretty sure the Bay Bridge was built using government funds with the American Bridge Company as a contractor, the same as most other bridges and infrastructure. What about it do you think is so different?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

The Bay Bridge was built by the American Bridge company. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Bridge_Company

It amazes me that people think governments actually build bridges and infrastructure. LOL. It would be nice if the politicians were actually so useful, like they and their armies of overpaid bureaucrats got out out there with pick and shovel and actually earned their keep.

As said, they just suck up public money, skim off the top, borrow more at over-inflated rates that future taxpayers will have to be enslaved to pay, and hire private companies in often the most inefficient ways to build things.

Who is going to pay the company to build the bridge? Are they going to go door-to-door with a collection plate? Someone needs to gather all those funds together to pay the contractors to do the work. That someone, regardless of who it is, is the role of government. It's the representation of the people for the best interests of a community. You can't expect 8 million people in the Bay Area to all gather together themselves and approach the contractor with a barrel of money and a plan.

As others have pointed out, there are plenty of countries in the world where the roads are privatized or not subsidized with any form of government funding, and there is not a single positive example among them. I can understand being against government boondoggles, but arguing that the government shouldn't be involved in the creation of roads is basically too stupid to even begin a discussion.

 

[sm625]

Davis-Bacon is probably the largest single contributor to the outrageous cost of road construction, assuming you cant label "unions" as the largest single contributor to the outrageous cost of road construction. Government should simply state what transportation infrastructure it wants in a given area, and then take that demand to the market and let it provide a complete solution with competing parties. It should absolutely not stick its nose in to the point of passing laws like Davis-Bacon.

 

[Lithium381]

Uhmmm, I'm pretty sure the Bay Bridge was built using government funds with the American Bridge Company as a contractor, the same as most other bridges and infrastructure. What about it do you think is so different?

define 'government funds' please. is that money they took from citizens as a tax? or were those dollars donated voluntarily?

oh, they got it from tax? i see. so then the citizens had a choice to contribute? No? they took it like a highwayman? gotcha. Thanks eskimo, nice conversation.

 

[fskimospy]

define 'government funds' please. is that money they took from citizens as a tax? or were those dollars donated voluntarily?

oh, they got it from tax? i see. so then the citizens had a choice to contribute? No? they took it like a highwayman? gotcha. Thanks eskimo, nice conversation.

I cannot express to you just how little I care to have the "taxation = theft" conversation.

Zaap appeared to be arguing that the Bay Bridge was made in a fundamentally different way than other infrastructure. I don't see how it was.

If his argument was simply that the government frequently hires contractors instead of building it with government employee construction crews I guess my response would be: well.... duh.

 

[Lithium381]

Who is going to pay the company to build the bridge? Are they going to go door-to-door with a collection plate? Someone needs to gather all those funds together to pay the contractors to do the work. That someone, regardless of who it is, is the role of government. It's the representation of the people for the best interests of a community. You can't expect 8 million people in the Bay Area to all gather together themselves and approach the contractor with a barrel of money and a plan.

As others have pointed out, there are plenty of countries in the world where the roads are privatized or not subsidized with any form of government funding, and there is not a single positive example among them. I can understand being against government boondoggles, but arguing that the government shouldn't be involved in the creation of roads is basically too stupid to even begin a discussion.

Have you NEVER hired someone to do something for you? Move your house? Fix a water heater? Help with your lawn? You can't fathom a world without a large all-knowing central government can you? I'm not talking about anarchy either.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Have you NEVER hired someone to do something for you? Move your house? Fix a water heater? Help with your lawn? You can't fathom a world without a large all-knowing central government can you? I'm not talking about anarchy either.

How on Earth does that translate over to a city building a bridge? I don't have millions of dollars to finance a construction project of that magnitude, nor does virtually anybody else. We can either get corporations to do it, and they're going to need a profit motive, or we can pool our resources as a community in the form of GOVERNMENT FUNDING. How in the world can you possibly make the leap from "you can call someone to fix a water heater" to "you can finance major infrastructure construction?" The money has to come from somewhere. Who pays for a bridge in your world?

 

[Lithium381]

I cannot express to you just how little I care to have the "taxation = theft" conversation.

Zaap appeared to be arguing that the Bay Bridge was made in a fundamentally different way than other infrastructure. I don't see how it was.

If his argument was simply that the government frequently hires contractors instead of building it with government employee construction crews I guess my response would be: well.... duh.

I know, most statists have a hard time defending the practice...

Well the government bureaucracy obviously isn't going to go build the bridge itself. Can you imagine little tom from the 3rd floor leaving his desk to go weld together the deck on the bridge? There are contractors who specialize in things for a reason. . . tradesmen. Just like i don't try to work on the transformers outside my house, i hire someone to do it for me!