Sell the Roads!

[liberty_student]

@Brainpolice

Who said anything about re-arranging the structure of a monopoly?

I did.

@Brainpolice

You’re making my argument for me as if I didn’t already say more or less the exact same thing!

No, your argument is incorrect.

@Brainpolice

Truly, this post of yours was pointless.

If you debated honestly, this would matter to me. But you do not, so it does not.

[hayekianxyz]

@Brainpolice

You’re proposing that the thief sell off the property that they stole to the highest bidder.

If their is no owner their can’t be a thief. In any case, it’s a second best solution, I agree, but that doesn’t mean it’s not preferable to the state owning the roads outright.

[Brainpolice]

Those who have lost property to the state, have to have the highest claim on property controlled by the state. It’s illogical to believe otherwise. To maintain that the criminal laundering of property titles by the state negates justice for property holders is childish fantasy by people who dream of getting cool stuff through homesteading, which in some LL circles seems to be a common meme for ne’er do well young men with low social status and levels of achievement.

You’re not replying to my argument, you’re opining on a strawman and taking pot-shots. The point is that it is impossible to figure out exactly what is who’s in this way when redistribution has occured to such an extent - we cannot figure out that a particular 1/500000th portion of the public road is “mine”. In practise, this would be a welfare scheme that cannot even calculate what is who’s. You’re dodgeing that point.

Either the state is legitimate in ordering property titles, or it is not. It can’t work both ways, and this is a fundamental failing of a lot of left-libertarian thinking.

Again, you’re not responding to my point, you’re setting up a strawman and taking the oppurtunity to opine on your dislike of left-libertarianism. I said nothing about left-libertarianism (when, in fact, I’m echoing Walter Block and Murray Rothbard here!). So rationally respond to the point. My entire argument is against the state ordering property titles, as against the implication that the state should redistribute property titles to “the taxpayer”, which is vague and inapplicable on an accurate and individual level. Remember, it’s you who is implying a state redistribution scheme here, not me. I’m the one argueing against it.

The only person being dishonest here is you. You just ignored the substance of my point completely to take the oppurtunity to try to pin me about left-libertarianism. It’s the same lame behavior you always engaged in. What’s ironic is that we mostly agree on this, and yet you go out of your way to be contrarian simply because I argue against your buddies here.

[Stranger]

@Brainpolice

@Stranger

@Juan

@Stranger

I must say I am extremely puzzled by the bizarre moralistic positions taken on the issue of privatization by people who consider themselves economists.

The problem Stranger is that you want to ignore the basic fact that libertarianism is a moral system. So you got the whole thing backwards.

I already have a moral system and it’s not libertarianism. I don’t care for your moral system.

That’s your problem. You’re not a libertarian in terms of libertarian ethics. You don’t even aknowledge that there is a field of libertarian ethics - despite the fact that this very website has extensive information on such a field.

There is a field of libertarian ethics, the discourse ethics of Hoppe and van Dun. To believe that there is a libertarian morality is a fallacy.

[liberty_student]

@Stranger

There are uncountable monopolies in an uncountable number of industries. If there must be a monopoly however it is much better for the consumer for the monopoly to be a private monopoly than a public one, as the private monopoly will invest in and increase the capital stock while a public monopoly will deplete it.

A private monopoly will just lobby the state for privilege and bailouts. We’re seeing it now with all of the large and politically protected industries in the US. If you’re from the UK, then you’re familiar with this as well. The companies privatize the profits, and socialize the losses. They are private only in name however, because they lack the competitive forces to drive them to seek profit. It is much cheaper to lobby as a special interest, than to legitimately engage in honest commerce.

So I do see where you are coming from, but if you have a case to make…

@Stranger

In that sense fascism is preferable to socialism. But you are incorrect as to the definition of fascism. In fascism there is no privatization, the government takes control of industries which are de jure still in private ownership. In fact they are now in public ownership and so the capital stock will be depleted.

… it is really out on the edges of improvement. Privitized monopolies do not increase capital stock under a social democracy.

[Brainpolice]

@Stranger

@Brainpolice

@Stranger

@Juan

@Stranger

I must say I am extremely puzzled by the bizarre moralistic positions taken on the issue of privatization by people who consider themselves economists.

The problem Stranger is that you want to ignore the basic fact that libertarianism is a moral system. So you got the whole thing backwards.

I already have a moral system and it’s not libertarianism. I don’t care for your moral system.

That’s your problem. You’re not a libertarian in terms of libertarian ethics. You don’t even aknowledge that there is a field of libertarian ethics - despite the fact that this very website has extensive information on such a field.

There is a field of libertarian ethics, the discourse ethics of Hoppe and van Dun. To believe that there is a libertarian morality is a fallacy.

Actually argumentation ethics is horrible Kantianism rehashed for libertarians, and it’s been debunked well by other libertarian thinkers.

[hayekianxyz]

@Brainpolice

Actually argumentation ethics is horrible Kantianism rehashed for libertarians, and it’s been debunked well by other libertarian thinkers.

I can’t say I buy AE either, that doesn’t mean it’s useless though.

[Stranger]

@liberty student

@Stranger

There are uncountable monopolies in an uncountable number of industries. If there must be a monopoly however it is much better for the consumer for the monopoly to be a private monopoly than a public one, as the private monopoly will invest in and increase the capital stock while a public monopoly will deplete it.

A private monopoly will just lobby the state for privilege and bailouts. We’re seeing it now with all of the large and politically protected industries in the US. If you’re from the UK, then you’re familiar with this as well. The companies privatize the profits, and socialize the losses. They are private only in name however, because they lack the competitive forces to drive them to seek profit. It is much cheaper to lobby as a special interest, than to legitimately engage in honest commerce.

So I do see where you are coming from, but if you have a case to make…

@Stranger

In that sense fascism is preferable to socialism. But you are incorrect as to the definition of fascism. In fascism there is no privatization, the government takes control of industries which are de jure still in private ownership. In fact they are now in public ownership and so the capital stock will be depleted.

… it is really out on the edges of improvement. Privitized monopolies do not increase capital stock under a social democracy.

This is not an argument based on economic theory, only hearsay and personal prejudice.

[Juan]

@liberty student

But you and Juan are also incorrect in your criticism of Stranger.

Why ? He’s explicitly disparaging the moral side of the issue and I’m just noting that.

His mistake is believing that fascism (privatization of a monopoly) is preferable to socialism (public ownership).

Yes, we do agree.

The issue isn’t selling the road, it’s the right to compete by building private roads.

Agreed. (Although finding a place to build more roads may be a problem…)

Changing the ownership structure of a monopoly is just re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

Again, agreed.

[Brainpolice]

@GilesStratton

@Brainpolice

You’re proposing that the thief sell off the property that they stole to the highest bidder.

If their is no owner their can’t be a thief. In any case, it’s a second best solution, I agree, but that doesn’t mean it’s not preferable to the state owning the roads outright.

That’s nonsensical. A thief is an owner - just not a just owner. You’re confusing “ownership” as such with just ownership. What I said was that there currently is no just owner, not that there currently is no owner. The state, for example, is the defacto owner in the scenario right now. That doesn’t mean it’s the just owner.

[hayekianxyz]

@Brainpolice

That’s nonsensical. A thief is an owner - just not a just owner. You’re confusing “ownership” as such with just ownership. What I said was that there currently is no just owner, not that there currently is no owner. The state, for example, is the defacto owner in the scenario right now. That doesn’t mean it’s the just owner.

Yes and you’re equivocating.

What I meant what that in order for the state to be a theif it (as concerns roads) it must be in possession of goods that it cannot said to be the just owner of.

[liberty_student]

@Brainpolice

The point is that it is impossible to figure out exactly what is who’s in this way when redistribution has occured to such an extent - we cannot figure out that a particular 1/500000th portion of the public road is “mine”. In practise, this would be a welfare scheme that cannot even calculate what is who’s. You’re dodgeing that point.

Not at all. While we cannot determine precisely which portion of the road was paid for by taxpayers, we can remove all non-taxpayers from the equation, as they definitely had no contribution at all to the creation of the road.

There is no way, someone who doesn’t buy a ticket, can have a claim on the lottery prize. The same applies to this homesteading nonsense where taxpayers lose out, to free riders under a supposed libertarian property justice arrangement. It’s silly nonsense for silly people.

@Brainpolice

My entire argument is against the state ordering property titles

So then why would you maintain that the state’s ability to launder property ownership allows for redistribution to non-victims?

[Brainpolice]

@GilesStratton

@Brainpolice

That’s nonsensical. A thief is an owner - just not a just owner. You’re confusing “ownership” as such with just ownership. What I said was that there currently is no just owner, not that there currently is no owner. The state, for example, is the defacto owner in the scenario right now. That doesn’t mean it’s the just owner.

Yes and you’re equivocating.

What I meant what that in order for the state to be a theif it (as concerns roads) it must be in possession of goods that it cannot said to be the just owner of.

And??? I’m not disagreeing.

[Brainpolice]

Not at all. While we cannot determine precisely which portion of the road was paid for by taxpayers, we can remove all non-taxpayers from the equation, as they definitely had no contribution at all to the creation of the road.

There is no way, someone who doesn’t buy a ticket, can have a claim on the lottery prize. The same applies to this homesteading nonsense where taxpayers lose out, to free riders under a supposed libertarian property justice arrangement. It’s silly nonsense for silly people.

Again, you’re dodgeing my point to go on to try to argue against another position. The point is that redistributing it to “the taxpayers” is, in practise, not going to be accurately allocated to individual taxpayers in any literal sense, and inherently this is a statist redistribution scheme that is only half-assed. The state is not going to dissapear in the scenario, it’ll just redistribute some of its property to certain tax-payers. The whole thing would likely reduce to a welfare scheme, and those who have the closest connections to the state would likely benefit more exclusively.

So then why would you maintain that the state’s ability to launder property ownership allows for redistribution to non-victims?

I don’t. That’s a strawman that you pulled out of nowhere that has nothing to do with what I said.

It’s almost as if you purposefully miss the point and purposefully do not want to aknowledge what I am saying.

[liberty_student]

@Stranger

This is not an argument based on economic theory, only hearsay and personal prejudice.

You’re right. It isn’t based on whatever flavour of theory we are on today. It is based on observation. A = A.

It does seem somewhat contradictory to argue against open immigration because it creates increased welfare pressure from the state but want to privatize a road, without recognizing that it’s a losing deal because at best, the public is still on the hook (someone must maintain that necessary road, even if the private firm mismanages it) without any of the upside (potential profit, goodwill, etc).

Privatization without competition is monopoly by it’s original definition.

We’re quibbling over whether a private state monopoly is preferable to a public state monopoly. It’s still the same paradigm.

[liberty_student]

@Brainpolice

It’s almost as if you purposefully miss the point and purposefully do not want to aknowledge what I am saying.

Nay to the former, but you might be onto something with the latter.

@Brainpolice

So then why would you maintain that the state’s ability to launder property ownership allows for redistribution to non-victims?

I don’t. That’s a strawman that you pulled out of nowhere that has nothing to do with what I said.

So you’re now agreeing with me that non-tax payers cannot have a higher claim over taxpayers on state property via homesteading. Is this correct?

[hayekianxyz]

@Brainpolice

And??? I’m not disagreeing.

Then how can it be homesteaded?

[Juan]

@Stranger

I already have a moral system and it’s not libertarianism. I don’t care for your moral system.

Well, fine. It’s quite clear you’re not a libertarian by any means. Now, I don’t care for your fallacious misuse of economics and I wonder how does it “advance the scholarship of liberty”… ?

There is a field of libertarian ethics, the discourse ethics of Hoppe and van Dun. To believe that there is a libertarian morality is a fallacy.

Libertarianism is a system concerned with what’s morally right and what’s morally wrong. Maybe you want to call the philosophical discussion about right and wrong “ethics” ? Fine. So libertarianism is an ethical system.

[liberty_student]

@GilesStratton

@Brainpolice

And??? I’m not disagreeing.

Then how can it be homesteaded?

And that is checkmate.

I suspect there will be no answer forthcoming for this because it shatters too many false paradigms to answer it honestly.

[Juan]

@Brainpolice

The point is that redistributing it to “the taxpayers” is, in practise, not going to be accurately allocated to individual taxpayers in any literal sense, and inherently this is a statist redistribution scheme that is only half-assed. The state is not going to dissapear in the scenario, it’ll just redistribute some of its property to certain tax-payers.

I think that the taxpayers do own what’s called state property. If they are not going to get it back, who is ?