Home | Community | Message Board

MRCA Tyroler Gluckspilze
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   PhytoExtractum Kratom Powder for Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8  [ show all ]
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Libertarians? [Re: fivepointer]
    #8719982 - 08/03/08 02:23 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

GHb is a good example of something that is troubling, but I don't agree with making it illegal.


If you want to prevent its use in rape, the best thing to do would be to legalize it only when mixed with a volume of strongly-colored and flavored substance, such that it can not be surreptitiously planted in a drink.

how many people would make GHB to sell to date rapers if the substance is legal alleady?  None, except maybe the raper himself, but certainly less than now.

How many people would make GHB when it is totally prohibited and thus supply is artificially restrained and profits artificially high?  Plenty, as we see now.

My neighbor was daterapped, perhaps with the aid of GHB.


If I were her dad I may shoot the fucker, but I don't think prohibition helps anything.  If anything it makes it worse.


Just legalize preperations that serve their intended use but burden illicit uses.


things that are inherently used for wrongful purposes by a great majority of purchasers and have no substantial legal use (legal as in what should morally be legal) should be prohibited.  i.e. atomic bombs and perhaps other things like shrapnel bombs et cet.. you get the idea.

Things like GHB which have a substantial licit use, but a troubling illicit use, should only be regulated to the extent that legitimate users are not burdened but illegitimate ones are.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: Libertarians? [Re: johnm214]
    #8720194 - 08/03/08 03:35 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

johnm214 said:
If you want to prevent its use in rape




start executing the rapists we have in prison, and each that's
convicted after that? nothing deters further criminal behavior
like being dead does

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefivepointer
newbie
Registered: 08/03/02
Posts: 1,428
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
Re: Libertarians? [Re: johnm214]
    #8720378 - 08/03/08 04:26 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

johnm214 said:
GHb is a good example of something that is troubling, but I don't agree with making it illegal.


If you want to prevent its use in rape, the best thing to do would be to legalize it only when mixed with a volume of strongly-colored and flavored substance, such that it can not be surreptitiously planted in a drink.

how many people would make GHB to sell to date rapers if the substance is legal alleady?  None, except maybe the raper himself, but certainly less than now.

How many people would make GHB when it is totally prohibited and thus supply is artificially restrained and profits artificially high?  Plenty, as we see now.

My neighbor was daterapped, perhaps with the aid of GHB.


If I were her dad I may shoot the fucker, but I don't think prohibition helps anything.  If anything it makes it worse.


Just legalize preperations that serve their intended use but burden illicit uses.


things that are inherently used for wrongful purposes by a great majority of purchasers and have no substantial legal use (legal as in what should morally be legal) should be prohibited.  i.e. atomic bombs and perhaps other things like shrapnel bombs et cet.. you get the idea.

Things like GHB which have a substantial licit use, but a troubling illicit use, should only be regulated to the extent that legitimate users are not burdened but illegitimate ones are.



I totally disagree with your philosophy on this. Just because a substance MIGHT be used in commission of violating someone's rights is no justification to demand the forcible adulteration of the substance.  It is a violation of the producer's rights to forcefully demand the adulteration.  Is production and sale of cyanide a crime in libertarian philosophy? Absolutely not.  Cyanide can be used in many ways and possession of the substance, and creation of the substance in its pure form fall under the general right of liberty.  Such creation violates no ones rights, then no one has a right the interfere in it. 

As far as GHB goes it is not a good "date rape" drug at all.  It is has a very noticeable sharp salty taste that anyone could recognize as not being a right taste in a drink.  The whole hysteria is a bunch of BS concocted by the media and politicians to further the control agenda.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: Libertarians? [Re: fivepointer]
    #8720384 - 08/03/08 04:30 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

fivepointer said:
It is a violation of the producer's rights to forcefully demand the adulteration.





really because even though it's very seldom used in the comission
of a crime, especially rape, milk is adulterated, they add vitamin
D and are forced to pasteurize and homogenize it, I want raw milk
but I cant get it unless I buy a cow

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinepothead_bob
Resident Pothead
Male

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,811
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
Re: Libertarians? [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #8720527 - 08/03/08 05:20 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Did you ever try health food stores?  I can buy raw milk at my local health food store.  Drink at your own risk, though.


--------------------
No knowledge can be certain, if it is not based
upon mathematics or upon some other knowledge
which is itself based upon the mathematical
sciences.
  -Leonardo da Vinci (1425-1519)

Speak well of your enemies.  After all, you made them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: Libertarians? [Re: pothead_bob]
    #8720563 - 08/03/08 05:27 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

yes, no dice... only a handful of states allow sales  of raw milk

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefivepointer
newbie
Registered: 08/03/02
Posts: 1,428
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
Re: Libertarians? [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #8720619 - 08/03/08 05:39 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

The collectivists know what is good for you (and everyone else as well), now drink your pasteurized homogenized milk and be happy that these thugs are looking out for you.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: Libertarians? [Re: fivepointer]
    #8720667 - 08/03/08 05:52 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

I know what's good for them but I'd be jailed for the act and possibly the thought

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinepothead_bob
Resident Pothead
Male

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,811
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
Re: Libertarians? [Re: Prisoner#1]
    #8720693 - 08/03/08 05:58 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Hmm, I didn't realize some states outlawed sales of raw milk. 

That's the beauty of decentrilized government where the separate states have more power than the fed.  You could always move to a raw milk friendly state.  If you cared that much.  Probably just better to buy a cow, like you said.


--------------------
No knowledge can be certain, if it is not based
upon mathematics or upon some other knowledge
which is itself based upon the mathematical
sciences.
  -Leonardo da Vinci (1425-1519)

Speak well of your enemies.  After all, you made them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleaDoS
freedom lover
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/18/05
Posts: 7,590
Loc: land of the free
Re: Libertarians? [Re: Libertine]
    #8720789 - 08/03/08 06:19 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

The laissez-faire system doesn't really mean rich people have to have all of the power. What is stopping workers from still forming unions? The government is not needed in forming worker unions.

In history, I think unions were so oppressed because it wasn't really a laissez-faire system. The government DID step in, to fight unions.

libertarians ftw in my opinion

I legally want assault rifles and recreational drugs.


--------------------
"If we could sniff or swallow something that would, for five or six hours each day, abolish our solitude as individuals, atone us with our fellows in a glowing exaltation of affection and make life in all its aspects seem not only worth living, but divinely beautiful and significant, and if this heavenly, world-transfiguring drug were of such a kind that we could wake up next morning with a clear head and an undamaged constitution - then, it seems to me, all our problems (and not merely the one small problem of discovering a novel pleasure) would be wholly solved and earth would become paradise." - Aldous Huxley
:drooling:GIVE ME OPIATES OR GIVE ME DEATH:drooling:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblePrisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
Re: Libertarians? [Re: pothead_bob]
    #8720940 - 08/03/08 06:52 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

pothead_bob said:
  Probably just better to buy a cow, like you said.




sell shares in said cow that allows one family each day the
chance to come milk it for their 'profit'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Libertarians? [Re: fivepointer]
    #8721149 - 08/03/08 07:48 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

fivepointer said:

I totally disagree with your philosophy on this.







I think you presume I advocate making GHB illegal in forms other than as described, which I didn't.  I said if you wanted to help prevent rape do as I said.


I really don't know what the right answer is, and I'm not educated on it enough to form much of an opinion beyond that I've allready stated in this thread.

Quote:

Just because a substance MIGHT be used in commission of violating someone's rights is no justification to demand the forcible adulteration of the substance.




Ok, so what?  I didn't say it was, I said if something has no substantial licit uses and substantial illicit uses it should be controled by government, and this is a legitimate practice.  I don't knowif you disagree with this or not, but don't argue against an underpinning I've not erected.

 
Quote:

  Is production and sale of cyanide a crime in libertarian philosophy? Absolutely not.  Cyanide can be used in many ways and possession of the substance, and creation of the substance in its pure form fall under the general right of liberty.  Such creation violates no ones rights, then no one has a right the interfere in it.



so?  see above.

Quote:

The whole hysteria is a bunch of BS concocted by the media and politicians to further the control agenda.


  Perhaps.



So what line do you draw when a substance may be prohibited or regulated?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineScavengerType
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
Re: Libertarians? [Re: fivepointer]
    #8725863 - 08/04/08 06:37 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

johnm214:

Re: Anestetic de-licencing.
Yes but in the last post I did say that it was simply a case where regulation did not reflect the realities of what was needed. Moving the job to nurses or other care professionals is fine by me  but issues like what doses to consider as well as conflicts with medical history (like allergies/ect.) should still be considered by a doctor. Additionally some sort of short anesthetic application certification training should probibly be a prerequisite to being allowed to apply it. This is my ammature medical op pinion and policy recommendation for this instance. I'd bet my left kidney this regulation would fare better than complete de-regulation for saving lives. I am reminded once of a story I read somewhere where a guy and his friend attempted DIY home liposuction and though the surgery was a success the guy died because too much of the painkiller was given to him before the surgery.

I will state again, since this doesn't seem to have staying power with you guys, I did not give blanket approval of US government regulations nor did I say that all current regulations are better than de-regulation.

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

Re: GHB
Quote:

If you want to prevent its use in rape, the best thing to do would be to legalize it only when mixed with a volume of strongly-colored and flavored substance, such that it can not be surreptitiously planted in a drink.




An excellent policy recommendation sorta like the additive to isopropol alcohol that prevents people from drinking it or the added smell to propane that tells you if there is a gas leak. I doubt there would be need to carry regulation of it further but if there was it could simply be made prescription only. This is what I had been advocating all along (not full out criminalization) but requiring an additive may be a better solution.

----------
Fivepointer:
Quote:

fivepointer said:
It is not a stretch to call control of GHB totalitarian.  It is proof of an underlying philosophy that does not recognize individual rights or liberty at all.  It is an example that demonstrates your philosophy, which is ultimately totalitarian.

Since you can justify any action for a good enough reason, even if it involves the initiation of force, then logically ANY action can be justified.  Logically there is no boundary to the scope of these actions.  Logically individuals have no inherent rights.  It is cart blanch totalitarianism, force without limit.




Many societies in history that were not totalitarian had regulations controlling substances and commerce. I think your claims are ideologically charged and baseless. It's like saying my right to protect my property could naturally extend to shooting anyone who looks at my property in such a way that shows they were comprehending violating it. Your "logic" completely denies the existence and pressure of socially accepted forms of morality and justification.

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

Quote:

I totally disagree with your philosophy on this. Just because a substance MIGHT be used in commission of violating someone's rights is no justification to demand the forcible adulteration of the substance.  It is a violation of the producer's rights to forcefully demand the adulteration.




Unlike Johnm214 I will take a stand here and say no it is not. The fact I've been asserting here is that common resources shared by a society do exist and should be protected, and the market is one of them. There is no reason to say "Damn the consequences" and adopt such an approach regardless of what effects on society may be. Ultimately this is the fundamental problem with libertarianism that hurts the poor who are unable to cope with unregulated product markets or legal fights for corporate compensation. Furthermore, suggesting a world where GHB and Cyanide are available cheaply and easily is just plain asinine.

Quote:

As far as GHB goes it is not a good "date rape" drug at all.



Frankly I'm not up on the date rape methods at but the point still remains if you substitute the word GHB with whatever else you use instead.



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

I think the GHB example has made a real point at how libertarianism acts improperly in protection of "liberty" of wealthy producers over the real living individuals who are supposed to be "free-er." Frankly this freedom is far from liberating for the individual who has no financial leverage to challenge the status quo and empowers the wealthy by giving them more rights (ie the right to manufacture previously banned products) without consideration of the safety of the consumer or others that could be harmed by these actions. This Freedom is more like being free in the middle of shark infested waters and such liberty taste bittersweet at best. Like I said earlier all I have to worry about now is law enforcement robbing me of my liberty over a small amount of an illicit substance, while your world would hold much worse terrors for me.


--------------------
"Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?"
"The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything."
- Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now.
Conquer's Club

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Libertarians? [Re: ScavengerType]
    #8726677 - 08/04/08 09:26 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

libertarians aren't for no laws.


Atomic bombs have no substantial licit uses and substantiall illicit uses, and thus they may be banned.


Thus as with some poison or something with no legitimate use.


Cyanide has plenty of legitimate uses, however, as does GHB.


It is certainly a better practice to allow GHB sales but limit them to adulterated products as I've discussed than to ban GHB totally.


There will always need to be a line drawn.


My point is that there is always a way to hurt someone, and we shouldn't think we can legislate harm out of society.


You ban cyanide, fine.  Then they just overdose you on heparin-another rat poison.  So what?  We ban heparin too?  Then we watch those who get it in prescription form? 

The whole thing is silly.


You have a right to prosecute someone who harms you.

People can allready kill you easily, and the world isn't falling apart.  Just cuz hepparin, cyanide, and a wealth of other poisons are allready available very very cheaply, doesn't mean shit.  Guns, fists, knives, and pointy things are too.

The minority of folks who are criminals can be sued and thrown in jail, and it will always be this way. 



I really doubt people are so stupid as to not realize how to kill someone, and it is utterly impossible to remove poisons from the market.


Frankly, i don't want to live in a world that is padded with bubble wrap just cuz some jackass can't handle making his own decisions.  The state can give you a foster home if you don't have parents... after that, you're on your own and have to start making real decisions, such as do I want to eat poison or poison someone.  These don't seem hard to me.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefivepointer
newbie
Registered: 08/03/02
Posts: 1,428
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
Re: Libertarians? [Re: johnm214]
    #8729945 - 08/05/08 04:57 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

johnm214 said:
libertarians aren't for no laws.


Atomic bombs have no substantial licit uses and substantiall illicit uses, and thus they may be banned.


Thus as with some poison or something with no legitimate use.


Cyanide has plenty of legitimate uses, however, as does GHB.


It is certainly a better practice to allow GHB sales but limit them to adulterated products as I've discussed than to ban GHB totally.


There will always need to be a line drawn.


My point is that there is always a way to hurt someone, and we shouldn't think we can legislate harm out of society.


You ban cyanide, fine.  Then they just overdose you on heparin-another rat poison.  So what?  We ban heparin too?  Then we watch those who get it in prescription form? 

The whole thing is silly.


You have a right to prosecute someone who harms you.

People can allready kill you easily, and the world isn't falling apart.  Just cuz hepparin, cyanide, and a wealth of other poisons are allready available very very cheaply, doesn't mean shit.  Guns, fists, knives, and pointy things are too.

The minority of folks who are criminals can be sued and thrown in jail, and it will always be this way. 



I really doubt people are so stupid as to not realize how to kill someone, and it is utterly impossible to remove poisons from the market.


Frankly, i don't want to live in a world that is padded with bubble wrap just cuz some jackass can't handle making his own decisions.  The state can give you a foster home if you don't have parents... after that, you're on your own and have to start making real decisions, such as do I want to eat poison or poison someone.  These don't seem hard to me.



I don't know where you get the idea that libertarians believe that products have to have a "legitimate use" and if they don't they can be banned.  This is not a libertarian position at all. 

Say for example someone makes nerve gas.  Possession and manufacture of this product would be legal in a libertarian legal system.  No one has been harmed, no one's rights have been violated, there is no victim. No victim = no crime.

Your really do not understand the philosophy of liberty at all.  To say it is OK to force adulterated GHB which is anti-libertarian on so many levels.  ScavengerType is an admitted collectivist, while you are a collectivist who thinks they are libertarian, which is a far sadder position in my book.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineScavengerType
Male User Gallery


Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
Re: Libertarians? [Re: fivepointer]
    #8731832 - 08/05/08 11:55 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Fivepointer you should not be calling him or me names or labels we have contributed to the discussion in single posts more than you have the entire thread. And frankly your ideas are psychotic and entirely unfeasible, you are an uncompromising hard line libertarian for purely ideological reasons. Even the most capitalistic states will compromise when they believe an issue would grind the social or economic gears to a halt, why are you so rigid in the aplication of your beliefs?

As for Johnm214, you are describing what I believe is libertarianism as a force not a model as others are proposing. This is a much saner approach but then it brings back the whole issues of regulation what gets regulated and how it is regulated that libertarianism as a model wanted to eliminate in the first place. Additionally it re-validates libertines argument earlier and changes very little other than saying you are in favor of de-regulating things that are excessively regulated or where regulation is ineffective. I don't know if this makes you a libertarian or not. You still cling to the naive notion that the court system is a egalitarian and incorruptible bastion of decision making and justice. The reality is that money can de-rail justice.


--------------------
"Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?"
"The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything."
- Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now.
Conquer's Club

Edited by ScavengerType (08/13/08 03:19 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineScavengerType
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
Re: Libertarians? [Re: ScavengerType]
    #8787603 - 08/17/08 05:28 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Here's a new line of the argument here lets skip the common resources/spaces and the grey line between if ones action effects another person, and we'll step back into the costs and ownership systems.

For example the road system that we have is essential to our society.  Most roads begin as dirt roads that could be build and maintained by a community and as traffic flow increases through them they need to be  modified to support heavier traffic loads. Charging for a road or paying to build a better road surface would be inconvenient if traffic in an area were to pick up. At this point a benevolent company (likely a road building/maintenance contractor and road billing company) may pick up the project. This would be good for all parties because it would relieve the current road owners of obligations with the maintenance and billing of their road system as well as sell their land (roadway) that they communally added value to by making into a road. In this new world this roadway company will buy all roads in an area if possible because it would be inconvenient to charge for their road's use otherwise. In fact this will naturally create a market where such companies merge and/or buy each other's company or inferstructure out. I won't attack this monopoly for it's possibility of price gouging, since other vehicular transit systems will not exist, lets pretend some sort of legal precedent exists in consumer contracts to prevent the road company from radical price gouging on road use and or the level of road development.

If people do not want to pay for roads they don't have to, they can ride bikes or take public transit perhaps or even if it's required just walk elsewhere. Perhaps the ability to get out of using roads is actually impossible now that I consider it, but I'm sure the expenses of walking or bike riding would be less since they reduce the wear you'd inflict on the road and thus what you are extracting out of the transit system.

That brings us to the final question how much do they charge and who pays? Well for one industrial transport of materials will be charged more since heavy weights degrade the resource more, thus shifting the expense to the consumer (Hidden cost #1). RVs vs mopeds would likely be a factor so the amount of drivers and the amount/size of vehicles per household may be the major factor in billing per household and per industrial/commercial vehicles. This cost would be obvious and fair compared to the price of the road. However the factors of corporate influence have not been factored in, some corporate operators may have a lot of vehicles and an ability to force a lower rate from this road company. This likely will be an important force that would counteract hidden cost #1 and shift the charges for roads to the residential users who use them less and with less wear.

Additionally the road service may find itself in a position to coheres services like bus services out of business or at least to destroy their market share by jacking up prices to them specifically and buying there shares at the reduced market value that they caused. I might point out this practice is anti-competitive and totally legal under a libertarian society since libertarian societies advocate the discrimination by a property owner of service or sale to anyone for any reason. This would have the temporary effect while the bus line is still active of radically increasing fares and after it has been taken over a increase in fares over the baseline that the bus used to operate at. This is because from the company's perspective it has to recoup the losses of road fee reductions for every passenger as a road user (hidden cost #2). Though this may not work all the time for heavy traffic situations as the overall reduction in traffic flow may be beneficial for the company if traffic flows are less than optimal it will justify an increase in rates.

So lets break down the costs now, road maintenance costs are extracted from income taxes and gas taxes just off the top of my head here. So the wealthy and companies pay a large proportion of road maintenance and development as with road users based on level of road use through gas taxes. Clearly this is a balance of fair use and user's ability to pay, though some non-users or reduced users are footing the bill for the system. However since even cycling or walking could count as road use the validity of a non-user argument is fundamentally flawed.

To compare the libertarian system would be flat rate based on above mentioned road wear factors and the hidden costs mentioned. Hidden cost #1 would be a relatively across the board increase in good prices based on shipping prices. Cheep crap would increase in price as much as luxury goods so the impact would probibly be heaviest on low income earners. Though development of real estate/ home repair may become substantially more expensive too. The Hidden cost #2 charge that would increase the costs of public transit such as buses where a high amount of people travel together at a reduced rate. These costs would fall on the poor more than anyone else. Alternate methods of transportation would create price ceilings for how much this hidden charge could be. Additional factors like a competing subway/rail system or taxi transportation would be another factor that would likely effect the ceiling on hidden cost #2 and costs for non-natives in a city as well as.

The practical effect is that corporations and the rich do pay less of the expenses of a road system under a libertarian road management company. The poor pay more and are price gouged to the point that all modes of transportation reach a equilibrium cost, not excessively high but not lower than their costs as per the current system. Additionally the costs of transport for goods would increase since the road system would no longer be subsidizing good transport by building roads. As I mentioned the impact would be proportionally heavier on lower income peoples with the exception that this is already proportionally payed in taxes under the current system. Thus the increase would be heavier on the poor but proportionally decreased by a reduction in corporate expenses in taxes, so the increase would be countered by an overall decrease in prices that may partially eliminate some of the price increases but would probibly still decrease the cost of luxury goods and increase the cost of cheep goods. By far the biggest factor to consider in this scenario is the ability of corporate users to leverage for lower prices and the inability of residential users to do the same without wide scale organization that could take years or never get off the ground. Beyond that realize this private entity will want to maximize development or minimize it proportionately to how much it has invested in such inferstructure and personnel.

What we are left with is a worse situation than already exists at only a cost reduction to wealthy residents and corporations who do not rely on mass transport and cost increases for most all other users. Additionally it subjugates the population to the legal will of the corporation. For example if the road company wanted protests or parades would be disallowed with no real reason, unless residents/businesses had a contract to maintain these freedoms and likely with all the legal crap to be considered when making these sale contracts it would literally be the last thing on their mind.

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

As a note to above poster's comments
-Governments do protect the right to organize unions (I'm not sure if I mentioned this)
-You are not a medical/chemical/environmental/geophysical expert, nobody is all those things, in fact some of those things are divided into sub specializations because it's too difficult to be a full expert in any one field. How do you know you will not be the "idiot" that the government is protecting? Furthermore how could you propose others be expected to protect themselves from such a diverse and sometimes complex set of dangers if becoming an expert on all of them is impossible?


--------------------
"Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?"
"The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything."
- Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now.
Conquer's Club

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   PhytoExtractum Kratom Powder for Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* 34 Libertarian arguments debunked silversoul7 2,603 7 05/09/03 05:06 AM
by Phred
* A Libertarian's Message Phred 1,249 12 11/03/08 12:50 PM
by buckwheat
* Libertarians & War
( 1 2 all )
silversoul7 3,539 25 10/13/04 01:21 AM
by hound
* Badnarik and Libertarians "Sickos"? JesusChrist 2,412 14 09/10/04 01:20 PM
by Ancalagon
* I cant stand Libertarians....
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )
vader34 8,901 160 12/27/12 11:49 AM
by Gilgamesh18
* Obama backs away from McCain's debate challenge
( 1 2 3 4 all )
lonestar2004 6,184 68 08/12/08 10:48 PM
by MrSinister
* Libertarian Factor to Romney's defeat...
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
46 and 2 5,783 96 11/19/12 07:48 PM
by 46 and 2
* Libertarian: Ron Paul
( 1 2 all )
Bridgeburner 3,905 32 11/29/07 12:37 AM
by pooppoop

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
14,597 topic views. 2 members, 9 guests and 5 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.033 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 14 queries.