RoR: Forum

Nice essay, you hit a major problem right on the head. Too many people I speak to completely agree with me when I talk about the role of government and all but as soon as I start talking what needs to be done, I start hearing a bunch of incoherent 'buts'.

I see it this way, we have 'A'. We all know A is bad but we're unsure of the consquences of losing A. So basically A stays around under the maxium "Better the Devil you know..."

Post 1

Friday, August 12, 2005 - 8:20am

I’ve recently been wondering, in a complete capitalistic society, what would happen to the small public parks dotted throughout cities? Would I have to pay some private owner to go nap on my lunch break? Or would there be any parks at all with more obviously profitable uses for that land? And what about stuff like city zoning laws? I know any benefits gained from eliminating any statism would far out weigh the losses. But we would lose some things we like right?

Post 2

Friday, August 12, 2005 - 10:01am

Greg-
Yes you probably would lose some things you like, because no one else would be forced to pay for what other people like. In a free society, however, if you wished to buy some land, plant some trees and open it up to the public as a park, you would be free to do so.

Post 3

Friday, August 12, 2005 - 8:43am

Great Artilcle

At least trains in Europe are actually comfortable. British Trains / Buses couldn't get much worse, that is for sure, I think people if presented with a "B" option, could be open to it.
I think part of the problem is how that option is delivered/presented to people, if it is just one man ranting in the corner, many people will not listen.

Post 4

Friday, August 12, 2005 - 1:43pm

I would love to live in a country that was pure Libertarian . Of course, the Libertarian party is a big, ineffective fucking mess, but that's another issue, and you all know what I mean. I frequently look at my LP party card and wonder what to do with it. The pure capitalism ideal is always something that we must work at attaining. The problem is, we've got the wild goddamn west out there. Sometimes I think as weird as the survivalist types can be, I wouldn't mind having some of their gear.

I am a business director for a successful, full-bore laissez-faire capitalist- a true self-made man who built his empire from East Cleveland, where I'm sitting right now (we stayed). East Cleveland is basically the poorest city in the U.S.- it is a shithole. When I go out on the properties we have here, I am usually armed. I will not go out at night, period. Our office building rolls down and locks down like a vault. We have a giant welfare nation. I could see things going tribal in this country. Or, at least highly polarized. There is a power elite in this country, and they are entangled in government worse than ever. I don't know what the real answer is. As far as I can tell now, the main difference between the Right and the Left is that the Left has the style of telling you what stupid things they want to spend your money on. The Right doesn't give a fuck what you think, and are going to spend it on whatever they want.

Post 5

Friday, August 12, 2005 - 5:42pm

Some smart libertarians, like philosopher Rod Long at Auburn University, seem to believe that there would remain "public" parks and such in a libertarian world. Beats me how. Of course, if one means by "public" that they are open to use by anyone in the community, at least anyone whose conduct is civilized, then such spaces would clearly be possible from donors and such, just as some have suggested.
(Edited by Machan on 8/13, 9:34am)

Post 6

Friday, August 12, 2005 - 5:55pm

One case in point is real estate ownership. Most Americans have tied up much of their net worth in home ownership, and this in turn depends in large part on the artificial scarcity created by zoning, slow growth, smart growth, environmental preservation and so on. A recent Economist reported on the work of some academic economists who concluded that 40% of a home's price in LA or New York is due to land use restrictions. Getting rid of these restrictions is going to be a very difficult sell politically.

Peter

Post 7

Friday, August 12, 2005 - 6:52pm

Tibor, there would likely be foundations established, funded by contributions and bequests, whose purpose is to create and maintain "public" spaces. Carneigie did something like that with libraries and there are parks setup like that now. Yes, those places would really be privately owned, but then "public" spaces today are really owned by some government.

The only real but crucial difference is that the one is financed voluntarily and the other coercively.

Post 8

Saturday, August 13, 2005 - 9:29am

Public parks...hmm. I can tell you this- one of the main reasons that East Cleveland will always be here in some shape or form is because it used to be Rockefeller's back yard- Forest Hill Park is across the street from my office (war zone). East of Euclid Avenue is Lake View cemetery, which is where a lot of industrialists are buried, as well as President James Garfield. They keep all that up nice. But, no jogging at night.

Post 9

Saturday, August 13, 2005 - 9:42am

Rick,

"Tibor, there would likely be foundations established, funded by contributions and bequests, whose purpose is to create and maintain "public" spaces."

Here in the SF area east bay we have such a foundation already. The "Save Mt. Diablo" organization has funded the purchase of several properties through voluntary donations and added them to Mt. Diablo state park. I'm sure if the state park system were abolished this organization would be much larger and funding the preservation of Mt. Diablo through purely voluntary donations. My wife has contributed several hundred dollars over the years and we have hiked extensively in this park.

www.savemountdiablo.org

Post 10

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 3:56pm