Democrats understand the landscape right now and the prospects of this passing. They also understand that police unions donate to their reelection campaigns too. Is it possible they've proposed this bill knowing that it won't make it to a vote? It certainly wouldn't be the first time.
Being able to conduct no-knock raids and in general act like soldiers instead of peace officers is exactly why the police are those most vehemently opposed to ending the War on Drugs Freedom.
Have a look at the State of Kansas, they have been running an "experiment" for sometime now and their State is in a real state isn't it?
Are you referring to Kansas reducing taxes but not touching spending?
[privatized police and fire are] a very bad idea, for obvious reasons.
And what "obvious" reasons would those be? How many private police have shot unarmed people, have thrown flashbangs into baby cribs or have shot homeowners' dogs? What is your problem with the prospect of privatized fire and ems services?
That sounds a lot like tragedy of the commons, no? If everyone owns the roads then no one is responsible for maintenance and upkeep.
Did people not value police and fire services? Or did they not value them at the prices the police and fire were charging? Hard to say when the police and fire still maintained their gov-backed monopoly status.
It doesn't sound like Colorado Springs really ran a proper experiment and it's not that useful to draw conclusions like you did based on bad data.
Within urban areas, because of the limited number of places you can put a road.
Which has what to do with road maintenance? A company that can maintain roads is also very likely able to construct roads too... ergo there would not be a lack of competition surrounding the construction and maintenance of roads.
Making them "human rights" enables you being able to exercise your other rights.
How can you enforce a "right" to healthcare? I'll answer it for you -- by forcing someone else to either act directly (force a doctor to care for someone) or indirectly (force someone else to pay for the doctor). That's either slavery or theft, both of which violate the UDHR.
Everything else has to be regulated: free roads, enforcement of contracts, anti-collusion, anti-trust, blocking of competitors, cartels, ... The list is endless.
Why do you assume some central authority must be the one to regulate those things?
but then you are responsible for describing to us what institution will make the rules for the market.
You can't access to such information unless you have to pay.
You can't access to it because there are hurdles that make it impractical.
This is why the UDHR is a nonsensical document... because you can't reconcile it against reality. There is no right to the internet or healthcare or food or housing because those are goods/services to be bought and sold. Making them "human rights" turns the concept of "rights" on its head and in effect supports theft and/or slavery, which violates other sections of the UDHR.
The very definition of 'privatizing roads' is that whoever builds the roads subsequently owns them.
Not necessarily. Businesses could band together to have a road built to their complex. The businesses would collectively own the road despite someone else having built it.
Now you have major traffic jams because people can't take alternate routes to help relieve some of the congestion
Why do you assume that's the only possible outcome?
Or say the company who built the road in front of your house demands a monthly payment for you to drive on it. Do you really think that's a positive thing?
If I hire a builder to build me a home does the builder continue to own the home after he's done? Why do you assume that the company that's hired to build the road continues to own it after the road is built? Aside from that you do realize there's such a thing as road maintenance, right? Part of our taxes now go to pay that maintenance. Why would homeowners not pay a company to maintain the road on whatever schedule the parties agree to?
Your flawed criticism of private roads gives me pause regarding your entire argument.
Making roads more costly to use would limit usage.
Who says roads would become more costly? Why wouldn't they become less expensive?
The power of some companies to "own" the roads would likely limit the types of businesses and retail operations that could make use of those roads.
Who says the company that builds the roads is ultimately the owner of those roads? Why would limiting use of roads inherently be a negative?
Thus, while you might have a free market in "roads" you would limit or destroy the free market of every business that relies on roads (which is a significant portion of the economy).
You need to read Walter Block's publication on the privatization of roads.
This is, uh, wrong. If you're involved the court to silence a company then, yes, the gov't is involved, and First Amendment absolutely applies
FCOL how many times have I read on this very site that Free Speech protections under the 1st Amendment apply to protecting individuals from government actions and not from other individuals? Countless!
And for the 3rd or 4th time in this very thread I NEVER SAID the government wasn't involved. I don't know why so many people are reading things that I didn't write. I said the government wasn't going after Gawker, as in the lawsuit wasn't filed by the US Atty. Certainly the government will enforce the court's decision but that's entirely different.
(untitled comment)
Democrats understand the landscape right now and the prospects of this passing. They also understand that police unions donate to their reelection campaigns too. Is it possible they've proposed this bill knowing that it won't make it to a vote? It certainly wouldn't be the first time.
Re:
Apparently TechDirt markdown processor doesn't process strikethrough. "Drugs" should have a strikethrough
(untitled comment)
Being able to conduct no-knock raids and in general act like soldiers instead of peace officers is exactly why the police are those most vehemently opposed to ending the War on Drugs Freedom.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you referring to Kansas reducing taxes but not touching spending?
And what "obvious" reasons would those be? How many private police have shot unarmed people, have thrown flashbangs into baby cribs or have shot homeowners' dogs? What is your problem with the prospect of privatized fire and ems services?
Re: Re:
That sounds a lot like tragedy of the commons, no? If everyone owns the roads then no one is responsible for maintenance and upkeep.
Did people not value police and fire services? Or did they not value them at the prices the police and fire were charging? Hard to say when the police and fire still maintained their gov-backed monopoly status.
It doesn't sound like Colorado Springs really ran a proper experiment and it's not that useful to draw conclusions like you did based on bad data.
(untitled comment)
All government should be funded voluntarily... then we'd really see how much people support X or Y policy.
(untitled comment)
I'm not the only one who finds it odd that ICE is even the gov't entity involved in these seizures, right?
(untitled comment)
Re: Re: Re: Doesn't this also mean
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which has what to do with road maintenance? A company that can maintain roads is also very likely able to construct roads too... ergo there would not be a lack of competition surrounding the construction and maintenance of roads.
Re: Re: Re:
How can you enforce a "right" to healthcare? I'll answer it for you -- by forcing someone else to either act directly (force a doctor to care for someone) or indirectly (force someone else to pay for the doctor). That's either slavery or theft, both of which violate the UDHR.
Re: Re:
Why would there be a lack of competition for the building and maintenance of roads?
Re: There is only one free thing in a free market
Why do you assume some central authority must be the one to regulate those things?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kPyrq6SEL0
Re:
This is why the UDHR is a nonsensical document... because you can't reconcile it against reality. There is no right to the internet or healthcare or food or housing because those are goods/services to be bought and sold. Making them "human rights" turns the concept of "rights" on its head and in effect supports theft and/or slavery, which violates other sections of the UDHR.
Re: Re:
Re: Re:
Not necessarily. Businesses could band together to have a road built to their complex. The businesses would collectively own the road despite someone else having built it.
Why do you assume that's the only possible outcome?
If I hire a builder to build me a home does the builder continue to own the home after he's done? Why do you assume that the company that's hired to build the road continues to own it after the road is built? Aside from that you do realize there's such a thing as road maintenance, right? Part of our taxes now go to pay that maintenance. Why would homeowners not pay a company to maintain the road on whatever schedule the parties agree to?
Re: Re:
(untitled comment)
Your flawed criticism of private roads gives me pause regarding your entire argument.
Who says roads would become more costly? Why wouldn't they become less expensive?
Who says the company that builds the roads is ultimately the owner of those roads? Why would limiting use of roads inherently be a negative?
You need to read Walter Block's publication on the privatization of roads.
Show me the money
Re: Re: Re: Sigh
FCOL how many times have I read on this very site that Free Speech protections under the 1st Amendment apply to protecting individuals from government actions and not from other individuals? Countless!
And for the 3rd or 4th time in this very thread I NEVER SAID the government wasn't involved. I don't know why so many people are reading things that I didn't write. I said the government wasn't going after Gawker, as in the lawsuit wasn't filed by the US Atty. Certainly the government will enforce the court's decision but that's entirely different.
More comments from JohnG >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by JohnG.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt