Libertarian Dilemma

>Road develops pothole
Who fixes it?

Other urls found in this thread:

mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2015/07/road_fund_shortage_leads_hamtr.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

It's up to the road to take personal responsibility and fix itself.

No one owes the road anything.

are you seriously arguing an inferior road who can't compete in a free market place deserves government handouts stolen with VIOLENT force from people whose choices are A) pay up (slavery) B) be imprisoned (slavery) or C) get shot by jackbooted thugs?

The pothole entered the roads personal sovereign property and violates the NAP so the road deploys it's tactical free market nukes

> American libertarians
> against publically funded roads

American libertarians are retards. They only care about muh free market when its convenient for them. Private funded roads are inconvenient for them.

Whoever owns it. Then only if the owner cares to.

Nobody said the public-esque roads will be that great in a libertarian utopia.

Ideally, some company will buy all the roads, charge tolls or bill people for using them and use the money to maintain the roads.

i send an icbm at the home of the CEO of the company that built the road for breaking the NAP

>claims to be libertarian
>shitty kavinsky pic

neoretro and vaporwave are degenerate as fuck.

You're memeing against ancaps, not libertardians.

>They only care about muh free market when its convenient for them

What's wrong with that, exactly?

Do you want them to care when its not convenient? What would that achieve?

A system where public funding is used when its convenient, and not when its inconvenient, sounds like a pretty efficient system to me.

Kasinsky himself fixes the road with his Testarossa and bass beats

>(((Road)))
I see through your little game, OP.

Either the toll road owner fixes it, or people drive a slower route on other toll roads that are fixed. The market will fix the lazy owner not fixing it because he will go out of business, but for the drivers it is hell. Libertarianism is hell on Earth.

I get a car with wheels and suspension that can handle the pothole

>people honestly believe that roads cannot be privatized
>people honestly believe that road maintenance cannot be privatized

the slaves

>Road develops pothole

>Capitalism has failed, revert to dictatorship

What roads you faggot, we're all driving CHEAP 4x4's with cheap monster truck tires that are mass produced unlike the nu-male gay ass commuter cars of today that gets mass produced. You scared of a dirt, mud, rocks and puny little nails?

A private highway would have high motivation to fix problems out of fear of users leaving its highway for another.

I suggest we let private companies bid over road maintenance and construction but the local government be majority stock holders.

We need to make commercial freeway lanes just for heavy trucks that doesn't have private travel interfering with it

Like the car pool lane(HOV) but its paid for by truckers and its just for trucks,with its own dedicated exits and on ramps,but ultimately using the roadway that already exists.

The county/city.

Low taxes and small government =/= no taxes and no government. We're not fucking ancaps.

how do you decide which sectors of the economy the government does and does not control

With a constitution that specifically states what it does and doesn't control. Perhaps by reserving all powers not granted to the federal government to the states and the people?

If only such a thing existed. Oh well, I guess no more capitalism, time to revert back to feudalism and tyranny.

where does the constitution say that the government should control the roads

mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2015/07/road_fund_shortage_leads_hamtr.html

yawn. shill harder statefag

>"The Law of the West" isn't a legal precedent forced on smaller counties by the government.
Fuck you. The government doesn't fix them as it is.

men do, as always.

Anyway, I'm a small l libertarian like Leykis, and I am pissed at the Libertarian party atm.

>pandering to sjws
>fucking TPP

What good does it do to reach a magic number and play with the big boys if you become as shitty as the other two along the way?

Soon, we can have a 3 party system of three shitty parties.

>the

there is one federal government

There are 50 state governments that have their own constitutions

Every city has a government with it's own charter.

There is no "the" government in the united states. Control is supposed to be decentrallized. Every county worries about it's own roads, and the state may get involved to a degree. The cost of maintaining roads is peanuts. Taxes could be more than halved and easily still pay the cost.

The interstate highway system was justified by the federal government under it's role in national defense, it's original intended purpose was for civilians to have a means of getting the fuck out of dodge if a city got nuked.

>implying libertarians are against public roads
>implying companies wouldn't fix their potholes in a private road system

This is the best argument people have and it's fucking retarded.

>claims the constitution dictates which sectors of the economy the government should control
>claims the government should control the roads
>can't show where the constitution says the government should control roads

your argument is self defeating

Some communities may entrust the maintenance of roads to private corporations, others to public bureaus. There's not a significant difference between the two, aside from the fact that only private corporations are known to do things on time and under budget.

It's not a dilemma, and it's actually not even a relevant issue at all in the libertarian academia.

But why do it? The government already does it. Why make things more convoluted just for the sake of libertarianism.

>muh roads
A more important issue is degeneracy

You mean the argument you made up that I didn't make?

The constitution states what the federal government can do, and then expressly states it CANNOT do anything not expressly granted to it in the constitution, and that ALL OTHER POWERS are reserved to the states and the people. So if a city government charter says it's going to levy taxes for roads and road maintenance, it has every right. Historically taxes on gasoline are what paid the cost.

For future reference, arguing with people would be better if you didn't just make shit up about what your opponent is trying to convey.

Because freedom is an inherent value to these people.

It's a libertarian country, OP.

If you aren't driving a tank, you're probably already dead.

It's actually making things more simple. Privatization eliminates unnecessary bureaucracy and the inefficient use of resources.

The owner of the road

Whoever owns the road. Why is this an issue?

In a Libertarian society, roads would be privately owned like everything else. Road owners would compete with each other: if one road is particularly shitty, drivers will choose another road. There could be any number of ways to monetize roads: tolls, possibly, but most would likely rely on ad revenue or synergy.

The point is, you wouldn't have a situation where it's nobody's problem. There's no such thing as the tragedy of the commons when the commons simply don't exist.

This. Libertarianism has no solution to homosexuality, paedophilia, bestiality, drug abuse, miscegenation, promiscuity, and the plethora of other problems plaguing the West.

Kill yourself

Are you arguing that government can handle these issues?

Of course it can. Our current governments don't want to, though. Are you saying that it's impossible to have a decent society so we should just give up?

>corporate maintained railroads are not a problem
>corporate maintained highways are

I fail to see the logic in this with statecucks. Why not let a private company manage the interstate? They have an incentive to improve infrastructure to keep goods and people flowing efficiently.

The roads are dirt. Deal with it.

Yes it does.
Without the state, people will have to pay for their own degenerate behaviour.
It will be very costly indeed.

A more libertarian society is unlikely to emerge because of these problems because their existence requires a state to subsidise.

I say let local governments (the people) decide. Bloated federal governments only end up making things worse.

>synergy
Figured this might need an explanation:

The synergy model would be where the same person owns the property adjacent to the road and so access to the road is a perk of renting that land, and is built into the lease accordingly. This would work for commercial and industrial properties as well as residential properties that are rented out.

Roads in occupant-owned neighborhoods would likely be owned and maintained by a simple home-owners association. In fact, this is already how it works much of the time. Unsurprisingly, the private roads in a HoA neighborhood are usually better maintained than public residential roads.

Obviously the guy that charges you to drive on it unless he wants competing roads to get more traffic than his.

The commons problem persists no matter what. The supply of space for roads is limited. The supply of fish in the oceans fisheries is limited. Property rights only organize these problems, they don't necessarily solve them.

Imagine 12 different power companies all putting up power poles and lines on your street.

Libertarianism is not the absence of criminal law, dumbass.

well...

THE OWNER OF THE ROAD

RRRRREEEEEEEEE

>sediment collects
>water washes sediment into pothole
>water dries and leaves sediment
>repeat
>over 100 years pothole fills itself up

>homosexuality
No state with the power to force tolerance on anyone. If you're such a fag that nobody wants to hire you or rent to you, the government can't make them do it. That means that generally speaking, most gays will act like normal people and refrain from rubbing their lifestyle in everyone else's face.

>bestiality
See above: they get caught, it becomes public knowledge, they'll get fired and they'll get evicted.

I expect that a whole new profession will arise of blackmailers (not illegal under Libertarian orthodoxy) who will take photos/video of perverts and extract payments from them.

>drug abuse
If their drug use prevents them from doing their job they get fired. If it doesn't then it doesn't qualify as "abuse".

>miscegenation
See 1 and 2. Nobody will force people to hire or rent to racial outgroups, and by extension, nobody will force people to hire or rent to people who fuck racial outgroups.

>promiscuity
No government to pay for bastards, no government to force men to pay for kids they don't want, no government to pay for STD treatments. Puts a heavy burden back on women who fuck around.

>this thread
Libertarian are even dumber than communists, in that both systems are obviously fatally flawed and guaranteed to fail horribly but at least communists acknowledge the possibility of that outcome. Libertarians are totally delusional and have zero idea of how human nature works, so the obvious ways their stupid system would collapse completely escapes them.

Has anybody ever met a libertarian who wasn't an awkward, autistic shutin? Who else would base their political outlook on terrible books written by a Jewish tranny who didn't even practice what "she" preached? Nobody.

that depends on the government of you state, senpai. Welcome to the Articles of Confederation

Our system is already convoluted.
>Government has to maintain roads
>creates contract bids
>given to the best bidder
However if you live in Louisiana, the contract is given to the guy who will kick some money back to the government official; not the best bidder. It may be done differently for highways and maybe the contract bids are just a Louisiana thing.

Because of technological innovation in the free-market, the road fixes itself thanks to nanobot technology.

Get with the program shitbird. Libertarians are playing 4D Chess while you're struggling to understand checkers. Sad.

Whoever owns the road.

But fuck libertarians anyway, they nominated the least libertarian candidate in their party. They are sell outs.

Give it time. Soon you'll be ready to feel the Johnson.

>2016

>still using primitive cars that haven't changed since the 1700's

>The supply of space for roads is limited.
The supply of space for homes is limited too. Should the government own all the housing? What about businesses? That's a shit argument.

>The supply of fish in the oceans fisheries is limited.
There's no reason oceans cannot be owned as well. No more fish in your part of the ocean? Your property is now worthless because you fucked up. This would incentivize new methods for revitalizing fish populations. And the reality is, fishing in an area would cease long before the fish population fell below sustainability because before that happens it would cease to be profitable. This means after a period of over-fishing the owner would move on and leave his "field" fallow for a while just like farmers do when they can't/won't restore the land by other means.

>Imagine 12 different power companies all putting up power poles and lines on your street.
>your street
If it's MY street, then I don't have to LET them put up all those powerlines.

But I know what you mean.

So imagine you're a power company. would you even WANT to put up power lines on a street with 11 others? Could you reasonably expect to gain enough market share in that area to recoup the expense of putting up the lines? Of course not. Most neighborhoods would have 2 or 3 competing power companies. The market would literally fix the problem.

From the other perspective, if you're the owner of a street (or on the board of a HoA which controls a street) why would you want that many power lines on it to begin with? Are they paying you "rent" for the use of the road? If so, how do they all manage to do so while each having an average on 1/12 of the business on your road? And if the power companies are charging you and not the other way around then how can you possibly justify paying 12 yourself?

The argument simply makes no sense.