a question about public roads

[zasterguava]

[ 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.

[tomdemaine]

[ 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?

[nietzreznor]

[ 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.

[zasterguava]

[ 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.

[zasterguava]

[ 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!

[Borodog]

[ 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.

[pvn]

[ 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.

[Borodog]

[ 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.

[zasterguava]

[ 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.

[pvn]

[ 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?