Should Infrastructure be Politically Controlled?
 

--------------------------------------------------
http://reason.com/news/show/121827.html

Politicians are drawn to tragedy like flies to pie. Take the Minneapolis bridge collapse. President Bush took a 10-minute helicopter fly-over of the bridge—just long enough to appear compassionate and promise to rebuild the bridge.

But you have to wonder what makes this a federal responsibility. The typical excuse is that the state can't afford such pricey projects, so it behooves the federal government to step in to help. Of course the federal government is also deeply in debt, so it's difficult to pin down exactly what "afford" actually means. Either way, Washington appears set to provide about $250 million to Minneapolis for a new bridge.

Whatever Minnesota's spending constraints, the state can apparently afford to spend hundreds of millions for corporate welfare to Carl Pohlad, the owner of the Minnesota Twins, for a new baseball stadium. Hennepin County, where the bridge is located, recently passed a new .15 percent sales tax solely to pay for Pohlad's new stadium.

...

The bridge didn't collapse because Minnesota couldn't afford to maintain it. The bridge collapsed because the state had other priorities, unrelated to the proper functions of government.

The problem isn't unique to Minnesota. If you compare the percentage of bridge deficiencies with taxes raised, you'll find that some of the highest-taxed states also have some of the worst problems with bridge maintenance. Rhode Island is in the top ten when it comes to taxes collected, and has a higher percentage of deficient bridges than any other state. Pennsylvania has taxes higher than 31 other states, and a bridge deficiency rate that is the second worst in the country. New York is number ten in taxes collected, and is one of the worst when it comes maintenance. In fact, half of the top ten-taxed states are in the bottom ten when to comes to bridge maintenance.

President Bush is now promising around $250 million for a new bridge in Minneapolis. That is considerably less than what the state gave Pohlad, and $750 million less than the state poured into its various sports stadiums. And of course, simply repairing the bridge would have cost a lot less than now having to replace it.

Even if we assume that maintaining local bridges is a federal project, the involvement of politicians means perverted priorities, and maintenance of existing infrastructure, which has no clear constituency, isn't going to rank very high.

Consider the earmark debate. As the Wall Street Journal recently editorialized, "The $250 million in emergency appropriations now flying through Congress for Minnesota is slightly more than half the amount appropriated to Alaska for the 'Bridge to Nowhere' and 'Don Young's Way,' two of the more infamous earmarks from the 2005 bill."

And here's the kicker:
Earmarks divert spending from the necessary projects to the frivolous. The New York Times reports that in spite of historically high spending on transportation, highway funds are allocated according to "the political muscle of lawmakers, rather than dire need," which means "construction on new, politically popular roads and transit projects rather than the mundane work of maintaining the worn-out ones."

The Times adds that politicians are keen to fund politically-correct projects for transport over actual maintenance projects. This has "resulted in expensive transit systems that are not used by the vast majority of American commuters."

The chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure is Representative James Oberstar, a Democrat from Minnesota. Oberstar recently bragged about bagging $12 million in funds for the state, but the New York Times notes that $10 million of that "is slated for a new 40-mile commuter rail line to Minneapolis, called the Northstar," and "the remaining $2 million is divided among a new bike and walking path and a few other projects, including highway work and interchange reconstruction."

Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) says that the political process means "that routine but important things like maintenance always get shortchanged because it's nice for somebody to cut a ribbon for a new structure."


Hans Bader at the Competitive Enterprise Institute notes that in Europe, some commentators have been posting messages at Dutch and German newspaper web sites blaming the collapse on low taxes. And C. Michael Walton of the University of Texas seems to endorse this. Walton says that the lack of maintenance was the result of "our backlash to increases in taxes." And even though Sen. Schumer correctly identified the misallocation of transportation spending, his own solution was also to call for new taxes, not for he reallocation of wasted funds.

However, the problem in Minnesota was not the result of low taxes. It's the seventh highest-taxed state in the country.

I'm personally familiar with two other bridge collapses, 1983 collapse of the Mianus Bridge, which killed three, and the 1989 collapse of the Cypress Street Viaduct in Oakland, which killed forty.

The Mianus Bridge is in Connecticut, the state with the second highest tax level in the country. And the Cypress Street Viaduct is in California, which ranks at number 12. Both collapses were maintenance related. Though an earthquake triggered the Oakland collapse, the state had neglected to fund retrofitting for the bridge for years, in favor of other projects...
--------------------------------------------------

The rest of the article features a rather elegant solution to political control of road maintenance, but I think fails to address how to create new infrastructure.


Should roads remain politically controlled in light of the tendency for pols to divert funds to pet projects? The obvious solution should be to force them out of office, but the difficulty there lies in information, which the average voter has practically none of.

America itself has one of the worst incumbency rates in the world.

If we can't trust democratic processes to force our governments to actually perform their duties, why should we entrust them with those duties?

Should infrastructure be publically owned? Hell yes. the only reason government exists is to build and maintain infrastructure, to provide necessary social services (fire protection, etc) and for defense.

This is as offensive to me as asking whether we should replace our army with mercenaries.

http://colonelskills.belkanairforce....ages/ace/1.gif

Wow, you missed the question big time.

Speaking as a Canadian near the Minnesota border, I think a sports stadium in this particular case probably warrants public funds, as there really is a shitload of tourism dollars to be had from milking the Canadian MLB and NFL fans.

That'd have to equate to some pretty significant sales tax returns.

Nevermind the precedent it sets where team owners can extort taxpayer money by threatening to take their business to another state.

Ideally states shouldn't put up with this kinda bullshit, and owners would actually have to invest in their venues, but somebody somewhere is going to want the team bad enough to use money that isn't theirs.

I answered my own question, if you notice.

I'll bite though. If your article's solution isn't privately owned infrastructure, then what is it?

(you could've read the article)

The solution outlined by Peron is basically a private entity owned by the public. A non-profit corporately owned infrastructure where all of the locals are considered shareholders, giving everybody a controlling interest. Tasks are determined by a board appointed by the shareholders and their decisions are voted upon by the shareholders.

Any surpluses acquired through tolls are payed back to the public by virtue of their individual ownership, and amount of use.

I guess surpluses could also be used to appropriate new infrastructure in cooperation with local government, but the shareholders would be voting on that, too.

It basically takes politics out of the equation, and since all money is acquired directly through tolls, there's no way road money can be diverted to other projects.

*shrug*

Here's an opinion on the collapse though:
A bit more nuanced than it absolutely could've been avoided but still...

Uh, what projects were done before it, and if this were the case why would it have taken so long to retrofit the aqueduct, assuming that there was any intent to retrofit it in the first place?

No, it takes government out of the equation. The proposed corporate entity, its board, its shareholders and its activities would still be subject to politics.

I usually don't participate in PP threads because they tend to make my head hurt, but even I have to look at this and say "You can't be for real...". What I wanna know is, what are these "other projects"? I'm the type of person where you can say you have this and this and that and all this fooferah going on, but if I don't know what these "other projects" are or if there's no proof that all these projects even exist then it just kinda seems like said authors are speaking loudly just to hear themselves talk (IE talking out of your ass). Until we get this information, its a huge hole in the argument because there's no proof that any of this is even relevant or that "said author" isn't some nut with an agenda or otherwise.

But maybe that's just me and I missed something somewhere. **rereads thread a bit more thoroughly...**

He could be, sure. However, there's another set of problems like the accessibility of such records and budgets to the public.

In any case, it can absolutely be inferred that the Viaduct retrofitting wasn't given any priority by the government.

Well then be skeptical. It's only one part of an op/ed that concerns the politics surrounding a bridge collapse in 1989. The projects in question did not necessarily have to be unnecessary or frivolous, and if you'd notice they're not identified as such.

However, you could consider money diverted into projects whose purpose regards something other than preventing bridge collapses to be poor priorities, and it's certainly hard to argue that Oakland couldn't fund the bridge if it wanted to.

If you're talking about new infrastructure, that's essentially how it should work already. If you're talking about basic maintenance, then all owners have an interest in maintaining their roads.

you're right, I could have.

Oh, well then. I guess I'm not clear how I was mistaken when I said that infrastructure should be publically owned. Some sort of magic second government* is not public perse, no matter how many people are considered shareholders.

I don't know, Brady. I know that bad decisions were made at times, but I don't see how it would be helpful to make an entirely new concept of corporation / government that will handle a job that the government already does passibly well.

* that isn't elected or answerable to the sorts of things that government officials are answerable to! HOW COULD THIS FAIL.

I don't see how it functions as a secondary government, since governments have police power.

Passably well isn't exactly good enough, and I particularly don't think that an avoidable bridge collapse can be considered passable. (I'm not saying this is what you're saying, you know what I mean)

It's not just bridge collapses either, general maintenance and potholes are a significant problem in many areas. If people own the roads, then they have an interest in insuring that they are being well maintained. I'd much rather own the roads in my county and keep them well maintained instead of having my city be more interested in using tax dollars for a water park. (which they're going to build in a flood zone)

The problem with lack of infrastructure repair isn't government inefficiency, it's people's refusal to pay the tax levels necessary for the infrastructure they want. They want something for nothing.

Taxes aren't the problem, it's the appropriation of tax funds. If tax levels were a problem, Minnesota wouldn't have dropped 750,000,000 on a sports stadium for a private franchise.

They're already publically owned. If you don't have an interest in your roads now, you never will.

Extort?

Pretty much in all cases when a state/county/city wants to put up new taxes for a stadium, the citizens have to vote for it. Anecdotally, in my state, we always seem to pass new taxes for stadiums and pass transportation funding about 25% of the time.

Going with my state's 25% pass rate, I bet what would happen is that the shareholders would nominate board members who would pledge to spend none of the money so that everyone just gets the tolls back in taxes.

Which means that when disaster strikes and there is no money there, then we just have to dip into federal and state funding anyway.

And what Styphon said about the non-elimination of politics.

If that would be the case, though, then there's no amount of surpluses being made since nobody is using the shitty roads. There's also the matter of having to deal with potholes and various other road erosion in the course of personal use in the meantime.

Of course, if people are still incapable of acting rationally, despite the information made available to them, how does that change the present situation where the government neglects infrastructure and expects the Federal government to bail them out?

Yeah, extort. As in "Give me the money or I walk."

You're familiar with the Tragedy of the Commons, right? Shepherds overgraze the common land because it interests them in the short term. The problem with the Tragedy of the Commons is precisely that, the grazing land is a Commons, not owned by the shepherd. Since the land isn't theirs, it benefits them more to graze as much as possible to derive benefit, yet if they owned the land then there's an incentive to conserve and keep the land usable in the long term.

Without any personal incentives for conservation, reasonable use has to be enforced by law.

Public ownership is the same as the Commons. Nobody actually owns the land, but they do collectively through the proxy of government. Because individuals don't have a personal stake in the land, they're more likely to abuse it.

That's not a completely fair assumption, though. So long as funding for roads is controlled by politicians, voters have to weigh their attention to road maintenance with other issues that are important to them. They also have to consider alternatives. If challengers to incumbency are perceived to be worse then the voters have to settle for the lesser evil.

In this case, so long as the infrastructure is maintained by government, voters have to consider the overall performance of government, and be forced to accept conditions according to what they view to be a better-than-other scenario.

In the case of private ownership, however, the incentives for proper maintenance exist on the individual level. People don't want to use shitty roads, and the better their condition the greater flow of commerce and the greater the amount of surplus. Since there's no other way to appropriate the funds, the shareholders do not have to negotiate maintenance with other issues.

Problems begin to arise when you remember that the voters in the first model are the same people as the shareholders in the second. In neither model does an individual level of responsibility exist for road maintainence; in the former, the government retains responsibility, while in the latter, the proposed corporation does.

People who feel no particular need to vote in local elections won't feel any to vote for board members of this new corporation, either.

Do you think that a tax levied last spring would have saved a bridge that, to all eyes who watch this sort of thing, had little indication that collapse was imminent?

No, I am saying precisely the opposite. :confused:

Whether or not the bridge collapsed as a result of negligence has yet to be seen, the point is that Federal money for the new bridge implies that the state of Minnesota is incapable of maintaining or creating new infrastructure. The stadium example illustrates that it is.

These are notable problems, but I would still say that the corporation has an incentive for income. If a bridge collapses or a road becomes unusable, then the corporation and its shareholders stop collecting income from the damaged infrastructure. Governments do not have this incentive, because government income is acquired through taxation.

It doesn't matter if repairing a bridge is cheaper than constructing a new one, since governments do not have to produce wealth.

The bridge in question was part of the Interstate Highway System, which recieves federal money.

By specifically setting up this corporation as a non-profit, you've removed the income motive. Any profits the corporation are subsequently redistributed to the "shareholders" based on their usage of the roads. This means that people who use the roads less get less money back than those who use it more, if they are able to get anything back at all, since it would stand to reason that those who use it more would get first priority on refunds. But, however money you get back, since you're paying the money in in the first place, your net income would still be a negative.

The negative would only grow if the corporation determined that it needed to retain some of those profits for expansion of the system, as the construction costs for building the expansions are factored in, as are the maintainence costs afterward. If the amount you drive doesn't increase, you end up getting less money back.

All of this is, however, based on the assumption that the corporation actually generates any profits to be redistributed in the first place. If it operates at a loss, the amount the users paid becomes loss, and would only increase as tolls go up to make up for corporate loss. During that time, the system couldn't expand if it needed to, since it wouldn't have the money on hand and wouldn't for some time.

This bridge in Minneapolis was considered deficient for seventeen years. What do you mean that no one is using the shitty roads? Tolls will still be made until you can't get over the road without a 4x4.

It doesn't, which is the point. If it's broke and you can't fix it, don't.

If anything, with how much you hate the spending, the stadium example only shows that voters can't vote on the right spending and that they can't elect officials that will get them the proper maintenance, and I have no idea why you don't think those same shortcomings wouldn't transfer to a populace selecting a board to handle the problem.

Could you clarify on this statement a bit? Because it sounds to me as if you're implying that we shouldn't try to fix a broken system.

You shouldn't try to fix a broken system that you can't fix. Yes.

I understand the income is a negative, I think you're confusing the need for income as a profit incentive (or confusing what I said, I mean).

If a bridge collapses, then the corporation can't extract tolls from it, obviously. Replacing the bridge would be far more expensive than simply repairing it. So, in order to avoid the greatest negative, there's an incentive to keep the bridges in good condition.

Governments don't have this incentive, because if funds are required for a project, they are simply taken. There's no incentive for a government to avoid the greatest negative, since they're always making revenue through taxation. The result places road maintenance at a low priority, because it isn't in the government's interest to keep them well maintained.

If the bridge collapses for the corporation, then tolls have to be raised in order to finance its replacement. If the bridge collapses for the government, then it's no sweat off their back.

In both cases, the public/shareholders are losing money, but in the case of the corporation there is at least an incentive for the shareholders and the board to avoid the greatest cost with proper maintenance.

I meant to say as in your shitty roads. Commuters coming in from out of state are going to avoid the worst infrastructure if they can, and poor road conditions will encourage locals to avoid travel which extracts a toll. The end result being that you lose commerce.

You live in, what, Arizona? What are the conditions of your roads? Because without many bridges, 25% approval may actually be the appropriate amount of spending.

That's hideously defeatist, particularly when we're talking about an untested method. I'd like to see more solutions to the problem, which is why I made this thread, and why I didn't put out Paron's example in the opening.

I'm guessing that there's some non-privatizing solutions to the problem of infrastructure priority, but there is apparently no solution, according to you.

As Styphon pointed out, the bridge is payed for with Federal money and maintained by the State. I'd argue that there was a lack of incentive for voters in the case of Minnesota because the money more than likely isn't extracted from themselves.

With state gas taxes you can get an inkling of where the money goes, but with a Federal money pool who the fuck knows?

Then why do you / the article writer keep holding it up as an example of excessive pork-barrel spending in the context of this bridge? If you don't think it has anything to do with the bridge, it shouldn't be part of the discussion. You are being intellectually dishonest.

Arizona's problems are roads that need frequent repair due to the intense heat and roads that can't handle the amount of traffic put on them, meaning widing projects and strengthening everything underneath them. Arizona has some of the worst traffic in the country and one of the highest traffic death rates.

Plus, we own part of what is probably the most important interstate highway in the country: I-10.

We actually have many bridges (they are relatively new, however). Dry rivers still have to be crossed.

Nah, I wasn't saying that. I don't believe this is a workable solution or at least worth the effort it would take to make the changes. There might be a modest increase in quality, at best, assuming everything works absolutely perfectly. As many have stated, this will most likely just lead to more of the same.

You mean it doesn't cost the government any greater amount of money to build a new bridge vs. repair existing bridges? I.. what?

you're fucking trolling

I thought you meant a new tax being levied, since I was referring to Airanach talking about an increase in taxes.

Alright look at it this way:

Let's say I accrue a tab at a local bar. It's been increasing for quite a while and it's been called in. I can't pay the tab, so I mug somebody and use the money I stole to pay it off. In this case, my tab is paid, but I lose nothing. The bar is paid, I take care of the debt, and the only person at a loss is the guy I mugged.

Governments do not lose money because they don't produce wealth. If budgets dip into deficits, then the deficit is financed by either an increase in taxes, buying debt, or printing money. In all three cases the government loses nothing, because it doesn't finance the deficit. Taxpayers do.

It costs taxpayers more to rebuild a bridge, and it costs the government nothing.

You're still not answering my question about road conditions.

If the graph you provided is any indication, the state is certainly on the ball in regards to bridges.

I was kinda hoping that somebody would channel Al Gore's lockbox, to be honest. I think it's a shame, though, that the opportunity to test potential solutions will likely never present themselves in light of general apathy and lack of debate.

Oh, brady. You think taxes are like mugging people and that the government accrues defecit without any thought about the future. Sure, it might seem like that at times, but things are more complicated than that!

So, what are you saying, that bridges are the only thing that applies in your scenario here? That the interstate highway system is perfectly fine if not for those pesky rivers it has to cross? That, infrastructurally, everything else is doin' great and doesn't need money set aside in federal and state budgets?

Or do you just want these special non-government governments on everything?

All this shareholder idea is doing is creating a highly complicated second political system JUST for road maintenance. Rather than fancy tolls and such, set up semi-independant transportation ministers and use some of the taxes from licenses, or gasoline. So much simpler. But as noted, you don't avoid the political element.

You could try to pass a law requiring maintenance to be funded before building a new project. But then if there are bad times, and people let maintenance languish a bit, they're going to run up such a tab they won't want to build anything.

A method that works on the small scale is the media. In a few towns I've lived in, the local paper would once a month shame the municipal government into filling in potholes. Similarily, maybe an advocacy group could hire a few civil inspectors to shame/scare the governments into action.

So the states with the most bridges have the most problems with bridges? HOLY SHIT ALERT THE MEDIA. Pittsburgh has more bridges than Venice and it's had a shrinking population for the past 60 years.

Also, which taxes are they talking about? State taxes in Pennsylvania are actually pretty low, sales tax is 6% for most of the state (except for food and clothing where it's 0%), and property taxes and such vary greatly between counties and municipalities.

Also, having been a frequent traveler on toll roads I have to say that it really doesn't make them any better to drive on than typical state roads. I just drove on I-80, a free road, and it was in better condition than the PA Turnpike which I pay around $16 each way to drive across most of the state.

Finally, Brady, it's not like this is something new where a city is giving money to a sports team to stay in their city. It's a pretty established practice that many teams do when they either feel attendance is dropping or their facilities are lacking. After all, they're using their ability to move to a different city as a bargaining chip. What's so terrible about that?

OF COURSE! It's more complicated than that! Thank you, Lurker, for reminding me that paying taxes under the threat of imprisonment isn't like a mugging, and that the government doesn't defecit spend without thinking about the consequences.

Where would I be if you didn't speak to me like a child with meaningless platitudes?

This thread, in case you didn't notice, concerns a bridge collapse. Bridges possess a certain import since sinkholes are such a rarity.

You're also skirting my question again. What would you say the state of roads and highways are in your state?

I think media watchgroups are the best solution, but it just doesn't happen enough.

Well, so long as we're using anecdotal evidence, I use the Indian Nation Turnpike to travel towards Eastern Texas, and it's in much better shape than the highways and city roads in my immediate area.

It's basically like a Union that oversteps its bounds. These teams don't necessarily need bigger and better facilities, they need to win games. Cycling through stadiums every 5-8 years is a waste of taxpayer money. They have to threaten to leave, because otherwise nobody in their right mind would think that a new stadium is justifiable.

It's strong-arming millions out of taxpayers, and a disgusting form of rentseeking.

Just because it occurs frequently does not make it okay.

It isn't.

In general, they don't.

your libertarianism is the political equivalent of vore fetish. You sound like you're been out there and tried all the other things, but luckily it's imaginary so you don't actually have to do anything.

You're right, it isn't, but that wasn't the comparison I was trying to draw. Taxation is theft, and whether or not you believe it is so depends on how much stock you put into the Social Contract. Even then, you should understand why these projects cost the government nothing.

Your liberalism is the political equivalent of a MAD meeting. You claim to know what's best for everybody, but your emotional responses blind you to alternatives and stifle debate before it begins.

I can do this all day, don't start this bullshit. Everything is SO much more complicated. It's so complicated you don't have to explain any goddamn thing.

Oh for fuck's sake.

Paying taxes to government is no more theft than paying tolls to this corporate public works department of yours.

Paying a toll to use a road involves an act of consent. Paying taxes does not involve consent, since the taxes are extracted regardless. Governments do not have to compete for revenue, but a privately owned road does between alternative transit.

What alternative transit? Your proposition involves taking public works away from government and turning it over to a non-profit corporation, which would handle it instead. There was only one of these in the original proposal, which would handle everything the government did. There wasn't any competition. The financial incentives you talked about would be about the corporation not being able to make money off damaged infrastructure, not that they might lose customers to competition.

This idea was pretty fucking stupid to start with; it just gets ever more so as this discussion goes on.

Air, rail, cycling, and mass transit.

You're not addressing what we're arguing, either, that tax is a form of theft and that there's a difference between collecting a toll and extracting a tax.

Unless you're rich and own a helicopter, air travel is a pretty impractical way to get around town. It's also impractical for fairly short distances, like, say, from Houston to Galveston.

I'm including these together since, except for the Northeast, long-distance passenger rail is essentially dead, and that light rail systems in cities are frequently offered by mass transit companies.

However, in your case, you still couldn't escape the Coropration if you used them. The government is responsible for building the infrastructure they use; this duty would be turned over to the Corporation in your model, and the fares you pay to use them would be in part payed to the Corporation to make use of their services.

The fares would also probably rise considerably since tax money wouldn't be made available to keep them low (since taxes are bad), and since they would be competing with the Corporation, the Corporation has no incentive to do anything to help anybody out there.

Which is meaningless if the Corporation owns the mass transit system as well as the roads.

Like air travel isn't practical for short distances, cycling isn't practical for long distances. It would break someone to ride a bike from their home in the suburbs to work in the city, put in their 8 hours a day, and then ride back home five days a week.

And it doesn't escape the Corporation, either; the man in question would be riding his bike on their road, and would concievably be required to pay for the use like a driver would.

Taxes are just as much a payment for services rendered as a toll is. Local taxes, for instance, pay for such things as the police and fire departments. They also pay for keeping my bus fares low.

And, to top it all off, the pay for things like public sanitation and the water system, which are useful for disposing of various forms of waste.

I already told you, crumbling from the heat and not wide enough. You came back and told me that it didn't matter because Arizona didn't have many bridges.

Your idea wouldn't even work here because you can't toll Arizona residents. They would just stop using the pay roads and all the traffic would funnel through city streets, making things even worse.

The way I'm reading his idea, they wouldn't have an alternative. Governments are to be relieved of their road infrastructure, which would then be turned over to this corporation; since cities have governments, too, their roads would likely be privatized along with state and county roads. If there's a road, the Corporation owns it and charges you for its use.

Which reminds me; how much would it cost for the Corporation to buy these roads from their respective governments in the first place?

So all roads are tolled? Heh.

And all the poor people stop grocery shopping because their food stamps don't pay for toll roads.

Taxes are the price you pay for the three amenities the government affords you - infrastructure, social services, and defense.

you learn this in seventh grade

You're serious. You're bona-fide serious in that you think the government has unlimited resources.

Your libertarianism is an affected youth reading Mein Kampf in the only non-Starbucks coffee shop in town.

Additional Spam:
Laws are also non-consentual.

that is so unfair

Only in Western countries, where people are fat and lazy. People ride bikes everywhere in China, and I bet those Chinese people that ride to work, work longer days doing more strenuous things than we Americans that sit our fat asses in cubicles and type on computers all day long.

Cycling is practical, but people don't like doing things that require effort. It's very practical in the sense that it costs nothing and it gets you from point A to point B in a substantially shorter amount of time than walking would.

Of course, it's not practical if people absolutely must live 30 miles away from where they work. But the only reason people live that far away is for impractical reasons, like wanting to live in a big house that they don't really need. One impracticality begets another.

In short, the suburbs are making people fat.

Guru: Places like Europe and China are much tighter together than the American suburban communities. The Chinese don't bike 20-60 miles to work.

I realize this. Still, nobody is ever really forced to live that far away from where they work. By and large it's a personal decision, and usually one rooted in luxury.

Which is why, obviously, that I think it's OK that if people want to live extravagant, impractical lives (by living in big houses 50 miles away from work), that they shouldn't gripe about being taxed on infrastructure. (To keep with the context of the thread, at least).

Maybe I missed someone, but I only saw one person here who was griping about being taxed for infrastructure. The people who would be biking in from the suburbs are just those who would be told to suck it up so he doesn't have to pay those taxes.

Styphon: Regardless of whether there aren't real alternatives to the corporation's roads, the corporation must still anticipate and compete with potential alternatives. If the incentives are there, then people will develop alternative forms of transit which do not require the use of roads, such as private rail or cheaper air travel. It's the same reason monopolies are not absolute, since they must constantly compete with upstarts and anticipate new substitute industries.

I think a good solution for the case you pointed out, where the corporation controls all forms of transit, is to seperate each primary form of transit between their own corporations. The problems of shareholder complication is ruled out, since people will gravitate to participate in the corporations concerning their preferred mode of transit.

As Guru points out, cycling is very practical in the immediate area. The reason people drive everywhere in this country is because gas is so cheap. If we remove the subsidies for gas, and people decide to live in closer proximity to their place of work, then the incentives for cycling increase.

It is not about payment, it's about the mode of extraction. Taxes are a form of theft, because they are extracted by force as opposed to consent. Even if people think they do consent to be taxed, they haven't really because there is no way to opt out of the system.

Taxes are bad, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they should be eradicated. It's practical to view taxes as a necessary evil which enables the collectivization of national power so that we're not overrun by the Turks and whatnot. It's key to understand, however, that because they are theft, the government does not experience loss.

Sorry, I think I misinterpreted what you were saying. What I would like to know, though, is whether the problem lies in the lack of taxes collected, or the lack of funding to maintenance. Are you voting specifically for taxes which concern road maintenance, or general budgets for transportation?

For the record, I live within the city limits and have a job which is within cycling distance, but I do not cycle to because doing so would mean that I'd have to ride on the highway.

The issue, though, is not necessarily taxation, but how those funds are distributed.

No, I'm saying that the government does not lose anything, because it does not create. The resources of a government are only as great as the wealth of its citizens, and its ability to extract that wealth. Because governments do not create wealth, they do not experience financial risk. If you don't gain anything, you have nothing to lose.

Ultimately a government can experience loss, as recessions or overtaxation reduce the general creation of wealth, but governments aren't generally that farsighted.

Can you stop using ad-hom and start talking to me like a person?

Yup, but laws aren't theft. People tolerate laws in the same way they tolerate taxes. So long as laws are considered to be just, the people will tolerate them. So long as taxation isn't excessive, people will tolerate them.

That doesn't counter my point.

Do you feel that companies who sell services do not create?

Additional Spam:
You said taxes are theft. They are as much theft as laws are.

yeah but the problem with that is that if you think taxes are excessive, you can't just claim they're theft.

Your libertarianism is a six year old who can't understand why mommy won't buy a barbie doll with the grocery money.

No, I do, because companies have to compete to create the wealth which they invest in themselves. The wealth created through services may not be material, (though the end result can be), but that doesn't mean that the service has not generated wealth in one form or another.

A government does not have to compete to acquire the wealth it uses. It doesn't even have to trade for the wealth. Government is ultimately the will of the people, and it is because of that will that the people create highways, armies, and other infrastructure and institutions with government as the middle man. If a government does not represent the will of the people, then it is overthrown.

That's the way government is supposed to work in this country, as power flows from the bottom up instead of top-down.

Edit:You can't be serious. There is no thing of mine that is taken away simply by virtue of there being a law, unless you want to define laws as the "theft of freedom."

Taxes are always theft, regardless of whether or not they are excessive. You're making a big deal over nothing, considering that I've expressly stated that taxes shouldn't be abolished.

NO U

But you say that taxes are theft. Theft, by definition, is wrongful. If taxes shouldn't be abolished, they must not be overly wrongful in your eyes.

Given that, why are you insisting that they're theft?

I don't think you and Guru understand how impractical it is to say, "Well, everyone, why don't you just live closer to where you work??" What about the janitors and food wokers who are employed in rich parts of town but can't afford living there (and don't say buses, when you increase gas, you decrease their ability to ride buses)? What about the people who work hard to be well off but work in places that aren't close to anywhere but slums (see: people who work in downtown LA)?

I love how the more you branch out in your little Libertarian fantasy island, the more you attempt to completely destroy the entire United States economy.

Because they are by definition theft. It is an injustice, but a necessary one. It'd be nice if we lived in the ideal where the world exists in a state of anarchy, but the reality is that nations and states have established themselves as competing powers.

It's within that context that taxation becomes necessary, and we have to insure that the funds acquired through taxation are used to our benefit. If maintenance of infrastructure loses priority because of the state of politics, then taxes are not being used appropriately.

Yeah, it's going to be impractical for a lot of people, but that doesn't mean that the incentive isn't there, and presents an alternative.

And by that same virtue it would supposedly be non cost-effective because the harm they do to roads can be equated to headcount. Busses present an affordable alternative to transit because the same amount of gasoline is being used to transport a much larger amount of people. Removing subsidies on oil and gas isn't going to cause the price to double.

Then their investment in the area raises the general quality of living. If somebody works in LA, there's a good damn chance that they can get to LA without using a car, so it's not as if they necessarily have to live right there, it's only the case if they really want to ride a bicycle.

Or not enough are collected!

You can't just make a blanket statement that maintenance ALWAYS comes before new. That's absurd. What if new things were the priority without political motive, would you care then?

La la, I understand that not everyone has the means or adequate justification to ride their bikes to work. But I still contend that a lot of people who don't, easily could.

Don't read too far into it guys.

Brady, you keep saying this. Do you feel that there is one government only? If that is so, can you provide a quick definition of what that government is?

Don't give me that. It is impossible to opt out of any form of taxation because there is no frontier. All areas with the exception of the Antarctic (uninhabitable) are under the control of a government.

If the government didn't extract taxes, then it would maybe have to compete for wealth. Government-as-business. Or even a government that exists based on gambling. The fact is, though, that all governments as they exist extract taxes.

Too bad. I just did. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that existing infrastructure should be insured not to fail before remaining funds are used to expand the infrastructure or be used in other, non-infrastructure related things.

Oh. So, since all governments impose taxes, no government competes?

Additional Spam:
No they're not.

Things fail. I mean, what more do you want? Accidents happen. Take an engineering course or two.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that this is a completely isolated incident and that another one won't happen for another 20 years (which is almost how long it took this one to fail after someone said it was deficient).

You're telling me that we should halt all new projects until we fix the things that are in need of repair, even though they fail at an astonishingly slow rate??

It is obvious to me that you are just trying to apply some Libertarian ideal to something you clearly have no clue of what the fuck you're talking about.

It's not entirely accurate to view the maintenance of infrastructure as the repairing of already existing roads and rails. If a bridge cannot be repaired, then it is in the general interest to replace that bridge and remove the liability. In that sense, replacing an old bridge with a new one does not equate an expansion of the infrastructure, because the routes have not been expanded.

If a cost is unavoidable, it should be incurred before the potential for greater damages, and even fatalities. If the cost can be avoided, as was the case with the Viaduct and possibly the case here with the Minnesota bridge, then the retrofits should be given priority.

They knew this bridge was unsound for 17 years, so why then shouldn't efforts have been made to retrofit or replace it before there are fatalities?

Yes, I think that the preservation of lives should take priority over their betterment through an expansion of infrastructure. In the long-term, there is no difference between the infrastructure as it exists in the present, and the infrastructure that would exist by neglecting the bridge. You could argue that the benefits derived from expanded infrastructure before the collapse makes up for the loss, but then you're justifying fatalities.

If everybody owned a controlling interest in Haliburton, it might actually be better than a representative government. Of course, it's not as good as no government.

Governments compete for immigrants by virtue of their policies, but they do not have to compete for revenue.

From my perspective, any initiation of force is wrong, and since taxation is the forceful seizure of wealth, then I consider it to be theft. It is no less wrong, no matter how one justifies it, for the same reason that killing a person is wrong even though it may be justified within context.

Do you think that foreign nationals are the only people governments compete for?

Furthermore, getting back to an earlier point, how are governments not producers of services?

So are all obligations 'theft' to you?

They are producers of services, the nature of the thing is that the government does not trade for its revenue, so the funds cannot be considered government property. In that sense, the wealth created by government services has actually been created by the taxpayers, since it is their money being invested.

Taxation is not an obligation. An obligation is something that you are compelled to do based on any criteria, but which you have a choice to fulfill. Being taxed is not a choice. Fulfilling an obligation is.

It is at once both the property of the government and the property of the taxpayers, by virtue of their funds. It is Public. I'll ask again; why do you think the government has unlimited resources?

It is absolutely an obligation. It is not an obligation that holds no consequence for breaking, but very few obligations are.

Do you think that 'immigrants' are the only people for whom governments compete with each other over, and furthermore, how do you define an immigrant who has not yet left his current country?

I've already answered this question.

So... it's an obligation in the same sense that I'm obliged to pay back my loan shark if I don't want my legs broken. If I actually got to choose not to pay my taxes and incur consequences, you might've had me there.

Well no. Governments also have to try and keep people from emigrating and reducing the tax pool.

A resident.

Edit: Also consider this: The bridge was payed for with Federal money, yet it's the state's responsibility to maintain it. States have to pay to maintain highways, while the Fed fronts the cash for new construction. Now that the bridge has collapsed, it hasn't cost the state anything to rebuild it, since the Federal Government has given them 250,000,000 to build a new one. Doesn't that reflect a conflict of interest?

http://www.myfonts.com/images/family...d-standard.jpg

In that the government doesn't inflict physical damage on you not paying taxes in return for the services you receive, yes.

So the government is one homogenous entity that only concerns itself with retention?

If I didn't know better, I'd say you were accusing the state of Minnesota of conspiracy and murder.

As if that isn't done every single day in this country. Everything we do has some loss or risk associated to it and we do it. What's the single biggest way people die accidentally? That's right, car accidents. If we disallowed driving, you would nullify the fatality rate. There is an accepted loss of life when we have laws that allow driving. You used gasoline recently, I'm sure. Releasing harmful carcinogens into the air? No doubt, cancer caused by air quality causes loss of life.

What you're angry about is the justified tragic loss. If it takes a long time or if it's common, just in small quantities, you're fine with it -- we're all fine with it. It's not politically correct to say that the Minneapolis bridge collapse was unavoidable, and perhaps that exact instance was, but to claim that you can avoid all instances of it by throwing any amount of money at it in any single way, whether the feds or your ridiculous scheme, is completely ignorant.

I'd probably rather have my legs broken than face a prison sentance, though.

No, each individual government is concerned with intention. Governments have tendencies in the same way that people do, and they're only interested in serving the people insofar as the people demand service. Since we've got a horrid incumbency rating, I think you can see why this is a problem.

You're quite astute. I'm not accusing them of conspiracy and murder, I'm accusing them of negligence.

Mikey: The problem with the risks involved is that those risks are incurred individually via consent. It is not my responsibility to maintain roads and bridges, it is the state's. If the state does not live up to its responsibilities, then it has shirked its duties and endangered those it is meant to serve.

Putting carcinogens in the air is an unavoidable risk. An unsound bridge is not.

How is putting carcinogens into the air unavoidable? Make a law that people can't burn gas anymore. Make a law that people can't drive cars anymore. That's no different then spending inordinate amounts of money to fix a problem that, in 17 years of known problems, counts for under 20 deaths.

The funny thing is that you think that being T-boned in the middle of a busy intersection is consentual, but driving over a bridge isn't.

How is making a law for preventing death any different than putting money in a budget to prevent death? Further, the ways I've given you are responsible for a hell of a lot more deaths than this bridge falling down. If your whole reason for doing this was because a few people died, then you're going to have to do a hell of a lot better than spending billions and billions of dollars to fix a few bridges.

There is not enough money in the world, tax or otherwise, to prevent all deaths due to infrastructure from happening. It is impossible. So, if a few people die on a bridge every couple decades, I view that certainly as acceptable. Chaos theory, laws of physics, reliability engineering and all.

And I'd rather you didn't drive on roads, educated by the school system, and have the protection of police, military and fire department that my hard-earned and gladly given tax dollars all paid for. But we can't all get what we want!

is the government of the United States an individual government? That there are not internal agencies and governments on the state and local scale that all compete with each other for the small pool of tax dollars that are there?

god yohttp://www.abouttheimage.com/images/...mages_fire.jpg

I ain't seeing the conflict of interest then.

I would probably put the minnesota bridge at its known deficient state and your carcinogens at about the same level of risk.

You're right. Spending several million to repair or replace a bridge would be just like setting us back to to the stone age, before the discovery of fire.

By driving a car, I am presenting a risk to other motorists and pedestrians. I can alleviate that risk by driving responsibility. The risk presented by a defective bridge is not alleviated by not repairing it.

No, there is not enough money to prevent all infrastructure failure, because oftentimes it is unexpected or unforseen. It's not like, oh, say, being declared unstable for 17 goddamn years.

But no. I'm the asshole because I think we should fix existing problems before maybe creating new ones.

It's pretty obvious you have no interest in what I have actually said.

Your liberalism is the slop cook in Oliver Twist's orphanage.

Do you believe drunk driving presents an elevated risk?

You are telling me that governments don't compete because they have unlimited wealth (but doesn't eliminate all taxes with all this unlimited wealth and defecit spending that they do). AND, that we should build one Corporation that is unelected and without oversight in order to take over our infrastructure - which, of course, they are suited for because corporations are competitive, even if it's the only game in town. No, all this is facinating, but my ethics preclude me from taking the words of a traitor seriously.

http://www.therallyshack.co.uk/image...hirt_small.jpg

I didn't say it would be just like it. But you told me I'm not allowed to justify fatalities amd you just did. So which is it? Are we just not allowed to justify fatalities that pose a direct threat to you? It's OK to drive cars, we need them!, even if tens of thousands of people die every year but it's definitely not OK to have a faulty bridge!, twenty people die every couple decades on those!

My point is that Congress (and you) are more than willing to open the checkbook -- DAMN THE COSTS! -- when an extremely rare and very vivid tragedy happens, but the every day shit you (and Congress) just don't care about. Not enough to do anything about it, certainly less than you'd do about the bridges.

You are perfectly fine with acceptable deaths, thousands of them, as long as it doesn't set us back in to the stone age (which is apparently when cars were invented). But if it doesn't set you back at all, we should open the floodgates to the budget to save even one life!

Making a law to fix bridges saves almost no lives and costs an extremely high amount of money to save the very few people who would die from accidents.

If a bridge survives for 17 years after being declared unstable, how reliable is that report? Not to mention all the other bridges that were surely declared the same thing but haven't fallen down yet.

Brady/Mikey, quit arguing about this shit. If you had a time machine, any rational person would've spent the money to repair that bridge. In addition to saving lives (and I think economists estimated people are willing to spend ~$1mill/American life to protect), repairing the bridge would be cheaper than replacing it will be. Plus, there's the opportunity cost from having the bridge out: people spending longer commuting, things delayed, etc. etc.

Don't chase safety pies in the sky, point taken. But Brady's not even asking for any more effort looking for problems! You spend on the best practicable technology, and make the effort to meet your own maintenance and safety standards and generally keep an eye out.

^5

As a note, I was reading a USA Today the other week and there was a letter sent in by some civil engineering PhD at a university that talked about how the safety of bridges are rated. Apparently there's a whole slew of actual safety factors, then it's modified by the cost of repair, cost of detours, difficulty of detours, loss to business during detours, how critical the piece of infrastructure is, and how reliable the report actually is.

Also, a few years ago they had done a study on how well bridge inspectors could find various defects in bridges. Apparently even the experienced ones could only do around 5% detection of propagating cracks through the concrete. What they said was really needed was new methods of trying to detect faults and newer field tests methods that would find cracks that were typically missed by inspectors.

You've never payed any goddamn attention. Governments do not have unlimited wealth, they just don't have to work for their revenue, they do not create. Because governments do not create, there is no incentive for them to maintain assets, because the loss is made up by levying a tax. It does not mean that the government has unlimited resources it means that the heads of government do not think that far ahead.

We've already got passed that.

Appointed by shareholders (everybody).

It's overseen by the shareholders who actually use the roads.

Stop trolling this thread.


As soon as man invented fire we were polluting the air with toxins. Man accepted fire because it kept him warm and extended his lifespan despite the potential harm of the smoke.

Cars provide the same benefit, while a bridge does not. Bridges present an avoidable risk because they are a predictable liability, whereas the damage caused by car exhaust is unpredictable.

If the report states that a bridge is unstable, and it eventually collapses, then the report is reliable. It doesn't matter how long it took the bridge to collapse, it did so by virtue of its being unstable. Following your logic, it's not worth repairing any bridges because there's no point in avoiding the risk.

Also, please don't be a faggot. The viaduct collapse killed 41 people, this recent collapse killed maybe more than 20. This isn't about saving one life.

But the bridge obviously wasn't a predictable liability! It remained standing 17 years after they said it was unstable! Reread RR's post.

I didn't say it wasn't worth repairing any bridges, I never said that. I also never said it wasn't worth trying to avoid risk. You have to find the trade-off between fixing bridges and the cost of fixing bridges. You've been sitting here telling me that there is NO trade off, that fixing bridges always comes first no matter what!

Let's say for the sake of argument bridges are 99% reliable. To make it 99.9% reliable, it will take X dollars. Every 9 you add on after that grows the cost exponentially.

(Or if they are 50%, go to 75%, then 85%, then 90%, etc. etc.)

We could spend $50 trillion dollars and make it so the bridges are 99.9999999999% safe, probably. Do you consider that worth it? Since we obviously aren't allowed to justify the loss of life, we should spend an infinite amount of money on fixing the infrastructure.

I let it go the first time since everyone's entitled to a typo, but packrat asked me to tell you it's spelt 'paid'. Just passing the word along brah.

http://www.thefranchisemagazine.net/...les/1-1470.gif

One would say that you are not a good judge of predictable liabilities!

Do I have to explain this to you again? Being drunk does not make one a danger. Driving a car does. Whether one is drunk or not can elevate the risk but you are not a danger by virtue of being drunk.

Stop trolling this thread or I will ban you from it.

Weren't the retrofits designed to help the bridge withstand the earthquakes, or did I misread something?

Alright, you got me there.

Well we're clearly going to have to make these kind of value judgements, and defective bridges which carry the greatest amount of traffic will receive priority.

Some bridges simply cannot be fixed, and in those cases one has to wait until a proper time at which they can be fixed.

Claiming that it would take an infinite amount of money, however, is a bit shortsighted. Do we even have any figures yet concerning how much it would cost to fix unstable bridges?

You're right that it was wrong for me to make the blanket statement that maintaining infrastructure should take priority over everything else, I wasn't really thinking. Though I still believe that maintenance of infrastructure should be government's number one priority and that the necessary funds should always be appropriated towards it before wasting our money on subsidies and various other claptrap.

You will do no such thing. She's not trolling because you disagree.

Additional Spam:
But that's the thing. 100% reliability is impossible, which means it would take an infinite amount of money to reach it.

So, define "fix". Works for 10 more years? 50 more years? Works forever?

How about it's reliability? 80% stable for 10 years? 70% stable for 50 years?

You have to find where your acceptable loss point is. My point is that whatever it is that got us to here isn't too bad.

you really want me to hold your hand here?

You brought up the stadium and the tax increase several times in connection to misspending by the homogenized government (I will get to this in a moment). Given that no one who controls this sort of thing knew that the bridge was in danger of imminent collapse, it is doubtful that this tax increase would instead have paid for a repair of the bridge even if that was within the realm of possibility; even still, it would not have saved the bridge. You were being intellectually dishonest by bringing it up.

It is often cheaper and more economical to replace infractructure (bridges, roads etc) than to repair them. In fact, with the viaduct that fell during the earthquake, they had to rethink the entire design of viaducts after that disaster. Repairing it and retrofitting it would have been an expensive bandaid. You are wrong in this account.

Also, you feel that repair of the entire road system should come before new projects. I'm sure that you practice this philosophy in your personal life, making sure your credit card bills are paid before you go to to see The Bourne Ultimatum, but personal finance doesn't scale up to match the finances of an entire country. Frequently new road works are more necessary than filling potholes in your neighbourhood. You show a distressing lack of scale in thought.

You suggest a corporation will take the politics out of infrastructure. This is ridiculous but I will get to it in a moment. You tell me that we have "already gotten over" the one company business, but a quick scan of the thread shows you haven't really addressed it. So you are lying again.

Even still, due to the nature of the business, infrastructure companies really couldn't compete with each other, since everyone needs efficient roads that get them where they want to go. You have several times said that the very nature of corporations is that they compete, and that they produce the most effective use of funds due to this competition, but this competition within the infrastructure business couldn't exist. You are wrong on this account.

you suggest that anonymous 'shareholders' who have done nothing to earn their place in a corporation would have more interest in the goings-on of that corporation than the voters who have done nothing except gain citizenship to earn that right to vote. This shows a willfull ignorance of the behavior of people.

You say that 'politics' would be taken out of the equasion when we move to a corporate-based system, but then admit that the 'shareholders' would elect board members. that sounds like politics to any thinking man, and shows that you don't know what you're talking about.

You say that the corporation would compete with itself because no one would use shitty roads. This is obviously false. The corporation would still exact tolls, of the same price as would be for the road when it was new and perfect, for roads that were in serious disrepair. There is no incentive for the corporation to improve the road until it is undriveable. You are wrong.

You accuse sports teams of 'extortion' for threatning to leave if they don't get a new ballpark. But yet, this is free market bargaining. If a sports team is too prima-donna, no city will want them. let the market sort it out. You are betraying your free market ideals because it's crazy moon-man logic. You believe in crazy moon-man logic.

You hold the government responsible for not forseeing the bridge collapse. "17years known deficient, how dare they!" you say. RR already explained how human engineers can only predict 5% of cracks in bridges, but nevermind that. How dare you claim 20/20 hindsight on something that happened a week ago; not only is this a liberal trait, but most people have the decency to put a few months between themselves and the event before claiming they "knew it all along." The fact is, it was declared deficient 17 years ago, but there was a survey of the bridge not a few years ago and they saw nothing outstanding. Your company would not do a better job, since your company would be using the same people and techniques to judge bridges as the government does, and would not throw money on bridges unless it had to. You hold a naive, idealized view of corporations and it has made you wrong yet again.

You tell Styphon that people don't have to drive on roads, that they can use alternate forms of transportation. Most of those forms of transportation require the use of roads. Once again you are proven mistaken, and you dropped the point so rapidly I dare say you knew it.

You say being drunk doesn't present an elevated risk in and of itself (which is wrong: aside from the health risks of over drinking, you lose motor skills and impair your judgement which can lead to picking fights with bad dudes which is risky) while driving in and of itself is a risk; therefore, drunk driving is no additional risk. You play word games on the level of Gumby, who in the journals has been insisting that driving is a right and not a privilege. You should look in on that, that might be more up your alley.

You claim taxes are theft. This is incorrect.

You support the gold standard. This has nothing to do with the thread but jesus.

You support anarchy. This has everything to do with your thread. Jesus.

You give Mikey shit for rationalizing deaths when you do the very same. You care nothing for your fellow man but we already knew that, Oklahoma Sexy Patrol

You mock the concept of 'theft of liberty' in regards to breaking the law as theft (something that came out of your mouth and not mine), but then you say you would much rather suffer serious, debilitating bodily harm rather than suffer theft of freedom. you're the worst coward there is; you shit bricks when it's your turn to suffer, but you mock the fear of others who suffer the same.

You think that roads that are not bridges don't matter because they're not under the threat of falling down. You show a disturbing lack of imagination in that crumbling roads are still unsafe to drive. Will your corporation demonstrate the same lack of imagination?

You accuse my liberalism as being akin to the cook in Oliver Twist. Does this mean I don't feed starving poor children? That is nothing like bleeding heart liberalism. You don't know what a metaphor is.

You feel that paying tolls is consentual, but that driving on roads paid by your tax dollars (you already paid the tolls due to the virtue of being a tax payer) is non-consentual because you're not aware that accidents can happen. This is crazy moon-man logic again.

You suggest coyly that Minnesota was negligent (perhaps conspiring to do so?) and say that that is a conflict of interest. I asked you to elaborate but you never did. I can only assume you brought it up to, like I said before, accuse a state of conspiracy to murder in order to get sweet fundzzz.

You constantly whine about people not addressing the things you're discussing, but you dropped questions I have asked at least three times. You're a prima-donna with a short memory span.

You admit that the government produces services, but don't create. You also admit that companies that produce services create. You admit that both recieve revenue for their products. You have a difficult time with applying concepts in different contexts.

You have said many times that governments are non-competitive in any real meaningful sense of the word. I assume you're talking about federal governments, but the thing you haven't admitted at all is that the 'government' is not a homogenous entity. There are many different agencies within the federal government! There are state and local governments that jockey with each other for funds! There are many lobbyists all trying to get their cut!

Even though you say that the government has a steady income due to tax (laughable since taxes change all the time and affect different groups of varying wealth; additionally the government has different outgoing expenses that change from year to year, such as the Iraq war) this income is not infinite; even though the US government spends outside of its means frequently, it doesn't mean it hands blank checks to everyone with their hands out.

This is all stuff children know. The end result is that the government within the realm of itself is competing for funds for the road system as a whole, and that state and local governments within this sytem compete with each other for funds.

I asked you several times to no avail about this. I thought that you were trolling, at first, since this is your MO, but now I think you genuinely believe this shit, and you're just exaggerating for funs.

YOU ARE EDUCATED RETARDED.

http://www.craftsbylucienne.com/imag...ican-Flags.jpg

you are a traitor

http://z.about.com/d/atheism/1/7/X/0/3/Our-Flag-e.jpg

http://www.craftsbylucienne.com/imag...ican-Flags.jpg
you have a fetish for the Man http://z.about.com/d/atheism/1/7/X/0/3/Our-Flag-e.jpg

http://www.craftsbylucienne.com/imag...ican-Flags.jpghttp://z.about.com/d/atheism/1/7/X/0/3/Our-Flag-e.jpghttp://www.craftsbylucienne.com/imag...ican-Flags.jpg

http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/blog.../Jackalope.jpg damn LIEburls http://z.about.com/d/atheism/1/7/X/0/3/Our-Flag-e.jpg

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m...ce/carlton.gifhttp://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m...ce/carlton.gifhttp://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m...ce/carlton.gifhttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...00McKinley.JPGhttp://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m...ce/carlton.gifhttp://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m...ce/carlton.gifhttp://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m...ce/carlton.gif

http://home.austin.rr.com/rogerw/Anarchy.jpghttp://z.about.com/d/atheism/1/7/X/0/3/Our-Flag-e.jpghttp://home.austin.rr.com/rogerw/Anarchy.jpghttp://home.austin.rr.com/rogerw/Anarchy.jpghttp://home.austin.rr.com/rogerw/Anarchy.jpghttp://home.austin.rr.com/rogerw/Anarchy.jpg go anarchy http://home.austin.rr.com/rogerw/Anarchy.jpghttp://home.austin.rr.com/rogerw/Anarchy.jpghttp://z.about.com/d/atheism/1/7/X/0/3/Our-Flag-e.jpghttp://home.austin.rr.com/rogerw/Anarchy.jpghttp://home.austin.rr.com/rogerw/Anarchy.jpg :birthday: :birthday:

http://www.clarkson.edu/projects/the...n/HappyCat.jpghttp://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m...ce/carlton.gifhttp://www.clarkson.edu/projects/the...n/HappyCat.jpghttp://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m...ce/carlton.gif
http://www.clarkson.edu/projects/the...n/HappyCat.jpghttp://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m...ce/carlton.gifhttp://www.clarkson.edu/projects/the...n/HappyCat.jpg

you think governments have unlimited funds

http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/blog.../Jackalope.jpg damn LIEburls http://z.about.com/d/atheism/1/7/X/0/3/Our-Flag-e.jpg

Ritalinal: you seen those 7chan shota pics?
Ritalinal: JOEY?
http://www.craftsbylucienne.com/imag...ican-Flags.jpg
Col Jacen Solo: No. Don't look at shota.
Ritalinal: u should!
Ritalinal: its cool =D
Col Jacen Solo: meh. I fap on my own, porn helps, but I enjoy my own adventures...
Ritalinal: wanna see which one i'm looking at?
http://z.about.com/d/atheism/1/7/X/0/3/Our-Flag-e.jpg
Ritalinal: HUH?
Col Jacen Solo: Not really Alex...
Ritalinal: it's one of zelda, and link =D

http://www.craftsbylucienne.com/imag...ican-Flags.jpg

you have a fetish for the Man
http://www.craftsbylucienne.com/imag...ican-Flags.jpg
http://z.about.com/d/atheism/1/7/X/0/3/Our-Flag-e.jpg
http://www.craftsbylucienne.com/imag...ican-Flags.jpg
http://z.about.com/d/atheism/1/7/X/0/3/Our-Flag-e.jpg
http://www.craftsbylucienne.com/imag...ican-Flags.jpg

http://www.newyorkarchitecture.info/...ilding-001.jpg non political http://www.newyorkarchitecture.info/...ilding-001.jpg non political http://www.newyorkarchitecture.info/...ilding-001.jpg non political http://www.newyorkarchitecture.info/...ilding-001.jpg non political non-profit corporation owned by the people

http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/blog.../Jackalope.jpg damn LIEburls http://z.about.com/d/atheism/1/7/X/0/3/Our-Flag-e.jpg

http://www.horsesass.org/wp-content/...dgettrend2.gif tHiS gRaPh sHoWs tHaT tAxEs aRe tHeFt (tolls everywhere aren't tho~) http://gfw.condign.org/images/1/15/A...atERA_GRUN.gif


http://homepage.mac.com/durvivor/dop...cs/fbiseal.gifhttp://www.clarkson.edu/projects/the...n/HappyCat.jpghttp://homepage.mac.com/durvivor/dop...cs/fbiseal.gifhttp://www.clarkson.edu/projects/the...n/HappyCat.jpghttp://homepage.mac.com/durvivor/dop...cs/fbiseal.gif

http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/blog.../Jackalope.jpg damn LIEburls http://www.craftsbylucienne.com/imag...ican-Flags.jpg free rush http://www.craftsbylucienne.com/imag...ican-Flags.jpg

[b]Now this is the story all about how
My life got flipped, turned upside down
And I’d like to take a minute just sit right there
I’ll tell you how I became the prince of a town called bel-air

GOVERNMENT TIES IS REALLY WHY THE GOVERNMENT LIES READ IT YOURSELF INSTEAD OF ASKING YOUR GOVERNMENT WHY BECAUSE THEN THE CAUSE OF DEATH WILL CAUSE THE PROPAGANDA TO DIE

http://home.austin.rr.com/rogerw/Anarchy.jpghttp://home.austin.rr.com/rogerw/Anarchy.jpghttp://home.austin.rr.com/rogerw/Anarchy.jpghttp://home.austin.rr.com/rogerw/Anarchy.jpghttp://home.austin.rr.com/rogerw/Anarchy.jpg go anarchy http://home.austin.rr.com/rogerw/Anarchy.jpghttp://home.austin.rr.com/rogerw/Anarchy.jpghttp://home.austin.rr.com/rogerw/Anarchy.jpghttp://home.austin.rr.com/rogerw/Anarchy.jpg :birthday: :birthday:http://www.craftsbylucienne.com/imag...ican-Flags.jpghttp://www.craftsbylucienne.com/imag...ican-Flags.jpg :birthday: :love:

GOVERNMENT TIES IS REALLY WHY THE GOVERNMENT LIES READ IT YOURSELF INSTEAD OF ASKING YOUR GOVERNMENT WHY BECAUSE THEN THE CAUSE OF DEATH WILL CAUSE THE PROPAGANDA TO DIE

Ritalinal: you seen those 7chan shota pics?
Ritalinal: JOEY?
Col Jacen Solo: No. Don't look at shota.
http://gfw.condign.org/images/1/15/A...atERA_GRUN.gifhttp://www.clarkson.edu/projects/the...n/HappyCat.jpghttp://gfw.condign.org/images/1/15/A...atERA_GRUN.gifhttp://gfw.condign.org/images/1/15/A...atERA_GRUN.gifhttp://gfw.condign.org/images/1/15/A...atERA_GRUN.gifhttp://www.clarkson.edu/projects/the...n/HappyCat.jpghttp://gfw.condign.org/images/1/15/A...atERA_GRUN.gifhttp://www.clarkson.edu/projects/the...n/HappyCat.jpghttp://gfw.condign.org/images/1/15/A...atERA_GRUN.gif

Ritalinal: u should!
http://www.craftsbylucienne.com/imag...ican-Flags.jpg
Ritalinal: its cool =D
Col Jacen Solo: meh. I fap on my own, porn helps, but I enjoy my own adventures...
Ritalinal: wanna see which one i'm looking at?
Ritalinal: HUH?
Col Jacen Solo: Not really Alex...
Ritalinal: it's one of zelda, and link =D


GOVERNMENT TIES IS REALLY WHY THE GOVERNMENT LIES READ IT YOURSELF INSTEAD OF ASKING YOUR GOVERNMENT WHY BECAUSE THEN THE CAUSE OF DEATH WILL CAUSE THE PROPAGANDA TO DIE

http://www.craftsbylucienne.com/imag...ican-Flags.jpg

In west philadelfia born and raised
On the playground where I spent most of my days
Chilling out, maxing, relaxing all cool
And all shooting some b-ball outside of the school
When a couple of guys said "we’re up in no good"
Started making trouble in my neighbourhood
I got in one little fight and my mom got scared
And said "you’re moving with your aunte and uncle in bel-air"

GOVERNMENT TIES IS REALLY WHY THE GOVERNMENT LIES READ IT YOURSELF INSTEAD OF ASKING YOUR GOVERNMENT WHY BECAUSE THEN THE CAUSE OF DEATH WILL CAUSE THE PROPAGANDA TO DIE


:rolleyes: :birthday: :rolleyes: :birthday:

(only the first three episodes of season one)

GOVERNMENT TIES IS REALLY WHY THE GOVERNMENT LIES READ IT YOURSELF INSTEAD OF ASKING YOUR GOVERNMENT WHY BECAUSE THEN THE CAUSE OF DEATH WILL CAUSE THE PROPAGANDA TO DIE


http://gfw.condign.org/images/1/15/A...atERA_GRUN.gifhttp://gfw.condign.org/images/1/15/A...atERA_GRUN.gifhttp://gfw.condign.org/images/1/15/A...atERA_GRUN.gifhttp://gfw.condign.org/images/1/15/A...atERA_GRUN.gifhttp://gfw.condign.org/images/1/15/A...atERA_GRUN.gifhttp://gfw.condign.org/images/1/15/A...atERA_GRUN.gif

GOVERNMENT TIES IS REALLY WHY THE GOVERNMENT LIES READ IT YOURSELF INSTEAD OF ASKING YOUR GOVERNMENT WHY BECAUSE THEN THE CAUSE OF DEATH WILL CAUSE THE PROPAGANDA TO DIE


I begged and pleaded with her the other day
But she packed my suitcase and sent me on my way
She gave me a kissin’ and she gave me my ticket
I put my walkman on and said I might aswell kick it

GOVERNMENT TIES IS REALLY WHY THE GOVERNMENT LIES READ IT YOURSELF INSTEAD OF ASKING YOUR GOVERNMENT WHY BECAUSE THEN THE CAUSE OF DEATH WILL CAUSE THE PROPAGANDA TO DIE

http://homepage.mac.com/durvivor/dop...cs/fbiseal.gif


http://www.craftsbylucienne.com/imag...ican-Flags.jpg

First class, yo this is bad,
Drinking orange juice out of a champagne glass
Is this what the people of bel-air livin’ like,
Hmm this might be alright!
http://gfw.condign.org/images/1/15/A...atERA_GRUN.gif


I whistled for a cab and when it came near the
Licensplate said "fresh" and had a dice in the mirror
If anything I could say that this cab was rare
But I thought now forget it, yo home to bel-air

http://www.craftsbylucienne.com/imag...ican-Flags.jpghttp://gfw.condign.org/images/1/15/A...atERA_GRUN.gif


I pulled up to a house about seven or eight
And I yelled to the cabby "yo, home smell you later"
Looked at my kingdom I was finally there
To settle my throne as the prince of bel-air


http://www.angel-stardust.com/poems/...AngelPrayB.jpghttp://www.uweb.ucsb.edu/~b_acosta01...aru_shakur.jpghttp://www.angel-stardust.com/poems/...AngelPrayB.jpghttp://www.uweb.ucsb.edu/~b_acosta01...aru_shakur.jpghttp://www.angel-stardust.com/poems/...AngelPrayB.jpg

http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/blog.../Jackalope.jpg damn LIEburls http://z.about.com/d/atheism/1/7/X/0/3/Our-Flag-e.jpg

Alright fagts. Listen up, I'm not doing this for my health, I have other things do to than to put up with anonymous, but as a back up, I decided I'd make use of myself. Wuori and I became 'Friends.' And I've learned he is far sicker than you can imagine. This kid is obessed with /b/, I have my own personal vendetta, and problems with Anon. This kid makes that look like issues on a playground, what the fuck did you do to this fucking psycho. I have never met someone to hateful towards /b/, I broke off with him, and pity the poor bastard a lot. As far as I'm concerned, I don't care how much you guys hate Shiahgo, or Humane Weapons. That's not my biggest issue, my issue is this fuck harassing me. Now. NEW INFORMATION REGARDING WUORI.

1. Wuori is a Runescaper. Account name Ritalina.

2. Wuori is a Gaiauser, Account name is unknown.
http://www.charitableirishsociety.or...CAN%20FLAG.gif

3. Wuori is so obessed with /b/, he is texting me at least 100 times a day with plans on revenage.

4. Wuori created an operation called 'Chanfire' planning on causing an inner chan war.



http://homepage.mac.com/durvivor/dop...cs/fbiseal.gif

http://www.craftsbylucienne.com/imag...ican-Flags.jpg

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m...ce/carlton.gifhttp://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m...ce/carlton.gifhttp://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m...ce/carlton.gifhttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...00McKinley.JPGhttp://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m...ce/carlton.gifhttp://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m...ce/carlton.gifhttp://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m...ce/carlton.gif

http://www.charitableirishsociety.or...CAN%20FLAG.gifhttp://www.charitableirishsociety.or...CAN%20FLAG.gif

http://www.angel-stardust.com/poems/...AngelPrayB.jpghttp://www.uweb.ucsb.edu/~b_acosta01...aru_shakur.jpghttp://www.angel-stardust.com/poems/...AngelPrayB.jpghttp://www.uweb.ucsb.edu/~b_acosta01...aru_shakur.jpghttp://www.angel-stardust.com/poems/...AngelPrayB.jpg

http://www.horsesass.org/wp-content/...dgettrend2.gif tHiS gRaPh sHoWs tHaT tAxEs aRe tHeFt (tolls everywhere aren't tho~)

you have a fetish for the Manhttp://gfw.condign.org/images/1/15/A...atERA_GRUN.gif

http://homepage.mac.com/durvivor/dop...cs/fbiseal.gif

http://www.newyorkarchitecture.info/...ilding-001.jpg non political http://www.newyorkarchitecture.info/...ilding-001.jpg non political http://www.newyorkarchitecture.info/...ilding-001.jpg non political http://www.newyorkarchitecture.info/...ilding-001.jpg non political non-profit corporation owned by the people

Ritalinal: you seen those 7chan shota pics?
Ritalinal: JOEY?
Col Jacen Solo: No. Don't look at shota.
Ritalinal: u should!
Ritalinal: its cool =D
Col Jacen Solo: meh. I fap on my own, porn helps, but I enjoy my own adventures...
Ritalinal: wanna see which one i'm looking at?
Ritalinal: HUH?
http://gfw.condign.org/images/1/15/A...atERA_GRUN.gif

Col Jacen Solo: Not really Alex...
Ritalinal: it's one of zelda, and link =D
http://www.craftsbylucienne.com/imag...ican-Flags.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/durvivor/dop...cs/fbiseal.gif
http://www.craftsbylucienne.com/imag...ican-Flags.jpg
http://www.craftsbylucienne.com/imag...ican-Flags.jpg
http://www.craftsbylucienne.com/imag...ican-Flags.jpg


http://www.angel-stardust.com/poems/...AngelPrayB.jpghttp://www.uweb.ucsb.edu/~b_acosta01...aru_shakur.jpghttp://www.angel-stardust.com/poems/...AngelPrayB.jpghttp://www.uweb.ucsb.edu/~b_acosta01...aru_shakur.jpghttp://www.angel-stardust.com/poems/...AngelPrayB.jpg

Alright fagts. Listen up, I'm not doing this for my health, I have other things do to than to put up with anonymous, but as a back up, I decided I'd make use of myself. Wuori and I became 'Friends.' And I've learned he is far sicker than you can imagine. This kid is obessed with /b/, I have my own personal vendetta, and problems with Anon. This kid makes that look like issues on a playground, what the fuck did you do to this fucking psycho. I have never met someone to hateful towards /b/, I broke off with him, and pity the poor bastard a lot. As far as I'm concerned, I don't care how much you guys hate Shiahgo, or Humane Weapons. That's not my biggest issue, my issue is this fuck harassing me. Now. NEW INFORMATION REGARDING WUORI.
http://www.craftsbylucienne.com/imag...ican-Flags.jpg
http://www.craftsbylucienne.com/imag...ican-Flags.jpg

1. Wuori is a Runescaper. Account name Ritalina.

http://www.charitableirishsociety.or...CAN%20FLAG.gif
http://gfw.condign.org/images/1/15/A...atERA_GRUN.gif
http://www.charitableirishsociety.or...CAN%20FLAG.gif
http://gfw.condign.org/images/1/15/A...atERA_GRUN.gif
[img]
http://www.charitableirishsociety.org/images/AMERICAN%20FLAG.gif[/img]

2. Wuori is a Gaiauser, Account name is unknown.

3. Wuori is so obessed with /b/, he is texting me at least 100 times a day with plans on revenage.

4. Wuori created an operation called 'Chanfire' planning on causing an inner chan war.




shit just got realshit just got realshit just got realshit just got realshit just got realshit just got realshit just got realshit just got realshit just got realshit just got realshit just got realshit just got realshit just got realshit just got realshit just got realshit just got realshit just got realshit just got real hackers on steroids hackers on steroidshackers on steroidshackers on steroidshackers on steroidshackers on steroidshackers on steroids hackers on steroidshackers on steroidshackers on steroidshackers on steroids hackers on steroidshackers on steroids

http://www.charitableirishsociety.or...CAN%20FLAG.gif

[b]Now this is the story all about how
My life got flipped, turned upside down
And I’d like to take a minute just sit right there
I’ll tell you how I became the prince of a town called bel-air

http://www.horsesass.org/wp-content/...dgettrend2.gif tHiS gRaPh sHoWs tHaT tAxEs aRe tHeFt (tolls everywhere aren't tho~)

In west philadelfia born and raised
On the playground where I spent most of my days
Chilling out, maxing, relaxing all cool
And all shooting some b-ball outside of the school
When a couple of guys said "we’re up in no good"
Started making trouble in my neighbourhood
I got in one little fight and my mom got scared
And said "you’re moving with your aunte and uncle in bel-air"

(only the first three episodes of season one)

http://z.about.com/d/atheism/1/7/X/0/3/Our-Flag-e.jpg how DARE the gub'mint take my money http://z.about.com/d/atheism/1/7/X/0/3/Our-Flag-e.jpg

I begged and pleaded with her the other day
But she packed my suitcase and sent me on my way
She gave me a kissin’ and she gave me my ticket
I put my walkman on and said I might aswell kick it

http://www.charitableirishsociety.or...CAN%20FLAG.gifhttp://www.craftsbylucienne.com/imag...ican-Flags.jpg

First class, yo this is bad,
Drinking orange juice out of a champagne glass
Is this what the people of bel-air livin’ like,
Hmm this might be alright!

I whistled for a cab and when it came near the
Licensplate said "fresh" and had a dice in the mirror
If anything I could say that this cab was rare
But I thought now forget it, yo home to bel-air

http://www.horsesass.org/wp-content/...dgettrend2.gif tHiS gRaPh sHoWs tHaT tAxEs aRe tHeFt (tolls everywhere aren't tho~)

I pulled up to a house about seven or eight
And I yelled to the cabby "yo, home smell you later"
Looked at my kingdom I was finally there
To settle my throne as the prince of bel-air


GOVERNMENT TIES IS REALLY WHY THE GOVERNMENT LIES READ IT YOURSELF INSTEAD OF ASKING YOUR GOVERNMENT WHY BECAUSE THEN THE CAUSE OF DEATH WILL CAUSE THE PROPAGANDA TO DIE
GOVERNMENT TIES IS REALLY WHY THE GOVERNMENT LIES READ IT YOURSELF INSTEAD OF ASKING YOUR GOVERNMENT WHY BECAUSE THEN THE CAUSE OF DEATH WILL CAUSE THE PROPAGANDA TO DIE
GOVERNMENT TIES IS REALLY WHY THE GOVERNMENT LIES READ IT YOURSELF INSTEAD OF ASKING YOUR GOVERNMENT WHY BECAUSE THEN THE CAUSE OF DEATH WILL CAUSE THE PROPAGANDA TO DIE
GOVERNMENT TIES IS REALLY WHY THE GOVERNMENT LIES READ IT YOURSELF INSTEAD OF ASKING YOUR GOVERNMENT WHY BECAUSE THEN THE CAUSE OF DEATH WILL CAUSE THE PROPAGANDA TO DIE
GOVERNMENT TIES IS REALLY WHY THE GOVERNMENT LIES READ IT YOURSELF INSTEAD OF ASKING YOUR GOVERNMENT WHY BECAUSE THEN THE CAUSE OF DEATH WILL CAUSE THE PROPAGANDA TO DIE
GOVERNMENT TIES IS REALLY WHY THE GOVERNMENT LIES READ IT YOURSELF INSTEAD OF ASKING YOUR GOVERNMENT WHY BECAUSE THEN THE CAUSE OF DEATH WILL CAUSE THE PROPAGANDA TO DIE
GOVERNMENT TIES IS REALLY WHY THE GOVERNMENT LIES READ IT YOURSELF INSTEAD OF ASKING YOUR GOVERNMENT WHY BECAUSE THEN THE CAUSE OF DEATH WILL CAUSE THE PROPAGANDA TO DIE
GOVERNMENT TIES IS REALLY WHY THE GOVERNMENT LIES READ IT YOURSELF INSTEAD OF ASKING YOUR GOVERNMENT WHY BECAUSE THEN THE CAUSE OF DEATH WILL CAUSE THE PROPAGANDA TO DIE


http://z.about.com/d/atheism/1/7/X/0/3/Our-Flag-e.jpg how DARE the gub'mint take my money http://z.about.com/d/atheism/1/7/X/0/3/Our-Flag-e.jpg

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m...ce/carlton.gifhttp://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m...ce/carlton.gifhttp://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m...ce/carlton.gifhttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...00McKinley.JPGhttp://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m...ce/carlton.gifhttp://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m...ce/carlton.gifhttp://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m...ce/carlton.gif

cocks

Owned to death.

Well now we're getting somewhere.

I nominate lurker's explosion of genius for PP Post of the year. Hell, GFF Post of the year.

Point taken.

The issue of the viaduct is not to demonstrate an issue that was avoidable (I know I misrepresented this so my mistake), it was supposed to represent a case where the government failed to act in regards to what was considered a reasonable danger. The benefit derived from the actual collapse isn't as important as the demonstration of government action. The government has no real interest in fixing or even seriously investigating the bridge by virtue of its divided attention. Unless alarms are raised or appropriate attention is called to the issue, government will be slow to act.

Whether the retrofits would have failed is still an uncertainty, the point is to illustrate that the government failed to act under means that were considered to be reasonable at the time.

Point taken.

I think there was some misunderstanding there, since I was talking about competition between transit, and that multiple corporations for modes of transit would cause the road corporation to compete for its use.

Point taken.

Point taken.

A private team demanding taxpayer money under the threat that they would leave is not free market bargaining, it is rentseeking. Free market bargaining involves the distribution of information, so that all parties determine price by virtue of supply and demand. Voters don't have to be aware of why a team needs new facilities, they only know that if the demands of the team isn't met they will move elsewhere. Regardless of how unreasonable the demand may be, the team owner can cow voters into accepting their demands under threat.

It is practically extortion.

Point taken.

Point taken.

I said that drunk driving elevates a risk, but that being drunk does not make oneself a danger to others. One can be drunk and not be a danger to others, it's once you put them behind of the wheel of a car that they present a real danger.

You're gonna have to do better than that.

And thank you for not harping on it again.

Don't knock it 'till you've tried it. ;)

It was wrong for me to give Mikey shit without going into detail. In general it's wrong of me to give Mikey shit.

There's no parallel between repairing bridges, and banning carcinogens, because while the latter would end deaths caused by carcinogens it would in effect lower life expectancies and make people die from causes before they could die from carcinogens. A collapsed bridge doesn't raise life expectancies.

This doesn't mean that Mikey is wrong in spirit, it means that I'm being a bitch and playing word games.

No better way to deal with fear than to make fun of it. My intent is not to mock others but to mock the state of the system.

Point taken.

The nature of the Oliver Twist cook is that he does feed starving children but not enough. When he's asked for a suitable amount of food, the reaction is to shout and issue a savage beating.

You are leaving me information starved. I cannot argue your points if all you're doing is yelling at me and spamming gold standard.

Where the Hell did you get that? Paying taxes lacks consent because the taxes are extracted regardless of whether you've agreed to have the funds taken by government. You can consent to pay a toll because otherwise you would not be using the road. You can't consent to pay a tax, because you'll be paying regardless of whether or not you have rendered use.

One doesn't have to conspire to murder in order to remain negligent. If the collapse of a bridge costs the state nothing, then it lacks incentive to keep the bridge sufficiently maintained. It's not because the state has conspired to get on the Federal dole, it's because the incentive isn't there to issue a priority.

Granted.

The point I was trying to make is that the government does not truly create, because the means of creation (tax dollars) is not rightfully possessed by the government. It's taxpayers who create the services that the government provides, because without those means there would be nothing. Since the government cannot rightfully claim the money as its own by virtue of the lack of trade, it has not truly created by virtue of its own labor.

Point taken.

I never said this.

I never claimed that they did. Governments will distribute funds according to their perceived need, and because there is a lack of revenue incentive for the maintenance of a bridge (revenue is extracted regardless of whether or not there is a bridge) and because of the lack of that incentive, maintenance loses priority.

I thought I had answered this, but I guess I misunderstood the question. I hope this answers it.

Honestly, thank you for actually explaining your viewpoint as opposed to issuing statements.

Nicely played, Brady.