infrastructure

[JosephTheLibertarian]

How do you transition from government control over infrastructure to private hands without corporatism or any kind of favoritism? Furthermore, do you support a transition? Or do you think infrastructure should be in the hands of the government?

[acptulsa]

Which infrastructure? Defense installations are infrastructure that should be owned and operated by the federal government. Amtrak equipment that operates on track Amtrak doesn't even own should get divested.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Which infrastructure? Defense installations are infrastructure that should be owned and operated by the federal government. Amtrak equipment that operates on track Amtrak doesn't even own should get divested.

Public infrastructure. duh. Ha. What is a practical way of going about it? Should we also do away with city planning?

Who owns the rails?

[acptulsa]

Who owns the rails?

The federal government owns tracks that stretch from Boston to Washington, D.C., and make a triangle from Philadelphia and Baltimore on that route to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. All other rails in the U.S. aside from certain commuter lines are owned by corporations. Amtrak runs on both rail it owns and rail it does not own.

Public infrastructure is a huge topic and covers quite a gamut, from city halls to aircraft carriers to national forests. A little big for a one-size-fits-all answer, I suspect.

[Kludge]

Everything but the post office. I don't see how our PO system could properly function without a monopoly or maybe an oligopoly.

Eminent domain "rights" and subsidies need to be removed as well, with regulatory committees to ensure quality of life does not drop significantly due to gross mismanagement - these should be funded at the county or state level.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Everything but the post office. I don't see how our PO system could properly function without a monopoly or maybe an oligopoly.

Easy. UPS, FEDEX, DHL, and others...

[acptulsa]

Easy. UPS, FEDEX, DHL, and others...

...absolutely do not want to get into the business of delivering letters. Perhaps only because it currently is subsidized to the point of unprofitability, but still. Now that email has more or less taken over for the first class letter, it might become possible to do away with the USPS soon. We shall see.

[Kludge]

Easy. UPS, FEDEX, DHL, and others...


There's going to be ten different companies stopping at my house to deliver the mail? That sounds terribly unprofitable. A monopoly or oligopoly would naturally occur and they'd probably create a contractual monopoly and sue the pants off of any competitors that try to enter the business - just as the federal gov't is slowly trying to. Reform of the current system would be preferable.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

There's going to be ten different companies stopping at my house to deliver the mail? That sounds terribly unprofitable. A monopoly or oligopoly would naturally occur and they'd probably create a contractual monopoly and sue the pants off of any competitors that try to enter the business.

You can't knock it till you try it. I disagree. That would certainly be the case in this corporatist environment here in the US, but I don't think so in a true free market. Everyone decides which company to let deliver their mail. I don't see your point.

[Aratus]

thinking as a libertarian, i agree all actions whereby uncle sam took things by
eminent domain could be reversed. we could find the heirs of the rightful owners.

we could go back centuries here. i know there are shades of gray to this...
especially if one has a bias for "yes" or a bias for "no" on a libertarian litmus test
yet also clearly does not see all infrastructure questions in the same way.

[Kludge]

thinking as a libertarian, i agree all actions whereby uncle sam took things by
eminent domain could be reversed. we could find the heirs of the rightful owners.

we could go back centuries here. i know there are shades of gray to this...
especially if one has a bias for "yes" or a bias for "no" on a libertarian litmus test
yet also clearly does not see all infrastructure questions in the same way.

Oh my... That'd be a bureaucratic nightmare. They'd wrap themselves up in so much red tape, they'd fall over and suffocate their poor selves. Surely you don't trust an agency so inept as the federal government to do something right at the cost of extra resources!

[JosephTheLibertarian]

And you can't knock it until you try it, kludge. Remember that. Why not have choices for mail delivery? Maybe UPS will charge .16 flat fee for regular mail, DHL .21, FEDEX .18 AND on and on. It would be competition among different companies in this regard. How is that so bad? I will have multiple mail men, how is that so bad? Maybe they will innovate a new way to deliver mail!!

[Kludge]

If the USPS is a monopoly charging the lowest fee possible AT FOURTY-TWO CENTS, I don't see how private entities could ever take it over while being profitable since they'd have to deliver to EVERY address in America while dealing with the competition of 3-5 other companies. I seriously doubt stamp prices would move below $1.00. Common sense would call for them to engage in price fixing as well, since competition would be damn near impossible in such a market. Unlike the USPS, a free market approach to the postal service could easily lead to stamps going at the rate of $2.50 or MORE.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

If the USPS is a monopoly charging the lowest fee possible AT FOURTY-TWO CENTS, I don't see how private entities could ever take it over while being profitable since they'd have to deliver to EVERY address in America while dealing with the competition of 3-5 other companies. I seriously doubt stamp prices would move below $1.00. Common sense would call for them to engage in price fixing as well, since competition would be damn near impossible in such a market.

ah. the typical socialist talking points. ok thanks. who said a monopoly has to be a bad thing? we don't complain about the microsoft monopoly, do we? and who said there would be? people cannot compete with eachother? the only ways a monopoly forms:

a. when state interferes
b. when the company makes the people happy
c. when the resource is extremely scarce. but the demand for a scarce resource would never be very high or detrimental

who said we would still use stamps? :D

[Kludge]

ah. the typical socialist talking points. ok thanks. who said a monopoly has to be a bad thing? we don't complain about the microsoft monopoly, do we? and who said there would be? people cannot compete with eachother?

Oh please. Operating systems (of which there is ALWAYS competition, esp. from the FREE Linux...) is NOTHING like the service of letter delivery in which there are always resources being used.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Oh please. Operating systems (of which there is ALWAYS competition, esp. from the FREE Linux...) is NOTHING like the service of letter delivery in which there are always resources being used.

who said we will still be using stamps? :D

[Kludge]

who said we will still be using stamps? :D

What?


I'm talking about the trucks. They take energy to move them from address A to address B. Unlike software, where there isn't necessarily a cost to the manufacturer to distribute, the private entities of the USPS must always pay to deliver.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

What?


I'm talking about the trucks. They take energy to move them from address A to address B. Unlike software, where there isn't necessarily a cost to the manufacturer to distribute, the private entities of the USPS must always pay to deliver.

private companies cannot build their inrastructure? trust me. when there is a demand for something, the private sector will find a way as long as it's profitable. look at all the trucks UPS/FEDEX/DHL has already. I see more UPS trucks than I see of USPS. Maybe they will get it there faster? Maybe they would give us the option to receive it in our email box? maybe they would create a new technology that allows us to receive our mail without a mail man? sheesh. have some faith in the free markets, man!

even if our mail system collapses... it would only work to reveal the artificial constraints of statism :)

[Fox McCloud]

I think for post offices, what would happen is a whole bunch of little companies running the counties and larger companies carrying mail between counties/State/etc.

It's rather interesting, the US is the only country in the world in which the government has a monopoly on the postal system.

[pacelli]

I didn't realize "infrastructure" meant mail. Maybe that should have been more clear in the poll.

When I voted 'yes' I was referring to private ownership of infrastructure & related upkeep tasks that are now under the control of various departments of transportation and the department of energy.

At the same time I disagree with private ownership of our economic infrastructure, i.e. the federal reserve.

[nate895]

I think that roads, bridges, and the like should be public property. Otherwise, it infringes on my right to travel to have to pay to get out of my own driveway onto a privately owned road that me and my neighbors don't own, but someone out to make a profit. As for city planning, I don't like it, but if the people of a certain city want to plan their communities they want, that is their business.

As for mail, I think kludge has a point, I believe that is the reason why the pretty libertarian founders wrote that as one the responsibilities of the new government.

[Kludge]

I think that roads, bridges, and the like should be public property. Otherwise, it infringes on my right to travel to have to pay to get out of my own driveway onto a privately owned road that me and my neighbors don't own, but someone out to make a profit. As for city planning, I don't like it, but if the people of a certain city want to plan their communities they want, that is their business.

Okay... There's no "right to travel". That's almost as silly as a "right to extended life". You have a right to move about YOUR property. When you venture onto someone elses' property, you are committing aggression (trespassing) unless you have their permission. All rights derive from your ability to control yourself at risk of consequences from your actions, meaning you only have the right to private property (you own yourself, thus you own your labor, thus you own all wealth created from your labor + trade&gifts)

As for city planning, who decides? The majority? Unless one person owns the entire community, EVERY INDIVIDUAL in the community must agree first that community planning should exist and second how and where it should be implemented for it to be a valid exercise of authority.

[nate895]

Okay... There's no "right to travel". That's almost as silly as a "right to extended life". You have a right to move about YOUR property. When you venture onto someone elses' property, you are committing aggression (trespassing) unless you have their permission. All rights derive from your ability to control yourself at risk of consequences from your actions, meaning you only have the right to private property (you own yourself, thus you own your labor, thus you own all wealth created from your labor + trade&gifts)

As for city planning, who decides? The majority? Unless one person owns the entire community, EVERY INDIVIDUAL in the community must agree first that community planning should exist and second how and where it should be implemented for it to be a valid exercise of authority.

How can I be free in any sense of the word if I have to pay to get off of my tenth of an acre? I never said I have the right to go on someone else's property without their permission, in fact I think that that was my point, I would have no right to go anywhere but my hovel if non-public entities own absolutely everything. I have more freedom in today's America, no matter how small the government, if I can't hop in my car and go somewhere to pick up groceries without paying somebody for the privilege of leaving my hovel.

[Kludge]

How can I be free in any sense of the word if I have to pay to get off of my tenth of an acre? I never said I have the right to go on someone else's property without their permission, in fact I think that that was my point, I would have no right to go anywhere but my hovel if non-public entity owns absolutely everything. I have more freedom in today's America, no matter how small the government, if I can't hop in my car and go somewhere to pick up groceries without paying somebody for the privilege of leaving my hovel.

You have more entitlements, but you can never have more inherent rights. We're in an entitlement system with an entitlement generation and a universally accepted entitlement mindset that stems from the poverty-mindedness inflicted by MSM and their sensationalist horse shit. I call for a move back to nothing but inherent rights and those earned through hard labor - but then, I'm a curmudgeon.

[nate895]

You have more entitlements, but you can never have more inherent rights. We're in an entitlement system with an entitlement generation and a universally accepted entitlement mindset that stems from the poverty-mindedness inflicted by MSM and their sensationalist horse shit. I call for a move back to nothing but inherent rights and those earned through hard labor - but then, I'm a curmudgeon.

The Founders must have felt real entitled when they were able to leave their property to gallop to Philadelphia, at no expense. We have had this entitlement since Roman times. I don't mind private competition for roads (it might reduce traffic) but to say that the poor must have to pay to leave their tenement apartment to get groceries is ridiculous. At some point you have to ask yourself "Am I for liberty, or just small government?" The two can be mutually exclusive. It's possible to have a totalitarian society in anarcho-capitalism, but it is possible to have liberty with government if you are free to go to your friend's home 5 doors down without being charged for the privilege. I don't want to live in a libertarian society if that is what it is about, letting the free market run wild.

[FreeTraveler]

The Founders must have felt real entitled when they were able to leave their property to gallop to Philadelphia, at no expense. We have had this entitlement since Roman times. I don't mind private competition for roads (it might reduce traffic) but to say that the poor must have to pay to leave their tenement apartment to get groceries is ridiculous. At some point you have to ask yourself "Am I for liberty, or just small government?" The two can be mutually exclusive. It's possible to have a totalitarian society in anarcho-capitalism, but it is possible to have liberty with government if you are free to go to your friend's home 5 doors down without being charged for the privilege. I don't want to live in a libertarian society if that is what it is about, letting the free market run wild.
The poor already pay to leave their tenement apartment to get groceries. They pay state and federal fuel taxes every time they buy gas. They pay sales tax, which in some states is spent on infrastructure. They pay all the taxes and cost of regulation for the tennis shoes they wear if they're walking, or for the car if they're driving.

You think the roads just appeared as an offshoot of our beneficient government? You think we're not paying for roads today just because you don't pass a tollbooth as you leave your apartment?

(Oh, and there were a lot of toll roads in pre-revolutionary America. Are you sure there weren't any on the way to Philadelphia?)

[hypnagogue]

Kludge, I work at Fedex. You may be surprised to learn that a huge portion of the USPS postage is carried by FedEx.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I didn't realize "infrastructure" meant mail. Maybe that should have been more clear in the poll.

When I voted 'yes' I was referring to private ownership of infrastructure & related upkeep tasks that are now under the control of various departments of transportation and the department of energy.

At the same time I disagree with private ownership of our economic infrastructure, i.e. the federal reserve.

Can you differentiate between corporatism and free markets? Apparently not.

[hypnagogue]

Another point, the Post Office operates at more than a $5 billion dollar loss every year. You can point to the $.42 postage and claim that no one could match that, but that doesn't account for the fact that we're all paying twice; tax and postage.

[nate895]

The poor already pay to leave their tenement apartment to get groceries. They pay state and federal fuel taxes every time they buy gas. They pay sales tax, which in some states is spent on infrastructure. They pay all the taxes and cost of regulation for the tennis shoes they wear if they're walking, or for the car if they're driving.

You think the roads just appeared as an offshoot of our beneficient government? You think we're not paying for roads today just because you don't pass a tollbooth as you leave your apartment?

(Oh, and there were a lot of toll roads in pre-revolutionary America. Are you sure there weren't any on the way to Philadelphia?)

Sales tax has a food exemption in most states (except Florida, I believe), but if the roads are private, wouldn't the sidewalks also be private, meaning I couldn't even walk to avoid gas and other taxes. Of course, a gas tax wouldn't be necessary if we reduced the size of government to its proper role (roads being one of them).

As for pre-revolutionary toll roads, I have no clue.

[pacelli]

Can you differentiate between corporatism and free markets? Apparently not.

That wasn't in the poll either.

[FreeTraveler]

Sales tax has a food exemption in most states (except Florida, I believe), but if the roads are private, wouldn't the sidewalks also be private, meaning I couldn't even walk to avoid gas and other taxes. Of course, a gas tax wouldn't be necessary if we reduced the size of government to its proper role (roads being one of them).

As for pre-revolutionary toll roads, I have no clue.
You can't walk TODAY to avoid taxes! The point I was making is that toll booths aren't necessary to pay for roads, the gov does it by taxing the fuel.

If I were an oil company in a free market environment, I'd probably be indirectly subsidizing both road systems and auto manufacturers in some way or another. Razors and razorblades can be played in any consumable market.

If I were Nike in such a market, I'd subsidize Nike Trails to get people out of their vehicles and onto my shoe soles. :)

Nobody travels for free today; using that as an excuse to leave infrastructure under the organizations that have NO RESERVE to deal with maintenance or replacement and have done a lousy job of planning for the future doesn't work for me.