Anything government can do, the free market can do better
That is, anything peaceful. Government will always have comparative and absolute advantage in aggression (e.g. wars and conscription, subjecting people to "law enforcement" when they have committed no crime, and seizing people's homes).
When it comes to creating prosperity and promoting true peace (as opposed to military stalemates), the free market does it just fine on its own, because it works purely according to what individuals want and their subsequent voluntary exchanges to attain their own individual happiness. The alternative, government, works purely by forcing people against their will: decisions are made arbitrarily, and whether they are done with caprice or careful calculations, whether they are based on politics or intentions of the greatest benevolence, they are ultimately immoral for forcing the individual against his will.
Over at Three Sources, a commenter going by "Silence Dogood" defended government as able to provide the infrastructure that makes the free market possible. This is not so, and I refuted his arguments one by one, demonstrating that everything he credited to government could be supplied and supplied better by a free market.
Old Ben must be rolling in his grave at someone using his pseudonym. Like most people, "Silence" doesn't believe that it's possible for a free market to provide things like roads and other infrastructure. He outrightly refuses to believe it, not even giving the free market a chance. Now, you don't have to be Paul Krugman to worship the state; it only requires a belief that certain things -- good things -- can result only from government's direction. As Bastiat put it:
Re-read what Bastiat said above, and think of how Wall Street began. There was no law to tell certain stock traders what to do, so how did those individuals know to congregate and formalize their association? Or was it, in fact, that God has given us the ability to think, to reason, and that humans for thousands of years have been able to trade and associate voluntarily without needing overlords to direct us?
Government's record is that of the anti-Midas touch, continually ruining everything it meddles with, from charity to the financial system. In the event it ever "fixes" something, look for how it created the problem in the first place. Even then, the solution will never be as effective as keeping government at bay and letting the free market clean up the mess that the state created.
When it comes to creating prosperity and promoting true peace (as opposed to military stalemates), the free market does it just fine on its own, because it works purely according to what individuals want and their subsequent voluntary exchanges to attain their own individual happiness. The alternative, government, works purely by forcing people against their will: decisions are made arbitrarily, and whether they are done with caprice or careful calculations, whether they are based on politics or intentions of the greatest benevolence, they are ultimately immoral for forcing the individual against his will.
Over at Three Sources, a commenter going by "Silence Dogood" defended government as able to provide the infrastructure that makes the free market possible. This is not so, and I refuted his arguments one by one, demonstrating that everything he credited to government could be supplied and supplied better by a free market.
Old Ben must be rolling in his grave at someone using his pseudonym. Like most people, "Silence" doesn't believe that it's possible for a free market to provide things like roads and other infrastructure. He outrightly refuses to believe it, not even giving the free market a chance. Now, you don't have to be Paul Krugman to worship the state; it only requires a belief that certain things -- good things -- can result only from government's direction. As Bastiat put it:
Do those worshippers of government believe that free persons will cease to act? Does it follow that if we receive no energy from the law, we shall receive no energy at all? Does it follow that if the law is restricted to the function of protecting the free use of our faculties, we will be unable to use our faculties? Suppose that the law does not force us to follow certain forms of religion, or systems of association, or methods of education, or regulations of labor, or regulations of trade, or plans for charity; does it then follow that we shall eagerly plunge into atheism, hermitary, ignorance, misery, and greed? If we are free, does it follow that we shall no longer recognize the power and goodness of God? Does it follow that we shall then cease to associate with each other, to help each other, to love and succor our unfortunate brothers, to study the secrets of nature, and to strive to improve ourselves to the best of our abilities?And then over at Karol's, one of her guest bloggers was, shall I say, unfortunate enough to talk about credit default swaps when he doesn't really know how they work. He was even more unfortunate to talk about "reforms" and creating "transparency" in financial exchanges -- via government, so I had to set him straight. Let me just say that I know a thing or two about CDS: they're not the maligned financial instruments so many people think they are, nor are they traded with very little information. A specific CDS implicitly requires the buyer to know what he's getting into. Now, there have been cases of fraudulent misrepresentation with some Collateralized Debt Objects, but that's entirely different.
Re-read what Bastiat said above, and think of how Wall Street began. There was no law to tell certain stock traders what to do, so how did those individuals know to congregate and formalize their association? Or was it, in fact, that God has given us the ability to think, to reason, and that humans for thousands of years have been able to trade and associate voluntarily without needing overlords to direct us?
Government's record is that of the anti-Midas touch, continually ruining everything it meddles with, from charity to the financial system. In the event it ever "fixes" something, look for how it created the problem in the first place. Even then, the solution will never be as effective as keeping government at bay and letting the free market clean up the mess that the state created.
Labels: Big government, Debunking economic fallacies, Liberal hypocrisy, Liberal idiots, Liberal liars
posted by Perry Eidelbus at
11:35 PM
36 Comments:
Clearly everyone in his own locality, and only to whatever measure he uses the roads.
Then there would be no highways. Nobody would ante up for highways and local town roads and their own elitist culs de sac.
This This points up the idiocy of your libertarian fantasies. This is why nobody takes you yahoos seriously.
That's the bullshit your ilk has propagated for centuries. So how do you think my private road got built without government? How did people do anything before governments directed them? The simple answer: they needed it, so people got together collectively. Not collectively by force, as you would have, but collectively because everyone without exception wanted to.
You actually have the goddamn idiocy to call my road "elitist"? Give us one good reason why our private property is "elitist." It's ours: we paid for the land, we pay for the road, so we have the right to tell people to stay out if they have no business here. Period.
Did government direct that MacOS or Windows be created? What about the uncountable pieces of open source software? Open source is in fact the best example, because in order to get a whole product, some people put in a considerably larger share of resources than others, because they value the whole product that much. If one person contributes merely one line out of millions, and another contributes 20% of the whole, it was hardly "unfair" to the latter: he'd rather put in 20% so he could have the whole.
This means a system of fully private roads and highways is easily viable, even one spanning the continent. If it came down to it, you'd have an industrialist striking deals with grocers all across the country in order to transport goods. You'd have motorists who'd rather drive than fly, and their monthly dues would pay for the roads they drive on -- and only the roads they use, which would mean the free market, as usual, would allow little-used roads to become useless (rather than a government system in which little-used roads are maintained no matter what). Did you not read anything of what I said to Silence about how modern technology would make it even easier?
What about the hundreds of billions of dollars wasted on each "highway plan," most of which go to waste? Do you ever read anything, you goddamn retard? Or do you really worship the state that much, that you prefer that government waste money rather than the free market spend it efficiently?
It is fact that when railroads started being built across the country, the successful and profitable ones were all privately built. Read some Burt Folsom: without exception, and not just Amtrak today, every government railroad has been a failure. It either folded or had to be sustained with government bailouts ("subsidies"). The federal government learned its lesson: it did not allow private highways to compete, once autos became mainstream.
Sadly, as with most things of importance, this is far beyond your level of comprehension. Liberal idiots like you have no imagination, particularly because you have no creative ability and must rely on forcing others to give up their wealth, and also because you cannot conceive of the power of individuals. Then there's your knee-jerk reaction against anything involving "the rich." That's why libertarians, being intelligent, cannot take liberal idiots like you seriously.
You are positively one of the stupidest people I have ever encountered, even for a liberal. And by the way, you have just been...owned. Again. For the millionth time, just by me. Will you ever give up?
One would think you'd be too woozy by now.
(Note to my readers: this imbecile hides behind various pseudonyms on Karol's blog. He's sticking to this one here.)
This means a system of fully private roads and highways is easily viable, even one spanning the continent. If it came down to it, you'd have an industrialist striking deals with grocers all across the country in order to transport goods. You'd have motorists who'd rather drive than fly, and their monthly dues would pay for the roads they drive on -- and only the roads they use,
Good lord, you're an idiot.
Most roads in our country, I'm guessing would not have enough of a subscription base to actually pay for maintenance--but that doesn't mean that they should revert to dirt.
Not all roads are being worked on at the same time. My comparatively small sum in taxes is pooled with the comparatively small sums of many, many others in order to effect construction and repair over there; next time, our money will be pooled to fix my road over here.
My money sometimes goes to pay for roads I'll never use because at other times the money of others is used to fix my road, which they may never use.
On the other hand, they may. You certainly don't know which road you may desperately need at some point in your life.
If you don't like taxation for highway maintenance, then you'd better go somewhere else. Maybe you could found some Libertarian utopia somewhere. You could call it Rainbows and Unicorns Land.
Moron, look in the mirror if you want to see the epitome of idiocy. Nice job ignoring a lot of my points, whereas I do my usual tearing apart of your every syllable.
Where's your defense of the trillions of dollars spent on the highways? Are you not man enough to admit you support the inefficient state over the efficient free market?
No rebuttal of the failure of government-funded railroads, because you could never have one against this plain fact. There's no need for me to rely on pure ideology: there's plenty of empirical evidence to show that your brainless reliance on government just doesn't work.
Most roads in our country, I'm guessing would not have enough of a subscription base to actually pay for maintenance--but that doesn't mean that they should revert to dirt.
First, we couldn't care less about your "guesses." You're proven yourself enough of an idiot that your guesses are worth less than throwing darts at a board.
Second, it would not be "most" roads. "Most" means over 50%, did you know? Since there are a lot of, you know, residential roads, your scenario of "reverting to dirt" would not happen. But that's to be expected when you socialists try to be imaginative. You come up with ridiculous ideas that could not possibly happen or exist.
Third, do you realize your stupidity here? You are directly advocating the maintenance of things that aren't used. You want to take MY money, and every evidence is that you pay NO taxes (at least nothing significant compared to the rest of us with real jobs), for the upkeep of roads for their own sake.
What are you, some ditch-digger who leans on his shovel all day? Is that why you're so gung-ho for roads?
Not all roads are being worked on at the same time. My comparatively small sum in taxes
Small in absolute terms, no doubt.
is pooled with the comparatively small sums of many, many others in order to effect construction and repair over there; next time, our money will be pooled to fix my road over here.
No kidding. Great job stating the obvious. What you didn't mean to admit is that that's how the game is played, which I'll get to in a bit.
By contrast, my private road is far superior to any public road you can name. It's repaired when needed, and we hire the best contractor who will give us the best value. You can compare it to the same neighborhood road we link with, which has the same amount of traffic, yet is in a far worse state of repair.
My money sometimes goes to pay for roads I'll never use because at other times the money of others is used to fix my road, which they may never use.
This is my point all along. Whatever pittance you pay in taxes is taken to pay for something you don't use and don't care about. Your hope, however, is that someone will be paying more in taxes (meaning someone like me) for what YOU use.
On the other hand, they may. You certainly don't know which road you may desperately need at some point in your life.
Nor will central planners, either. That you do not understand.
I'd start explaining the concept of the Kirznerian entrepreneur, and how he aligns supply and demand curves, but you wouldn't understand that either. Suffice it to say that it's how the free market determines a need and supplies it.
The bureaucrats you worship, on the other hand, decide needs based on politics -- decisions based on arbitrary judgment by people who couldn't possibly know, or who react to political favors/requests. And that's what you're seriously defending?
If you don't like taxation for highway maintenance, then you'd better go somewhere else. Maybe you could found some Libertarian utopia somewhere. You could call it Rainbows and Unicorns Land.
Actually, you need the economic producers of this country, which you vilify as "the rich." If we left for our own country, who would you tax? God knows you socialists couldn't support yourselves; history has proven it time and time again.
This was our country first, but fear not, you'll have the freedom to flee to France, or Canada, or Norway, where you can continue living out your socialist fantasies. Just without us.
You have been owned again. It's no wonder you don't have the balls to post your real name, here or anywhere else. You've always been a coward.
Nice job ignoring a lot of my points
Indeed. How dare I refuse to allow you to set the terms of the discussion? Don't I know that I have to address each of your idiotic points in turn despite the fact that your overall premise is foolish?
You want to take MY money, and every evidence is that you pay NO taxes (at least nothing significant compared to the rest of us with real jobs), for the upkeep of roads for their own sake.
Correct. I'm taking some of your money to pay for something that you may or may not someday use, just as I'm taking the money of other people to pay for things that you value but that they may or may not someday use. Deal with it. That's the reality in the modern world.
No kidding. Great job stating the obvious.
It's unfortunate that you still need something so obvious explained to you.
I'd start explaining the concept of the Kirznerian entrepreneur
To borrow a page from your book, "I'm not going to do your homework for you."
there's plenty of empirical evidence to show that your brainless reliance on government just doesn't work.
Indeed. The military, all the government-built roads, all of it: a figment of my imagination. Well played indeed, sir!
which you vilify as "the rich."
Actually, I don't think I ever used that phrase. I may be wrong; perhaps you could show me where I did so.
Small in absolute terms, no doubt....
and every evidence is that you pay NO taxes (at least nothing significant compared to the rest of us with real jobs)....
Whatever pittance you pay in taxes ....someone will be paying more in taxes (meaning someone like me) for what YOU use.
Yikes. More of those tiny-penis issues I mentioned some time back.
It's no wonder you don't have the balls to post your real name, here or anywhere else. You've always been a coward.
Wow! That's some fine reverse psychology you're using there. You almost got me!
This was our country first
???
Indeed. How dare I refuse to allow you to set the terms of the discussion? Don't I know that I have to address each of your idiotic points in turn despite the fact that your overall premise is foolish?
I'm not "setting" anything. The rules of debate are quite standard, and you're losing. All I've ever needed to do with you is point out that your idiotic blathering can never refute anything I say. You're a coward, nothing more, who sticks his head in the sand.
Correct. I'm taking some of your money to pay for something that you may or may not someday use, just as I'm taking the money of other people to pay for things that you value but that they may or may not someday use.
Only the first half is correct. Thanks for admitting that you're taking my money against my will, but will you ever, ever realize that I never, ever asked you to pay for what I consume?
How about this, to paraphrase Walter Williams: you pay for what you consume, and I pay for what I consume. Now tell me what things you consume I should pay for, and why?
Deal with it. That's the reality in the modern world.
Trust me, the day is coming, and you won't like how it will be "dealt with."
It's unfortunate that you still need something so obvious explained to you.
Your statement here means that you didn't even understand what I said. Great job again!
To borrow a page from your book, "I'm not going to do your homework for you."
Here's your lying hypocrisy again. You accuse me of something that you did yourself, when in fact I'm doing nothing of the kind.
You pulled a name out of thin air and expected me to know what you were talking about, but here I'd be more than delighted to tell you what I'm talking about. I won't bother because I know I'd be wasting my breath. Get it?
I said: "there's plenty of empirical evidence to show that your brainless reliance on government just doesn't work."
You said: Indeed. The military, all the government-built roads, all of it: a figment of my imagination. Well played indeed, sir!
Which is in fact NOT what I was saying. I never denied that they exist: I just said they don't work.
The free market never sent hundreds of thousands of unwilling people to their deaths, or jailed them for refusing. Show me where the free market produced hammers and toilet seats costing hundreds or thousands of dollars.
Government-built roads: there never was one constructed as quickly or as efficiently, or maintained as well, as any comparable private road. Period.
Actually, I don't think I ever used that phrase. I may be wrong; perhaps you could show me where I did so.
Standard assumption. Do you deny it? Right here, right now, tell us that you have no problem with people being "rich" and keeping their property.
Yikes. More of those tiny-penis issues I mentioned some time back.
Only liberal idiots like you would think of such things, which are not true, but you need an excuse to dodge the question. Let's face it: you don't pay very much in taxes, meaning you mooch off whatever everyone else is taxed for, and you like it. You're the epitome of liberalism. A thief.
I said: "It's no wonder you don't have the balls to post your real name, here or anywhere else. You've always been a coward."
Wow! That's some fine reverse psychology you're using there. You almost got me!
Another dodge. Refute the point, or shut up.
I said: "This was our country first"
You replied: ???
If you do not understand what that means, let me clue you in:
Storm's coming. You're not going to like it very much.
So let's do this again:
Where's your defense of the trillions of dollars spent on the highways? Are you not man enough to admit you support the inefficient state over the efficient free market?
Where is your justification of government-funded railroads, whether 19th century or today (Amtrak, Metro-North, LIRR), which have never had ONE SINGLE INSTANCE of profitability? Private railroads, on the other hand, were historically very successful. That's why they had to be driven out of business and kept that way.
Refute the fact that my private road was built better and is maintained better than any public road you can name. Only liberal fuckwits like you would fail to understand that it's because we pay for it ourselves, therefore we want the best value for our money.
Refute the fact that bureaucrats, the gods you worship, make decisions based on politics rather than efficiency. Or deny that you're defending them.
You are so brainless. I could almost feel sorry for you, but I feel sorry more for anyone you might be working for.
And by the way, you've just been owned again. How much more can you take? Your mother's shoulder must be soaked by now from all your tears.
Private railroads, on the other hand, were historically very successful.
I need clarification here.
Are the wonder and efficiency of private railroads that you keep extolling the same "efficiency" that had the early railroad companies all using different gauges of track so that trains could not move from one to another?
Are you perhaps referring to the way that the private railroads lied repeatedly about the terrain they were covering so as to receive higher per-mile payments from the government?
Maybe you're talking about the efficiency that led them to lay track during winter over sheets of ice and packed snow that then melted in spring, causing the track to collapse and need to be relaid. Efficient.
Are you talking about the way the railroads bullied towns into giving them more and more trackside land grants and tax breaks by threatening to bypass them if they didn't?
It might be that you're thinking about the fabled lack of concern about workplace safety and human life during the time that track was being laid through the Sierras.
It would seem that your vision of "efficiency" is more Mussolini-like than I'm comfortable with. "At least he made the trains run on time" is not always enough of an excuse.
Standard assumption.
But nonetheless a lie. Please cite a quote or shut up.
You pulled a name out of thin air and expected me to know what you were talking about
It saddens me that you would rather bluster than simply look up Carl Schurz, who was "a German revolutionary, American statesman and reformer, and Union Army General in the American Civil War [as well as a Secretary of the Interior]. He was also an accomplished journalist, newspaper editor and noted orator, who in 1869 became the first German-born American elected to the United States Senate....
"He is famous for saying: 'My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.' Many streets, schools, and parks are named in honor of him, including New York City's Carl Schurz Park."
Certainly an obscure nobody.
Perhaps your education encompassed only being a dickweed, having ignored U.S. history.
Let's face it: you don't pay very much in taxes, meaning you mooch off whatever everyone else is taxed for, and you like it. You're the epitome of liberalism. A thief.
You continue to pretend that you know what I do for a living. Interesting.
Are the wonder and efficiency of private railroads that you keep extolling the same "efficiency" that had the early railroad companies all using different gauges of track so that trains could not move from one to another?
No more problematic than computers using different operating systems, or a music player using a proprietary format.
Guess what: when the railroads wanted to join each other, they found a way to compromise. And they don't need government to tell them. Why do you think my Zune plays MP3s instead of only WMAs?
Are you perhaps referring to the way that the private railroads lied repeatedly about the terrain they were covering so as to receive higher per-mile payments from the government?
Bullshit. A railroad that receives government money is not "private," you goddamn fool. You can call it "private" until you're blue in the face, but it's still government-funded. "Government contractors" are not private, either.
When I speak of "private" railroads, I speak of ones that were funded full by private money -- i.e. no government funding at all. Period.
Maybe you're talking about the efficiency that led them to lay track during winter over sheets of ice and packed snow that then melted in spring, causing the track to collapse and need to be relaid. Efficient.
Cite your source. While possible, I'd sooner think this was on one of the government-funded projects you like to call "private." On the other hand, I've cited Burt Folsom, who's written extensively on the multiple government-funded railroads that went bankrupt or needed continued subsidies to stay afloat. Ever hear of...Amtrak?
Are you talking about the way the railroads bullied towns into giving them more and more trackside land grants and tax breaks by threatening to bypass them if they didn't?
First, right there you're not describing a free market situation. In a free market, there's no government-owned land to give out.
Second, if private landowners don't want to sell land and gain new business, they don't have to. If they don't think it will be worth it, no one is putting a gun to their head. Only government can put guns to people's heads, though, and get away with it, as we've seen with Susan Kelo and other victims of eminent domain.
It might be that you're thinking about the fabled lack of concern about workplace safety and human life during the time that track was being laid through the Sierras.
Actually, that was the Central Pacific Railroad was blessed by the federal government. So once again, great example!
Even so, "workplace safety" cannot be created by government. Government can mandate it all it wants, but it must first be possible by current technology. The "lack of concern about workplace safety and human life during the time" is because, you idiot liberal dumbfuck, it was very dangerous work at the time. The technology available then was not enough to make things "safer" compared to today, whether with government railroads or private ones. Do you understand that?
It would seem that your vision of "efficiency" is more Mussolini-like than I'm comfortable with. "At least he made the trains run on time" is not always enough of an excuse.
Like all lying liberal fuckwits, you have to put words in my mouth. It is in fact your philosophy is the one like Mussolini's, because it's one that forces businesses to do government's bidding.
But nonetheless a lie. Please cite a quote or shut up.
Actually, the onus is now on you. Prove it to us, and I'll retract.
So right here, right now, if you dare: tell us that you have no problem with people being "rich" and keeping their property. Tell us that you think it's unfair for people to be taxed more just because they have more.
It saddens me that you would rather bluster than simply look up Carl Schurz
As I said, why should I do your homework for you?
Go read what Quintus Fabius Maximus Gurges said, and get back to me.
"You are repetitious and dumb." Ferdinand Marcos in 1987? Or Perry Eidelbus to you on 7/23/2009 and 9/3/2009?
When are you going to run away from this thread, like you ran away from the other?
Certainly an obscure nobody.
And again, you prove yourself to be a liar. I never called him a "nobody" -- show me where I did -- but I did correctly say he was obscure. American history alone has had many thousands of politicians at the national level, most of which are forgotten after a generation or two. He was notable during that time, but he just didn't have enough significance to be of note today, except that he left us a platitude that you seem to think is greatness. That isn't surprising, since particularly in your case, merda taurorum animas conturbit.
Note that Karol didn't even mention his name when she linked to the quote, so you could have mentioned that at the beginning to eliminate any confusion.
Perhaps your education encompassed only being a dickweed, having ignored U.S. history.
Should we be surprised that you'd spew more hypocrisy, considering you've constantly demonstrated your ignorance of any history?
Your "education," now, has evidently been one in thievery and being a fool.
You continue to pretend that you know what I do for a living. Interesting.
Actually, I never said anything about what you do for a "living," but I know what you do: you use government to take more from people than what you pay in. There's no pretending necessary. You're obvious enough.
One more time, you sniveling coward:
Where's your defense of the trillions of dollars spent on the highways? Are you not man enough to admit you support the inefficient state over the efficient free market?
I'll rephrase here. How do you justify government-funded railroads, whether 19th century or today (Amtrak, Metro-North, LIRR), which have never had ONE SINGLE INSTANCE of profitability?
When will you be man enough to admit you were wrong about private railroads, which historically have been very successful? That means profitable. And that's why they had to be driven out of business and kept that way -- government couldn't allow the competition.
Refute the fact that my private road was built better and is maintained better than any public road you can name. Only liberal fuckwits like you would fail to understand that it's because we pay for it ourselves, therefore we want the best value for our money.
Refute the fact that bureaucrats, the gods you worship, make decisions based on politics rather than efficiency. Or deny that you're defending them.
Good lord, you are the as brainless as any liberal I have ever encountered. I find it impossible that you have any kind of "real" job that demands productivity.
So here you have again been owned. Give up yet?
So here you have again been owned.
So you keep telling me. Your strategy seems to be that if you repeat it often enough, it'll be true.
I need only refute anything you point out, word by word. It's right here in black and white, bub. You have been owned, schooled, outclassed, whatever adjective you'd like to use.
Your strategy, however, is to stick your head in the sand: ignore what others say and hope they'll stop. Unfortunately for you, I don't work that way. And you're incredible fun to pick on.
Run home to your mother, boy.
Refute the fact that my private road was built better and is maintained better than any public road you can name.
Why would I say anything about the condition of your road? I've never seen it.
Refute the fact that my private road was built better and is maintained better than any public road you can name.
Not to belabor the obvious, but this is precisely the kind of talking-out-of-your-ass, blustering-when-you-know-nothing, writing-a-computer-program-is-precisely-the-same-task-as-building-an-interstate-highway brain diarrhea that makes you so perpetually entertaining.
You expect me to make a judgment about your private road, which I have never seen, because you are willing to make a judgment about any public road that I can name, despite the fact that you have no idea where I live or, more specifically, what public roads I can name.
Most of what you so loudly declaim is backed by precisely as little solid fact as that. Your belief is that the more times you can type "liberal fuckwit," the less you have to actually know about the topics of your rants.
This assumption is yet another error on your part.
Why would I say anything about the condition of your road? I've never seen it.
Such is the idiocy of you and all other liberals. You've never been to the top of Mount Everest, have you? You've never been to the Great Pyramid at Giza, have you? Yet there are material facts about them that are irrefutable.
And a material fact is that my private road, with the same amount of traffic as the public road it feeds into, hasn't needed paving in years. With public roads, potholes start appearing after only one winter.
We can look at other things to prove how wrong you are. One of my relatives manages a shopping plaza, and its parking lot is expensive to pave, but the money is worth it. Comparable public lots, though, are always in repair, especially at the train stations (which means passenger cars only, so you cannot blame heavy vehicles for potholes). There's even the perennial construction of the pedestrian bridge by the Metro-North station in Chappaqua, which has seen such speedy work as three days just to build a chain-link enclosure. They've been working on it since last year, and every morning I see a bunch of the government workers ("private contractors" or not, they're government hires) standing around and shooting the breeze.
The fact is that it's not just shoddy workmanship, but the fact that unions receiving government money don't want to leave a stury, lasting product. Otherwise they won't have work next year.
Not to belabor the obvious, but this is precisely the kind of talking-out-of-your-ass, blustering-when-you-know-nothing, writing-a-computer-program-is-precisely-the-same-task-as-building-an-interstate-highway brain diarrhea that makes you so perpetually entertaining.
What you state as "obvious" is another of your delusions where you stick your head in the sand, and more lies. The most undeniable fact I have stated is that you are a LIAR, here and likely in real life. You'd never dare post your real name and expose yourself.
"talking-out-of-your-ass, blustering-when-you-know-nothing" and "brain diarrhea" -- you demonstrate you're talking about yourself, no one else.
I never said "writing-a-computer-program-is-precisely-the-same-task-as-building-an-interstate-highway," but I did explain the economics of open source, and why lots of individuals will come together for a common goal. Guess what happened in Hawaii when the government couldn't repair a road. The government said it would take two years and $4 million jobs, so locals did it at their own cost (inaccurately termed "for free") in a mere eight days.
There were no central planners, or ensuring everyone did an equal share, or directing a minimum percentage to minority workers. Everyone pitched in as well as he could, in varying amounts, and the construction was completed splendidly.
You expect me to make a judgment about your private road, which I have never seen,
See my first point about material facts that do not need someone's physical visit to verify.
because you are willing to make a judgment about any public road that I can name, despite the fact that you have no idea where I live or, more specifically, what public roads I can name.
Actually, I don't need to know where (in Canada) you live, or what public road you name. It could never possibly be as good as here.
What a lying turd-for-brains hypocrite you are. You accuse me of not providing specifics, yet you give none of your own.
Most of what you so loudly declaim is backed by precisely as little solid fact as that.
How strange, considering I'm the one who keeps citing facts, naming examples of this and that, but all you can do is say "YOU'RE WRONG, I'M RIGHT, NYA NYA NYA!"
What shall we call what you have, Lucy Van Pelt Syndrome?
One more time:
Where's your defense of the trillions of dollars spent on the highways? Are you not man enough to admit you support the inefficient state over the efficient free market?
How do you justify government-funded railroads, whether 19th century or today (Amtrak, Metro-North, LIRR), which have never had ONE SINGLE INSTANCE of profitability?
When will you be man enough to admit you were wrong about private railroads, which historically have been very successful? That means profitable. And that's why they had to be driven out of business and kept that way -- government couldn't allow the competition.
You tried to ignore those and focus on my private road, but you were owned again. Oops.
Refute the fact that bureaucrats, the gods you worship, make decisions based on politics rather than efficiency. Or deny that you're defending them.
Refute them before you leave one more comment, if you dare.
You coward. No, I realize now that your mother's shoulder isn't soaked from your tears. She must be too ashamed of you to permit that anymore.
Such is the idiocy of you and all other liberals. You've never been to the top of Mount Everest, have you? You've never been to the Great Pyramid at Giza, have you? Yet there are material facts about them that are irrefutable.
Facts, dumbass. Facts. Your bloviation about your elitist cul de sac is not fact; it's opinion. The idea that you would call it "irrefutable" is laughable.
We can look at other things to prove how wrong you are. One of my relatives manages a blah blah blah.
None of that provides facts about your vaunted private road. Moving on...
The most undeniable fact I have stated is that you are a LIAR
Really? Share with me one of my alleged lies. Then prove that it is a lie.
Guess what happened in Hawaii when the government couldn't repair a road. The government said it would take two years and $4 million jobs, so locals did it at their own cost (inaccurately termed "for free") in a mere eight days.
First you equated a bunch of people sitting in their basements writing code with building and maintaining an interstate highway. Now you're comparing fixing an access road with building and maintaining an interstate highway. You're amazing.
See my first point about material facts that do not need someone's physical visit to verify....
Actually, I don't need to know where (in Canada) you live, or what public road you name. It could never possibly be as good as here.
Again, that's not a "material fact." That's an opinion. And a ridiculous one. You're saying that your private driveway or cul de sac or whatever is the best-maintained piece of asphalt in North America. Bar none. Without needing to see any others.
First of all, to say the thing marks you as an idiot. Second, to insist on it brands you a retard of the first water. This is another example of your tiny-penis problem; your feelings of inferiority can only be pushed into the background if you bluster loudly about the size of your paycheck, or the wonder of your driveway, or whatever.
Why on earth should I take your word for anything? You certainly won't do the same for me.
Prove that your road is so great. (Difficulty: the answer can't be any version of "because I said so.")
What a lying turd-for-brains hypocrite you are. You accuse me of not providing specifics, yet you give none of your own.
Ah, but here's the difference: I'm not making unverified assertions about my driveway, as you are. I'm under no onus to provide specifics, because I'm not making a judgment about something I've never seen.
How do you justify government-funded railroads, whether 19th century or today (Amtrak, Metro-North, LIRR), which have never had ONE SINGLE INSTANCE of profitability?
When will you be man enough to admit you were wrong about private railroads, which historically have been very successful?
Have you never been to the Internet before? The guy who blows the hot air is the one who needs to back himself up. The one in the pickle is the one who's got to tickle.
You need to prove your point, dumbass. I'm not going to do your homework for you.
You'd never dare post your real name and expose yourself.
You know what? For once, you're right. I am afraid of you. I think that you're more than a little bit insane, and there's no way that I'm going to give a psychopath like you even a hint as to where I live. The results would more than likely be fatal for me and my family.
have been, refusing to imagine that for once, people will come together.
And if you think open source is developed in the manner you say it is, you're as idiotic as Jonathan Klein. Remember him, the guy who said bloggers are people in their pajamas?
Again, that's not a "material fact." That's an opinion. And a ridiculous one. You're saying that your private driveway or cul de sac or whatever is the best-maintained piece of asphalt in North America. Bar none. Without needing to see any others.
I never said "bar none," so that's another of your LIES. I'm comparing it to public roads. There might be private roads just as good, though I can't imagine any better.
Now as far as comparing it to public roads, there's no comparison: name ONE that, within the last decade, has not cracked, developed a pothole, or anything else that needed repaving/repair.
Think of it as climbing Mount Everest and knowing you're on the highest point without having to measure all other mountains.
First of all, to say the thing marks you as an idiot. Second, to insist on it brands you a retard of the first water. This is another example of your tiny-penis problem; your feelings of inferiority can only be pushed into the background if you bluster loudly about the size of your paycheck, or the wonder of your driveway, or whatever.
Here we go again, no substance from you at all. Don't worry, bubba, I've been laughing at your trolling here and elsewhere. You ignore anything that refutes you, change the subject, and stick your head in the sand when people call you on your lies.
Why on earth should I take your word for anything? You certainly won't do the same for me.
Prove that your road is so great. (Difficulty: the answer can't be any version of "because I said so.")
And I already have, but you keep ignoring it.
Ah, but here's the difference: I'm not making unverified assertions about my driveway, as you are. I'm under no onus to provide specifics, because I'm not making a judgment about something I've never seen.
"Ah," again you dodge my my point and try to confuse the issue. It's not even quibbling over semantics.
Have you never been to the Internet before? The guy who blows the hot air is the one who needs to back himself up. The one in the pickle is the one who's got to tickle.
And I've provided many specifics, all of which you conveniently ignore.
You need to prove your point, dumbass. I'm not going to do your homework for you.
Already proven, dumbass. You just choose to ignore it.
You know what? For once, you're right. I am afraid of you. I think that you're more than a little bit insane, and there's no way that I'm going to give a psychopath like you even a hint as to where I live. The results would more than likely be fatal for me and my family.
You're a laugh. YOU were the one first stalking me online, remember? And now you say that I'm the dangerous one? If anything, I'm not going to demonstrate proof of MY road, for the simple reason that I don't assholes like you threatening me.
Here's a hint: don't steal from me, and I won't kill you. "Stealing" includes taxing me against my will, by the way.
There is a storm coming, and you're so blind to what will happen. American Tories were, too.
One more time: you're such a liar, a hypocrite, and a coward. And by the way, tell me something, was it your choice to get a Mac, or it's just the box to use?
I'd be tempted to ban you, and I don't need to see what's in moderated comments to delete them. But you'd probably pat yourself on the back and lie that I'm a coward, and besides, you're too much fun to pick on.
You really picked the wrong guy, bubba. The wrong guy.
So one more time, and I'm going to issue a threat. The fact that you cannot reply to these shows that you aren't anything that can be called a man.
Where's your defense of the trillions of dollars spent on the highways? Are you not man enough to admit you support the inefficient state over the efficient free market?
How do you justify government-funded railroads, whether 19th century or today (Amtrak, Metro-North, LIRR), which have never had ONE SINGLE INSTANCE of profitability?
When will you be man enough to admit you were wrong about private railroads, which historically have been very successful? That means profitable. And that's why they had to be driven out of business and kept that way -- government couldn't allow the competition.
My private road, well, you keep getting owned on that one.
Now if you want things you can personally visit and verify:
The pedestrian bridge at Chappaqua -- defend that.
The access road at the Hawaii park -- tell us how the free market failed there.
Donald Trump rebuilding the Wollman skating rink -- tell us how NYC was so great in wasting six years and $13 million before Trump did it himself in months, at his cost.
Refute the fact that bureaucrats, the gods you worship, make decisions based on politics rather than efficiency. Or deny that you're defending them.
And right here, right now, Right here, right now, tell us that you have no problem with people being "rich" and keeping their property.
Very simple things to do, but you're a lying, sniveling coward. You're lower than dog shit, and you know it.
You had better not post your real name, EVER, because God help you if any employer found out what a liar you are. You wouldn't be trusted to borrow a paper clip.
How did people do anything before governments directed them? The simple answer: they needed it, so people got together collectively. Not collectively by force, as you would have, but collectively because everyone without exception wanted to.
You're aware, of course, that government-funded roads stretch back thousands of years. The Roman roads were massive government construction projects; the Inca road system was the product of mita labor. The Chinese street systems that Marco Polo described were government-directed and -funded.
I challenge you to come up with any substantial road system that was built before government existed to direct people in its construction. (And by "substantial," I'm talking about, oh, let's say over one hundred miles in length.)
You're aware, of course, that government-funded roads stretch back thousands of years. The Roman roads were massive government construction projects; the Inca road system was the product of mita labor. The Chinese street systems that Marco Polo described were government-directed and -funded.
And yet these roads you glorify were not done for the benefit of "the people," but to solidify government's power.
Roman-built roads were the conduit for transporting plundered wealth and one way of "encouraging" subjects to stay in line. If your subjugated nation didn't play along or had nothing of value, the Romans would leave you to build whatever trails you made yourself (like Jews in the Holy Land).
The Incas built roads but "inexplicably" never invented the wheel. Or perhaps not so inexplicably: they used rollers, which were moved around by the abundant supply of slave labor. Thus they had no incentive to invent easier ways of doing things. Like the Egyptians and any other ancient people who built amazing things, it was courtesy of slave labor. Oh, and regular folks couldn't use the roads. It was for government use only, so even worse than what Romans did.
China's roads were the same, built with blood, and only for the benefit of the government. So I hate to inform you, but, uh, you're citing some great examples.
I challenge you to come up with any substantial road system that was built before government existed to direct people in its construction. (And by "substantial," I'm talking about, oh, let's say over one hundred miles in length.)
Easy enough. Let's not even talk about colonial America, when individuals like Daniel Boone had to blaze trails through the frontier, or even to other colonies when the Crown couldn't be bothered.
Marco Polo's journey was historic for Europeans, but nothing that Arab traders hadn't already been doing for several centuries. The Silk Road was always one of my favorite things about ancient history, and something I cited in a Micro II microeconomics essay. Without government interference, it was simply a trail that became an established overland route to China. Friedrich Hayek called this phenomenon "spontaneous order": "The result of human action but not of human design."
Nice job ignoring everything else, I must say.
Did you say "Daniel Boone?" I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over the sound of the goalposts moving.
All this time you've been discussing how well-constructed your driveway is, and I foolishly thought that we were talking about roads that people built. Now I understand you to be discussing footpaths.
Did you say "Daniel Boone?" I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over the sound of the goalposts moving.
Actually, you specified no time period, and I gave a perfectly valid example.
All this time you've been discussing how well-constructed your driveway is, and I foolishly thought that we were talking about roads that people built. Now I understand you to be discussing footpaths.
Guess what: that was very much a road that people "built," as much as anything that governments of the time planned and maintained. Just because it wasn't paved or otherwise meet our modern standards of "road" does not mean it was anything less.
Compared to the times, it was like any other major road. Even the roads built and maintained by the British, typically named after royalty, were essentially trails through forests. There was no paving. But if you want to talk about roads today, zoning has made it impossible for anyone to construct a road of any length. Government has stifled competition on roads and railroads, and in fact deliberately so. Otherwise the politicians won't have all the unions to bankroll their campaigns.
Use your imagination: instead of working at a job that's basically working for the government (and don't worry, I see you), try to conceive of what free people can do on their own. OpenOffice alone is worth billions of dollars, yet countless individuals came together and created it for free.
Once again, nice job focusing on one tiny thing -- and not even to the point of arguing semantics -- and ignoring everything else I said. Are you really so afraid to admit that the government infrastructure you cited were in fact not as "for the common people" as you wanted to believe? Or should I take your silence as conceding defeat?
Government railroads, then (Union Pacific et al) and now (Amtrak), always needing bailouts. Government roads always breaking up after a year or two. Government contractors largely standing around. Seems we've been down this road several times, haven't we, but you don't want to touch it.
Did you happen to notice the lie about the Bay Bridge opening "a day ahead of schedule"? It was scheduled to reopen Tuesday morning, but it was pushed back to Wednesday. The work happened to finish when originally scheduled, but officials still went by Wednesday to make themselves look good. Only government can lie like that. A private company that makes such a claim will be laughed out of business; it will never be trusted again.
"Goalposts" your fat lip, because I just got you again.
Only about the Canadian part, which was a natural assumption on my and Walrus' part. It doesn't speak much of you as a person when others can't take you at your word, now does it?
I'll take your silence on, uh, everything else as conceding on the issues.
It doesn't speak much of you as a person when others can't take you at your word, now does it?
Well, here's the thing:
Prior to that particular thread, I had never interacted with you before, so your lame justification is meaningless--since you had nothing to base such an assumption on, the only reason that you didn't take me at my word is because you're an asshole.
I'll take your silence on, uh, everything else as conceding on the issues.
Fascinating. You describe this endless thread with my patient explanations to you of your errors to be "silence." Of course, if I were to point that out and write that such could hardly be called "silence," your response would be something on the order of, "You may have typed answers, but I didn't hear you say anything, you ignorant fuckwit, so it was silence. Therefore, you were lying." Because that's how you roll.
Actually, this is the thing: you happened to jump into a couple of threads with obvious sock puppets going around, so it was a natural assumption.
Fascinating. You describe this endless thread with my patient explanations to you of your errors to be "silence."
No, it's the fact that I've consistently refuted any "point" you dredge up. Must I point everything out again that you've completely ignored?
Of course, if I were to point that out and write that such could hardly be called "silence," your response would be something on the order of, "You may have typed answers, but I didn't hear you say anything, you ignorant fuckwit, so it was silence. Therefore, you were lying." Because that's how you roll.
Where are your replies to what I revealed about the wonderful government roads you cited? Roman, Incan and Chinese roads, all built with blood and slave labor, and only for government's glory. And that's only the latest thing; everything else you ignored for the simple fact that you have no answer.
What will it take for you to wake up to the reality that government never does anything but on the basis of politics, not actual need? If anyone has been patient, I have, in giving you splendid explanations of how things work -- from spontaneous order to elected officials' dependency on union support.
So you can stop wasting my time, fuckwit, or make a reply of substance. Like I've been saying, it's no wonder you never post your real name.
I sure as hell hope you don't do any work of any importance, I really do.
Let's go through this one thing at a time.
First: the only other name under which I've posted at Alarmingnews is my real name. So fuck you on the "other sock puppet" lie, and fuck you on the "won't use my own name" lie.
Second: you suggest that if people wanted or needed a road, then they would build it. Private citizens, you might have noticed, did not band together to build any of our transcontinental superhighways; this was done by the "oppressive" government. Are they wanted or needed or used by the people? Definitely--that's why they get used so much. But groups of private citizens did not chip in to build them of their own accord.
(By the way: in your free market utopia, who the hell would take responsibility for the aforementioned roads that people definitely want and use, but that go through the vast uninhabited areas of Nevada or Texas or Utah? There are no homeowners nearby to pay for it; the people who use the road often live thousands of miles away from sections that need paving. Your theory about an industrialist "striking deals" to get the roads built and maintained? Whatever. In some alternate universe, I suppose, somebody might have been able to do that--theoretically, just as theoretically it is possible to wash all the windows on the Petronus Towers with a pocket handkerchief. But is it likely to happen in our universe? I think not. Notice: it didn't. Despite that fact that people obviously wanted just such a road. But libertarians all live in some odd alternate universe.)
Third: calling the Central Pacific and the Southern Pacific "government railroads" is absurd, and undermines any credibility you might have. Stanford and the rest were private citizens lining their own pockets. The Southern Pacific was long the largest private landowner in California. Peddle it somewhere else.
Fourth: why do I have to refute your private vs. public railroad claim? You're the guy who made the claim--the onus in on you to prove it. Define your terms and produce the data and links to show that you are right.
Fifth, your assertion that your private road is better than any public road in the U.S. and Canada is laughable BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T SEEN ALL THE PUBLIC ROADS IN THE U.S. AND CANADA. HOW THE HELL DO YOU KNOW?
Sixth, your assertion that your private road is better than all public roads is opinion, rather than fact, and your insistence that it is an irrefutable fact is risible. Your comparison to my questioning said "fact" as being like questioning the height of Mt. Everest after climbing it is imbecilic because--surprise!--I haven't driven down your driveway to see it and make a judgment for myself. I haven't "climbed Everest," to use your metaphor, just as you haven't seen all the public roads in North America. And why should I take your word for anything anyway? You're insane.
Seventh: the billions of dollars wasted on highways? People are using highways all the time, and they need to be built and maintained. What the hell are you talking about?
Eighth: the Bay Bridge reopening was pushed back by a day because they found an unexpected enormous crack in the bridge, and they so efficiently fixed it that they didn't need the extra time. No tricks. No conspiracy theories. I'm trying to imagine how long it would take to get the bridge fixed if we had to wait for homeowners on either side to ante up for it. In this economy, no less.
First: the only other name under which I've posted at Alarmingnews is my real name. So fuck you on the "other sock puppet" lie, and fuck you on the "won't use my own name" lie.
Aww, touched a nerve now, didn't I? Now why should we believe you for a second that you've posted under your real name, considering all of your lies? You have zero credibility, bubba. Zero.
And why won't you continue posting under your real name? Because you're a sniveling coward and a liar, plain and simple.
Second: you suggest that if people wanted or needed a road, then they would build it.
Absolutely. Why do you think my or any other private road was built? Because people wanted it enough to pay in their own money.
Private citizens, you might have noticed, did not band together to build any of our transcontinental superhighways; this was done by the "oppressive" government.
And you didn't notice that, uh, the federal government wouldn't allow it. Zoning, land use restrictions, etc., made it impossible for anything private to develop. You skipped over that point I made to Silence: you cannot accuse the free market of failing to create something when the government prevents it from acting.
Good lord, you are an ignoramus of the world around you.
Are they wanted or needed or used by the people? Definitely--that's why they get used so much. But groups of private citizens did not chip in to build them of their own accord.
People "want" and "need" all sorts of things. Do you understand that it still does not justify making others pay for it?
The people who use all these roads aren't necessarily the ones paying for it. As a matter of fact, they're typically not the payers, because tolls and gasoline taxes are never sufficient. General taxes are inevitably needed to cover the rest, the bulk of which come from "the rich." Of course, this why you love it so much: your ilk lives off infrastructure that others pay for.
(By the way: in your free market utopia, who the hell would take responsibility for the aforementioned roads that people definitely want and use, but that go through the vast uninhabited areas of Nevada or Texas or Utah? There are no homeowners nearby to pay for it; the people who use the road often live thousands of miles away from sections that need paving.
Having lived in Utah and having traveled through Nevada many times, I know all about the roads in "uninhabited areas." Let's get some things straight:
1. When there are no roads, people will live closer to town, e.g. on paved areas that everyone chips in for.
2. If someone chooses to live far enough away that he doesn't live on a paved road, that's his choice. If he wants it paved, let him pay for it. Or if he does good enough business with someone, they can come to a deal.
3. It all comes down to the fact that it's immoral to take money from someone by force and use it for any purpose, even for that person, no matter how "noble" the endeavor or how beneficial it may be.
In a free market, things are built and maintained only if people see fit, by their own choice. In your statist utopia, government planners decide to force taxpayers to pay for things that aren't necessarily used.
Your theory about an industrialist "striking deals" to get the roads built and maintained? Whatever.
And again, you're ignorant of history, considering that it's precisely what happened with private railroads. There was a need to move things from A to B, so it didn't matter that there were no people around.
So..."whatever" to your idea that it couldn't happen. This isn't even a matter of your lack of ability to believe in individual human achievement without the state.
In some alternate universe, I suppose, somebody might have been able to do that--theoretically, just as theoretically it is possible to wash all the windows on the Petronus Towers with a pocket handkerchief.
And when all else fails, you employ a strawman.
But is it likely to happen in our universe? I think not. Notice: it didn't. Despite that fact that people obviously wanted just such a road. But libertarians all live in some odd alternate universe.)
Look again, dimwit.
Third: calling the Central Pacific and the Southern Pacific "government railroads" is absurd, and undermines any credibility you might have. Stanford and the rest were private citizens lining their own pockets. The Southern Pacific was long the largest private landowner in California. Peddle it somewhere else.
Did they receive government money? That makes them government railroads, no matter if they were ultimately owned by private individuals. The one thing you did get right was that their owners stealing -- from taxpayers, which is not what you have in mind.
It's a shame you don't understand this, but "private" is not what you think it is. Something that is truly private does not receive so much as a penny of support from the government, plain and simple. How strange (if not hypocritical) you liberals are: you're so quick to decry companies that receive government support, but not when it suits your cause.
Fourth: why do I have to refute your private vs. public railroad claim? You're the guy who made the claim--the onus in on you to prove it. Define your terms and produce the data and links to show that you are right.
I already did up above. Screaming at yourself in the mirror that I made no defense does not erase everything already here in black and white, you idiotic fuckwit.
Fifth, your assertion that your private road is better than any public road in the U.S. and Canada is laughable BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T SEEN ALL THE PUBLIC ROADS IN THE U.S. AND CANADA. HOW THE HELL DO YOU KNOW?
Because it's flatly impossible. There is absolutely no possibility that any comparable public road (length, use, etc.) has gone so many years without requiring maintenance. That's it. Show me any that has gone a decade without cracks, without needing resealing. And do you understand why it was built so well in the first place?
In any case, it's a single point that you keep focusing on, because you have no argument for anything else. You have to keep dodging the issue, because you are, after all, a coward.
Sixth, your assertion that your private road is better than all public roads is opinion, rather than fact, and your insistence that it is an irrefutable fact is risible. Your comparison to my questioning said "fact" as being like questioning the height of Mt. Everest after climbing it is imbecilic because--surprise!--I haven't driven down your driveway to see it and make a judgment for myself.
Considering you've revealed stalking tendencies (you're not the latest faggot with a crush on me, are you?), I'm not about to tell you. But if you do trespass, you'll be hauled out in a body bag. Take that as you will, hmm?
I haven't "climbed Everest," to use your metaphor, just as you haven't seen all the public roads in North America.
After all this time, you still don't understand simple logic. When something cannot be exceeded, it becomes the yardstick for everything else.
And why should I take your word for anything anyway? You're insane.
So who is to be believed, I, standing by my name and throwing every point back in your face, or you, the anonymous, cowardly liar who can't admit when he's been bested?
You're now the basis for a new definition of insanity: a liberal twit arguing the same point over and over, ignoring everything refuting him, still thinking he's right.
Seventh: the billions of dollars wasted on highways? People are using highways all the time, and they need to be built and maintained. What the hell are you talking about?
Didn't you pay attention to the simple math I presented to Silence? Five years, $400 billion. How many workers does that pay for, and why does it take so many? Good lord, you are a moron.
Just because people use something that's paid for by taxpayers does not implicitly mean "it's worth it," no matter how much you or any other fuckwit insists it is.
Eighth: the Bay Bridge reopening was pushed back by a day because they found an unexpected enormous crack in the bridge, and they so efficiently fixed it that they didn't need the extra time. No tricks. No conspiracy theories. I'm trying to imagine how long it would take to get the bridge fixed if we had to wait for homeowners on either side to ante up for it. In this economy, no less.
You fell for Caltrans' lie, good lord! You are indeed gullible. The new question is: are you more gullible than you are a liar?
So without repairing this supposedly "new crack," the actual opening day should have been Labor Day. If you want to believe this myth that they worked so hard and quickly "through the night" to do the unplanned repairs, then why was the original plan so slow?
In "this" economy or anything else, people will put up the money as needed. They'd have also built a quality bridge that wouldn't be falling apart, whether the Bay Bridge or the Tappan Zee. Wonderful government structure, that latter one is, which I recently talked about. Not even six full decades old, and it's falling apart.
One more time for you, the Chronically Stupid:
Where's your defense of the trillions of dollars spent on the highways? Are you not man enough to admit you support the inefficient state over the efficient free market?
And notice that I said trillions, not billions.
How do you justify government-funded railroads, whether 19th century or today (Amtrak, Metro-North, LIRR), which have never had ONE SINGLE INSTANCE of profitability?
When will you be man enough to admit you were wrong about private railroads, which historically have been very successful? That means profitable. And that's why they had to be driven out of business and kept that way -- government couldn't allow the competition.
My private road, well, you keep getting owned on that one.
Now if you want things you can personally visit and verify:
The pedestrian bridge at Chappaqua -- defend that.
The access road at the Hawaii park -- tell us how the free market failed there.
Donald Trump rebuilding the Wollman skating rink -- tell us how NYC was so great in wasting six years and $13 million before Trump did it himself in months, at his cost.
Refute the fact that bureaucrats, the gods you worship, make decisions based on politics rather than efficiency. Or deny that you're defending them.
When will you finally have the balls to admit you don't believe people should keep their property and not be taxed to hell? Because we know, good lord we know, that that's what you believe.
You're lower than dog shit, you little coward, and you know it. Be a man for once.
Where are your replies to what I revealed about the wonderful government roads you cited? Roman, Incan and Chinese roads, all built with blood and slave labor, and only for government's glory.
What will it take for you to wake up to the reality that government never does anything but on the basis of politics, not actual need?
Spontaneous order. Check it out. Maybe one day you'll have two neurons spontaneously develop a synapse, but I won't be surprised if it never happens.
Stop wasting our time, imbecile, and your employer's.
Hi Perry,
Whew! That was breathtaking! Nice job.
To anybody that might tell me about the wonder of government roads, I would respond thusly, "Have you been on I40 lately?"
When you're done with your troll, send him over to my blog. I just lost one.
Dave
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home