A question about private roads

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is there any reason that these firms won't be corrupted by money and power?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. It's called competition and voluntary eaxchange. A coercive monopolist who can simply force you to buy his "services" is much more susceptible to corruption (I would call government corrupt by its very definition, but that's another discussion) by power and money than is a firm whose customers can simply choose a non-corrupt competitor to do business with.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, that indeed is one force working in the direction you favor. Given the history of feudalism in the world, though, I'm far from convinced that it will constitute a sufficient force to withstand the pressures.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does the fact that you're scared give you or anyone the right to oppress others?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't oppress others. What are you trying to ask or suggest?

[JayTee]

[ QUOTE ]
Easement.

[/ QUOTE ]

How would this be enforced? Would it just be universally accepted and no arbitrator would enforce a fine for using the road? Would I have recourse if I was forced off of the road?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Another scenario. I don't know how the death star will factor into this.....but we'll see.

Scenario: There is one road in front of my home. I have to first enter this road to go anywhere. The guy who owns the road finds out that I nailed his daughter and bans me from his road. Am I just SOL?

[/ QUOTE ]

Did he also buy a one-inch-wide donut of land surrounding your property? Because that's usually what Mr. Boogeyman does in these concocted pathological scenarios. The search button is your friend.

These are fun. let's do one for statism. You wake up, and you're in North Korea. NOW WHAT?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
If they can find a "non-corrupt" competitor.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's not much that's more important than food. We have miraculously gotten this far down the statism road without having nationalized food provision. And amazingly, there is no unstoppable cartel of corrupt food thugs screwing us out of every penny we have, despite the fact that we would LITERALLY DIE without their products.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If they can find a "non-corrupt" competitor.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's not much that's more important than food. We have miraculously gotten this far down the statism road without having nationalized food provision. And amazingly, there is no unstoppable cartel of corrupt food thugs screwing us out of every penny we have, despite the fact that we would LITERALLY DIE without their products.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even though I agree with your conclusion (that in an AC world stuff like food would be easily provided), your premises do a poor job of proving the conclusion.


Even if there is ample evidence that food can be provided privately in a governed society, you havent shown that some non-direct government influence isnt required to prevent the corruption in question.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Even if there is ample evidence that food can be provided privately in a governed society, you havent shown that some non-direct government influence isnt required to prevent the corruption in question.

[/ QUOTE ]

And nobody has shown that government influence IS requried to prevent it. I also haven't shown that government influence isn't required to prevent dragons from burning all of our villages, should the default position be to assume that *is* the case?

The burden of proof must fall upon those making a claim; those who claim that such corruption is inevitable need to step up and provide more than just boogeyman assertions. Once they do that, THEN we can talk about what to do about it.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is there any reason that these firms won't be corrupted by money and power?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. It's called competition and voluntary eaxchange. A coercive monopolist who can simply force you to buy his "services" is much more susceptible to corruption (I would call government corrupt by its very definition, but that's another discussion) by power and money than is a firm whose customers can simply choose a non-corrupt competitor to do business with.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, that indeed is one force working in the direction you favor. Given the history of feudalism in the world, though, I'm far from convinced that it will constitute a sufficient force to withstand the pressures.

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as I can see this is a complete non sequitor.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
And nobody has shown that government influence IS requried to prevent it. I also haven't shown that government influence isn't required to prevent dragons from burning all of our villages, should the default position be to assume that *is* the case?

[/ QUOTE ]

of course not, but this is just another case of you using the slippery slope on two things that differ in a key way


government enacts laws to resrict certain corruptions in food distribution

governments do NOT enact laws to prevent dragon attacks; nor is there any link between the two.




[ QUOTE ]
The burden of proof must fall upon those making a claim; those who claim that such corruption is inevitable need to step up and provide more than just boogeyman assertions. Once they do that, THEN we can talk about what to do about it.

[/ QUOTE ]


given that I dont support the position, I'll leave this up to others

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And nobody has shown that government influence IS requried to prevent it. I also haven't shown that government influence isn't required to prevent dragons from burning all of our villages, should the default position be to assume that *is* the case?

[/ QUOTE ]

of course not, but this is just another case of you using the slippery slope on two things that differ in a key way


government enacts laws to resrict certain corruptions in food distribution

governments do NOT enact laws to prevent dragon attacks; nor is there any link between the two.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, wait. The implication was that if security, law, courts were privately provided, there would be corruption. There is NOT government provision of food (for the most part), and there is no (significant) corruption in private food provision. Sure there are subsidies, interventionism, etc - but there isn't any sort of corruption approaching the levels we have seen in government-provided services.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And nobody has shown that government influence IS requried to prevent it. I also haven't shown that government influence isn't required to prevent dragons from burning all of our villages, should the default position be to assume that *is* the case?

[/ QUOTE ]

of course not, but this is just another case of you using the slippery slope on two things that differ in a key way


government enacts laws to resrict certain corruptions in food distribution

governments do NOT enact laws to prevent dragon attacks; nor is there any link between the two.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, wait. The implication was that if security, law, courts were privately provided, there would be corruption. There is NOT government provision of food (for the most part), and there is no (significant) corruption in private food provision. Sure there are subsidies, interventionism, etc - but there isn't any sort of corruption approaching the levels we have seen in government-provided services.

[/ QUOTE ]


You're shifting away from the point. I never claimed that there was a direct government influence. I simply said that the fact the food industry runs privately without corruption now isnt sufficient to show it would do so without government, because you cant rule out the possibility that there are other, indirect, government influences that are preventing corruption.



Lets use a hypothetical:

Imagine that it is illegal to sell food at excessive prices during natural disasters (im not sure if this is or isnt the case, but I dont care, since its just a hypothetical). Also call this excessive pricing in times of need "corruption." (Im not sure if it is, but, again, just trying to illustrate the principle).

If the act of excessive pricing during a disaster isnt somehow banned in absense of government, then this is evidence that even though the food industry could be completely private and corruption free with a government, that government might still be necessary for the absense of corruption.


I'll admit this is a poor example, and very arguably not at all 'corruption,' but I think it gets the point accross.