Dictatorships

Originally posted by DigiMark007
You're ignoring the possibility that independent contractors could put up roads for a profit, at a lesser cost to the public (since it currently comes out of taxes) because there would be competing companies. Many already do, and are simply subsidized by the government. But take away the beurocratic middle-man and you'd have a more efficient system.

Unless they form a monopoly (that is the best option for them economically) which cannot be stopped by anything short of a government.

It would take time but without at least some sort of limited regulation the economy would factionalize into nothing but massive monopolies, which robs capitalism of it's very existence.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
You're ignoring the possibility that independent contractors could put up roads for a profit, at a lesser cost to the public (since it currently comes out of taxes) because there would be competing companies. Many already do, and are simply subsidized by the government. But take away the beurocratic middle-man and you'd have a more efficient system.

The same (or similar) could be said for any government-run institution.

It's natural for you to think this way, or for you to see no alternative, because it's the world we've been brought up in. And to most, it seems to work fine. I'm not saying it's horrible, just that it would be better both economically and individually in a free market.

If not controlled by the government however what would stop them from increasing prices? Hugely without limit if they want to? A system without government control requires fair company's and people and people just aren't fair. Company's aren't fair, they want more money and more profit for themselves. And without government control that becomes a hell of a lot easier.

Originally posted by Fishy
If not controlled by the government however what would stop them from increasing prices? Hugely without limit if they want to? A system without government control requires fair company's and people and people just aren't fair. Company's aren't fair, they want more money and more profit for themselves. And without government control that becomes a hell of a lot easier.

I am not saying it is bad that the government makes roads, it's just not the only option...as people would like us to believe.

I aplogize if I misunderstoos some of your beleifs and concepts earilier Digi, it seems that all of the Libertarians that I have had expericence with tout complete governmental non-intervention as the ultimate goal. Which I feel could not work over any span of time.

But economically, I still do believe that a (ideal) nationalized government is better efficiently and economically than an (ideal) series of privatized sectors. Now I realize that the actual concept of idealism means that the argument seems to be irrelevant, but what the hell.
But with all citizens pooling all of their resources for something that is not, ultimatly competing with the goal of profit, would be more effected. This is simply because wealth and economic health is not spread evenly throught a country, this way a government can, and should take its pooled resources and utilize them in such a way to create a more equal nation, in terms of public issues, roads, schools, power grids and what not.
With a privatized nation, I would make the logical assumption that while all the benifits of competition, (more inspired production, and cutting costs, etc.) would be benificial, they would only benificial to the areas where it is easier to turn a profit. Therefore the wealtheir and more economical sections of a nation would be better developed and continue to be so indefinitly while the less stable and poorer areas would have a hard time developing at all because it would be much more dificult for the privatized companies to turn a profit in those areas.

But if you are socially conservative this is not any sort of moral or governmental problem becuase then you accept the fact that there s going to be class divides simply becuase you allow people the freedom to choose what they want, and governmental social intervention is in essence a bad thing, and something you would want to minimize. So it would be up to the people in the poorer areas to increase their revenue in order to be able to hire the companies working in other areas. But this would get exponentially harder as, to paraphrase pretty much any left leaning politicial "The rich get richer as the poor get poorer."

Originally posted by Bardock42
They provide a service that is worth a lot. You know you already pay an immense shitload for streets? A free market could create better and cheaper streets. As well as competition.

I am not saying it is bad that the government makes roads, it's just not the only option...as people would like us to believe.

Yes we are paying a shit load of money, perhaps to much. The thing is the Government however can't just throw up prices as they wish. People would be upset and they would lose votes and next governments could turn it around. A company not controlled by anything, could easily make those roads more expensive. And how about remote roads that lead just a few people to their houses, what if those people can't afford to build a road, what company would set out and do it without the government forcing them to do so?

A free market economy is a utopia, a world without government control would be perfect at least if the company's use their power right and that is what makes everything impossible. Company's are created and run by humans, who always have greed in their hearts. Very few company's would be fair if given the power a completely free market would give them.

A monopoly position could be easily established. Perhaps not by controlling all roads or freeways. But just the roads leading to one town. Or the road leading to a house. There is a limited amount of space available for things like roads and there comes a time when no more roads can be build and you have to rely on the one's you have. If the one's you have are controlled by one company then you can be seriously ****ed.

Now I would like to see a world where the government wouldn't this kind of power over us, but let's face it's the only system that can work on a large scale.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Unless they form a monopoly (that is the best option for them economically) which cannot be stopped by anything short of a government.

It would take time but without at least some sort of limited regulation the economy would factionalize into nothing but massive monopolies, which robs capitalism of it's very existence.

I already mentioned anti-trust laws as a way of protection against monopolies, a necessary action in a free market.

Originally posted by Fishy
If not controlled by the government however what would stop them from increasing prices? Hugely without limit if they want to? A system without government control requires fair company's and people and people just aren't fair. Company's aren't fair, they want more money and more profit for themselves. And without government control that becomes a hell of a lot easier.

Competition would drive the prices down and make them affordable, as with anything that exists in a competitive market.

Originally posted by Tptmanno1
I aplogize if I misunderstoos some of your beleifs and concepts earilier Digi, it seems that all of the Libertarians that I have had expericence with tout complete governmental non-intervention as the ultimate goal. Which I feel could not work over any span of time.

But economically, I still do believe that a (ideal) nationalized government is better efficiently and economically than an (ideal) series of privatized sectors. Now I realize that the actual concept of idealism means that the argument seems to be irrelevant, but what the hell.
But with all citizens pooling all of their resources for something that is not, ultimatly competing with the goal of profit, would be more effected. This is simply because wealth and economic health is not spread evenly throught a country, this way a government can, and should take its pooled resources and utilize them in such a way to create a more equal nation, in terms of public issues, roads, schools, power grids and what not.
With a privatized nation, I would make the logical assumption that while all the benifits of competition, (more inspired production, and cutting costs, etc.) would be benificial, they would only benificial to the areas where it is easier to turn a profit. Therefore the wealtheir and more economical sections of a nation would be better developed and continue to be so indefinitly while the less stable and poorer areas would have a hard time developing at all because it would be much more dificult for the privatized companies to turn a profit in those areas.

But if you are socially conservative this is not any sort of moral or governmental problem becuase then you accept the fact that there s going to be class divides simply becuase you allow people the freedom to choose what they want, and governmental social intervention is in essence a bad thing, and something you would want to minimize. So it would be up to the people in the poorer areas to increase their revenue in order to be able to hire the companies working in other areas. But this would get exponentially harder as, to paraphrase pretty much any left leaning politicial "The rich get richer as the poor get poorer."

A common misconception is that the presence of rich people means there's vastly less wealth for the rest of us. Far from it, so long as the wealth is coming from and contributing to a competitive market.

But I can see where you're coming from. And no one short of an anarchist actually advocates no government intervention. But less is more, from my experience and research.

Well, it seems though, that in practice, the rich "trickle-down" economy really has not historically worked, at least in recent American times.

And my philosophy, and experience leads me to believe the opposite. But to each his own, and thats probably why I get along quite well with most of the ideas from people like Kant, and Rousseau, and a slightly lesser extent Locke and Marx.

Originally posted by Fishy
Yes we are paying a shit load of money, perhaps to much. The thing is the Government however can't just throw up prices as they wish. People would be upset and they would lose votes and next governments could turn it around. A company not controlled by anything, could easily make those roads more expensive. And how about remote roads that lead just a few people to their houses, what if those people can't afford to build a road, what company would set out and do it without the government forcing them to do so?

Why is it your duty to pay for them? And the governmetn hides the prices from the general citizen, do you know how much exactly you pay for the roads you use?

Originally posted by Fishy
A free market economy is a utopia, a world without government control would be perfect at least if the company's use their power right and that is what makes everything impossible. Company's are created and run by humans, who always have greed in their hearts. Very few company's would be fair if given the power a completely free market would give them.

A free market wouldn't be an anarchist market as most people seem to think. The government would still ensure fair trade, that contracts are upheld and that fraud is illegal.

Originally posted by Fishy
A monopoly position could be easily established. Perhaps not by controlling all roads or freeways. But just the roads leading to one town. Or the road leading to a house. There is a limited amount of space available for things like roads and there comes a time when no more roads can be build and you have to rely on the one's you have. If the one's you have are controlled by one company then you can be seriously ****ed.

A free market would deal with it. Probably much cheaper than a government. Though, now that we do have roads I would say the government can take care of those, though a more efficient way needs to be found. I am just saying it is unfair and untrue to say that roads can only come about at a reasonable price through governments.

Originally posted by Fishy
Now I would like to see a world where the government wouldn't this kind of power over us, but let's face it's the only system that can work on a large scale.

Nah, it certainly, very, very certainly isn't. It isn't even a particularly good system..especially when it is so big.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Why is it your duty to pay for them? And the governmetn hides the prices from the general citizen, do you know how much exactly you pay for the roads you use?

For the roads exactly? No. I do know how that I pay four times more for my car and everything that comes with it then the government invests in things related to cars. Not a real good argument for the government but still.

And why should I pay for them, because I use them. And if I don't people who keep this country working might, and if they don't the police fire departments and ambulances might. Now unless public services get a list of people who they can help and who they can't then things that public services should just be paid for with public money.

A free market wouldn't be an anarchist market as most people seem to think. The government would still ensure fair trade, that contracts are upheld and that fraud is illegal.

Take that road for example, not take a town with enough room for only one road leading towards it. What would the government do then? If the government forces prices to be lower then a certain amount then you would get towns that have no roads or bad roads because it's not worth it for company's to build those roads. Not to mention a lot of bureaucratic controlling from the government.

A free market would deal with it. Probably much cheaper than a government. Though, now that we do have roads I would say the government can take care of those, though a more efficient way needs to be found. I am just saying it is unfair and untrue to say that roads can only come about at a reasonable price through governments.

Well they might come at a reasonable price, I'm just saying I don't trust company's to make sure they always come at a reasonable price and I don't trust them to keep that price reasonable. I don't trust the government either but at least with the government you can sometimes do something about it.

Nah, it certainly, very, very certainly isn't. It isn't even a particularly good system..especially when it is so big.

True, but I can't think of a better one that would actually work.

Originally posted by Fishy
For the roads exactly? No. I do know how that I pay four times more for my car and everything that comes with it then the government invests in things related to cars. Not a real good argument for the government but still.

I don't even get the argument. Is it kinda like saying Pineapples are sold at a reasonable price, cause airplanes are more expensive?

Originally posted by Fishy
And why should I pay for them, because I use them. And if I don't people who keep this country working might, and if they don't the police fire departments and ambulances might. Now unless public services get a list of people who they can help and who they can't then things that public services should just be paid for with public money.

I meant for the streets you don't use. The streets just one person needs. Why is it your duty to pay for those?

Besides, not everyone uses roads. And there are certainly some that use them much more than others. Again, I support the government taking care of that, but I think it is unfair to say the free market couldn't give a better alternative from scratch. Certainly more fair, but maybe not as cheap for everyone, on average probably cheaper though.

Originally posted by Fishy
Take that road for example, not take a town with enough room for only one road leading towards it. What would the government do then? If the government forces prices to be lower then a certain amount then you would get towns that have no roads or bad roads because it's not worth it for company's to build those roads. Not to mention a lot of bureaucratic controlling from the government.

Why should the government force anything? If the town can't be supported by a free market that town will likely have to go. No one forces the people to live in that town. Roads are not a human right. And you don't really have a duty to pay for everyone's infrastructure. I believe it is beneficial for all people

Originally posted by Fishy
Well they might come at a reasonable price, I'm just saying I don't trust company's to make sure they always come at a reasonable price and I don't trust them to keep that price reasonable. I don't trust the government either but at least with the government you can sometimes do something about it.

You don't have to trust companies. They have no duty to provide anything. It comes at the price it is worth. Competition would take care of that. And I do trust the government, I trust it that it takes more than half of every buck I earn to throw it at shitty service or just burn it for the heck of it. I mean, the government is the ultimate monopoly, it has us all fooled that it is for our good and we can't see alternatives. Quite genius.

Originally posted by Fishy
True, but I can't think of a better one that would actually work.

I can.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't even get the argument. Is it kinda like saying Pineapples are sold at a reasonable price, cause airplanes are more expensive?

It's not an argument for the government at all. You just asked how much the government spends on roads and I gave the only thing I could think off related to that. Which in turn proves your point that the government is wasting money.

Which I agree with anyway, I just don't think company's will do it any better.

I meant for the streets you don't use. The streets just one person needs. Why is it your duty to pay for those?

That would depend on what you believe is right I guess, if you think everybody should be able to reach their homes and to live in their homes then you should, if not then you shouldn't. Would suck if they get sick and need an ambulance or want to leave for work, but that's their problem then I guess.

Besides, not everyone uses roads. And there are certainly some that use them much more than others. Again, I support the government taking care of that, but I think it is unfair to say the free market couldn't give a better alternative from scratch. Certainly more fair, but maybe not as cheap for everyone, on average probably cheaper though.

On average probably yes, for some people however it could bankrupt them force them to move or to quit their jobs. And if you are forced to move and can't sell your house because there are no roads leading up to it then you are probably going to lose a lot of money.

Why should the government force anything? If the town can't be supported by a free market that town will likely have to go. No one forces the people to live in that town. Roads are not a human right. And you don't really have a duty to pay for everyone's infrastructure. I believe it is beneficial for all people

It's certainly beneficial for the people living in large towns where they can pay for the roads. It's not beneficial for smaller towns or people living outside of towns. And if each neighborhood would have to pay for their own roads, or each street or each house for the piece of road in front of their house then you would have dozens of other problems. Simply put without roads a lot of the country would stop working.

You don't have to trust companies. They have no duty to provide anything. It comes at the price it is worth. Competition would take care of that.

How about a company that creates a road for a cheap price then makes a contract to make sure the prices of toll don't go up in 10 years time beyond a reasonable amount and then after that 10 years charges you € 500,- to travel that road each day.

Very few could afford it, the government couldn't do shit because it's legal and a new road can't be build because the town is surrounded by mountains/rivers/something else that can't be overcome easily. Not to mention building a new road takes time, that town would be effectively cut of from the planet.

And I do trust the government, I trust it that it takes more than half of every buck I earn to throw it at shitty service or just burn it for the heck of it. I mean, the government is the ultimate monopoly, it has us all fooled that it is for our good and we can't see alternatives. Quite genius.

Although it does a lot of things wrong, I would ultimately rather see a government in a form as we have it here then a government as proposed by you. Although somewhere in the middle would be better.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I'd have a decent dictator (imo) over a socialist democracy any day.

On this, we agree.

Has there ever been a "decent dictator?"

I can only think of one, Augustus Caesar, simply because his rule was known as a time of Roman-peace.

Originally posted by Robtard
Has there ever been a "decent dictator?"

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah.

I edited, once I thought of Augustus... any come to mind for you, preferably one that's not been dead for almost two thousand years?

They always fail after time because power goes to their heads.

Originally posted by Devil King
On this, we agree.

I really don't
I'd much rather have a "Socialist Democracy"
Seems something like how they run France.

Originally posted by Robtard
I edited, once I thought of Augustus... any come to mind for you, preferably one that's not been dead for almost two thousand years?

I suppose you could argue they were kings, but they were mostly absolute and if there hadn't been heredity you'd call them dictators.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well Rome hada few good after. There are a few before. Now as for more recent I'd say a few in Prussia and Germany were quite good. Frederick I. Frederick the Second of Prussia. There are a few examples.

I suppose you could argue they were kings, but they were mostly absolute and if there hadn't been heredity you'd call them dictators.

Libertarian governments didn't really get any chances now did they?