|
|
Welcome to the Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis. |
GFF is a community of gaming and music enthusiasts. We have a team of dedicated moderators, constant member-organized activities, and plenty of custom features, including our unique journal system. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ or our GFWiki. You will have to register before you can post. Membership is completely free (and gets rid of the pesky advertisement unit underneath this message).
|
|
Thread Tools |
This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. |
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.
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.
The issue, though, is not necessarily taxation, but how those funds are distributed.
Ultimately a government can experience loss, as recessions or overtaxation reduce the general creation of wealth, but governments aren't generally that farsighted.
That doesn't counter my point. I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? |
Additional Spam:
Your libertarianism is a six year old who can't understand why mommy won't buy a barbie doll with the grocery money. I was speaking idiomatically.
Last edited by Sarag; Aug 10, 2007 at 02:17 PM.
Reason: This member got a little too post happy.
|
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:
What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?
Last edited by Bradylama; Aug 10, 2007 at 02:28 PM.
|
Given that, why are you insisting that they're theft? How ya doing, buddy? |
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. What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?
and Brandy does her best to understand
|
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.
Jam it back in, in the dark.
Last edited by Bradylama; Aug 10, 2007 at 03:02 PM.
|
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? Most amazing jew boots
and Brandy does her best to understand
|
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. This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.
<@a_lurker> I like zeal better than guru.
<@a_lurker> There, I said it, I'm not taking it back. |
I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? |
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.
I was speaking idiomatically. |
Additional Spam:
What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?
Last edited by Sarag; Aug 10, 2007 at 03:16 PM.
Reason: This member got a little too post happy.
|
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. FELIPE NO
and Brandy does her best to understand
|
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?
What, you don't want my bikini-clad body? |
Furthermore, getting back to an earlier point, how are governments not producers of services?
Jam it back in, in the dark. |
There's nowhere I can't reach. |
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? How ya doing, buddy? |
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? I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?
Last edited by Bradylama; Aug 10, 2007 at 06:24 PM.
|
I was speaking idiomatically. |
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. What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?
and Brandy does her best to understand
|
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. FELIPE NO |
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. What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?
and Brandy does her best to understand
|
god yo
Jam it back in, in the dark. |
But no. I'm the asshole because I think we should fix existing problems before maybe creating new ones.
Your liberalism is the slop cook in Oliver Twist's orphanage. There's nowhere I can't reach. |
This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. |