5 ms·

A bit old, but still relevant - http://archive.gao.gov/f0302/109884.pdf http://archive.gao.gov/f0302/109884.pdf I'm no expert on the topic, but it seems to me

A bit old, but still relevant - http://archive.gao.gov/f0302/109884.pdf http://archive.gao.gov/f0302/109884.pdf I'm no expert on the topic, but it seems to me that if heavily loaded trucks are causing a disproportionate amount of damage they should be taxed at a rate which allows for proper maintenance of those roads.

innguest 11y ago
Yes, and women should pay more for health insurance since they go to the doctor more often. However neither of those things will happen because common sense and communism are polar opposites despite their shared etymological roots. EDIT: sophists can downvote but what they can't do is cope, or they would engage my arguments. EDIT 2: for the slow, the argument is that it is natural to want those who use a resource the most to pay the most, but people had rather not see this obvious truth when you replace trucks with women. To want trucks to pay more (I bet many leftists would agree with that after all "truck are driving for profit" and profit is bad in the eyes of leftists) for using the same roads because they use it more, and then to not want women to pay more towards health insurance because she uses doctors more, is the sort of contradiction that you can only find in a leftist's brain. EDIT 3: Men and women both profit from going to the doctor. Otherwise they would not go, it would be a waste of their time. There's a cost to opportunity and the fact that a person chooses to go to a doctor over doing something else means, praxeologically speaking, that they stand to profit more from going to the doctor than doing anything else, including not going to the doctor. EDIT 4: Hi jordan, thanks for your comment. The solution to the hitch is to break the healthcare monopoly. Trucks now, if roads were too expensive for them, would have no choice but to exit the market as you said; but if there were competition in roads then they could strike a deal with a competitor road provider and switch over, as I can do if Apple doesn't want my app, I can sell it to Android users. Of course I'm not suggesting women should "exit the market" because that would be the end of people. But we're not far off from the end of people if healthcare is a monopoly either. Competition in healthcare would allow for entrepreneurs to come up with ways to cut down on costs for women-related care. P.S.: link for you: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10718692 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10718692 -> "Studies have shown that women use more health care services than men."
- oldmanjay 11y ago
  You didn't make any arguments. I can't even decipher what your position might be here - perhaps trucks should be subsidized by normal traffic because it's somehow related to sexism or communism?
- quandrum 11y ago
  If women were making profit off the health care, then yes.
- jordan0day 11y ago
  I feel like people need multiple-pass compilers for their logical arguments. On the face of it, your analogy kind of makes sense. Both trucks and women (<strike>Allegedly. I don't know if your claim is actually based on fact?</strike> edit: link in parent seems to back up this claim) use a disproportionate amount of a shared resource, so they should be made to pay more for that use. The second pass of your compiler should catch the little hitch here, though: Truck drivers and transportation companies can choose to exit the market (or not enter the market in the first place), if the costs of doing business are too burdensome. I don't really think that kind of option exists in the same way for women? Unless you're suggesting that women should similarly "exit the market" (Hurry up and die? Become men?). At least, I certainly hope that's not your proposed solution.
  - solutionyogi 11y ago
    > I feel like people need multiple-pass compilers for their logical arguments. If you don't mind, I am going to steal that line for future discussion. :)
- pointster 11y ago
  But women are tubes, not trucks.
- s73v3r 11y ago
  You lost any credibility when you mentioned communism.
ams6110 11y ago
Trucks are taxed more already. The problem is legislatures using those tax revenues for other pork and then claiming to not have enough money for roads.
- jessaustin 11y ago
  Semi trucks reduce the quality of the roads much more than lighter vehicles do. The slightly greater tax they pay doesn't begin to make up for it. http://fhwicsint01.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/hcas/addendum.cfm http://fhwicsint01.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/hcas/addendum.cfm
scarmig 11y ago
You know all those weigh stations you see on the road and don't have to stop at? They're not decorative.

innguest 11y ago

Yes, and women should pay more for health insurance since they go to the doctor more often. However neither of those things will happen because common sense and communism are polar opposites despite their shared etymological roots. EDIT: sophists can downvote but what they can't do is cope, or they would engage my arguments. EDIT 2: for the slow, the argument is that it is natural to want those who use a resource the most to pay the most, but people had rather not see this obvious truth when you replace trucks with women. To want trucks to pay more (I bet many leftists would agree with that after all "truck are driving for profit" and profit is bad in the eyes of leftists) for using the same roads because they use it more, and then to not want women to pay more towards health insurance because she uses doctors more, is the sort of contradiction that you can only find in a leftist's brain. EDIT 3: Men and women both profit from going to the doctor. Otherwise they would not go, it would be a waste of their time. There's a cost to opportunity and the fact that a person chooses to go to a doctor over doing something else means, praxeologically speaking, that they stand to profit more from going to the doctor than doing anything else, including not going to the doctor. EDIT 4: Hi jordan, thanks for your comment. The solution to the hitch is to break the healthcare monopoly. Trucks now, if roads were too expensive for them, would have no choice but to exit the market as you said; but if there were competition in roads then they could strike a deal with a competitor road provider and switch over, as I can do if Apple doesn't want my app, I can sell it to Android users. Of course I'm not suggesting women should "exit the market" because that would be the end of people. But we're not far off from the end of people if healthcare is a monopoly either. Competition in healthcare would allow for entrepreneurs to come up with ways to cut down on costs for women-related care. P.S.: link for you: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10718692 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10718692 -> "Studies have shown that women use more health care services than men."

oldmanjay 11y ago
You didn't make any arguments. I can't even decipher what your position might be here - perhaps trucks should be subsidized by normal traffic because it's somehow related to sexism or communism?
quandrum 11y ago
If women were making profit off the health care, then yes.
jordan0day 11y ago
I feel like people need multiple-pass compilers for their logical arguments. On the face of it, your analogy kind of makes sense. Both trucks and women (<strike>Allegedly. I don't know if your claim is actually based on fact?</strike> edit: link in parent seems to back up this claim) use a disproportionate amount of a shared resource, so they should be made to pay more for that use. The second pass of your compiler should catch the little hitch here, though: Truck drivers and transportation companies can choose to exit the market (or not enter the market in the first place), if the costs of doing business are too burdensome. I don't really think that kind of option exists in the same way for women? Unless you're suggesting that women should similarly "exit the market" (Hurry up and die? Become men?). At least, I certainly hope that's not your proposed solution.
- solutionyogi 11y ago
  > I feel like people need multiple-pass compilers for their logical arguments. If you don't mind, I am going to steal that line for future discussion. :)
pointster 11y ago
But women are tubes, not trucks.
s73v3r 11y ago
You lost any credibility when you mentioned communism.

ams6110 11y ago

Trucks are taxed more already. The problem is legislatures using those tax revenues for other pork and then claiming to not have enough money for roads.

jessaustin 11y ago
Semi trucks reduce the quality of the roads much more than lighter vehicles do. The slightly greater tax they pay doesn't begin to make up for it. http://fhwicsint01.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/hcas/addendum.cfm http://fhwicsint01.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/hcas/addendum.cfm

scarmig 11y ago

You know all those weigh stations you see on the road and don't have to stop at? They're not decorative.