But Who Would Pave The Roads?!
Submitted by The Individual Right on Wed, 01/02/2013 - 12:32There seem to be a few "road socialists" out there.
Just because they grew up in a country where the state has kept a tight monopoly on transportation routes, they cannot even imagine what it would be like if road maintenance was taken care of by private groups.
The argument for socialized health-care is quite similar.
In fact, the same goes for education.
Some people cannot imagine how children would be educated if not payed for by taxes.
This is due to a lack of imagination, and lack of faith in free people, coming together to solve problems.
So what is the solution?
Either pay for socialized roads, or get thrown in a cage with the rapists!
This was part of the argument that was presented to me:
"If a person wants shoes, they have a huge selection of possibilities and even the choice to make their own or go barefoot. If a private company owned the route I take to work or the grocery store, I literally would have no other options than to pay or walk in the grass beside the road."
As of current, if you do not pay the state for licenses, registration, inspection, and the taxes that go towards roads, you cannot travel on them.
Nothing will change in a market-based road scenario.
The only thing that will be different is that we will have MANY different roads that will compete with each other.
This competition will bring roads down to a market-level cost.
That means roads would be cheaper in a market based system.
YOU ARE PAYING TOO MUCH RIGHT NOW.
And either way, you ARE paying for the roads.
So choose, do you want freer, cheaper roads, or restrictive, expensive roads that are populated by sharks that want to give you citations?
I made this point:
"Hell, if private companies can manage to put satellites into space, manage nation-wide cell phone networks, and build super-powered computers the size of a thin book, then do you think that people can manage to lay a measly strip of pavement down a country lane?"
To this, my opposition said:
"Again.. because your idea works in one area doesn't mean it will work for everything."
Are you supporting the concept of market failure?
Because that is one of the cornerstones of the argument for socialized state services.
You aren't on their side, are you?
So if anyone out there can present a consistent, cogent argument for the socialization of the roadways, I would love to hear it.
Any takers?
- Login to post comments
Voting with Tires
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_pole Very interesting. I don't think I had ever heard of it, or if I did, I don't remember. One was even errecting in 1945 for the Netherland liberation from the Nazis.
The Liberty Pole was even on 19th century American coinage!
Maybe the Daily Paul is a modern Liberty Pole as people meet to talk ... "When an ensign was raised (usually red) on a liberty pole, it would be a calling for the Sons of Liberty or townspeople to meet and vent or express their views regarding British rule"
---------------
You know, most all states have state income tax. Texas doesn't. Not everyone moves to Texas. Voting with one's feet can be a hardship as one uproots themselves and puts forth an expense to move to an unfamiliar place.
---------------
We went to Houston, Texas, for Christmas. When we were in a hurry we traveled the Beltway. It was a toll road. It would cost us $7.50 and multiple stops to get from point A to point B. Lots of newer, nicer cars traveled that road. When we were not in a hurry we traveled the 610 Loop. Older cars traveled that road. The reason I noticed was the new Texas license plate was not seen much on the 610 loop, but most of the cars on the Beltway had the new license plate because the cars were new. So we voted with our tires and traveled the 610 most of the time. I wonder, maybe all the people without money would end up voting with their feet and then where they went the roads would be crummy? Are roads a form of socialism? i.e., The pooling of money and spreading the wealth to all in the form of a cooperative?
-------------------------
“Some mistakes ought not be passed onto the children.”
Yes...
Romans 5:6 KJV
For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
...because some costs ought not be passed onto the children.
...
The Monopoly Power
"Mr. GEORGE MASON. Mr. Chairman, whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers that it is a national government, and no longer a Confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the general government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes does, of itself, entirely change the confederation of the states into one consolidated government. This power, being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of control, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly a confederation to a consolidated government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the state governments. Will the people of this great community submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harassed? These two concurrent powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other: the general government being paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than the state governments, the latter must give way to the former. Is it to be supposed that one national government will suit so extensive a country, embracing so many climates, and containing inhabitants so very different in manners, habits, and customs?"
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/vol3/...
That is a competitive way of answering this:
"You know, most all states have state income tax. Texas doesn't. Not everyone moves to Texas. Voting with one's feet can be a hardship as one uproots themselves and puts forth an expense to move to an unfamiliar place."
Just look at your feeble attempt to move from one State tax (small tax) to another State tax (smaller tax) compared to the National Tax Liabilities that include Fraudulent "Income Tax" as well as Fraudulent "Inflation".
If a State pays the Union Dues (voluntarily) to the Confederation, or Republic, or Democratic Federated Republic and that is the only way that the Federal Government is funded, NOT by Direct Taxation of the Nation State upon The People through a fraudulent Central Bank and a Fraudulent Internal Revenue "Service", then, the method of getting the loot, booty, stolen property, or whatever you want to call the process of "taxation" by a State upon a people is LOCAL to the State, and each State is then in competition with each other State for market share as each State Corporation (Legal Fiction) is offering the best bang for the buck.
If New Jersey was a miniature version of what is now The National Debt Clock (Real Time) and only payable as a "liability" by citizens of New Jersey and in New York all those citizens have to pay is New York State tax and both New Jersey and New York pay their Union Dues (voluntarily) into the Democratic Federate Republic, then where would you move to under those conditions?
Just add up all your Federal Taxes, including "inflation", and add all your State taxes to that total, and then confine that measure of Despotism (legal slavery) into ONLY the State of New Jersey and then subtract all your Federal Taxes from the taxes you pay in your own State and then tell me which is the more competitive place to live.
There is a reason why the rich save their POWER in precious metals and offshore bank accounts. They are voting with their wallets. If everyone was as intelligent, as smart, as savvy, as wise, as frugal, as inventive, as productive, as those rich people, then who is left to pay that National Debt?
No one.
This is not the land of the free and the home of the brave.
This is the land of the ignorant and the home of apathy.
"I wonder, maybe all the people without money would end up voting with their feet and then where they went the roads would be crummy?"
If the States agree to pay their Union Dues (voluntarily) to a Democratic Federated Republic in the form of Gold, Silver, and other acceptable commodities, then that is the way those States finance their mutual defense, and they get what they pay for, or they stop paying the Union dues.
That is how that is supposed to work. The voluntary force of competition forces the people running the Federal Government to provide the highest quality mutual defense or they lose customers (States).
That has nothing to do with how The People in any State invent, produce, and maintain any form of money they care to make, competitively, and therefore the concept of what IS happening now (Monopoly Money Fraud and Extortion Racket) compared to what can happen is not connected. You can't imagine what can be under the thumb of a Monopoly Money Fraud and Extortion Racket expecting to know how things would work without it.
It (Monopoly Money Fraud and Extortion Racket) is here, everywhere, in every wallet, in every bank account, in every cash register, in every retirement account, in every bond, in every stock, in every lemonaid stand, with few exceptions.
The exceptions aught to clue people in on what can be, and you have found a few exceptions already: The Gurnsey Note for example:
http://michaeljournal.org/guernsey.htm
How would road become roads without criminals taking them over?
How are roads done in Alaska?
Which roads?
There is a quote here:
http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~cheshire/EinsteinQuotes.html
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
I think that that can be applied to this concept of trying to imagine how Liberty can work while the FED/IRS/Misled Troops are currently occupying the "White House".
A Nation State (Legal Crime) IS what it is, and it is not what it is not, so three things are on the list:
1.
End The FED
2.
End the IRS
3.
Bring the Troops Home (not to enforce crimes made legal)
"Are roads a form of socialism? i.e., The pooling of money and spreading the wealth to all in the form of a cooperative?"
The only way to answer that question accurately is to remove the very controversial word (as if a word has any power all alone without all the power of lies backing it up) and placing the intended meaning in place of the word.
We went through this more than once.
Here is your question:
"Are roads a form of socialism? i.e., The pooling of money and spreading the wealth to all in the form of a cooperative?"
Here is the way to ask the question so as to get the accurate answer:
Are roads a form of pooling money from many individual producers into a fund where the money in the collected fund is then used to make a road where the road is then used by anyone, at anytime, so long as the users of the road pay the costs of their use of the road?
Now, you can see, if you look close enough, that I'm using the lessons taught by Josiah Warren, Stephen Pearl Andrews, and even Benjamin Tucker, to explain how things can work, if people want things to work voluntarily.
You can call it socialism, if you want, and you can call it capitalism, if you want, and you can call it Fried Chicken, if you want, and unless someone else agrees with calling it anything, then it is your exclusive word, such as equitablist.
Benjamin Franklin, as you have read, spelled things out well enough in the concept of finding people willing to pay for a new bridge to cross a river, and the concept was based upon economic efficiency, to utilize the available power to produce in a way that makes producing power much more efficient.
It isn't rocket science. It is very simple stuff, and there is no reason to reinvent the wheel, since the wheel is already round.
You can see already, I hope, and I even trust, since I know you better now than I did months ago, where there are a lot of supposed experts who claim to have the answers but when pressed to actually answer the questions they resort to deceit, they resort to personal attacks, etc.
Why?
You tell me.
The answers are easy, not difficult, and all that is needed is understanding (spiritual or otherwise).
Back to Al:
"Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding."
Romans 5:6 KJV
For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
Thanks once again bear!
Joe
Any additional cost above what the free market would dictate...
I would consider as an involuntary, additional cost.
Shall we dance to the soothing tunes of The Semantics?
LOL
Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.
No need to argue semantics...
Any additional cost above what the free market would require to create a product or service is necessarily an additional cost that would not otherwise be there except in cases where free market forces are interfered with (such as that involved in the construction and maintaining of roads by government).
Don't buy the gas and don't use the road.
There.. nobody made you.
Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.
What if I can't afford the "toll" of the gas tax?
This is equivalent to your "problem" with private means to handle the roads.
That works well on deadend roads.
.
Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.
Yes!
Privatize ranch roads too! Ranchers don't know how to build roads! /s
I ask not for divine providence or more riches, but more wisdom with which to accept & use wisely the riches I received at birth in the form of the power to control & direct my mind to what ever ends I desire. www.RevolutionCarBadges.com/daily-paul
The roads are paid for by gas tax
Construction and maintenece are handled at the state level by individual state highway departments. The federal gas tax funds are largely passed through a wasteful beauracracy, and then awarded to wasteful mass transit systems that can't fund themselves. Most states also siphon off a large portion of the gas tax to their general fund and waste it. In Missouri where the gas tax must go to the roads and the roads only much improvement has occurred in a short timeframe. Currently you pay about 40-60 cents per gallon (so take .50 per gallon) and the average car gets about 25 MPG so on average you pay a toll of .02 per mile. Heavier traffic gets lesser milage, and pays a greater "toll". If you don't drive then you pay no tax whatsoever for the roads. This system is actually about as close to a realistic libertarian principle as I can think of, and actually works quite well if the funds are not siphoned off to other wasteful parts of the budget.
Josh Brueggen
Engineer
Entrepreneur
Gardener
Jack of all Trades
Precinct Commiteeman Precinct 5 Rock Island Co Illinois
Of course the free market works best for everything.
It just doesn't always work on the tired old business models. Consider crowdfunding, project cooperation and a simple lottery. These are all alternative funding methods that can generate very large sums for a common cause.
Say I want a road near my house where there is none. Say also that there are 20 people which could take regular advantage of it and 200 people which could take occasional advantage of it. If we weight those in aggregate, we could come up with a number that each could pay. That's the old way of thinking since it would require amortizing the payment over the lifetime of the road (maintenance included). To accomplish this, some entity would need to get a loan, take a risk and then manage the repayment.
However, if such a small community coordinated a lottery for it, it could be funded from proceeds. Even if the project was broken into a number of phases and each held a separate lottery, it could become a local event. Pay $10 to get a ticket for a chance at winning half the cut. The other half would go to the project for that phase.
Same type deal with the other methods. In each case, the original coordinating entity, however that was structured, would retain ownership and be in sole control of how the finances were handled.
Now, for some extra-out-of-the-box thinking. What if the majority thought they wanted a road but one entrepreneur was willing to take a chance on some innovative new mass transit? Funded in any method, including the above, he could pitch his idea to the people and get direct feedback on style, features, location and price. I'm thinking that if this had a snowball's chance of competing with out current transportation monopoly, we'd have been riding around in Skytrans for the last decade!
View at 40% down the page at http://www.canosoarus.com/
Instead, the existing railroad industry has systematically killed this technology for now.
When power is no longer governed by enforced scarcity?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrQjMslFutc
Joe
We already have abundant energy
We just don't listen to the people who know it.
Oh and if you're suggesting that travel could be faster by trains in a tunnel, consider an even faster solution to your tunnel.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=li-an5VUrIA&feature=endscreen...
Perhaps there is a reason?
Is there a reason why there are two words for the same thing: Power and Energy? I used the word power, you used the word Energy. I chose my word carefully.
Joe
Is there a point to your comment?
You state they are the same thing and then seem to insinuate there is some difference. The only difference is that power is the use of energy over time. Like "gallons" and "gallons per minute", they refer to different actionable measurements of the same thing.
So, taking your last 5 words as key, one would assume you think power is available via a tunnel without considering how much energy is involved. Doing that, a tunnel sounds like a great idea but the total energy loss due to friction means it is no better than running a train around the surface of the Earth. Not only that, but the increase in speed caused by the tunnel effect means that much more loss will occur in a tunnel than on the surface meaning it will be much, much harder to get back to the surface than it was to simply avoid the tunnel. Hardly worth considering such a loss (increasing the energy needed) when it also requires so many unknowns in digging the tunnel as well.
So, back to my point. The total energy needed over time AND power needed at any one instant is increased by using a tunnel HOWEVER it would be a moot point either way if people stopped listening to a) media crowned energy experts and b) crackpot junk science snake oil salesmen. In short, there are genuine renewable solutions that don't attempt to defy the laws of physics, offer many benefits with no compromises and do it all for less money than we're spending today. Unfortunately, everyone everywhere seems to be siding with A or B above.
You shouldn't assume that others don't choose their words carefully.
Experiments in communication?
"You state they are the same thing and then seem to insinuate there is some difference. The only difference is that power is the use of energy over time. Like "gallons" and "gallons per minute", they refer to different actionable measurements of the same thing."
Following is a direct question from me to you:
Why did your response to my question about power being made scarce include the word energy instead of power?
As in:
"When power is no longer governed by enforced scarcity?"
That was my question about power governed by enforced scarcity.
Power
Your reply was:
"We already have abundant energy"
If I see a problem in communicating I can ask specific questions concerning the reason why you respond to the word power by using the word energy instead, and that it what I did when I wrote this:
Perhaps there is a reason?
Is there a reason why you use the word energy in response to my use of the word power (explained in greater detail above)?
That is now a direct question from me to you.
"You state they are the same thing and then seem to insinuate there is some difference."
If you think I "seem to insinuate" something, as you appear to be doing above, then you can cut out the middle man and simply ask me, or continue whatever it is you are doing with this fictitious person that may "seem to insinuate" or not, which makes no sense to me when I am right here and fully capable of answering any direct question you may have that is directed at me.
Example:
"Is there a point to your comment?"
Which comment?
If you want to know why I questioned you on why you responded to my question about power being forced into scarcity as you then responded with words having to do with energy abundance, then the point of that comment of mine was to find out from you why you used the word energy in response to my use of the word power.
As in:
"Is there a reason why there are two words for the same thing: Power and Energy? I used the word power, you used the word Energy. I chose my word carefully."
Reading on:
"So, taking your last 5 words as key, one would assume you think power is available via a tunnel without considering how much energy is involved."
Why assume anything?
I have considered a lot when I consider things, and the things I consider is not likely to be communicated accurately by 5 words that you assume to mean what you assume those words to mean.
"Doing that, a tunnel sounds like a great idea but the total energy loss due to friction means it is no better than running a train around the surface of the Earth. Not only that, but the increase in speed caused by the tunnel effect means that much more loss will occur in a tunnel than on the surface meaning it will be much, much harder to get back to the surface than it was to simply avoid the tunnel. Hardly worth considering such a loss (increasing the energy needed) when it also requires so many unknowns in digging the tunnel as well."
I did not intend to champion a Gravity Train, nor do I intend to refute any idea worked out by anyone to any degree of detail from the totally absurd to the most accurate fine tolerance of precise detail of every conceivable factor of political economy.
If you say so...
You say so...
Your saying so has nothing to do with me, or that which anyone else has done with the concept of a Gravity Train. Your words are, in my opinion, a hit piece.
A hit piece, so as to remove any false assumptions, from my viewpoint, is a invention of an experimental communication produced with the goal of discrediting a target.
You invented the hit piece.
You produced the hit piece.
Your target is a Gravity Train concept.
How well did your hit piece work at discrediting a Gravity Train idea?
I can say that in my case your hit piece has the opposite affect if I am right about your hit piece being a hit piece, since my own thoughts on a Gravity Train remain valid, not discredited in the least, and if anything your words offer an avenue of study that could be added to any study in any endeavor to invent, produce, and then employ a Gravity Train.
An old saying goes like this: If you know you can't do something, you are right.
I call that a closed loop. I can explain (with words that intend to be experiments in communication) what I mean by a closed loop, but so far the concept of being able to communicate with you is rapidly reaching the Law of Diminishing Returns.
I can explain what I mean by that too.
I say power. You say energy. We appear to be incapable of speaking the same language. I prefer not to assume anything, so a use quotes, and then I ask direct questions. You make up things that you think I think and then you invent hit pieces to discredit ideas that I intend to share, discuss, or evaluate (as far as I can tell).
Did you invent, produce, and then employ a hit piece (so named) on the Gravity Train concept or not?
This:
"Doing that, a tunnel sounds like a great idea but the total energy loss due to friction means it is no better than running a train around the surface of the Earth. Not only that, but the increase in speed caused by the tunnel effect means that much more loss will occur in a tunnel than on the surface meaning it will be much, much harder to get back to the surface than it was to simply avoid the tunnel. Hardly worth considering such a loss (increasing the energy needed) when it also requires so many unknowns in digging the tunnel as well."
1 at a time?
"the total energy loss due to friction means it is no better than running a train around the surface of the Earth"
1. Loss due to friction traveling perpendicular to the gravity vector includes greater fiction as a function of leverage and there is no additional power available to accelerate the train on a downward angle relative to the gravity vector.
Your hit piece appears to me to be a hit piece. I can be wrong. Your hit piece in item 1 is measurably false. Your hit piece is measurably false. I repeated the same sentence for effect.
Your hit piece on the Gravity Train concept if measurably false.
Item 2:
"Not only that, but the increase in speed caused by the tunnel effect means that much more loss will occur in a tunnel than on the surface meaning it will be much, much harder to get back to the surface than it was to simply avoid the tunnel."
Please explain the tunnel effect.
A Gravity Train concept that includes a tunnel where much of the air is removed from the tunnel (not the living quarters in cases of non-freight trains) is an obvious reduction is friction and compared to removing air resistance on the surface, the removal of air resistance in a tunnel is reasonable rather than unreasonable (without building a tunnel on the surface).
I don't know what is, or is not, tunnel effect, so your experiment in communication, or your hit piece, whatever it is, is valuable to me in this foreign concept (to me) of tunnel effect. I can look it up, but I'd prefer to know your version of it before finding any other versions (in English) of tunnel effect (or math).
"Hardly worth considering such a loss (increasing the energy needed) when it also requires so many unknowns in digging the tunnel as well."
I've spent most of my working life in construction and in particular I dug up earth to get sand and rocks processed for sale. I think that there are things to be employed productively during any digging up of the earth for any reason. For the reason of ending up with an efficient means of transportation the concept of reaching the goal of a Gravity Train could include the concept of utilizing any things removed from the tunnel during excavation, such as sand, rocks, for concrete, water, oil, precious metals, heat, and it may be a good idea to repeat the concept of how steep or shallow the tunnel has to be in order to employ the force (power to accelerate) of gravity.
The tunnel can be dug shallow in cases where the distance is short and the tunnel still works as a function of employing the force of gravity that can be used as a way to power the train from a standing start and then accelerated with that gravitational force.
Now there are three words that can be almost interchangeable (depending upon the specific effort to communicate) as such:
Energy
Power
Force
I don't claim to know everything so I typically ask when someone changes from my selection of the word power into any other word, such as changing my use of the word power into the use of the word energy.
43 minutes is the time it takes for gravity to accelerate mass from one point on earth to another point on earth regardless of the distance traveled. The links I linked showed the example of a tunnel going through the earth, which is the greatest possible distance, which is the diameter of the earth, which is also parallel with the gravity vector. That is illustrating the math or geometry of that vector and distance and time as 43 minutes of time, without loss due to friction, such as air resistance, or whatever is Tunnel Effect, but that is not, as far as I know, intending to be a proposal to drill through the Earth.
New York to Philadelphia in a straight line would take the same 43 minutes in a straight line. How deep would the tunnel be at that angle? I don't know. I'm not championing the idea, and I am not shooting it down either.
"So, back to my point."
After the hit piece, the discussion goes back to your point?
"You shouldn't assume that others don't choose their words carefully."
I asked for you to explain why you replied to my question where I use the word power, and then you used the word energy.
Why did you do that?
If I report to you that I choose my words carefully then I mean that I choose my words carefully.
"You shouldn't assume that others don't choose their words carefully."
Why do you offer that advice to me at this time?
Who is assuming anything?
Joe
Ok, here's some advice for free - take it or leave it
DON'T REPLY ABOUT MY INTENTIONS IN GIVING IT.
It's often helpful to read another's words in the context of what they wrote them in. This shortens the length and monotony of the conversation, making it more engaging and fruitful for all. Even though the overall accuracy may be increased a small amount, harping on differences occurring from context only comes off like nitpicking.
"When power is no longer governed by scarcity?"
To me, that means that the power to operate things is somehow (either by physics or by government/elite control) limited and thusly labeled by you as scarce. If I am incorrect in this interpretation of your words, please stop reading here.
In the context of your sentence, I interpreted it to mean that your ultimate goal was to operate those things (as it always is whether people realize it or not) and not to worry about what term is used for the substance needed to operate them.
Therefore, to operate them, one needs power. However, before one can obtain power (the use of energy over time - which is NOT a problem for our society today), one must have abundant enough supplies of energy resources from which to create said power. You see, saying your car gets 50 miles per gallon so you can drive to work means nothing unless you have also identified how many gallons you have in the tank. If you don't have enough gas, the end goal cannot be reached.
The corollary, which I was eluding to in my original reply, would be to not care if you get 50 mpg or 5 mpg because there are ways to make abundant gas on your trip. (an analogy, not a specific example) In other words, I took your inexact question to the logical root problem and then provided a solution.
I, perhaps errantly, assumed that you would understand this and realize that I was saying, in essence, the energy, force, work and power can all be abundant if my instructions were followed. Instead, you chose to jump on the fact that I used a different word. This is frustrating in much the same way as arguing with a 4 year old on who said what to start a fight.
In a scientific discussion with technical details, accuracy is a necessity but in a casual conversation, many conversational shortcuts are taken to facilitate interest in place of boredom. It is this reason that I did take minimal offense to you saying that you chose your words carefully. By you saying that, you are telling me that I am trying to change the question, which I was not. I was clarifying it to a root issue (for MY accuracy's sake) without actually mentioning that you had used the wrong term.
So, hopefully that will show you that I was not fostering a hit piece.
Regarding the 'tunnel effect'. That, again, was a case of brevity that you misunderstood. I had explained that friction (and thus wasted power) would be increased. When I referenced it later, I was still in the same context of that topic so I simply put an arbitrary label on that explanation. This is a common practice in casual and even non-critical scientific conversations. It is also common practice to confront someone on correcting words as accusing them of misunderstanding the original statement. This is seen a argumentative sarcasm and is viewed as arrogant, regardless of intent. That is what your response came off as. Either way, there is no scientific 'tunnel effect' to my knowledge unless the science community has recently held a conference on my recent post. (that was a joke JICYWW)
Your statement that friction is not increased (or can become insignificant) by the increased speed is incorrect. Whatever you can do in a tunnel, you can do to surface transportation so saying that it could be placed in an evacuated tube or similar is beside the point. In both cases, whatever friction you have acting to slow the train (by air, wheels or magnetics) will increase linearly (at least) with speed. In doing so, you will lose more total momentum by any method to increase speed and this will have to be made up in order to return to the surface at the other end. Traveling through a Gravity Train tunnel qualifies as such a method.
There will be an overall increase in benefits to people, however, because of the time it takes to travel. What I was suggesting was to weigh that against the massive costs associated with such a system. Since you'll probably argue this point, I will present 3 such cases.
Short distance: If we use a tunnel of 1-20 miles, we can see the following parameters. The angle of descent into the tunnel will be insignificant and gains from this venture will be indistinguishable from friction. Comparing these non-existent gains against the cost of digging a 20 mile tunnel is a no-brainer, i.e. ludicrous.
Medium distance: If we use a tunnel of 500 miles... The angle will still be minimal but the gains will be measurable. Every method of reducing friction costs a comparable amount of money to the total benefits. Due to this, evacuate tube build and maintenance will be expensive and a compromise on friction reduction will be used. So, we will have some friction and that means we will have a terminal velocity. This now means the the 43 minute benefit is also compromised significantly. Weighing this reduced benefit against what would be arguably the most ambitious project in human history (again to my knowledge) at the highest cost also seems to fail.
Long distance: Digging a tunnel of very large distances to cross through the Earth very deep at all very quickly runs the risk of reaching the molten core's outer layers. This would end the venture immediately. Not only that, but as with the other two cases, successful completion would only get you travel from one point on the globe to one other point. This is hardly of any value at all to people wishing to travel from/to other points.
So, while the idea of such a system sounds fun, in reality it is completely unrealistic. This is not a critique of you suggesting it but of the promoters actually thinking it may be worthwhile. Again, it certainly is not a hit piece for me to have stated as such.
My original reply was intended to incite a discussion on how to get the "things" (as I referred to them above) done abundantly without being saddled with the scarcity of anything in the chain. Such solutions aboud all around us if people were only aware of them. Unfortunately, there are many out there that don't want these to become common knowledge. You cite the case of traveling from NY to Philly in 43 minutes. Let's see if I can suggest a way you could agree with for doing that which would also be much much much cheaper than both a Gravity Train (GT) or current methods.
That distance is about 100 miles as the crow flies. With a GT, that would mean about 100 miles of tunnel and lots of expense in evacuation to cover leaks and airlocks. With a car, that would require a super highway where an average speed of 140 mph. Doable, but not practical. The same goes for air travel but speeds would need to be much higher because boarding and deboarding would probably take at least 40 minutes. This leaves two solutions.
Maglev train is one solution but it comes with tremendous expense. There's the magnetics along the entire route plus a massive concrete infrastructure to support the massive train cars. It would be a benefit though, as long as it was from/to the exact points the traveler desired. This limitation still adds 10-30 minutes to most travelers' trip, again making the average speed way too high.
A Skytran system, however would allow start and stop points of any location in either city, which would incur no extra delays. Combine this with an average speed of 150 mph and non-stop travel point to point and your requirements are met. Cost? It's less cost than any method listed above... by 3-20 times. Check it out if you want. www.skytran.us .
This is one example I have for transportation. I mentioned it because you referenced traveling with the GT. There are similar examples that solve every other crisis people have today. Let me know if you're interested in any others. That they exist in hiding is the reason I originally mentioned that people need to know of them.
Cut off
"I was saying, in essence, the energy, force, work and power can all be abundant if my instructions were followed."
I cut off your response at that point.
Instruct - please.
Joe
Why do you have to be such a dick?
You "cut off" the very instructions you later requested. I'm done. Go research both how to fix things and how to communicate without pissing people off. bye bye
Further defense against personal attacks.
"Instead, you chose to jump on the fact that I used a different word."
Granted: some people read too much in between the lines, whereby a person will perceive wrongly that the person writing the words intended to "jump on" something, or any other example of an error in communicating intended meaning.
In fact: I want to know more about the reasons for using the word Energy instead of using the word Power and if there is negative (as in "Why do you have to be such a Dick?") connotation for someone asking for clarification, then I want to know (I am curious to know) why there is negative connotation to curiosity.
Energy, as far as I've been told: "cannot be created nor destroyed", and therefore I prefer to use the word power when explaining how Political Economy works.
As in: Power produced into oversupply reduces the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the cost of production.
The sentence is an accurate sentence but there is a qualifier that makes the sentence more powerful, or more able to convey accurate meaning, but then the sentence begins to lose power since the sentence is already larger than a sound bite, so the sentence is often too much work for the reader.
Productive power produced into oversupply reduces the price of power while purchasing power (deflation or monetary appreciation) increases because productive power reduces the cost of production.
To me that has to be understood before anyone can dive into the productively powerful work of understanding Political Economy since the role of MONEY becomes so obviously important once it is understood to be, in fact, and in accurately measurable fact: power.
Money is power - or it isn't money.
The word energy does not fit, for more reason than I can come up with on my own; hence my curiosity to know why someone else takes out the word power and puts in the word energy.
For such things I am a Dick - apparently.
"You "cut off" the very instructions you later requested. I'm done. Go research both how to fix things and how to communicate without pissing people off. bye bye."
I once had a very hard time finding anyone who has an interest in comparing viewpoints competitively, and I had developed a "thick shin" as a result. Now more and more people actually listen when I speak, and if I am speaking in front of an audience, such as the speaking done during my Campaign for Congress in 1996, the people listening included people who feed back positive, but qualified, feedback concerning what I have to say, and the way I say what I have to say.
I no longer see much use in having someone shoot me with another Parthian Arrow - but that does not stop the arrows from being shot.
As to the cutting off of the words, the principle of expedience was working in more ways than one on my end, since I had other things to do, and since Forum Text can be set aside and returned to in due time.
I do want to know what this means:
"I was saying, in essence, the energy, force, work and power can all be abundant if my instructions were followed."
I have similar ideas concerning workable methods that work toward producing power in abundance. I don't know how energy can be produced into abundance since, again, I've been taught that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, and energy merely changes form: or so the story goes. I don't see how force can be made into abundance but I can guess, and even agree, if there is entered into the perspective a concept called "velocity" as in monetary velocity, but that term is probably too misleading to be of any good, unless those working this angle understand the meaning meant by the term monetary velocity.
Too much force can be very bad, but too much productive power isn't very bad, it is potentially productive, and if the power is used to destroy, then it becomes force in that way.
Those are my thoughts, as I begin to look back into the text recorded on this forum to find out what the following words mean:
"I was saying, in essence, the energy, force, work and power can all be abundant if my instructions were followed."
"This is frustrating in much the same way as arguing with a 4 year old on who said what to start a fight."
Sometimes I have a harder time dealing with the often case of having to be on the receiving end of a Character Assassin who deputizes themselves, volunteering, and then executing the assassinations of characters where it is my character being assassinated. Sometimes it is easy to take, other times it is less easy to take, but it happens a lot, and so often does it happen, often enough, I have now a thick skin, more or less, and I try to "nip it in the bud".
Perhaps there is a new way of measuring the law of diminishing returns involved.
"In a scientific discussion with technical details, accuracy is a necessity but in a casual conversation, many conversational shortcuts are taken to facilitate interest in place of boredom. It is this reason that I did take minimal offense to you saying that you chose your words carefully. By you saying that, you are telling me that I am trying to change the question, which I was not. I was clarifying it to a root issue (for MY accuracy's sake) without actually mentioning that you had used the wrong term."
I am still looking for the meaning of this:
"This is frustrating in much the same way as arguing with a 4 year old on who said what to start a fight."
I am looking for the meaning of that because I am curious about what that means - exactly.
"So, hopefully that will show you that I was not fostering a hit piece."
Examples of a hit piece (character assassination):
1.
"This is frustrating in much the same way as arguing with a 4 year old on who said what to start a fight."
2.
"Why do you have to be such a dick?"
3.
"Go research both how to fix things and how to communicate without pissing people off. bye bye"
All responsibility is now charged to my account. This is familiar territory.
But, I am still curious about the meaning of this:
"I was saying, in essence, the energy, force, work and power can all be abundant if my instructions were followed."
I want to know what that means.
I read this:
"You "cut off" the very instructions you later requested."
I'm going back to that published text to find the meaning of this:
"I was saying, in essence, the energy, force, work and power can all be abundant if my instructions were followed."
No answer to that yet but I found this:
"Regarding the 'tunnel effect'. That, again, was a case of brevity that you misunderstood."
Actually I reported, in fact, that I did not understand the meaning of the term, and in fact I asked for clarification as to the meaning you intend with that word - in fact - and I can easily cut and paste my actual words published as they were published exactly.
My defense against your twisting my words would probably cause more character assassination on your part to be invented, produced, and executed upon me, but you already shot the Parthian Arrow, so, you are done, but that does not mean that I am done defending myself, and I am still curious about this:
"Regarding the 'tunnel effect'. That, again, was a case of brevity that you misunderstood."
So I read on.
"I had explained that friction (and thus wasted power) would be increased. When I referenced it later, I was still in the same context of that topic so I simply put an arbitrary label on that explanation."
An "arbitrary label" was a fear I had in wasting my time looking for a non-arbitrary label for "Tunnel Effect", so my guess was correct?
No need wasting my time with arbitrary labels.
"This is a common practice in casual and even non-critical scientific conversations. It is also common practice to confront someone on correcting words as accusing them of misunderstanding the original statement. This is seen a argumentative sarcasm and is viewed as arrogant, regardless of intent."
I was not volunteering to go off on a wild goose chase in the effort to chase down Tunnel Effect, which it turns out to be an "arbitrary label", so it is a good thing that I didn't spend much time chasing down that wild goose, or that "arbitrary label".
I did ask.
Now I'm still curious about this:
"I was saying, in essence, the energy, force, work and power can all be abundant if my instructions were followed."
"That is what your response came off as. Either way, there is no scientific 'tunnel effect' to my knowledge unless the science community has recently held a conference on my recent post. (that was a joke JICYWW)"
I am the dick here, so no, I was not wondering. I think the topic is serious, and worthy of serious effort.
I'd like to know what the following means:
"I was saying, in essence, the energy, force, work and power can all be abundant if my instructions were followed."
I can look further.
"Your statement that friction is not increased (or can become insignificant) by the increased speed is incorrect."
If I had said that then you could quote where I said that, but since I did not say that, you can't. No one I know says such things, except you, as you then place what you said onto my character as you assassinate my character. That is called a Straw Man argument.
What I did say was this:
_________________________________
1. Loss due to friction traveling perpendicular to the gravity vector includes greater fiction as a function of leverage and there is no additional power available to accelerate the train on a downward angle relative to the gravity vector.
________________________________
Gravity is a constant rate of acceleration and it can be measured exactly that way as a rate of acceleration, or constant, and it can be said to be a FORCE, as in The Force of Gravity. There is no way to Force a given mass on a vector perpendicular to the Force of gravity. That is what I meant.
I did not mean this:
"Your statement that friction is not increased (or can become insignificant) by the increased speed is incorrect."
What I meant was that an angle that is parallel to The Force of Gravity, such as a tunnel going straight through the center of the Earth, where a massive object is "dropped" the force of Gravity will accelerate the mass at the rate that The Force of Gravity accelerates the mass that is "dropped" down the hole.
If the hole is very wide, and if the object is smaller than the hole, then it is possible (in theory if not practically possible) that the object never contacts the sides of the tunnel, and that leaves the factor of air resistance to be the one remaining factor of FORCE that resists The Force of Gravity, so the mass slows down.
If the mass is a pancake, or a sunny side up chicken egg cooked with the yolk still runny, then hitting the sides is not good, and air resistance on that mass is much greater than if the mass in question where an object of measure that is measured with high sectional density such as an arrow, and if the arrow shape is very dense material then the amount of air resistance FORCE is reduced further.
I did not get into those accurate measures since the concept of a Gravity Train could include the concept of producing and maintaining a vacuum in the tunnel.
You said this:
"Your statement that friction is not increased (or can become insignificant) by the increased speed is incorrect."
I did not say that.
I said this:
________________________________
1. Loss due to friction traveling perpendicular to the gravity vector includes greater fiction as a function of leverage and there is no additional power available to accelerate the train on a downward angle relative to the gravity vector.
________________________________
I meant that there are many angles in between perpendicular and parallel relative to the gravity vector of The Force of Gravity (which is a constant rate of acceleration) and if a ball is on a flat surface and the flat surface is perpendicular to the gravity vector then the ball does not roll uphill, and the ball does not roll downhill. If the plane, or the road, or the flat surface that the ball is not rolling on because it is perpendicular to the flat surface, tilted, inclined, or no longer perpendicular to the gravity vector then the ball rolls down hill. If the angle is shallow and the mass is massive, a massive ball, or a pancake, or a sunny side up egg, then the constant Force of Gravity is measurably less able to force the pancake, or the low mass ball, or the high mass ball, to roll on a shallow angle, the rate of acceleration of the pancake is less at that shallow angle - a function of geometry, and friction.
A ball, or pancake, or sunny side up egg, on a very efficient bearing surface, instead of a rough surface, reduces friction, but the geometric angle relative to the gravity vector remains a constant geometric reduction in the rate of acceleration resulting from The Force of Gravity working on the mass at that angle made by that flat bearing surface.
Then there are magnetic bearing surfaces to consider.
Here is a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maglev_train
Friction at a shallow angle where The Force of Gravity is constant but divided by the geometric angle off the gravity vector, can be reduced to a minimum in many ways.
You said this:
"Your statement that friction is not increased (or can become insignificant) by the increased speed is incorrect."
I did not say that.
I said this:
________________________________
1. Loss due to friction traveling perpendicular to the gravity vector includes greater fiction as a function of leverage and there is no additional power available to accelerate the train on a downward angle relative to the gravity vector.
________________________________
If the tunnel is straight down through a gravity field (on a small planet, or impractically done on The Earth) the mass being accelerated by The Force of Gravity can be kept off the sides of the tunnel completely; but the angles that are practical are shallow (not parallel) relative to The Force of Gravity, and as the angle moves off of parallel and as the angle moves closer to parallel (where no acceleration is possible from The Force of Gravity) there is an increase in the accurate measure of the force that arrests acceleration known as friction, and that is a function of geometry, as my words intended to mean.
My words intended to mean what my words intended to mean, your words are not my words.
These:
"Your statement that friction is not increased (or can become insignificant) by the increased speed is incorrect."
Those are your words, not mine.
Back to working to find the meaning of this:
"I was saying, in essence, the energy, force, work and power can all be abundant if my instructions were followed."
I find this instead:
"Whatever you can do in a tunnel, you can do to surface transportation so saying that it could be placed in an evacuated tube or similar is beside the point."
I did nothing in a tunnel. The point I made (not the point you are making) was that The Force of Gravity is used in the design of a Gravity Train, as explained by those who know what they are talking about.
I'll keep looking for the meaning of this:
"I was saying, in essence, the energy, force, work and power can all be abundant if my instructions were followed."
I found this:
"In both cases, whatever friction you have acting to slow the train (by air, wheels or magnetics) will increase linearly (at least) with speed. In doing so, you will lose more total momentum by any method to increase speed and this will have to be made up in order to return to the surface at the other end. Traveling through a Gravity Train tunnel qualifies as such a method."
Air resistance increases square with velocity, or so I'm told. These are things commonly known by many people. It is reasonable to me, accurately measurable. The Gravity Train employs The Force of Gravity. The non-Gravity Train (if it has to go downhill) employes The Force of Gravity, or brakes are used to arrest a train that is not designed to go past a designed top speed. Trains, even now, or so I am told, employ regenerative braking to be used to recharge batteries.
Back to looking for this:
"I was saying, in essence, the energy, force, work and power can all be abundant if my instructions were followed."
"Since you'll probably argue this point, I will present 3 such cases."
I don't argue if by argue you mean something other than discussion; as what I do is I offer a competitive perspective: discussion.
"Short distance: If we use a tunnel of 1-20 miles, we can see the following parameters. The angle of descent into the tunnel will be insignificant and gains from this venture will be indistinguishable from friction. Comparing these non-existent gains against the cost of digging a 20 mile tunnel is a no-brainer, i.e. ludicrous."
I agree that your hit piece above is ludicrously ambiguous.
"This is not a critique of you suggesting it but of the promoters actually thinking it may be worthwhile. Again, it certainly is not a hit piece for me to have stated as such."
I offer a competitive perspective that suggests that your ludicrously ambiguous hit piece on a Gravity Train is understood by me to be exactly that, and no more.
I'll keep looking for this:
"I was saying, in essence, the energy, force, work and power can all be abundant if my instructions were followed."
"Let's see if I can suggest a way you could agree with for doing that which would also be much much much cheaper than both a Gravity Train (GT) or current methods."
Lets
"Let me know if you're interested in any others. That they exist in hiding is the reason I originally mentioned that people need to know of them."
I think the Sky Train is competitive.
I was looking for this:
"Let me know if you're interested in any others. That they exist in hiding is the reason I originally mentioned that people need to know of them."
I did not find it.
I have my own ideas concerning how people can increase total productive power.
Here is a short list:
1.
End the FED
2.
End the IRS
3.
Bring the Troops Home (not to be mislead by criminals)
I have many ways to convey how Liberty works so as to allow people to do what they normally do, which is to make more out of less, and if people are allowed to do what they normally do they do make more out of less, and once that goes on for any length of time there is more to use in making more out of less much like the reverse of air resistance.
A Solar Panel can illustrate the point.
I was hoping to find this:
"Let me know if you're interested in any others. That they exist in hiding is the reason I originally mentioned that people need to know of them."
I did not find that, so I am left with my own competitive viewpoints on how to increase total productive power.
Power produced into oversupply reduces the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the cost of production.
Since the Parthian Arrow was shot I have no reason to edit the above defense against further character assassination, but if anyone wants to know my competitive viewpoint on making power abundant just ask a direct question and I can reply with a competitive answer.
Joe
The roads are payed for
through the gas tax.
“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” – Dresden James
after this war is over and if
after this war is over and if we've won, we better have paths where you can walk across the country, lined with marijuana, and opium, and mache, and poncirus triofoliata, and rhodiola rosea, hypericum perforata, and bilberry, and all the edible berries, and mahonia aquifolium, ginkgo biloba, and panax ginseng, and all the other ginsengs, and beans, and more wild herbs.
These stupid monkey sheep americans are pissing me off
lawrence
Goverrnments don't build roads.
They would not know where to begin. All road construction is contracted out by a publicly opened competitive bid process. The contracts never pay that great but you know that you will get paid in a timely fashion (as per the contract pay period). Governments bid out so many contracts that they know exactly what the going rates are for each unit price bid. When a contract is advertised (as by law it must be) there is and accompanying engineer's estimate. The engineering is now generally bid out too. If the prices come in higher than 10% above the estimate usually all the bids are thrown out and it is re-bid. Bidding government work is not gravy work. But at least they are an owner that is experienced.
Some governments still do some minor road maintenance. But less and less. They know they can save money bidding work out.
I think most governments do an okay job in their role. And most of the money is collected from gas tax. I think it is fair. I do not think the transportation infrastructure would change much if it were in private hands.
Just sayin'.
This may be true at the local level
But go ahead and try competing with Bechtel to build a highway.
As for the fairness of using gasoline taxes, no matter how you slice it you are still handing over your hard earned cash to a monopoly that has no accountability to anyone but themselves. I'd be very curious to know what percentage of this huge stash of cash actually gets put back into roads.
Just answerin'.
What he said!
http://www.tragedyandhope.com
http://www.im2moro.com
Agreed.
Government sucks no matter how you slice it. Highway work is pretty much always low bid though, even the large contracts. But you get into libraries, schools, municipal golf courses, army corp. of engineer projects (military and US waterway infrastructure), or any public buildings you are correct. There is no public bid opening so they do not have to take the low bidder. And yes, I am sure their bureaucracy siphons off a large portion.
Just replyin'.
You make it sound peachy but you fail
to discuss that you are just fine with the fact that the government does not earn money to pay out to contracts. You miss the point that the govenrment either lies cheats or steals money and dribbles a few cents back to projects like these to justify their immoral theft. You are pretty happy with the entire process so I suggest you find your morality and stop assuming that its ok to steal as long as the money is passed out in what you think is a pretty fair process.
Stolen goods are used to pay for your road and every cent paid to the contractors and their employee workers is money taken without permission from real live people. So I say if you want your road build it yourself just dont count me in on your nasty theiving scheemes. Discusting. Transportation infrastructure is a group think term if people want to travel they will find a way without the liars theives and crooks.
sovereign
Whoa!
I just explained the process. I disagreed with the poster that the taxpayer(gas tax) was getting a bad deal. I am an anarchist. I do not believe in government ooooo But I get tired of libertarians ignorantly complaining about the government building roads. They don't do it. People get a good bang for their buck in this particular category. And you can quit buying gas so you can avoid the tax if you like. Neither your income tax nor your property tax is going to build roads. I happen to think that the roads and the collection of the taxes at the pump is the most fair part of government. But I disagree with government as an entity, k?
I except your apology. Perhaps you can drill, process, and store your own fuel so you can avoid the pumps. You can get a chopper so as to avoid the roads, k?
i'm sick of people not
i'm sick of people not growing gardens in their front yards and back yards. if you want to grow a garden on some random land johny po-po tells you to get lost.
these people not growing gardens in their front yards and always cutting their grass after it grows one inch is pissing me off. they pay property tax on the nothing that they own anyways.
lawrence
Any takers?
False arguments are invented by who and for what purpose?
I've personally met Mr. Block and in my very brief discussion with him I can say confidently that he was unwilling to entertain a competitive point of view: i.e. monopolist.
These arguments for the sake of arguments are fully self-contained contradictions as the inventor and producer of the argument creates both sides of the argument they invent and produce.
"Any takers?"
That is code for: "If you enter this argument your viewpoint will not be considered and the inventor and producer of this argument will speak for you despite any effort on the part of the target victim to speak for themselves."
Been there, done that, but for anyone else who may want to know the facts concerning the struggle between Liberty and Crime made Legal, it may be worth listening to a viewpoint that isn't a self-made contradiction.
Any person who resorts to deceit (such as this topic) as a means of accomplishing a goal is by that method a person intending to injure an innocent, targeted, victim.
That is one process of thinking and acting that is part of the group of thoughts and actions that make up crime.
Those who deceive are perfectly capable of claiming that deceit is not a crime, so that itself is a self-evident confession made by the criminal who resorts to that specific deception.
Next on the short list of things done by criminals is the use of threats of violence, and again this can be a source of even more lies, it can even be a lie in cases where the liar is incapable of violence, or the liar is not even capable of hiring someone to be violent as the liar hires a violent person to be violent for the liar.
Next on the short list of things done by criminals is the use of violence as a means of defining the meaning of crime as the criminal willfully employs violence upon an innocent victim whereby the definition of innocence in any case of aggressive violence done by a criminal is such that the victim did not, in any way, deserve, or earn the injury inflicted by the criminal upon the innocent victim, and the only reason all these words are required to convey the true meaning of crime is understandable from the understanding that criminals lie effectively.
One of the most effective lies a criminal can willfully invent, produce, and inflict upon the innocent victims that are targeted by the criminal is the lie that says that LAW can be involuntary.
Know that fact, and you can avoid being a victim.
The criminals certainly know the truth about this most effective lie.
So...
The self-made contradiction offered by the topic starter is such that a lie is either parroted or known to be a lie by the topic starter and it matters not to me which is the case in this case.
The personal life of the topic starter, or my personal life, is not the focus of my attention and that has to be understood by the reader. If the topic does not remain focused upon the subject of the topic and instead the topic is moved to some other topic, such as my personal life, then that is a clue as to the true color of whoever moves the topic from the subject of the topic to someone's personal life.
"Any takers?"
The topic concerns something specific.
Example:
"There seem to be a few "road socialists" out there."
Roughly half of the worlds population is currently leaning to the left, or toward socialism, if English words can even remotely reach the goal of accurate communication, so as far as I am concerned the topic is targeting roughly half of the words population.
That is a way that I can begin to meet the challenge:
"Any takers?"
Yes, there are people, more than one, who are perfectly capable of challenging the viewpoint presented in this topic, and a challenge to the viewpoint presented in this topic is easy to accomplish without resorting to deception, threats of violence, or violence, and without changing the subject from the subject and changing the subject to someone's personal life.
"Just because they grew up in a country where the state has kept a tight monopoly on transportation routes, they cannot even imagine what it would be like if road maintenance was taken care of by private groups."
Who is "country"?
Who is "the state"?
Who is "they"?
Who is "private groups"?
I am someone, and I have a viewpoint, and my viewpoint challenges this specific paragraph, for the paragraph is a self-contained contradiction, or at least it is too vague to convey accurate meaning, or at least it is interpretable as meaning almost anything by almost anyone.
The concept of a country was, and can still be, a perception of the entire number of human beings existing within a geographical area.
I have a source for that understanding and that source is here:
http://www.barefootsworld.net/trial01.html
"It is supposed that, if twelve men be taken, by lot, from the mass of the people, without the possibility of any previous knowledge, choice, or selection of them, on the part of the government, the jury will be a fair epitome of "the country" at large, and not merely of the party or faction that sustain the measures of the government; that substantially all classes of opinions, prevailing among the people, will be represented in the jury; and especially that the opponents of the government, (if the government have any opponents,) will be represented there, as well as its friends; that the classes, who are oppressed by the laws of the government, (if any are thus oppressed,) will have their representatives in the jury, as well as those classes, who take sides with the oppressor - that is, with the government."
That is the country and to return to the POINT of my reply concerning the topic I can return to the one paragraph that is currently being challenged as in "Any takers?":
"Just because they grew up in a country where the state has kept a tight monopoly on transportation routes, they cannot even imagine what it would be like if road maintenance was taken care of by private groups."
Next is the concept of the state.
What does that mean?
If that means an involuntary association then that means crime. If the person claiming that an involuntary association isn't crime then that person is either volunteering to join that association and the claim is false, a lie, or that person is a victim, an involuntary servant of the crime in progress, and perhaps the victim is parroting the lie for fear of suffering an increase in injury.
I don't know.
If a person uses the word state when the person means crime, then the person doing so can easily explain why they mean to accurately identify criminals (presumed to be innocent) and instead of doing so they fail to do so, and instead they focus attention on something that isn't accountable for whatever crime is in progress.
If the person does want to accurately identify criminals, and those criminals are employing a very effective lie, such as a lie that says involuntary associations are legal, as if Law is a synonym for crime, then I think the person could accomplish that goal instead of failing to accomplish that goal, if there is a will to do so, and I can assume, or ask and not assume, the actual intent behind the word state.
Does the word state in the context of the paragraph in question intend to mean the willful actions of people as those people commit crimes under the color of law?
Is that a fair question?
I can assume that the paragraph does intend to convey the accurate accounting of actual people who actually commit crimes under the color of law when the word state is used in that paragraph.
This:
"Just because they grew up in a country where the state has kept a tight monopoly on transportation routes, they cannot even imagine what it would be like if road maintenance was taken care of by private groups."
Moving on to "private groups", there are yet again a number of people involved, if I can assume as much, and my guess is that this number of people are not currently involved in any crimes that are perpetrated under the color of law in any way, and that is what is meant, if I am correct in my assumption, concerning the words "private groups".
So...a "private group" makes a road from New York to California, and this "private" road cuts the country in half.
Can a "private group" make another road on top of it?
Can a "private group" get from south of that boarder to north of that boarder without having to pay an extortion fee, called whatever the extortionists claim the extortion fee is, such as a "tax", or a "toll", or whatever word that the extortionists can make their victims believe, or can any "private group" cross that road at will, as in free will, and as in "animated contest of freedom", or as in competitively employ the land in this country, or as in hey, who and what army says I have to pay a "tax" or a "toll" to travel from south to north in this country?
The concept of who owns the land is a concept that is another argument designed to keep the arguments going.
The fact that someone controls any land is a fact that can be measured, without argument. If there is an argument as to who controls any land, anywhere, then there are ways to resolve those arguments, as well as there are ways to keep those arguments going - perpetually.
One way to look at the land, in this country, is to look at any other thing that is common to all, and at this point the knees of the brainwashed jerk.
Why?
If your knee jerks at the mere mention of some thing, such as land, being common to all, then it may be a good idea to figure out why you have that problem.
Air is common to all too.
Land is common to all.
If your knee jerks when someone mentions the English words that are arranged in a order as such: Land is common to all, then you have a problem, Houston, you have a problem.
If your knee does not jerk when someone mentions that the air we breath is common to all, then there is no problem?
Note the question mark.
I control the air I breath, and I consume it, and no one else can consume the air I breath, it is gone as far as you are concerned, as I turn that very scarce, very necessary, very valuable supply of air into carbon dioxide. Too bad for you.
I stole the air out of the air and you can't have it.
Why is land any different?
Back to the paragraph in question:
"Just because they grew up in a country where the state has kept a tight monopoly on transportation routes, they cannot even imagine what it would be like if road maintenance was taken care of by private groups."
"They" grew up in a land where a few people own (control) the Law Power because a few people own (control) the Money Power, so "they" jerk their knees when told, without question, and "they" are ever ready to defend their abject belief in falsehood without question, and "they" will stop at nothing, "they" won't stop at torture, and "they" won't stop at mass murder to defend their lies, so why would anyone focus any more time arguing over anything other than finding workable solutions to "they" as "they" destroy everything of value while "they" control (own) everything?
I don't know.
Trial by Jury worked when it worked and the concept of tax in those days was a voluntary agreement to act when called upon to act as a Juror, or as a defender of the country in case of invasion by a large criminal army of aggression for profit.
If voluntary taxes worked, then who is claiming that there is a need for involuntary taxes?
If someone is claiming that there is a need for involuntary taxes then that someone aught to be called out as someone who is aiding and abetting the criminals who are perpetrating crimes under the color of law, and stop calling them "elite", and stop calling them "socialists", and stop calling them "capitalists", and stop calling them names that are designed to cause roughly half the population to be at the throats of roughly half the population because those false fronts, those false names, cover up the actual crimes committed by the actual criminals who have actual names and live in actual places.
I can go on, and I see a particularly destructive lie that goes by the name of "free rider", but why spend so much time and energy beating dead horses?
What is the point?
If the point is to move closer to Liberty and move further away from crime made legal, then there are 3 steps that are clearly in view.
1.
End the FED (do so peacefully, competitively, and in time)
2.
End the IRS (do so as a function of doing number 1 above)
3.
Bring the Troops Home (but not bringing them home so as to defend the FED and the IRS here at home, so number 1 and number 2 have to be done or number 3 can't be done right)
One more sentence from the Topic Starters initial volley, a few more comments, and I think I will have offered a fair response to this:
"Any takers?"
From the Topic:
_____________________________________
As of current, if you do not pay the state for licenses, registration, inspection, and the taxes that go towards roads, you cannot travel on them.
Nothing will change in a market-based road scenario.
The only thing that will be different is that we will have MANY different roads that will compete with each other.
______________________________________
Assuming that the FED and the IRS are gone, and assuming that The Troops are not ordered to enforce the FED and the IRS while the FED and the IRS are not leaving peacefully (the FED and IRS people use The Troops to destroy the competition), assuming all that, then the subject of how any number of people from one end of the country to the other negotiate free travel can enter into a competitive, free market, solution - not before.
Assuming that each State government asserts a higher power over the falsely labeled "Federal" government, and then each State becomes a competitive government within a Voluntary Union or Confederated Federal Government, then assuming that that happens after The FED and the IRS are gone, which State will offer the more competitive solution to the free travel problem, as far as roads go?
How about a contest?
Supposing there were 50 State governments, all working at various levels of despotism or liberty, socialism or capitalism, or whatever words the people want to use to label what they do in each State, how about one of us, any one of us, describe what their state does in the state they move to, when that state becomes what the people moving to that state make it, and be specific as to what you do, and what other people do, in your state, as your state becomes what the people in it want, in respect to the roads in that state.
I can offer a competitive version of what happens in the state I move to when the FED and the IRS are gone, because a replacement, or smaller version, of the FED and the IRS are not going to exist in the state I move to, and then the questions of what happens to the roads are not questions that are solved by the people running the FED or the IRS, which are the same people running everything else, including what the troops do.
How about that?
Any takers?
1.
Your state become this...(because you and everyone like you in your state agree with the method) as far a roads are concerned.
2.
Your state does not become this...(because you and everyone like you in your state agree that those people in that state are fools) as far as the roads are concerned.
3.
In a Confederated System of a number of Constitutionally Limited States (each constitution is a competitive free market offering to each potential citizen who is free to travel from one state to another) whereby each State joins or does not join the Union of Voluntary Union of Sovereign States, which state do you move to, because this constitutionally limited State, that you want, does this, or does not do that, with the roads; which means: The People do not do this, and The People do not do that with the roads in your ideal state.
If you can't find anyone to agree with your ideal (idea) State, then what does your idea Constitute - in fact?
Joe
I would rather walk or make my own road than
Have any entity think that it has control over me in any way shape or form. To think that its justifyed to accept immoral extorted theft to fund road building is just bat guana.
sovereign