Statist. What an awesome word.
Cartels in free market are known to fall apart. They're unsustainable due to the force of competition.
This has not been shown. This is repeatedly conjectured
(no evidence) by the fine people at mises.org. Also, companies don't actually like competition, which is why they spend so much time and money trying to distort markets. So the conditions which are supposed to foster this fabled competition don't even exist. They definitely won't exist if it is up to them. So this argument, which is critical for everything else that supposedly follows, falls pathetically flat.
Good for you. Libertarian literature had much to say about how they think private defense agencies will work.
This "literature" amounts to what is essentially an echo chamber of unsubstantiated conjecture. Funded by the likes of the Koch bros, let's not forget. Propaganda which teenaged suburbia dwellers and middle-aged white men just eat right up. This is not meant as an ad-hominem
, incidentally. Those are perhaps the most important target demographics for this sort of claptrap, as professed by the spinmasters themselves.
If you do not wish to discuss this seriously, by all means continue to laugh. However, mocking the other side's points and belief does not contribute to change in position.
He was being serious? He did mention flying cars, didn't he?
So gene what would you do to me if i refused to participate in your society ?
Probably what happens to shut-ins and recluses today. They languish in isolation. Or they write existential poetry. Most people won't care if you refuse to participate, as you're not controlling some important resource.
Now, if rich people, who made their money in large part because of favorable conditions established by society, don't want to give back to that society, then they will have to answer to their peers. Here is what separates you and me: I trust people to make the proper choices
. In the old days, they used to tar and feather those people. I don't think that would happen today, but most likely, rich people who refuse to give anything back (via taxes) would have to face fines. This seems reasonable to most people and to me. It fits the offense.
So we're all agreeing that gene is not a real anarchist?
Well anybody who laugh at the idea of taxation as evil is a statist in my book.
This is my favorite (semi-incoherent) quote in this thread.
"Concentration of power and capital does not require a state."
I think this rules out all of the anarchos.
Statements of fact don't say much about the person who utters them. I'll also note that the irresistible impulse to affix appellations is symptomatic of the tribalism I mentioned earlier.
I take no view either way about most things (healthcare, public safety), but over regulation of city development is most definitely bad. It's because the US regulations for city development are a ton more stringent than here in Europe.
Demonstrably untrue. Houston is a glaringly obvious example.
Go to any pre-communist country and you'll see everywhere filled with huge motorways and nameless grey office blocks. Those kinds of cities are depressing for the people that live in them because there's very little variety as they're sheep herded around the city.
I'm not sure what you mean by "pre-communist" or what this has to do with the fact that public transportation and roads are funded via taxes. You are not providing any instance of a functional system of privately-owned transportation infrastructure. Nobody here has. I think we know why.
Look, for all of you who hate roads, just build your flying car and have at it. Just don't expect any tax-funded air traffic controllers to help you navigate or tax-funded paramedics/firemen to scrape your body from the impact site when you realize what "an herioc" idea it truly was.
Sorry, the "jetsons" image just makes me mock like a mofo.
All the most famous European cities (Prague, Krakow, Belgrade, Barcelona, Rome, Sofia, ...) are built around an old pedestrian city centre with the format of: main high street (usually without cars), monument (marker for orienting yourself) and park/greenery. That's natural development. Suburban cities have no such structure.
With respect to urban sprawl, you're providing the perfect instance to make my point. Thank you.
You could draw an analogy here with if the internet was centrally controlled. Websites were 'allocated' and required strict planning permissions instead of evolving naturally to fit a need.
And yet, this is precisely the sort of central planning that large media conglomerates are currently trying to establish. They are openly planning on how to control the infrastructure (paid for by taxes, of course) so as to allow them to double-bill media "producers" and "consumers." To try to make the internet just like cable television. Thank you again.