No, he’s saying that in the real world local eccentrics don’t own roads.
You’re claiming that there are no privately owned roads in the United States? Care to back that up?
Lib, would you care to reply to my post on the last page? It would seem that my questions are ather timely, considering the state of the world right now.
How would Libertaria determine if someone has, or is making, weapons of mass destruction?
How would Libertaria deal with someone who is heavily armed and threatening to use those WOMD?
If you insist, I can come up with various cites, including a Christian Reconstruction page that specificaly states that the CRs should acquire Abombs and use them to enforce their installation of theocracy.
Calling Rib’s questions “ranting” or mine “screaming and flailing” doesn’t strike me as a particularly effective way of persuading people that your views are rational.
So what is it when a person cannot get an education because they cannot afford it and thus cannot read the signs? Honestly, this is no giant squid and I know we have people right now, today, with public education that are still illiterate… but illiteracy is a terrible thing all the way around. Even supposing the situation stays the same, that the number of illiterate people doesn’t go up or down, do you agree that being illiterate has a much more negative impact in Libertaria than it does here today?
Why, are you claiming that all roads in the United States are privately owned by local eccentrics? Or are you just building and burning strawmen at your leisure.
Aside from the efficiency concenrs, what about privacy? Any electronic toll system can easily become or be used as a tracking device for all of your movements. Effectively requiring minute-by-minute logs of someone’s whereabouts during the day is not the kind of thing libertarians are generally in favor of, though Libertarians tend to say that it’s not a problem because the government is not the one with this info.
Sorry. I can’t take four up the butt at one time. You guys have fun.
I don’t know, you got angry at me for asking what your background assumptions are instead of guessing and making arguments from there.
And been shown to be one of the key areas in which Libertaria abandons its base principles, and to render a good chunk of the alleged liberty one would have meaningless.
So, the transition to Libertaria is going to destroy all of the roads?
I did not end with “that’s f*****g crazy”. I stated my problems with the private roads.
So the signs barring non-Mormons should have been bigger. Got it. My whole point was exactly that this kind of capriciousness in a transit network is inefficient and wasteful. And I used the tiny little sign as a rhetorical device to hint that, yes, there would be a good deal of corruption in this private road game too. Lots of people gaming the system. Whether they shot you or just turned you back wasn’t my point.
I knew you would come back with this. “You didn’t read my links - Waaaah!”. Please present your own ideas in your own words. Even if they are those of others. What are the alternatives to tolls? You should have told us what you were thinking of.
As another poster pointed out. At least right now, they don’t run the roads. And yes, I know about private roads. I also know that in Libertaria all roads are private. I am thus subjected to the ever changing whims of each local road owner as I drive. Today, when I see a sign that says “Private Road” I know what I’m getting into and usually avoid such places for all the reasons I’ve stated.
Thought of that but didn’t bring it up because I did not wish to expand the debate into a broad civil-liberties-surveillance-etc… furball. But yeah, that’s a concern. Especially with my GPS idea.
can’t understand the No Trespassing signs? Haven’t you read the simple translation?
sorry, couldnt resist.
Well you’d only be taking three if you’d bothered to address Zoidberg’s legitimate concern that privatizing all roads might make for some dangerously unpredictable travelling scenarios by missing the fine print on some crackpot’s road rules sign instead of sarcastically refuting the non-point that local eccentrics don’t exist in the real world, and then straying further from Zoidberg’s argument by refuting the non-point that there are no privately owned roads in the US.
But I have to say, I do like the construction of those arguments. Is that Grade B straw you used to lash them together? Nice!
Er…my bad. He did address Zoid’s remark. :smack:
I’ll point out that this is also a pretty standard Libertarian (not just the poster) ‘debating tactic’; post a few links to sites with a lot of essays, and then complain that the person didn’t read the multiple novels worth of linked text anytime that person questions you. Don’t worry that you didn’t read them, though - if you read them and say that they either don’t adress your point in any reasonable way or were irrelevant then you can expect people using this tactic to claim that you’re not really reading them and leave in a huff(Lib has done this to me before). And expect to get accused of some kind of crime (like, ohh, murder) if you read the linked material, then cite it in your post to demonstrate that what you were saying was actually true (guess who’s done this one before?).
What’s annoying is that there is actually a good bunch of stuff advocated by Libertarians that could work, but that Libertarians are apparently constitutionally unable to explain and debate without going into some kind of weird rhetorical game. “Liberty” only means freedom from government oppression, “property rights” makes the “property” redundant in the term, “initiation of force” turns incredibly fuzzy, something as simple as ‘who has to care for a child’ involves weird terms like ‘unary contracts’ and AFAICS circular definitions of who is a parent and who is a child, and so on. The OP, for example, looked like someone looking for real answers to his question, but I don’t think that the ‘unary contracts’ bit or the ‘Libertaria will always find adoptive parents for any child despite the fact that this doesn’t happen now’ answer very satisfying, and I’ve seen a lot of people decide that libertarianism is just for fruitcakes who like arguing and not for real people. Oh well, it just makes these discussions even more theoretical.
I noticed this one while going back to verify what the original links being discussed were
Oops, C&P error on my response. My comment on the feuadlism bit should be:
I noticed this one while going back to verify what the original links being discussed were. I think it illustrates my point about definitions; the word ‘feudalism’ is certainly not being used with any standard definition (there’s no system of mutual obligation between lords who are mostly autonomous in their own domains or anything else that might really be feudal), and it serves only to confuse people who are really trying to understand. And since I’ve been criticized for asking too many questions, what else is someone supposed to do when they run across a weird statement like that?
I was gonna let that slide, Ribo. Only so many hours in a day 
I was just scared that eventually it would drag into a “political vs. economic system” debate.
Try not paying your property taxes and you’ll see who your liege lord is.
are you joking, or do you merely misunderstand the term “feudalism”?
Libertarian: If you haven’t left this thread, I would appreciate it if you could answer me this question (one which I’ve posed before, but did not get answered for one reason or another - whether it was you being drowned by questions or poor communication between us.
How does a child apply for abitration to become an adult if he does not have the funds to pay for the arbitration - and quite obviously, he won’t, as he is a child.
And a related question - let’s discuss a couple do not wish to or cannot afford to care for their 5 year old child, so they declare the child to be an adult. Can a five year old be expected to have the mental (or financial) capacity to seek arbitration? I know you dislike hypothetical scenarios, but I don’t believe that this is a ‘giant squid’ situation.
Since pretty much every country that exists is feudal according to the definition of ‘if you don’t pay taxes, you’ll be in jail’, either you don’t know what feudalism is or you’re using a definition so vague as to be worthless. “WW2 was a conflict between the feudal Axis consisting primarily of Germany, Italy, and Japan against the feudal Allies which included the US, UK, and USSR” would be true if ‘failure to pay taxes results in jail time’.
(Note that I’m avoiding just asking ‘what do you think feudalism means’, since apparently it’s bad to ask people what they mean. Now I’ll probably have some Libertarian complain that I’m jumping to conclusions about what they said…)