But what about the roads? Common argument against Libertarian/Anarchy Debunked.

[cannabineer]

To me anarchy equals reduction to a Road Warrior-type society. cn

 

[Mr Neutron]

To me anarchy equals reduction to a Road Warrior-type society. cn

Perhaps. It might be even more primitive. I view Road Warrior as a look at the first couple of years after the "event". Not long after that, the fuel runs out, the machines stop and Ted Kazinsky's paradise is a reality.

 

[TogTokes]

Man this thread is shit.. 1 starred!

 

[Cut.Throat.]

Perhaps. It might be even more primitive. I view Road Warrior as a look at the first couple of years after the "event". Not long after that, the fuel runs out, the machines stop and Ted Kazinsky's paradise is a reality.

Scary enough this is why I became a prepper. Read "one second after" and did some research and realized it's entirely plausible.

All it takes is one pissed off country with a nuke to send us back to the stone ages. EMPs are a scary scenario.

 

[cannabineer]

Perhaps. It might be even more primitive. I view Road Warrior as a look at the first couple of years after the "event". Not long after that, the fuel runs out, the machines stop and Ted Kazinsky's paradise is a reality.

Well heck. I can't support that. cn

 

[Canna Sylvan]

How I see it is this. There would be a general fund to fix roads in each metropolitan area. Personal to group vehicles would be AI controlled for most efficient use of each vehicle and road conditions.

This would allow the most people with the cheapest travel. The system can be audited by any individual for waste and fraud. That can't be done with the current system.

With the money saved, we could afford to supply more rural areas with what our current major cities have.

And Deprave, you're stealing my thunder. This is my area of expertise. I've spent years studying this subject.

A great novel on this subject is the Dispossessed by Ursula Leguine.

Gifting isn't a new concept. The early humans started out that way. It's only recently that massive gifting has taken place with online communities like this one. You only get into discussions about gift economies in PHD level course study. It's because until recently experts argued gifting only works at the very familiar level, or else implied reciprocation is required.

 

[Mr Neutron]

Well heck. I can't support that. cn

Well, there is always, "You can shovel shit, can't you?", Thunder Dome. I woulda shoveled Tina's shit just to tap that. We never found out what happened to Barter Town after they lost the little guy. I think they rapidly fell apart after losing their source of power. Another post apocalyptic ghost town.

 

[Toorop]

I would charge a tax on my road. And I would lay spikes so that people may increase the chance they damage their vehicles on my road and then sell them new tires. It is a great business opportunity. Just like when Walmart started putting Subways inside the stores. Imagine a tire shop with a spike strip in front. It would be legal as I am sure I could get the other road owners to charge their tolls and we could monopolize travel across our area.

 

[Toorop]

i'd rather pay taxes.

Agreed. It is much simpler to have one central authority.

Though, I have to ask, how we decide who owns what in this Libertarian utopia? If I say it is my land, is it my land? Who is going to stop me?

 

[Canna Sylvan]

Agreed. It is much simpler to have one central authority.

Though, I have to ask, how we decide who owns what in this Libertarian utopia? If I say it is my land, is it my land? Who is going to stop me?

In the Heinlen's novel, "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress," people like you didn't have to worry, since you became a victim of attrition. You may think you're bad ass here online, but I doubt you'd be pulling stunts like that if it meant risking your life.

 

[cannabineer]

Well, there is always, "You can shovel shit, can't you?", Thunder Dome. I woulda shoveled Tina's shit just to tap that. We never found out what happened to Barter Town after they lost the little guy. I think they rapidly fell apart after losing their source of power. Another post apocalyptic ghost town.

I am way, way too behemped to reply to that now. However, I am musing upon the films' use of both dwarves and fetish-leathered mob soldiers. cn

 

[Dr Kynes]

WHY, YES YOU CAN KITTY!what about the roads kitty?
How can we have Roads in a voluntary (anarchist/anarchist libertarian society)

Well the argument for a minarchist or moderate libertarian society is relatively simple. Moderate Libertarians, Minarchist, or Teabaggers (as some like to call them) are not anarchist, they believe in minimal government so often this would include a government that would both build and repair roads. As for the real anarchist and anarchist libertarians the idea of how we would have roads is mere speculation but there is many possible ways it could work. I will describe some examples in this post.


So without further ado lets speculate how roads might work in a voluntary society:

Laying road is not the most complicated or expensive thing in the world especially when not done by the government in market that is tainted by government which sets artificially changes value it can never know the value so contractors can charge them whatever they want, inefficiency at its finest. The thing that catches people up is how to build roads within already existent neighborhood but the reality is, that is simply not how it works. Roads are in fact built before the communities are filled with people. A builder would have a much tougher time trying the sell his house if there is no road proving access to and from the home. A store would have a much tougher time trying to get any customers if they did not build any roads going to and from the surrounding neighborhoods.

In the circumstance that a road builder is wanting to build a road on already acquired land, he can use options and nondisclosure contracts in order to avoid any holdout problem. That is to say he can purchase the option to buy a spot of land from a series of landowners while also agreeing to a nondisclosure contract so that the owner of the last spot of land the road builder needs is not aware that they are the last person, and thus will not be tempted to charge a ridiculous sum of money for their land.And if there is someone who has some kind of sentimental value to their property and refuses to sell it for any price, then the road builder can buy options contracts for another route, or he can simply tunnel underneath them.

Neighborhood roads would likely be funded by Homeowner’s Associations and car insurance companies wanting to minimize their payouts for vehicle repair such as tires. Roads going to and from businesses would likely be funded by the businesses themselves wanting more customers. These residential and business roads could also be funded through voluntary donations. Highways could likely be funded by charging a monthly bill based on usage or perhaps this voluntary society would rely much more heavily on public transportation rather than private. It’s impossible to know these things in advance but the truth is that roads aren't just going to disappears, we won't just decide to no longer have roads, the demand will still be there. While eminent domain laws do seem tempting for the purpose of building roads, they are not a necessity, and the increased efficiency of these voluntary organizations would more than make up for the higher cost of buying the land voluntarily rather than corrosively, as well as avoid all of the other inherent problems that come along with using coercion. Finally I would like to add that we already have the roads and we also have the private companies with the means to repair them.


So How do you think Roads would work without Government?

umm thats not how roads get built without government. thats not how roads get built at all.

a road is not a monolith of construction that requires all parts to be functional, a road system is a modular thing, especially in rural areas or the third world. local communities build tracks, two-ruts, gravel roads and even paved macs with no help from government, national or local.

high speed throughways are edifices of government control, not transportation or market access. Most of the world before the 20th century (including america) got along perfectly well without colossal highway systems or international airports. even today rural america gets less use from the interstate system than you would imagine, and alaska has nearly no intercommunity highway system at all except on the coast. they still do just fine without adopting any of the ridiculously finestoned political gris-gris of the 98 flavours of "anarchy" that gives semi-wood to the adherents.

the current fad of applying a name to every douchey personal political theory du-jour, and expecting everybody else to know the key points of it's secret club charter crafted by poli-sci dropouts is ludicrous.

if the US constitution is accepted and executed as written, and the federal and state governments operate as intended by our founders within the guidelines set forth, then the tea-party would not exist. trying to label the tea party as a single entity and claim it adheres to some mythical 99th flavour of anarchy is outright bullshit.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Yeah, shut the fuck up and get with the program. I'm from the government and I'm here to maintain order. Go to work, pay your taxes and keep buying shit. If you don't like it, we can help adjust your acceptance. Perhaps a two week vacation at our exclusive resort in beautiful, tropical Guantanamo Bay.
Order. That's kind of subjective, don't you think? Continuing along that train of thought, the logical goal of such a government would be a police state.
Given the choice between a police state and anarchy, I'll take anarchy, thank you.

lets have anarchy, only the strong survive!

this coming from the most powerful man in the universe! of course thats ok for you, but i dont have the power to destroy the world itself, i would have to co-operate with all my cousins and shit to create a feudal dominion, and my cousins are mostly assholes! shit, just the goat rapes alone would decimate the ruminant populations, and the sheep wouldnt stand a chance!

anarchy indeed! think of the lambs for god's sake! those poor reamed out lambs!

 

[Canna Sylvan]

lets have anarchy, only the strong survive!

this coming from the most powerful man in the universe! of course thats ok for you, but i dont have the power to destroy the world itself, i would have to co-operate with all my cousins and shit to create a feudal dominion, and my cousins are mostly assholes! shit, just the goat rapes alone would decimate the ruminant populations, and the sheep wouldnt stand a chance!

anarchy indeed! think of the lambs for god's sake! those poor reamed out lambs!

I think you confused the Rodney King riots and upcoming Trayvan Martin riots for anarchy.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Perhaps. It might be even more primitive. I view Road Warrior as a look at the first couple of years after the "event". Not long after that, the fuel runs out, the machines stop and Ted Kazinsky's paradise is a reality.

meh. you would be shocked at what real country folk can do when the shit hits the fan. Not the self-obsessed dimwits you see on trash "scripted reality" shows on tv either. i mean real Deliverance style hillbillies. The "Ned Beatty gots a purty mouf" rednecks.

my kinfolk would be growin crops, making moonshine as a fuel and as refreshment, diggin out iron to make weapons, crafting gunpowder from it's basic components, and building ecologically un-sound vehicles from random parts from junkyards and the ruins of your cities. mad max? shit son, try Space Hunter Adventures in the Forbidden Zone (1983) a cinema classic, and the real future in any "anarchy" situation, from zombie apocalypse to the cubs winning the world series.

 

[tomahawk2406]

Seems that way. You seem to think we are helpless without this corrupt entity known as government "protecting" us and "taking care of us"....just give them half our money and unlimited power with no accountability for their actions right?

Fucking just give whats his face donations on the 700 club hotline and jesus will save you and forgive you for your sins eh?

deprave your not smart for this thread lol. i know you want to believe you hold some secret to a better society. but your proving to me that you spent to much time on the internet. your idea is flat out fucking retarded. i dont know what else to tell you.

 

[deprave]

Agreed. It is much simpler to have one central authority.

Though, I have to ask, how we decide who owns what in this Libertarian utopia? If I say it is my land, is it my land? Who is going to stop me?

There is much speculation as to this of course. Now again I cannot possibly answer all of these questions, because the very point of instituting a free market to solve these problems is because it is impossible to predict the best solutions. Again, If I were able to predict how everything would work, then there would be no need for a free society/market and it would be an argument for making me the supreme dictator of the world. I will give you some of my speculation and also popular speculation in political philosophy how Land Ownsership would work. I would really like to hear from people here how they think it might work so we can continue this discussion down a productive path, I am grateful for the people in this thread that dared to speculate this with me.

In a free market, you have constant auctions for scarce resources with each person taking the risk of using the most efficient way to allocate that resource at the price they are bidding for it. And because of this bidding process, not only can you be assured that those scarce resources will go to the person who knows how to allocate them in the most efficient way, because they have the most to lose, but you are now able to calculate profit and loss. Under a central authority there is no way to calculate whether what you are producing with those resources is more valuable than the resources themselves. A real estate developer might claim unused land in an auction or buy already claimed land which for sale. Then he could create a neighborhood of houses that he will rent out under the condition of agreeing to a one-year Home Owners Association contract which would include a monthly fee to be spent on offering services such as neighborhood security, a court, clinic, fire, plumbing, electricity, road maintenance, etc.. Another theory which I won't touch on so much here is the Land Value Tax where people do pay a tax based on the value of their land in the free market. So to address the quoted directly the answer is simply more than likely: contracts, private courts, private security firms, and a new type of "credit scoring" based on contractual obligations.....in short contracts..contracts...and more contracts.


Further, as not to address this quoted directly but to many other in this thread, the claims here in this thread that that private security would create some sort of lawlessness is based largely on science fiction movies. Today there are much more private security employed than police officers. Additionally most disputes today are settled not in state court but by private means.(people like to ignore these facts) Another possibility is protection insurance companies. People could take on insurance policies against being assaulted or stolen from but lets saves that for another time as its a pretty deep topic. The fact is if you really sit and think about it, most matters are settled in private, the private sector is fairly efficient especially without the completely inefficient government involvement.

 

[deprave]

umm thats not how roads get built without government. thats not how roads get built at all.

a road is not a monolith of construction that requires all parts to be functional, a road system is a modular thing, especially in rural areas or the third world. local communities build tracks, two-ruts, gravel roads and even paved macs with no help from government, national or local.

high speed throughways are edifices of government control, not transportation or market access. Most of the world before the 20th century (including america) got along perfectly well without colossal highway systems or international airports. even today rural america gets less use from the interstate system than you would imagine, and alaska has nearly no intercommunity highway system at all except on the coast. they still do just fine without adopting any of the ridiculously finestoned political gris-gris of the 98 flavours of "anarchy" that gives semi-wood to the adherents.

the current fad of applying a name to every douchey personal political theory du-jour, and expecting everybody else to know the key points of it's secret club charter crafted by poli-sci dropouts is ludicrous.

if the US constitution is accepted and executed as written, and the federal and state governments operate as intended by our founders within the guidelines set forth, then the tea-party would not exist. trying to label the tea party as a single entity and claim it adheres to some mythical 99th flavour of anarchy is outright bullshit.

I am not sure how you managed to agree with me completely and at the same time think that you are disagreeing with me. I stated clearly that Tea Party, Minarchy(Republicans), and "Moderate" Libertarians have this view that you have written. Everything after the first paragraph and the rest of the thread included I am arguing on the side of anarchist but in the first paragraph I state that the Libertarian view is that we have a minimal government that provides for this "as written in the constitution"...That is pretty much the end of that discussion so I wanted to have a more interesting thread by arguing for anarchy.

 

[Gastanker]

I'm confused. How are you grouping anarchists and libertarians as the same group? You realize they are drastically different right? Might as well say constitutionalists are anti government as well

 

[Canna Sylvan]

I'm confused. How are you grouping anarchists and libertarians as the same group? You realize they are drastically different right? Might as well say constitutionalists are anti government as well

Liberals and democrats are communists, right? Don't get me started with socialists. Them's be debil worshipers!