We've all heard that idiotic question: "But who will build the roads?"
I've thought up a sharp riposte: "Who will work the fields?"
Let that sink in.
Quote from: Vitruvian on April 06, 2009, 10:48 PM NHFT
We've all heard that idiotic question: "But who will build the roads?"
I've thought up a sharp riposte: "Who will work the fields?"
Let that sink in.
Interesting subject line with the use of the word "common".
And I ask - who will protect the common right of ways that are the basis of individual equal rights and freedom of movement?
Quote from: BillKauffman on April 07, 2009, 11:26 AM NHFT
Quote from: Vitruvian on April 06, 2009, 10:48 PM NHFT
We've all heard that idiotic question: "But who will build the roads?"
I've thought up a sharp riposte: "Who will work the fields?"
Let that sink in.
Interesting subject line with the use of the word "common".
And I ask - who will protect the common right of ways that are the basis of individual equal rights and freedom of movement?
An armed society is a polite society.
And no, I'm not saying we will have to defend our freedom with guns. Recent facts have come out that show that the "wild west" was a much safer community than the US cities we have now.
I don't think bill is asking about the actual physical assault upon a traveller, rather the actual protection of the right.
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on April 07, 2009, 12:57 PM NHFT
I don't think bill is asking about the actual physical assault upon a traveller, rather the actual protection of the right.
um. I guess I don't understand then. If the traveler is not assaulted, then the right has been protected.
Quote from: Coconut on April 07, 2009, 11:49 AM NHFT
An armed society is a polite society.
And no, I'm not saying we will have to defend our freedom with guns. Recent facts have come out that show that the "wild west" was a much safer community than the US cities we have now.
Being from Las Vegas, most people there miss the "mob". Whatever you want to call it, the organized crime element kept the city very safe. In those days, "the wild wild west", you could walk down the street with thousands of dollars at 3am and nothing would happen to you. Because the criminals feared how the mob would respond. In those days, the only thing the mob cared about was their gambling dollar.
Then Wall Street moved in, kicked out the mob, and turned Las Vegas into a "reputable" town. The days of free hotel rooms and free food quickly disappeared, and so did the fear of the criminals and gangs. Now, crime is out of control and Las Vegas tops the nationwide list for car thefts.
Some may say, well the mob was a bunch of crooks. But look at their crime: they skimmed the books (tax evasion). And yes, occasionally murder...if you can call it that...they killed other bad guys. Regular citizens were completely safe. Murder? Nah, it was crime prevention. And tax evasion? Call it what you will...but what's worse, not paying a couple bucks on your taxes, or blowing trillions of taxpayer dollars?
And you're right, you don't necessarily need guns to defend freedom (they help), you just need people to follow the rules. The mob did that by example. Our government does not. Why should we expect anything more from any member of society when the very people we elect to represent our interests and protect us ignore our voices and break the rules themselves.
End rant.
Quote from: timf343 on April 07, 2009, 07:45 PM NHFT
Some may say, well the mob was a bunch of crooks. But look at their crime: they skimmed the books (tax evasion). And yes, occasionally murder...if you can call it that...they killed other bad guys. Regular citizens were completely safe. Murder? Nah, it was crime prevention.
One of the unavoidable death penalties in the mob's internal justice system, was killing an innocent person.
excellent point
also
but who will bring us food?
Quote from: Vitruvian on April 06, 2009, 10:48 PM NHFT
We've all heard that idiotic question: "But who will build the roads?"
I've thought up a sharp riposte: "Who will work the fields?"
Let that sink in.
Excellent analogy to pro-slavery argument! I will give you credit when I quote you.
Quote from: Vitruvian on April 06, 2009, 10:48 PM NHFT
We've all heard that idiotic question: "But who will build the roads?"
I've thought up a sharp riposte: "Who will work the fields?"
Excellent. But of course I must take the opportunity to toot my own horn (though I'm not actually that flexible) and combine them into "Who will build the slave roads? (http://anarchyinyourhead.com/2009/02/09/who-will-build-the-slave-roads/)"
But then that doesn't work as a snappy retort like yours does. ;D
Quote from: Coconut on April 07, 2009, 04:59 PM NHFT
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on April 07, 2009, 12:57 PM NHFT
I don't think bill is asking about the actual physical assault upon a traveller, rather the actual protection of the right.
um. I guess I don't understand then. If the traveler is not assaulted, then the right has been protected.
I could block your way... I didn't act directly against your person, but did infringe your right of movement.
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on April 08, 2009, 03:16 AM NHFT
Quote from: Coconut on April 07, 2009, 04:59 PM NHFT
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on April 07, 2009, 12:57 PM NHFT
I don't think bill is asking about the actual physical assault upon a traveller, rather the actual protection of the right.
um. I guess I don't understand then. If the traveler is not assaulted, then the right has been protected.
I could block your way... I didn't act directly against your person, but did infringe your right of movement.
You infringed on my right, but didn't directly act against me...
You can only have one or the other, chief.
Quote from: BillKauffman on April 07, 2009, 11:26 AM NHFT
Quote from: Vitruvian on April 06, 2009, 10:48 PM NHFT
We've all heard that idiotic question: "But who will build the roads?"
I've thought up a sharp riposte: "Who will work the fields?"
Let that sink in.
Interesting subject line with the use of the word "common".
And I ask - who will protect the common right of ways that are the basis of individual equal rights and freedom of movement?
As often as this question comes up, the only instances I can think of people actually barring the "right" to movement has that been that wonderful "community organization", the government.
Quote from: AnarchoJesse on May 20, 2009, 06:50 PM NHFT
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on April 08, 2009, 03:16 AM NHFT
Quote from: Coconut on April 07, 2009, 04:59 PM NHFT
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on April 07, 2009, 12:57 PM NHFT
I don't think bill is asking about the actual physical assault upon a traveller, rather the actual protection of the right.
um. I guess I don't understand then. If the traveler is not assaulted, then the right has been protected.
I could block your way... I didn't act directly against your person, but did infringe your right of movement.
You infringed on my right, but didn't directly act against me...
You can only have one or the other, chief.
I'm pretty sure that is what I posted. Infringement of right, without direct physical force.
Quote from: AnarchoJesse on May 20, 2009, 06:52 PM NHFT
Quote from: BillKauffman on April 07, 2009, 11:26 AM NHFT
Quote from: Vitruvian on April 06, 2009, 10:48 PM NHFT
We've all heard that idiotic question: "But who will build the roads?"
I've thought up a sharp riposte: "Who will work the fields?"
Let that sink in.
Interesting subject line with the use of the word "common".
And I ask - who will protect the common right of ways that are the basis of individual equal rights and freedom of movement?
As often as this question comes up, the only instances I can think of people actually barring the "right" to movement has that been that wonderful "community organization", the government.
Its usually a collective of individuals working through government to pontificate a specific perspecitive they hold.
Quote from: Vitruvian on April 06, 2009, 10:48 PM NHFT
We've all heard that idiotic question: "But who will build the roads?"
I've been told I'm hypocritical if I don't pay or don't want taxes but take advantage of government services or benefits such as roads. Next time I hear that line of logic I'll point out that the roads are not a government benefit, but a government
monopoly. If that doesn't end the debate: What if the government claimed the air that we breathe, and then taxed us for the 'privilege' of breathing it? Does that make me a hypocrite if I don't pay taxes and (gasp!) breathe?
Come to think of it, the New World Orderlies are working on creating an international tax (paid to the international banksters) on the carbon cycle (taxes for domestic animals, more than one child per family, etc.), and in some places they're taxing rainfall for those who dare take advantage of cisterns or catch basins. But I digress. Or do I?
Huh?
The common property is a natural state. Its the building and maintenance of roads that is anthropogenic.
The wagon trains didn't have roads per se... just routes over common property.
QuoteWhat if the government claimed the air that we breathe, and then taxed us for the 'privilege' of breathing it?
What if a private individual or group of private individuals found a way to make air exclusive property? Would that violate your right of self-onwership?
No, I would be SCUBA diving... :D
you are so right mtporc
Roads in MT must all be public... but many in NH are private. They only become public when the road is transferred from the private party to the public by voluntary agreement... and in usually the public is smart enough to say 'no'. Sometimes NH even has public roads revert to private ownership...
NH used to tax livestock as property... but hasn't for a few decades now.
Quote from: violence on July 10, 2009, 08:11 PM NHFT
it is very annoying when people say "wonnn''tttt someeeeeebody plpleeeasseeeee thinnkkkk of the roadsss!!!!" at the notion of elimination of any tax. its like they think all the money stolen from us goes to roads, or even a large percentage of it... its ridiculous.
I don't need a road anyways i have a 4 wheel drive a motorcycle, horse, etc... i'll be fine.
if there was no pavement i would be pretty pissed because i wouldn't be able to drive my vette... but i might just give up the vette for some freedom
So you can go anywhere you need to go without crossing a road somewhere?
Quote from: Pat McCotter on July 11, 2009, 12:08 AM NHFT
Quote from: violence on July 10, 2009, 08:11 PM NHFT
it is very annoying when people say "wonnn''tttt someeeeeebody plpleeeasseeeee thinnkkkk of the roadsss!!!!" at the notion of elimination of any tax. its like they think all the money stolen from us goes to roads, or even a large percentage of it... its ridiculous.
I don't need a road anyways i have a 4 wheel drive a motorcycle, horse, etc... i'll be fine.
if there was no pavement i would be pretty pissed because i wouldn't be able to drive my vette... but i might just give up the vette for some freedom
So you can go anywhere you need to go without crossing a road somewhere?
not always but i can go a lot of the places i need to using gravel logging roads.
but if the roads were to deteriorate from lack of maintenance it wouldn't stop me from going where i need to.
Quote from: violence on July 10, 2009, 08:11 PM NHFT
it is very annoying when people say "wonnn''tttt someeeeeebody plpleeeasseeeee thinnkkkk of the roadsss!!!!" at the notion of elimination of any tax. its like they think all the money stolen from us goes to roads, or even a large percentage of it... its ridiculous.
I don't need a road anyways i have a 4 wheel drive a motorcycle, horse, etc... i'll be fine.
if there was no pavement i would be pretty pissed because i wouldn't be able to drive my vette... but i might just give up the vette for some freedom
And you get the gasoline from where? You get the grain from where?
Transported over what?
Roads have been around since the Roman Empire and before that caravans followed routes that passed over miles and miles of property that was considered common, with only the empires' claiming ownership.
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on July 11, 2009, 03:21 AM NHFT
Quote from: violence on July 10, 2009, 08:11 PM NHFT
it is very annoying when people say "wonnn''tttt someeeeeebody plpleeeasseeeee thinnkkkk of the roadsss!!!!" at the notion of elimination of any tax. its like they think all the money stolen from us goes to roads, or even a large percentage of it... its ridiculous.
I don't need a road anyways i have a 4 wheel drive a motorcycle, horse, etc... i'll be fine.
if there was no pavement i would be pretty pissed because i wouldn't be able to drive my vette... but i might just give up the vette for some freedom
And you get the gasoline from where? You get the grain from where?
Transported over what?
Roads have been around since the Roman Empire and before that caravans followed routes that passed over miles and miles of property that was considered common, with only the empires' claiming ownership.
i really don't understand the point of your post.
are you saying if the "government" didn't control the creation of roads i wouldn't be able to get gas, or "grain"?
are you agreeing with me? what?
in all reality, without government being in total control of roads, it would end up being a lot cheaper to have pavement put down, since the unlimited amounts of stolen cash, and phony "prevailing wage" and all the other bullshit that drives up the cost of everything in government.
My point is simple. You need either roads or another transportation alternative.
To move the gasoline and grain here is going to take some transportation format... which one I don't know. But currently its roads.
The point that various people are trying to make is that privatizing roads either to a single monopoly, or a whole bunch of individuals... would still create costs. The might not be the same costs... but there will be costs.
Like when you use that gravel logging road... if the landowner says 'no'. That ends, that. While a common property exercised as such... you have the right to travel.
Its doubtful the road would become impassable, because people wishing to travel over it would act on their own... in their own best interest... to maintain a rudiment level of access.
The trucks/trains/whatever that bring the gasoline and oats would simply add it to their costs...
the way they add transportation cost today.
Roads? Ugh, how common... I thought we'd all be up in the air in our flying cars.
Like George Jetson, or James Bond?