Sell the Roads!

[hayekianxyz]

@liberty student

But it’s not real private ownership. There is no incentive not to fail. Efficiency is a product of competition, not private ownership in and of itself.

All that matters is that the monopolist can expect a stream of revenue into the future, which is the case with a private monopolist but not a public one.

[hayekianxyz]

@liberty student

This is not a given.

To the extent that it is, a private monopolist is preferable to a public one.

[Stranger]

@liberty student

@GilesStratton

@Juan

Correct about what ?

That private ownership will always be more efficient than public ownership.

But it’s not real private ownership. There is no incentive not to fail. Efficiency is a product of competition, not private ownership in and of itself.

In so far as consumers can choose between more of less of this good, there is competition.

[Juan]

@GilesStratton

That private ownership will always be more efficient than public ownership.

In the case of roads that’s mostly irrelevant.

From the point of view of libertarianism, what happens to the roads is to be decided based on concepts such as individual freedom and legitimate property rights. However, for Stranger, such concepts are irrelevant. So I’d say that his ‘opinions’ on this topic are irrelevant too.

[Juan]

@GilesStratton

All that matters is that the monopolist can expect a stream of revenue into the future, which is the case with a private monopolist but not a public one.

False. Fact is, a nominally ‘private’ monopolist has no incentive to provide better goods than a state monopolist has. A ‘private’ monopolist is just a clown who acts as a facade for the state.

[Stranger]

@Juan

@GilesStratton

That private ownership will always be more efficient than public ownership.

In the case of roads that’s mostly irrelevant.

As I said, what we have here are advocates for communal ownership, not economists.

[Juan]

@Stranger

In so far as consumers can choose between more of less of this good, there is competition.

Even when Stranger sticks to economics he fails. “Competition” means that different ppl are free to offer the same or similar service on the market. Legal monopolies face no competition. If the control of a road is transferred from the state commies to some fascist ‘private’ entrepreneur consumers gain nothing.

[Juan]

As I said, what we have here are advocates for communal ownership, not economists.

I explained the that alleged loss of efficieny entailed by ‘communal’ ownership is irrelevant whereas the moral side of the issue is important for libertarians.

[Spideynw]

@Juan

@Stranger

In so far as consumers can choose between more of less of this good, there is competition.

Even when Stranger sticks to economics he fails. “Competition” means that different ppl are free to offer the same or similar service on the market. Legal monopolies face no competition. If the control of a road is transferred from the state commies to some fascist ‘private’ entrepreneur consumers gain nothing.

As if there is only one road to get somewhere or new roads cannot be built. I am surprised Juan, that you would make this argument. The consumers would definitely gain, immensely.

[wombatron]

@liberty student

You can’t determine if taxes were paid, and who if anyone paid any taxes, or just not able to specify which individuals and their appropriated funds in particular own the good?

Perhaps not. The problem is very complex, and there may very well be situations where the proper owner cannot be found. I have no idea how common or uncommon this situation will be; I just think that it is a caveat that must be mentioned. And I’m not denying that specific taxpayers have the highest claim.

[wombatron]

@GilesStratton

And here’s mine for you: what do you propose then, instead of giving it to the taxpayers (let’s assume this is implausible).

Let those who currently use it be recognized as the proper owners, as long as they didn’t have a part in the theft themselves. Otherwise, open up the property for homesteading.

The only alternative I can see, in a situation like this, is simply handing out an equal share of the property to everyone who may have been wronged. Which has large ethical and practical problems.

[hayekianxyz]

@Juan

“Competition” means that different ppl are free to offer the same or similar service on the market. Legal monopolies face no competition.

Whenever opportunity cost exists there is competition between competing ends.

[hayekianxyz]

@Juan

False. Fact is, a nominally ‘private’ monopolist has no incentive to provide better goods than a state monopolist has. A ‘private’ monopolist is just a clown who acts as a facade for the state.

You missed the point, the opportunity cost of a public monopoly regarding not exploiting the of the means of production is greater than the opportunity costs facing a private monopoly.

[hayekianxyz]

@Juan

In the case of roads that’s mostly irrelevant.

Why?

@Juan

From the point of view of libertarianism, what happens to the roads is to be decided based on concepts such as individual freedom and legitimate property rights. However, for Stranger, such concepts are irrelevant. So I’d say that his ‘opinions’ on this topic are irrelevant too.

They were irrelevant for Mises too, are you going to say his opinions are irrelevant also?

[hayekianxyz]

@wombatron

Let those who currently use it be recognized as the proper owners, as long as they didn’t have a part in the theft themselves. Otherwise, open up the property for homesteading.

But if the property is stolen then it must have a rightful owner, no? If so then it cannot be homesteaded.

[wombatron]

@GilesStratton

But if the property is stolen then it must have a rightful owner, no? If so then it cannot be homesteaded.

Correct. But if that rightful owner, or their heir, cannot be found or no longer exists, then the property can be homesteaded. From The Ethics of Liberty:

@Murray Rothbard

But now suppose that a title to property is clearly identifiable as criminal, does this necessarily mean that the current possessor must give it up? No, not necessarily. For that depends on two considerations: (a) whether the victim (the property owner originally aggressed against) or his heirs are clearly identifiable and can now be found; or (b) whether or not the current possessor is himself the criminal who stole the property. Suppose, for example, that Jones possesses a watch, and that we can clearly show that Jones’s title is originally criminal, either because (1) his ancestor stole it, or (2) because he or his ancestor purchased it from a thief (whether wittingly or unwittingly is immaterial here). Now, if we can identify and find the victim or his heir, then it is clear that Jones’s title to the watch is totally invalid, and that it must promptly revert to its true and legitimate owner. Thus, if Jones inherited or purchased the watch from a man who stole it from Smith, and if Smith or the heir to his estate can be found, then the title to the watch properly reverts immediately back to Smith or his descendants, without compensation to the existing possessor of the criminally derived “title.”[7] Thus, if a current title to property is criminal in origin, and the victim or his heir can be found, then the title should immediately revert to the latter.

Suppose, however, that condition (a) is not fulfilled: in short, that we know that Jones’s title is criminal, but that we cannot now find the victim or his current heir. Who now is the legitimate and moral property owner? The answer to this question now depends on whether or not Jones himself is the criminal, whether Jones is the man who stole the watch. If Jones was the thief, then it is quite clear that he cannot be allowed to keep it, for the criminal cannot be allowed to keep the reward of his crime; and he loses the watch, and probably suffers other punishments besides.[8] In that case, who gets the watch? Applying our libertarian theory of property, the watch is now—after Jones has been apprehended-in a state of no-ownership, and it must therefore become the legitimate property of the first person to “homestead” it—to take it and use it, and therefore, to have converted it from an unused, no-ownership state to a useful, owned state. The first person who does so then becomes its legitimate, moral, and just owner.

But suppose that Jones is not the criminal, not the man who stole the watch, but that he had inherited or had innocently purchased it from the thief. And suppose, of course, that neither the victim nor his heirs can be found. In that case, the disappearance of the victim means that the stolen property comes properly into a state of no-ownership. But we have seen that any good in a state of no-ownership, with no legitimate owner of its title, reverts as legitimate property to the first person to come along and use it, to appropriate this now unowned resource for human use. But this “first” person is clearly Jones, who has been using it all along. Therefore, we conclude that even though the property was originally stolen, that if the victim or his heirs cannot be found, and if the current possessor was not the actual criminal who stole the property, then title to that property belongs properly, justly, and ethically to its current possessor.

To sum up, for any property currently claimed and used: (a) if we know clearly that there was no criminal origin to its current title, then obviously the current title is legitimate, just and valid; (b) if we don’t know whether the current title had any criminal origins, but can’t find out either way, then the hypothetically “unowned” property reverts instantaneously and justly to its current possessor; (c) if we do know that the title is originally criminal, but can’t find the victim or his heirs, then (cl) if the current title-holder was not the criminal aggressor against the property, then it reverts to him justly as the first owner of a hypothetically unowned property. But (c2) if the current titleholder is himself the criminal or one of the criminals who stole the property, then clearly he is properly to be deprived of it, and it then reverts to the first man who takes it out of its unowned state and appropriates it for his use. And finally, (d) if the current title is the result of crime, and the victim or his heirs can be found, then the title properly reverts immediately to the latter, without compensation to the criminal or to the other holders of the unjust title.

[Juan]

@Spideynw

As if there is only one road to get somewhere or new roads cannot be built. I am surprised Juan, that you would make this argument.

I don’t think new roads can be built in the same place where the roads controlled by the state or its cronnies lie.

The consumers would definitely gain, immensely.

By having roads controlled by the ‘private’ friends of the gov’t instead of the by gov’t employees directly ? How ?

Again : a nominally ‘private’ monopolist has no incentive to provide better goods than a state monopolist has.

[hayekianxyz]

@wombatron

But if that rightful owner, or their heir, cannot be found or no longer exists

What do you think the taxpayer is?

@wombatron

then the property can be homesteaded.

Then why can the state not homestead it?

[Juan]

@GilesStratton

Whenever opportunity cost exists there is competition between competing ends.

Not sure what you mean. “Competing ends” are not competing providers. If I have to choose between buying bread or buying beer I may be facing “competing ends” - is that what you mean ?

@GilesStratton

@Juan

False. Fact is, a nominally ‘private’ monopolist has no incentive to provide better goods than a state monopolist has. A ‘private’ monopolist is just a clown who acts as a facade for the state.

You missed the point, the opportunity cost of a public monopoly regarding not exploiting the of the means of production is greater than the opportunity costs facing a private monopoly.

I still miss the point. I don’t know what you mean and I doubt it refutes what I said. Also, proofread it because "not exploiting the of the means of production " looks like missing words.

[wombatron]

@GilesStratton

What do you think the taxpayer is?

Sure, but is handing out equal shares to every taxpayer viable? Who gets what? What’s more, who decides who gets what, in non-clear-cut situations?

@GilesStratton

Then why can the state not homestead it?

Because the state is a criminal organization.