3 ms·

The whole idea that someone can prohibit cities from building their own infrastructure is the thing I find most amazing every time I read about this topic. Shou

by lutorm 16y ago

The whole idea that someone can prohibit cities from building their own infrastructure is the thing I find most amazing every time I read about this topic. Should they also be prohibited from building their own roads?

jcampbell1 16y ago
Let's say you strike a deal with a state to build a toll road. They agree, and you borrow a billion dollars, build the road, and start collecting tolls. It doesn't cost the tax payer anything, and the people who use it do so voluntarily. A few years later a politician decides it will be politically popular to build a free road right next to your road, but will simply pay for it with tax dollars. This is not exactly fair to you right? The politician has the power to take the money from constituants by threat of force (you go to jail for not paying taxes). You don't have this power. In foresight of this situation, you get the state to sign an agreement that they will not compete with your highway with taxpayer dollars. They are welcome to build another toll road, but it just can't be subsidized by the tax payer. So yes, there are cases where is makes sense for a government to prohibit itself from building a road.
- lutorm 16y ago
  This is not exactly fair to you right? Might feel that way, but I don't think citizens have a duty to be fair to businesses. Corporations exist to further the public good, if they don't do that, I have no reason to be fair to them.
dpatru 16y ago
You're viewing government as a benevolent force. The reality is that government as an organization is funded through coercion (taxes aren't voluntary). It also protects itself from competition through violence (try competing with any of the "services" provided by a government, the government will shut you down). It also uses violence to further its aims (if government wants your land to build a road, it can just take it (and in the US, if government takes your property, it is mandated by the Constitution to pay you)). A private entity can't do that. In particular, as a user of cable, a private cable company cannot force you to accept and pay for its service. A government-operated cable service could. From the perspective of a private cable company, government competition is unfair. The government does not have to use non-coercive means. It can force people to pay for its service even if they don't want to. In the US, the best illustration of the danger of government enterprises is the public school system. Residents of an area are forced to support the local public schools, even if they send their children to private schools. The long-term loss of human potential of this system is monstrous. The economic waste is pretty bad too. The best way to avoid disasters like the US public school system is to insist that transactions be voluntary. If you want to operate a cable company, fine, do it, but don't expect to be able to use coerced money to fund it or coercion to operate it.
- jarpadat 16y ago
  Look, I am a libertarian too and I'm 100% with you that government coercion is bad. But running fiber totally depends on a lot of unrelated people agreeing to have their land dug up, and in any practical circumstance that requires coercion. The government is already involved, whether your bill says "AT&T" or "Chattanooga Municipal". The only question is whether data lines remain under the collective control of the people whose land they actually run under or whether that control is ceded by that government to a private corporation. The difference is who wags the government's tail, not whether that force is used.
- lutorm 16y ago
  I'm viewing government as a collection of citizens joining together to run society. You Americans (I assume you are) have an extremely paranoid and depressing view of society. Maybe you should try living in a country where the democratic process works better than the dysfunctional U.S. system for a couple of years.

by lutorm 16y ago

jcampbell1 16y ago

Let's say you strike a deal with a state to build a toll road. They agree, and you borrow a billion dollars, build the road, and start collecting tolls. It doesn't cost the tax payer anything, and the people who use it do so voluntarily. A few years later a politician decides it will be politically popular to build a free road right next to your road, but will simply pay for it with tax dollars. This is not exactly fair to you right? The politician has the power to take the money from constituants by threat of force (you go to jail for not paying taxes). You don't have this power. In foresight of this situation, you get the state to sign an agreement that they will not compete with your highway with taxpayer dollars. They are welcome to build another toll road, but it just can't be subsidized by the tax payer. So yes, there are cases where is makes sense for a government to prohibit itself from building a road.

lutorm 16y ago
This is not exactly fair to you right? Might feel that way, but I don't think citizens have a duty to be fair to businesses. Corporations exist to further the public good, if they don't do that, I have no reason to be fair to them.

dpatru 16y ago

You're viewing government as a benevolent force. The reality is that government as an organization is funded through coercion (taxes aren't voluntary). It also protects itself from competition through violence (try competing with any of the "services" provided by a government, the government will shut you down). It also uses violence to further its aims (if government wants your land to build a road, it can just take it (and in the US, if government takes your property, it is mandated by the Constitution to pay you)). A private entity can't do that. In particular, as a user of cable, a private cable company cannot force you to accept and pay for its service. A government-operated cable service could. From the perspective of a private cable company, government competition is unfair. The government does not have to use non-coercive means. It can force people to pay for its service even if they don't want to. In the US, the best illustration of the danger of government enterprises is the public school system. Residents of an area are forced to support the local public schools, even if they send their children to private schools. The long-term loss of human potential of this system is monstrous. The economic waste is pretty bad too. The best way to avoid disasters like the US public school system is to insist that transactions be voluntary. If you want to operate a cable company, fine, do it, but don't expect to be able to use coerced money to fund it or coercion to operate it.

jarpadat 16y ago
Look, I am a libertarian too and I'm 100% with you that government coercion is bad. But running fiber totally depends on a lot of unrelated people agreeing to have their land dug up, and in any practical circumstance that requires coercion. The government is already involved, whether your bill says "AT&T" or "Chattanooga Municipal". The only question is whether data lines remain under the collective control of the people whose land they actually run under or whether that control is ceded by that government to a private corporation. The difference is who wags the government's tail, not whether that force is used.
lutorm 16y ago
I'm viewing government as a collection of citizens joining together to run society. You Americans (I assume you are) have an extremely paranoid and depressing view of society. Maybe you should try living in a country where the democratic process works better than the dysfunctional U.S. system for a couple of years.