5 ms·

I agree with astrodust, and would like to point out to the GP that arranging the real estate necessary, plus getting all the zoning/easements/whatever (I'm not

I agree with astrodust, and would like to point out to the GP that arranging the real estate necessary, plus getting all the zoning/easements/whatever (I'm not in property development), would easily be prohibitively expensive for a company trying to join any two major cities. I am currently of the opinion that major logistical infrastructure can't feasibly be done by any non-governmental entity since such company can't force land acquisition and usage approval by their own fiat. A company could propose a project to legislators, but would have to invest significantly before that stage with no guarantee of return. If a company could feasibly be granted such power plenipotentiarily, it would be a huge bill of rights issue (that eminent domain is controversial is another discussion). Other than government, I don't see a feasible solution here.

mindcrime 11y ago
I agree with astrodust, and would like to point out to the GP that arranging the real estate necessary, plus getting all the zoning/easements/whatever (I'm not in property development), would easily be prohibitively expensive for a company trying to join any two major cities. I never said it would be easy.
- mozumder 11y ago
  Of course it would be easy. Private companies can easily take people's property - just point a gun at them. It worked well for the East India company. If we can eliminate government, we can eliminate the people's protection racket. This will allow private companies to flourish, and the weak to be eliminated.
  - mindcrime 11y ago
    The East India Company was a "private company" in the loosest possible sense. It was operating with the explicit sanction of the British Empire and was effectively a government in its own right. I find it amusing that you would cite that example as an argument FOR government, as I think it stands as a classic example of the worst of what government enables.
    - mozumder 11y ago
      Yah, I don't get why you feel the East India company was any different from any other company?
      - mindcrime 11y ago
        Which other private companies have been given the authority to more or less declare war and occupy territory as they see fit? I guess you could argue Halliburton comes close, but the point is that most private companies aren't given those powers.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > The East India Company was a "private company" in the loosest possible sense. It was operating with the explicit sanction of the British Empire and was effectively a government in its own right. Every company that exists as separate juridical entity (e.g., every corporation, for starters) does so with the explicit sanction of a government and is an exercise of government power. The East India Company was a private company in exactly the same sense as any other "private" corporation.
      - mindcrime 11y ago
        The East India Company was a private company in exactly the same sense as any other "private" corporation. That's just being pedantic. It was a "private company" yes, but a private company that was granted powers far beyond those given to pretty much any other private company. They were allowed to maintain their own private army and effectively rule large parts of India as though they were the government. That's a HUGE difference from the typical private company.
        waterlesscloud 11y ago
        Not to mention they had a government-granted monopoly on trade with India for the first century of their existence.
        mozumder 11y ago

mindcrime 11y ago

mozumder 11y ago
Of course it would be easy. Private companies can easily take people's property - just point a gun at them. It worked well for the East India company. If we can eliminate government, we can eliminate the people's protection racket. This will allow private companies to flourish, and the weak to be eliminated.
- mindcrime 11y ago
  The East India Company was a "private company" in the loosest possible sense. It was operating with the explicit sanction of the British Empire and was effectively a government in its own right. I find it amusing that you would cite that example as an argument FOR government, as I think it stands as a classic example of the worst of what government enables.
  - mozumder 11y ago
    Yah, I don't get why you feel the East India company was any different from any other company?
    - mindcrime 11y ago
      Which other private companies have been given the authority to more or less declare war and occupy territory as they see fit? I guess you could argue Halliburton comes close, but the point is that most private companies aren't given those powers.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > The East India Company was a "private company" in the loosest possible sense. It was operating with the explicit sanction of the British Empire and was effectively a government in its own right. Every company that exists as separate juridical entity (e.g., every corporation, for starters) does so with the explicit sanction of a government and is an exercise of government power. The East India Company was a private company in exactly the same sense as any other "private" corporation.
    - mindcrime 11y ago
      The East India Company was a private company in exactly the same sense as any other "private" corporation. That's just being pedantic. It was a "private company" yes, but a private company that was granted powers far beyond those given to pretty much any other private company. They were allowed to maintain their own private army and effectively rule large parts of India as though they were the government. That's a HUGE difference from the typical private company.
      - waterlesscloud 11y ago
        Not to mention they had a government-granted monopoly on trade with India for the first century of their existence.
      - mozumder 11y ago