1
0

[–] Men13 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Bullshit. The road questions is a really important one.

You will build a road to connect to your house? Connect your house to what? To the test of the road network obviously.

Do you have permission from the owner of that road network? You have to get it. What if they only agree if they also own your road?

Now you have a road Monopoly, which is just like a government but worse because of no oversight and no elections.

What if they don't want your business to exist?

What if that road owner business had multiple other businesses and they don't want you to compete?

What if they want to but your land for cheap, so they stop all road service to your land until you have to sell?

This isn't theoretical, it's actually happening in Chicago with the bridges owners also having trucking and delivery businesses, and even flowers shops, and using their ownership of the roads (bridges) to prevent competition in the delivery businesses.

Joking about it doesn't make this joke.

There are a class of things that can't work in a free market, where the free market solution is always much inferior to the state solution. It's a minority of things, but they are important things. This includes roads, but also "arbitration" (the court system) and anything where your can't individually profit from your work, but we collectively profit from it.

Any infrastructure (roads, electricity distribution, communication etc) doesn't work in a free market because of the enormous waste in setting up two (or more!) parallel systems so that competition exists.

As a society, the waste of state run infrastructure, although big, is still much lower than the waste of creating multiple copies of the infrastructure which is a requirement for the free market to do its thing

0
0

[–] CapitalPurifier [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

you assume there's a road owner of a network.

Instead you will likely only have to deal with connected local owners and there will be an association of road owners at best.

doesn't work in a free market because of the enormous waste in setting up two (or more!) parallel systems so that competition exists.

So its your statist's fault that we have monopolies instead of competition because of ''enourmous waste''.

The fact that mutliple providers can be simultenously profitable is proof that the waste is enourmous.

If the waste was enourmous the free market result would be monopoly by mergers and acquisitions.

rekt fucking statists

communication

this nigger faggot is the reason we have retarded internet with only a few providers in many areas.

As a society, the waste of state run infrastructure, although big, is still much lower than the waste of creating multiple copies of the infrastructure which is a requirement for the free market to do its thing

YEs yes this si what he tells you after violating the nap and leaving you with severely limited interent comapred to 2nd world countries that had a freemarket in internet.

0
0

[–] Men13 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Instead you will likely only have to deal with connected local owners and there will be an association of road owners at best.

There's not a single place on Earth that the free market works like that.

In fact, what you describe is much closer to communism (the roads will be administered collectively by an association of local road owner??) And can only exist like that with extreme government regulation.

No, in reality someone will buy the roads from the local owners. The associations you describe will become companies, the stronger companies will buy out the weaker ones, and soon you're left with local Monopolies that can demand exorbitant fees to connect from individual owners forcing them to sell.

That is how the free market always works for infrastructure.

Infrastructure cannot work ina free market environment.

0
0

[–] Men13 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

comapred to 2nd world countries that had a freemarket in internet.

Countries with better internet don't have free market internet. They all have highly regulated internet, much more so than the US.

The US has one of the freeest internets markets, and one of the worse service, and it isn't an accident

1
-1

[–] Men13 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

So its your statist's fault that we have monopolies instead of competition because of ''enourmous waste''.

Don't invent thingsi didn't say or mean. The waste is from having 2 or more competing road network (or Internet infrastructure or electric grids)

In this scenario there is no state. There is competition. Which by definition means 2 or more options.

That is a huge waste, much bigger than the state alternative.

0
0

[–] middle_path 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Lol.