Who will clean the streets?

[apathy maybe]

I am living in the south of Sweden just now and the last couple of days it has snowed pretty heavily (about 30cm or so). Despite this, the streets are mostly clean of snow, and the footpaths and bike trails are as well. Not only this, small stones are spread about to help create friction and snow is carted out of the city when it accumulates too much.

So a question to the capitalists (especially the "libertarians" and "anarcho-capitalists" if there are any) is, who will keep the streets clean? Who will make sure the roads are passable?

Assuming your 'perfect' society.


To the other capitalists, you are also welcome to answer, do you think private companies should do this? The local council? The local council paying a private company? What do you think?

[colonelguppy]

libitarians, lol.

i don't know roads are public domain so i guess the city would pay someone to do it. as for walk ways, there are always ample armies of children wanting to make 5 dollars who are good at shoveling sidewalks.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 05:59 pm
i don't know roads are public domain so i guess the city would pay someone to do it. as for walk ways, there are always ample armies of children wanting to make 5 dollars who are good at shoveling sidewalks.
Haha, what a bunch of random nonsense.

Kids? you serious? My sidewalk / driveway, maybe, but the streets?

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Dean+February 23, 2007 02:47 pm--> (Dean @ February 23, 2007 02:47 pm)
[email protected] 23, 2007 05:59 pm
i don't know roads are public domain so i guess the city would pay someone to do it. as for walk ways, there are always ample armies of children wanting to make 5 dollars who are good at shoveling sidewalks.
Haha, what a bunch of random nonsense.

Kids? you serious? My sidewalk / driveway, maybe, but the streets? [/b]
"as for" is generally considered to be a transition.

[Demogorgon]

Yeah, this is a serious problem for the anarcho capitalists and their ilk. How to supply public goods. The market simply isn't going to do it.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 04:34 pm
Yeah, this is a serious problem for the anarcho capitalists and their ilk. How to supply public goods. The market simply isn't going to do it.
yeah, i believe when it's prudential to do so, the government should step in and provide.

[Dean]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+February 23, 2007 09:31 pm--> (colonelguppy @ February 23, 2007 09:31 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 02:47 pm

[email protected] 23, 2007 05:59 pm
i don't know roads are public domain so i guess the city would pay someone to do it. as for walk ways, there are always ample armies of children wanting to make 5 dollars who are good at shoveling sidewalks.
Haha, what a bunch of random nonsense.

Kids? you serious? My sidewalk / driveway, maybe, but the streets?
"as for" is generally considered to be a transition. [/b]
yeah, but even only considering walkways, that's a lot of random, public property to consider.

[Ol' Dirty]

Simple.

The money would clean the streets up themselves, as they are more important than people.

EAsy fix. Cost effective, too.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Dean+February 23, 2007 06:21 pm--> (Dean @ February 23, 2007 06:21 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 09:31 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 02:47 pm

[email protected] 23, 2007 05:59 pm
i don't know roads are public domain so i guess the city would pay someone to do it. as for walk ways, there are always ample armies of children wanting to make 5 dollars who are good at shoveling sidewalks.
Haha, what a bunch of random nonsense.

Kids? you serious? My sidewalk / driveway, maybe, but the streets?
"as for" is generally considered to be a transition.
yeah, but even only considering walkways, that's a lot of random, public property to consider. [/b]
oh i was thinking more along the lines of peoples drive ways and sidewalks. yeah i guess that would be the same people who do the roads.

[exwhyzed]

Those who own the roads would have incentive to keep them clean. Do you see why?

[Publius]

Those who own the roads would have incentive to keep them clean. Do you see why?

Because if they didn't, people could teleport their automobiles to clean roads which would then, in turn, run them out of business unless they volunteered to clean their own roads off?

Wait...

[Enragé]

err yah i have to agree with the cappies here

there's no problem

the roads will have to be kept clean for the market to function, that means that there is a market for road cleaning, so some company will spring up to do it. Failing that, existing businesses can always band together and make sure the roads get cleaned.

the only problem would be if cleaning a road isnt cost effective, i.e the road is useless in the eyes of the capitalists or the costs of maintaining it are larger than the profit to be gained when they are kept in working order. Then it will just rot away.

[Idola Mentis]

In Oslo, the property owners are responsible for keeping the sidewalks clear of snow, while the city does the streets. Streets are kept clear, the sidewalks are deadly. Reason? Property owners are liable if someone falls and gets injured, crippled or killed - which happens. But the savings on letting the sidewalks grow shut is big enough to make the gamble worthwile.

Some tasks, like keeping the nuts and bolts of a city running, needs some sort of central coordination. I don't really care who does it, as long as they do it competently, and all those affected by its work has a say in its running. Of course, those factors influence pretty much everything about how communal are provided. But I'm no civic engineer, so those are the only two demands I feel qualified to make. To some degree, Norwegian communes already work that way, though they tend to get involved in some places they have no business being, while neglecting others where they should be.

But more and more of their work is being sourced out to private contractors, who can do whatever the hell they like as long as the cash balances out, or just discontinued. Result? Utter fucking chaos, slowly and inexorably creeping up and wearing out everyone who has to deal directly with this shit. The job the health services is doing to keep everything running *and* hold the bullshit bureucracy mills fed is nothing short of heroic. But the wear is showing in their health records. Something is going to give sooner or later.

[Publius]

err yah i have to agree with the cappies here

No you don't.

I'm more capitalistic than you are and I still can see that this is bullshit.

Note: I'm working under the assumption that this is anarcho-capitalist society, which should give us a purer idea of how 'capitalism' would handle the problem.



there's no problem

the roads will have to be kept clean for the market to function, that means that there is a market for road cleaning, so some company will spring up to do it.

Nonsense.

Just because something needs to be or should be done doesn't mean it ever will be, especially in a capitalist society. A market requires both a buyer and seller. Someone with a big truck and a blade might very well be willing to clear snow, but he probably isn't willing to do it for charity. So people pay him, say to clear their drive or their parking lot. Alright. But what about major highways? Well, normally a state would do it, but there is no state, we're talking capitalism not socialism. So who's going to pay? Not me, I'll wait for you do it. And not you, because you'll wait for me to do it.

Say a big four-lane highway, a major artery to a city, needs cleared, continuously, during big blizzard. Who pays for that?

Now you could bring up that the roads too will be privately owned, as they doubtlessly would be in a true capitalist society, but that doesn't solve the problem either. It seems to, it gives you both a potential buyer and a potential seller for the cleaning service, but it doesn't actually fix the main problem: incentives. The owner of the road has no incentive to diligently clean the roads because he necessarily holds a monopoly on that particular route. Your driveway, for instance, most likely is conjoined to one and only one road. You can't exactly use his competitors roads, now can you? Now what incentive does this person have to clean the road for you? What will you do if he doesn't? Boycott his road? Not bloody likely. Protest? To whom? Drive on it anyway? Yep. You'll be compelled to. Obliged to.

Now it's possible that the companies that own the roads might clear them, as a service. But they certainly don't need to. They could certainly get away with not doing it with little or no loss to profit.



Failing that, existing businesses can always band together and make sure the roads get cleaned.

I hope these 'existing businesses' are manufacturers of money printing machines, because that's the only way they'll turn a profit.



the only problem would be if cleaning a road isnt cost effective, i.e the road is useless in the eyes of the capitalists or the costs of maintaining it are larger than the profit to be gained when they are kept in working order. Then it will just rot away.

Now you're thinking.

Will it cost more money to clean the roads than it will to not? Of course. Now let's look at profits. People cannot avoid driving for long. They have to do it. You're a monopoly. If they want food, they drive. If they have a job, they drive. You build it, they WILL come. So how can you lose money? You can't.

The entire concept of privately owned roads in today's society is completely ridiculous.

[Enragé]

not the point
the point is that if the roads are left blocked by snow no company in the entire area will be able to make a profit.
Therefore they will pay someone to clean it for them, or do it themselves.

[Publius]

not the point

The point.



the point is that if the roads are left blocked by snow no company in the entire area will be able to make a profit.

So?

Say I'm road company owner A. I own roads. I don't paper factories, grocery stores, or what have, so I don't give a shit if they go out of business. I don't care about he 'area' profit, I care about mine.



Therefore they will pay someone to clean it for them, or do it themselves.

But of those things cost money, which put the person who does it at a competitive disadvantage, which puts their competitors at a competitive advantage, meaning the companies that altruistically clean the roads will go out of business.

Let me save you some trouble: my logic is impeccable in this situation.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 04:52 pm
So?

Say I'm road company owner A. I own roads. I don't paper factories, grocery stores, or what have, so I don't give a shit if they go out of business. I don't care about he 'area' profit, I care about mine.
no one's going to pay for your services if they're worthless. that's your area of profit.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Say I'm road company owner A. I own roads.
How do you make a profit?

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 10:56 pm



no one's going to pay for your services if they're worthless. that's your area of profit.

If I own the roads, they don't get a say in the matter.

[chimx]

So?

Say I'm road company owner A. I own roads. I don't paper factories, grocery stores, or what have, so I don't give a shit if they go out of business. I don't care about he 'area' profit, I care about mine.

Well if you don't care, then perhaps you are a bad capitalist. Most people drive from place to place out of necessity of getting to some place, not just for pleasure driving. You need to ensure that your customers have a destination to drive to.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 11:03 pm



How do you make a profit?

I charge people for using the roads that I own.

[Publius]

Well if you don't care, then perhaps you are a bad capitalist.

We here on Rev Left not in top form tonight, are we?

'Good capitalists' don't give a shit about of companies that aren't theirs.


Most people drive from place to place out of necessity of getting to some place, not just for pleasure driving. You need to ensure that your customers have a destination to drive to.

No I don't.

Unless they feel like staying on their property for the entirety of their adult lives, they don't have a choice in the matter, do they?

Think, for a second, of the difficulty of doing anything without using the roads, directly or indirectly, the roads which I own.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Publius+March 02, 2007 08:00 pm--> (Publius @ March 02, 2007 08:00 pm)
[email protected] 02, 2007 10:56 pm



no one's going to pay for your services if they're worthless. that's your area of profit.

If I own the roads, they don't get a say in the matter. [/b]
you're not going to make any money that way. enless you don't care, in which case someone would probably buy you out who did.

[Demogorgon]

Have I stepped into the twilight zone here? How come the only person with the anti-capitalist position (and indeed the correct one) is a restricted member?

[Guerrilla22]

Libertarian response:

If you just leave the roads alone and out of the government's control the roads will clear themselves.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 23, 2007 04:46 pm
I am living in the south of Sweden just now and the last couple of days it has snowed pretty heavily (about 30cm or so). Despite this, the streets are mostly clean of snow, and the footpaths and bike trails are as well. Not only this, small stones are spread about to help create friction and snow is carted out of the city when it accumulates too much.

So a question to the capitalists (especially the "libertarians" and "anarcho-capitalists" if there are any) is, who will keep the streets clean? Who will make sure the roads are passable?

Assuming your 'perfect' society.


To the other capitalists, you are also welcome to answer, do you think private companies should do this? The local council? The local council paying a private company? What do you think?
In a society where we have the technology to put men on the moon and annilhate entire cities with a single bomb, I dont understand why we can't build robots to clean the streets.
The thing about capitalism which amazes me and depresses me at the same time more than anything is the misappropriation of techology.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Originally posted by Publius

I charge people for using the roads that I own.
But if your roads are snowed under, nobody is going to use them.

[Fawkes]

Originally posted by RedStar1916+March 03, 2007 01:45 pm--> (RedStar1916 @ March 03, 2007 01:45 pm)
Publius

I charge people for using the roads that I own.
But if your roads are snowed under, nobody is going to use them. [/b]
He will have money from when they were not snowed under and people payed to use them. (Disclaimer: I'm not supporting this capitalist pig in any way).

Though I think obviously technology is the best answer to who would clean the streets, if the streets are left dirty, they will be cleaned by the citizens.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by RedStar1916+March 03, 2007 06:45 pm--> (RedStar1916 @ March 03, 2007 06:45 pm)
Publius

I charge people for using the roads that I own.
But if your roads are snowed under, nobody is going to use them. [/b]
What are they going to do? Fly?

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+March 03, 2007 02:31 pm--> (Demogorgon @ March 03, 2007 02:31 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 06:45 pm

Publius

I charge people for using the roads that I own.
But if your roads are snowed under, nobody is going to use them.
What are they going to do? Fly? [/b]
thats not the issue. the point is that if the roads are covered in snow, the person who owns it won't make any money (or less money atleast). that's why they will keep it clean.

[Fawkes]

But, if the roads stay covered in snow, people are obviously going to clear them themselves.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+March 03, 2007 08:05 pm--> (colonelguppy @ March 03, 2007 08:05 pm)
Originally posted by Demogorgon+March 03, 2007 02:31 pm--> (Demogorgon @ March 03, 2007 02:31 pm)
[email protected]rch 03, 2007 06:45 pm

Publius

I charge people for using the roads that I own.
But if your roads are snowed under, nobody is going to use them.
What are they going to do? Fly? [/b]
thats not the issue. the point is that if the roads are covered in snow, the person who owns it won't make any money (or less money atleast). that's why they will keep it clean. [/b]
Not if keeping it clean costs more than they get from people paying to use the road. Which is a distinct possibility.

[Publius]

But, if the roads stay covered in snow, people are obviously going to clear them themselves.

And so we have our answer.

"Who cleans the streets in a capitalist society? The people do it themselves because none else will."

Rather communistic, innit?

I think this is indicative of the type of phenomena that a true capitalist society would engender.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Not if keeping it clean costs more than they get from people paying to use the road. Which is a distinct possibility.
I don't get you. Surely the owner of a road makes more from people using his roads than the average worker does from driving to work? Well then if clearing the roads is going to cost him too much, it's sure as hell going to cost the average worker too much.

Unless of course the average worker actually makes more than the owner of the road (which is ridiculously unlikely), in which case the road owner is going to have no choice but to clear the roads in order to sustain an income once again. It may be more costly in the short run, but there would be no other option because, if the workers using the road make more than the owner of the road, then the inverse of Fawkes' explanation is true.

Originally posted by Fawkes

He will have money from when they were not snowed under and people payed to use them. (Disclaimer: I'm not supporting this capitalist pig in any way).


Though I really can't see the latter option being very likely in a capitalist society anyway.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

I think that civic sanitation should be a community obligation shared by all able members, who would take it in turn to clean up.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 11:30 pm
I think that civic sanitation should be a community obligation shared by all able members, who would take it in turn to clean up.
Agreed. Though I don't think that would be implementable in capitalism, and I'd say by the time we reach Communism or even Socialism we would have sufficient technology to automate most of the sanitation sector anyway.

[Question everything]

They'll hire poor people to lay down on top of the snow so that they could simply walk over the snow :lol: .

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 11:27 pm
I don't get you. Surely the owner of a road makes more from people using his roads than the average worker does from driving to work? Well then if clearing the roads is going to cost him too much, it's sure as hell going to cost the average worker too much.

Unless of course the average worker actually makes more than the owner of the road (which is ridiculously unlikely), in which case the road owner is going to have no choice but to clear the roads in order to sustain an income once again. It may be more costly in the short run, but there would be no other option because, if the workers using the road make more than the owner of the road, then the inverse of Fawkes' explanation is true.

No, it is distinctly possible that the cost of keeping a road clear in bd weather will be greater than the money to be made from charging people to use the road.

Capitalists don't do anything for the good of the community. If it costs too much to keep a road clear they will happily watch people slip and slide.

I don't get people on this board sometimes I really don't. One of the best arguments against capitalism that there is (the provision of public goods) comes up and suddenly you are defending it?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

No, it is distinctly possible that the cost of keeping a road clear in bd weather will be greater than the money to be made from charging people to use the road.
So? What's he going to do? Wait for those who actually use the roads to clear them? Chances are though that those who use the roads are going to be in even less of a position to clear the roads as the owner of the roads, so that's not going to happen. So what then? Just sit there and do nothing? Well then the road owner's income ceases to exist, and then he's really fucked. No, he's going to have to clear them himself, incur short-term expenditures to ensure long-term profit.



Capitalists don't do anything for the good of the community. If it costs too much to keep a road clear they will happily watch people slip and slide.
I'm not talking about a bit of frost here and there, I'm talking about heavy snow that renders the roads unusable.



I don't get people on this board sometimes I really don't. One of the best arguments against capitalism that there is (the provision of public goods) comes up and suddenly you are defending it?
I'm just arguing what I see as the correct theory, there is nothing reactionary or anti-communist about that. Also, I don't see my argument as being pro-capitalist; I'm simply asserting that it is in a person's best interest to validate their labour. Or something. It's 2 in the morning, so yeah.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+March 03, 2007 05:26 pm--> (Demogorgon @ March 03, 2007 05:26 pm)
Originally posted by colonelguppy+March 03, 2007 08:05 pm--> (colonelguppy @ March 03, 2007 08:05 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 02:31 pm

[email protected] 03, 2007 06:45 pm

Publius

I charge people for using the roads that I own.
But if your roads are snowed under, nobody is going to use them.
What are they going to do? Fly?
thats not the issue. the point is that if the roads are covered in snow, the person who owns it won't make any money (or less money atleast). that's why they will keep it clean. [/b]
Not if keeping it clean costs more than they get from people paying to use the road. Which is a distinct possibility. [/b]
then it seems like not alot of poeple would be using those roads, in which case their isn't that large of a problem.

that being said, i don't suppor thte privatization of roads. i think they need to be in public hands for proper execution of the law.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 01:51 am

So? What's he going to do? Wait for those who actually use the roads to clear them? Chances are though that those who use the roads are going to be in even less of a position to clear the roads as the owner of the roads, so that's not going to happen. So what then? Just sit there and do nothing? Well then the road owner's income ceases to exist, and then he's really fucked. No, he's going to have to clear them himself, incur short-term expenditures to ensure long-term profit.

The likelihood is that nobody will do it. If we are talking snow then the roads will probably be left unusuable until it melts.

You say the capitalists will want it clear so they can charge people to use the roads. But that as I say is only the case if clearing the roads is cheap enough.

Moving beyond this specific example. Things like this, it is generally accepted even by the most right wing of economists, simply can not be provided for by the market. If you want another example try street lighting. Who is going to pay for that?

[RNK]

If I could enjoy an equally comfortable life as everyone else, I would have absolutely no problems cleaning the streets. IMO it'd be good exercise, a good chance to get some air and have a nice stroll.

[chimx]

'Good capitalists' don't give a shit about of companies that aren't theirs.

Perhaps not actively, but certainly passively. They are directly reliant on the well-being of the economy, and the viability of local business. If nobody is driving because of extinct business, you will be the one that looses money. its pretty simple.

[Enragé]

But of those things cost money, which put the person who does it at a competitive disadvantage, which puts their competitors at a competitive advantage, meaning the companies that altruistically clean the roads will go out of business.

Let me save you some trouble: my logic is impeccable in this situation.

Which is why in an anarchocapitalist society companies will form cartels, eventually transforming themselves into a "government" which just isnt called the "government"

corporate rule, hurray.

there's nothing impecable about your logic
you're just a bit of an arrogant prick

[apathy maybe]

Publius has actually made my point for me, though it does seem as if certain members cannot see the point.

In an "anarch-capitalist" society, the roads won't be kept clean, unless the people who use them clean them.

Chimx: Your point about the profit of the road company depending on the economic health of the region is irrelevant. Companies don't care, they care more about short term profits. If the roads stop being profitable, they will sell them.


Publius: I am interested in how you would keep the roads clean in the current system. Would the local council have a road cleaning/clearing division, or would they hire a company to do it? The problem with hiring a company, is that you then get a monopoly in a region, as only one company can exist at a time in that region.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+March 03, 2007 12:40 pm--> (Demogorgon @ March 03, 2007 12:40 pm) Have I stepped into the twilight zone here? How come the only person with the anti-capitalist position (and indeed the correct one) is a restricted member? [/b]
Its embarrassing to see supposed communists argue about the altruism of capitalists. Then again, and regrettably enough, Publius has always been one of RevLeft's more intelligent posters.


NKOS
Which is why in an anarchocapitalist society companies will form cartels, eventually transforming themselves into a "government" which just isnt called the "government"Which only demonstrates the inherent flaws in anarcho-capitalist theory. Duh.

[Enragé]

Which only demonstrates the inherent flaws in anarcho-capitalist theory. Duh.

oh arent you the genius of the family

that was my point.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+March 05, 2007 08:40 am--> (ComradeOm @ March 05, 2007 08:40 am)
NKOS
Which is why in an anarchocapitalist society companies will form cartels, eventually transforming themselves into a "government" which just isnt called the "government"Which only demonstrates the inherent flaws in anarcho-capitalist theory. Duh. [/b]
anarchy in general would probably lead to a similiar situation. so i think we can all agree that anarchy is retarded.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+March 05, 2007 06:11 pm--> (colonelguppy @ March 05, 2007 06:11 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 08:40 am

NKOS
Which is why in an anarchocapitalist society companies will form cartels, eventually transforming themselves into a "government" which just isnt called the "government"Which only demonstrates the inherent flaws in anarcho-capitalist theory. Duh.
anarchy in general would probably lead to a similiar situation. so i think we can all agree that anarchy is retarded. [/b]
wrong.

Anarcho-capitalism is flawed because it leaves a source of hierarchy intact (the economical kind), as well as since its capitalism (i.e everyone wants to make as much money as possible for themselves, thats the incentive) big business will logically band together to make as much money as possible for themselves, thus leading to a government.

Actual anarchism (which is why anarcho-capitalism is not anarcho) destroys all forms of hierarchy, and thus capitalism

[Pilar]

Imagine a world where those who dirtied the streets were compelled to clean them immediately afterward.

How dirty do you believe they would become?

[pusher robot]

This problem would be solved the same way it is currently solved: when a settlement becomes large enough, the residents "incorporate", or form a municipal corporation, during the process of which the residents of the settlement cede a piece of the property rights in their land to the municipal corporation. This corporation, then, is able to charge the residents a fee for the residents' continued use of its interest in their property (a.k.a. "property taxes") and the money collected is used for the common benefit of the residents of the settlement, e.g., trash collection, snow clearing, education, and so forth. The residents remain the corporate stakeholders, so they have the power to elect its officers to ensure the corporation continues to serve their interests. Ultimately, the residents have the power to disband this municipal corporation as well.

Of course, some larger interstates, turnpikes, and bridges would be privately owned and their owners would have an incentive to keep them clear so as not to lose business to competing roadways.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 09, 2007 03:46 pm
This problem would be solved the same way it is currently solved: when a settlement becomes large enough, the residents "incorporate", or form a municipal corporation, during the process of which the residents of the settlement cede a piece of the property rights in their land to the municipal corporation. This corporation, then, is able to charge the residents a fee for the residents' continued use of its interest in their property (a.k.a. "property taxes") and the money collected is used for the common benefit of the residents of the settlement, e.g., trash collection, snow clearing, education, and so forth. The residents remain the corporate stakeholders, so they have the power to elect its officers to ensure the corporation continues to serve their interests. Ultimately, the residents have the power to disband this municipal corporation as well.

Of course, some larger interstates, turnpikes, and bridges would be privately owned and their owners would have an incentive to keep them clear so as not to lose business to competing roadways.
I had suspected that you were not a leftist, this pretty much seals it. However, while you are likely to be restricted (only able to post in this forum), please don't go away. It is always nice to have intelligent posters in OI.

If you have any other questions, you can start threads here, or do a search of the other forums for answers.


Onto your actual response, how would your propose that the residents disbanned corporation? The same way that citizens can currently disbanned a government or change the electoral system?

And do you envisage a large government, and if so, why would they not look after the bigger roads?

[pusher robot]

I had suspected that you were not a leftist, this pretty much seals it.

Quite right, and I will make no effort to conceal my opinions here. If it is your policy to restrict me, then so be it, and I apologize for violating your policy. My questions on the other board, though, were genuine. I try to base my opinions on facts and logic, and I legitimately did not understand your position, so I do appreciate your explanations - that's why I intentionally did not try to argue with anybody in that thread. I did not come here for argument per se, but for greater understanding.


Onto your actual response, how would your propose that the residents disbanned corporation?

The same way they do under the status quo - by majority vote of the stakeholders. It is already possible under the status quo for local municipal governments (which are municipal corporations) to vote for dissolution, although many states require (wrongly, IMO) that they receive permission from the state government to do so. Any other for-profit or non-profit corporation can also be dissolved the same way. Most people don't realize that municipal governments can be dissolved this way, but it's true. State and federal government is another matter, of course.



And do you envisage a large government, and if so, why would they not look after the bigger roads?

Personally I favor only a government as large as is absolutely necessary, for reasons pertaining to efficiency and liberty. In this case, it's entirely plausible to me that in fact we could not have a maintained, uniform interstate system without government intervention, in which case I'm not strongly opposed. But I think it's possible that private enterprise could have done at least as good a job. Perhaps private enterprise would have come up with a less expensive transportation solution that didn't rely on propelling a combustion engine down a ceaseless expanse of concrete and asphalt - who can say. I guess I'm wishy-washy on that because I don't have enough facts.

[Pilar]

pusher robot:

I'm very new here. I won't end up as restricted because of two reasons:

1) I support Socialsim

2) It is my opinion it will only be achieved forceably, because the forces of capital will not remove themselves from power, democratically (which would never happen) or otherwise.

I write to you not to brag about my point of view, which is nothing to brag about, but mention these things to you because what you wrote is also possible with in a socialist model.

You pretty much described the city/county relationship to the "Consolidated Tax Assessment" process used in California, and probably many other states, to raise revenues.

Well, just imagine it in the same way, but without money.

This might be my own opinion and not socialist philosophy, but to that constant question of "how will we clean the streets under socialism?": to me it's very simple. Who made them dirty?

Does anyone believe they were born with a "right" to make a mess and leave it. Where there is socialism there is also a political guard enforcing the will of the direct democracy community. If the community is one that allows automobile use in its area, it will create a method of insuring the roads are clean. People will maintain them. If no one wants to maintain them, there will probably be no automobile use in the community.

You don't need to send tax dollars to the Board of Equalization, then have them send funds for rulers to the Sante School District. People who are good at making rulers and enjoy doing so can make them.

Must cleaning the streets always involve a cappie solution?

[Bright Banana Beard]

In respond to this thread title, I would clean and so does my friends. There will still be organization on communist society. Or we can use a good thing to earn if u clean the street. I simply clean my street every week, and yes I also have my neighbor helping me.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 23, 2007 04:46 pm
I am living in the south of Sweden just now and the last couple of days it has snowed pretty heavily (about 30cm or so). Despite this, the streets are mostly clean of snow, and the footpaths and bike trails are as well. Not only this, small stones are spread about to help create friction and snow is carted out of the city when it accumulates too much.

So a question to the capitalists (especially the "libertarians" and "anarcho-capitalists" if there are any) is, who will keep the streets clean? Who will make sure the roads are passable?

Assuming your 'perfect' society.


To the other capitalists, you are also welcome to answer, do you think private companies should do this? The local council? The local council paying a private company? What do you think?
ALBA will clean mine :D
http://alba.ba/

[Jazzratt]

This is from months back, you're getting better but the discussion had run its course and you're just posting spam.