a question about public roads
 

I pay my taxes (well they are deducted from my paycheck before I even see it) and I have to get into work every day on the public roads. Unfortunately they are in terrible condition, always have traffic jams and what should be a short trip turns into a long grinding slog. The government "owns" all the roads surrounding my house am I SOL?

Re: a question about public roads
 

sol?

would u rather they be privatised?

peronally where I used to live in the countryside I used to go nutso about the private roads that weren't open to the public to take shortcuts.

Re: a question about public roads
 

Tom,

I'm going to take a leap of faith and assume that this a reply to the thread I started. Borodog's reply in that thread helped me to answer the question. The past two threads I have started arose from me not being able to give my dad a good answer when I was talking to him about total privatization. I understand that AC isn't utopia and that worse case scenarios can happen under any system (or lack of one). I also know that it is dumb to ignore AC because it isn't perfect. People are naturally skeptical of huge changes (which is a good thing IMO) and telling him "Lol I guess you think Bill Gates will eat your babies too" wouldn't have helped to convince him. Perhaps I'll lay off of the thread starting for a while.

Re: a question about public roads
 

[ QUOTE ]
Tom,

I'm going to take a leap of faith and assume that this a reply to the thread I started. Borodog's reply in that thread helped me to answer the question. The past two threads I have started arose from me not being able to give my dad a good answer when I was talking to him about total privatization. I understand that AC isn't utopia and that worse case scenarios can happen under any system (or lack of one). I also know that it is dumb to ignore AC because it isn't perfect. People are naturally skeptical of huge changes (which is a good thing IMO) and telling him "Lol I guess you think Bill Gates will eat your babies too" wouldn't have helped to convince him. Perhaps I'll lay off of the thread starting for a while.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey it's ok. I start feeling bad when people turn out to be reasonable guys. No need to lay off the thread starting on my account I made pretty much all these type of posts before I was convinced about AC. If you're genuinely interested in finding out more that's fantastic there's a bunch of stuff already on the forum that can help you out. If I was to give any advice it'd be to ask yourself "might this scenario have been thought of before?" before posting. There are a lot of really smart people here that are AC (not that I'm one of them) and they've really thought out their positions it's not just Molotov throwing mohawked "anarchists". But hey I believe in freedom so feel free to tell me where to get off. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: a question about public roads
 

Tom,

It's cool. The reason I'm going to lay off of the thread starting is because I am a bit guilty of misestarding. I don't know if you support Ron Paul, but I'm trying to inform myself more so that I can convince a few people to vote for him in the primaries (I have a family full of Republicans). Perhaps I should lay off of trying to argue for complete ACism, though. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: a question about public roads
 

The idea of ACism is utopian. I don't think the term has to be used negatively. Clearly the implication of ACism would not be "utopian" in the classical sense but it is still a utopian idea.

"A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth even glancing at" Oscar Wilde

Re: a question about public roads
 

[ QUOTE ]
sol?

would u rather they be privatised?

peronally where I used to live in the countryside I used to go nutso about the private roads that weren't open to the public to take shortcuts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I always hate it when I can't drive through my neighbor's yard to save a couple of minutes. What a selfish bastard. Also, I got nutso about the hottub in his backyard that isn't open to the public to take quick dips.

Re: a question about public roads
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
sol?

would u rather they be privatised?

peronally where I used to live in the countryside I used to go nutso about the private roads that weren't open to the public to take shortcuts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I always hate it when I can't drive through my neighbor's yard to save a couple of minutes. What a selfish bastard. Also, I got nutso about the hottub in his backyard that isn't open to the public to take quick dips.

[/ QUOTE ]

Screw you, pvn. I tried logging into your account to fix that typo, and it won't let me.

Re: a question about public roads
 

You might be better off, at least at first, talking about Ron Paul like he's someone a Republican should already like. He argues from a principled libertarian platform, but the Republicans you're talking to don't necessarily realize that or need to realize that; so you shouldn't feel like you have to defend him at the roots.

Remember he is:
-Against all taxes
-Against government running our lives (work Ronald Reagan in there, or everywhere)
-Staunchly pro life
-Staunchly opposed to illegal immigration
-Voted for Afghanistan invasion
-Against Iraq War and ME foreign policy on Constitutional grounds (again, Ronald Reagan... he took down the Soviet Union with a strong defense and no intervention... it's a more efficient approach)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXZpuIXEzWk

Kind of dull, but might be good to show to big pro-lifers.

Re: a question about public roads
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
sol?

would u rather they be privatised?

peronally where I used to live in the countryside I used to go nutso about the private roads that weren't open to the public to take shortcuts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I always hate it when I can't drive through my neighbor's yard to save a couple of minutes. What a selfish bastard. Also, I got nutso about the hottub in his backyard that isn't open to the public to take quick dips.

[/ QUOTE ]

Screw you, pvn. I tried logging into your account to fix that typo, and it won't let me.

[/ QUOTE ]

nh

Re: a question about public roads
 

Dont worry, I still used the private roads. No one is going to deny me the freedom of using a road that is merely kept private to enlarge the ego and self-worth of a douchey fat-cat...

THIS LAND IS YOUR LAND
words and music by Woody Guthrie

Chorus:
This land is your land, this land is my land
From California, to the New York Island
From the redwood forest, to the gulf stream waters
This land was made for you and me

As I was walking a ribbon of highway
I saw above me an endless skyway
I saw below me a golden valley
This land was made for you and me

Chorus

I've roamed and rambled and I've followed my footsteps
To the sparkling sands of her diamond deserts
And all around me a voice was sounding
This land was made for you and me

Chorus

The sun comes shining as I was strolling
The wheat fields waving and the dust clouds rolling
The fog was lifting a voice come chanting
This land was made for you and me

Chorus

As I was walkin' - I saw a sign there
And that sign said - no tress passin'
But on the other side .... it didn't say nothin!
Now that side was made for you and me!

Chorus

In the squares of the city - In the shadow of the steeple
Near the relief office - I see my people
And some are grumblin' and some are wonderin'
If this land's still made for you and me.

Chorus (2x)

Re: a question about public roads
 

[ QUOTE ]
Dont worry, I still used the private roads. No one is going to deny me the freedom of using a road that is merely kept private to enlarge the ego and self-worth of a douchey fat-cat...

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. You better hope I don't find out where you live, and decide to visit you while you're not home.

Re: a question about public roads
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dont worry, I still used the private roads. No one is going to deny me the freedom of using a road that is merely kept private to enlarge the ego and self-worth of a douchey fat-cat...

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. You better hope I don't find out where you live, and decide to visit you while you're not home.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, aggressive. You do realise there is a difference between ones home and the issue of buying up public land? The owners home was about 3 miles.

Re: a question about public roads
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dont worry, I still used the private roads. No one is going to deny me the freedom of using a road that is merely kept private to enlarge the ego and self-worth of a douchey fat-cat...

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. You better hope I don't find out where you live, and decide to visit you while you're not home.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, aggressive. You do realise there is a difference between ones home and the issue of buying up public land? The owners home was about 3 miles.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF is "public land"? How far is far enough that it doesn't matter?

Re: a question about public roads
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dont worry, I still used the private roads. No one is going to deny me the freedom of using a road that is merely kept private to enlarge the ego and self-worth of a douchey fat-cat...

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. You better hope I don't find out where you live, and decide to visit you while you're not home.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, aggressive. You do realise there is a difference between ones home and the issue of buying up public land? The owners home was about 3 miles.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whether my land is a house or a strip of pavement, I do not expect you to drive through it unauthorized.

Re: a question about public roads
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dont worry, I still used the private roads. No one is going to deny me the freedom of using a road that is merely kept private to enlarge the ego and self-worth of a douchey fat-cat...

[/ QUOTE ]



Wow. You better hope I don't find out where you live, and decide to visit you while you're not home.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, aggressive. You do realise there is a difference between ones home and the issue of buying up public land? The owners home was about 3 miles.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whether my land is a house or a strip of pavement, I do not expect you to drive through it unauthorized.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who authorised you to own it exclusively?

Re: a question about public roads
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dont worry, I still used the private roads. No one is going to deny me the freedom of using a road that is merely kept private to enlarge the ego and self-worth of a douchey fat-cat...

[/ QUOTE ]



Wow. You better hope I don't find out where you live, and decide to visit you while you're not home.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, aggressive. You do realise there is a difference between ones home and the issue of buying up public land? The owners home was about 3 miles.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whether my land is a house or a strip of pavement, I do not expect you to drive through it unauthorized.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who authorised you to own it exclusively?

[/ QUOTE ]

Tell us your address so we can share your place with you. (Serious answer: read Locke)

Re: a question about public roads
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dont worry, I still used the private roads. No one is going to deny me the freedom of using a road that is merely kept private to enlarge the ego and self-worth of a douchey fat-cat...

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. You better hope I don't find out where you live, and decide to visit you while you're not home.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, aggressive. You do realise there is a difference between ones home and the issue of buying up public land? The owners home was about 3 miles.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF is "public land"? How far is far enough that it doesn't matter?

[/ QUOTE ]

So you propose denying people the "right to roam"? You think it is fair that pre-2007 half the coastline of England was exclusive to landowners and cut off to the public? Granted the 'right to roam' refers to walkers not drivers, but I fear you extend your love of private property to wish the denial of our rights as humans to walk on treasured land? This is an issue where I strongly support state intervention and regulation of public access to private land, but more so the writings of anarchists and individualist socialists.

Re: a question about public roads
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dont worry, I still used the private roads. No one is going to deny me the freedom of using a road that is merely kept private to enlarge the ego and self-worth of a douchey fat-cat...

[/ QUOTE ]



Wow. You better hope I don't find out where you live, and decide to visit you while you're not home.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, aggressive. You do realise there is a difference between ones home and the issue of buying up public land? The owners home was about 3 miles.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whether my land is a house or a strip of pavement, I do not expect you to drive through it unauthorized.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who authorised you to own it exclusively?

[/ QUOTE ]

Tell us your address so we can share your place with you. (Serious answer: read Locke)

[/ QUOTE ]

268. Flinders St, Melbourne, VIC, 3000. Your welcome.

Serious answer: read Wilde, Bakunin, Thompson, Kropotkin, Proudhon....

But yes I will read some John Locke essays on property rights.

Re: a question about public roads
 

This is a hopeless argument. In a society where most people agree that individuals can own land, the people who don't agree will be very unhappy with the situation and vice versa.

Re: a question about public roads
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is a hopeless argument. In a society where most people agree that individuals can own land, the people who don't agree will be very unhappy with the situation and vice versa.

[/ QUOTE ]



Not really. As I stated I agree with the phi;losophical fundamentals of the classic anarchist writers. I do, however, also strongly support the state extending the right of citizens to have the 'right to roam' and limit landowners plans to dominate the countryside etc. People who fight for this right within the system have achieved some success.

Right to Roam to become Law

Judge Halts Oil and Gas Development in Proposed Colorado Wilderness
Ruling protects wilderness qualities and rare plants from harmful drilling


Utah Counties Can't Run Over National Parks
You don't own parts of our national parks just because you say so.


Arctic Wildlife Gets a New Lease on Life
Alaskan lake and surrounding area gets protection from drilling.


Roadless Rule Repeal Repealed
Roadless forests are once again protected -- for now.


House Votes to Stop Subsidizing Logging in the Tongass
Legislation seeks to protect America's largest intact temperate rainforest, sustainable economies dependent on it, and even save taxpayers money.


Hawai’i Shoreline Access Suit Settled
State of Hawai'i will reconsider definition of 'shoreline'


Putting the Brakes on Fast Track Oil Shale Development
Another sneak-attack on the 2006 Budget Reconciliation Bill thwarted; this one to prevent public scrutiny of oil shale development.


Robledo Wilderness protected from ORVs
Wilderness protected from destructive off-road vehicle use


Supreme Court Rejects Attack on Monuments
Earthjustice successfully defends authority of the president to create national monuments in lawsuit brought by anti-environmental groups.


Senate Votes to Protect Arctic from More Drilling
Attempt to hijack the Defense Appropriations Bill fails


Harmful Mining Provision Derailed by United Interest Groups
A sneaky effort to allow private companies to mine on public lands without paying a royalty to the taxpayer fails to make it into the 2006 Budget Reconciliation Bill.


BLM Will Look Before Leasing
Future oil and gas development strategies will go through environmental impact analysis


Overgrazing on the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument
Grazing reductions on National Monument defended


Powder River Basin Protected
Judge Downes determines Army Corps' CBM wastewater storage permit is illegal.


Utah's First Attempt to Use New Highway Loophole Defeated
State withdraws Weiss Highway claim


Walton County Lands Protected
Greenways and trails will help students learn about conservation


Forest Service Withdraws Plan to Issue Oil and Gas Leases Near Yellowstone
Following vociferous public outcry and a threatened lawsuit by Earthjustice, the Forest Service does the right thing


Desert Tortoise: "Recovery," Not Just "Survival"
A federal judge rules that conservation requires "recovery," not just "survival"


Biological and Cultural Treasures at Makua to be Protected
A March 2004 settlement requires the military to stop conducting prescribed burns at Makua Military Reservation and to complete their consultation with the USFWS in an effort to protect native Hawaiian cultural sites and endangered plants and animals.


Yellowstone and Grand Teton to be Protected From Snowmobiles
Earthjustice helps protect valuable and fragile ecosystems from the noise and noxious emissions of snowmobiles.


Forest Service's Ability to Protect Endangered Fish Upheld
Ninth Circuit denies challenge to Forest Service decision that protects endangered chinook salmon and steelhead trout.


Earthjustice Defends Public's Access to Courts
Earthjustice teamed with Alaskan Native groups and a political party to succesfully challenge a new Alaska state law that inhibited public access to courts.


A-B Wilderness Protected From Roads
The Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness is kept road-free with help from Earthjustice


Clean Air Standards to be Strengthened Above National Parks
Earthjustice forces EPA to end 13-year delay in raising clean air standards above nation's most prized national parks.


Restricting Snowmobile Use in Yellowstone National Park
Snowmobile use restricted in Yellowstone as damaging to park life and visitors.


Court Requires Full Study of Mammoth Airport Expansion
Judge Slams FAA for Failure to Conduct Thorough Study; A Second Case Proceeds in State Court


Appeals Court Reinstates National Forest Roadless Area Protections
A federal court of appeals in San Francisco on December 12 overturned an injunction that had blocked a presidential order to stop building roads in national forest roadless areas.


Canyons of the Ancients Stays Quiet
Negotiations with the oil and gas survey company bear fruit


Bitterroot Salvage Sale Cut by Two-Thirds
Project was largest in history

Tongass Wilderness Injunction Buys Time
Court rules Forest Service cannot continue to approve timber sales in roadless areas while simultaneously considering the very same areas for wilderness protection.


Settlement Requiring State to Regulate Commercial Recreational Use of Public Lands
Will protect against habitat degradation and excessive interference with other uses of public lands.


Sequoia National Monument is Affirmed
The national monument established by President Clinton to protect the last pockets of unprotected giant sequoias on the west slope of the Sierra Nevada has withstood a challenge.


Safeguarding Hawai'i's Native Plants
Under court order, in 2003, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service made final designations of more than 400,000 acres of critical habitat for scores of species of endangered and threatened plants native to Hawai`i.


Gold in Them Thar Hills
It looked as if nothing could stop a Canadian mining company from reopening an abandoned gold mine adjacent to Yellowstone National Park, threatening three major watersheds with acid-laced pollution. But Earthjustice had a better idea. Staff attorney Doug Honnold explains.


Postal Arrogance
In the mid-1980s, the Army gave the Postal Service permission to build a large new postoffice on land that was about to become a national park. Buck Parker, executive director of Earthjustice, explains what happened next.


Kaiparowits Power Plant
The wild, remote, rugged, and beautiful Kaiparowits Plateau in southern Utah was slated to become an industrial zone with coal mine and power plant. Instead it is now a national monument.


Mineral King: Breaking Down the Courthouse Door
Don Harris, one of Earthjustice's founders, tells the story of how it all started, in a lawsuit that opened up the legal system to environmental organizations and sparked the creation of the organization that would become Earthjustice.

Re: a question about public roads
 

None of that has anything to do with what I said.

Re: a question about public roads
 

[ QUOTE ]
None of that has anything to do with what I said.

[/ QUOTE ]


Well, what you referred to as a "hopeless argument" was a misconception of what we were arguing about. Anyway, I have started a thread concerning this issue.

Re: a question about public roads
 

[ QUOTE ]

Tell us your address so we can share your place with you. (Serious answer: read Locke)

[/ QUOTE ]

... or Nozick on Locke's Proviso???

Re: a question about public roads
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dont worry, I still used the private roads. No one is going to deny me the freedom of using a road that is merely kept private to enlarge the ego and self-worth of a douchey fat-cat...

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. You better hope I don't find out where you live, and decide to visit you while you're not home.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, aggressive. You do realise there is a difference between ones home and the issue of buying up public land? The owners home was about 3 miles.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF is "public land"? How far is far enough that it doesn't matter?

[/ QUOTE ]

So you propose denying people the "right to roam"? You think it is fair that pre-2007 half the coastline of England was exclusive to landowners and cut off to the public? Granted the 'right to roam' refers to walkers not drivers, but I fear you extend your love of private property to wish the denial of our rights as humans to walk on treasured land? This is an issue where I strongly support state intervention and regulation of public access to private land, but more so the writings of anarchists and individualist socialists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you going to answer my question? Is "public land" = "land I want to walk around on"? How far is far enough from my home?

You personally want beachfront property, so you support government regulation. Interesting sellout.

Re: a question about public roads
 

Public land is generally land owned by the government with the intention that it is to be made available for public use and not privatised. E.G. In England the Peak District is 'public' in that it is partially owned by government with public interest in mind and also a non-government organisation the National Trust ("The Trust is constituted by the National Trust Acts 1907–1971...The Acts grant the Trust the unique statutory right to declare land inalienable — which prevents the land from being sold or mortgaged against the Trust's wishes without parliamentary intervention").

Re: a question about public roads
 

[ QUOTE ]

You personally want beachfront property, so you support government regulation. Interesting sellout.

[/ QUOTE ]

Strange assumption... but, actually my parents own a beachfront property in Sweden and the surrounding forestry below it is all owned by the government and is subsequently made public -in that people are free to walk and camp through it. This is a very good thing. If not for state intervention in this circumstance the alternative (if we are to believe the only alternatives rest on the existence of private property and capitalism) would be for it all to be bulldozed and have hotels etc. built in its place (guarenteed).

Re: a question about public roads
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You personally want beachfront property, so you support government regulation. Interesting sellout.

[/ QUOTE ]

Strange assumption... but, actually my parents own a beachfront property in Sweden and the surrounding forestry below it is all owned by the government and is subsequently made public -in that people are free to walk and camp through it. This is a very good thing. If not for state intervention in this circumstance the alternative (if we are to believe the only alternatives rest on the existence of private property and capitalism) would be for it all to be bulldozed and have hotels etc. built in its place (guarenteed).

[/ QUOTE ]

If you owned it would you buldoze it?

Re: a question about public roads
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You personally want beachfront property, so you support government regulation. Interesting sellout.

[/ QUOTE ]

Strange assumption... but, actually my parents own a beachfront property in Sweden and the surrounding forestry below it is all owned by the government and is subsequently made public -in that people are free to walk and camp through it. This is a very good thing. If not for state intervention in this circumstance the alternative (if we are to believe the only alternatives rest on the existence of private property and capitalism) would be for it all to be bulldozed and have hotels etc. built in its place (guarenteed).

[/ QUOTE ]

If you owned it would you buldoze it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep.
(I would sell it to a private firm who would bulldoze it and build on it. Democratic governments, on the other hand, are obliged to serve the public in such matters and preserve it- as is currently the case)

...sadly I don't think I have the will-power to turn down $20,000,000+.

Re: a question about public roads
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You personally want beachfront property, so you support government regulation. Interesting sellout.

[/ QUOTE ]

Strange assumption... but, actually my parents own a beachfront property in Sweden and the surrounding forestry below it is all owned by the government and is subsequently made public -in that people are free to walk and camp through it. This is a very good thing. If not for state intervention in this circumstance the alternative (if we are to believe the only alternatives rest on the existence of private property and capitalism) would be for it all to be bulldozed and have hotels etc. built in its place (guarenteed).

[/ QUOTE ]

If you owned it would you buldoze it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep.
(I would sell it to a private firm who would bulldoze it and build on it. Democratic governments, on the other hand, are obliged to serve the public in such matters and preserve it- as is currently the case)

...sadly I don't think I have the will-power to turn down $20,000,000+.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ha you're the biggest sell out ever. You want government to force others to stop doing something that you yourself would do? If you don't see the hypocrisy here you may be beyond help.

Re: a question about public roads
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You personally want beachfront property, so you support government regulation. Interesting sellout.

[/ QUOTE ]

Strange assumption... but, actually my parents own a beachfront property in Sweden and the surrounding forestry below it is all owned by the government and is subsequently made public -in that people are free to walk and camp through it. This is a very good thing. If not for state intervention in this circumstance the alternative (if we are to believe the only alternatives rest on the existence of private property and capitalism) would be for it all to be bulldozed and have hotels etc. built in its place (guarenteed).

[/ QUOTE ]

If you owned it would you buldoze it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep.
(I would sell it to a private firm who would bulldoze it and build on it. Democratic governments, on the other hand, are obliged to serve the public in such matters and preserve it- as is currently the case)

...sadly I don't think I have the will-power to turn down $20,000,000+.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ha you're the biggest sell out ever. You want government to force others to stop doing something that you yourself would do? If you don't see the hypocrisy here you may be beyond help.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't that the opposite of hypocrisy? I'm acknowledging I would do something bad; and suggesting there should be measures in place to stop me (or anybody else) from doing it. I dont think there should be the incentives there to commit such an atrocity in the first place, but, as long as capitalism exists then there has to be some sort of regulation in place.

Re: a question about public roads
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You personally want beachfront property, so you support government regulation. Interesting sellout.

[/ QUOTE ]

Strange assumption... but, actually my parents own a beachfront property in Sweden and the surrounding forestry below it is all owned by the government and is subsequently made public -in that people are free to walk and camp through it. This is a very good thing. If not for state intervention in this circumstance the alternative (if we are to believe the only alternatives rest on the existence of private property and capitalism) would be for it all to be bulldozed and have hotels etc. built in its place (guarenteed).

[/ QUOTE ]

If you owned it would you buldoze it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep.
(I would sell it to a private firm who would bulldoze it and build on it. Democratic governments, on the other hand, are obliged to serve the public in such matters and preserve it- as is currently the case)

...sadly I don't think I have the will-power to turn down $20,000,000+.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ha you're the biggest sell out ever. You want government to force others to stop doing something that you yourself would do? If you don't see the hypocrisy here you may be beyond help.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't that the opposite of hypocrisy? I'm acknowledging I would do something bad; and suggesting there should be measures in place to stop me (or anybody else) from doing it. I dont think there should be the incentives there to commit such an atrocity in the first place, but, as long as capitalism exists then there has to be some sort of regulation in place.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you define something that every single person in the world would do as an atrocity? I presume the only thing stopping you from going on a raping and killing spree is the fact that the government would lock you up correct? Your position here is thus "I am evil and need to give someone else (who presumably isn't evil) power over me so I don't start doing evil things." Were you raised Catholic by any chance?

Re: a question about public roads
 

[ QUOTE ]
Democratic governments, on the other hand, are obliged to serve the public in such matters and preserve it- as is currently the case

[/ QUOTE ]

?

How can you be an anarchist and believe that centralized democratic government really 'serves the people'?

This isn't even an issue of private vs. public ownership, in my mind, since both mega-corporation ownership and government ownership are extremely distasteful.
Why would one group of powerful elites (large private corporations) automatically destroy the forests, and a marginally different powerful elite (large centralized government) preserve them in the name of the people? This is an especially odd position since people that compose governments (taken from the same pool of 'greedy' people that compose corporations) work within a structure that provides incentives not to do what's in the public's best interest but rather what's in their *own* self-interest.

Re: a question about public roads
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Democratic governments, on the other hand, are obliged to serve the public in such matters and preserve it- as is currently the case

[/ QUOTE ]

?

How can you be an anarchist and believe that centralized democratic government really 'serves the people'?

This isn't even an issue of private vs. public ownership, in my mind, since both mega-corporation ownership and government ownership are extremely distasteful.
Why would one group of powerful elites (large private corporations) automatically destroy the forests, and a marginally different powerful elite (large centralized government) preserve them in the name of the people? This is an especially odd position since people that compose governments (taken from the same pool of 'greedy' people that compose corporations) work within a structure that provides incentives not to do what's in the public's best interest but rather what's in their *own* self-interest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because in Sweden this IS the case! The land is protected by the government and open for the public to roam and camp. Thus in this instace the state is performing a valuable service. If it was in the hands of corporations it WOULD be destroyed. So the answer to your question is democracy.

Re: a question about public roads
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You personally want beachfront property, so you support government regulation. Interesting sellout.

[/ QUOTE ]

Strange assumption... but, actually my parents own a beachfront property in Sweden and the surrounding forestry below it is all owned by the government and is subsequently made public -in that people are free to walk and camp through it. This is a very good thing. If not for state intervention in this circumstance the alternative (if we are to believe the only alternatives rest on the existence of private property and capitalism) would be for it all to be bulldozed and have hotels etc. built in its place (guarenteed).

[/ QUOTE ]

If you owned it would you buldoze it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep.
(I would sell it to a private firm who would bulldoze it and build on it. Democratic governments, on the other hand, are obliged to serve the public in such matters and preserve it- as is currently the case)

...sadly I don't think I have the will-power to turn down $20,000,000+.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ha you're the biggest sell out ever. You want government to force others to stop doing something that you yourself would do? If you don't see the hypocrisy here you may be beyond help.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't that the opposite of hypocrisy? I'm acknowledging I would do something bad; and suggesting there should be measures in place to stop me (or anybody else) from doing it. I dont think there should be the incentives there to commit such an atrocity in the first place, but, as long as capitalism exists then there has to be some sort of regulation in place.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you define something that every single person in the world would do as an atrocity? I presume the only thing stopping you from going on a raping and killing spree is the fact that the government would lock you up correct? Your position here is thus "I am evil and need to give someone else (who presumably isn't evil) power over me so I don't start doing evil things." Were you raised Catholic by any chance?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was merely exaggerating how awful it would be if the forestry was all cut down by using the term atrocity. Most people if given the power would do this (including myself) under a capitalist system. So no, what Im really philosophically leaning towards is the abolishment of capitalism and state power wherin there would be no incentive to cut down such beautiful forestry. Capitalism IS hostile to nature. But I will end here having already touched on a few views that will warrant the "teen angst cliche" label often used to dismiss such views e.g. I do not go round burning banknotes (other than when im playing poker) or shouting "down with capitalism" in the street. I do however, read the great writers of the Enlightenment and 19c with awe and delight!

Re: a question about public roads
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Democratic governments, on the other hand, are obliged to serve the public in such matters and preserve it- as is currently the case

[/ QUOTE ]

?

How can you be an anarchist and believe that centralized democratic government really 'serves the people'?

This isn't even an issue of private vs. public ownership, in my mind, since both mega-corporation ownership and government ownership are extremely distasteful.
Why would one group of powerful elites (large private corporations) automatically destroy the forests, and a marginally different powerful elite (large centralized government) preserve them in the name of the people? This is an especially odd position since people that compose governments (taken from the same pool of 'greedy' people that compose corporations) work within a structure that provides incentives not to do what's in the public's best interest but rather what's in their *own* self-interest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because in Sweden this IS the case! The land is protected by the government and open for the public to roam and camp. Thus in this instace the state is performing a valuable service. If it was in the hands of corporations it WOULD be destroyed. So the answer to your question is democracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Corporations like to make money. Corporations make money by pleasing customers. Customers like to roam and camp. Therefor money-grubbing corporations will always ensure that there will be land to roam and camp on.

Re: a question about public roads
 

[ QUOTE ]
Because in Sweden this IS the case! The land is protected by the government and open for the public to roam and camp. Thus in this instace the state is performing a valuable service. If it was in the hands of corporations it WOULD be destroyed. So the answer to your question is democracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you're begging a question. You're assuming that because YOU like a beach and a forrest that everyone else does too - and they like it MORE than any other alternative use of that scarce land.

Re: a question about public roads
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because in Sweden this IS the case! The land is protected by the government and open for the public to roam and camp. Thus in this instace the state is performing a valuable service. If it was in the hands of corporations it WOULD be destroyed. So the answer to your question is democracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you're begging a question. You're assuming that because YOU like a beach and a forrest that everyone else does too - and they like it MORE than any other alternative use of that scarce land.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually no; he's making the opposite assumption. He has to assume that, even though he personally likes beach and forest, nobody else does. Because if they did, the market would provide those things. So he's doubly screwed; he has to assume that nobody wants those things, AND that his personal preferences should be violently imposed above everyone else's.

Re: a question about public roads
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because in Sweden this IS the case! The land is protected by the government and open for the public to roam and camp. Thus in this instace the state is performing a valuable service. If it was in the hands of corporations it WOULD be destroyed. So the answer to your question is democracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you're begging a question. You're assuming that because YOU like a beach and a forrest that everyone else does too - and they like it MORE than any other alternative use of that scarce land.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually no; he's making the opposite assumption. He has to assume that, even though he personally likes beach and forest, nobody else does. Because if they did, the market would provide those things. So he's doubly screwed; he has to assume that nobody wants those things, AND that his personal preferences should be violently imposed above everyone else's.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I don't think my preference should "be violently imposed". I think under capitalism there must be some sort of regulation and democratic majority rule over what happens to the land. In the absence of capitalism- why would anyone in their right mind want to bulldoze the land and build cinema's and carparks there? And as such there would in a truly Anarchist society be no need for violent coercion to protect the land from destruction for private profiteering.

Re: a question about public roads
 

[ QUOTE ]
why would anyone in their right mind want to bulldoze the land and build cinema's and carparks there?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because people want to watch movies?