Retrospective approval rating

[SPC]

SPC has openly called for privatizing all those services. He also supports allowing "competing currencies".

How cute. You know what, I want a pet libertarian this Christmas.

You haven't bothered to offer a refutation, all you've offered are ad hominem attacks.

[Vepres]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

lol

I can't imagine what it's like to be that ignorant.

What's wrong with people not being coerced into giving away over a third of their income?

Oh you libertarians are so adorable.

One day, when you get in touch with reality instead of being stuck in your utopian dreams, you'll realize that the roads you drive on are *gasp* built by the government with those tax dollars. You'll realize that the education you got so you can read was *gasp* paid for by the government with those tax dollars. Shockingly, it turns out that those guys who put out forest fires are *gasp* paid for and employed by the government.

And if I were not forced to pay taxes, I could pay for roads, education, and fire protection on the market for a cheaper and higher quality service.

Because our roads are so bad. I don't want to pay a fee to a corporation to use the roads, nor have the poor be unprotected from fires or barred from a decent education.

[Vepres]

SPC has openly called for privatizing all those services. He also supports allowing "competing currencies".

How cute. You know what, I want a pet libertarian this Christmas.

You haven't bothered to offer a refutation, all you've offered are ad hominem attacks.

I was just teasing, hence the at the end (of the first one).

I'll offer my refutation, but first, a question. What makes a private company inherently better at building and maintaining roads than the government? Or providing fire protection? Or ensuring every American has an education?

The government is doing pretty well in these three areas (even education, which is one of the top 5 best in the world according to studies not sponsored by the US government).

[SPC]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

lol

I can't imagine what it's like to be that ignorant.

What's wrong with people not being coerced into giving away over a third of their income?

Oh you libertarians are so adorable.

One day, when you get in touch with reality instead of being stuck in your utopian dreams, you'll realize that the roads you drive on are *gasp* built by the government with those tax dollars. You'll realize that the education you got so you can read was *gasp* paid for by the government with those tax dollars. Shockingly, it turns out that those guys who put out forest fires are *gasp* paid for and employed by the government.

And if I were not forced to pay taxes, I could pay for roads, education, and fire protection on the market for a cheaper and higher quality service.

Because our roads are so bad. I don't want to pay a fee to a corporation to use the roads, nor have the poor be unprotected from fires or barred from a decent education.

I suppose that all of those potholes are a sign of good roads? You already pay a "fee" to use the roads through taxes, privatization would just allow you to pay for the roads directly, and since there would be competition, you would be paying less for higher quality roads. This would allow the poor to use the roads, although they might have to use them less often, thus reducing traffic.

Again, without a government monopoly, there would be competition in the fire protection sector, so it would be cheaper and higher quality. I doubt many of the people whose homes burned down in the California wildfires think that fire protection was good enough for them.

And, have you been to a public school in a poor neighborhood lately? I doubt anyone would describe it as "decent".

[Franzl]

Specifically concerning roads.....how, may I ask, are corporations supposed to compete? If there's only a limited amount of space, how do you expect 2 or more sets of roads to be built?

[Vepres]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

lol

I can't imagine what it's like to be that ignorant.

What's wrong with people not being coerced into giving away over a third of their income?

Oh you libertarians are so adorable.

One day, when you get in touch with reality instead of being stuck in your utopian dreams, you'll realize that the roads you drive on are *gasp* built by the government with those tax dollars. You'll realize that the education you got so you can read was *gasp* paid for by the government with those tax dollars. Shockingly, it turns out that those guys who put out forest fires are *gasp* paid for and employed by the government.

And if I were not forced to pay taxes, I could pay for roads, education, and fire protection on the market for a cheaper and higher quality service.

Because our roads are so bad. I don't want to pay a fee to a corporation to use the roads, nor have the poor be unprotected from fires or barred from a decent education.

I suppose that all of those potholes are a sign of good roads? You already pay a "fee" to use the roads through taxes, privatization would just allow you to pay for the roads directly, and since there would be competition, you would be paying less for higher quality roads. This would allow the poor to use the roads, although they might have to use them less often, thus reducing traffic.

Again, without a government monopoly, there would be competition in the fire protection sector, so it would be cheaper and higher quality. I doubt many of the people whose homes burned down in the California wildfires think that fire protection was good enough for them.

And, have you been to a public school in a poor neighborhood lately? I doubt anyone would describe it as "decent".

I'll repost some edits I made:

I'll offer my refutation, but first, a question. What makes a private company inherently better at building and maintaining roads than the government? Or providing fire protection? Or ensuring every American has an education?

The government is doing pretty well in these three areas (even education, which is one of the top 5 best in the world according to studies not sponsored by the US government).

As to your arguments:

I suppose that all of those potholes are a sign of good roads? You already pay a "fee" to use the roads through taxes, privatization would just allow you to pay for the roads directly, and since there would be competition, you would be paying less for higher quality roads. This would allow the poor to use the roads, although they might have to use them less often, thus reducing traffic.

Perhaps it's a Colorado thing, but we have great roads.

Okay, so you pay for roads, what about the poor who cannot afford to pay for these roads?

And what competition? How could two road companies compete? In all likelyhood they make agreements with each other to make a quasi-monopoly. Besides, you don't choose what roads you drive on based on quality, but on what gets you to where you're going faster.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hmmmm... Again how could fire companies compete? Would they simply refuse to protect those who didn't pay for their service?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The majority of public schools are fine. I concede inter city schools are bad, but how could the poor afford any halfway decent private school? Subsidies, seems pretty anti-libertarian to me.

I reiterate, in these cases, what makes private business inherently better? And who's to say they don't become quasi-monopolies like the current healthcare industry?

[SPC]

Specifically concerning roads.....how, may I ask, are corporations supposed to compete? If there's only a limited amount of space, how do you expect 2 or more sets of roads to be built?

We do live in 3 dimensions. You could build a road next to another road, above another road, below another road, or on a completely different path. Plus, it's possible for companies or people to rent and buy roads from other companies or people.

[Vepres]

Specifically concerning roads.....how, may I ask, are corporations supposed to compete? If there's only a limited amount of space, how do you expect 2 or more sets of roads to be built?

We do live in 3 dimensions. You could build a road next to another road, above another road, below another road, or on a completely different path. Plus, it's possible for companies or people to rent and buy roads from other companies or people.

That is impractical, a waste of natural resources, and destructive to the environment.

[SPC]

Specifically concerning roads.....how, may I ask, are corporations supposed to compete? If there's only a limited amount of space, how do you expect 2 or more sets of roads to be built?

We do live in 3 dimensions. You could build a road next to another road, above another road, below another road, or on a completely different path. Plus, it's possible for companies or people to rent and buy roads from other companies or people.

That is impractical, a waste of natural resources, and destructive to the environment.

Actually, since people would have to pay directly for driving on roads and how many miles they drive, it would discourage driving more than necessary, and thus help the environment.

[Vepres]

Specifically concerning roads.....how, may I ask, are corporations supposed to compete? If there's only a limited amount of space, how do you expect 2 or more sets of roads to be built?

We do live in 3 dimensions. You could build a road next to another road, above another road, below another road, or on a completely different path. Plus, it's possible for companies or people to rent and buy roads from other companies or people.

That is impractical, a waste of natural resources, and destructive to the environment.

Actually, since people would have to pay directly for driving on roads and how many miles they drive, it would discourage driving more than necessary, and thus help the environment.

But you've contradicted yourself. If people chose to drive less, and get from one place to another as quickly as possible, they'd simply pick the road that gets them there in the shortest amount of time, not the road made by the best company.

It's not very practical to build a road next to, above, or under another. Why have 3 roads going on a similar path to same place when you can have one that can handle the amount of traffic that passes through it.

It seems to be a mountain west thing, but our roads are maintained very well, even in big cities such as Denver, and don't really leave anything to be desired.

The problem SPC, is that you support the privatization of roads for purely ideological reasons (or so it would seem based on your arguments), even though there really isn't any compelling reason to change the current system.

I generally support smaller government because government usually causes problems and is inefficient, like Medicare and Medicaid for example. However, one must realize that the government monopolizing roads in no way affects the quality of our road system. One could point to pot holes, or cracks that need repairing, but the thing is, Mayors usually win or lose elections based on things like this. If the streets are falling apart, the Mayor won't win reelection, plain and simple.

[CJK]

I'm surprised that Kennedy has such high approvals. If he was president today I think most liberals would be appalled.

[Scam of God]

I'm surprised that Kennedy has such high approvals. If he was president today I think most liberals would be appalled.

Presidents ought to be contextualized when they are evaluated. For the period he lived in, Kennedy was quite liberal. For that matter I would have been an adamant supporter of Lincoln during his Presidency, even if in retrospect I virulently disagree with, for example, the interning of political opponents or the suspension of habeas corpus - it's the broader, long-term influence of the President, measured against his immediate backdrop, that matters most.

Do I think Kennedy's excessive bellicosity towards the Soviet Union (he was a much more strident anti-Communist than his predecessor Eisenhower) was unnecessary and dangerous? Yes; but then, I disagree with the Cold Warriors anyway. Still, he could have been much worse - he could have been Nixon.

[The Mikado]

I'm surprised that Kennedy has such high approvals. If he was president today I think most liberals would be appalled.

How so?  Moving the highest marginal tax rate down from 90%?  I don't think that there's anyone (outside of people like opebo) who would support return to Eisenhower-era tax rates.

His actions during the Cuban Missile Crisis?  Hardly controversial by any standards.

Championing (though he died before it could pass) Civil Rights reform?  Excellent measure, and hardly controversial on the left.

Sending "advisors" to Vietnam/assassinating Diem?  Considering how few people knew about either (the war there didn't gain a significant American presence until '65) I can't see how it would "shock" many people.  Besides, initially, there wasn't anything wrong with holding to the Kennan Doctrine and supporting the South Vietnamese regime.  It's true that Kennedy's final actions there, signing off on Diem's murder to put a more America-friendly puppet, was reprehensible, but Diem was a real piece of work, anyways, and the images of self-immolating Buddhist monks were seriously detrimental to American commitment in Vietnam.

[CJK]

How so?  Moving the highest marginal tax rate down from 90%?  I don't think that there's anyone (outside of people like opebo) who would support return to Eisenhower-era tax rates.

You'd be shocked. Most liberals think you can tax as much as you want without harming the economy. Witness the Krugman nostalgia for 1970s tax rates.

His actions during the Cuban Missile Crisis?  Hardly controversial by any standards.

The Castro-apologists would whine that he opposed a heroic, nationalist leader of the masses who was only attempting to liberate his people from U.S. imperialism.

Championing (though he died before it could pass) Civil Rights reform?  Excellent measure, and hardly controversial on the left.

Liberals on this board are already complaining that Obama won't support gay rights enough. Could you imagine them watching Kennedy basically urging reformers to slow down on desegregation?

Sending "advisors" to Vietnam/assassinating Diem?  Considering how few people knew about either (the war there didn't gain a significant American presence until '65) I can't see how it would "shock" many people.  Besides, initially, there wasn't anything wrong with holding to the Kennan Doctrine and supporting the South Vietnamese regime.  It's true that Kennedy's final actions there, signing off on Diem's murder to put a more America-friendly puppet, was reprehensible, but Diem was a real piece of work, anyways, and the images of self-immolating Buddhist monks were seriously detrimental to American commitment in Vietnam.

Liberals pretty much oppose anything associated with the Vietnam war. Besides, didn't Kennedy say that we would "pay any price, support any friend, oppose any foe in order to ensure the survival and success in liberty"? Could you imagine any Liberal accepting that "neocon" position today?

[Scam of God]

CJK, you really need to re-define your terms. I am a Leftist, and a liberal; I find the Vietnam War, started under the false pretense of the Gulf of Tonkin incident, abhorrent; I oppose all U.S. military intervention around the world, and I support gay rights and the right of self-ownership for women -- and I'm also (significantly) further to your right on economics, I oppose bans on guns and other weaponry, I oppose school uniforms and public smoking bans, and I detest Affirmative Action.

Until you can stop pigeon-holing your opponents, you will inevitably lose.

[CJK]

CJK, you really need to re-define your terms. I am a Leftist, and a liberal; I find the Vietnam War, started under the false pretense of the Gulf of Tonkin incident, abhorrent; I oppose all U.S. military intervention around the world, and I support gay rights and the right of self-ownership for women -- and I'm also (significantly) further to your right on economics, I oppose bans on guns and other weaponry, I oppose school uniforms and public smoking bans, and I detest Affirmative Action.

Until you can stop pigeon-holing your opponents, you will inevitably lose.

I said "most" liberals think high taxes are great. You basically agree with my last three points, though. I'm not sure how you know where I stand on economics.

[Scam of God]

CJK, you really need to re-define your terms. I am a Leftist, and a liberal; I find the Vietnam War, started under the false pretense of the Gulf of Tonkin incident, abhorrent; I oppose all U.S. military intervention around the world, and I support gay rights and the right of self-ownership for women -- and I'm also (significantly) further to your right on economics, I oppose bans on guns and other weaponry, I oppose school uniforms and public smoking bans, and I detest Affirmative Action.

Until you can stop pigeon-holing your opponents, you will inevitably lose.

I said "most" liberals think high taxes are great.

No, I'm not entirely sure that they do. Most liberals see governmental programmes, funded through progressive taxation, as a solution to our problems; I see the free-market, co-operating with the government in a few key instances (such as distributing the means of production on a decentralized, individual level), is the solution. All liberals agree, however, that a more egalitarian order is needed - we simply disagree on how to achieve it.

[SPC]

Specifically concerning roads.....how, may I ask, are corporations supposed to compete? If there's only a limited amount of space, how do you expect 2 or more sets of roads to be built?

We do live in 3 dimensions. You could build a road next to another road, above another road, below another road, or on a completely different path. Plus, it's possible for companies or people to rent and buy roads from other companies or people.

That is impractical, a waste of natural resources, and destructive to the environment.

Actually, since people would have to pay directly for driving on roads and how many miles they drive, it would discourage driving more than necessary, and thus help the environment.

But you've contradicted yourself. If people chose to drive less, and get from one place to another as quickly as possible, they'd simply pick the road that gets them there in the shortest amount of time, not the road made by the best company.

I think you've oversimplified things. Choosing between two different products is based on multiple factors: price, convenience, quality, etc., and everyone has their different preference and criteria.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You could just as easily ask 'Why have 3 soda companies selling similar flavors and when you can have one that handles that amount of customers desiring it?'. But, of course, competition keeps the companies providing the services in a constant battle to improve quality, increase convenience, and lower prices. Such incentive is not provided in a monopoly.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I frequently take the semi-private toll road, which I notice is of higher quality than other roads.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It would seem that you have never been in traffic.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Mayoral elections are usually about every 2 years, meaning that if your mayor refuses to do anything about the roads, you're stuck with them for another two years. If they were privately operated, any poorly-managed road would instantly lose customers. Plus, privately operated roads would be able to increase fees if traffic became more of a problem. With government roads, you just have to deal with traffic.


BTW, I love how Einzige didn't bother to refute any of the links I provided showing that his view of libertarians supporting tax hikes is ridiculous.

[Vepres]

You could just as easily ask 'Why have 3 soda companies selling similar flavors and when you can have one that handles that amount of customers desiring it?'. But, of course, competition keeps the companies providing the services in a constant battle to improve quality, increase convenience, and lower prices. Such incentive is not provided in a monopoly.

You buy sodas at a store. A road is quite different. You would be forced to use the road of a company that got you to where you wanted to go, not necessarily the cheapest or highest quality one, thus eliminating a lot of the competition. It's not practical to build 3 roads that connect the exact same places.

Besides, there is always the risk of a business not letting you use the road for some arbitrary reason (which they could legally do, at least a libertarian like yourself would probably do), and thus you have to take either a much longer route, or you cannot get to your destination.

Using a semi-private road to go from my house to the airport is one thing. To have to pay tolls to use the road if I want to go to the nearby Safeway is a totally different thing. And what of the poor, who are essentially not taxed, how would they pay to use these roads? One could argue the fees would be small, but it would surely add up.
 

[SPC]

You could just as easily ask 'Why have 3 soda companies selling similar flavors and when you can have one that handles that amount of customers desiring it?'. But, of course, competition keeps the companies providing the services in a constant battle to improve quality, increase convenience, and lower prices. Such incentive is not provided in a monopoly.

You buy sodas at a store. A road is quite different. You would be forced to use the road of a company that got you to where you wanted to go, not necessarily the cheapest or highest quality one, thus eliminating a lot of the competition. It's not practical to build 3 roads that connect the exact same places.

What's impractical of building roads with similar destinations? Don't they have that already to a certain extent in the government road system?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

While a business would have the freedom to not let you use their road, such a decision would be very unwise. Unless you were a safety hazard, I doubt business would turn down money like that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Gasoline and other taxes also add up over a period of time. The difference is that with private roads, you could always choose a cheaper competitor if you don't like the price of the tolls.

[Governor PiT]

Most of them were terrible president. Nixon was a decent guy but he sold out as well. Not a major Kennedy fan but I aknowledge that he gave his life fighting the Fed and Israel's Nuclear Program.

[Vepres]

You could just as easily ask 'Why have 3 soda companies selling similar flavors and when you can have one that handles that amount of customers desiring it?'. But, of course, competition keeps the companies providing the services in a constant battle to improve quality, increase convenience, and lower prices. Such incentive is not provided in a monopoly.

You buy sodas at a store. A road is quite different. You would be forced to use the road of a company that got you to where you wanted to go, not necessarily the cheapest or highest quality one, thus eliminating a lot of the competition. It's not practical to build 3 roads that connect the exact same places.

What's impractical of building roads with similar destinations? Don't they have that already to a certain extent in the government road system?

Roads are very resource intensive. Imagine if we had three prominent road companies. Now you have to triple the amount of physical space and resources used.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

While a business would have the freedom to not let you use their road, such a decision would be very unwise. Unless you were a safety hazard, I doubt business would turn down money like that.
[/quote]

True. Then again, since when were business leaders wise.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Gasoline and other taxes also add up over a period of time. The difference is that with private roads, you could always choose a cheaper competitor if you don't like the price of the tolls.
[/quote]

You still don't have a solution for the very poor. If somebody currently barely has enough money to afford an old car and gasoline, how do you expect them to pay tolls every day?

What if an entire region is controlled by one business. If one company controlled the vast majority of the roads in Phoenix for example, they could artificially raise prices. I believe this is a very likely scenario.

Finally, besides the occasional beat up road in a big city or traffic, the current road system leaves little to be desired? And even if these problems warranted a change in the whole system of building and maintaining roads, how would private companies remedy the traffic problem? They would build bigger roads, destroying the environment and using up resources. At least the government can build public transit, particularly light rail and subway systems, which are the real solution. It would be in the road companies' interest to prevent public transportation, bike paths, and the like, which isn't in the best interests of the commuter nor the environment.

[Meeker]

Approve of all the Democrats plus Eisenhower, Ford and Bush 41

[tmthforu94]

Approve of all of them except Johnson, Truman, and Carter.

[Хahar 🤔]

The Castro-apologists would whine that he opposed a heroic, nationalist leader of the masses who was only attempting to liberate his people from U.S. imperialism.

That goes without saying. Whether he was still so in 1962 is up for debate.