Support NeoGAF

[Vigilant Walrus]

So in other words, it was the government.


So it's impossible for a bridge repair company to exist? I pointed to cars and buildings because the private sector already takes care of them.



Do you not see the obvious problem? Dissatisfied taxpayers leave a city, infrastructure rots even further, city cares less because they have even less income to tax from or the people who stay behind are ok with run down facilities.

What I'm saying is with Capitalism, no such scenario exists. Ironically, no one would have to leave, it would be other companies who move in and offer better services to clean up a city when the previous company failed to.



Yet I found all my jobs on my own instead of getting help from the government. I wager for a lot of people, they too got into their jobs through networking, applying directly, or starting own. Not waiting for the government to hand them one.


They have no other choice like any other business that resides in a country. That doesn't mean it's the government that created them.


That's an interesting response. I'm going to save that for the future.


I believe in police, just not ones that are clearly owned by the government and are allowed to be corrupt. Like in my example from the above. Police guns down innocent civilian, government run court says cop is free to go or offers "paid leave".

In a scenario where police are privatized, there is incentive to keep certain areas or cities safe. They also can't just randomly gun down citizens without risk of of their services being removed or replaced by another company.


Supermarkets exist because people eat food in their every day lives. Doesn't mean we need the government to control every single one. There's no reason the same doesn't apply to every other service you believe the government is necessary for it to happen.



Offer a subscription model that includes street signs, lamps and parking spaces as apart of using the main road service.


Politicians are liars though. Just look at how Trump can change his tune everyday and gets away with it. The government only cares about itself


I've worked side by side them.

I often did more work that went beyond what my contract stated. For the government, they just had to punch in, say they were at a certain location, and then go home.


Even though said money comes from labor from the private sector who are generating the profits the government needs to do their job(or lack of)...


Don't matter if they're a democracy. Why should they be? It was in reply to what you said

"government are supposed to keep corporations in check"

China is a government and they clearly don't care. The Soviet Union as well, did tremendous damage to the environment and that was all government.

If you're going to blame corporate for not caring about the environment, governments are not innocent either. At least with corporations, we do see an incentive by them to offer eco-friendly products.


I can tell you right now, the government is directly responsible for destroying the lives of native indians. No way around it. Don't blame it on racism. The government is full of racist people who thanks to their monopolistic power, were able to subject the native people to horror with no one to oppose them.


There is no and probably wont be another system that's better than capitalism for the foreseeable future. It's not short sighed when the other option is what?

Socialism? That doesn't work.
Agrarian? Very primitive and outdated. The majority of people who enjoy their current luxuries wouldn't go back to it.



So it's my opinion when these politicians sit around doing nothing but clap and scream in Parliament, while the rest of the country continues to see little improvement but they still continue to suck my tax dollars while raising it more and more?

Okay, you are trolling. My bad.

 

[JordanN]

Okay, you are trolling. My bad.

That's too bad then. I took the time to respond to each individual point to continue my reputation of being consistent.
Now no one can say I'm dishonest.

 

[Euphor!a]

That's too bad then. I took the time to respond to each individual point to continue my reputation of being consistent.
Now no one can say I'm dishonest.

Thinking a netflix like subscription service for roads is a good idea is being dishonest.

 

[Shy Fingers]

.

Since you keep dancing around it, who and how would the bridge repair company receive compensation for their services?

 

[JordanN]

Thinking a netflix like subscription service for roads is a good idea is being dishonest.

I know businesses that keep their local streets and sidewalks clean because by extension, they want everything around their storefront to look well maintained without having to wait on the government to do it for them.

I could see either businesses starting an initiative together to look after each others property, or an actual company that exists to maintain roads.

Since you keep dancing around it, who and how would the bridge repair company receive compensation for their services?

Person A: Hey dude, I own a bridge in southwest Toronto and my customers are complaining about holes, can you fix it?
Person B: Sure, I'll give you an estimate and have my crew come fix it by the end of the day.

 

[<+)O Robido O(+>]

Person A: Hey dude, I own a bridge in southwest Toronto and my customers are complaining about holes, can you fix it?
Person B: Sure, I'll give you an estimate and have my crew come fix it by the end of the day.

Bridge customers? For real?

 

[Euphor!a]

I know businesses that keep their local streets and sidewalks clean because by extension, they want everything around their storefront to look well maintained without having to wait on the government to do it for them.

I could see either businesses starting an initiative together to look after each others property, or an actual company that exists to maintain roads.

Who owns the roads in this example? Yes, sure, a company would exist to maintain the roads and similar infrastructure, they already do, but where is that money coming from?

Because in a purely capitalistic society individual roads would be owned by individual companies at which point access to Verizon Blvd. might come with your Verizon Wireless subscription, but the person who uses AT&T presumably will have to get a separate subscription specifically to use their roads that goes towards maintaining them, no? Now imagine it dozen times over for even a relatively small city.

This is the future you are looking forward to?

 

[JordanN]

Who owns the roads in this example? Yes, sure, a company would exist to maintain the roads and similar infrastructure, they already do, but where is that money coming from?

Because in a purely capitalistic society individual roads would be owned by individual companies at which point access to Verizon Blvd. might come with your Verizon Wireless subscription, but the person who uses AT&T presumably will have to get a separate subscription specifically to use their roads that goes towards maintaining them, no? Now imagine it dozen times over for even a relatively small city.

This is the future you are looking forward to?

I'll take better services than what the government offers.
And subscriptions are just one model. I'm sure there are also tolls that would be very cheap.

 

[Euphor!a]

I'll take better services than what the government offers.

You didn't answer the question.

Edit: Now we've got tolls for every road? It already cost $15 to use the bridge near me, now I have to pay $5 for each road I have to use to get there? Christ.

 

[JordanN]

You didn't answer the question.

Edit: Now we've got tolls for every road? It already cost $15 to use the bridge near me, now I have to pay $5 for each road I have to use to get there? Christ.

You would be paying far less in taxes though. That's a lot more money to spend however you please.

People want value for their money, so they would choose services that give them the most coverage. No company would overcharge or face going out of business.

 

[Euphor!a]

You would be paying far less in taxes though. That's a lot more money to spend however you please.

People want value for their money, so they would choose services that give them the most coverage. No company would overcharge or face going out of business.

I don't have a choice in this example, what are you even talking about? I need to use certain roads/bridges to get where I am going. Are you saying these companies are going to build multiple levels on the earth and each level will be owned by a specific company and I can choose which one to use?

 

[JordanN]

I don't have a choice in this example, what are you even talking about? I need to use certain roads/bridges to get where I am going. Are you saying these companies are going to build multiple levels on the earth and each level will be owned by a specific company and I can choose which one to use?

No. But I like I said, no company could overcharge.

They would be putting their reputation on the line if customers could not afford it.

 

[Euphor!a]

No. But I like I said, no company could overcharge.

They would be putting their reputation on the line if customers could not afford it.

Yes, no company in the history of anything has overcharged. Like the fucking biggest company in the world has basically defined their brand as overcharging.

And again, which you seem to ignore, there is no other option. There is one option. When there is one option, you can't overcharge because what you say goes.

 

[JordanN]

Yes, no company in the history of anything has overcharged. Like the fucking biggest company in the world has basically defined their brand as overcharging.

And again, which you seem to ignore, there is no other option. There is one option. When there is one option, you can't overcharge because what you say goes.

It's a scenario I find highly unlikely, because the point of Capitalism is to avoid extortion from a monopoly.

If a significant amount of people refused to pay, or complain the rates they are being served is unfair, that would affect the company's reputation causing them to hurt while other competitors continue to grow.
For some people, they may just pay the toll once, and never return to the area again, while spreading the news of what the company is doing is unfair. They're going to lose customers if they don't change their model.

 

[Euphor!a]

It's a scenario I find highly unlikely, because the point of Capitalism is to avoid extortion from a monopoly.

If a significant amount of people refused to pay, or complain the rates they are being served is unfair, that would affect the company's reputation causing them to hurt while other competitors continue to grow.

The "point" of capitalism has never been to avoid extortion from a monopoly, maybe in your fantasy world where underdogs are born by the minute, but not in reality. Let's see, first result for "what is the point of capitalism"...

"Capitalism is an economic system and an ideology based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit."

Nothing about preventing monopolies and everything about using private means to increase profit. And again, something you ignored several pages ago, and still are ignoring, if such an underdog did come about, the bigger company would just buy them, because that is what happens over, and over, and over, and over again.

And for like the 4th time, 3rd? There is no choice here, your whole argument is moot and pointless.

Maybe people are right, and you are just a troll, that is the only thing that would make sense.

 

[JordanN]

The "point" of capitalism has never been to avoid extortion from a monopoly, maybe in your fantasy world where underdogs are born by the minute, but not in reality. Let's see, first result for "what is the point of capitalism"...

"Capitalism is an economic system and an ideology based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit."

Nothing about preventing monopolies and everything about using private means to increase profit.

Except for the fact when you have private businesses, there will always be competition.

Under socialism, the government controls all property. Nobody is allowed to move in or out without their say. Hence why I asked the question to Vigilant Walrus, who let the roads and other public infrastructure rot in the first place? When you put all your faith in the government, you are rewarded with incompetence and politicians who are ok taking tax dollars but doing very little for the people it comes from.

And again, something you ignored several pages ago, and still are ignoring, if such an underdog did come about, the bigger company would just buy them, because that is what happens over, and over, and over, and over again.

By your logic, every company should have been bought out by the biggest. Yet that hasn't happened....

And for like the 4th time, 3rd? There is no choice here, your whole argument is moot and pointless.

The choice is other road companies exists. No company could hold its customers prisoners because they will spread the word and begin to punish them by refusing to pay or do business with.

Maybe people are right, and you are just a troll, that is the only thing that would make sense.

Not an argument.

 

[Euphor!a]

Except for the fact when you have private businesses, there will always be competition.

Under socialism, the government controls all property. Nobody is allowed to move in or out without their say. Hence why I asked the question to Vigilant Walrus, who let the roads and other public infrastructure rot in the first place? When you put all your faith in the government, you are rewarded with incompetence and politicians who are ok taking tax dollars but doing very little for the people it comes from.

By your logic, every company should have been bought out by the biggest. Yet that hasn't happened....

The choice is other road companies exists. No company could hold its customers prisoners because they will spread the word and begin to punish them by refusing to pay.

Not an argument.

I'm not going to say it again after this, because obviously it isn't getting through, but I will say it once more. ISPs, you know, companies. Yes? They are private businesses. Yes? Now, hopefully that stuck. There is no competition. It has nothing to do with government or this and that. Giant fucking gaping holes exist in this country where customers are being exploited because there is no competition. Are we good so far? Ok. They work with each other, and carve up sections of the country so people in those sections only have one option. Thus, there is no real competition. Ok, hopefully we can accept this reality and move past it.

This has nothing to do with anything I said as far as I can tell.

I find this fairly ironic as there are various antitrust and monopoly regulations, you know, from the government, that keep this from being as bad as it can be. But all you have to do is look at some corporation hierarchies and you'll see that a shitload of companies, sometimes "competing" companies, are all owned by the same corporation. This gets worse without government regulation, not better.

This is not a choice, you have to use certain roads. There being other road companies is a moot point, again, if they don't own the roads to where you are going.

 

[JordanN]

This is not a choice, you have to use certain roads. There being other road companies is a moot point, again, if they don't own the roads to where you are going.

You're looking at this in a vacuum.
I shouldn't have to entertain the scenario you describe would exist, because it's highly unlikely all the perfect conditions needed for it to take place (zero protests, another company moving in, or citizens moving out) would happen all at once.

But I'm doing it anyway because I'm telling you no company would be able to get away with it with zero punishment. When you say "no choice" you say it like people are condemned in a free market society. But that's not true, bleeding money is all it takes to quickly make an executive look the other way. That's a fact.

You can't imprison people if they refuse to pay for the very service they find unfair. They'll find ways to tell other companies to no longer do business with them, or they can begin to move out, making that area less profitable while their competitors grow.

 

[Vicetrailia]

You're looking at this in a vacuum.
I shouldn't have to entertain the scenario you describe would exist, because it's highly unlikely all the perfect conditions needed for it to take place (zero protests, another company moving in, or citizens moving out) would happen all at once.

But I'm doing it anyway because I'm telling you no company would be able to get away with it with zero punishment. When you say "no choice" you say it like people are condemned in a free market society. But that's not true, bleeding money is all it takes to quickly make an executive look the other way. That's a fact.

You can't imprison people if they refuse to pay for the very service they find unfair. They'll find ways to tell other companies to no longer do business with them, or they can begin to move out, making that area less profitable while their competitors grow.

Nah we're good. This system is better.

 

[Euphor!a]

You're looking at this in a vacuum.
I shouldn't have to entertain the scenario you describe would exist, because it's highly unlikely all the perfect conditions needed for it to take place (zero protests, another company moving in, or citizens moving out) would happen all at once.

But I'm doing it anyway because I'm telling you no company would be able to get away with it with zero punishment. When you say "no choice" you say it like people are condemned in a free market society. But that's not true, bleeding money is all it takes to quickly make an executive look the other way. That's a fact.

You can't imprison people if they refuse to pay for the very service they find unfair. They'll find ways to tell other companies to no longer do business with them, or they can begin to move out, making that area less profitable while their competitors grow.

I have to look at it in a vacuum, because there is literally not a single example to even look at because the fantasy you are describing does not exist and will likely never exist. The idea you think that it needs to be a "perfect" scenario for what I described to happen just doesn't make sense, at all. Multiple companies owning different roads. That is literally all that needs to happen. The second you break up the road system and have it owned and operated by different companies presumably operating on this subscription or toll service you are talking about, there will be places that will only be accessible by using roads owned by certain companies and there will be no choice of using another "provider" or whatever you want to call them.

Actually the more I am writing about it the more this just seems like the internet without net neutrality, honestly.

 

[JordanN]

I have to look at it in a vacuum, because there is literally not a single example to even look at because the fantasy you are describing does not exist and will likely never exist.

Your fantasy is worse, because it's a world where you think companies can imprison customers at will, and everyone else goes along for the ride.

That's more truer of Socialist governments than capitalism.

there will be places that will only be accessible by using roads owned by certain companies and there will be no choice of using another "provider" or whatever you want to call them.

And I keep telling you, the free market would punish those companies who seek to overcharge their customers but you keep ignoring this and saying "but it's only one road! One road!".

 

[Euphor!a]

Your fantasy is worse, because it's a world where you think companies can imprison customers at will, and everyone else goes along for the ride.

That's more truer of Socialist governments than capitalism.


And I keep telling you, the free market would punish those companies who seek to overcharge their customers but you keep ignoring this and saying "but it's only one road! One road!".

Well what you are describing would be stealing, I don't think companies would be the ones doing the imprisoning unless for profit prisons weren't enough for you now we are doing for profit policing?

Yeah, just like the free market punishes pharmaceutical companies, internet service providers, health insurance providers, etc. etc. etc. etc.

You don't know what you are talking about.

 

[JordanN]

Well what you are describing would be stealing, I don't think companies would be the ones doing the imprisoning unless for profit prisons weren't enough for you now we are doing for profit policing?

Yeah, just like the free market punishes pharmaceutical companies, internet service providers, health insurance providers, etc. etc. etc. etc.

You don't know what you are talking about.

Stealing from who? Money is not a human right. If you don't want to take a road, no one can force you at gunpoint to take it. Maybe we'll see more people take to the sidewalks or even each others property. Never thought of that did you?

 

[Euphor!a]

Stealing from who? Money is not a human right. If you don't want to take a road, no one can force you at gunpoint to take it. Maybe we'll see more people take to the sidewalks or even each others property. Never thought of that did you?

Look, I apologize for not being up on all the nomenclature for the libertarian utopia, that's my bad. Stealing, trespassing, murder, kidnapping, whatever the fuck you want to call it when a person utilizes a service without paying for it. No one said anything about forcing anyone to do anything, but if you want to use x and x is only provided by y either you are paying for the service or you are stealing/trespassing/murdering/kidnapping it.

You mean the sidewalks that are also owned by companies that you have to pay a toll/monthly fee to use? And now we are trespassing on other private citizen's property to get to where we are going? I just have a bunch of fucking randos walking on my lawn to get to work? Or maybe I can just charge each of them, set up my own subscription service to cross my 30 feet of lawn and then I can imprison them in my dungeon if they don't.

You know what, you convinced me, how do I get this going?

 

[JordanN]

You mean the sidewalks that are also owned by companies that you have to pay a toll/monthly fee to use? And now we are trespassing on other private citizen's property to get to where we are going? I just have a bunch of fucking randos walking on my lawn to get to work? Or maybe I can just charge each of them, set up my own subscription service to cross my 30 feet of lawn and then I can imprison them in my dungeon if they don't.

You know what, you convinced me, how do I get this going?

Good luck with that part.

What people miss about libertarian ideology is that there are more arguments for common sense than not. Using this same example again, there is no rule that says "you must obey being fenced in at all costs". If you want to pursue a better life, you'll hop the fence and continue to find another life. If you're caught, you can explain your situation and hope other people understand.

"Person X was being a jerk by installing a fence around me and hoping to charge an insane amount of money for me to cross. There's no way I'm going to sit in my house all day so I got up and moved".

If you're going to imprison someone for crossing your lawn, you better hope you have neighbors who are just as diabolical as you are, or your reputation in the neighborhood would be completely tarnished and no one would want to do business with you.

 

[Euphor!a]

Good luck with that part.

What people miss about libertarian ideology is that there are arguments for common sense than not. Using this same example again, there is no rule that says "you must obey being fenced in at all costs". If you want to pursue a better life, you'll hop the fence and continue to find another life. If you're caught, you can explain your situation and hope other people understand.

"Person X was being a jerk by installing a fence around me and hoping to charge an insane amount of money for me to cross. There's no way I'm going to sit in my house all day so I got up and moved".

There is a law saying your property is your own and others must respect it though, no? Isn't that the whole point? I'm not saying you can't cross my lawn, no, of course not. There is no profit in that. What I am saying is you can cross my lawn for a monthly fee of $7.99 and that includes up to 15 crosses. Anything more than that and it costs $10.99. If you do not have a subscription to my lawn crossing service which includes all one of my lawns, I will capture you and throw you in my work dungeon under my house where you will make paperclips or some shit until you cover the $10.99.

Man, the more I talk about this libertarian thing the more I like it.

 

[JordanN]

There is a law saying your property is your own and others must respect it though, no? Isn't that the whole point? I'm not saying you can't cross my lawn, no, of course not. There is no profit in that. What I am saying is you can cross my lawn for a monthly fee of $7.99 and that includes up to 15 crosses. Anything more than that and it costs $10.99. If you do not have a subscription to my lawn crossing service which includes all one of my lawns, I will capture you and throw you in my work dungeon under my house where you will make paperclips or some shit until you cover the $10.99.

Man, the more I talk about this libertarian thing the more I like it.

See my last edit.
You'll be blacklisted forever unless you can find new business partners who are ok with using dungeons.

And then there comes the problem from enforcing it. Will you be at your property all day, watching for who steps on your lawn? Where will your money come from?

 

[TheDeadHeroAlistair]

And I keep telling you, the free market would punish those companies who seek to overcharge their customers but you keep ignoring this and saying "but it's only one road! One road!".

The free market tends to not work when corporations have their hands in government, and lobby for legislation that quashes competition instead of promoting it. In this instance, telco and cable giants have done just that. You can see the consequences in many areas, where a single giant like Comcast or Spectrum is the only available option, and any potential competition has been chased off with litigation or the prospect of it (amongst other reasons). In these circumstances, there is no other viable market alternative to wallet-vote with. We can't really consider satellite internet or 4G LTE to be viable alternatives, either, due to higher costs, lower capacity, and significantly decreased reliability (one cause being rain fade).

For reference, I have an anecdote where there is no real viable option for broadband internet. My parents live in the middle of the country. They live on a road that straddles two municipalities, and as a result is controlled by the county. They live in one municipality, whilst their address is for the other. Even though the road is managed by the county, the rights to provide broadband internet are divided based on the municipality. The municipality that my parents do not live in, but have the address for, is served by a company called Windstream. The municipality that they actually live in is supposed to be served by AT&T. There are fiber lines that run the length of the road, and service would be simple to setup. However, they cannot get even basic DSL, as AT&T refuses to provide service. Windstream would love to provide service, but unfortunately can't. We attempted to work around this by stating that their mailing address falls under the area served by Windstream, but unfortunately they couldn't provide service because of the treat of litigation from AT&T. So instead, they have a grandfathered unlimited plan that they originally got from Alltel in 2006. The reception isn't great, but it's better than the alternative: dial-up.

If the market were truly free, we wouldn't have only a few giants providing the majority of the country that has broadband their service. What we would see instead are many more smaller regional companies, and the vast majority of regions (if not all of them) would have at least 2+ options for their connection. My parents wouldn't have to deal with what I described above and would instead have a basic broadband connection right now.

 

[Euphor!a]

See my last edit.
You'll be blacklisted forever unless you can find new business partners who are ok with using dungeons.

And then there comes the problem from enforcing it. Will you be at your property all day, watching for who steps on your lawn? Where will your money come from?

Did you not read my post? My money will come from the assholes I have in my dungeon making paperclips until their fingers bleed. And yes. I will be sitting on my porch with a lasso to catch anyone that doesn't have a subscription. Or maybe I'll use one of those net guns I saw in like Japan or something, those seemed pretty cool.

 

[JordanN]

Did you not read my post? My money will come from the assholes I have in my dungeon making paperclips until their fingers bleed. And yes. I will be sitting on my porch with a lasso to catch anyone that doesn't have a subscription. Or maybe I'll use one of those net guns I saw in like Japan or something, those seemed pretty cool.

Holding a bunch of prisoners in your basement while you are the only person overseeing it, is a recipe for a slave revolt who will not only disable you but they will also have a new property to call home.

 

[Euphor!a]

Holding a bunch of prisoners in your basement while you are the only person overseeing it, is a recipe for a slave revolt who will not only disable you but they will also have a new property to call home.

Who said I am the only person to oversee it? Not that it matters because in my fantasy dungeon, a revolt is impossible for reasons x, y and z that I don't feel the need to explain because one of the things I've learned about libertarianism is I don't have to explain myself in any kind of logical way because libertarianism just works because I say it does.

Edit: Also, they are not slaves, they are prisoners who work. Huge difference.

 

[JordanN]

Who said I am the only person to oversee it? Not that it matters because in my fantasy dungeon, a revolt is impossible for reasons x, y and z that I don't feel the need to explain because one of the things I've learned about libertarianism is I don't have to explain myself in any kind of logical way because libertarianism just works because I say it does.

Edit: Also, they are not slaves, they are prisoners who work. Huge difference.

That's gotta be a big mansion you live in where no slave prisoner can hide and make weapons for themselves to free themselves or revolt. And since doing that job would get you blacklisted by the community, you must find employees who are shady and have nothing to lose.

But if these employees are already criminal creatures, they have no loyalty and can turn on you.

My recommendation: get out of the dungeon/prison business. &#128516;

And no, you're just proving how logical Libertarianism is. No one wants to be held against their will doing jobs they would consider slave like.

 

[Manus]

Ending Net Neutrality will end entrepreneurism on the internet. Equal opportunity of a level communications playing field is necessary for democracy. The government needs to stay the hell out of the internet.

 

[Euphor!a]

That's gotta be a big mansion you live in where no slave prisoner can hide and make weapons for themselves to free themselves or revolt. And since doing that job would get you blacklisted by the community, you must find employees who are shady and have nothing to lose.

But if these employees are already criminal creatures, they have no loyalty and can turn on you.

My recommendation: get out of the dungeon/prison business. &#55357;&#56836;

And no, you're just proving how logical Libertarianism is. No one wants to be held against their will doing jobs they would consider slave like.

Oh well, if someone doesn't want to be a prisoner for a crime then they don't have to be punished, man thanks libertarianism, I'll just murder people I don't like and then say "I don't want to be held against my will"

It doesn't really matter though, because I'll be a household name with my "Make Your Property Work For You" initiative where I consult with businesses, homeowners and various other property owners to maximize their income by exploiting people that have to utilize their property for one reason or another. It is going to be huge. Long live libertarianism.

 

[gatti-man]

No. But I like I said, no company could overcharge.

They would be putting their reputation on the line if customers could not afford it.

Wrong. A street owner has a monopoly. Interstate freeways could charge whatever they want. You aren't thinking your models out here or cost analysis of bridges and roads divided by charge per use.

Ending Net Neutrality will end entrepreneurism on the internet. Equal opportunity of a level communications playing field is necessary for democracy. The government needs to stay the hell out of the internet.

Your post doesn't make sense. The govt is the only thing keeping the internet neutral. ISPs need to stay out of the internet.

 

[JordanN]

Wrong. A street owner has a monopoly. Interstate freeways could charge whatever they want. You aren't thinking your models out here or cost analysis of bridges and roads divided by charge per use.

You know, I feel this question can be put in action.

Go open a store in a middle of nowhere town with a population of maybe 12 people. Now list every item for a million dollars. Do you believe said store will be profitable or make a million dollars before the end of the week?

If not, why? Could it be that no matter how ridiculous of a monopoly a company might own, people would refuse to support such a business if they don't feel the services are worth it?

For a service like a road that charges unfair prices, I could see people just using it/fleeing on foot before said company with a monopoly could ever enforce it.

 

[Euphor!a]

You know, I feel this question can be put in action.

Go open a store in a middle of nowhere town with a population of maybe 12 people. Now list every item for a million dollars. Do you believe said store will be profitable or make a million dollars before the end of the week?

If not, why? Could it be that no matter how ridiculous of a monopoly a company might own, people would refuse to support such a business if they don't feel the services are worth it?

For a service like a road that charges unfair prices, I could see people just using it/fleeing on foot before said company with a monopoly could ever enforce it.

Does this store sell something that is necessary and is the only store that sells it? If not this analogy is, like most of your points, moot.

 

[JordanN]

Does this store sell something that is necessary and is the only store that sells it? If not this analogy is, like most of your points, moot.

It's the only store in town, but not the only store in existence.

 

[Euphor!a]

It's the only store in town, but not the only store in existence.

Do you at least see how silly the argument is you are making? If these people were fine before you showed up, they don't need you. If they weren't, then they wouldn't be there. And somehow these people don't have access amazon.com or walmart.com or any delivery service of any kind?

Even under the dumbest circumstances, your analogy doesn't hold up. So either move on to another one or just be quiet.

 

[JordanN]

Do you at least see how silly the argument is you are making? If these people were fine before you showed up, they don't need you. If they weren't, then they wouldn't be there. And somehow these people don't have access amazon.com or walmart.com or any delivery service of any kind?

Even under the dumbest circumstances, your analogy doesn't hold up. So either move on to another one or just be quiet.

Lol, I said nothing of the internet stores.

If you're bringing that up, then you might as well let people fly helicopters in and out of town if they refuse to pay for a road.

So what reasons are left now that I must give all my money to Mr. Road Monopoly?

. If they weren't, then they wouldn't be there

So how does a road monopoly happen again if people are satisfied where they are? Are you telling me a company is going to buy every single road and then force them to pay more money than what they had before?

 

[Euphor!a]

Lol, I said nothing of the internet stores.

If you're bringing that up, then you might as well let people fly helicopters in and out of town if they refuse to pay for a road.

So what reasons are left now that I must give all my money to Mr. Road Monopoly?

Well presumably because you don't have your own personal helicopter, because you are not obscenely rich? WTF kind of dumb question is this?

Or maybe your helicopter point makes sense in your head because in your utopia scenario all the poors will be dead and everyone does have their own helicopter?

You also think my argument is some dumb shit like "oh, they'll make the toll $1,000,000" when its not and it never was. And even if your argument is that they'll make like helicopter shuttles, they still cannot land on the road, and presumably can't fly directly over it, unless the airspace is not for sale in the libertarian utopia?

 

[JordanN]

Well presumably because you don't have your own personal helicopter, because you are not obscenely rich? WTF kind of dumb question is this?

If you live in a town with millionaires or anyone moderately successful, surely you can buy or rent one with ease? If a company is going around trying to imprison people with roads, surely the aviation industry would take notice and offer competing services to rescue even the poorest citizens so they all avoid giving money to the road company.

And when that happens, the same helicopter shuttle company would have a line up of customers ready to take them somewhere else.

So I guess that kills the road monopoly scenario. &#65533;&#65533;

Or maybe your helicopter point makes sense in your head because in your utopia scenario all the poors will be dead and everyone does have their own helicopter?

See the above. If a millionaire flies his own helicopter or calls in a company with one, no company is going to refuse potential customers who want a ride with them.

Or the millionaire could just give everyone free rides because he's extra charitable and it's his way to stick it to the greedy company.

You also think my argument is some dumb shit like "oh, they'll make the toll $1,000,000" when its not and it never was. And even if your argument is that they'll make like helicopter shuttles, they still cannot land on the road, and presumably can't fly directly over it, unless the airspace is not for sale in the libertarian utopia?

A road would not entitle to you to airspace. It's only dirt/asphalt on a ground. A helicopter could fly over it, land in a field and pick up passengers.

 

[Euphor!a]

If you live in a town with millionaires or anyone moderately successful, surely you can buy or rent one with ease. And when that happens, the same helicopter shuttle company would have a line up of customers ready to take them somewhere else.

So I guess that kills the road monopoly scenario. &#65533;&#65533;


See the above. If a millionaire flies his own helicopter or calls in a company with one, no company is going to refuse potential customers who want a ride with them.

Or the millionaire could just give everyone free rides because he's extra charitable and is a way to stick it to the greedy companies.


A road would not entitle to you to airspace. It's only dirt/asphalt on a ground. A helicopter could fly over it, land in a field and pick up passengers.

It doesn't kill anything, you think you are making a good point and you just aren't. This bizarre helicopter shuttle you imagine is wildly less effective since shuttles are simply back and forth to limited destinations which still means they would need to pay for permission to use airspace and would need pay owners of the land where they land. Even in this dream scenario where this helicopter endeavor was competing with the land owners, this dumb helicopter thing is cost prohibitive, the "toll" doesn't need to be 1,000,000 to be exploitative. It could easily be cheaper than this helicopter thing and still be exploitative.

Your benevolent millionaire scenarios are of no interest to me as they are largely based on nothing but your own imagination.

And what bullshit is this about airspace being off limits? Why is that? WTF are you some kind of commie?

 

[JordanN]

This bizarre helicopter shuttle you imagine is wildly less effective since shuttles are simply back and forth to limited destinations which still means they would need to pay for permission to use airspace and would need pay owners of the land where they land.

They can sign a mutual contract with their clients. They get permission to land anywhere on their property in exchange for a group discount.

It could easily be cheaper than this helicopter thing and still be exploitative.

Heard of the razor blade model? The helicopter company would only have to do enough transactions to put the monopolistic road company out of business or seriously deter them from charging a lot of money.

And what bullshit is this about airspace being off limits? Why is that? WTF are you some kind of commie?

Even if you owned airspace, it wouldn't come in the form of a road.
Road = Terrestrial vehicles or people only.

An aircraft flies over it. It has no use for a road.

 

[Euphor!a]

They can sign a mutual contract with their clients. They get permission to land anywhere on their property in exchange for a group discount.


Heard of the razor blade model? The helicopter company would only have to do enough transactions to put the monopolistic road company out of business or seriously deter them from charging a lot of money.


Even if you owned airspace, it wouldn't come in the form of a road.
Road = Terrestrial vehicles or people only.

Just for a laugh I decided to google what helicopter shuttles cost, only $100-200 one way per seat, what a steal compared to my road that costs $30 a day and you can use it as many times as you like.

And you're right, it would come in the form of air, which is above my road, which I also bought.

Edit: You also keep talking about putting my road out of business, do you understand how absurd that is? You don't put a road out of business. Since I don't have to pay taxes on it in this libertarian utopia scenario I don't care if it makes money or not it can just sit there being my overpriced road until I die.

 

[JordanN]

Edit: You also keep talking about putting my road out of business, do you understand how absurd that is? You don't put a road out of business. Since I don't have to pay taxes on it in this libertarian utopia scenario I don't care if it makes money or not it can just sit there being my overpriced road until I die.

So roads are cheap now? I thought such infrastructure was deemed super expensive to build and maintain?

If your tactic of building roads and trapping people with it, are you not paying a heavy price each time people reject it and start using other services or move somewhere else?

And if you attempt to build new roads, don't forget your name would have been dragged through the mud. People could claim land for themselves just so it meant you can't build there, or hire another company instead.

 

[Euphor!a]

So roads are cheap now? I thought such infrastructure was deemed super expensive to build and maintain?

If your tactic of building roads and trapping people with it, are you not paying a heavy price each time people reject it and start using other services or move somewhere else?

And if you attempt to build new roads, don't forget your name would have been dragged through the mud. People could claim land for themselves just so it meant you can't build there.

If no one is using my road, then yes it is cheaper to maintain and no, when my competition is $200 helicopter trips which I am paid a fee for each time they use my airspace I am not too worried about people using other services especially when my road businesses own many other roads that are appropriately priced.

I'm not worried about my name being dragged through the mud, every time I build or buy a new road I do it under a pseudonym or a new company name.

 

[JordanN]

If no one is using my road, then yes it is cheaper to maintain and no, when my competition is $200 helicopter trips which I am paid a fee for each time they use my airspace I am not too worried about people using other services especially when my road businesses own many other roads that are appropriately priced.

No one is going to pay your airspace fee. You don't have any roads in the air.

I'm not worried about my name being dragged through the mud, every time I build or buy a new road I do it under a pseudonym or a new company name.

A new company = people have less reasons to trust you or believe in you. Veteran or longer serving companies would have the upper hand over you.

If you buy a new road, they can ask for your background or qualifications. Word would spread of a company attempting to rip off customers so precautions would already be in place so it doesn't end up in your hands.

 

[Euphor!a]

No one is going to pay your airspace fee. You don't have any roads in the air.


A new company = people have less reasons to trust you or believe in you. Veteran or longer serving companies would have the upper hand over you.

If you buy a new road, they can ask for your background or qualifications. Word would spread of a company attempting to rip off customers so precautions would already be in place so it doesn't end up in your hands.

They are paying my airspace fee, or they are being shot down by my SAM installations. That is my right as a libertarian.

I don't care if people believe in me, they are using a road, not electing me to some commie government position. If my road is more convenient than the alternatives they'll get used. No one gives a shit how "trustworthy" a company is when it is something this mundane.

 

[gatti-man]

You know, I feel this question can be put in action.

Go open a store in a middle of nowhere town with a population of maybe 12 people. Now list every item for a million dollars. Do you believe said store will be profitable or make a million dollars before the end of the week?

If not, why? Could it be that no matter how ridiculous of a monopoly a company might own, people would refuse to support such a business if they don't feel the services are worth it?

For a service like a road that charges unfair prices, I could see people just using it/fleeing on foot before said company with a monopoly could ever enforce it.

You’re being ridiculous.