Ancaps and roads

I don't understand why anarcho-capitalism is associated with no roads.
Cant companies build turnpikes to make profit and housing developers sell property with the neighborhood roads that make up most of the travel?
The companies that would run these be able maintain them better than government because they have the incentive to compete with other substitute turnpikes?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_roads
ancap.com.au/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>Cant companies build turnpikes to make profit
Wouldn't the costs be insane tho? Some dude here built a less than 1/2km bypass on rented land, and without a proper road surface (basically just gravel) and it still cost him 150k

The roads thing is a total non-issue which was addressed many decades ago. Almost all critics of anarchocapitalism are blissfully ignorant of..well.. everything about anarchocapitalism, which is why you see people acting like "muh roads" destroys anarchocapitalism. It's an argument from a position of complete ignorance, basically.

It's actually quite astonishing how little time these critics have spent learning about what they condemn. All of their "gotcha" questions about roads, police, etc... were answered decades ago and no one has offered any rebuttals, because well.. they aren't even aware that answers to their "questions" exist, because they haven't spent any time looking...

Just remember, almost every single critic of anarchocapitalism is flat-earther tier intelligence. They constantly want to talk about things they don't understand, and have put no effort into understanding. It's really bizarre that they don't even seem to see an issue with this kind of thinking.

So... Why aren't roads a problem?

>because well.. they aren't even aware that answers to their "questions" exist,

so what's the answer?

>Every road is a told road
>It costs $48 to drive a mile

FREE MARKETS FTW

He must have uhhhhh spent 145k in uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Roads is just something easy and familiar basically everyone uses and knows about and where the private versions exist no one really likes them.
Plus it makes for good memes which is most important

>when you claim the opposition was rebutted but offer no answer to questions leveraged beforehand, thus proving the opposition's point

And let me guess, you'll say "NAWT MUH JAWB TO EDUKAYT YOU" when pressed to reply won't you.

I don't know man, I don't get it either. Just take a look at all the countries where the governments don't build roads, and how well they're doing. There are so many examples of how effective anarcho-capitalism can be when it's put into action, I don't know how anyone could think otherwise

why would it cost any more for private companies to build roads than it costs the government? you're willing to pay the government to build roads for you with your taxes but not a private contractor? if you want a road, pay somebody to build it or do it yourself with the money you saved by not paying taxes. it's pretty simple really.

Electricity, natural gas, internet, telephone, TV, etc are all privatized.

The absolute state of ancap critics...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_roads
That took me about 2 seconds searching google and the answer you're looking for is so well-known it even has its own fucking wikipedia article. Lmao.
Anything else I can do for you? Do you want me to hold your hand while you read it?

Do you people see what I'm talking about? 2 fucking seconds and you could find the answer. Why are you asking me?

Why would it be so expensive?

>why would it cost any more for private companies to build roads than it costs the government?
For the same reasons american health care is the most expensive (and crappy) among first world nations.

HAHAHAHA 150k for a road, that fucking guy is braindead with finance

good deal!

our local government spent 9million on 1 single-lane roundabout

well brainlet, as I already pointed out, the answer can be found by spending several seconds searching google. do you feel dumb now?

Ye the good old
>In the absence of regulation, a private highway operator is likely to charge an exorbitant monopoly price, resulting in huge profit margins and few benefits for drivers.

>doesn't understand the reason why american healthcare is so expensive is excessive government intervention
>doesn't understand the healthcare question was also answered, decades ago
>thinks hes debunked anarchocapitalism even though he doesn't know what he's talking about at all
the absolute fucking state of ancap critics. 0 critical thought, 0 effort learning and yet full of arrogant judgement.

patent laws enforced by the government that create monopolies? i don't know, that sounds like statism to me.

it's also not the most crappy, it's arguably the best in the world when comparing apples to apples. the only country that possibly has us beat is japan.

Which is why higher regulated healthcare systems are both more effective and come with a much lower cost.

>when you cannot offer an explanation of your own ideology yourself, so you point to a (((Wikipedia))) article while refusing to refute arguments against it

Explain to me how this scenario could not occur under anarcho-capitalism:
>JewEx has lots of shekels valid in Ancapistan
>JewEx pays local security and gangs to harass and fuck with drivers on non-JewEx owned roads
>JewEx utilizes underhanded tactics and hostile takeovers of other road companies to gain control of all road networks
>JewEx spikes prices until they gain a maximum possible monetary return

Has this been refuted?

>doesn't understand how a free market works when there isn't a government being used by big business to remove competition
>doesn't understand that the govt literally has a monopoly on roads which it uses the threat of violence to enforce
Again... You're arguing from a position of complete ignorance. Go read a book.

Go read your own wikipedia link lmao

>why would it cost any more for private companies to build roads than it costs the government? you're willing to pay the government to build roads for you with your taxes but not a private contractor? if you want a road, pay somebody to build it or do it yourself with the money you saved by not paying taxes. it's pretty simple really.
Two things here: first, it is good for some things like roads to be "free" in the sense that people don't have to choose whether to spend money on it or not before they use it. If traveling roads cost any money at all out of pocket, people would refrain from a lot of economic activity on those roads, and whatever benefits that economic activity would stimulate would be lost. Just a quick example, when roads are free someone might make three trips to the store in a week, and make multiple impulse buys each time; but if he has to pay a toll to travel, he instead holds out for just one trip, and makes less impulse buys. Maybe he actually saves money for himself this way, but economic demand takes a hit. There's plenty of other shit too like people not eating out as much or going to movies because they would have to think about the extra price of paying tolls and decide to just stay at home instead. When the cost of roads comes out of taxes people don't have to make a choice, they just do it. Even if it isn't the most rational decision, a little irrationality can be good for the economy, and hyperrationality from each individual can be bad for the economy as a whole.
Like in bank runs, it might be rational for you to take your money out of the bank to avoid risk, but if everyone does it, then the bank run actually realizes the risk and as a group the action is irrational.

>doesn't understand that (((big business))) is far less hampered by ancap than statism
>doesn't understand that a free market with no laws will be predated upon by foreign influences using hostile tactics to assume control
Sweetie, you are a brainless nigger. There's no way to put it nicely.

>0 critical thought, 0 effort learning and yet full of arrogant judgement.
Wel, at least you've got self awareness.

Oh wait, you were talking about me? lol

Why do you have an interest in opposing ancap when you have zero knowledge of it?

...

>doesn't understand the reason why american healthcare is so expensive is excessive government intervention
Not quite. The problem is the government pays for everything but doesn't regulate anything outside of being overprotective so that you can't sell products with a risk of harming people. Other countries pay for everything but also don't let companies make 2000% profit on something just because they know the government will pay it.
Of course, states with pay and strong regulation really only work when they are all white all christian. When you have 50% nogs who eat themselves diabetes and get themselves shot every other week you can't have a good healthcare system in any case.

Explain to me why the JewEx situation could not occur, and then I might relent.

HARDMODE: No posting links. You have to explain it yourself, since you evidently know so much about AnCap.

It's time to go to bed, Stefan.

ANCAP is often associated with roads because of ancap.com.au/

broken window fallacy the post

>JewEx
you're going to have to explain what this is. not everyone on /pol is a paranoid stormfag.

You're a retard. It's not that you don't have answers (after all, you're an ancap, not an ancom). It's that your answers are all shit.

>doesn't even understand the argument of the person he responded to
>responds with insult
the absolute state of ancap critics...

(OP)
The other thing is that when government has a big monopoly on making roads everywhere they can get good prices and scale economies for all the material and equipment and manpower. Whereas if you had like, one small-medium sized private company making roads for every country or two their costs would be much higher.
And it might not be feasible in the first place for a company to make a huge capital investment in equipment to make roads for less than government, so if any private companies are gonna make roads, it will have to be massive monopoly-tier companies to benefit from scale of making roads in the entire state or multiple states.

But then the problem is they also want to make as much profit as possible, being private companies, so they don't keep the roads so well maintained, not as safe.
And if a lot of people are having wrecks due to unsafe roads, they can't exactly use a competitor's road instead, because there are no competitors and you just have to drive on company shit's roads or not at all. It would be ridiculous to have 6 different sets of roads sprawling all over the place obviously.

And it isn't like you would sue the company for wrecking on shit roads, cuz they'd just have you sign a waiver to ride on it, or treat the lawsuits as cost of doing business and price it in, raising prices for everyone.

Existing private tollroads are generally well maintained because they have to compete with government roads; if they were shit people would stick to government roads. But if all roads were private there wouldn't be much if any competition.

Then offer a rebuttal to them, retard. I'm waiting. I've been waiting. So far, no one even understands that the answers to their questions exist. If you understand what the answers are, then let's hear your rebuttal.

>because they have the incentive to compete with other substitute turnpikes?
Yeah because you can build many different roads in the same location going to the same places because physics are just a government invention to create local monopolies right?

government contracts the work out to private companies you know? the problem is they pay the private contractors twice what the work is actually worth because it's not their money so they don't give a shit. the only difference between what the US has now and the ancap model is with the ancap model you only pay what the road is actually worth without the government overhead. the idea that government can do anything cheaper than the private sector has been refuted at every turn.

>Why would it be so expensive?
Because you have no options.

A hypothetical company, either local to the Ancap region or foreign to it. Uses large amounts of currency, underhanded tactics, and paying off other companies to achieve dominance of the economy and then does what all monopolies do- drives up the prices until they reach maximum returns, viciously oppressing any competition that may rise. Named JewEx for shits and giggles- it could be effectively anything.

DRAMATIS PERSONAE
>be Ancapi
>wake up from phone alarm, 6:30 AM
>last croissant in fridge, eat 1/3, want to make it last because of food costs rising recently
>take rusty bicycle bought from garage sale a few months ago, ride along road
>stopped by two Private Security Solutions Ltd. officers at toll booth for the local company-owned road
>common knowledge that both companies are under JewEx control, but you can't really say it
>pay toll, wallet gets steadily thinner
>finally arrive at work
>lock up bike and come in
>go to work station, assemble bedframes for hours
>end of day, get paid
>it's not much but there's nowhere else you can go
>walk outside to get bike
>stolen
>decide to walk home
>accosted by Tyrone and his Heartless Felonz
>"bitch, give us your wallet"
>fork over hard-earned payment, seethe but there's nothing you can do about it given they outnumber you 12 to 1
> Tyrone and co. leave
> Report it to a local security officer
> "We'll log it, now move along"
> Tyrone and co. pay off security to let them go free
> Finally get home
> On the news: Alternate Roads Co., a new startup, just had its owners murdered by a local gang, suspected pay-off, more at 7
> Meander around for a few hours, go to bed hungry
> Wake up to the sound of feet
> Try to get out of bed
> Tyrone and buddies are hauling away your TV and living room
> No gun, because of security waivers you had to sign
> Call security on toll line
> They don't arrive for 45 minutes
> Everything you own has effectively been stolen and you can't do shit about it
> "BUT THE GUBMINT IS EVIL"

This shit always confuses the fuck out of me when I see it on car ads, why did they call their association "ANCAP" and use the anarcho-capitalist flag as their logo?

>broken window fallacy
Do you imagine you said something intelligent just because you used the word "fallacy"? I didn't say anything about destroying and replacing anything, and this is not the 19th century bro.
In a perfectly rational society, to maximize the net economic benefit, all money would be spent on making various capital goods and on subsistence, thereby maximizing the total economic output.
But here in the 21st century, in developed economies, we don't really have a problem with production capacity, other than that a large portion of it goes unused simply because poors don't have enough money to buy the warehouses full of shit in storage. Half the food just rots, and half the people are nevertheless obese here in America.
Net productivity isn't something we are concerned with anymore. That's why were are a DEVELOPED economy, not DEVELOPING like shitholes that have to actually worry about food. We are more interested in desperately making new jobs to keep people busy doing ANYTHING that adds value to ANYONE for ANY REASON because the alternative is another 100 million people sitting at home doing nothing getting fat.

Do you understand what I'm getting at here, bro? This isn't the 19th century. If people don't make impulse buys at stores, if people don't buy bullshit that gives them a little tickle even for a few minutes, then some many millions of people go unemployed, but the real economy that makes houses and cars and dietary staples carries on without a hitch.
If all economic production today went to maximizing capital production and stuff, the market would be oversaturated from overproduction and prices for everything would collapse and we'd almost all of us have no work to do at all, and get lazier and fatter.
For you to so arrogantly say "broken windows dude her her" like you had scored a point shows you really have no grasp of the current economic situation in the modern world.

The problem is that capitalism requires a relatively even legal playing field to function well. privatizing the police and military removes any assurance that there will be anything resembling an even legal playing field. At the same time, we have LITERALLY done privately owned military forces in the past. They were shit. There's a reason they largely fell out of use. Additionally, in an ancap society, there is little way to prevent any private military force from just deciding to take over an area and establish a new state that could very well be tyrannical even by moderate standards (as opposed to ancap standards), since if the people there could defeat them, then those people wouldn't have needed to hire them in the first place. The closest thing to a real recourse is to simply hire a different group, which comes with the same problems. Also, militaries can only protect general areas. They can't choose to only protect the patchwork of homes who's residents decided to pay them for their services, they can only protect the entire town. This means that either everyone in the town MUST pay for the military force, which is basically a tax, or some of the people in the town are dependent on the others to pay for military force, and if that's the case, there's little the first group could to do to prevent the second group from using that military force to take over the town and establish a new state.

>viciously oppressing any competition that may rise
how exactly? there has never been a recorded case of a monopoly forming and holding up without government intervention.

Pretty good post

I would like to also add that one of the biggest benefits of government is exactly the fact that sometimes it can take a monetary loss for the common good.

For example a busy highway connection or a city road might be very much viable even as a private enterprise (in fact much more than the government run option), this is pretty much proven today when real life private roads manage to exist. That being said the issue is who makes the roads that don't have enough traffic to justify the cost but are the lifeblood for rural Americans (speaking of which america is very rural country as a whole). Stuff like this leads to lower growth and bunch of social problems which in turn make the country noncompetitive as a whole and generally a shit place to live when poors are constantly rioting and worse when food prices go trough the roof when majority of Americas massive road infra bill is paid by the food industry.
Cheap infrastructure (be it roads, access to electricity or even internet in modern times) are some of the key factors that lead to sustainable growth.

Roads is just one thing but there are tons of other similar ventures where taking a seeming financial loss from an individuals perspective is smart for the system as a whole. Who would pay for stuff like military that not only protects the interests of Americans as a whole but the final safeguard against mercenaries establishing a mad max society where the guy with biggest guns takes what he pleases. Who pays for nuclear weapons when there is no direct benefit and things don't even used but the lack of them would basically just mean China and Russia having the final say in everything. Or even something as basic as protecting the environment where pollution is often times very easy to just pump out to the air or waters, hard to pin on any single source and the consequences are paid by the society at large and often times are much higher than simple prevention.

>I didn't say anything about destroying and replacing anything
that's not the fallacy. the fallacy is the assertion that money being irrationally spent is good for the economy. just because people don't make impulse purchases doesn't mean they're not spending money. people who save money do so for a reason, like buying a new house or car for example. impulse purchases and movie tickets, as you used in your example, are like poison to economies. they draw money away from the production of lasting wealth and towards perishable entertainment.

Not only does that have nothing to do with actual broken window fallacy, but I hope you understand that money isn't destroyed when you buy a movie ticket.

When you choose to buy a movie ticket, that means you get something while that money goes to someone else who is saving for a house
If you just saved for the house yourself there would be less total value in the system and you would be one movie experience poorer.
The only time this doesn't actually happen is when the money ends up either going offshore (even then in the global market the effect is the same) OR if the money ends up to someone who doesn't invest it (aka some super saver / ultra rich dude)

Stuff like "saving money" makes sense in individuals perspective but in the grand scheme of economics it's one of the worst things that happens. The quicker money moves the more real value each dollar creates.

>government contracts the work out to private companies you know? the problem is they pay the private contractors twice what the work is actually worth because it's not their money so they don't give a shit. the only difference between what the US has now and the ancap model is with the ancap model you only pay what the road is actually worth without the government overhead. the idea that government can do anything cheaper than the private sector has been refuted at every turn.
Goddamn, faggot. For someone defending the ancap position, you just made some of the wrongest statements in the history of wrong.
>with the ancap model you only pay what the road is actually worth without the government overhead
No, with the ancap model people will pay for the roads whatever the market can sustain. The cost of building the roads is irrelevant to what people will have to pay to use them in the ancap model. The other difference in the ancap model is that the private companies will actually own the roads, not just build them.
And since the likelihood of there existing 2 or 3 or 4 or whatever different sets of roads owned by different different companies is approximately nil, there will be little to no competition to drive down prices for using the roads. And the price you have to pay will be practically highway robbery, because your choice is pay to use the roads, or you're unable to engage in any regular economic activity over distances longer than a few miles.
It is so sad, ancaps think themselves so intelligent and thoughtful, but from their statements know so little about how markets and the real world actually work.

>in the grand scheme of economics saving money is one of the worst things that happens
what the actual fuck?
>The quicker money moves the more real value each dollar creates
>real value
according to who? obviously not the guy saving money. the idea that somebody should spend money on things they don't value because somebody else wants to buy a house before them is idiotic communist logic.

>The cost of building the roads is irrelevant to what people will have to pay to use them
>ancaps think themselves so intelligent and thoughtful, but from their statements know so little about how markets and the real world actually work.

this just made my night, thanks user.

>impulse purchases and movie tickets, as you used in your example, are like poison to economies. they draw money away from the production of lasting wealth and towards perishable entertainment.
See, you still are just intellectually unable to grasp how developed economies work. In the NINETEENTH CENTURY, when the "broken window fallacy" was conceptualized, sure, spending on consumption isn't so great. Back then, and in DEVELOPING economies of today, you need to invest a lot of money and labor into building factories, developing wastelands, building fishing boats and trains and shit like that. Today, we have no shortage of capital goods. We have plenty of factories rotting because there is no more demand for shit they can make.
Having developed far past the 19th century, we are a consumer economy, and most jobs are service jobs. Service jobs have nothing to do with "the production of lasting wealth", we already did all that shit.
Today, if we spent trillions of dollars to build a bunch more factories and millions more homes, those factories would produce way more shit than there is demand for, and prices for those things would collapse; and while people might be happy to move in those new homes, we'd be left with millions more vacant homes with no one to live in them, unless we just gave them away to renters, and then all the rentals would be empty and their landlords fucked up the ass.
I mean, have you seen the state of malls in this country? Tons of malls and big warehouse stores are just rotting because no one goes anymore, and so many people order from Amazon.
The problem in America really isn't "oh we need more lasting wealth", the problem is we can't make up enough bullshit jobs for people to do so we can justify giving them a piece of our massive production without a few hundred people sitting around on welfare getting fat and undisciplined.

>what the actual fuck?
Do you just not understand or do you actually disagree (because that would be retarded)

A small scale example works the best.


Lets say there is a town of 5 people.
4 people work in the business of building houses
1 guy makes movies and runs a movie theater.
All 5 people want a house
All 4 house people enjoy movies as well but would rather have the house if given the choice

If everyone acts on their own best interest (e.g. saving for the house) no one buys the movie dudes movies. Everyone is bored and sad but they manage to scrape by enough money for their homes anyways in a year (except the movie guy who runs out of business and can't buy a home).
Now lets say people are encouraged to spend (say by free road to the movie theater). All 4 house builders go to movies once a week or something. Movie dude is making record profits and he buys a house from the house builders towards the end of the year. The house builders now have recouped all the money they spent on the movies and still manage to get their houses by the end of the year as well.

So long as the system isn't limited by actual production capacity this extra business is "free"
So the end result is 4 guys with houses vs 5 guys with houses and everyone got to enjoy movies for a year as well. All with the same amount of actual money.

Obviously it's not so simple in macro level but the base principle is the same. The less people save the more products everyone can afford (so long as money isn't being piled to mister Jew who hoards it)

>the idea that somebody should spend money on things they don't value because somebody else wants to buy a house before them is idiotic communist logic.
Good thing this is just a meme

>See, you still are just intellectually unable to grasp how developed economies work.
What makes you think YOU have grasped how developed economies work?

look no further than google itself.

What is fractional reserve banking?

Shit nigger.
This is the most retarded post if have ever read on Sup Forums
Kys

What's the point of paying taxes if the roads never get fixed? Fuck taxes.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking

Don't see how it relates to my post mr. shitposter but there you go if you are interested.

>Don't see how it relates to my post mr. shitposter
Of course you don't, because you're economically illiterate. When people save money, they put it in banks, who then lend out that money, which gets spent, and then put in another bank, and it gets loaned out again, and spent again, etc... Do you get it? Probably not.

so we should spend all of our money on worthless shit just to keep worthless people employed? sounds a lot like welfare with some extra hoops to jump through. i don't see how this could ever benefit a nation.

also, the broken window fallacy is just as relevant today as it was in the NINETEENTH CENTURY. if fallacies changed over time they wouldn't be fallacies, just bad arguments.

See mr. retard you can chain a bunch of real transactions and then end that with the guy saving it creating more loans to feed the mr. Jew.
End result is the same except bunch of people in between got what they wanted for no economic cost.

>people in between got what they wanted for no economic cost
yes, this is how the real world works. spending money means free shit for everyone.

>it thinks it made a point
and you call ME a retard? lol... how much time have you spent learning about economics?

>in the grand scheme of economics saving money is one of the worst things that happens
You still don't grasp any of the key concepts of economics. When you save money, the interest rate you earn is based on how much money the bank can make by loaning out your savings and charging interest to someone else. But people only take out loans from banks if they can be fairly certain they can make at least enough money with that loan to be able to pay back the loan with interest.
>If people only want to take out $1 billion in loans, but people want to put $100 billion in savings, then the bank isn't going to be able to pay interest back to $99 billion worth of those savings.
When the ratios of savings vs loans is too high, banks slash interest rates to 1. encourage people to spend more to increase demand so people take out more loans to build stuff to satisfy demand and 2. encourage people to take out more loans because the cost of borrowing money is lower.
Otherwise, a lot of people get no interest on their savings because it is never used to issue loans and banks make no money with which to pay savers.

Furthermore, suppose we built a nice new home for every household in America. and decided to just let the old homes rot, who needs 'em, or maybe import a ton of immigrants to live in them! To build a new home for every household, you're looking at 7, maybe 8 years of total GDP. Since you can expect a home to last 40 years, now you need to come up with 32 more years of shit to "produce lasting wealth". Maybe we build enough factories to give every household a nice new Porsche AND a tractor in case anyone wants to do some farming in their spare time. We'll say that's 6 or 7 years total GDP. Now lets make factories to give everyone a bunch of awesome computers and tools and 8K tvs - 5 years GDP. Now you've got 20 years of nothing to do until you need to build new houses again. Everyone just gets fat and lazy doing nothing.

Just stop posting.
You are embarassing yourself, your family and your ancestors.

>so we should spend all of our money on worthless shit
Based retard

It's not about buying stuff that's worthless just because.
It's having the economic opportunity to buy stuff you want when you want it.

If you have to save extra 6 months to hire a militia to protect your new purchased house, that's 6 months the money isn't flowing which means that's 6 months that money isn't giving other people what they also want directly slowing your own acquisition of money for the thing you wanted in the first place.

The easier it is for you to spend money when you want it on what you want the more money everyone has access to and more products, goods and services everyone can afford

And again broken window fallacy has nothing to do with the situation.

That is exactly how it works. Money doesn't dissapear in transactions it just changes hands.
Unless there is actual shortage of raw products then faster money circulation leads to real increase in amount of value generated per dollar.

Obviously that doesn't work for things that are naturally limited like say gold but it works for basically everything else.

Banking has nothing to do with this, the main point is about fluidity of the economy when things like tollroads prevent you from spending money which in turn slows the economy down as a whole.
Rest of your post is just memes and hyperboles


more than you apparently because you are being pretty retarded.

The difference between me putting money in the fractional reserve system or buying myself a car and having my car salesman put the money into the same system doesn't exist, except I get a car if I decide to not do it myself.

>When you save money, the interest rate you earn is based on how much money the bank can make by loaning out your savings and charging interest to someone else
no shit
>But people only take out loans from banks if they can be fairly certain they can make at least enough money with that loan to be able to pay back the loan with interest
not even close to true. people borrow money for all sorts of reasons from buying houses and cars to paying off bills and paying for school.

what you're saying is it's better to create garbage products and services nobody actually wants just to keep useless people employed than it is to build houses, porches, computers, and tractors for everybody. are you high?
> people only take out loans from banks if they can be fairly certain they can make at least enough money with that loan to be able to pay back the loan with interest
in other words, people won't overproduce wealth to the point of market collapse. your fear of everyone sitting around doing nothing is baseless by your own logic.

Like, you aren't totally retarded are you? You do understand how free market economics work, right? You know that companies don't say "Oh gee, this cost $100 to make and distribute, and I think 10% is a fair profit margin, so I'll just charge $110." right? If you can get people to pay $10,000 for something that costs you $100 to make, then that's the market price.
Even if the private road company can make a road for half the price of what it costs the government to build it, if that private company doesn't have to compete with government roads, and it doesn't have to compete with other private roads, because there's only so much land and you're not going to have a dozen different roads from different companies all connecting to the same business park, then said private company will be able to charge through the roof for use of its roads, because people will have no alternative. Company B can't just step in and build an alternative route and charge less to capture the market, because there's only so much land dude.

>that's 6 months the money isn't flowing
it's 6 months the money is being used by somebody else via your bank.
>Money doesn't dissapear in transactions it just changes hands
no shit. it also doesn't stop changing hands just because you put it in a bank, it just allows somebody else to use it until the point in time you want something.

Everything in your post has been addressed by a number of libertarian philosophers many decades ago. If you want a specific book, "For a New Liberty" rebuts all your arguments. Hell, even Molyneux has books that address all your arguments. Nothing you're saying is new. People came up with those "arguments" decades ago, and Rothbard et al. rebutted them, decades ago, because they are fairly legitimate concerns which warranted a well reasoned response. As far as I'm aware, the ball is your court. Come back when you have a rebuttal to Rothbard's or anyone else's rebuttals to "your" arguments. Can't wait! In the mean time, your claim of knowing what the ancap arguments are has been proven incorrect.

Yes while you sit there without a house.
Meanwhile in our world you get your own house 6 months earlier AND the money is in the banks free to be used by somebody else
Because that's the way the money works. You take it out from a bank just for the other dude to put it back in.

Money never leaves the banks but faster people spend it the more products everyone gets so long as the system isn't limited by actual production capacity.

Ancap in it's entirely has been rebuted decades ago, you are just late to the party

>What makes you think YOU have grasped how developed economies work?
Because I just explained it to you and I have a MBA. You evidently don't even understand how banking works. You have some fantastic belief that everyone can just store trillions of dollars in the bank and the bank will magically give them billions of dollars in free money for privilege, even if no one is taking out loans from the bank. The bank just magically pulls money out of its ass, I suppose, it doesn't make money from issuing loans backed by your savings and charging interest on those loans and returning some of that to savers for the privilege of using their money to back their loans. Nope, it is just all magic. And people take out loans to build things even if no one buys anything because everyone's saving their money to "build real wealth" or something.
Nice intellectual response there. Where did you get your MBA? Wharton? Harvard? Northwestern? Reddit?

the cost of building a road is very relevant to what people will have to pay to use it. nobody will build something for $100 and charge $90 for it will they?

Ok, feel free to direct me to the rebuttal.

Also, you are literally the stupidest person in this thread, just fyi. If you're not trolling I fucking pity you.

lmao

I mean your own fucking wikipedia link bashed the entire argument about free market roads right out of the gate and even that was probably written by some ancap loonie considering it's wikipedia

Yes. In fact almost all of America's roads are made by private contractors.
The people who bring up this as an argument also ate paint chips as kids.

full ancap is retarded anyway

>have a very small govt that takes care of things such as property rights etc so people can actually tell who owns what and all disputes can go through a centralized system instead of a bunch of small, disconnected systems
>small govt also in charge of the creation of public roads, which they build from donations taken in private charity using private construction companies.
>NAP still applies on the public roads

dun tred on meh

>so we should spend all of our money on worthless shit just to keep worthless people employed?
Nope, we should just kill them and harvest their organs and sweet sweet blood. And in a few decades when robots do the all work, we should program them to kill all the worthless people, except for the few hundred or so who own the robots.
>also, the broken window fallacy is just as relevant today as it was in the NINETEENTH CENTURY. if fallacies changed over time they wouldn't be fallacies, just bad arguments.
Wow this is some pathetically sad shit. The broken window argument is not a LOGICAL fallacy like affirming the consequent or some shit. And it certainly was applicable in the 19th century, but not today. The point of being a DEVELOPED economy is that the need to maximize productive output has passed. Our productivity has increased to the point where if we employed everyone building homes and fancy cars and more factories and what not, we'd massively overproduce what anyone can actually use. The challenge now is not supplying people with homes and cars, but finding busy work for all the millions of people who aren't building homes and cars to do. So we have them do things like flip burgers and maintain movie theaters and build fidget spinners, things that people do value, but are irrelevant to the production of "real wealth". And a decent enough amount of people advance from those jobs to more advanced jobs.
Regardless, broken window is in fact irrelevant to the topic under discussion, as I've shown pretty thoroughly.

>Of course you don't, because you're economically illiterate. When people save money, they put it in banks, who then lend out that money, which gets spent, and then put in another bank, and it gets loaned out again, and spent again, etc... Do you get it? Probably not.
Banks pay interest to savers with the money banks earn collecting interest from the loans the issue based on those savings.
If no one takes out loans, the bank make no money to pay savers interest.
If people aren't buying anything, then no one takes out loans to build new stuff, because no one is buying new stuff, and the bank makes no money, and savers make no money.

>Because I just explained it to you
No, you really didn't. Your post is more of what we call a "word salad". Lot's of words, not much meaning. You also seem to have misinterpreted the person you responded to and demonstrated a rather pitiful understanding of how an economy actually works. But you have an MBA... hmm.. no way of knowing if that is true unfortunately, but I suppose it's possible you're just too autistic to communicate effectively.
>You have some fantastic belief that everyone can just store trillions of dollars in the bank and the bank will magically give them billions of dollars in free money for privilege
lol...I think you might just need to lay off the pipe.

The real problem is that there would have to be tons of roads in order for it to work and these roads would be built along the "most efficient" paths. Meaning you get a massive spaghetti mania. The actual cost and building wouldn't be that bad, just create some ad space on the side of the roads for ads so that they cover the maintenance, add some turnpikes when that isn't enough, and make your money when companies and cooperating neighborhoods give you a contract.

>Banking has nothing to do with this, the main point is about fluidity of the economy when things like tollroads prevent you from spending money which in turn slows the economy down as a whole.
That was my original point dude. But then these morons need to have the banking system explained to them for some reason, because they think if everyone just saved all their money and never paid for any services then the economy would be in better shape or something. They think banks just magically give magic money to everyone who deposits into savings, they don't understand that the interest you receive on savings is a share of the profit banks make from loaning your savings out.
And if people buy less shit because the extra cost of paying a toll every time they drive somewhere makes it more rational for them to just sit at home, then other people take out less loans to build movie theaters and cafes, so banks earn less profit, and savers get less interest.
If all we ever built today were homes and factories and cars we'd build way more shit way faster than anyone actually needs it and the economy would be fucked because you'd have many more millions of people unemployed.

LOL this has got to be bait

You want competitive roads? pic related

>i have three 21st chromosomes
The post

>Our productivity has increased to the point where if we employed everyone building homes and fancy cars and more factories and what not, we'd massively overproduce what anyone can actually use
the fact you can't imagine anything new to build is irrelevant. the wonderful thing about capitalism is people invent new shit all the time. once all the homes were built somebody invented a microwave, and once every home had a microwave in it, somebody invented a personal computer, and once every home had a computer, etc.
>The challenge now is not supplying people with homes and cars
that actually remains an issue even in the richest nation on earth.
>broken window is in fact irrelevant to the topic under discussion, as I've shown pretty thoroughly
if you say so.

>not even close to true. people borrow money
No fucking shit Sherlock.
>You're not taking out a loan to buy a house if that house is going to be worthless next year. You just don't be the house.
>You take out a loan to buy a car so you can participate in the economy, to either drive to work or buy things. Even people who buy cars to just collect and keep in their garage have some expectation of the car appreciating in value.
>People take out loans for school because they expect school to increase the salary they command.
>Taking out loans to pay bills- just wtf dude.
If you take out a loan for $100k, you may end up paying $150k total. Your use of that loan must somehow create value in some form, or else it isn't rational for you to take the loan, and it isn't rational for the bank to give you the loan. Banks can't loan out infinite money to infinite people if none of those loans make money for anyone - then the bank never gets paid back, never makes any money, and goes bankrupt.
This is 101 -level stuff I'm having to explain to you.
>what you're saying is it's better to create garbage products and services nobody actually wants just to keep useless people employed than it is to build houses...
No, that's not what at all I'm saying, and if you had a reading comprehension higher than a nigger in 1st grade, maybe it would be worth continuing your education, but after this I'm out, because you're one of the most pathetic idiots I've ever encountered, and I really do hope you're trolling and just playing dumb.
What I AM SAYING is that you could build houses, porches, computers, and tractors for everyone with only a fraction of the productive capacity we have available relative to the lifespan of those goods. At that point you have no work for anyone to do unless you put them to work doing bullshit services and consumption. And FURTHERMORE, people get VALUE from those bullshit services and consumption, so it is in no way "BROKEN WINDOW"

because without roads how do you know civilization has formed?

Well i agree libertarianism isnt the answer but one could argue ,that the road in the middle is the most attractive ,and so the monopolist can use that to have an advantage over the others and put prices so low the others wont be able to survive ,by that making the price low (so other competitiors wont come into the market) and also having the efficeint option(1 road)
t. economics student

so kind of like this?

Ancap in action

>Community boycotts JewEx and any company that supports it.
>JewEx runs out of shekels since Ancapistan shekels cannot be mass produced
>All companies and individuals that worked together with JewEx now have no income b/c no one trusts them anymore

the fact you can't imagine anything new to build is irrelevant. the wonderful thing about capitalism is people invent new shit all the time. once all the homes were built somebody invented a microwave, and once every home had a microwave in it, somebody invented a personal computer, and once every home had a computer, etc.
That's exactly his point. The more new stuff people buy the better off people are.
If everyone stopped buying microwaves and shit because they are all saving for a home then that means less stuff for everyone.

>that actually remains an issue even in the richest nation on earth.
Only because of money.
We COULD build homes to everyone if we wanted to but it doesn't make sense people people can't pay for them.
The issue isn't in the actual capacity of building homes at all.
Besides most people actually have a home of some kind, only like

literally no different from asking a staff member for a bathroom key, it's just electronic