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:

Quote:

“A main problem with these earmarks is that they often supersede the more urgent repair and replacement needs identified by state and local officials." Earmarked funds often go unspent because these "vanity projects" are unwanted.

“A full five years after the 1987 transportation bill, for example, no less than 64% of its earmarked money was still unspent because states had more urgent priorities for their share of the spending. By 1997, 55% of the $6.2 billion in earmarks from the 1991 highway bill had gone unspent. We can't report the same numbers for the 1998 and 2005 highway bills because the federal Transportation Department stopped disclosing the figures, lest it embarrass Members of Congress.”

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?

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by a lurker

Should infrastructure be publically owned?

Wow, you missed the question big time.

How ya doing, buddy?

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate 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.

Quote:

Like what?

*shrug*

Here's an opinion on the collapse though:

Quote:

http://engineering.com/Library/Artic...-Viaducts.aspx
The Cypress Street Viaduct collapse disaster may have been avoided had the City of Oakland followed the repeated recommendation that the Cypress Street Viaduct be upgraded (Peterson, 1990). Earthquake engineers had suggested many times to the City of Oakland that the Viaduct should be retrofitted with the new technologies that had been developed to counteract the type of concrete breakaway that occurred during the quake. One such technology that was available, and that could have helped to inhibit that type of failure, was steel reinforcing plates that could have been retrofitted to the existing columns (Peterson, 1990). Another, lead/rubber isolators, would have minimized the vibrations the Viaduct experienced during the quake (Peterson, 1990).

It is unknown if additional reinforcement would have been effective. Due to the original design, the viaduct was susceptible to strong external driving forces matching its natural resonant frequencies. Reinforcement may have averted collapse had it been designed to counteract the effects of amplification of the seismic waves created by the soft fill of the valley floor, but the extent of amplification had not yet been realized. Also, the problem of matched resonant frequencies was unknown at the time and would not have been taken into account.

A bit more nuanced than it absolutely could've been avoided but still...

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Quote:

I'd like an answer to my question unless the article writer just wants to use the Cypress without citing what projects were done before it. Because you know, god forbid other bridges get retrofitted first. <- This line could be proven wrong.

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?

I was speaking idiomatically.

Quote:

What I'm saying is, your author could be talking out of his ass if he's not going to be specific about which "projects" kept the bridge from being retrofitted.

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.

Most amazing jew boots

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.

Quote:

Which puts us in another quandry. Wouldn't projects become about appeasing those people, rather than "what needs a-fixin'?"

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.

FELIPE NO

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)

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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?

Quote:

Extort?

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

Quote:

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

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

No, I am saying precisely the opposite.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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

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.

Quote:

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.

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?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Quote:

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.

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

Quote:

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

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by a lurker

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!

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?

Quote:

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?

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?

Quote:

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.

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

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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?

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Quote:

It isn't.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

FELIPE NO

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, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Quote:

What alternative transit?

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

I already told you, crumbling from the heat and not wide enough.

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?

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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

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.

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

Laws are also non-consentual.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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:

Quote:

You said taxes are theft. They are as much theft as laws are.

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."

Quote:

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

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.

Quote:

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

NO U

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

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.

Quote:

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??"

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.

Quote:

(and don't say buses, when you increase gas, you decrease their ability to ride buses)

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.

Quote:

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)?

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.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

You can't just make a blanket statement that maintenance ALWAYS comes before new.

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

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?

Quote:

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??

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.

Quote:

Do you want Haliburton to run the country?

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.

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

No they're not.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Quote:

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

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.

Quote:

So are all obligations 'theft' to you?

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.

FELIPE NO

Quote:

I'll ask again; why do you think the government has unlimited resources?

I've already answered this question.

Quote:

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

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.

Quote:

Do you think that 'immigrants' are the only people for whom governments compete with each other over

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

Quote:

and furthermore, how do you define an immigrant who has not yet left his current country?

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?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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.

Quote:

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

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.