I like brussel sprouts.
lol… [:P]
Asparagus is obviously far superior.
Now, I’ve got a twofold challenge for you:
- Define “material wealth” in a way that isn’t arbitrary,
- Show me where I’ve said that I believe only material wealth to matter.
And yet, actors always seek to maximise utility, hence it is true that more wealth is better than less (subjectively construed), this is sounding strangely utilitarian to me.
But wait, he needs capital to provide the service.
What, people working at post offices make decisions regarding the use of capital in the post office? No, that’s not true.
Yes, and the former less so than the latter. For reasons already outlined.
Fascism is not the same as public monopoly. Monopoly is a legal priveledge, fascism is an economic system in which big business and the state become the same entity.
Now, you’re muddying the waters. A private monopoly is one thing, what you’re suggesting is another.
I’ve not advocated anything.
Brussel Sprouts or Asparagus?
Ganja all the way man you know that shits my favourite green.
Marxist.
Yo, we’re an oppressed class,
Yes and he steals it from his forced ‘customers’ – I already said that. Your game is mightily boring. And yet you will keep on babbling, no ? What, you can’t admit that a wetback is more clever than you ?
Ppl working at the post office have a guaranteed source of income - all of them. That’s what I said. So, your ‘guaranteed-source-of-income’ argument, is, just like the rest of your ‘arguments’, IR - REL - E - VANT.
No you didn’t provide a single valid reason.
Yes, and this begs the question. He needs the capital to provide the good that the customer consumes.
So what? Your point doesn’t hit it’s target, the workers at the post office generally don’t decide on the allocation of the post office’s capital.
This is the third and last time I will say it. He gets his capital from the consumers he exploits thanks to the monopoly privileged granted to him by the government.
The managers do and that’s not the point anyway. The point is both public and ‘private’ monopolies are shielded from paying for their mistakes.
And a monopoly is not enough, unless he has customers. In which case you have to show how he can provide a good without capital.
Yes, the managers do. And that is exactly the point.
He has customers because customers have no choice but to use whatever service he provides. It’s painfully obvious in the case of roads. That’s, like, included in the definition of monopoly ?
What point ? See ? Two can play your idiotic game.
No, it’s not. So stop redefining words.
There are two points:
- The manager and the workers are not the same people,
- The true manager, in the case of the public monopoly, is a politician.
I’m not redefining anything. A legal monopoly implies that there’s a service to be monopolized which in turn implies the existence of customers. The customers are fleeced. The monopolist can and does finance his business by charging his customers/subjects whatever is needed to keep the business running. Whether this is done directly by the state or by a ‘private’ proxy is irrelevant from the point of view of the customers/subjects.
Irrelevant, not to mention that the managers of so called public enterprises are not technically politicians.
You’re not addressing the fact that both public and ‘private’ monopolies face no real competition. Furthermore a ‘private’ monopoly can’t exist unless it has a direct tie to the public sector so calling it private but in name is misleading.
Yes, but a monopolist still has to provide a service to be consumed, this is painfully obvious.
Technically, you know full well in reality they are.
Yes. And that’s true for both public and 'private 'monopolists but remember, you’re trying to show why a ‘private’ monopolist is not so bad when compared to a public one. So, your last remark is…not relevant. You could as well have said that 2+2 = 4. True ? Yes. Relevant ? No.
Loosely speaking I agree, but then you should acknowledge that the bloke who manages to secure a legal privilege can be classified as a politician, too. And so, again, you’re not underlining any real difference between public and private monopolies.
Anyway, I have half a mind to let you have the last word. No point in keep on repeating myself.
protection said “]There was nothing wrong with public high-ways until governments started all sorts of socialist programs and wasted all tax monies. If gasoline taxes were used soly for road building and maintenance, there would be plenty of money for roads and the users would be paying for it as they go.”
That depends on the time period of which you’re speaking, I think. In the 50’s and 60’s on the east coast many of the roads, and prticularly the ‘interstate’ highways, were toll-roads. In many cities and counties the roads were terrible. Traveling from state to state was a confusing experience for someone not familiar with a given area. These 'interstate’toll roads usually did not connect. One ended at the state border where the final toll booth was and then you needed a good, uptodate mapand at least half an hour to find the beginning of the next toll road in the adjacent state.
Eisenhower was the one who ‘socialized’ the interstate highways. He build planned and funded new ones, from coast to coast, under a program of providing transportation corridors for military movement including tanks and other large equipment (which often could not be moved on the toll roads due to specific state or local laws. This period of time was after the unions had killed the railroads and before any ‘public’ railroads or other mass-transportation had been build. There was no way to easily move the military or it’s equipment on land.
Under eminent domain the land owner is paid the fair market price (by law and usually) for the land. The force involved is that he if forced to sell, not that he is not fairly paid. Some landowners don’t want to sell at any price, and some want the ‘public’ to pay a higher price than the fair market price to recompense them for being forced to sell.
I’m on the Libertarian and free-market side, definately. But we need a far better solution that the one that existed up to Eisenhowers program. Today states have planning agencies that can coordinate and solve this problem. But I suppose that wouldn’t satisfy a true libertarian. And I still think we need a national military to defend our borders, simply because I haven’t heard of a successful way of getting around that problem. Small private of state militias alone can’t do it today.