Free-Market Regulation

Now you are claiming privatization of roads is the destruction of a public good in service of a private good but you have also argued privitatsation of the military is not such a case, yet any road building requires a state to exist, and the same intellectual, emotional, economic imperatives that would see private road building damage the public good would be by definition amplified by the privatization of a military necessary to keep the polity that those roads are built in alive.
Now? I stated it yonks back, using it to demonstrate how you've misused economic definintions. A public good requires non-excludability and non-rivalry characteristics. We don't have "pure" public goods, given rivalry in consumption does, to some extent can occur (e.g. for roads, see congestion). The privatisation would lead to a destruction of the public good, given excludability would be enabled.

The military starts with excludability. Privatisation therefore would not lead to a change in its nature as an 'economic good'. It might of course have some rather negative political repercussions. You'd have to use some alternative vocab, such as the belief its a 'merit good'
 
Oh nice bullshit.

It is summer here; I may use it on my garden.

So privatization of roads leads to a destruction of the “common good” but privatization of the military does not?

Even though the latter is a prerequisite for the former to even exist?

Jesus, I really hope the tax payer did not fund your education, such as it is, for your sake and theirs.
 
Last edited:
So privatization of roads leads to a destruction of the “common good” but privatization of the military does not?
There you go. I knew you'd get there eventually

Even though the latter is a prerequisite for the former to even exist?
You're still struggling with definitions. Whilst your understanding of national security is arguably overly simplistic, we have a clear-cut case where excludability is a basic feature of military expenditure

Jesus, I really hope the tax payer did not fund your education, such as it is, for your sake and theirs.
I'm able to use economic definitions appropriately. Its a necessary condition for sound economic comment. Once you catch up on that score, you'll be able to flower
 
If you privatize them, then they become excludable. Anyone can arbitrarily decide to exclude anyone else from using their road.

That's exactly what roads need to be safer, better quality, and cheaper.

Sorry, I decided to do a bit more thinking about it, so I deleted that post; not quickly enough apparently.

But man, I guess we're unlikely to agree on much huh? Lol. I mean, it's beyond me how you can argue that considering I mentioned the example of the potential for racist abuse in such a privatized system, just to mention one such example.

I might put it up again after a bit of thinking. Otherwise, thanks for the feedback as always :)
 
Sorry, I decided to do a bit more thinking about it, so I deleted that post; not quickly enough apparently.

But man, I guess we're unlikely to agree on much huh? Lol. I mean, it's beyond me how you can argue that considering I mentioned the example of the potential for racist abuse in such a privatized system, just to mention one such example.

I might put it up again after a bit of thinking. Otherwise, thanks for the feedback as always :)

I prefer safety over racial discrimination, and the likelihood any idiot road owner would discriminate based on race would be slim-to-none. It's bad business for everyone.

It's also arguable that racist abuse happens right now in some neighborhoods on public roads, but that would completely destroy the point you were trying to make.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top