This kills the Libertarian

this kills the Libertarian

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_monopoly
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

The Libertarian wants roads, but not built by the government through taxes. Private companies can do the same, but without taxbux.

>it's just a shitpost
i know, whatever

>Income Taxes
>Property Taxes
>Sales Taxes
>State Taxes
>Taxes if you win the fucking lottery
>taxes when you fucking die

Its all going to the roads!!! We swear!!

Streets should be Privately owned

>Capitalism can build complex operating systems and electronic hardware

>Somehow have build a toll road

It is especially funny since a lot of the money builds roads in shitholes overseas and doesn't maintain the roads we have here.

...

>my mode of transport when no roads

>Private companies can do the same, but without taxbux.

The problem is there's no communal good or common ownership in Libertarian utopia.

There's nothing preventing RoadCo from owning all the connecting roads and then putting a ridiculous fee on using them, requiring you to pay or die on your plot of land.

And if you drive on the road without paying or their permission their private security firm can always kill you for breaking NAP.

...

>There's nothing preventing RoadCo from owning all the connecting roads and then putting a ridiculous fee on using them

Except there is. Monopolies are only possible by state sanctions and regulations.

Obviously, having your client base die isn't a good business decision either.

One of our politicians when he had to answer a question regarding this issue, he said "those areas are strategic points"(where roads are not being repaired, and these are very used roads), kek

good boy

>There's nothing preventing RoadCo from owning all the connecting roads and then putting a ridiculous fee on using them, requiring you to pay or die on your plot of land.

Only the fact that no users hurt the economy and business. You'd have to be autistic to fuck people over permanently, hurting all other companies for fucking up the workers' travel roads (which they paid for ofcourse), import, export and so on. It would still function like a castle made out of crads, but more efficiently, and less Hillaries.

>Monopolies are only possible by state sanctions and regulations.
Explain pls

cards*

enjoy your tolls and pot holes, cucks

The government sucks at most things. Correct, but the market sucks at building a comprehensive road network.

If you are an economic pragmatist you know that the government has a role in the economy and a very large role in certain sectors of the economy.

Stop watching all those autistic libertarian videos.

>wanting less government who tells you what to do means you're a cuck

wat

>Except there is. Monopolies are only possible by state sanctions and regulations.

This is just laughably untrue. Nothing prevents the one with the most money from buying the roads. There's no regulation to stop it.

>Only the fact that no users hurt the economy and business. You'd have to be autistic to fuck people over permanently, hurting all other companies for fucking up the workers' travel roads

It's hilarious that your defense is "people will be good man!", when you're screaming government can't be trusted because everyone's corrupt. As if they're never irrational. As if they'd never do something because they can.

Even accepting your rose coloured nonsense you can't prevent someone who's both rich and malicious from doing it. All he needs is money. Nothing legislates morality, and you have nothing to stop it from happening.

Economically, it is impossible to prevent entry into a monopoly market in an attempt to obtain a share of the profits of that industry without the state stopping you.

Historically, there have been no monopolies that existed for any considerable amount of time that were not Legal (De Jure) Monopolies.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_monopoly

>.t Achmed Muhammad can't wholly understand English yet

no workers = no money

You know, money, the crap you came in Europe for, they will have none

>This is just laughably untrue. Nothing prevents the one with the most money from buying the roads. There's no regulation to stop it.
Again, economics stops any like that from happening.

Please cite me any monopoly that has not relied on state sanctions.

>muh public goods

The free market has provided successfully all "public goods" and in some cases pre-date government production (light houses).

Good luck getting them to build roads in poor, rural communities. They won't. Which I'm sure you think isn't a problem because you've never considered the economic impact of half the nation not being connected to a road network. Factories aren't going to produce goods that they can't distribute.

Everything with libertarianism falls apart like this if you think about it for more than 15 seconds.

>Can't do something
>It would be a good idea to start a business in this area
>It happens

If you spent more than 15 seconds thinking before you typed, you would realize what you typed is patently retarded.

>no workers = no money

So what? If I have the money to landlock you and force you to pay me exorbitantly, forcing you to take whatever job you can do long distance just to be able to get off your land, that's okay in your utopia.

>Again, economics stops any like that from happening.

No it doesn't. How could you stop me from doing this if I have more money than you?

>Please cite me any monopoly that has not relied on state sanctions.

Please cite me any working libertarian society.

How are you going to make a profit building roads that go to poor, sparsely populated rural areas? Who is paying for it? This is something that is not profitable to any single person or organization, but profitable to society as a whole. The kind of things that libertarianism can't do.