but....who will build the roads?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,953
55,323
136
I know, most statists have a hard time defending the practice...

No, it's that those trying to make the statement that taxation is theft have transparently terrible arguments that have been repeatedly refuted on here. Feel free to use the search feature.

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!

This is such an obvious statement that I don't even know why someone would bother to make it. Can you point to a single person you you believe thinks that the government creates all these things solely through the services of government employees?
 

etrigan420

Golden Member
Oct 30, 2007
1,723
1
81
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...

I was waiting for OP to get it...

"What we need to do, is abolish the government. In it's place, we'll have a collective of people (possibly elected...I haven't really thought this part through yet) who represent us and make decisions in our best interests...(am currently taking suggestions on what to call this collective)."

:|
 

Screech

Golden Member
Oct 20, 2004
1,203
7
81
Holy hell this thread is full of lols. Reminds me of a point someone made in a different thread (I believe when a certain someone said that democrats were propelled to victory in the senate and presidential elections by gerrymandering just as republicans were in the house) : conservatives are not stupid by definition, but the loudest among you really seem to set a particularly bad example for the rest. You can call a guy to fix a water heater shows that the government shouldn't be building large infrastructure projects? yeah, ok.

Protip for those who want to discuss the actual economic reason government funding of infrastructure in general makes sense: externalities. There are pretty obvious and effectively indisputable positive externalities to having a good set of roads, bridges, etc linking together (and even creating) economic centers. I shouldn't really have to go more into detail here.......look it up on wikipedia if you are so inclined.
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
81
I was waiting for OP to get it...

"What we need to do, is abolish the government. In it's place, we'll have a collective of people (possibly elected...I haven't really thought this part through yet) who represent us and make decisions in our best interests...(am currently taking suggestions on what to call this collective)."

:|

Heh thank you. I thought maybe people can't see through the biting sarcasm on my end.
 
Last edited:

Zaap

Diamond Member
Jun 12, 2008
7,162
424
126
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?
Not nearly so cut and dry as this in the case of the original Bay Area bridges.

Back in the day, governments didn't just cough money out of their ass the way you believe it's perfectly fine for them to do now.

In the case of the Golden Gate bridge: the state went to the taxpayers for funding and was rejected. So the state tried to issue bonds for funding- no one wanted to buy them.

Solution? Borrow the money against the worthless bonds. From who? Bank of America.

The Oakland Bay Bridge has a similar history: bonds issued, money borrowed from private firms (banks) and the establishment of a toll authority.

Your precious government isn't shit without private money. In fact, it's been pointed out here a million times to our dumb friends on the left- government by itself HAS NO MONEY. It's why they're all in bed with bankers and people who actually do have money.
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
Contrary to your point, a lot of the roads in Africa are NOT maintained by the government.

That's what I was saying. In your view because some fascist pigs didn't steal the money from the people they "suffer" with poor roads.

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.

Voluntary community organization works fine. No need for parasites.
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
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?

Are tolls the only thing you can think of? There could not possibly be another way? There's no solution to eminent domain but government coercion? Is that it?

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?

Because one is natural and rational without human coercion while the other is manipulative, irrational and immoral.

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.

Yep. Can't have free people. Can we?
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
OP combines ignorance and arrogance in levels I've not seen before on these forums.

Except for the constant droning of morons like yourself. This thread is for thinking people. Dipshits need not reply.

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...

I was waiting for OP to get it...

"What we need to do, is abolish the government. In it's place, we'll have a collective of people (possibly elected...I haven't really thought this part through yet) who represent us and make decisions in our best interests...(am currently taking suggestions on what to call this collective)."

:|

Let's see. Which of you dumbasses can tell me what the one fundamental difference is between government and voluntary interaction?

You fools can't think outside some central authority. So sad.
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
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?

"Governments" don't build roads.

They don't build roads.

"Governments" don't build roads.

How else can it be said? How is it you do not get it? "government" does nothing can do nothing and never will do anything.
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
I cannot express to you just how little I care to have the "taxation = theft" conversation.

I bet, you coward. Because thats where you lose the argument. I would stay away from that too if I were you. Not very consensual if its by a barrel of a gun is it? Not an easy position to defend so run coward.
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
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.

:thumbsup:
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
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!

:thumbsup:

Most (including the mindless moron you are addressing here) think that "government" pulls money out of their ass and poof a road/bridge is built. Yet that money, as you have pointed out, comes from everyone under their rule by threat of imprisonment or death. Statist buffoons do not want to discuss the moral aspect of "government" because it is indefensible. It's very existence is coercion and threat of violence. Pull off the mask and expose it for what it is. Good on you.
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
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?

I don't know if you are following along but let me highlight a point for you.

Governments pay for and do nothing.

Also there is no such thing as "government funding". That money came form somewhere. Its called theft. Stolen from people who could put it to better use.

Under authoritarian rule that statists like yourself advocate (yeah you do), if people don't want to build the bridge and refuse to pay for it "government" would be nice enough to steal it from them to have build it for their own good. This is immoral and wrong. You would not allow any individual to treat you this way.

Put on your thinking cap and tell us if there were no central authority to confiscate funds to build X, how do you think X could be built?
 

Veliko

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2011
3,597
127
106
:thumbsup:

Most (including the mindless moron you are addressing here) think that "government" pulls money out of their ass and poof a road/bridge is built. Yet that money, as you have pointed out, comes from everyone under their rule by threat of imprisonment or death. Statist buffoons do not want to discuss the moral aspect of "government" because it is indefensible. It's very existence is coercion and threat of violence. Pull off the mask and expose it for what it is. Good on you.

If the mere existence of a government is so utterly disgusting to your mind, why don't move somewhere where one doesn't exist?

Like, for instance, Somalia.
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
If the mere existence of a government is so utterly disgusting to your mind, why don't move somewhere where one doesn't exist?

Like, for instance, Somalia.

Oh god if I had a nickle......

So if I don't like being robbed, caged and extorted I should go somewhere where I'll be robbed, caged and extorted.

Think things through much?
 

Veliko

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2011
3,597
127
106
Oh god if I had a nickle......

So if I don't like being robbed, caged and extorted I should go somewhere where I'll be robbed, caged and extorted.

Think things through much?

To be honest if you consider the paying of taxes to be an example of "robbed, caged and extorted" then it suggests you're something of a mentalist.

The thing is, the people who clamour for a governmentless world can never actually point to an example of a country that fulfils the following two conditions:

- has no government
- is somewhere they'd like to live

Instead, all you can ever come up with is isolated incidents of someone repairing a small bridge that was originally funded by the government, or a junction crossing that still managed to function for a few days when the traffic lights stopped working.

It's like a child finding a ten pound note and extrapolating that to mean that he'll never need to get a job, because he can just keep walking along the road picking up money.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,953
55,323
136
Oh god if I had a nickle......

So if I don't like being robbed, caged and extorted I should go somewhere where I'll be robbed, caged and extorted.

Think things through much?

Maybe you should think about why that might be.

You sit there, enjoying the benefits of modern society while raging against the process that makes it possible. There are many places you can go that aren't Somalia, so what is the holdup?
 

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,303
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net
If I had a nickel for every young person that dreams of a land with self governed citizens that were nice to each other and worked together in harmony to build a perfect utopian place to live.
 

mpo

Senior member
Jan 8, 2010
458
51
91
That's what I was saying. In your view because some fascist pigs didn't steal the money from the people they "suffer" with poor roads.



Voluntary community organization works fine. No need for parasites.
In the US, for the first 120 years or so, most rural roads were maintained by local governments. A typical arrangement was that a family would either contribute labor (say, 2 weeks per year), or, they could contribute some equivalent amount of money to the upkeep of roads. Or, if you were particularly well off, you could send someone else to do the labor for you.

It was in the land owner's 'radical self interest' to maintain their local roads. Without some formalized system, the roads (really just paths) would make it hard for people to interact with others. Most farms were subsistence-level enterprises. Yet, they had to get some of their goods to the mill, or to the village to trade for goods they may need.

Guess what? For the most part, the roads uniformly sucked. During the spring, the roads were unpassable quagmires. Yes, some places created plank roads if trees were available. But, for swaths of the country, suitable lumber was not available. Cobbles and macadam were reserved for urban areas. Not surprisingly, most long-range commerce was conducted on rivers and seas. Hence, those bastard statists proposed and built the Erie Canal, which helped settle the Midwestern states.

(And as an aside, those bastard statists, such as Thomas Jefferson, passed the Land Ordinance of 1785. The Land Ordinance created the systematic approach to surveying land outside of the original colonies. It gives the familiar checkerboard pattern to land use in much of the US. Guess what, land owners were expected to donate right-of-way on section lines to the local government for building local roads. Surely this is a regulatory taking; nobody received a dime in 'just compensation' even though they lost land they had paid for.)

This is a long-winded explanation for why statists started the 'Good Roads Movement' in the 1890s to get rid of outmoded, outdated, and unworkable contemporary solution to maintaining roads. They felt that roads should be engineered, all-weather solutions to getting from point A to point B.

Damn you Good Roads Movement people who used the tyranny of the majority to keep the man down. Who knew that less than 60 years later, these statists would propose (and fund) one of the largest and most expensive public works projects in the history of the world--the Interstate Highway System. Damn you for allowing me to enjoy fresh oranges thousands that have to be trucked thousands of miles. Damn you for allowing me to drive from coast-to-coast in days, not months.

Damn you statists for taking away one bit of liberty and replacing it with another. It is unpossible for that to happen in my utopia.
 

Lithium381

Lifer
May 12, 2001
12,452
2
0
:thumbsup:

Most (including the mindless moron you are addressing here) think that "government" pulls money out of their ass and poof a road/bridge is built. Yet that money, as you have pointed out, comes from everyone under their rule by threat of imprisonment or death. Statist buffoons do not want to discuss the moral aspect of "government" because it is indefensible. It's very existence is coercion and threat of violence. Pull off the mask and expose it for what it is. Good on you.

I wouldn't go so far as to call him a mindless moron. We obviously have differing ideas on the role and scope of government. I've actually learned things from Eskimo on several topics. We disagree on lots of things but I can respect the fact that he has opinions that arent my own.

On topic, it is a mindset that is engrained from childhood. the entire institution of government. the assumption that is has always existed and that it's there for the benefit of its citizens/subjects is driven in by rote. Once the government offers a service, it's very difficult to conceive a world where it's NOT provided by the government.

Think of an HOA. It's a private land area with homes and a community of sorts. People get together and pay communally to live there for benefits provided by services that are agreed upon. Trash collection, street cleaning, gardening/landscaping, a pool, etc. Government isn't providing that. People are getting togher and deciding that they want those things and are willing to pay for them so they contract compaies to perform those services.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,783
6,341
126
I wouldn't go so far as to call him a mindless moron. We obviously have differing ideas on the role and scope of government. I've actually learned things from Eskimo on several topics. We disagree on lots of things but I can respect the fact that he has opinions that arent my own.

On topic, it is a mindset that is engrained from childhood. the entire institution of government. the assumption that is has always existed and that it's there for the benefit of its citizens/subjects is driven in by rote. Once the government offers a service, it's very difficult to conceive a world where it's NOT provided by the government.

Think of an HOA. It's a private land area with homes and a community of sorts. People get together and pay communally to live there for benefits provided by services that are agreed upon. Trash collection, street cleaning, gardening/landscaping, a pool, etc. Government isn't providing that. People are getting togher and deciding that they want those things and are willing to pay for them so they contract compaies to perform those services.

HOA is itself a form of Government.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
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?

For the most part the Federal Government doesn't do that much road construction and maintenance. If a City/Municipality can’t maintain their city roads, the County will take care of it or the State. Interstate highways are almost always maintained on the State level. Typically when the Federal Government does build a road or bridge they will turn control and maintenance over to the State it is in. However pet projects like the high speed rail to nowhere like you mentioned are a different story.
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
To be honest if you consider the paying of taxes to be an example of "robbed, caged and extorted" then it suggests you're something of a mentalist.

You'll need to clarify here as I am unsure of what you are trying to say.

The thing is, the people who clamour for a governmentless world can never actually point to an example of a country that fulfils the following two conditions:

- has no government
- is somewhere they'd like to live

To my knowledge there has never been absolute free "country". All societies that have ever existed have been led by some central authority. That's not evidence that voluntaryism doesn't work in fact its evidence that man has not thought past being told what to do. Man has always set an authority in his sights be it a god, a son of god, church or government.

Anarchy simply means without rulers. No one person or group can claim the right to violence and the only rightful way to use force is in self defense. As it is now, your government claims the right to use force when it deems necessary and most people, yourself included, probably applaud the apprehension and subjugation of your fellow man. Ignorance is truly bliss.


Instead, all you can ever come up with is isolated incidents of someone repairing a small bridge that was originally funded by the government, or a junction crossing that still managed to function for a few days when the traffic lights stopped working.

Pointing out that government is not needed really rattles the cages doesn't it? However small the bridge or road is is of no effect. That fact remains that there was a need and the people, not the extortionists, completed the task. The same would happen today if we were so lucky to see your god the government magically disappear from the face of the earth. Although people such as yourself, those stuck on the central authority tit, will have a hard time adjusting to thinking for themselves.

It's like a child finding a ten pound note and extrapolating that to mean that he'll never need to get a job, because he can just keep walking along the road picking up money.


Yeah that analogy doesn't fit. Try again.
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
Maybe you should think about why that might be.

LOL I have. Nice to dodge the real topic of taxation = theft though ;)

You sit there, enjoying the benefits of modern society while raging against the process that makes it possible. There are many places you can go that aren't Somalia, so what is the holdup?

So basically all the good things in society are because of government? :rolleyes:

You statists are so cute with your somalia references. As if there isn't a gang of thugs robbing people there as well. You are a perfect example of a statist who cannot think outside his indoctrination. At least try to think.