I don't understand the "roads" meme with Ancap?

I don't understand the "roads" meme with Ancap?

A private company would build it...what's the problem?

Other urls found in this thread:

eh.net/encyclopedia/turnpikes-and-toll-roads-in-nineteenth-century-america/
econfaculty.gmu.edu/klein/PdfPapers/VoluntaryProvisionPublicGoods.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman,_Chicago#Beginnings
youtube.com/watch?v=5rDC5Vy8Nto
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

someone would have to pay

A private company would only build roads that benefit them. They wouldn't build back roads or standard urban roads. A living area wouldn't necessarily have roads if there was no company that could determine a profit from such an investment.

yeah someone would just mindlessly pay for new roads you think?

>toll roads don't exist

>toll roads pay for themselves in any reasonable amount of time

Besides, no one would travel roads if every block needdd a toll.

Maybe everybody pitches in a little bit to help pay for basic stuff like roads, healthcare, military, social services, education, etc.?

>you
If you have toll roads you need someone to tax the toll and then were back at square 1

But why? It's the same garbage argument of "rich people could end hunger in 1 day". People will do mindlessly spend money if they can't directly benefit from it, and most people do not see a drivable road as a direct benefit.

Well the main problem with private companies building infrastructure like roads is that, unless you're building an expressway/motorway, it's difficult to stop people who haven't paid for them from using them.

This isn't necessarily a fatal flaw, though, it just makes things more difficult. It's perfectly possible to conceive of private individuals and businesses banding together to fund construction of a road that they want because it would benefit their area. They'd just have to think that the benefit of the road would be worth it to them even if they wouldn't be able to collect revenue from it directly - the benefit would have to be more traffic to their business, quicker travel to other towns, etc.

As a company owner, it would be in the company`s interest to build both houses AND roads AND anything that the worker may need to survive in order to become attractive to the available workforce.

If your worker cant even get to the damn company, then how is he going to work? And companies have suppliers that require roads for transportation, and those suppliers build other roads to perform their job.

Exactly what we have now.
>taking the bait

That's wrong as fuck and you know it.

>companies will build roads and houses for 10 families all because one guy in one family needs to drive to work

Hahahaha, no.

>>Maybe everybody pitches in a little bit to help pay for basic stuff like roads, healthcare, military, social services, education, etc.?
There's nothing wrong with this if it's voluntary. The problems of todays governments are that they force you to pay for the projects that they deem necessary, and will throw you in jail if you refuse to cough up.

No it isnt. We would be forced to build roads.

If you cant get materials, then you dont have a company.

If your workers cant get to the company, you cant have a company.

If it is hard to transport, then you will not have profit.

Do you even know the actions taken by companies nowadays? Electrolux in brazil finances the leasure of its employees. A happy employee works harder, produces more. An employee that does not need to worry about his family is someone who can put their minds to the task they are given.

Thats toyotism. And its not government mandated.

The companies have partnerships with banks to finance housing for the workforce that does not live in the city and provides everything they need to do their job.

If you knew how actual companies actually work you would not be saying this.

You can't have a grid of large sections of roads without warlords with militaries..

...

More?

OK in a ancap society, roads WOULD be built be built by local companies/collective capitalists. ALL ROADS would become either toll roads or be membership roads, eg if you are a shareholder, you get access to the road. If not, you must pay a toll.

>when a small pavement rock flies into your garden, violating the NAP, so you buy all the land below the road and place a toll at every block, isolating the entire community while your child army razes the road company to the ground

>smiling_ancap_picardia.png

A road the benefits transport for everyone and thus increases happiness and thus increases sales?

What kind of nonsense is that.

Worst case scenario, it'd be morality? Charity?

More?

most relevant one to this thread

Companies would build roads ONLY necessary to then, meaning they would require you to live by them. They wouldn't fucking build your Ouse and build roads to your house, they wouldn't hire you if you didn't live in a house on a road.

Brazil is a garbage example of any industry considering they're only doing well on account of oil and natural resources, not because of their well structured economy and industry.

Ancap does not and will not ever work, anyone who believes so is as delusional as communists.

Lol. All you have to do is feed them. Even then, a factory can still run if people starve to death, as long as some keep alive. You really have no clue.

This. People need th factory more than the factory needs the people. There's a reason that many big factories have waiting lists for employment.

Ancaps or trumpers?

Whose worse

Almost all roads were built by private non-profit Turnpike Societies before the "progressive era."

eh.net/encyclopedia/turnpikes-and-toll-roads-in-nineteenth-century-america/

econfaculty.gmu.edu/klein/PdfPapers/VoluntaryProvisionPublicGoods.pdf

...

>When you build roads, but they all lead to your underground child sex ring.

...

lost

>Companies would build roads ONLY necessary to then

And what IS a company? Is a gym a company? A bar down the street? A school?

Yes, in a way, they are. And they are everywhere in the city. And all those places NEED people to be close to them. And they NEED to be where many people can see them. And those guys would want to build roads inside of the city. At least in front of their establishment they would.

Companies require people to be happy so they can buy more. Companies require employees to be happy, so they can produce more.


If a car company does not have roads to place their cars in, then what`s the fucking point of it existing in the first place? What`s the point of having a movie theater in the middle of the woods?

Yes, they would build what is needed to keep the consumer consuming because that is their end goal. And that happens to be, at least most of what we currently have already installed.

There would be companies, hired by other companies and private citizens to build roads and other things that are needed. Such as powerplants.

by the way this is how a swede company works its not brazillian. the employees have company provided cars for when they need it.

Most companies that matter work this way. People are a very important resource.

In an anarcho capitalist society, power comes from ownership and from a person`s assets. Everyone would want to have a business. It is hard to believe that there would be more workers than there is the need for them and so they would become a valuable resource. They already are the most valuable resource.

Toll booth in my driveway for when I get on the road.
Toll booth in the McWalmart parking lot for when I get on the road.
Toll booth waiting for me on the side of the road when I slide off from icy conditions because I didn't tip the salt truck driver.

What stops someone from getting on the road and then getting off of it without going through a toll booth? Toll roads in their present form are long stretches of interstate highway with only a few boothed entryways for a reason.

>private non-profit

It literally states in your links that they were done by businesses that specifically built roads, and made profits from them before going bankrupt because roads are expensive and non profitable. Read your shit before posting it.

Not an argument.

How can you be so illiterate and stupid? A company will not build roads, because people will buy their goods without it. Let me ask you, how many companies build the roads that lead to their business when they build in an empty lot on the outskirts of town?

Protip: none.

Not arguing isn't an argument either

Because they have the government to build it for them. The state profits from the company so it expects the state to provide the road.

They cant stay without it. How are they going to ship and receive shit that way, retard?

By the way, sometimes they do build it. They also build parking lots for their employees.

this guy is right in fact its already happened before

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman,_Chicago#Beginnings

it's a holdover from the old libertarian threads

Post ancomm memes

Roads are extremely complex and dangerous technology that no private company could or should be allowed to control.

Man, a Trans-Siberian highway would be glorious. Will Trump and Putin even deliver?

>startup-like propaganda
>If we do this we could increase our profit margin by x%
>applause from 2657 companies who imediately hire a constructing company to do the job
>gets built in a year, below budget

when government does it
>5 years planning
>dish plans that spent 5 years working on
>overbudget before it starts construction
>corruption
>delays
>a new road is already built and its better

I`m not talking about the road btw, its actually what happened to the world trade center for when it was first built by private companies and then when the USA government tried to rebuild it.

youtube.com/watch?v=5rDC5Vy8Nto

Because everyone would be a peasant under feudalism so it would be kinda hard to build things.

we'd have far less urbanized degeneracy. people would live in actual communities. roads would only be necessary for actual, beneficial industrial transport and between major hubs. not everyone would need a car. people wouldn't be fat. we'd have meaning in life.

Then you have a de facto government, just with a corporate power hierarchy

Government is a natural thing, actually. Anything Anarchic is stupid and unsustainable, but it is not unsustainable because it would be a mess.

It is unsustainable because governments spawn spontaneously. You would have a group of corporations teaming with another to break another group out of business. And eventually you`d have law to prevent certain tactics from being used when corporations agreed. Smaller ones would in turn seek those laws. So you`d have a government form.

Borders would be completely different, and the people in power also would, but generally it would lead to great growth for some time util new states arise and then you`d have a world at war that tries to enforce its domain through private armies.

That user is right, that's the way it used to be in my state in the 50s-60s. A company always funded houses, schools and even churches for their workers just for the sake of keep their workers happy. And this was a both ways contract. They gave that just to guarantee that they were going to have a bunch of loyal workers for the next 30-40 years, and guess what? It always worked.
Well, at least it was like that with mexican companies, because after globalization kicked and american companies invaded here, they just didn't give a shit.

...

Looks like you're the one who didn't read it you dumb nigger.

They closed because of the legal bifurcation (supply side):

"The turnpike experience of nineteenth-century America suggests that the stock/dividend company can also be a fruitful, efficient, and socially beneficial way to make losses and go on making losses. The SUCESS of turnpikes suggests that our modern sensibility of dividing enterprises between profit and non-profit – a distinction embedded in modern tax laws and regulations – unnecessarily impoverishes the imagination of economists and other policy makers. Without such strict legal and institutional bifurcation, our own modern society might better recognize the esteem in trade and the trade in esteem."


They weren't strictly SUPPOSED to be profitable. And they didn't need to be. Which was the hole point:

"Esteem, social pressure, and other non-economic motivations influenced local residents to make investments that they knew would be unprofitable (at least in a DIRECT sense) but would nevertheless help the entire community. On the other hand, the turnpike companies enjoyed the organizational clarity of stock ownership and residual returns."


Repairing the progressivist damage to the legal system would make them effective again.


"The combining of these two ingredients – the appeal of use and esteem, and the incentives and proprietary clarity of residual returns – is today severely UNDERMINED by the modern legal bifurcation of private initiative into “not-for-profit” and “for-profit” concerns."
"The success of turnpikes suggests that our modern sensibility of dividing enterprises between profit and non-profit – a distinction embedded in modern tax laws and regulations – unnecessarily impoverishes the imagination of economists and other policy makers. "

As an ancap I enjoy the ancap memes.

So communism?

So feudalism?

You AnCap morons are dumb cunts.

No of course not.

You own the means by which they can obtain money to purchase the house and electricity while other companies require their money to sell them things they need to survive.

You are buying from your employer, it doesnt mean its communism. You are simply giving him an option, and if he doesnt take it, but still go to work and get there on time every day he must work then its all fine.

Other companies would obviously also try to sell them houses. That`s why construction companies exist.

Its in no way feudalism either. People do it right now in the city i live in. They have closed residential areas for employees from certain companies.

>implying there's anything wrong with feudalism

Roads can't be made profitable.

Maybe services that modern society needs to function can't produce profit: police, firefighters, etc.

Listen its a simple concept. For a factory to be profitable, it needs logistics. You can't meet quotas if you have shit logistics. Roads are part of logistics. If you have roads, then raw materials or anything you might need can get to the factory safely and quickly. Easy right?

The roads infringement on the property it transverses could be seen as a violation of the NAP unless one person owned all property in the area in which it would clash vs people trying to get jobs fixing roads in the area, etc

Yeah at first. But then they start building nets outside the factory/homes and don't let you leave.

the

only

way

that man can be objectively free is through

objectivist local minarchism

there's no other way that you could buy land and leave the world behind and live off of the land without needing to pay taxes for land you """own""".

and that's basically the definition of freedom, owning a piece of land about 10 square miles, and hunting, farming, living there as you please.

>muh roads

fuck roads. fuck cars. fuck factories. fuck cities.

return to inter-godalism of self-centered modality spaces.

Roads enable profit. If you dont have them, then its harder to sell.

Also, police force, fire fighters and etc would be things created by communities. It would be a natural form of government. Much like the `lawless` wild west.

A company cant really produce everything people need.
And if the workers just go on strike then there is little to be done. Fear only goes so far and the owner doesnt have the numbers or law on his side.
Again, in an An-Cap society, there is much more offer of employment than there are employees. Thats simply because power is dictated by ownership of resources and means of production.

You cant just kill your employees, they are too valuable.

>REX
>Not excelsus
Wasted opportunity for an Armstrong meme.

Roads are like the #2 cause of roadkill.

My goal is to someday be able to commute to the local grocery store by canoe.

YES THE BREADS FUGGIN BACK!!!!! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

Privatize the roads by a company or non-profit organization

yes, a monopolized company can produce everything, and if not a holding company certainly could

Fuck roads. Without them, we'd be living in a libertarian paradise where people don't need roads.

T

And then you get in what i said here At the time they are unable to move to and from and area to another, you have your first border.

Sure. They control your housing, food and who knows what else, there's no higher law and no one outside your community that cares about you but they will be nice to you because you are special and valuable and not just a sack of meat they could easily replace.

The road argument is a meme used by people who don't understand human nature.

>pic_of_roads_in_an_ancap_society.jpg

>no higher law

Util workers start going on strike. Rebelions happen.

Just a repetition of history.

We'd need to get some people to manage it all.

Why would they build it and where?

You see private contractors already build nearly all the roads. They are paid by the government, state and local (also subsidized by the federal government), and told where and how to build them.

Why would private businesses be willing or able to build a network of roads that doesn't lead to their own stores?

AnCap is a retarded paradox. Worse than Communism. Worse than real Anarchism. Less respectable than even a tumblrite progressive. An ideology of tryhard 16 year olds trying to out "woke" their left libertarian friends.

A corporation that owns the land and builds the roads and collects fees for the privlege of people using those roads and gets to set the Usage Agreements and Code of Conduct for people on that property and having no higher authority able to force them from not doing so is called being a fucking Feudal Lord.

Thats literally what anarcho capitalism is, feudal despotism with modern contract terms branding what used to be known as kings and taxes.

At least with a democratic republic we have some checks and ballances other than lol just move muh nap.

Anarcho Capitalism will never be a thing that works in the way its advocates dream of. It has no basis in reality or history as something that can work.

Corporations actually love the existence of government because of the framework of bankruptcy law. Its good for consumers and producers overall. Stop it with this Ayn Rand garbage fanfiction and go google "Tragety of the Commons" if you thing your such a fucking brilliant economist.

how is owning your own land and dictating how you see fit coercively oppressive? If It's my road or my company's road, so what? that isnt ancapism to control your own things. and ancapism isnt disregarding that there are other properties owned by other people. the point it asserts is the free market trade in utilizing those properties without one side trying to coercively take it from another

a company perhaps? and the people who help are either contractors or employees and if they don't like then they're fired

competition seeps in. other businesses rise with better worker benefits thus driving out the "unfair businesses"

Fucking ancaps should be executed

move on dot org and whoever the goppers use to shill don't like it so it's mad hella wicked gay bro and you should like totally register to vote

>government contracts construction companies to build roads simply because they want to and totally not because of commerce which allows for more sales taxes to be pulled out of companies' patrons
you're a fucking idiot

that would be assuming you'd take us alive first and that we wouldn't be attempting escape at every waking second

I'm surprised this doesn't come up often in Ancap threads.

The best analogy for how roads would be built is the Internet.

>Decentralised pathways connecting nodes
>Some road companies will be shit, some better, just like some ISPs are shit and some better.
>Some areas will have shit roads, just like some countries have shit Internet.
>Where there's demand, smart people will provide supply.
>You can relocate to areas with better infrastructure (this is already happening, no one will build a road for you special snowflake innawoods cabin).

The point is, from an Ancap's POV the government is just a powerful corporation that does NOT run things smoothly. It's about the lesser evil, realising you can't always deliver your policies, transparency in lobbying etc.

no, it's about interconnecting commerce to profit from more sales taxes. government is a corporation by it's very definition, but how it profits is from forcibly taking from its constituents

What happens if you are paid to build a road, but the only way for it to get to its destination is to cross over a road built by a rival company that will not allow you to connect your road to theirs?

That is not at all what I insinuated you illitterate napper.

I am saying that anarcho capitalism isnt real because businesses in anarcho capitalism are just governments and tribes.

From a utilitarian stand point, "taxation is theft" is a childish maxim ignorant of the alternatives and the NAP means nothing to anyone with an ounce of sin unless there is an enforcement mechanism behind any such code of conduct.

the rival company owns the road, not the land. So just build a bridge over it or a tunnel under it

Technology allows even more so than before a small few to control many

Also a state of constant rebellion seems like a terrible place to live. Idk how you could idealize that as the highest form of government

businesses that force anyone to do anything against his or her will without warrant are governments. Tribes are social kinship construct which may or may not make up a profit driven corporation

taxation is theft

and an eye for eye, a tooth for a tooth. how you carry out such methods may not be as simple but can be just as fair

Who owns the land?

Who says who owns the land?

Who enforces who owns the land?

What if there is continuing disagreement?

How is any attempt to answering these questions not describing feudal society and economics?

Are anarcho-capitalists the stupidest ideological group? I think they might be, and that's in spite of all the fierce competition for the title.

so should you larper bros

what rebellion? who is everyone rebelling against? in ancapistan, I don't see any coercive regulatory force anywhere, besides maybe a band of raiders or slavers. so what rebellion?

Because not every street is worth putting in a toll booth. We have traffic cameras for that.

I own all the land surrounding yours. Pay me your whole income for safe passage or I will murder you for trespassing.

Government doesnt force you when you really take AnCap to its logical ends.

The same napper "just move" argument remains.

Renounce your citizenship and leave.

>but all other good land is owned by some government

And in anarcho capitalism all other land is owned by some other corporation that requires "fees" and "seizes" your "assets" which include your physical person for "breach of contract" close Stanley