The kids working the drivethrough put some bacon bits in the food (which the cop didn’t mind too much) but made the mistake of also spitting in the food in view of said cop.
This hits the local newspapers and within a month the only Taco Bell within ~100 miles of the university is boarded up. People simply quit going there, that’s all it took.
I’d be interested in any further info you have on the S&W boycott because, as I’m sure you’re aware, California passed a 10 round maximum magazine capacity law a while back and if the two are related your whole argument just went out the window.
A truly frightening assertion to anyone who has seen the tyranny done by many such associations in condominiums, time-share associations, and the like.
Danno, amused by the “talking past instead of to” bit. OooooOOOooooh!
Oh yawn, that dull, worn out epithet. It is demonstrable by Austrian economics. You’re not even original for a socialist/fascist. You are the True Believer, in the magic of force and government. So don’t even try these puerile mental games with me.
You’re familiar with the subjective theory of value, I assume?
Spare me this drivel.
Danno, admittedly guilty of being a socialist/advocate of aggression.
Cooperation works for me, if you don’t object to cooperation from one who has been called a communist, socialist, and other fun things by the True Believers in these parts. (With luck, I can be a Nazi before nightfall!) To which LC do you refer? Google came up with such a wide variety of hits it was not apparent - though I doubt you mean the Library of Congress.
Danno, the communist advocate for violence and theft, who enjoys reasoned discussion.
You are technically a ‘socialist’ in one regard. You want a monopolistic provider of security - you believe that’s the only possible solution, just like socialists believe that the only solution for, say, manufacturing is to nationalize manufacturing.
As to HOAs being despotical, you’re probably right. I don’t think that the libertarian ideal is private tyranny, despite what other people here may claim.
I don’t think anyone is advocating private tyranny. Only pointing out that it is possible that roads could come under joint ownership without there being a government. HOAs are just one such form of arrangement. Market anarchism can involve any number of voluntary solutions to problems, of which firms are a subset, hence my inquiry.
I did, indeed, try to make plain that I objected to the way it’s been set up and run, and I’ve never claimed that taxes other than user fees were anything but extortion. This does not change the fact that, in letter delivery, a force-induced monopoly has been known to provide a service that has not been matched in the free market. Perhaps a free-market competitor could do as well - I’d love for them to be able to try. A postal service without the idiotic bureaucracy, subsidies, and unions that the USPS has had to deal with would likely be more efficient and productive, but I suspect that it being a monopoly would add to its potential to be efficient.
I never claimed, or even inferred, that I preferred the idea of a state-run monopoly. Frankly, I’d love to see convincing argument that privately-owned roads would be a viable solution in an urban environment. I’m just reporting that I haven’t seen one yet.
I understand that I’m committing blasphemy by not agreeing with the ‘proven fact’ that governments fulfill no useful purpose - but I’m not going to agree with that until I’ve seen that ‘fact’ proven, and being slandered here isn’t going to convince me, either.
Danno, remembering civil discussions here in the past.
Do come off your high horse. Your argument reduces to “either private individuals can arrange for the provision of a service or they cannot. If they cannot government must force them to “cooperate” to do so.” That second bit is a non sequitur, an unwarranted inference. You’ve done nothing to convince us government is necessary.
Fair enough - I’ll posit that such boycotts can work - though I’d love to know whether it’d have worked as well had it not been government agents witnessing the abuse of the customers.
I have, however, seen ostracism fail to put badly-managed businesses out of business, so I’m probably not going to have as much faith in their power as some others seem to show. I recall the public outrage when Arby’s was caught buying beef that was not legal for human consumption, back in the 1970s - but there’s an Arbys (and a Taco Bell) within 2 miles of where I am right now.
Let’s take that to email, then - I fear it’s too far afield of this topic for even me, but I’ll be glad to tell you what I remember of it. It was back in the 1990s, and the furor has largely died down now - but a gun shop owner at the time admitted that the only S&W guns he was selling were to first-time buyers. If you really want further information, I’ll look for you in my mailbox.
Danno, who still won’t buy a new S&W, as ineffective as that turned out to be.
I’ll cheerfully agree that it has become onerous and parasitical, doing staggering amounts of damage, and that we’d all be much better off if it were drastically cut back.
The house fire across the street was extinguished (to continue the analogy), but the damage had been done. This very possibly raised local sales of smoke alarms and fire extinguishers, but it did not convince anyone to shut off their furnace or water heater.
I remain, as ever, convinced that an excess of government, like fire, is disastrous. I stll fear that a small, controlled amount is needful.
I wonder, Danno, do how would you feel if rather than a home owner being inconvenienced as a result of the road, it was the other way around. What if a home owner purposefully refused to sell his house to the home owner to irritate him, let’s suppose the road owner then builds roads on either side of the house (ignoring the issue of access for the owner of the house), do we need the government to force the owner of the house to comply with the wishes of the owners of the roads?
As a former USPS worker, a long time ago, I can tell you that it is illegal for someone other than an official representative of the USPS to put mail into a ‘government mailbox’. Which is all of them no matter who bought and put it up.
You ever see the order forms for UPS deliveries that claim that they can’t deliver to a PO Box? Same is true for the PO Box hanging on the wall outside your front door.
It is impossible for a ‘free-market competitor’ to even try to compete against the Post Office because they own all the mailboxes by default. As soon as they drop a letter into one of them, by whatever means, they are liable for the full cost of postage the same as if the letter carrier delivered it.
Don’t believe me, go make some fliers with your address and phone number on them and deliver them to all your neighbors. Chances are they won’t send you a bill the first time but you will most certainly get a phone call and a stern warning to not do it again.
Pretty clearly stated. This, I suspect, is one of the reasons why roads are such a frequent example in this debate. They are essential, and there are strong physical limits on how they can be competed with in urban areas.
The road owner to declines to maintain his road properly is not always going to have a competitor. In the absence of competition, being an asshole to the customers who need to do business with you can be remarkably profitable. In urban areas, there’s not really physical space for much competition.
I’ll cheerfully admit that there are no perfect answers, and that in other roles, government is often the worst answer. I just fear that, in this instance, the free market may become a worse answer than government is, no matter how great an answer it is in instances where competition is physically possible.
Danno, who prefers capitalism without blindly worshipping at its altar.