JohnG’s Techdirt Profile

jgardner03

About JohnG




JohnG’s Comments comment rss

  • Dec 13th, 2017 @ 12:29pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Within urban areas, because of the limited number of places you can put a road.

    Which has what to do with road maintenance? A company that can maintain roads is also very likely able to construct roads too... ergo there would not be a lack of competition surrounding the construction and maintenance of roads.

  • Dec 12th, 2017 @ 2:52pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Making them "human rights" enables you being able to exercise your other rights.

    How can you enforce a "right" to healthcare? I'll answer it for you -- by forcing someone else to either act directly (force a doctor to care for someone) or indirectly (force someone else to pay for the doctor). That's either slavery or theft, both of which violate the UDHR.

  • Dec 12th, 2017 @ 2:47pm

    Re: Re:

    When you combine a necessary service with a profit motive and a lack of competition, prices go up.

    Why would there be a lack of competition for the building and maintenance of roads?

  • Dec 12th, 2017 @ 10:30am

    Re: There is only one free thing in a free market

    Everything else has to be regulated: free roads, enforcement of contracts, anti-collusion, anti-trust, blocking of competitors, cartels, ... The list is endless.

    Why do you assume some central authority must be the one to regulate those things?

    but then you are responsible for describing to us what institution will make the rules for the market.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kPyrq6SEL0

  • Dec 12th, 2017 @ 9:26am

    Re:

    • You can't access to such information unless you have to pay.
    • You can't access to it because there are hurdles that make it impractical.

    This is why the UDHR is a nonsensical document... because you can't reconcile it against reality. There is no right to the internet or healthcare or food or housing because those are goods/services to be bought and sold. Making them "human rights" turns the concept of "rights" on its head and in effect supports theft and/or slavery, which violates other sections of the UDHR.

  • Dec 12th, 2017 @ 9:17am

    Re: Re:

    The road wasn't free to build and isn't free to maintain.

  • Dec 12th, 2017 @ 9:16am

    Re: Re:

    The very definition of 'privatizing roads' is that whoever builds the roads subsequently owns them.

    Not necessarily. Businesses could band together to have a road built to their complex. The businesses would collectively own the road despite someone else having built it.

    Now you have major traffic jams because people can't take alternate routes to help relieve some of the congestion

    Why do you assume that's the only possible outcome?

    Or say the company who built the road in front of your house demands a monthly payment for you to drive on it. Do you really think that's a positive thing?

    If I hire a builder to build me a home does the builder continue to own the home after he's done? Why do you assume that the company that's hired to build the road continues to own it after the road is built? Aside from that you do realize there's such a thing as road maintenance, right? Part of our taxes now go to pay that maintenance. Why would homeowners not pay a company to maintain the road on whatever schedule the parties agree to?

  • Dec 11th, 2017 @ 1:41pm

    Re: Re:

    Great Northern Railway was built with zero government aid... not sure it helps Mike's argument.

  • Dec 11th, 2017 @ 1:23pm

    (untitled comment)

    Your flawed criticism of private roads gives me pause regarding your entire argument.

    Making roads more costly to use would limit usage.

    Who says roads would become more costly? Why wouldn't they become less expensive?

    The power of some companies to "own" the roads would likely limit the types of businesses and retail operations that could make use of those roads.

    Who says the company that builds the roads is ultimately the owner of those roads? Why would limiting use of roads inherently be a negative?

    Thus, while you might have a free market in "roads" you would limit or destroy the free market of every business that relies on roads (which is a significant portion of the economy).

    You need to read Walter Block's publication on the privatization of roads.

  • Jan 6th, 2017 @ 8:44pm

    Show me the money

    Perhaps I missed it in the article but where will the money come from to pay for this UBI experiment?

  • Jun 10th, 2016 @ 5:33pm

    Re: Re: Re: Sigh

    This is, uh, wrong. If you're involved the court to silence a company then, yes, the gov't is involved, and First Amendment absolutely applies

    FCOL how many times have I read on this very site that Free Speech protections under the 1st Amendment apply to protecting individuals from government actions and not from other individuals? Countless!

    And for the 3rd or 4th time in this very thread I NEVER SAID the government wasn't involved. I don't know why so many people are reading things that I didn't write. I said the government wasn't going after Gawker, as in the lawsuit wasn't filed by the US Atty. Certainly the government will enforce the court's decision but that's entirely different.

  • Jun 10th, 2016 @ 12:16pm

    Re: Re: Re: Sigh

    I didn't say the government wasn't involved, I said the government wasn't going after them, meaning it wasn't the government that filed the lawsuit.

  • Jun 10th, 2016 @ 12:12pm

    Re: Re: Re: Sigh

    The government didn't file the lawsuit. *That* would be the government going after Gawker.

  • Jun 10th, 2016 @ 11:00am

    Re: Sigh

    There are no free speech concerns here. This isn't the government going after Gawker. Gawker is (relatively) free to publish whatever it likes. However, along with the freedom to publish what it likes it must also accept responsibility, liability in this case, for what it publishes.

  • Jun 15th, 2015 @ 9:38am

    (untitled comment)

    Or maybe there is no porn collection and the CIA lied about it?

  • Jun 11th, 2015 @ 10:01am

    (untitled comment)

    Politicians won't want to open things like this up to public visibility because then we'd all see how the beef is made. Right now it is hidden in the slaughterhouse.

  • May 19th, 2015 @ 4:42am

    Re:

    If she just wasn't dressed so provocatively she wouldn't have gotten raped.


    Yeah, sounds about right.

  • May 11th, 2015 @ 1:07pm

    Re: Not that I think the DEA is in the right

    Of course... the only correct answer to a LEO asking to search your belongings is "if you have a warrant". I understand why he didn't refuse though, it's inconceivable to most people that the DEA can just seize property like they did.

  • Mar 12th, 2015 @ 9:01am

    Re:

    "a big part of that is to convince you to not trust the only entity that can stop them."

    The only problem with that position is the track record of bureaucratic incompetence that exists at nearly every level of gov't.

  • Feb 25th, 2015 @ 12:05pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    why are data caps a bad thing if that's what the customer wants to purchase?

More comments from JohnG >>