Welcome to #GeekSpeak. Before we begin, I'd like to remind you that all channel logs are the copyright of the channel owners: Pankaj Saxena and Tom Wright. Logs may not be redistributed in any form without the prior consent of the channel Tonight I would like to discuss what economists call "The Public Goods Problem". Briefly, Public goods are those things which we all need or benefit from, but for which there seems to be no method of collecting payment for. Government finance (as discussed last week) is one example. Everyone benefits from the protection of the government, yet without the initiation of force to collect taxes, financing can be a problem. Since we discussed solutions to government finance last week, I thought that we might focus on other areas tonight. I'd like to begin each area by presnting the problem, as it is often described, and hopefully one or to ideas to solve All right. Any questions so far? All right. I'll assume that there are none The first area that I'd like to cover is the issue of roads Anyone care to give the usual reasons that people claim the roads need to be provided by the government? Speak up, please :) "A toll booth at EVERY street is a dumb idea." cost of building is to great for any individual to undertake ? It is claimed that nobody owns the streets and they belong to everybody. What happens if someone builds a road around your property and tells you you can't use it to get off your property? All good points Any others? public necessity If there are no toll booths, how does the builder get compensated for his efforts? Concerns about roads in poor areas Public transportation ... if you annoyed the road owner would you be blocked from travel? Okay. Kelly already implied that toll roads are one answer. Any other ideas? I thought you wanted questions, not answers ;) re: all. Sorry I'm late... Easements. People get a (property) right to pass over property by using it for that purpose Tom: I want both... I'm the moderator, not the lecturer :) Group ownership in some areas. Like a community getting together. Kelly: Or a corporation with shares.. Builders build local roads and homeowners and merchants associations maintain them. On the point about encircling someone's property with a road, or other property, then saying that he can't cross your land.. anyone have a reply to that? major businesses can maintain the roads as a means of getting customers...otherwise, it's free passage to all (within reason). wright - under current system, law forbids anyone to "landlock" another parcel I think Betsy suggested an answer Wright: I mentioned easements. wright - there is a reason for that principle build a bridge over ? mba: I realize that, but please elaborate that would come under rights of way laws. tktad - not economical to erect so many bridges...or force so many helicopter rides :) If land is used as a public thoroughfare, people using that way have developed a right to do so. You can't take it away from them. tktasd - that is actually a principle of a republican democracy - quiet enjoyment of property - without undue "interference" to neighboring parcel "landlocking" is a form of initiation of force, since no one can live if they are not permitted to get off their property to get foods and stuff. tomM - only sovereign nations can "landlock"...and it IS initiation of force... I'd say it falls under "you can't use your property to harm or restrain another person" same as if you put your arms around a man and said "my arms are my property and you have no right to touch them" TomM: I disagree that it is force. Besides -- how would you get _onto_ landlocked proerty? mba what principle tells the encircl-er that he does not have that diposition over his property re treasspassing by anyone ? mba:I was refering to landlocking by surrounding someone else's property and forbidding them to escape. betsy - that is not the issue - access and egress is definitely part of the "bundle of rights" in ownership of property Betsy: you live ina house, and your neighbor buys the surrounding land and builds you in. Tom: I refer you to my earlier statement tomM - understand. I agree with you - it is initiation of force. Crossing other parcels - without harming the parcel in the act of crossing - is reasonable. The initial property deed is granted by the local government and the right that it confers are establishe when it is issued okay, I don't want to get too far afield TomM: If you had to right to cross over the land before, you keep it even if someone else later owns the land. DCHap - and respect for the deed implies certain rational covenants the discussion was on roads betsy - not necessarily - (see: reverter) you only keep the right as long as the original purpose is being maintained in the easement or license Betsy: Well, that's the point, isn't it. A right means more than simply property rights, it includes rights to regularly used easments. As for maintenance of roads: The potholes get fixed a lot faster when a homeowner's association does it than when the city does it. So far we have, roads owned by homeowners' associations, merchants, and turnpike operators any others? there are private roads too of course wright - at the risk of hellfire...saltwater fisheries ? :) wright - access to the "public" waters from land Internationally recognized sea lanes exist Here's a question I think was mentioned earlier. Does the owner of the only road from point A to point B have the right to deny access to it? wright - roads that cross private propertty onto what is "sovereign" shorelines mba: We can get to that, if you'd like a little later Wright: Of course he does, except in cases of rights of easement. wright owner of a *road8 or the propery on which the road sits and is there a difference in this context ? wright - sorry, thanks, I would if there is time Jaden: I'm assuming, the same things they're used for today wright - your A to B hypothetical...is this road entirely on the owner's parcel ? Realistically, why would anybody who owned a valuable road forbid access to it? This is one of those crazy made-up scenarios that really don't happen. Okay, other potential problems with this setup so far? wright: The owners property rights are always limitted to some degree. limited by what , DChappy ? Wright: for example in the case of national emergency Betsy: It may happen, but it's not something I'm all that worried about. I think rights of easement would cover it betsy - think of the purpose of speed limits and see if you still assert that access shouldn't be controlled. Your children in your neighborhood...a commercial thoroughfare or a quiet street...? jaden - what's the difference ? mba: that would also come under the heading of initiating force, which the law would have the purpose of steping in to control. mba: The homeowner's association could take care of anybody speeding in a residential neighborhood. I'm not sure what role speed limits have to play.. I think we are all agreed that the owner would have the right to set the limit, andother rules. Am I wrong? If the owner made enough people angry with his/her policies, someone else would build a road to allow access to _their_ group... and so on, and so on... tom - in a rational system, driver's would see children in a neighborhood and drive differently than on an expressway -d mba: Youc an't count on that. Mba: I'm sure. He should also be held liable for doing otherwise This is a simple issue of the property owner (the road owner) deciding on the rules of usage on certain parts of the road Betsy i live in such n area re homeowner's assoc. and recently it has come their attention that the posted speed limits on *our* property are not actually enforcable by city police dept betsy - let me be sure I understand - you exclude any concept of vigilante-type action in neighborhood "take care of" I hope Anyone who engages in reckless conduct which poses a threat of physical harm to people is asking for trouble on anyone's property. tk: Interesting, but we are discussing things as they should be, not as they are wright , yse ic, what are roads not rpoerty of *someone*? (At least in terms of the law) tktad: Some neighborhoods with that kind of problem have put in barricades, speed bumps, etc. tk: I don't follow you Betsy yes i think that is what they are looking into mba: I mean calling the cops if someone is acting recklessly. who owes the road? is the *road* a special use of a piece of property , or different thing in kind ? mba: Such a matter would have to go through the police and courts betsy - the underlying epistemologic and ethical issues are related to rreasons for control/exclusion, and should be the least intrusive means on other's rights to travel to accomplish the legitimate purpose mba: that's easily said, but what does it mean in practice? legit purpose realting in turn to private property rightsd tktad: In some communities local roads are owned by the property owners (the part of the street in front of their land) or by a non-profit assn of local property owners. tomM - your question is very broad - can you help me narrow ther scope of your question. I'm a lawyer - and deal with private propertty rioghts and constitutional principles daily Betsy i mean who Should own the roads mba: we all know it would be an application of property rights. the question is: How are they to be applied? tktad: Originally the roads are owned by the property developer who bvuilds them and it is his option as to who owned them after that (individuals, associations, etc.) and what is a *good* legal def of *road*, a type of proerty or a use of property ? Tom: Right. This entire discussion is about application. I'm assuming Objectivist principles wright: sure...that is what we are here to resolve. tomM - the basic premise is exclusive possession of private property - then, certain privileges, easements, etc. may be granted or may be required, according to the owner's benefits and responsibilities I'll explain further mba: I think what we are trying to establish is how the free market under individual rights protection would clear up any misunderstandings. mba: There can be restrictions or exceptions to provate ownership of land. I own the lot my house is on EXCEPT for the mineral rights and an easement for the utility companies and public passage on my sidewalk. tomM - I'm on the same subject with you - can we recognize there is an interface where public commerce and the proper application of right to freely travel requires "public" roads ? mba: No, I don't think so, unless you elaborate on what you mean by "public." betsy - and you recognize the benefit to you of utilities in exchange for the utility easement...likewise your sidewalk allows you to use sidewalk in front of other parcels...agree ? Betsy the contract you entered , in purchasing the propwerty in question , was entered into voluntarily , yes ? mba: That is a part of the agreement between the property owners which the land developer set up and which is part of our title deeds. I don't think Betsy was complaining. tktad: Totally voluntarily. tomM - let me offer an example: if all roads are private, the owner is responsible for the maintenance of the road. Should he be forced to provide an uncompensated benefit to public at large ? Or is it proper to establish an entity to make I did not mean to insinuate that you 'complaining" "public" roads fdor public use at large ? just that i do not know if it constitutes a restriction of rights mba: No, all roads would be private...some voluntary arrangement between the owner and everyone else desiring to use the road would have to be established. mba: by the owner and them. betsy - of course. but philosophically, lassiez faire idea: you exchange easement for utilities in return for utility services mba: That is up to the person who owns the land. If he wants people to use it (let's say as a part of a housing development) he sets up a way for the public to use it. If he wants to keep it all to himself, he doesn't. mba: Right. TomM - I anticipate we would spend our livers negotiating individual passage rights just to get from neighborhood to store or school... mba: You are making a good devil's advocate...please continue...why do you think that would be a problem. And believe me, you don't want to spend your liver. :) ? TomM - who would establish this voluntary set do/don't if not each individual have to do it for his/her self ? Anyone care to answer these objections? mba: that's a good question. the answer is that some persons would voluntarily pay for the upkeep knowing that some persons would use it without a fee attachment. Why would we be forced to do that, Jaden? Tom: And why would it be in their interest to do that? It would be very much like it is on private developments which the owners open to the public. Who maintains the roads in Disneyland or Rockefeller Center? tomM - a more basic question - who decides exactly where to put the road... Wright: For example, if the businesses along the road path built the road, they would get better customer base. There would be a minor charge added to the product to cover road upkeep. Tom that would just be part of the capital costs not an added charge, no ? betsy - don't overlook that disney invites travel for a specific purpose. You are only there to do business with disney, so disney provides you access. Interstate commerce is not (and should not be) so limited Jaden: Why would the owner of the road make passage more costly than most could afford? He wouldn'take much money that way To continue: those merely traveling through would not pay anything, but that is the same priciple of billboards (another means of paying for road upkeep, by the way). tk: it would come with purchasing in that territory. mba: Long distance roads would be toll roads and/or supported by advertising (billboards). tomM - thaty "minor charge" is otherwise known as fuel taxes... Tom i just meant in the sense thata store doesn't add on charges , because they have indoor plumbing By the way, there is a toll road through central Dallas, and it makes loads of money, even though there are plenty of "public" roads for people to travel across. tk: yes they do...you just don't see it on the bill directly. Current toll roads also offer exclusive business areas to gas station owners, who would be charged some level of rent/percentage of sales wright - but he sure would hafve a quiet neighborhood if that's what he wanted... tk: in a similar manner, you pay for the indoor lighting and the other fixtures as well. Tom they do not actually calculate how much plumbing charges per product , the price of the product is determined by other means tktad - but they do reflect their overhead in the price they charge for thier goods. Overhead includes lights, comfort facilities...everything. tk: it is all inclusive, or the business will not survive. semantics then , perhaps In other words, a road *to* a business would be paid for in the same manner you pay for all the rest of the goodies offered. Jaden: all kinds at some point, anyway Different types of road would require different forms of ownership wright - now you're honing in... Existing govt-owned roads should be auctioned off to the highest bidder. ? The gas stations on the road would ad a percentage to the price of gasoline to be able to pay the road owners for the use of their raod sides. look at the rational nexus between the ownership asserted and the type of facility related to it Mba: Oh, of course Jaden: of course We are talking in gerneral here, we don't need to go into every if, and or but concerning raod payments. Okay, Tom's been discussing long interstate highways tom - but you should glean a conceptual understanding of why have roads at all perhaps we should stick to that for the moment To put it another way, the road use fee for store/gas services would be less than current sales taxes. Wright: or any road system at all, not just long ones. on interstaes who or what would own the land on which the road exists, in a rational free society ? tk: The road owners, most likely, or land developers. tktad - it is a proper purpose of government to provide means of interstate and intrastate commerce Jaden: right. That's the way any toll road I've ever driven is set up Jaden: for heavy equipment, there could be scales to charge higher prices for those damaging loads. Tom each propery owner along the whole expanse of the road(interstate)? mba: No way...that is not the right way to think about it. tk: There could be fixed weigh stations as there are now. mba why is it proper purpose of Govt ? Tom: Tell us the right way, then I've been doing that... tomM - let me address efficiency as part of a rational economic system. Some means, like telephone communication, is NOT for govt. But preemption of linear maintained lands for commerce is efficient... Tom: :) mba: Nope...that is a clause used to infiltrate our rights all along...and Objectivism rejects it entirely. mba4: Your arguments sound pretty utilitarian to me ... Long-distance road systems would be like any other utility covering long-distance like phone companies. A few major providers and some local ones as well. Of course, this is not so much of a question with the major routes already in place If the businesses along the road path do not maintain the roads, people will find other roads or move out. "Efficiency" isn't the fundamental consideration when defining the purpose of government. The government exists solely to protect the rights of the individuals. Jaden: they don't all benefit, only those who use it. tom - it is only proper IF laissez faire system and owners value in better transportation is recognized. I do not go as far as utilitarian argument. Limit is firmly at the objectivist boundary. Jaden: there would be no road tax in this system. subetai - and we should enjoy a right to free commerce - and commerce requires some facitlites - more than a town-center market - to exist mba: what makes you think the government can maintain efficient roads? Look how long it tkes them to fix them or build new ones compared to how long it takes to put up a skyscraper. mba: there is no free lunch...and no free road access. a right to free commerce . please explain re mba4: It doesn't matter what it requires for it to exist. Either the people create what it needs to exist, or it doesn't exist. The government has no role there. Jaden: That sort of question is what makes it a classic "public good" problem... we were discussion possible alternatives to government tom - CURRENT government is incompetent. The IDEA that a public entity should have responsibility to maintain public facility is the concept I'm suggesting. (in roads) mba: And I am rejecting that conception. Jaden: We went over quite a few ideas for that a bit earlier Jaden only if he purchases it subetai - we may have a word/meaning misfire...the "government" IS the people, the way I meant it "public facility" = "public property". That's what exists now jaden: yes, I do...and i pay taxes for those services...which would be cheaper if determined by the owners of the road ways. Why would the government be more efficient when it's the travelers and business owners whose interest is being served by the road - not the government's interest... the incompetent govt entities that now exist , came from the intra, interstate clauses tk: those are details...thee are many ways around those specific issues. mba4: No, the government is one specific institution created by the people for the purpose of protecting individual rights, and that's all. mba: I'm all for public entities as long as they are _voluntary_ public entities. dagny - those travelers and businesses should participate in a well managed system for the facility - NOT a disconnected bureacracy The government is not the people. I was trying to answer mba's comment on the proper role of govt re commerce Okay, the larger question of whether it is *right* for the gov't to be involved in road building wasn't going to be in the discussion, but since our hour is up, we may as well pursue it Betsy: which means some people pay fo the services and don't mind others benefiting without paying (at least directly). But if everyone is acting (rationally) in their own best interest, it wouldn't be disconnected. Who was it that said if it was the government's job to provide us with shoes, we'd all be barefoot? TomM: RObert E. Lee? :) Since the road question has dominated tonight's discussion, we can take up other common "public goods" questions at another time. Thanks to everyone for stopping by tonight phil: Oh, thanks...smart guy ;) Dagny but it would if the disposition over the roads was vested in a govt entity TomM: There is a certain mentality that thinks that if something isn't done by the govt (by force) it won't get done. I meant Lee was a smart guy, not that you were a smart alec ;) The argument from "efficiency" doesn't apply. Even if it would be more efficient for the government to run the roads (which it wouldn't) they still have no business running them. Government has just one purpose: protection of rights. Wright , thank you wright - if a facility should exist - I am not troubled by having a maintenance organization to keep the facility available. I suppose private entities all over the place could do it Thanks Wright. Betsy: obviously ;) Thanks, Wright. mba: so long as it is in their rational self-interest, it will be maintained. "Efficiency" etc. are not how one judges the proper functions of government <> BladeRun- -> billmc Thanks Tom. Question: Why is the internet so handy? Answer: Because the government is not providing services. Tom didn't the govt create it ? or at least sponsor its creation ? mba: and that as well as phone services are analogous to how long-distance roads would be maintained. tomM - but commerce is so broad, how do you have free and open commerce and define self-interest in a particular stretch of road simultaneously ? Wright: yeah, good topic. Jaden: I refer you to Objectivism: THe Philosophy of Ayn Rand, and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal for Objectivist essays on that mba: How do you have "free and open' internet access in a particular stretch of internet "space"? mba4: "Free and open commerce" doesn't require that someone hand you the tools needed, like roads or phone lines. All it means is that no one point a gun at your head and say "You can't trade with him" or "I'll take a cut from your profi mba: It is the "free and open access" premise you need to chack. tom - here's another and different answer - fix the government: i.e. refocus govt on what it is supposed to do, and delete all the socialistic and other improper invasions into privacy and private property. I still think a public road, like army is within proper scope oops...check. mba: Nope...only the gov can maintain an army. subetai - no dissent there, but to accomplish the trade I want to make, it is more likely to occur if I can transport goods, go to meetings, etc. mba4: An army is for protecting people against the initiation of force, i.e., the defense of rights. A road doesn't serve that function. army 's scope is in the protection of rights from the use of force either by foreign or domestic enemies , how does that relate to uses of property ? mba4: If it's unlikely to occur (in your opinion, which I disagree with) then so be it. The Cato Institute has a phenomenal article on how to privatize roads. Tolls can be charged so easily in the modern age, free market price structures can exist on highways. If a highway "monopolist" charges too much, commerce in that area will die, depriving him of profit. Jaffo: of course, there are many ways the road owner can be paid for his services. Yes, go to http://www.cato.org/ Use their search engine to find roads private or whatever. I don't have the exact URL. Jaffo: likewise if he charged too little and therefore had bad roads. mba4: In other words, you're saying that rational people can't agree among themselves to work in ways to maximize their own profits. That the intervention of a "public entity" that backs up its word with guns is needed against rational p And, to be blunt about it, a competeitor could build a road around, beside above or BELOW him! People are already discussing the possibilities for "stacking" highways on top of each other. subetai - I don't think commerce has to be conducted at the raw material level - meaning, I don't think I need to build my own roads in order to sell my goods. All participants in commerce are benefitted by a good transportation facility Jaffo: that would depend on the rights structure. he may own the below and above rights of way as well. I was like most people. I didn't think roads could be private. But the technology exists for instant, painless paying of tolls on any stretch of highway. mba4: Sure. So someone will build that transportation facility since it's such a good idea. mba4 you need not build a factory to build the trucks you would use mba4 - I don't have to build my own computer to do wordprocessing - but it's immoral for me, REAGARDLESS of any utilitarian arguments, to steal from others to pay for that computer. mba4: It'll be handled like all such good ideas - privately. mba4 - or to have a government steal it for me. subetai - I am saying nothing of the kind ! I am advancing the theory that it is efficient to agree that a public facility can be operated by government for the specif purpose that creates the road in the first place The government's job is to protect rights. If it oversteps that, it's stealing from someone, as baz says. In free markets, companies emerge to produce goods and services that the market wants. mba: Everyone needs food, so why not make that part of the government fascility as well? This includes roads. mba4: That's utititarianism, not Objectivism Commerce will "route around" poorly maintained or expensive roads and those areas will suffer until the abuser goes out of business or is bought out. mba4: I said quite a while ago that efficiency has nothing to do with it. this discussion causes me wonder what type of "thing" is a *road*, is it the surface used for travel or the just a piece of property thta is connected to other similar pieces ? jaden: no, the price would be determined by market forces. To take the middle ground here. How large a governmental unit are you talking about? The government's proper purpose is the defense of individual rights -- protecting against muggers, against fraud, and foreign invaders -- and adjudication, peacefully, of contractual disputes. That's _it_ and I wonder that a government can EVER be more efficient than private enterprise tktad - a right-of-way maintained in such a way so that vehicles can travel swiftly and safely over it. okay, my phone line is needed for an actual phone call I don't care how efficiently a burgler steals from me. If he steals, that's wrong. see you all a bit later Jaden: you might actually pay less for heavily traveled raods, since the cost would be spread out. later Tom If my neighborhood wants to make roads and charge me for them, I would be happy to pay the cost as part of my "bill" for living in that neighborhood. I am somehow not communicating my thoughts to you clearly - I am not advocating utilitasrianism. If the neighborhood tried to charge me too much, I would find another one. And so would many others. baz a right-of-way owned by whom ? mba4: But you are. That's your argument. tktad - the owner of the road, who purchased rights-of-way from the landowners the road goes over. Jaden who owns that road? mba: On the contrary, you are quite clear...what you don't want to accept is that we are *rejecting8 your ideas. mba4: You're saying that government should exceed its proper role (defense of rights) for a utilitarian purpose. bazyar , ok i misunderstood If a private agency owned your road, would you be willing to pay to travel on it? subetai - let me try one more time...private property originates with a recognition from some sovereign - some governmental form - that you have an exclusive right to possess your property. mba: nope, private property comes from the fact that individuals must work to create goods. In the worst case, I'm saying if a monopolist raised the price of that road above what you are willing to pay, you only have to pay that toll one more time, as you take your stuff to another community. are any of you guys old enough to remember that the government justified the construction of the interstate highway by saying that they were important to the national defense? all of the property owners are secure in thier property - equal protection, etc. mba no a govt exists to enforce those inherent rights , the rights are granted by govt Billmc, that's an excellent point. I didn't know that. The fact that Objectivism restricts the role of government to the defense of rights is not arbitrary. are not granted , big oops billmc - sure, every time I drive I-70 through Kansas you can't help but see all the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System signs mba4: No, it originates from the nature of man. Not from the government "recognizing" or "granting" that. all the property owners are free to choose to engage ( or not engage) in interstate and intrastate (and individual) commerce bill - but that's no longer the case, most interstate funds are spent on building bypasses for suburbanites mba: How much Objectivism have you read? tom - yes. but I'm trying to get to roadways - you didn't create the land it will cross... mba4: Free to engage does not mean "free to use tools/services that someone built" for that purpose. Didn't I read something in The Unknown Ideal about the privately built railroad lines? bazyar i don't believe it ever really was the case. mba: But the roads would *all8 beprivately owned...there would be no recognition of governmentally funded anything. Has anybody considered what our highway system would look like if we didn't fund it with government money? Jaffo - good point, there is *zero* difference between automobile roads and railroad lines. Jaffo - it would look a hundred times better. Yes, Jaffo. Less potholes. :) Even if we went private tomorrow, we would simply have to BUY the roads from the government. subetai - if you and I built a road between us, and we freely agreed that each of us could use the road to travel to the other - we're on firm ground so far, yes ? mba4: yes. Government would get full market value for the roads they create, minus depreciation, of course... in colonial America were not the toll roads owned by private companies ? Jaffo: What's that, about -45%? ;) We already paid for those roads, the gov't should auction them off to the highest bidder Tom, sounds like a fair price to me. Anyhow, I need to be going...see you later. subetai - at the concveptual level - govt by the people for the people - IF properly positioned - allows "all of us" to agree to build a road and use it to travel between us. but ONLY if we specifically agree. mba4 - paid for by whom? mba4: Government is a legally mandated monopoly on the use of retaliatory force. That's it's sole purpose of existence. mba4: That's worse than utilitarianism, that's communism Easy, we take over the government and kick them out. mba4 - see, your same argument can be used to justify the rights-violating system we have now. Peacefully at the ballot box, of course. subetai - this means the road is rationally necessary, and capital expended for as raod actually is spent on the road. Current govt does not do this...but in theory, I think it is ok for govt to take a role in public facilitues on that basi Jaden, all discussion of Libertarian policy assumes a partial or complete takeover of the current system. Done the way all civillized revolutions happen, through voting. phil - communism eliminates the critical element of agreement Jaden, I have absolutely no idea. mba4: I think you should go read some of Rand's essays again, and perhaps return when you understand them. There are some fundamental points about the nature and purpose of government that you don't understand. The discussion on roads is Personally, I think we'll have our best chance at changing government when the first Social Security checks bounce. <> Jaffo grin. Jaden, the roads would be sold bit by bit as private investors decide to buy them. mba4 - so does "democracy". There will never be a society in which all people agree on everything. If even one person dissents from paying taxes for your roads, what happens to him? bazyar - no I don't see that. A road has a rational nexus to commerce. The other violations referenced are just violations - not related to rational conduct - just force for force's sake. mba4: The more fundamental argument here is the nature of government. We can't discuss roads until we settle the other first. Our Canad Pension Plan premiums are going up an enormous amount over the next few years. Self-employed people (who will have to pay the increases both employer/employee sides) are writing to the papers all the time. mba4 - subsidies have a "rational nexus to commerce" too. subetai - I agree with that statement. Welfare has a "rational nexus to commerce" too. Jaffo that will happen when the current work force stops producing , the idea that an actual fund that monies are drawn from is falicious baz no they do not !!! Jaden, ah ha! Now you speak of transitional measures. A very good question. Your argument is this: "Roads are very useful to commerce, therefore if we all vote to tax everyone to pay for roads that some will use, that's okay" mba4: So read some of Rand's essays on the nature of government. If you disagree, come back with specifics of what exactly you disagree with and why. Tad, you're right, of course. I was being flippant. k if you design a system of many different local road co/providers - how is that different from many little layers of buracracy ? mba4 - it's different because there is no initiation of force. baz - no that is not my position. Before we start selling roads, we have to prove in small pilot projects that roads CAN make a profit. mba4 did we ever *design8 egg productin ? Once a large number of investors see the roads making a profit, they'll WANT to buy them. The first step would be to privatize them with government resources. Have the government charge tolls and collect the money. But keep the roads open for sale during the entire process. Once the government starts making money, other interests will jump in to get a piece of the action. A smart government will sell the roads and get out of the road business ASAP. subetai - I have read the essays - and I am having some trouble here advancing her specific comments on un-creating levels of useless controls Jaffo why would the govt , as it currently exists, give up profitable resourses ? Roads aren't profitable to the government. mba: govt roads can only exist with use of force. Your private system would only function if it were profitable. Tad, because their customers, the voters, ME, would tell them to sell. mba4: You're focussing on the pragmatic - focus a bit more on the moral issue involved first. Tad, the real answer is that government could gain temporary capital from the SALE of the roads, and would realize the inefficiency of large scale resource management. subetai - let me rethink this mba4: That's what I said. But the real answer is that the voters would not consider this a legitimate function of government and force them to sell. mba: Do you feel that roads are important and that they would not be built if it were not for government? No matter how helpful and wonderful you think the results of something might be, if it's immoral, it mustn't be done. ah the voters learn by induction :) bluegreen no. I don't think that way at all. subetai: amen mba: Do you feel tat Government is the most efficient way to build roads? tat = that Glenn, which is precisely why we must demonstrate the profitability of the roads before we sell them. BlueGreen: let's not discuss that right now - we just agreed that it doesn't matter to the question of should government be involved in building roads. roads are important. an organization large enought to provide interstate roads already exists, IF it can be limited to that. mba4 from a *practical * standpoint , how does the govt build the roads, don't they contract private companines for construction ? and why involve the middle man (govt) so economy is lost But that large organization doesn't build roads. That large organization sub-contracts with thousands of little construction companies and THEY build the roads. but as Subetai has pointed out the efficiency argument is no the correct route to find the answer bluegren - I think it is AN (not "the") efficient way to accomplish it. Subetai implies I support imminent domain and all the other crap that comes with current govt. and I can't separate in quick lines here what is and is not proper govt f Jaden, the first step to privatization is to prove that private companies can make a profit managing and building roads. Until you do that, you're stuck with government solutions. mba4: No, I never assumed any of that. All I assumed was that you're in favor of government building and owning roads in any fashion whatsoever, and I'm opposed to that. Jaden, the technology to collect the tolls is actually new, because nobody's needed it yet! With the government paying for all the roads, toll collection technology has been neglected. With the new advances in paying for tolls, a pilot program could start TOMORROW. And of course, most people think governments have to build roads and give them away. But this conventional wisdom will be challenged soon. Jaden, right, but companies won't see a profit until somebody tries a new toll system and proves that it can be done. mba: The only role of government is protection of individual rights.Roads do not fall into the field of rights except if I have to be forced to build a road I do not want to. Then my rights have been violated and I know that is wrong subetai - definitely not "in any fashion whatsoever". Only if the providing the public facility is in keeping with and in boundaries of laissez faire described system You would be amazed at the number of toll roads we have right now. We'll get a lot more as toll collection becomes more efficient. Jaden, smart business people did build roads a long time ago. That's because the government doesn't maintain a monopoly on those services, Jaden. bluegreen I agree with your statement. Govt today is not moral govt I think building private roads is actually ILLEGAL right now. mba4: "Any fashion whatsoever" means with whatever qualification you can think of to make it more palatable. I'm saying that government shouldn't be building roadsto facilitate commerce, period. Jaden, Dallas Texas. Just moved from Lubbock, Texas. Business people also built canals, railroads, waterways, subways, airlines, and other means of transportation. Pennsylvania Turnpike was built by private company that collected tolls , it was one of if not the first in the clonies +o When we all have out own personal spaceships, we won't need roads, anyway. Jaffo: It the Dallas Tollway still in existence. Was it private at one time, or is it still? Glenn, I really do not know. I just learned of this privatization idea last week myself. torrance: good point and we might already have them if the government had not built all these roads! subetai - I guess as a lawyer I am seeing far too many problems with the myriad of other defined property rights to contemplate how a private entity can acquire and maintain a road. I have had the Tour of Bitter Experience with power compan transmission lines...it's a nightmare. Jaden, and would these people in secluded areas be willing to pay for roads? HINT: They already are. mba4: If they can't, they won't have roads. Jaden - and, do you really want a 5-lane superhighway to your secluded house? :) Jaden - which means that someone else is being forced to pay for their secluded house. Jaden, the answer is, the road would have to be paid for before you move out there. Good night, everybody! Jaden , no through fed dollars we all get to help :) The company building the house would have to build a road and figure that into the cost of your house. Or split the cost among the prices of all the houses in the development. mba: Who's money should the Government use to build these roads? In a fully privatized system, I think you would see groups of homes being built at the ends of roads built by the same guy who built the houses. You pay for the road as you pay for your home. Jaffo - and you join a homeowner association which collects fees to maintain the road And people who want to live all by themselves can carve out dirt paths if they want! Bazy, exactly. bluegreen - I don't know the answer. The govt doesn't own money - it prints it. I see govt as (should be) a trustee, and charged with fiduciary duty to the providers of the funds in the trust. That's not how it works currently... Jaffo or pay someont o pave it for them Jaden, however much the road cost! Jaden - roads don't cost much when private companies build them - gov't contracts are fat with waste. There's no reason to think that the roads could not be gradually sold off or given to private owners. After that happened the market would take over and anything could happen. Roads might eventually go out of existence because of new tech Having a road gives value to the land, so land-owners build roads to their land. The government shouldn't be a trustee for holding money. The government shouldn't be printing money. Jaden who is going t use it ? Fact of the matter is that there are far too many inponderables - actions and ractions which is why only the free market can work. Jaden - you have to understand that if you want to live 50 miles away from a city, you will incur a cost to travel to the city. Jaden, that's up to the government of that city. In a toll situation, you only pay for that road when you drive on it. subetai - if I provide funds to pay a standing army, whoever recieves those funds is obligated to me to make payroll at the army barracks. mba: the Government cannot print (create) wealth. Currently it extorts it.You are dealing with MY money with your plan. Jaden - what if you wanted to live on Mars, are others beholden to provide your transportation for you? :) If you want to live on the west coast of the south island of New Zealand, you'd better make your own transportation ;) mba4: "Make payroll" does not include printing money. It takes money from whoever voluntarily contributes to it, spends it just like anyone else. bluegreen - no no no...my premise was my choice to contribute to a fund to construct a road. Not extort it from you. If you want to use the road, you pay in to the cost of providing it too. Otherwise, find another way... And let's be honest, dirt roads are pretty damn cheap. mba4: Why should that fund be government run instead of privately run? What's it that makes the government better, other than it can enforce what it wants at the point of a gun, which is immoral anyway? mba: who's property will the Government road be built on? A lot of modern "urban" problems have their root in the government's subsidy of highways to the suburbs The government built all these wonderful "free" roads, and now people want to live 50 miles away from the city and act as if it took nothing for that to occur. Jaden, if I was going to live 50 miles outside a city with no access but a dirt road, I would buy a bloody Monster Truck! subetai - you missed my point. We have agreed that a legit purpose of govt is to maintain an army - for the reasons we've agreed - protect rights from force. I pay money into a fund to pay the soldiers in the army and provide army equipment So, you have all the pollution from the cars on these roads, you have the congestion, etc And I would make sure I have enough food to make it through blockages in the winter... mba4: Try to limit what you say to 256 characters. It's getting truncated. These, and the cost of building and maintaining the roads, are all real costs - but the government makes them "free" - and as we know, people will consume an unlimited quantity of anything "free" duty of the recipient of army funds is to spend it on the army, and nothing else. Trustee's fiducuairy duty definition. And the duty is owed to me because it's my money I paid in to have benefir ofg an army. This is off topic, but I've always wondered about private militaries. Couldn't a group of merceneries buy military equipment and hire themselves out to governments? jaffo - they often do. mba4: But that has nothing to do with what you said before about the government printing money. Also, you're putting running an army and building roads in the same category, united by "trusteeship" while they're two fundamentally differe mba4: actions, one moral and the other not. Jaden, I'm not like totally committed to this concept, I'm just throwing this out. Jaden: Yes. Government funding of free housing that created high crime in the cities. jaffo - don't apply for any mercenary jobs...or police officer, or prosecutor in criminal justice system... Jaden, they wouldn't "be provided with" jack shit. They would buy it from whoever wanted to sell it. subetai - I was suggesting that providing an army seems similar to providing a good road network. mba4: We need to end this line of argument. Read Rand's essays on the nature and purpose of government. If you disagree with her on those, come back and say why. mba4: And I'm saying it doesn't matter how similar they may be in a dozen ways, because they're different where it counts: one is a proper function of government, the other's not. subetai - ok. I haven't found myself disagreeing with the essays - but I'll go have a self-check and get back to you. okay Jaffo , what is to stp the mercenary force from accepting a higher bid from an enemy and turning their guns on those that they are protecting? Tad, not a damn thing. That's the point. The merceneries you hire one week may turn their guns on you next week. Fascinating concept... I thought you wee wondering about it it's always refreshing to have a rational discussion. Thanks, everybody. Tad - reputation any mercenary squad that did that would not be able to get another job A national defense force should be tightly controlled by the government, and directly accountable to the voters Lurch wha t if they organized for only the one *job*? mba:Your argument would logically hold true for justification of the goverment looking after Medical, Mail,Garbage...basically everything it is doing now. thanks for interesting debate - I'll get back to you. g' night Especially since a standing army is justified these days - funding a standing mercenary organization is asking for trouble. If you had an ethical merc force that obeyed contracts, you could pay them NOT to kill you! Tad - they woulnd't have been hired int he first place.. somewhere along the line, somebody's reputation is on the line Jaffo - who's going to enforce that contract? baz, you bloodly well got me there. Seriously, if a company doesn't obey contracts and act honorably, they won't get hired. Lurch are you saying hiring a merc force could be a moral way to provide nat def ? That's why "competing governments" and such can't work - you have to have a single authoritative force at the top, or you will degenerate into anarchy at the first disagreement. Tad - not at all This is a silly debate, I think. People don't kill and die for money nearly as often as they die for ideology. Without a driving ideology to defend, I doubt you could recruit enough people. Jaffo - mercs DO exist, though or because of someone's ideology However, I can't figure out a non-government method for building an anti=missle defense. Now, if we define mercenary as a "paid temporary soldier", then that's okay Phil: I do :) That was the essence of the revolutionary army baz - that's militia Mercenary is a member of a paid temporary hired Private army I suppose a "mercenary" is a professional hired soldier? Actually, I'm overlooking the billions of armed citizens individually protecting their lives and property. Jaffo - ever see "Red Dawn"? :) that's probably more concise than my description baz, they were motivated by strong family ties and ideology. bazyar re accountable t voters( a nat def) isn't it tht the military is accountable by the laws of the land ? by=to