No one wants to be Rich.

[Frisivisia]

I always figured it was because of my flag. People must think I'm Joe Biden.

You aren't? D:

Oh, I am. People just don't take 'Ol Joe as seriously anymore. That's why my new fleet of AMTRAK trains will be responsible for the wiping out of my dectractors.

[Des-Bal]

Well given that you just quoted every piece of relevant information there's quite literally no way I can explain it any more plainly.

There was nothing relevant about your post. Nowhere did I say employees are interested in the company profits or the company is interested in creating jobsm

You created a false narrative where self-interest and creating jobs were incompatible. Creating jobs isn't the goal of businesses it's just inherent to their existence and success. They aren't trying to help the community but they invariably are.

[Christian Socialist England]

Sous. What is this shit.

well it's just that i saw sibirsky talking about private roads so i had flashbacks to when sibirsky sent me a book about private roads.

"In the case of intersection ownership by a third party, the two cross street owners will bid for the green-light time."

"A second source of potential competition derives, as we have seen, from the possibility of building another road above the road in question, or tunneling beneath it."

it was a... harrowing experience

"Machines scattered about the roads, or sensors under the pavement, would record our comings and goings. That information would go to Cirrus and Pulse, and from them to our road providers. We might get three or four monthly bills, or just one, depending on the wherewithal of road owners."

"Without having had forcible government the last two hundred years, would the interstate system have come about? We can’t know, but we shouldn’t care."

"This does not mean that were thoroughfares placed in private hands that the death toll would be zero. It would not. But, at least, every time the life of someone was tragically snuffed out, someone in a position to ameliorate these dangerous conditions would lose money, and this tends, wonderfully, to focus the minds of the owners. This is why we do not have similar problems with bananas, baskets, and bicycles, and the myriad of other goods and services supplied to us by a (relatively) free enterprise system."

"Typical is the treatment undertaken by Sam Peltzman, who lists no less than thirteen possible causes of accident rates without even once mentioning the fact of government ownership and management."

"In advocating a free market in roads, on one level, we shall be merely arguing that there is nothing unique about transportation"

"One scenario would follow the shopping center model: a single owner-builder would buy a section of territory and build roads and (fronting them) houses."

"In the case of intersection ownership by a third party, the two cross street owners will bid for the green-light time."

"A second source of potential competition derives, as we have seen, from the possibility of building another road above the road in question, or tunneling beneath it."

Whoah.

Wow

People actually read stuff like that and think "yeah that's a great idea, I gotta get me some of that"?

I think the lulziest thing about libertarians is that if you throw some reductio argument at them about children labouring in factories and mines they are lik "yeah! That should be a thing! Serves the nippers right for not having parents rich enough to send them to our non-state funded school system in our libertarian paradise. Geet yer down the mine, timmy!"

[Des-Bal]

And you wonder why people never take you seriously?

By volume 90% of these threads are just liberals rubbing their dicks together, I don't make a point of taking them very seriously.

[The Merchant Republics]

well it's just that i saw sibirsky talking about private roads so i had flashbacks to when sibirsky sent me a book about private roads.

"In the case of intersection ownership by a third party, the two cross street owners will bid for the green-light time."

"A second source of potential competition derives, as we have seen, from the possibility of building another road above the road in question, or tunneling beneath it."

it was a... harrowing experience

"Machines scattered about the roads, or sensors under the pavement, would record our comings and goings. That information would go to Cirrus and Pulse, and from them to our road providers. We might get three or four monthly bills, or just one, depending on the wherewithal of road owners."

"Without having had forcible government the last two hundred years, would the interstate system have come about? We can’t know, but we shouldn’t care."

"This does not mean that were thoroughfares placed in private hands that the death toll would be zero. It would not. But, at least, every time the life of someone was tragically snuffed out, someone in a position to ameliorate these dangerous conditions would lose money, and this tends, wonderfully, to focus the minds of the owners. This is why we do not have similar problems with bananas, baskets, and bicycles, and the myriad of other goods and services supplied to us by a (relatively) free enterprise system."

"Typical is the treatment undertaken by Sam Peltzman, who lists no less than thirteen possible causes of accident rates without even once mentioning the fact of government ownership and management."

"In advocating a free market in roads, on one level, we shall be merely arguing that there is nothing unique about transportation"

"One scenario would follow the shopping center model: a single owner-builder would buy a section of territory and build roads and (fronting them) houses."

"In the case of intersection ownership by a third party, the two cross street owners will bid for the green-light time."

"A second source of potential competition derives, as we have seen, from the possibility of building another road above the road in question, or tunneling beneath it."

wat

This is beyond weird.

Makes good sense actually.

You're mindset is off. Consider two different owners of a road that intersects, if the intersection was a third party (which seems unlikely since it would likely be arbitrated solely between the builder of the original road and the one who wants the intersection) they would bid for which road would have a greater share of green light time. The road owner with the higher volume or more constant stream of traffic would be most likely to bid the highest, but it may even just be at peak hours. A road that is used mostly for commuting to work would purchase greater share of green lights during the early morning and late afternoon, rush hour. Whereas if the other road is mostly commercial traffic they could bid for greater share at lunch and during the weekends.

At the end of the day, we would have a more fluid road network, because the more voluminous roads would have the most time with green lights when they need them. An advanced system might even have up-to-the-minute bidding. Like a coin-operated pedestrian button.

[Frisivisia]

And you wonder why people never take you seriously?

By volume 90% of these threads are just liberals rubbing their dicks together, I don't make a point of taking them very seriously.

Methinks this one be defeated, and doth resent such defeat.

[Immoren]

And that's why you have to melt his face with the source gun, which initiates a logic C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER, which means I win and my E-Peen grows and inch larger and harder.

And you wonder why people never take you seriously?

I don't take anyone seriously.

[Nua Corda]

By volume 90% of these threads are just liberals rubbing their dicks together, I don't make a point of taking them very seriously.

Methinks this one be defeated, and doth resent such defeat.

Or perhaps the young lad is merely envious?

[Souseiseki]

An advanced system might even have up-to-the-minute bidding. Like a coin-operated pedestrian button.

oh my god

what about the double-deck tunnel roads?

[Frisivisia]

Methinks this one be defeated, and doth resent such defeat.

Or perhaps the young lad is merely envious?

If thou were, to respond, then thou must Iambic Pentameter.

[Des-Bal]

Methinks this one be defeated, and doth resent such defeat.

If your goal was to disgust me by behaving like a child then yes I'd say I am defeated. In any other sense given that I'm not leaving the thread and have neither changed nor found fault in any of my positions. I'm familiar with this conversation. It goes a little something like

Person 1: (Rolls in own filth)
Person 2: That's really not necessary to the discussion.
Person 1: U MAD

[Frisivisia]

Methinks this one be defeated, and doth resent such defeat.

If your goal was to disgust me by behaving like a child then yes I'd say I am defeated. In any other sense given that I'm not leaving the thread and have neither changed nor found fault in any of my positions. I'm familiar with this conversation. It goes a little something like

Person 1: (Rolls in own filth)
Person 2: That's really not necessary to the discussion.
Person 1: U MAD

Suddenly, srs bsns. This is an online debate on economics, in which none of us are experts. Why are we taking things so seriously?

EDIT: Also, I don't roll in my own filth, I roll in other people's, if at all possible.

[Immoren]

Methinks this one be defeated, and doth resent such defeat.

If your goal was to disgust me by behaving like a child then yes I'd say I am defeated. In any other sense given that I'm not leaving the thread and have neither changed nor found fault in any of my positions. I'm familiar with this conversation. It goes a little something like

Person 1: (Rolls in own filth)
Person 2: That's really not necessary to the discussion.
Person 1: U MAD

[The Merchant Republics]

well it's just that i saw sibirsky talking about private roads so i had flashbacks to when sibirsky sent me a book about private roads.

"In the case of intersection ownership by a third party, the two cross street owners will bid for the green-light time."

"A second source of potential competition derives, as we have seen, from the possibility of building another road above the road in question, or tunneling beneath it."

it was a... harrowing experience

"Machines scattered about the roads, or sensors under the pavement, would record our comings and goings. That information would go to Cirrus and Pulse, and from them to our road providers. We might get three or four monthly bills, or just one, depending on the wherewithal of road owners."

"Without having had forcible government the last two hundred years, would the interstate system have come about? We can’t know, but we shouldn’t care."

"This does not mean that were thoroughfares placed in private hands that the death toll would be zero. It would not. But, at least, every time the life of someone was tragically snuffed out, someone in a position to ameliorate these dangerous conditions would lose money, and this tends, wonderfully, to focus the minds of the owners. This is why we do not have similar problems with bananas, baskets, and bicycles, and the myriad of other goods and services supplied to us by a (relatively) free enterprise system."

"Typical is the treatment undertaken by Sam Peltzman, who lists no less than thirteen possible causes of accident rates without even once mentioning the fact of government ownership and management."

"In advocating a free market in roads, on one level, we shall be merely arguing that there is nothing unique about transportation"

"One scenario would follow the shopping center model: a single owner-builder would buy a section of territory and build roads and (fronting them) houses."

"In the case of intersection ownership by a third party, the two cross street owners will bid for the green-light time."

"A second source of potential competition derives, as we have seen, from the possibility of building another road above the road in question, or tunneling beneath it."

Whoah.

Wow

People actually read stuff like that and think "yeah that's a great idea, I gotta get me some of that"?

I think the lulziest thing about libertarians is that if you throw some reductio argument at them about children labouring in factories and mines they are lik "yeah! That should be a thing! Serves the nippers right for not having parents rich enough to send them to our non-state funded school system in our libertarian paradise. Geet yer down the mine, timmy!"

Yes. I do think it's a good idea.

Anyways, again you're misrepresenting the intention.

We aren't gleefully hoping for a return to child labour and quite happy to kick little Timmy into a mine-shaft.

Libertarians will defend child labour, in certain circumstances. Namely in third world nations, places where children seek employment because the alternative is starvation.

I'd greatly like a world where every child can be cared for by their parents and spend their days learning and playing. It's not universally true.

For children who are suffering or have fallen through the cracks, child labour offers opportunity, many of our own grandparents here in the West worked as young as 10 to supplement their parents income and they learned important skills which benefitted them for the rest of their lives.

For many third world children, an education simply has to be less important than their next meal and the roof over their head. It's pitiful that we must live in a world with orphans, and sick bed-ridden parents, and I would like just as much as anyone to be able to raise them from this poverty, but if we are threatening them with even greater poverty if we deny their communities child labour and their parent's sweatshops, as the wealth of their societies increases we will see less and less of them, but legislating them out of existence will only exacerbate poverty and cause more misery. By deny them the opportunity of work, we deny them self-improvement.

[Esternial]

If your goal was to disgust me by behaving like a child then yes I'd say I am defeated. In any other sense given that I'm not leaving the thread and have neither changed nor found fault in any of my positions. I'm familiar with this conversation. It goes a little something like

Person 1: (Rolls in own filth)
Person 2: That's really not necessary to the discussion.
Person 1: U MAD

Suddenly, srs bsns. This is an online debate on economics, in which none of us are experts. Why are we taking things so seriously?

EDIT: Also, I don't roll in my own filth, I roll in other people's, if at all possible.

Well, I can only speak for myself, but I'm definitely not taking this seriously.

[Dainer]

You are rich in the United States and doesn't want to be anymore because taxes are unfair?

I present the solution: trade places with me! I'll be happy to oblige!

[Esternial]

You are rich in the United States and doesn't want to be anymore because taxes are unfair?

I present the solution: trade places with me! I'll be happy to oblige!

We should set up an exchange program!

I'll call it a 'bank'.

[Frisivisia]

Whoah.

Wow

People actually read stuff like that and think "yeah that's a great idea, I gotta get me some of that"?

I think the lulziest thing about libertarians is that if you throw some reductio argument at them about children labouring in factories and mines they are lik "yeah! That should be a thing! Serves the nippers right for not having parents rich enough to send them to our non-state funded school system in our libertarian paradise. Geet yer down the mine, timmy!"

Yes. I do think it's a good idea.

Anyways, again you're misrepresenting the intention.

We aren't gleefully hoping for a return to child labour and quite happy to kick little Timmy into a mine-shaft.

Libertarians will defend child labour, in certain circumstances. Namely in third world nations, places where children seek employment because the alternative is starvation.

I'd greatly like a world where every child can be cared for by their parents and spend their days learning and playing. It's not universally true.

For children who are suffering or have fallen through the cracks, child labour offers opportunity, many of our own grandparents here in the West worked as young as 10 to supplement their parents income and they learned important skills which benefitted them for the rest of their lives.

For many third world children, an education simply has to be less important than their next meal and the roof over their head. It's pitiful that we must live in a world with orphans, and sick bed-ridden parents, and I would like just as much as anyone to be able to raise them from this poverty, but if we are threatening them with even greater poverty if we deny their communities child labour and their parent's sweatshops, as the wealth of their societies increases we will see less and less of them, but legislating them out of existence will only exacerbate poverty and cause more misery. By deny them the opportunity of work, we deny them self-improvement.

Exploitation does not help the third world, it is its prison.

[Esternial]

Yes. I do think it's a good idea.

Anyways, again you're misrepresenting the intention.

We aren't gleefully hoping for a return to child labour and quite happy to kick little Timmy into a mine-shaft.

Libertarians will defend child labour, in certain circumstances. Namely in third world nations, places where children seek employment because the alternative is starvation.

I'd greatly like a world where every child can be cared for by their parents and spend their days learning and playing. It's not universally true.

For children who are suffering or have fallen through the cracks, child labour offers opportunity, many of our own grandparents here in the West worked as young as 10 to supplement their parents income and they learned important skills which benefitted them for the rest of their lives.

For many third world children, an education simply has to be less important than their next meal and the roof over their head. It's pitiful that we must live in a world with orphans, and sick bed-ridden parents, and I would like just as much as anyone to be able to raise them from this poverty, but if we are threatening them with even greater poverty if we deny their communities child labour and their parent's sweatshops, as the wealth of their societies increases we will see less and less of them, but legislating them out of existence will only exacerbate poverty and cause more misery. By deny them the opportunity of work, we deny them self-improvement.

Exploitation does not help the third world, it is its prison.

I actually hope he isn't being serious.

I abhor the notion of anyone being so distant from reality.

[Des-Bal]

If your goal was to disgust me by behaving like a child then yes I'd say I am defeated. In any other sense given that I'm not leaving the thread and have neither changed nor found fault in any of my positions. I'm familiar with this conversation. It goes a little something like

Person 1: (Rolls in own filth)
Person 2: That's really not necessary to the discussion.
Person 1: U MAD

Suddenly, srs bsns. This is an online debate on economics, in which none of us are experts. Why are we taking things so seriously?

EDIT: Also, I don't roll in my own filth, I roll in other people's, if at all possible.

This is a discussion board, I personally enjoy hearing other peoples opinions, presenting my own, and then figuring out how people of different viewpoints reach their own conclusions. I wouldn't be surprised if I was alone in that regard and I'm not really the all business type but I prefer it when the level of professionalism remains just slightly above racist twelve year olds shrieking at homophobic twelve year olds on Xbox Live.

[Frisivisia]

Exploitation does not help the third world, it is its prison.

I actually hope he isn't being serious.

I abhor the notion of anyone being so distant from reality.

Child Labor: Not That Bad

On bookshelves TODAY!

[Frisivisia]

Suddenly, srs bsns. This is an online debate on economics, in which none of us are experts. Why are we taking things so seriously?

EDIT: Also, I don't roll in my own filth, I roll in other people's, if at all possible.

This is a discussion board, I personally enjoy hearing other peoples opinions, presenting my own, and then figuring out how people of different viewpoints reach their own conclusions. I wouldn't be surprised if I was alone in that regard and I'm not really the all business type but I prefer it when the level of professionalism remains just slightly above racist twelve year olds shrieking at homophobic twelve year olds on Xbox Live.

You would describe me as a racist, homophobic twelve-year-old shrieking on XBox live? Silly Des, I game on the PC.

[Esternial]

I actually hope he isn't being serious.

I abhor the notion of anyone being so distant from reality.

Child Labor: Not That Bad

On bookshelves TODAY!

In other news: Belgian college student committed suicide by drowning himself in alcohol.

[The Merchant Republics]

An advanced system might even have up-to-the-minute bidding. Like a coin-operated pedestrian button.

oh my god

what about the double-deck tunnel roads?

Sounds commercially unfeasible. Tunnels are expensive. However, I could certainly see that for high density areas. Perhaps with the lower levels being relegated to industrial and high-volume traffic (like buses or rail) while pedestrians and personal traffic could drive on the surface.

The notion already exists in many major American cities. Chicago for instance, but without the profit motive. Charging premiums for the surface road would minimize traffic congestion and with effect dispersal methods even decrease smog and create a more pleasant city-living experience.

Of course, that's how I like to design my weird futuristic cities. So take that with a grain of futurism fan-boy concept artist salt.

But double-deck tunnels connecting suburbs? Doubtful and rightly absurd.

Future Note: if the idea sounds wildly inefficient and unnecessarily complex, you're probably imaging something that wouldn't actually happen for just that reason, so discount it. If it just sounds like tideously monetarizing things without really making things inefficient, you're closer to a real libertarian solution.

[Yes Im Biop]

Do you use state infrastructure?

Irrelevant. Use of anything is not indicative of support.

Don't use Gas, Don't use power, water, road's, food, ammo, T.V. Public transportation, and the Cell phone and land lines. Because Tax's pay to keep most of those Safe and running properly.