Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:There is no 'right to Internet access' (Score 1) 153

So then stop working. Slaves are forced to work, you aren't forced to work. Especially in the UK, you can stop working, go on welfare and not be a slave at all.

I'll bite. First of all, you cannot collect welfare if you are able to work, so you are indeed forced to work, and have a portion of your labor stolen from you. When you do so, money is stolen from you. Every time you spend money, 20% of the transaction is stolen, and if you are buying gasoline, alcohol or cigarettes the percentage is much more than that. Do you really think that its 'fair' that people can simply stop working and have everything provided to them by the people who do work? Even if it was moral, do you really believe it is sustainable? If you do, I have some beach front property in Arizona for you cheap!

By being a citizen of whatever country you are in, you are bound by their laws and contractually obligated to pay taxes

This is not true. When people are born in a country, are you claiming that they are automatically bound by a contract? That is the same as being born a slave, with no option to opt out. By what right does a country claim a human being as its property, simply because it is born inside an artificial border? Its completely absurd.

Without taxes your entire country wouldn't exist, nevermind roads, schools, police, and all the rest that go along with civilized society.

This is not true. America (for example) was built without taxes as we know them today. Roads, Schools and police could exist very well, and in better forms without these theft based services being provided by the state.

Comment Re:There is no 'right to Internet access' (Score 1, Insightful) 153

Yes look at all the Doctors being enslaved by the masses. Oh wait, that's right, you can't even give me a single example of that.

I think you are not going deep enough into this; if a country taxes people (theft) to pay for the healthcare of others, the doctors who perform the work are being paid with stolen money, and the people who provide that money are the slaves.

Its the same with the BBC. They take stolen money (the 'TV License' collected under threat of jail) and then provide programmes for 'free'. In every case, the taxpayer is the slave.

Comment Re:There is no 'right to Internet access' (Score 1) 153

By that standard you have no rights at all, as all rights require someone else's "slavery".

This is not so. All the rights you have come into existence when you are born. They all stem from your right to self ownership. You own yourself, and all the fruits of your labor.

Property rights are the root of all rights. Your 'right to a free press' is actually a property right in the paper and ink you buy or make to distribute. Your right to publish is actually your right to distribute your property as you see fit. Your right to association is actually your right to take your own body to any place where you have a right to be (i.e. not violating someone else's property right in their house or land).

When you look at rights from the correct position, it is easy to spot what a right is and what a right is not.

have a look at this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-Lb8YitPs8

for a very good lecture on rights.

Comment Re:There is no 'right to Internet access' (Score 1) 153

If a parent is required to care for their child, rather than drop it in a dumpster, is that slavery?

Parents have a duty to care for their child, they are not required to do it. That is a pure straw man argument.

When I am required to stop at a red light, is that slavery?

Stopping at a red light does not take anything away from anyone, so this example fails utterly.

Everyone in this world relies on the labor of others. That isn't slavery,

It is not slavery if people work for each other voluntarily; this is what you are deliberately missing out. You need to miss this out because if you do not, you are admitting that you are a supporter of the violent theft of people's work, money and property for the "greater good".

Requiring people to help each other out is how society has worked for all of human history.

That is a lie, and the logical fallacy known as 'Appeal to Tradition':

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-tradition.html

Im sorry that I rubbed you up the wrong way, but the logic of this air tight. You may be for the theft of other people's resources. Fine. Just admit it and be done, instead of flailing about with your ill thought out arguments.

Comment There is no 'right to Internet access' (Score 0, Troll) 153

There are some things that are not a matter of opinion. Anyone who has taken an introductory algebra class recalls the transitive property of equality. It states that if A = B and B = C, then A = C. A doesn’t “somewhat” equal C. It does not equal C most of the time. There is no moderate or extremist way to look at this theorem. It is just absolutely true without exception or qualification.

This mathematical/logical principle applies directly to our example. Consider the following:

If (A) a right = (B) healthcare

And (B) healthcare = (C) the labor of other people

Then the right to healthcare must equal “a right to the labor of other people (slavery).” The words “moderate” or “extreme” do not apply to this statement. It is simply true. One cannot partially agree or disagree with it.

In order to disagree with it, one must reject one of the first two statements in the theorem. Assuming that one does not want to reject the first statement (healthcare is a right), then one must take the absurd position that healthcare is not the labor of other people. Without accepting this absurdity, one cannot deny that a right to healthcare constitutes a right to the labor of other people. If that is not the definition of slavery, then what is?

The same goes for the bogus 'right to internet access' or 'right to education' or any other State created right that causes the property, work and money of other people to be put to use for the benefit of other people by force.

Net Neutrality is nothing more than a form of 'right to internet access'; in it, your ISP equipment and bandwidth are taken out of your control for the 'greater good' by force. Your company and your capital are being made other people's property, and you and your staff are being made into slaves because you are being forced to maintain these immoral rules.

If people want Net Neutrality, they should get together and form an umbrella organization made up of people and ISPs where the companies that own the bandwidth and equipment promise to follow the rules laid down by the 'Net Neutral Association'.

If the idea catches on, it will become the de-facto standard, otherwise, it will die. What is for sure, forcing people to cooperate with each other is not moral and people who have intact moral centers do not use force to make others do what they believe to be right.

Comment Re:Bitcoin to revolutionise economy (Score 0) 642

Vodka is right of course, but in the super intelligent socialist infested collectivist fest that is Slashdot, where the majority of users believe that wealth is a privilege, that there is such a thing as a 'right to internet access' or a right to $good_that_is_not_a_right, that there is no such thing as property rights, and that democracy is 'fair', you are simply banging your head against the wall.

for all those that are open minded, who concede that they could be brainwashed but who wish not to be brainwashed, you need look no further than the following resources to convince you:

The Kingdom of Moltz
http://www.constitution.org/tax/us-ic/schiff/moltz.pdf

How an Economy Grows and Why it Doesnt, by Irwin Schiff
http://www.scribd.com/doc/8009736/Irwin-Schiff-How-an-Economy-Grows-and-Why-It-Doesnt

For a New Liberty, by Murray Rothbard:
http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp

The Money Masters - How International Bankers Gained Control of America
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936#

Thomas Woods, 'Where do rights come from?'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-Lb8YitPs8

Economics in one lesson by Henry Hazlit:
http://www.amazon.com/Economics-One-Lesson-Shortest-Understand/dp/0517548232

What Has Government Done to Our Money? by Murray N. Rothbard
http://mises.org/money.asp

The Ethics of Liberty, by Murray N. Rothbard
http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp

And finally,

The Fallacy Detective
http://www.fallacydetective.com/products/item/the-fallacy-detective/

because faulty reasoning is behind most of the ideas that prop up economic illiteracy and the belief in government created 'rights'.

After having consumed these works, it will be impossible for anyone to think that... well, anything fallacious to do with Economics or rights. The question is, do you have the stomach to throw away bad ideas that have been ingrained into you, possibly for decades, that are the core of your personal philosophy?

Comment Re:Let me guess... (Score 1) 264

No, taxation is the price of civilisation.

In other words, WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

And my last word to you my friend, a quote from another forum....

Japan's lower house of parliament has approved a new law requiring schools to teach children to be patriotic. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's ruling coalition voted for the law, which cites "loving our country" as a goal of Japanese pupils' compulsory education. Opposition members of parliament protested against the bill, warning that it could spread nationalism.

How do you counter an adult populace that still remembers the pains of the past, even if they gloss over the actual transgressions that caused them? Maybe you try to brainwash their children into believing that loyalty to their country always comes first.

Loyalty above morality. Loyalty above justice. Loyalty above logic. That's part of what unchecked patriotism tends to promote and it's what Japan, at least on the surface, appears to be slowly moving toward. It's a rather disturbing development that is in stark contrast to the more conciliatory German position. Modern Germany has been careful to error on the side of caution when it comes to overly nationalistic motivations and even though there are many destructive forces still present in Germany they at least seem to have the wherewithal to admit to their problems and work towards resolving them. Japan, on the other hand, appears to be far more reluctant to admit such problems, let alone address them. In fact it would appear that they have virtually no intention of truly resolving these issues and, on the surface, appear to be toying with a careful and deliberate change in direction back toward the mistakes of the past.

On Monday, Japan's upper house of parliament passed a bill setting out steps for holding a referendum on revising the country's pacifist constitution, which has not been changed since 1947. Drawn up by the US occupation authorities after WWII, it bans military force in settling international disputes and prohibits maintaining a military for warfare. But the government wants Japan to be more assertive on the world stage, with a military able to take part in peacekeeping missions abroad.

Am I the only one who is a little concerned that these 'peacekeeping' missions may only be stepping stone to a more aggressive and militant Japan in the distant future? Just think of how many wars and other acts of hostility could be prevented if people would take action in the early stages of questionable new directions instead of waiting until it's far too late.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/asia-pacific/6669061.stm

Looks like they already got to you, ay?!

Comment Re:Let me guess... (Score 1) 264

We don't see giving people the right to an education or basic medical care as stealing from one group to give to another.

You are sticking your head in the sand like an ostrich. You know perfectly well where the money for your 'basic medical care' comes from; it comes from taxation, which is theft. You keep leaving the details out because to admit them means admitting you are a supporter of crime.

You cannot give the right to education to someone; you can give the gift of education, but you cannot give someone the right to it. Not unless you are willing to steal from someone to do it. You seem to understand that what I am saying is true, because you are admitting that your society cannot exist without violence. Your ideas are immoral and wrong, and you cannot convince the members of your society to voluntarily participate in the system you advocate. That is all we need to know about it. Its ideologically and morally and financially bankrupt.

Try these for size:

Paying income tax in America is Voluntary
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7mRSI8yWwg

Pete Stark Blows Up Over National Debt
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjbPZAMked0

Pelosi's Double Standard on the Minimum Wage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pFC3LKMIQo

Jan persuades George Will to accept a principle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uf8Y1sENUj4

All of these people demonstrate the same sort of thinking that you are using here. It is delusional, self deception, and when each of them are confronted by the truth of the lies they believe, the results are frankly as funny as they are terrifying.

Internet access is not a right here

Not yet:

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=right+to+the+internet+un

But they are going to declare it so shortly, and no doubt, you will suddenly believe that humans have a 'right to the internet' tomorrow that they do not have today, simply because some stooge at the UN said so. Its as ridiculous as something can be ridiculous, and what is so amazing is that there are intelligent people like you who actually believe that it is true and correct.

We are proud of that, it shows our compassion as human beings towards each other, as flawed as the implementation can sometimes be.

Your compassion is based on violence. It is impure, tainted by the State that you serve and the violent theft that keeps your immoral system going. You point to these vestigial and small scale goods that are handed out while ignoring the elephant in the room; hundreds of millions killed by the State that you love so dearly, and who you think has done so much good. This is pure brainwashing; nothing else can explain your lack of perspective.

If you are unwilling to allow anything which transfers wealth or labour from one person to another to be a right then it seems like protection from having your children kidnapped or being assaulted cannot be a right.

This is a straw man. People can transfer wealth or labour in any way they like, as long as it is voluntary.

On the contrary human rights in the EU require the state to protect you. The state is society's way of delivering and enforcing human rights. Violence and prejudice is specifically now allowed.

This is more brainwashing. The right that you have pre-existed any government, and we do not need the State to keep us safe.

As for prejudice not being allowed, political correctness, hate crimes and all controls on speech are one of the more recent and vile excrescences of the criminal predatory state. To my constant horror and disappointment, many people actually applaud 'hate crime' laws and participate eagerly in calling for people to be hung drawn and quartered for simply writing articles. It makes me literally sick to my stomach.

If there is no burden on others to recognise and facilitate your rights then what use are they anyway? Seriously, how do you reconcile having a right to something yet not being able to expect any support from anyone for it or even expecting other people to recognise it?

What you are saying doesn't make any sense. The only obligation you have is to not violate other people's rights. After that, within your personal conscience, you are then obliged not to (for example) step over homeless people, to help feed the hungry, to aid your fellow man and to do all the things that many human beings should to to help each other. Its called being charitable. It is voluntary, beneficial and does not depend on coercion for it to take place. If you are a human being with an intact moral center, you can be convinced to give up your time and money to do charitable acts through persuasion. That is all that is needed. Once again, in your society, persuasion doesn't work to fix social ills, because people innately know that your system is pure evil.

To repeat myself, you cannot have a 'right to something' and this is where we have a total disconnect. You steadfastly and stubbornly refuse to accept the true definition of rights, and insist on believing the fairy tale of State created rights. No problem, as long as you do not try and impose your sick and violent ideas on me. I guarantee you that I will never try and impose my ideas upon you, which is the essential difference between us, and the truth that you will not publicly confess to; you are a supporter of violence and you support the State using it to steal money from your fellow man so that the idea of what 'society' should be, that was drilled into your head at a school, should become reality.

Comment Re:Let me guess... (Score 1) 264

The problem with your point of view, is that the 'rights' (which are not rights at all) conferred by the UN, EU and legislatures mean that the services and goods and money from one group of people are going to be stolen from another group:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ron+paul+healthcare+right&aq=f

This is why people who understand what rights are say that healthcare, food, education and access to the internet are not a rights; you cannot have a right to someone else's labour, money, services or goods.

and just because you don't agree with them does not make you or your offspring exempt as long as you live with the rest of us.

And this is exactly the sort of violent collectivism that I and the Libertarians despise.

"Because your offspring live with us, you are subject to our collective will, our opinions, prejudices and our violence". It means that you believe the offspring of human beings are born into contracts (the fictitious 'social contract') that binds them to other people for life, where the debts of the previous generation of strangers fall upon their shoulders and where these people are subjets of the treaties, contracts and constitutions enacted by dead men.

This, to us, is irrational, evil and violent, and you can keep it. Of course, your response will be, "you cant say that; if you try and live separately from us, our agents will come to your house and kill you". That is what your philosophy is all about; threats, killing, theft and illogic.

I don't have a problem with people who think and live differently to me, but I do have a problem with people who threaten others, and this is exactly what you are doing when you say the offspring of strangers are subject to your prejudices, ignorance and violence.

This is the fundamental difference between your type and non violent people like Libertarians; we can live with you in peace ad infinitum. You canot live with anyone in peace. Coercion threats and violence are the cornerstones of your philosophy.

Comment Re:Let me guess... (Score 1) 264

Ah, I see, your argument is that you think education is not a right rather than what the law says.

Not at all. You do not understand what the word 'right' means. A right is not the same as a privilege or guaranteed access to services that can be conferred, made available or revoked. Until you understand what a right is, with precision, its pointless to go around in circles with you.

I was referring to the EU convention, nothing to do with the UN. The EU is part of our democracy and legal system.

It doesn't matter wether you are talking about the EU or the UN; no government body can create rights out of thin air. Your point 2 in this matter demonstrates that you really and truly do not understand what rights are!

The best I can do for you is to point you to the same links that I have posted elsewhere in this thread:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-Lb8YitPs8

as a primer to what rights are. You are highly intelligent, and should have no trouble grasping the difference between rights and privileges.

Comment Re:Let me guess... (Score 1) 264

Nope. Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights states

It is patently absurd to say that because the UN prints a piece of paper, that suddenly the rights of man have increased. The only reason you cite this and accept it is that you do not believe it impacts on you directly.

If the UN decided that everyone has the right to a 'hate free internet' or AmiMoJo's blood, then you would suddenly feel very differently.

Rights are not arbitrary constructs that are created by men. they inhere in you and cannot be changed or added to.

Like Japan individualism and free thought is considered a vital and important part of the curriculum. It is recognised that in the past failure by individuals to consider matters for themselves and this discouragement of dissenting views has lead to catastrophic extremism.

This is absurd; you are claiming that everyone being taught the identical State curriculum in uniform schools will cause more individuals i.e. people who are not uniform to emerge. This is classic double-think, and no doubt, a product of Government schooling.

I think you need to do a bit more research instead of just reading that site you link to.

I linked to that site to tell the story of how that boy was kidnapped. I take it that you are not disputing those facts, and wonder if you agree that the Swedish state was 'entirely justified' in kidnapping that young man. Who knows? What I can say, is that your thinking and moral center are faulty, judging by what you have written here. You do not understand what rights are, are willing to explain away the suppression of people's rights 'for the greater good', and you appear to suffer from State induced double-think.

I put it to you that there have been groups of violent people, and the passive dupe who supported them, who used the justification of 'the greater good' to explain away their evil deeds. People who initiate force; who coerce, do violence and support it are always in the wrong, and that is a fact.

Comment Re:They cannot possibly get it right (Score 1) 264

That will not happen for the vast majority. Buying security will be cheap. Its the same as people buying insurance today, the more people who do it, the cheaper it becomes.

For those who cannot afford private security, they can defend themselves in voluntary defence groups, in the same way that small villages have voluntary firemen.

Comment Re:Let me guess... (Score 1) 264

First of all, its important to understand what rights are before entering into a discussion about them. Education is not a right, its a good. Children do not have rights as a class of human being, they have the same rights that all men do.

Germany is trying to and is succeeding in creating a generation of people who cannot think in any other way than what the government schools dictate. That is why almost all of them fail to defend Home Education, and why families flee Germany to seek and receive political asylum in the USA.

The examples you give involving violence and police trying to extract information unter torture are straw man arguments. We are discussing wether or not the parent is the parent of children, or the State. In Germany, Sweden, Iceland and other non free countries, the State is the ultimate parent of children, and this has been achieved through the fallacious pretext of 'the Rights of the Child'. In fact, this is nothing more than the entrenching of the jobs and status of a few State employees and evil social engineers who want to mould those societies as they see fit.

How would you teach citizenship issues and things like morality then?

Morality and all matters of the spirit and these private matters of conscience are not the business of the State. How they are taught or not taught in someone's home is not your or my business This is exactly how totalitarian systems are able to come into being; when a small number of aparatchiks decide what morality is, based on their own prejudices and perversions, this then being pumped by force into the minds of every school attending pupil. The fact that you might agree with what is being taught right now, does not make it moral.

I see nothing wrong with teaching values agreed by society, just like America teaches the constitution and France teaches the values of equality, liberty and fraternity.

There is no such thing as 'values agreed by society'. What goes into a State curriculum is decided by a small number of 'experts' who are prejudiced and biased. It is this small group, in every jurisdiction, that dictates what is taught to schoolchildren. It is not an act of collective approval or subject to a vote (not that that would legitimise it); you send 'your' children to school under threat that if you do not, you might have them taken away from you, and when they get to the school, you have absolutely no say over what is taught to them, how it is taught, etc. People who understand what freedom is and what rights are hold this to be pure evil.

America teaches the Constitution in the way that they do because that is how they keep control over their population. Its why so few people are able to even imagine the perfectly reasonable and rational possibility of a Stateless society, or even a reduced Federal Government which is explicitly called for in the Constitution (tenth amendment). In France, they teach what they teach to keep the French 'French'. They even ban foreign language music from the radio by law.

Compulsory school laws are immoral, and the paper thin justifications that the Germans give for their draconian laws cannot even convince the UN that they are reasonable.

Finally, the whole thing is violent, and can only work because the German State threaten Germans with the kidnapping of their children. If the German, Swedish an Spanish systems were so great, perfect, tolerant and wonderful, there would be no need for compulsion; the fact is the operators of the State cannot stand the fact that even 100 families in Germany Home Educate, such is their loathing for free thought. So much for the inclusive, diverse German Utopia.

To those who say, "you can always leave" look at the case of Johannson boy who was kidnapped right off of an airplane as his family was about to relocate to india, where they could Home Educate in peace and freedom:

http://hef.org.nz/2009/home-schooled-boy-snatched-from-plane-in-sweden/

all decent people are horrified by this sort of action. The Swedish government actually believe that a young boy is their property, and that he has no right to live with his parents, simply because they refuse to send him to a school in Sweden.

This is a fundamental disconnect that many Europeans have, and its all because they have been brainwashed to accept the State as the fount of all good, all order and that the Fatherland is the ultimate parent of all children. They have been disconnected from their humanity; that is why they can accept, justify, argue for and even applaud this appalling situation.

Comment Re:They cannot possibly get it right (Score 1) 264

Abolition of the public sector means, of course, that all pieces of land, all land areas, including streets and roads, would be owned privately, by individuals, corporations, cooperatives, or any other voluntary groupings of individuals and capital.

The fact that all streets and land areas would be private would by itself solve many of the seemingly insoluble problems of private operation. What we need to do is to reorient our thinking to consider a world in which all land areas are privately owned.

Let us take, for example, police protection. How would police protection be furnished in a totally private economy? Part of the answer becomes evident if we consider a world of totally private land and street ownership.

Consider the Times Square area of New York City, a notoriously crime-ridden area where there is little police protection furnished by the city authorities. Every New Yorker knows, in fact, that he lives and walks the streets, and not only Times Square, virtually in a state of “anarchy,” dependent solely on the normal peacefulness and good will of his fellow citizens. Police protection in New York is minimal, a fact dramatically revealed during week-long police strikes when, lo and behold!, crime in no way increased from its normal state when the police are supposedly alert and on the job. At any rate, suppose that the Times Square area, including the streets, was privately owned, say by the “Times Square Merchants Association.” The merchants would know full well, of course, that if crime was rampant in their area, if muggings and holdups abounded, then their customers would fade away and would patronize competing areas and neighborhoods. Hence, it would be to the economic interest of the merchants’ association to supply efficient and plentiful police protection, so that customers would be attracted to, rather than repelled from, their neighborhood. Private business, after all, is always trying to attract and keep its customers. But what good would be served by attractive store displays and packaging, pleasant lighting and courteous service, if the customers may be robbed or assaulted if they walk through the area?

The merchants’ association, furthermore, would be induced, by their drive for profits and for avoiding losses, to supply not only sufficient police protection but also courteous and pleasant protection. Governmental police have not only no incentive to be efficient or worry about their “customers’” needs; they also live with the ever-present temptation to wield their power of force in a brutal and coercive manner. “Police brutality” is a well-known feature of the police system, and it is held in check only by remote complaints of the harassed citizenry. But if the private merchants’ police should yield to the temptation of brutalizing the merchants’ customers, those customers will quickly disappear and go elsewhere. Hence, the merchants’ association will see to it that its police are courteous as well as plentiful.

Such efficient and high-quality police protection would prevail throughout the land, throughout all the private streets and land areas. Factories would guard their street areas, merchants their streets, and road companies would provide safe and efficient police protection for their toll roads and other privately owned roads. The same would be true for residential neighborhoods.

We can envision two possible types of private street ownership in such neighborhoods. In one type, all the landowners in a certain block might become the joint owners of that block, let us say as the “85th St. Block Company.” This company would then provide police protection, the costs being paid either by the home-owners directly or out of tenants’ rent if the street includes rental apartments. Again, homeowners will of course have a direct interest in seeing that their block is safe, while landlords will try to attract tenants by supplying safe streets in addition to the more usual services such as heat, water, and janitorial service.

To ask why landlords should provide safe streets in the libertarian, fully private society is just as silly as asking now why they should provide their tenants with heat or hot water. The force of competition and of consumer demand would make them supply such services. Furthermore, whether we are considering homeowners or rental housing, in either case the capital value of the land and the house will be a function of the safety of the street as well as of the other well-known characteristics of the house and the neighborhood. Safe and well-patrolled streets will raise the value of the landowners’ land and houses in the same way as well-tended houses do; crime-ridden streets will lower the value of the land and houses as surely as dilapidated housing itself does. Since landowners always prefer higher to lower market values for their property, there is a built-in incentive to provide efficient, well -paved, and safe streets.

Another type of private street-ownership in residential areas might be private street companies, which would own only the streets, not the houses or buildings on them. The street companies would then charge landowners for the service of maintaining, improving, and policing their streets.

Once again, safe, well-lit, and well-paved streets will induce landowners and tenants to flock to those streets; unsafe, badly lit and badly maintained streets will drive those owners and users away. A happy and flourishing use of the streets by landlords and automobiles will raise the profits and stock values of the street companies; an unhappy and decaying regard for streets by their owners will drive the users away and lower the profits and the stock values of the private street companies. Hence, the street-owning companies will do their best to provide efficient street service, including police protection, to secure happy users; they will be driven to do this by their desire to make profits and to increase the value of their capital, and by their equally active desire not to suffer losses and erosion of their capital.

It is infinitely better to rely on the pursuit of economic interest by landowners or street companies than to depend on the dubious “altruism” of bureaucrats and government officials.

Slashdot Top Deals

There are two kinds of egotists: 1) Those who admit it 2) The rest of us

Working...