Why are we not moving to somalia?

Danno:

There is, indeed, a lot of data that supports that position - I'm prone to use it as a basic hypothesis myself. I am not quite ready, though, to agree that there are no cases in which minimal government is not the best (or only practicable) solution.

You can say that because you fail to address the basic contradiction in your minimal government system.

When the anarchist counter to this proposition is to call me names

Fact is, there's nothing left to explain :

You say that government is needed because if there was no government we would all kill each other - or there would be some sort of private tyranny or whatever.

If that's the case, meaning humans are basically evil, then creating a monopolistic human government to reform or check human nature is sheer nonsense.

I suspect that I've run afoul of a religious, faith-based tenet, rather than a reasoned stance.

Actually, your position is logically flawed...

Danno:

Do we need a public entity to ensure that everyone has a right to travel away from their own property, that they cannot be hemmed in by another property owner who happens to have surrounded their property?  Mayhaps - nobody seems able to point me toward a free-enterprise solution to this problem that would be practicible in an urban setting.

At least three diferent times this has been shown to be the red herring that it is.

I suppose because we didn't preface it with 'urban' it only applies to every bit of land on the face of the earth except urban property?

Danno:

When the anarchist counter to this proposition is to call me names (such as socialist, statist, etc.) rather than explain how free enterprise could fill this need, I suspect that I've run afoul of a religious, faith-based tenet, rather than a reasoned stance. 

It could be that you ignore anything that may be used as a basis of a free market solution and just keep repeating the same old tripe over and over.

Just a guess...

Juan:

Danno:

There is, indeed, a lot of data that supports that position - I'm prone to use it as a basic hypothesis myself. I am not quite ready, though, to agree that there are no cases in which minimal government is not the best (or only practicable) solution.

You can say that because you fail to address the basic contradiction in your minimal government system.

The contradiction that there is no obvious, perfect way to prevent abuse of power?

When the anarchist counter to this proposition is to call me names

Fact is, there's nothing left to explain :

You say that government is needed because if there was no government we would all kill each other - or there would be some sort of private tyranny or whatever.

If that's the case, meaning humans are basically evil, then creating a monopolistic human government to reform or check human nature is sheer nonsense.

More nonsense than expecting the market to prevent abuse in the few situations in which it cannot operate freely?

I suspect that I've run afoul of a religious, faith-based tenet, rather than a reasoned stance.

Actually, your position is logically flawed...

I keep hearing that, but apparently, I'm missing the flaw.  If the flaw, as you seem to imply, is that government is flawed, and therefore never a workable solution - I guess I'm just going to have to accept that there are some things I just don't understand.  This will not, however, lead me to taking them on faith.

Danno - probably as tired of the circularity of this as you are.

My previous reply to this not having appeared, I'll have to assume that it disappeared into errorland, and try again.

Juan:

Danno:

Can we just posit that it's easy to show the evils of present government and leave that section of the discussion?

But not only present government is evil and fails. All governments do - it's in their nature. If we regard power as a threat then it seems to me that, by far, the biggest threat is not 'private' tyranny but state tyranny.

I agree with you - government is a dangerous and destructive master. The crux of our disagreement is whether it can be done without as a servant.

Yet the argument I'm not sure you're addressing is this : It's true that people are not angels, so anarchy is not going to be paradise, BUT for that very same reason - people not being angels - centralizing power is a worse solution than not centralizing it.

I understand your assertion, and, in any case in which the market can operate freely, I agree with you. 

It may well be that the market would operate to provide roads in the limited space of an urban environment just fine - I can't point to an example of where it has been tried, yet failed to do so.  Nor can I point toward any modern-era government system that has not grown into an intrusive, tyrannical system.  As has been pointed out earlier in this topic, there have been minimally-intrusive governments that have been remarkably stable, though they imposed rules I'd consider intolerable by today's standards.   It may be possible to design one that would remain stable, not growing beyond the bounds originally intended - though previous attempts to do so in the past several centuries have demonstrably failed.

Danno:

Juan:

A city in which home owners are surrounded by roads they don't control and are thus subjected to the will of the road owner is NOT a 'free' city - if anything it is an example of absolute monarchy...

I totally agree - which is why I'd like to know how that situation can be reliably prevented under an anarchic system of road ownership.

Well, the only answer I can come up with is public sidewalks, so I guess I'm a commie after all =] - although I don't think a government is needed in order to have public sidewalks. Also, gated communities or private cities in which roads are jointly owned sounds acceptable to me.

The maintainence and regulation (traffic laws, etc.) of such jointly owned systems is usually referred to as government, is it not?  A private city, owned by someone other than myself, may work just fine for its inhabitants - but it'll be governed by the owners, and if that ownership is widespread, it'll look like a government.  There may be ways for this to be set up that will prevent tyranny - exploring those seems to me to be a worthwhile task.

Where there is no room for competition, we may be stuck with government as the best known method of making local travel available in urban areas.

I can't think of a case in which that is necessarily true.

Necessarily, no - but urban roads, the case under discussion, does seem to be a case that requires further examination.

It may well be that there would be a way for the free market to reliably provide functional transit routes in urban areas - it would be good to find that method. If we cannot find such a method, we'll need to find a way in which a government that provides those roads could be reliably made to fill the role of servant rather than master.

Maybe we're talking past each other to some degree. The issue is not how to provide roads, but how the land used as roads is owned. That land can be jointly owned - no government is needed for that.

As I've said before - widespread joint ownership, even on a city-by-city or neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis, must have management, and must take action to maintain and regulate those roads - and, in practice, is indistinguishable from a government.  If I am mistaken here, and there would be a method that would provide the service without emulating a government, it has passed my notice, and I would appreciate it being explained to me.

There may be a perfectable solution - but there often isn't. Everything has a cost - that's a basic, undisputed tenet of economics.

Of course. And the 'anarchist' position is that government solutions are always more expensive than market solutions.

Change that to "almost always", and I'll agree wholeheartedly.  Give me a viable plan for a market solution to this problem, and you'll have convinced me.

Danno, wondering where my first reply went to.... very possibly a glitch on my end.

Anonymous Coward:

Danno:

Do we need a public entity to ensure that everyone has a right to travel away from their own property, that they cannot be hemmed in by another property owner who happens to have surrounded their property?  Mayhaps - nobody seems able to point me toward a free-enterprise solution to this problem that would be practicible in an urban setting.

At least three diferent times this has been shown to be the red herring that it is.

Okay - let's look at the ones I've seen.

1 - A competing road that runs the same route, alongside the existing road.  Viable, with enough land to expand upon.  Less efficient, due to duplication of effort, and probably needless unless the initial road provider is mismanaged.  Workable, unless there is no room for it because it's an urban area.

Doing just that, but at different elevations, because urban land use prevents it from being side-by-side.  Picturing this running in front of my house is somewhat horrific.  Just as I'd strenuously object to someone building a house elevated directly above mine, I can see property rights issues.  Even with just two layers, the on-and-off ramp issue would take some very creative engineering.  Without further explanation, I don't see this as remarkably viable in urban environments.

2 - Joint/committee ownership of roads. I have yet to see any explanation of how this will work differently from government.  If this is, indeed, the proposal - we have been talking past each other on an issue of mere labeling, and we can switch focus to how to design this system to minimize future problems.

3 - Trust the entity that owns the roads to be reasonably benevolent.  This has worked so poorly in other endeavors (notably socialist systems people were enthused about starting) that I consider it's inapplicability to be self-evident.

4 - Count on a new technology of transportation that will make roads irrelevant.  Even if this does happen, those of us who enjoy walking will be stuck with right-of-way issues, and counting on this happening seems rather risky to me.

5 - Everyone whose property adjoins the road owns a specific, adjacent piece of the road.  I've raised concerns about this method earlier - primarily, the people who own any given part of the road may want to use it to obstruct motor traffic - nor could I claim the right to prevent them from doing so.

If there's one I've missed, I'd appreciate it being pointed out to me specifically.  Largely, that's what I've been asking for all along.

 

Danno:

When the anarchist counter to this proposition is to call me names (such as socialist, statist, etc.) rather than explain how free enterprise could fill this need, I suspect that I've run afoul of a religious, faith-based tenet, rather than a reasoned stance. 

It could be that you ignore anything that may be used as a basis of a free market solution and just keep repeating the same old tripe over and over.

It could be.  I expect that I'm not the only person who has grown tired of this being such a circular debate.  I may, indeed, have missed important points, and may owe an apology to the person who made that point.  It does not, however, look like that to me.

Danno, overdue at work.  It's perhaps not good that the boss is so understanding about such things.

My reply is more messy (chaotic ? anarchical ?) than usual - so I apologize in advance.

Danno:

The contradiction that there is no obvious, perfect way to prevent abuse of power?

No, I agree that there's no obvious and perfect way to do that.

Danno:

Juan:

Yet the argument I'm not sure you're addressing is this : It's true that people are not angels, so anarchy is not going to be paradise, BUT for that very same reason - people not being angels - centralizing power is a worse solution than not centralizing it.

I understand your assertion, and, in any case in which the market can operate freely, I agree with you.

But the market doesn't come into play in this. My assertion is always true. IF people are not angels THEN government is a worse 'solution' than no-government -- that's all.

It may well be that the market would operate to provide roads in the limited space of an urban environment just fine - I can't point to an example of where it has been tried, yet failed to do so.

My personal position is that the problem of roads within a city is not being framed correctly. The issue is not how free enterprise can provide roads - the issue is how land ownership gets assigned.

Nor can I point toward any modern-era government system that has not grown into an intrusive, tyrannical system.

No wonder about that since government, by design, is free to dictate what the law is.

As has been pointed out earlier in this topic, there have been minimally-intrusive governments that have been remarkably stable,

I missed that part. As far as I know there never was a libertarian government. Maybe there were stable tyrannies, but I'm not very interested in them...

It may be possible to design one that would remain stable, not growing beyond the bounds originally intended -

The thing is, it never happened in practice, and theory says it can never happen, so, frankly, it seems to me that the rational position is, after all, anarchy...

Danno:

Juan:

Well, the only answer I can come up with is public sidewalks, so I guess I'm a commie after all =] - although I don't think a government is needed in order to have public sidewalks. Also, gated communities or private cities in which roads are jointly owned sounds acceptable to me.

The maintainence and regulation (traffic laws, etc.) of such jointly owned systems is usually referred to as government, is it not?

I'm not sure that's the proper name. A bunch of people owning a road are just that, people owning a road. Joint ownership of roads doesn't give anybody the 'right' to political control. Traffic laws are politically irrelevant and would be handled by private providers of security/insurance companies, anyway.

A private city, owned by someone other than myself, may work just fine for its inhabitants - but it'll be governed by the owners, and if that ownership is widespread, it'll look like a government.

In a free city people can do whatever they please in their homes and businesses. And I expect that in a city where people have libertarian leanings, they would find the idea of using the roads to exclude redheads, or gays, or commies, to be a ridiculous idea.

As I've said before - widespread joint ownership, even on a city-by-city or neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis, must have management, and must take action to maintain and regulate those roads - and, in practice, is indistinguishable from a government.

And I repeat, I don't see how an association whose purpose is to maintain sidewalks can be used as a tool for tyranny.

Danno:

3 - Trust the entity that owns the roads to be reasonably benevolent.  This has worked so poorly in other endeavors (notably socialist systems people were enthused about starting) that I consider it's inapplicability to be self-evident.

Do you trust the entity that owns the food you eat to be reasonably benevolent? What about the software, the phones, the fuel, the hospitals you trust? Are they benevolent?

In other words, do you know and understand anything about the science of economics?

Stranger:

Danno:

3 - Trust the entity that owns the roads to be reasonably benevolent.  This has worked so poorly in other endeavors (notably socialist systems people were enthused about starting) that I consider it's inapplicability to be self-evident.

Do you trust the entity that owns the food you eat to be reasonably benevolent? What about the software, the phones, the fuel, the hospitals you trust? Are they benevolent?

In other words, do you know and understand anything about the science of economics?

Oh but it's different with roads.

So, let me play devil's advocate...

What happens if the road owner says that gays can't use 'his' roads ?

Stranger:

Danno:

3 - Trust the entity that owns the roads to be reasonably benevolent.  This has worked so poorly in other endeavors (notably socialist systems people were enthused about starting) that I consider it's inapplicability to be self-evident.

Do you trust the entity that owns the food you eat to be reasonably benevolent? What about the software, the phones, the fuel, the hospitals you trust? Are they benevolent?

In other words, do you know and understand anything about the science of economics?

Some small bit, though I'm far from being an expert.  The entities that own the food, software, phones, etc.  can, and do, all compete for my business, out of their own clear self-interest. 

The reason that roads in urban areas are a different case is that there is a limited space for those roads to exist in.  Acme Roads, a half-mile away, being run efficiently and pricing themselves competitively does me, the consumer, no good - if the road facing my house is run by Zenith Streets, who charge above-average prices while providing the absolute minimum of road maintainence.

If there is a practicable means for Acme Roads to compete for my business with Zenith Streets, then this conversation is, indeed, moot - but I would greatly appreciate an explanation of what that means would be.

Danno, apparently echoing himself.

Danno:

 

If there is a practicable means for Acme Roads to compete for my business with Zenith Streets, then this conversation is, indeed, moot - but I would greatly appreciate an explanation of what that means would be.

I said that several times already, but there are literally thousands of cities for you to choose from.

Danno:

Stranger:

Danno:

3 - Trust the entity that owns the roads to be reasonably benevolent.  This has worked so poorly in other endeavors (notably socialist systems people were enthused about starting) that I consider it's inapplicability to be self-evident.

Do you trust the entity that owns the food you eat to be reasonably benevolent? What about the software, the phones, the fuel, the hospitals you trust? Are they benevolent?

In other words, do you know and understand anything about the science of economics?

Some small bit, though I'm far from being an expert.  The entities that own the food, software, phones, etc.  can, and do, all compete for my business, out of their own clear self-interest. 

The reason that roads in urban areas are a different case is that there is a limited space for those roads to exist in.  Acme Roads, a half-mile away, being run efficiently and pricing themselves competitively does me, the consumer, no good - if the road facing my house is run by Zenith Streets, who charge above-average prices while providing the absolute minimum of road maintainence.

If there is a practicable means for Acme Roads to compete for my business with Zenith Streets, then this conversation is, indeed, moot - but I would greatly appreciate an explanation of what that means would be.

Danno, apparently echoing himself.

There's limited space for restaurants too, I guess government needs to fix that market failure.

Wouldn't competition on the market for corporate control also discipline inefficient firms?

-Jon