 Author
|
Topic: Private property is the same as a state?? (Read 21187 times)
|
|
John Edward Mercier
|
Not really.
Most just assume that because its easier.
The development in NH was more of a private means...
We could state the initial taking of property was by government... but this was long before the build out of infrastructure.
SoCal being a really bad example... because it would currently be a part of Mexico. The US in violation of its limited authority purchased that area. If we overlook that... all the land in it was granted from the federal government.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 26, 2011, 06:03:07 am by John Edward Mercier »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
I understand that without eminent domain, local grids would still be possible (and favorable) but large scale distribution would be logistically impossible. San Onofre Nuclear Power Generation Station supplies roughly 1.2 MW of power to most of Southern California. No facility of this size or efficiency would be possible because local distribution would make such a project unscalable. The result would be higher energy costs of less efficient technologies (again, I'm willing to take this trade!). Do you mean GW? Because 1.2MW isn't large. Seabrook Station, here in NH, for one example, produces over a gigawatt. The idea that we won't need more infrastructure for telecommunication or that all it takes is to expand current corridors is foolish. Especially with exponential demand and load growth. Most of the nation does not have access to fiber or the similar high speed access, only local access to high speed hubs. Fiber can be run along existing corridors. I'm not understanding why you think this would be a problem. Newer technologies can transmit more power or data, through the same "geography," so there's no need to expand the corridors. The existing infrastructure is also poorly-utilized. HVDC is safer and more efficient than AC transmission, over long distances, but the regulatory agencies don't like change, so they fight it tooth and nail. A private power company could add converters at either end of a long run, and get dramatically-increased carrying capacity out of the very same wires (wires are sized based upon current and peak voltage - at the same peak voltage and current, AC carries ~30% less wattage than DC)(DC also does not have the "capacitor loss" that AC does). Superconducting power lines take up less real estate than conventional (~25 feet, versus hundreds of feet), and transmit more power with even lower losses. Take an existing telecom installation, and replace copper with fiber, on the very same poles, and you get a major increase in bandwidth. Unless someone wants to bring power or data to a place that currently does not have such, why would new corridors need to be created? Joe |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
CurtHowland
|
The market would absolutely provide proxies, but to think that it will be identical or better to the current system immediately is naive. Expect a ten to twenty year lag time as developers attempt to gain/expand rights of way.
Now, *my* money job for a time was securing these rights of way. I'm just saying that it's a lot harder than the most realize, even WITH the coercive power of the government behind you!
Funny thing, the only people trying to assert that things must remain they way they are are the ones arguing against fully voluntary infrastructure. Change does not frighten me, so please stop with the straw-men. I say, in all seriousness, "So what?" I don't give a hoot in hell about some things being harder to do without eminent domain. Maybe, just maybe, those things don't need to be done at all. Or, as the reality begins to dawn, people will adjust their expectations to realize that such things do in fact need to be done, if it turns out that way. But so long as govt exists to warp both the demand and supply of infrastructure, we will never know just how efficiently that infrastructure could be built and maintained. Personally, I like inter-city rail. Too bad govt subsidized interstate highways killed it. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
Personally, I like inter-city rail. Too bad govt subsidized interstate highways killed it. Not to mention flying cars. Between bans, regulations, restrictions, and subsidizing the alternative(s)... whenever someone asks why we don't have the flying cars that all the sci-fi authors promised, it's not hard to explain why we don't. Joe |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
CurtHowland
|
Personally, I like inter-city rail. Too bad govt subsidized interstate highways killed it. Not to mention flying cars. One of the more interesting ideas for "mass transit" I've seen is little cabs hanging under a monorail kind of thing. The cabs could "come down" and you get in, then they go back up and "merge" into the loop. Many cabs come together when going in the same direction to increase efficiency, and then cut-out of the main loop when your exit comes up. It's certainly much more personal than a subway, although still limited to only stops where stops are built to be, but I think it would be very interesting. Let me see if I can find a graphic... This isn't exactly what I remember, but it fits well enough: http://www.omgblog.net/2010/04/09/%C2%ABcommunity-transit%C2%BB-a-new-urban-transport-system/It runs into the same problem as any other transit system, of getting the empty cabs to where they're wanted, but that's just what computers and statistical analysis software can do best. Or hovercraft, like in _The Probability Broach_ |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Polemic
|
The market would absolutely provide proxies, but to think that it will be identical or better to the current system immediately is naive. Expect a ten to twenty year lag time as developers attempt to gain/expand rights of way.
Now, *my* money job for a time was securing these rights of way. I'm just saying that it's a lot harder than the most realize, even WITH the coercive power of the government behind you!
Funny thing, the only people trying to assert that things must remain they way they are are the ones arguing against fully voluntary infrastructure. Change does not frighten me, so please stop with the straw-men. I say, in all seriousness, "So what?" I don't give a hoot in hell about some things being harder to do without eminent domain. Maybe, just maybe, those things don't need to be done at all. Or, as the reality begins to dawn, people will adjust their expectations to realize that such things do in fact need to be done, if it turns out that way. But so long as govt exists to warp both the demand and supply of infrastructure, we will never know just how efficiently that infrastructure could be built and maintained. Personally, I like inter-city rail. Too bad govt subsidized interstate highways killed it. You keep missing the part where I say that it's a price I'm willing to pay. Besides, my argument is that the abolition of eminent domain would mean that infrastructure would be much more limited and drastically different than it is today. As for fully voluntary infrastructure, MainShark & Alex have been arguing for such a model. So, it's not all about you, Curt.  Eminent Domain is one of the remaining elements of the Divine Right of Kings that must be abolished . . .
No straw men here. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Optimists proclaim that we live in the best of all possible worlds; pessimists fear that this is true."
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
Besides, my argument is that the abolition of eminent domain would mean that infrastructure would be much more limited and drastically different than it is today. How? The infrastructure already exists. It won't magically evaporate, if no new property is stolen. Joe |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
CurtHowland
|
Eminent Domain is one of the remaining elements of the Divine Right of Kings that must be abolished . . .
No straw men here. None that I can see. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
CurtHowland
|
How? The infrastructure already exists. It won't magically evaporate, if no new property is stolen. Indeed. While it's fun to discuss where we each think things could be if this or that had changed in the past, the fact is that we are where we are, and must start here in looking how to use what exists to make better, market, use of them. First thing: How to privatize. Sale to the highest bidder? Stock granted to each interested individual, who may then sell their share to whom they wish? I think that would be a great way to privatize the roads. Each person on a street gets a share in that street, in a town gets a share of the arterial roadsin that town, in a state gets a share in each limited access highway. It then up to the individual to keep (and pay for), to sell, or to lease their interest to a toll company on payment of royalties. Same with power lines, etc. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
First thing: How to privatize. Probably deserving of a separate thread, if you'd like to start one. Joe |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
CurtHowland
|
First thing: How to privatize. Probably deserving of a separate thread, if you'd like to start one. By the gods, no! Not until there is something TO privatize! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Polemic
|
Besides, my argument is that the abolition of eminent domain would mean that infrastructure would be much more limited and drastically different than it is today. How? The infrastructure already exists. It won't magically evaporate, if no new property is stolen. Joe So, it's your position that no new corridors would be needed - ever. Come on. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Optimists proclaim that we live in the best of all possible worlds; pessimists fear that this is true."
|
|
|
Alex Libman
Guest
|
What's worse, you are endorsing force against people who want to use clean water,
and making it impossible for them to demonstrate the difference! Um, he did quite clearly say that he'd rather give those things up, than use force to obtain them. You might want to read more carefully... Thanks for that, I almost jumped down his throat on that one. |
OK, so I got carried away and used the rhetorical "you", directed at critics of the free market in general. (Some veterans get 'Nam flashbacks, I got PTSD from debating on socialist forums, tee hee.) That was a mistake, but hardly a huge one, as in that post you pretty much gave a blank check to people who see coercive monopolies (governments) as the only way to settle disputes and manage the modern economy. If that was the case, then I would be a diehard socialist / Keynesian / whatever. But it isn't. The arguments that compare differences in economic outcomes between a pure free market and what we have today must inevitably contemplate alternate timelines, like if USA had remained a champion of free market capitalism since the start of the last century, absent Wilson, FDR, etc. This speculation is unavoidable when addressing claims that the current government-ordered world is the best of all possible worlds, but that doesn't mean I think we can quit government "cold turkey". I have a very long history of promoting the gradualist approach to Anarcho-Capitalism, as opposed to the "magic wand" approach that some of its advocates seem to believe in. I have very personally witnessed the post-Soviet "shock therapy" and the resulting backlash, and this is not something I would want to be repeated, ever. The real-world transition would be very gradual, first involving self-selected enclaves of freedom (like Hong Kong, seasteads, or possibly the Free State Project) and expanding from there. Most of the social change would be driven by intergovernmental competition for brains and capital, which will be ever-freer to travel across borders to jurisdictions that have the most to offer, the greatest attraction of all ultimately being economic freedom, while places that offer socialism will eventually "run out of competent people to tax". |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Polemic
|
What's worse, you are endorsing force against people who want to use clean water,
and making it impossible for them to demonstrate the difference! Um, he did quite clearly say that he'd rather give those things up, than use force to obtain them. You might want to read more carefully... Thanks for that, I almost jumped down his throat on that one. |
OK, so I got carried away and used the rhetorical "you", directed at critics of the free market in general. (Some veterans get 'Nam flashbacks, I got PTSD from debating on socialist forums, tee hee.) That was a mistake, but hardly a huge one, as in that post you pretty much gave a blank check to people who see coercive monopolies (governments) as the only way to settle disputes and manage the modern economy. . . . Please re-read post where I allegedly give carte blanche to anyone to do anything. Now, I happen to think that this is a cost I'm willing to pay.
Also, I agree with the gradual approach. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 27, 2011, 02:31:29 am by Polemic »
|
Logged
|
"Optimists proclaim that we live in the best of all possible worlds; pessimists fear that this is true."
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
So, it's your position that no new corridors would be needed - ever.
Come on. Well, since I've given a number of examples, perhaps you could give us some examples of why new corridors would need to be created, rather than simply improving the carrying-capacity of existing corridors? Joe |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
