Poll About Bigots Who Own Roads

In My Humble Opinion
41

I’ve had a look at Libertarian’s link, so I’d like to propose a solution to the problem in the spirit of that link.

(1) Assume that there are limits to the road owner’s rights to exclude people. Specifically, suppose that the owner of the road may do only a visual inspection. (It may be necessary to ponificate and appeal to authority at this point, particularly if you are worried that you have given the game away entirely[sup]1[/sup].)
(2) Suggest a risible technological “solution”[sup]2[/sup] which gets around the dilemma by assuming it away. In this case the solution is face paint.
(3) State that anyone who sees any obstacles to the reduction of all economic problems to a slogan is a socialist.

[sub]1. By saying “Tullock’s view may be disregarded even if the tarp does block out the sun and the rain, provided that this is deemed as desirable, e.g., is an external economy, not a diseconomy.” (my emphasis)
2. “…provided that the overpass is draw bridge, built of glass mesh.”[/sub]

42

Well, since the sign explicitly excludes me from having use of the road (why someone would want to do that, I do not understand), I would be breaking Libertarian law if I tried to use it.

However, I have a bit of a defiant streak so I would probably march up to the street in exxagerated fashion just to make a point. (Thanks for the face-paint idea, picmr, but I want to make a display!)

43

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Libertarian *
**

I didn’t notice this before: just ONE road? I asked if private enterprise could build a network of roads equivalent to what we have now.

Next questions: Are these two men both libertarians? Was this an a priori paper, or was it written after they had come to their conclusions?

44

Don’t know, Jab. Would a bias by the writers necessarily negate their work, that is, ought I to suspect the veracity of articles at talk origins?

45

It could. However, the people at talk origins base their conclusions on empirical facts, on physical evidence of things that have happened. The writers of that article dealt only with the hypothetical. They are talking about a situation that has never occurred. They have no evidence.