Capitalism Questions

[01503]

I was talking with my tutor (self-described liberal, voting for Obama, wishes she could get Nader in though) about Laissez-Faire Capitalism, and we got into the topic of private roads.

A couple of questions on this topic:

1. How would the private roads me funded? Toll booths or advertisements? Or both?

2. How about suburban areas, such as subdivisions? What profit is there to be made in this kind of area? If using advertisements, where would they put them? They can't put it on the side of the road, because that is the homeowner's property.

3. And rural areas. She used the example of her aunt who lives up on the side of a mountain, and her family has lived there for five generations. The government (actually, the taxpayers) pays for the expensive road that is paved up that mountain. I told her that the lady should pay for it. And if she doesn't want to, then she will just let the road go to ruin.

How I can sufficiently argue the above points?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the topic of taxes as initiation of force:

She argued that private businesses use force in the same way. Her aunt would be FORCED to move. I argued it was not force, because nobody was going to drag her down that mountain. She said that if one didn't want to pay taxes, they could just leave the US. When I compared it to a man asking for money for food while pointing a gun at your head, she said that it is actually more like a man saying "if you cross this bridge, I'll shoot you" because you can just move out of the US. What is a good argument against this?

I had thought of a metaphor afterwards, instead of saying that he shoots you if you cross, he'll shoot you if you DON'T cross. But then, on the other side of the bridge, is another "island" with a man saying the same thing. Of course, there are multiple bridges, all with men taking taxes by force on the other side. That's as good as I can think of. What do you make of this?

Thank you. Sorry for the long post

-Nick

[Zip]

My thoughts on roads...

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...st&p=173127

The whole topic is a good read. {Search is your friend young Jedi...}

[KendallJ]

3. And rural areas. She used the example of her aunt who lives up on the side of a mountain, and her family has lived there for five generations. The government (actually, the taxpayers) pays for the expensive road that is paved up that mountain. I told her that the lady should pay for it. And if she doesn't want to, then she will just let the road go to ruin.

Five generations???!! The easy question is how did they get up there without the govt road? Why did they go there if there was no govt road? Once they were living there, why did thy need the road?

[KendallJ]

The other place you can go with this is recognize that if roads are the first thing someone comes up with, then they are reaching. Get her to get rid of everything else besides a few essential services and you've essentially won. Roads don't justify welfare, income redistribution, entitlements, etc.

[01503]

My thoughts on roads...

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...st&p=173127

The whole topic is a good read. {Search is your friend young Jedi...}

I actually searched "private roads" but came up with nothing... I guess "roads" would have sufficed. lol

[Ken Rahman]

I was actually reading on wikipedia last night about private highways and "free market roads" (hadnt heard of that phrase before). I am amazed at how often a statist pulls the "what about public roads" card out of their *** as some sort of last ditch resort to justify tyranny. According to what I read on wiki there are already many private roads in Europe.

Another thing: Why do people come up with that rebuttal when you criticize the US (i.e. then leave!). Why is it an acceptable argument to them, when you confront them with the government's extortion of men via taxes, to say well leave then? Taxation is theft, and someone it is alright to steal if you are geographically located in the vicinity of the thief? That just seems like the same terrible argument someone would use to justify being mugged while in a "bad" part of town. Theft is always wrong regardless of who is doing it.

Is it just me or are these two issues (roads and the just-leave thing) ones that always come up when irrational people are backed against a wall.

Sorry for the rambling, but I have fallen prey to frustrations today after my wife forwarded me an email from a former friend that included the phrases: "civic duty" and "Morality is different for everyone." Time for some aspirin.

[TuringAI]

"civic duty" and "Morality is different for everyone."

Kind of like Nuke America and Peace On Earth.

A complete contradiction, and of the worst kind: A contradiction in terms.

[agrippa1]

On the topic of taxes as initiation of force:

She argued that private businesses use force in the same way. Her aunt would be FORCED to move. I argued it was not force, because nobody was going to drag her down that mountain. She said that if one didn't want to pay taxes, they could just leave the US. When I compared it to a man asking for money for food while pointing a gun at your head, she said that it is actually more like a man saying "if you cross this bridge, I'll shoot you" because you can just move out of the US. What is a good argument against this?

Does she accept the same argument when considering poll taxes, anti-abortion and Jim Crow laws, and prayer in schools?

How about genocide of Jews, Gypsies and mentally retarded? Okay, as long as we don't station guns at the border?

Does she honestly think that if the producers of America decided to start leaving the country for a freer nation, that the government wouldn't do all they could, including arrest and seizure, to deter them?

Her argument could be used to defend any immoral act by the government.

[Zip]

3. And rural areas. She used the example of her aunt who lives up on the side of a mountain, and her family has lived there for five generations.

About this. When her aunt's family moved up the side of the mountain there was no doubt a good reason (probably economic) for them to do so. I would say that if that reason no longer exists then it doesn't matter if they have lived there for 5 generations or 500 they should move on. This line of thinking is what Peikoff called "The Divine Right of Stagnation".

This same excuse is widely used up here in Canada, particularly on the east coast with small fishing villages which can no longer support themselves and who's raison d'etre has long since withered away. Someone always comes up with this lame excuse that "The village is so quaint, it's way of life ought to be preserved..." or "But my family came to this very spot from Scotland 300 years ago. It's our home..." this is of course nothing more than a thinly veiled reason for them to stick their hands into other peoples pockets and steal their money so they don't have to learn new skills or adapt to the ever changing world. To people like this change isn't just bad, it's the destroyer of their whole world.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

If they cannot afford to support themselves, their way of life is already gone.

[JMeganSnow]

1. How would the private roads me funded? Toll booths or advertisements? Or both?

2. How about suburban areas, such as subdivisions? What profit is there to be made in this kind of area? If using advertisements, where would they put them? They can't put it on the side of the road, because that is the homeowner's property.

3. And rural areas. She used the example of her aunt who lives up on the side of a mountain, and her family has lived there for five generations. The government (actually, the taxpayers) pays for the expensive road that is paved up that mountain. I told her that the lady should pay for it. And if she doesn't want to, then she will just let the road go to ruin.

1. Whatever way is eventually the most economical/convenient, just like the way we pay for everything else.

2. The roads in subdivisions also don't require nearly as much engineering effort and maintenance as, say, the George Washington Bridge and they certainly don't see as much traffic. There are many possibilities: the developer who plans to sell houses in that subdivision may build the roads and form a small maintenance company that takes fees from the homeowners. The individual people may build their own sections of road on their own (much like how people build and maintain their own driveways) or get together with neighbors. Or they may just build a big parking lot somewhere and leave their car *there* instead of driving it all the way to their house. In any case, why should the government dictate the matter?

3. Never heard of dirt roads? The fact that you don't have a nice paved road doesn't mean you're cut off from civilization. If they don't want to move, let 'em throw down some gravel and call it day.