How can anyone be against universal health care?

[Ooberman]

It may cost some extra money, but when was money more important than health?

[help3434]

Why?? Do you not use the roads?? Did you use the public schools when you grew up? Does your area have firemen and policemen ? How is this any different?

1. This is a poor analogy because those are services which I would be receiving for my payment. Paying for someone else's healthcare through my taxes would gain me nothing. Getting use of roads, education, or public safety services is receiving something in return for payment.

Really? You don't think you would benefit living in a community with more healthy people? What about herd immunity through vaccinations? Don't you want the benefits of that?

[Goat]

Why?? Do you not use the roads?? Did you use the public schools when you grew up? Does your area have firemen and policemen ? How is this any different?

So because the state monopolizes certain industries to the point where private alternatives are limited, prohibited, or unavailable, that means no one can protest the status quo?

This is like telling a slave, "You eat the crumbs from beneath the master's table don't ya? You got a roof over your head thanks to the master's barn n' generous hospitality n' all. You sure do have a lot of nerve to be complainin', boy! If you don't like it, you can git out! See how you like livin' up there with the Polar Bears!"

Could you provide evidence that this is just not anti-goverment, pro-anarchy rhetoric? Show me the truth of the matter. Can you show a society where private individuals ever were able to make extensive road works? Can you show this is more than unfounded opinion?

That's the problem with the whole libertarinism. They make claims how things 'ought' to work, yet they can not show their ideal COULD work.

[Darias]

Why?? Do you not use the roads?? Did you use the public schools when you grew up? Does your area have firemen and policemen ? How is this any different?

So because the state monopolizes certain industries to the point where private alternatives are limited, prohibited, or unavailable, that means no one can protest the status quo?

This is like telling a slave, "You eat the crumbs from beneath the master's table don't ya? You got a roof over your head thanks to the master's barn n' generous hospitality n' all. You sure do have a lot of nerve to be complainin', boy! If you don't like it, you can git out! See how you like livin' up there with the Polar Bears!"

Could you provide evidence that this is just not anti-goverment, pro-anarchy rhetoric?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your original point seemed to imply that one's use of public services implies consent or that any utility or benefit that can arise from the use of those services, public though they may be, ultimately invalidates anyone who desires to protest being forced to pay for those services, in favor of alternatives.

I wanted to reply with something more substantive than simply pointing out that your point was fallacious. If you take issue with my examples or my word choice, that does not invalidate my point.

One's consumption of public services when alternatives are non-existent does not imply that that person consents to their situation. Do you think American conscripts forced to defend themselves on the battlefield consented to the Vietnam War? Certainly you don't believe that a slave's consumption of his owner's resources, having no alternative but to perish or die trying to escape, justified his condition?

So why do you think that just because I'm forced to pay taxes for public roads, and just because I use them due to the lack of alternatives does anything to prove your point?

Show me the truth of the matter. Can you show a society where private individuals ever were able to make extensive road works? Can you show this is more than unfounded opinion?

That's the problem with the whole libertarinism. They make claims how things 'ought' to work, yet they can not show their ideal COULD work.

There is an enormous historic precedent for private roads. But somehow I doubt your question is honest, given that you could easily Google "private roads" and read all about how they have worked, how they do work, and how they could work. And scale is irrelevant, whether private roads serve a community, a country, or entire continents -- so don't even think about moving the goalpost like you did last time.



Some modern examples of individuals building roads for their communities:

⇨ Wikipedia: Dashrath Manjhi

⇨ CNN: "usiness owners and residents on Hawaii's Kauai island pulled together and completed a $4 million repair job to a state park -- for free."

Roads will be built with or without the state because where there is a will, there is a way -- in other words, there are enormous incentives for having roads. Those who want it most will make it happen.



Historic Precedent for Private Roads:

⇨ Private Highways in America, 1792-1916, Dr. Daniel B. Klein

⇨ The Role of Private Transportation in America's 19th Century "Internal Improvements" Debate, Dr. Thomas J. DiLorenzo



The Case for Privatization of Roads:

⇨ YouTube, short: Taking Politics Out of Transportation: Economist Bruce Benson on Private Roads

⇨ YouTube, short: Removing The Traffic Lights (How rules and regulations don't necessarily mean safety)

⇨ Full Book: The Privatization of Roads and Highways: Human and Economic Factors, Dr. Walter Block



-

[Goat]

Why?? Do you not use the roads?? Did you use the public schools when you grew up? Does your area have firemen and policemen ? How is this any different?

So because the state monopolizes certain industries to the point where private alternatives are limited, prohibited, or unavailable, that means no one can protest the status quo?

This is like telling a slave, "You eat the crumbs from beneath the master's table don't ya? You got a roof over your head thanks to the master's barn n' generous hospitality n' all. You sure do have a lot of nerve to be complainin', boy! If you don't like it, you can git out! See how you like livin' up there with the Polar Bears!"

Could you provide evidence that this is just not anti-goverment, pro-anarchy rhetoric?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your original point seemed to imply that one's use of public services implies consent or that any utility or benefit that can arise from the use of those services, public though they may be, ultimately invalidates anyone who desires to protest being forced to pay for those services, in favor of alternatives.

I wanted to reply with something more substantive than simply pointing out that your point was fallacious. If you take issue with my examples or my word choice, that does not invalidate my point.

One's consumption of public services when alternatives are non-existent does not imply that that person consents to their situation. Do you think American conscripts forced to defend themselves on the battlefield consented to the Vietnam War? Certainly you don't believe that a slave's consumption of his owner's resources, having no alternative but to perish or die trying to escape, justified his condition?

So why do you think that just because I'm forced to pay taxes for public roads, and just because I use them due to the lack of alternatives does anything to prove your point?

Show me the truth of the matter. Can you show a society where private individuals ever were able to make extensive road works? Can you show this is more than unfounded opinion?

That's the problem with the whole libertarinism. They make claims how things 'ought' to work, yet they can not show their ideal COULD work.

There is an enormous historic precedent for private roads. But somehow I doubt your question is honest, given that you could easily Google "private roads" and read all about how they have worked, how they do work, and how they could work. And scale is irrelevant, whether private roads serve a community, a country, or entire continents -- so don't even think about moving the goalpost like you did last time.



Some modern examples of individuals building roads for their communities:

⇨ Wikipedia: Dashrath Manjhi

⇨ CNN: "usiness owners and residents on Hawaii's Kauai island pulled together and completed a $4 million repair job to a state park -- for free."

Roads will be built with or without the state because where there is a will, there is a way -- in other words, there are enormous incentives for having roads. Those who want it most will make it happen.



Historic Precedent for Private Roads:

⇨ Private Highways in America, 1792-1916, Dr. Daniel B. Klein

⇨ The Role of Private Transportation in America's 19th Century "Internal Improvements" Debate, Dr. Thomas J. DiLorenzo



The Case for Privatization of Roads:

⇨ YouTube, short: Taking Politics Out of Transportation: Economist Bruce Benson on Private Roads

⇨ YouTube, short: Removing The Traffic Lights (How rules and regulations don't necessarily mean safety)

⇨ Full Book: The Privatization of Roads and Highways: Human and Economic Factors, Dr. Walter Block



-

You make a lot of claims about how 'voluntarism' works, and all that sort of stuff.. yet.. you have not given ONE iota of evidence it actually works. You give a bunch of books from 'wouldn't be nice if'.. but .. you have given no examples of societies where thsi was set up.

Yes, a few minor roads were done, mainly in desperation..but these days, it won't really work that well.. And, a few roads doesn't a society make.

You see, if the whole society was like that, there would be SOMEONE who exercised their second commandment rights, and attempt to become a warlord.

[Darias]

You make a lot of claims about how 'voluntarism' works, and all that sort of stuff.. yet.. you have not given ONE iota of evidence it actually works.

Well, I thought we were discussing healthcare and roads, but thanks for moving the goalpost.

Most of my posts are supported with sources. If there are issues with my sources I retract them. But for you to say all I have done is made claims or presented claims of others with no evidence, well it's dishonest and a little insulting.

You give a bunch of books from 'wouldn't be nice if

That was one book making the case for private roads based off how things could work, which you claimed libertarians were unable to do. It was almost 500 pages long and I bet you didn't even read the first page, much less click the link. Alternatively, I also presented a few brief PDFs and some short videos.

.. but .. you have given no examples of societies where thsi was set up.

Did you even look at any of the sources I provided? I mean, my god, how am I supposed to support my claims if no one bothers to read my sources? What is my incentive to do all this research about societies and individuals and examples you ultimately don't care about and are uninterested in, if you won't even bother to examine the evidence? You do understand that you can't simply chant the mantra "please provide evidence" over and over again and call that a debate?

Yes, a few minor roads were done, mainly in desperation..

Is this what you call a concession? You act as if we're talking about driveways! A "few minor" roads?

but these days, it won't really work that well..

It worked plenty well for the first two modern examples I gave you. Would you also like a list of private roads around the world today or would you rather pretend they don't exist?

And, a few roads doesn't a society make.

Because American society didn't exist until the interstate highway system had been completed. Having no incentive or earthly idea on how to get from one place to another, everyone was marooned on their own property, that is until Uncle Sam stepped in and gave them roads and an economy.

You see, if the whole society was like that, there would be SOMEONE who exercised their second commandment rights, and attempt to become a warlord.

You've already denied that private industries and projects have existed in the past and present -- apart from the occasional dirt trail; so based on your own claims, what sort of evidence do you have that proves chaos will rule the land? "Grand Theft Auto?" I just showed you evidence for private roads in the past and present, and strong evidence showing that fewer rules and regulations on streets means more safety and spontaneous order.



-

[nursebenjamin]

Could you provide evidence that this is just not anti-goverment, pro-anarchy rhetoric?

... So why do you think that just because I'm forced to pay taxes for public roads, and just because I use them due to the lack of alternatives does anything to prove your point?

There is no such thing as a free lunch. If you use public roads, or products that were transported over public roads, then you should help maintain the roads.

And there are alternatives! There are over two hundred countries in the world in which one could live. If helping to maintain U.S. public roads goes against your conscious, you could always choose somewhere else to live.

Anyhow, if we are going to have private roads, then I want to own the one in front of your house.

[nayrbsnilloc]

[Replying to post 205 by nursebenjamin]

Darias has not advocated any form of "free lunch". In fact, it would seem that he advocates the exact opposite.

If roads were privatized, they would still need to be maintained. Instead of the US government doing it and charging all civilians for it, private companies (construction or industrial) would do it and they would be compensated accordingly. (and if you wanted to own the road in front of your house, by all means that would be possible. You would have to pay for it of course, but it would still be possible)

Saying "these are how things work. Don't like it? Go somewhere else!" is not a valid argument. He is not withholding his taxes or anything until the government changes its mind. He is complying while peacefully disagreeing with the principle. People have every right to advocate change.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 205 by nursebenjamin]

Darias has not advocated any form of "free lunch". In fact, it would seem that he advocates the exact opposite.

If roads were privatized, they would still need to be maintained. Instead of the US government doing it and charging all civilians for it, private companies (construction or industrial) would do it and they would be compensated accordingly. (and if you wanted to own the road in front of your house, by all means that would be possible. You would have to pay for it of course, but it would still be possible)

Saying "these are how things work. Don't like it? Go somewhere else!" is not a valid argument. He is not withholding his taxes or anything until the government changes its mind. He is complying while peacefully disagreeing with the principle. People have every right to advocate change.

The problem with privatization it that a lot of times, it doesn't work It ends up costing more, the quality of service goes down, and resources on oversight of the contract are much higher than anticipated.

There are a lot of failures when it comes to privatizing government services. Just looking at all the fiasco's that trying to have private run jails had, and you can realize there should be some things that should never be 'for profit'.

[nursebenjamin]

[Replying to post 205 by nursebenjamin]

Darias has not advocated any form of "free lunch". In fact, it would seem that he advocates the exact opposite.

If roads were privatized, they would still need to be maintained. Instead of the US government doing it and charging all civilians for it, private companies (construction or industrial) would do it and they would be compensated accordingly. (and if you wanted to own the road in front of your house, by all means that would be possible. You would have to pay for it of course, but it would still be possible)

Saying "these are how things work. Don't like it? Go somewhere else!" is not a valid argument. He is not withholding his taxes or anything until the government changes its mind. He is complying while peacefully disagreeing with the principle. People have every right to advocate change.

I never said, "Don't like it? Go somewhere else!" I was simply pointing out the fact that there are lots of alternatives to choose from. No one is forcing Darias to live here. If two hundred alternatives existed in the free market, then Darias would probably be ecstatic. There are over two hundred governments under which one could choose to live.

And, I don't want to buy the road in front of my house. I want to buy the road in front of his house. Or more specifically, the four roads the surround the block where his house sits. I would charge One Million Dollars to transit because this is how much it costs me to maintains the roads (my contractor is very expensive). And I would protect my property with an AR-15.


Other than this, I personally do not wish the privatization of public roads. Inevitably, someone such as the Koch brothers would buy up all the roads, and the rest of us would be reduced to living on their serfdom.

[nayrbsnilloc]

[Replying to post 207 by Goat]

Unlike darias, I don't think all things should be privatized. I think I mentioned it earlier in this thread, but I do think governments have a useful purpose:
To protect citizens both from international and domestic threats, the protection of property, life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. This would include almost all of the law & order system (police, law regulation, judicial, and correctional systems). Prisons would be under this jurisdiction.

These kinds of services I approve of taxation for, as the taxation would be equivalent to a business transaction. These are services provided by the government that its citizens are being provided.

@nurseben
Yes, there are alternatives, however, that doesn't make them any better either. If darias is a US citizen and believes this to be the best choice available, he still has the right to suggest ways to improve it even more.

I would imagine that if roads were to become privatized, the roads already considered 'public' would not be auctioned off to the highest bidder as they have already been paid for by the public through taxes. It would be maintaining and fixing these 'public' roads that would then become privatized.

The only reason I suggested you could possibly buy the road in front of your house is because it may be a private road already. If you live in a neighborhood and all the land is owned by the company/corporation in charge of the neighborhood, it could be possible that the roads within that neighborhood are privately owned and were paid for by that corporation as well.