Questions Lolbertarians cannot answer

Questions Lolbertarians cannot answer

- Who builds the roads
- Who runs the justice system
- Who runs emergency services

At the end of every single thread the lolbertarians on this board usually either turn full ancap mode and demand competing fire and police services, some unrealistic fantasy pipe dream of a voluntary court system (lol) and "natural monopolies" building roads and infrastructure out of the kindness of their heart, or a toll charge every mile you drive.

Great system you got there guy

>hoverbikes built with no regulations
>vigilantes
>everyone is self-schooled to be an EMT and medical tech (MRI, Xrays) is available in WalGreens for $1

1: same way google is free to use 2:vigilantes 3:corporations that want to provide a service for money

Don't forget the Smokey Bear Fire Service competing against the Boys in Blue Ltd police force

>It's another "libertarian means no government" episode

>same way google is free to use

So an advertisement every inch of road and tolls every mile to keep up maintenance?

>vigilantes
kek

>corporations that want to provide a service for money

So who builds interstate highways, and what profit motive would there be to do so when all businesses need to use it? Why would you build something useful for other competitors to use?

Well if you still want a government, you'll still need to be taxed. And remember tax is theft in your world.

Libertarians don't believe in complete absence of government, just a reasonably limited one.

We're not anarchists, cuck.

78% of every dollar spent is tax. Even if "we" need to be taxed, we don't need to spend most of our
money on tax.

Fuck off, fatherland. You tried once, and failed. Just stop.

You're looking for Ancap, lad, not for libertarianism.

In a libertarian society, the road will be paved with the corpses of dead leftist vermin.

>we don't need to spend most of our money on tax.

Of course we do. Because we use the infrastructure that was paid for by tax almost every day. Including your internet connection. I know Canada has a third world tier internet, but there is no internet infrastructure nationwide anywhere in the world built by private companies. All the telephone poles, masts, cabling and even the satellite communication was built by the state.

yea Eminent domain is a hard nut

how do you justify stealing land

So you just want low taxes? How are you any different from conservatives then?

Conservativism differs to libartarianism mainly on social issues. While liberatians believe things should be left for the individual to decide (as long as it doesn't violate other people's rights), conservativism likes to ragulate and ban things it find uncompatible with tradition.
For example, gay marriage or drug use.

>Who builds the roads
Whoever buys the property and paves the way.

>Who runs the justice system
Arbitrators offer their services making a wide variety available.

>Who runs emergency services
The same people running hospitals I would assume.

>So an advertisement every inch of road and tolls every mile to keep up maintenance?
You do know though that happened already? A ferry company in America was so successful against his (state sponsored) competitors that he constantly cut prices until he offered rides for free and decided to sell sausages and the likes on the ferries to make money. That is his how good the free market works for customers.

Then came the state and crushed his business because it deemed it as monopoly.

>A ferry company in America was so successful against his (state sponsored) competitors that he constantly cut prices until he offered rides for free and decided to sell sausages and the likes on the ferries to make money. That is his how good the free market works for customers.

>Then came the state and crushed his business because it deemed it as monopoly.

As it should do. Why would I want competitors to the state company I invested tax money into be undercut by some jewish businessman doing it for his own self-gain?

>Why would you build something useful for other competitors to use?
What kind of question is that? If they consider it useful than they would pay for it.

>Well if you still want a government, you'll still need to be taxed.
Not necessarily. Ayn Rand had suggestions for how a voluntary financed government would work and of course there is also the factor of how people are taxed. If you got different states than tariffs would be preferable way to a progressive income tax for example.

>who builds the roads
the state
>who runs the justice system
the state
>who runs emergency services
the state

libertarians are not anarchists. any libertarian demanding the state to be dismantled is a fucking idiot.

the entire point is that we want a limited state, ie one responsible for national infrastructure, the justice system, essential services, and not much else.

>As it should do.
You are happy with the government destroying a business that would serve you for less than its competitors?

>Why would I want competitors to the state company I invested tax money into be undercut by some jewish businessman doing it for his own self-gain?
It's not a state company. It was a private company whose owner leveraged subsidies through lobbying the government. So you see who got jewed in this story.

>What kind of question is that? If they consider it useful than they would pay for it.

And so the monopoly has its grip on its competitors, and can manipulate the terms of this service at any moment if it affects them. What if Wallmart built a highway to a shopping district, and the wallmart wasn't open at night. Does Wallmart get to shut down use of the roads to block competitors getting the edge? Use your head here man, come on.

I'm pretty sure that most Libertarians would be just fine with a fuel tax, so long as it was specifically earmarked for road infrastructure.

Also take note: There was no income tax in the US until the early 1900s.

the government, that would still exist (libertarian =/= anarchist), will take care of all of those things.

>You are happy with the government destroying a business that would serve you for less than its competitors?

Absolutely. Not only me, but for everyone who has paid into the system.

>It's not a state company. It was a private company whose owner leveraged subsidies through lobbying the government. So you see who got jewed in this story.

Well that's a different entirely isn't it? In any sensible democracy there are limitations if not an outright ban on lobbying for commercial gain.

The slaves they buy from mercs and communists.

it is, statists dont understand that they are paying for all that free shit marked up 10x with lack of innovation and quality since they are monopolies

...

I'll take your bait m8.

I think funny how the same redundant strawman comes up. Most Libertarians still believe in a minarchist society that provides basic infrastructure and enforces social contract.

Realistically. The most libertarians are more concerned about eliminating redundant government spending, reforming the tax code, ending useless regulations, getting rid of failing government market, returning the currency to the gold standard, etc.

Quite frankly, we could benefit from that kind of fiscal responsibility.

Maybe once that's all accomplished, they might talk about privatizing your precious roads.

you don't own the land, the state does, and you rent it through property tax

>the same person as now
>the same person as now
>the same person as now

Tough questions m8

>And so the monopoly has its grip on its competitors, and can manipulate the terms of this service at any moment if it affects them.
What monopoly? You're welcome to build your own roads anytime.

>What if Wallmart built a highway to a shopping district, and the wallmart wasn't open at night. Does Wallmart get to shut down use of the roads to block competitors getting the edge? Use your head here man, come on.
Did Walmart put this in their contract? How does it even close the street? Who would be paying for a nine to five street?

You can't cut of access to property through roads. If I sell you the rights to build a road passed my house you can't deny me access to my property through your road.

infrastructure shouldn't be run by the government, merely allocated

>What if Wallmart built a highway to a shopping district, and the wallmart wasn't open at night. Does Wallmart get to shut down use of the roads to block competitors getting the edge?
Yes, that's their reward for making such good profit through serving the community to be able to purchase that land.

true libertarians don't believe in central banking and therefore a monopoly on currency

RRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Daily reminder Libertarianism is not Anarchism. There is a state. There is a government. There is a police force. There are emergency services like firefighters. There is a military. There is a justice system.

The role of the state is for defense and justice. Taxes pay for these things. Anything outside of that margin of taxation and spending is considered undue and therefore is theft. It's that simple.

As for roads, libertarianism is based off the premise of cost-benefit analysis. If the people in a given community see a benefit to building roads in their community, they can volunteer to do so or pay into a fund collectively to have a business build it for them. If they don't want to, then it is a non issue. But construction companies are building infastructure constantly, we could just cut out the middle man (i.e limpdick bureaucrats who can't into spending) and let wealthy businessman or communities volunteer to pay them. Communist faggots please leave.

>What monopoly? You're welcome to build your own roads anytime.

There is a finite amount of land you can cover in roads. So are you calling for corporations (and lets get real here, only large corporations have the time, money and resources to investment in such a project) to build parallel highways all directed at different areas of different districts that best suit their commercial interest? And what about existing roads? Who determines who owns what? Split up the road into sections to be auctioned? who will do the splitting, and how will it work?

>You can't cut of access to property through roads. If I sell you the rights to build a road passed my house you can't deny me access to my property through your road.

Oh but you can, because who are you? Joe Citizen? What are you going to do? Write an angry email to their customer services team online and instantly get thrown in the bin? Who is the arbiter here?

>Absolutely. Not only me, but for everyone who has paid into the system.
Not sure if serious...

>Well that's a different entirely isn't it?
Why? First of all I called it state sponsored from the beginning, but what is the difference?

>In any sensible democracy there are limitations if not an outright ban on lobbying for commercial gain.
I don't know what a sensible democracy is according to you, but have you heard about The Clinton Foundation? What about the guy going from Goldman Sachs to the treasury, bailing out banks that Goldman Sachs had 80 percent shares in with tax money and than went back to Goldman Sachs?

Are you that buttfurious Brit that was raging on the last AnCap thread?
1. private companies
2. there's still a justice system in minarchy you TYT dicksucker
3. private companies

>Not sure if serious...
But I am. I paid in taxes for a service to be run, regardless of whether the company is private and gets paid by the state because they lobbied for it, my money is going towards that. Why would I care about schlomo not making a dollar?

>Why? First of all I called it state sponsored from the beginning, but what is the difference?

State sponsored can mean a lot of things. Bus services in this country are private but were setup and created by the state. It is a profit making business but was created by the state because no real private company had the equipment like buses to run, because they didn't have contracts with the bus manufacturers.

I thought you simply meant it was a state enterprise.

I'm going to be honest. I was paid 500 googlecoins™ to travel back in time to shill for Gary. With that I can finally upgrade my 4x3 Chromeshed™ model GH-0002-S subterranean level N to a 8x6 Chromenook™ model GH-0032-H subterranean level F. I'm asking you guys to do this for me... you could never understand. My 3.5 hours a day I get for free time are spent in my house, by law when I'm not oiling the bots I'm in housing compartment you have no idea how uncomfortable 4x3 is for me. You just don't know how things are in the future, I am only 12 centimeters tall

>that picture

the market will build a direct road from my house to wherever i want!

>There is a finite amount of land you can cover in roads.
That is not a monopoly but means limited resources and limited resources means better economic is needed.

>So are you calling for corporations (and lets get real here, only large corporations have the time, money and resources to investment in such a project) to build parallel highways all directed at different areas of different districts that best suit their commercial interest?
I'm not calling for anything. By the description you are giving it is already obvious to everyone that it is much easier for the different companies to agree on such a project.

>And what about existing roads? Who determines who owns what? Split up the road into sections to be auctioned? who will do the splitting, and how will it work?
Auctioning of property sounds like a great idea. The proceeds than could get split up and returned to the tax payer. Naturally you would do the splitting in a way to achieve the highest prices so an open bidding process would probably guarantee the best outcome. But remember, it's not merely the roads you are splitting. It's the so called public property you have to turn from the state back to people.

>Oh but you can, because who are you? Joe Citizen? What are you going to do? Write an angry email to their customer services team online and instantly get thrown in the bin? Who is the arbiter here?
It fundamentally impossible. No one is going to buy a house or property unless they are contractually guaranteed access to roads. And even if it were possible no arbitrator would enforce such an unpopular and economically unfeasible endeavor. They would be running themselves out of business along with the guys blocking access to the road.

>Why would I care about schlomo not making a dollar?
He has build a business so successful that he was offering his ride for free. That means people wanting to travel didn't have to pay money while his competitor lobbied to receive tax money and still charged more. It's easy to see who the real Schlomo in this scenario is.

>road building companies
>private court companies
>private hospitals

>That is not a monopoly but means limited resources and limited resources means better economic is needed.

Im talking more about practicality. Who in reality is going to spend millions building a highway that virtually goes to the same destination as its competitor? And how is that economically feasible when the vast majority of its users are just normal people wanting to get to point A to B? They care who runs the service, they don't care if it's Wallmart or Microsoft. So why would any company do this

>I'm not calling for anything. By the description you are giving it is already obvious to everyone that it is much easier for the different companies to agree on such a project.

Profit is the bottom line for all private companies. It would be too contentious, too compromising, it wouldn't work.

>Auctioning of property sounds like a great idea. The proceeds than could get split up and returned to the tax payer. Naturally you would do the splitting in a way to achieve the highest prices so an open bidding process would probably guarantee the best outcome. But remember, it's not merely the roads you are splitting. It's the so called public property you have to turn from the state back to people.

As above

*They dont care who runs the service

>Who in reality is going to spend millions building a highway that virtually goes to the same destination as its competitor? And how is that economically feasible when the vast majority of its users are just normal people wanting to get to point A to B?
I really don't know if you are economically illiterate or trying to bait me. Please explain me one more time what you don't understand about this problem because from your description alone it is pretty clear that no one would be interested in wasting resources on building roads in the same direction twice.

Roads will be built by housing developers, mall builders and so on. Just like before the government took them over in the 19th century. So what you need is investors and investors will only come when your proposal is sound.

>Profit is the bottom line for all private companies. It would be too contentious, too compromising, it wouldn't work.
I think I got the idea now. You are assuming there is a company that builds roads and it will only use those roads to bring them to their services or whoever paid, am I right? Does the explanation I posted above clarify on this problem? Because if you are developing land and you are going to build a town than you don't tell your investors that you got company that threatens to block roads. What you want is traffic and therefore you want to invest in roads being made available or else nobody is come to your town.

and the rest of us, the vast majority, dont want that, and none of your arguments make any sense, and sound like you want to throw all of us under the bus that dont own 100 acres with a well, solar panels and arable land, with property tax paid for the rest of their lives, and savings such that they can live off the interest income.

>it is pretty clear that no one would be interested in wasting resources on building roads in the same direction twice.

And that is exactly the point. So I refer back to my original point, if Wallmart builds a large highway going into a central business district, Wallmart has full reign over when the highway operates and how, as it is theirs. So, your counter argument that people could just magically build competitive highways if Wallmart decide to shut the highway everyone uses down because they aren't making a profit at a certain time of day, is frankly not possible. I've explained why if a major highway is built, there won't be a rival highway going in the same direction, so if this isn't monopoly 101 then fuck me I don't know what is.

>I think I got the idea now. You are assuming there is a company that builds roads and it will only use those roads to bring them to their services or whoever paid, am I right? Does the explanation I posted above clarify on this problem? Because if you are developing land and you are going to build a town than you don't tell your investors that you got company that threatens to block roads. What you want is traffic and therefore you want to invest in roads being made available or else nobody is come to your town.

The highway itself is a profit making operation. Toll roads are a common idea thrown around in these hypotheticals. If Wallmart spend millions on building an intercity highway spanning miles, their profit is not only from conveniently placing those highways near their stores for obvious reasons, but tolling alone will mean the operator (wallmart) won't need to listen to investors of new towns at all, because why would they?
My point is if a large corporation like Wallmart, who has the resources to build large and very valuable highways that services towns, tolling alone on these highways is a big money spinner. And customers won't be driven away or go to another competitor, because there is no competitor

And there wont be a competitor because A. Money and resources and B. There structure is already there and most people don't care about market alternatives, if a road is there, it's there.

>wanting a more limited government is throwing everyone else under the bus
If anything you'll save money and have a better life, shithead. Nobody is calling for a fucking anarchy or corporatocracy.

But then what you just advocated is what we have right now. The state runs all those services, so what do you even want?

There's a difference between an overinvolved state and a minimalist state.

Right now the state controls national infrastructure, emergency services, law and order, etc. That's awesome and we need that (since giving corporations control over police forces isn't the best idea when they have shareholders to satisfy and so forth)

However, you also have a bunch of overinflated make-work bullshit agencies that do what private agencies can do for 10x the manpower and price (See: DMV, NASA to a small extent, the entire DoD when it comes to procurement and RnD, almost every civilian agency besides NASA). These are cancerous, and are kept in place by a collection of corrupted power thirsty cunts. The majority of them only exist because someone wants more jobs (and not more production and higher efficiency).

Have you ever seen a modern government agency in action? There are people hired specifically to walk coffee and paperwork around. There are people hired to watch these people. There are people hired to watch THOSE people (see: unions) and then there are people hired to watch those people in turn (see: government oversight agencies/commissions).

All I'm proposing is that we keep vital national infrastructure/programs and the agencies necessary for those programs, and scrap pretty much everything else.

I want a minimalist government. At the moment it's nothing like that.

>And that is exactly the point. So I refer back to my original point, if Wallmart builds a large highway going into a central business district, Wallmart has full reign over when the highway operates and how, as it is theirs.
How does Walmart get the property to lead its highway into the central business district? They would have to buy property and for this they would have to guarantee access to the their highway or nobody would sell them the property. So they can't just shut down the exit ramp to prevent people from leaving their highway and driving into the central business district. So what are they going to do? Shut down their highway from nine to five? Who is going to buy a toll ticket for this highway when you can't use them half the time of the day? This is a preposterous arrangement you got there.
The arbitrators won't enforce the shutdown of the exit ramps because it would be a PR disaster for them and unlike the state they have to keep customers satisfied.

>I've explained why if a major highway is built, there won't be a rival highway going in the same direction, so if this isn't monopoly 101 then fuck me I don't know what is.
So to get this straight you assume when Walmart shuts down its highway from nine to five than nobody would consider an alternative? Even if Walmart achieves to only shut down the exit ramps than you think the other businesses in the central business district would not consider a highway of their own to God knows where? Why? Wasn't your starting point that they are bleeding money because nobody is coming in over the highway when Walmart is closed and they are opened?

>If Wallmart spend millions on building an intercity highway spanning miles, their profit is not only from conveniently placing those highways near their stores for obvious reasons, but tolling alone will mean the operator (wallmart) won't need to listen to investors of new towns at all, because why would they?
Why would the investors sell Walmart the property (or the rights) to build a highway then? This would harm the businesses in town after all so nobody would invest in this. How is that not obvious?

>And customers won't be driven away or go to another competitor, because there is no competitor
Of course there will be a competitor. How do you think the railways in America advanced so fast? If your service is shit than people will look for an alternative.

>What about the guy going from Goldman Sachs to the treasury, bailing out banks that Goldman Sachs had 80 percent shares in with tax money and than went back to Goldman Sachs?

Henry Paulson was the guy's name.