a question about public roads

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I.e., you want your personal preferences to be violently imposed.

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

[/ QUOTE ]

So they could park their cars and watch movies?

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if I wanted to bulldoze it and build a cinema and a carpark?

[zasterguava]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. I.e., you want your personal preferences to be violently imposed.

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

[/ QUOTE ]

2. So they could park their cars and watch movies?

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

3. What if I wanted to bulldoze it and build a cinema and a carpark?

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Violently imposed? I guess it is imposed by the threat of law and jurisdiction which I understand can be construed as violent. But yes, I believe this has to be the case in a capitalist society. However, as I am neither a statists or a capitalist: I am against violent state coercion and FOR a society that would not require it e.g. a different economic system to the one you propose.

2. It is the overwhelming democratic opinion amongst 'the people' (not the state/private power) that the forestry should not be destroyed and replaced by cinema's (I can prove this). It is the overwhelming undemocratic opinion of private power that the forestry should be destroyed and replaced by sources of income e.g. cinema's (this can be proved). Under capitalism the people's interest must be protected by some sort of regulatory system that benefits democratic opinion/the majority. Thus the scenario doesn't work because it simply isn't the case that people want this.

3. Currently you would not be granted to impose on the collective interest of society by the state which in this instance represents democratic opinion. In a society I would be inclinde towards you would have no reason to want to build a cinema on treasured land nor would you have the incination or ability to violently destruct something the community benefits from.

[zasterguava]

[ 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 ]

Why do you make the assumption that is scarce land and that I'm making a 'assumption' that democratic opinion dictates it should be kept as it is? 1. the only alternative uses for this land that does not contain any scarce resources is commercial e.g. cinema's, carparks etc. 2. It is FACT that the majority of people want the forrest to be there.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
2. It is the overwhelming democratic opinion amongst 'the people' (not the state/private power) that the forestry should not be destroyed and replaced by cinema's (I can prove this). It is the overwhelming undemocratic opinion of private power that the forestry should be destroyed and replaced by sources of income e.g. cinema's (this can be proved). Under capitalism the people's interest must be protected by some sort of regulatory system that benefits democratic opinion/the majority. Thus the scenario doesn't work because it simply isn't the case that people want this.

[/ QUOTE ]

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
2. It is the overwhelming democratic opinion amongst 'the people' (not the state/private power) that the forestry should not be destroyed and replaced by cinema's (I can prove this).

[/ QUOTE ]

So what if the "democratic opinion" is X or Y? I don't care what everyone else in my neighborhood thinks about what color paint I should put on my bedroom walls. You can prove all you want that they like red, it doesn't create any legitimate authority to prevent me from painting it blue.

[ QUOTE ]
It is the overwhelming undemocratic opinion of private power that the forestry should be destroyed and replaced by sources of income e.g. cinema's (this can be proved).

[/ QUOTE ]



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reforestation

Forrestry IS a "source of income". Of course, SOME forrests are cut down and replaced with something else. But land is scarce, and has alternative uses. The fact that YOU might like a forrest is frankly about as interesting as your opinion about whether I should spend my money on apples or bananas.

[ QUOTE ]
Under capitalism the people's interest must be protected by some sort of regulatory system that benefits democratic opinion/the majority. Thus the scenario doesn't work because it simply isn't the case that people want this.

[/ QUOTE ]

You haev to demonstrate the legitimacy of "the majority's" desire to tell other people what to do. My neighbor is flying to Hawaii for vacation; this "doesn't work" for me because I want him to spend the money on new landscaping for his front yard.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
It is the overwhelming democratic opinion amongst 'the people' (not the state/private power) that the forestry should not be destroyed and replaced by cinema's (I can prove this).

[/ QUOTE ]

If there are so many people that want forested areas why cant they purchase these areas under a free market. If there are so many people that are willing to pay it would be pretty easy for a private company to set up protected areas for people to roam about in.

[ QUOTE ]
It is the overwhelming undemocratic opinion of private power that the forestry should be destroyed and replaced by sources of income e.g. cinema's (this can be proved).

[/ QUOTE ]

And why are they setting it up to make income? Where is this income coming from? Consumers that have other desires then walking through forests. This may seem shocking but there are people that have no interest in walking through a forest. I could honestly care less if I ever see a forest again in my life.

Now how should we determine exactly how to provide for the competing desires of consumers who want forests and consumers who dont? The only scientific method of determining what people desire is the free market, where people actually have to put their money where their mouth is. And unlike democracy both parties can be provided for in exact relation to their actual needs and desires for forests.

[nietzreznor]

[ 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 America has 'democracy' too, so I don't really buy that it's state democracy that is responsible for keeping the land available for public use. How do you know corporations would destroy the land in Sweden?

In any case, how is this supposed to show that private ownership of land on a *free market* (this isn't to suggest that in a free society all land would be privately owned--I think there would be public land too, albeit not owned by the government) would lead to environmental disaster? I am asking what structural incentives, exactly, make government in a centralized statist democracy function 'well' and corporations not well. Given that both corporations in a state capitalist society and centralized government in state democracy are essentially powerful elites that don't have to answer to the demands of the public.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
2. It is the overwhelming democratic opinion amongst 'the people' (not the state/private power) that the forestry should not be destroyed and replaced by cinema's (I can prove this). It is the overwhelming undemocratic opinion of private power that the forestry should be destroyed and replaced by sources of income e.g. cinema's (this can be proved). Under capitalism the people's interest must be protected by some sort of regulatory system that benefits democratic opinion/the majority. Thus the scenario doesn't work because it simply isn't the case that people want this.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you're just assuming that in a free market most land would be owned by an elite few, and everyone else would have to 'go along' with what that elite few wanted to do with the land. But if this wasn't the case (ie, ownership of land was much more equal since corporations couldn't use the state to confer upon it comopeitive advantages, etc) then I fail to see how owning land *itself* could be the problem, since 'the people' would own the forests, and then they could do with them what they want (and I would imagine some would want forests, and some would want movie theaters). Why does this have to be an 'all or nothing thing'? The great thing about free markets is that not everything needs to be just one way--multitudes of bsuinesses can cater to a pleathora of desires, so I see no reason why we ought to believe that either a) all the forests will be cut down, or b) (assuming that the majority like forests better than movie theaters) we should have 100% forest and 0% movie theaters.

[ALawPoker]

Zast, you should stop thinking of "capitalism" as some tangible entity. The word is used as a political football, so I can see why it's easy to have misconceptions about what capitalism really refers to. "Capitalism" doesn't mindlessly cut down trees and build movie theaters. People who recognize other people's desire to watch movies and who think they can provide the service effectively build movie theaters.

Why would that ever be bad? Why is giving people want they want bad? Democracy attempts to do the same thing. It just isn't possible for it to distribute the goods as efficiently as a market.

All the stuff you're saying sort of maintains the implication that "you know best" (although you'd reply saying "No, that's not what I mean") and that your subjective insight into what's good holds some sort of universal significance even after others claim a different value.