AC and "emminent domain"

[NewTeaBag]

[ QUOTE ]
"Let the chips fall where they may" and "The Market will sort it out".

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this not the same as "Invisible Hand FTW!"?

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Let the chips fall where they may" and "The Market will sort it out".

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this not the same as "Invisible Hand FTW!"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ask them, sir, ask them.

Cody

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
How does AC handle emminent domain issues

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't. "AC" makes no suggestions about how such stuff should be handled. It makes no predictions. It prefers no particular solutions over others. It doesn't recommend business models.

Individuals do. Roads might get funded, built, and maintained one way in one area and a totally different way somewhere else.

Further, your whole line of questioning begs an entire series of questions. First and formost, your question about eminent domain. There can't even be such a concept without government. Secondly, roads in general. We might not see nearly as many roads without government interference. Urban sprawl, for example, is almost always attributable to government interference in things like zoning ordinances (limiting vertical growth, limiting density, etc). We might not even USE roads on a regualr basis without the current combinations of subsidized road building and subsidies for big oil.

Please see: A big problem for evolutionists.

Evolution can't tell me what lifeforms we're going to see in the future. This is a copout, since we'll need lifeforms in the future, this question needs to be dealt with and obviously today's evolutionists don't have the tools to deal with it. This isn't a trick question, I just want to know what lifeforms evolutionists think we'll see in 10,000 years. Why are lifeforms a throwaway that can be dealt with after the fact?

[NewTeaBag]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How does AC handle emminent domain issues

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't. "AC" makes no suggestions about how such stuff should be handled. It makes no predictions. It prefers no particular solutions over others. It doesn't recommend business models.

Individuals do. Roads might get funded, built, and maintained one way in one area and a totally different way somewhere else.

Further, your whole line of questioning begs an entire series of questions. First and formost, your question about eminent domain. There can't even be such a concept without government. Secondly, roads in general. We might not see nearly as many roads without government interference. Urban sprawl, for example, is almost always attributable to government interference in things like zoning ordinances (limiting vertical growth, limiting density, etc). We might not even USE roads on a regualr basis without the current combinations of subsidized road building and subsidies for big oil.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, you don't know but it will sort itself out because fully free markets are better than governments? OK So it's INVISIBLE HAND FTW! I get it.

How many such issues can be dealt with in this way before any hope of putting this AC society you advocate together, drift ever and ever farther from any possibility unless some brand new civilization springs up from a vacumn untouched by the previous, cruel, menacing hand of the state.

Seriously, folks. Your the ones advocating the radical shift in society. Thus, the onus is on yall, to answer the questions and that includes the details. Society does not function without the details. Any society that is, statist or anarchist capatilist or communist or socialist or etc.


[ QUOTE ]
Please see: A big problem for evolutionists.

Evolution can't tell me what lifeforms we're going to see in the future. This is a copout, since we'll need lifeforms in the future, this question needs to be dealt with and obviously today's evolutionists don't have the tools to deal with it. This isn't a trick question, I just want to know what lifeforms evolutionists think we'll see in 10,000 years. Why are lifeforms a throwaway that can be dealt with after the fact?

[/ QUOTE ]

Shifting to a ridiculous analogy does not help the discussion. What lifeforms will exist in 10K years is not nearly as relevant as something we ALL REQUIRE NOW and in the forseeable future.

[tomdemaine]

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

I can only speak for the statist crowd, and by further division, the Libertarian crowd, but I often find that thinking causes me to shudder and run and hide under my bed. I just found the courage to crawl out after reading a post PVN made 3 days ago.

So please, no though provoking posts like the above, for my sake.

Cody

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How does AC handle emminent domain issues

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't. "AC" makes no suggestions about how such stuff should be handled. It makes no predictions. It prefers no particular solutions over others. It doesn't recommend business models.

Individuals do. Roads might get funded, built, and maintained one way in one area and a totally different way somewhere else.

Further, your whole line of questioning begs an entire series of questions. First and formost, your question about eminent domain. There can't even be such a concept without government. Secondly, roads in general. We might not see nearly as many roads without government interference. Urban sprawl, for example, is almost always attributable to government interference in things like zoning ordinances (limiting vertical growth, limiting density, etc). We might not even USE roads on a regualr basis without the current combinations of subsidized road building and subsidies for big oil.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, you don't know but it will sort itself out because fully free markets are better than governments? OK So it's INVISIBLE HAND FTW! I get it.

How many such issues can be dealt with in this way before any hope of putting this AC society you advocate together, drift ever and ever farther from any possibility unless some brand new civilization springs up from a vacumn untouched by the previous, cruel, menacing hand of the state.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I missed the plan where someone told us all about how air conditioning would be provided before it was invented. And the plan about how cell phones would be provided before those were invented.

Oh, and who the [censored] are you? Nobody needs your crappy approval in order to make things happen. "OH NOES, NTB doesn't like that road plan, back to the drawing board!"

[ QUOTE ]
Seriously, folks. Your the ones advocating the radical shift in society. Thus, the onus is on yall, to answer the questions and that includes the details. Society does not function without the details. Any society that is, statist or anarchist capatilist or communist or socialist or etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except you're not entitled to an explanation. Maybe nobody wants to build a road at all. Too bad for you, since you're not entitled to a road in the first place. You're not entitled to someone making cars, or pre-packaged hotdogs, or ice cream, or telephones, or computers, either. Did you approve all of those business plans before those things were brought to market? Food is a pretty important detail, what happens if all the farmers decide to pack it in and play poker? Do you have a statist contingency plan for that?


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Please see: A big problem for evolutionists.

Evolution can't tell me what lifeforms we're going to see in the future. This is a copout, since we'll need lifeforms in the future, this question needs to be dealt with and obviously today's evolutionists don't have the tools to deal with it. This isn't a trick question, I just want to know what lifeforms evolutionists think we'll see in 10,000 years. Why are lifeforms a throwaway that can be dealt with after the fact?

[/ QUOTE ]

Shifting to a ridiculous analogy does not help the discussion. What lifeforms will exist in 10K years is not nearly as relevant as something we ALL REQUIRE NOW and in the forseeable future.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you answer the question, yes or no? Does a "no" answer mean the theory is broken, yes or no?