Should we privatize highways?

[bhsup]

This MUST mean there are no poor people then!

Heck no, we live in Luckytown! (sigh, not one flipping video of an old luckytown commercial. You'll just have to trust me, it would have made sense.)

I guess that mass transit is more expensive in less densely populated areas, which have poor people just like the inner cities. I hadn't thought of that.

Well, Kansas City metro does have buses, but that's about it. They don't reach out nearly this far, though. Might even get light rail someday, which makes me wonder why they ever got rid of the comprehensive trolley car system they used to have (according to my dad.)

 

[JollyRoger]

Wow this guy makes my point for me. I hope you're being sarcastic.

Wouldn't it better if people had to think before they drove? Might even encourage people to work harder so they could afford to drive around at will like me.

 

[warpus]

Unfortunately there are far better systems, starting with using RFID tags on the cars. Without these systems drivers might actually get pissed of with waiting times at tolls or simply fail to pay. With them they will install a device on the car a pay from their bank accounts - a private tax. Entirely voluntary, of course, you'd be free to use the old road system, getting stuck in local traffic, instead of the tax-payer/government and EU financed, and now privatized privatized, highways. Often built on land expropriated by a fraction of its value on behalf of the "public interest", by the way.

I blame the EU funds and the corruption they fed. There is no worst thing that easy money handed over for politicians to spend.

How is that better than the camera system? It works very well here.

It seems simpler to me - you don't have to get anything installed on your car at all.

 

[emzie]

Depends on which highways. Around a city? Horrible idea. Inter-city? Depends on the standards a private company is heald.

Surprisingly, toll doesn't correspond to quality. The New York turnpike was a fine road. The Pennsylvania Turnpike, about twice as expensive, is the worst highway I've ever driven on.

 

[m4gill4]

Wouldn't it better if people had to think before they drove? Might even encourage people to work harder so they could afford to drive around at will like me.

The amount of money one earns is not the ultimate gauge of their effort. A fruit-picker in California works MUCH harder than, say, a car salesman.

He makes far less money, but is the fruit of his labor (pardon the pun) no less important to society?

Should the used car salesman be allowed to drive freely while "riff-raff" low income workers should have to "think harder"?

As respectfully as possible, I would like to express that your position is extremely elitist. I mean, you actually referred to people as riffraff.

People like this guy are the people pushing for privatization, because they like to feel 'entitled' to things that the little people don't have. It makes them feel validated, and special.

 

[JollyRoger]

The amount of money one earns is not the ultimate gauge of their effort. A fruit-picker in California works MUCH harder than, say, a car salesman?

A fruitpicker can live on site and has no need for a car. Didn't you ever read the Grapes of Wrath? Those lazy Okies just clogged up Route 66 until they made it to California and then they complained when their employers withheld from their wages for rent and items thoughtfully provided by the company store. Such a kind and noble gesture kept the Okies from irresponsibly getting in debt again.

He makes far less money, but is the fruit of his labor (pardon the pun) no less important to society?

If he works so hard, he is probably very tired and it would be dangerous for him to be behind the wheel anyway.

Should the used car salesman be allowed to drive freely while "riff-raff" low income workers should have to "think harder"?

Actually the rate should be high enough to make a used car salesman part of the riffraff.

As respectfully as possible, I would like to express that your position is extremely elitist. I mean, you actually referred to people as riffraff.

It would elitist on the part of the riffraff to think they are above being called what they are.

People like this guy are the people pushing for privatization, because they like to feel 'entitled' to things that the little people don't have. It makes them feel validated, and special.

No, I just want my limo driver to be able to get me to the office faster so I can provide more jobs to the riffraff. In fact, at a certain level of wealth or income, one should be exempt from the toll, since such people already add so much to the economy and general welfare. We are an inspiration to others and being able to live without paying a toll because of our success would be a way to encourage the fruit pickers of the world to stop being so lazy.

 

[m4gill4]

HAHA oh man you're brilliant

You made my day man.

I don't know what to say. Take a bow, you win!

If there were a rep system here, I'd rep you like a million!

 

[mangxema]

Nah... taxing fuel is much simpler.

 

[Tabasco Sauce]

Hell no, I do not see any benefits to Privatizing Highways. Each Highway would be a virtual monopoly, because their is no such thing as competing highways. Each highway would have prohibitive tolls and inferior roads.

 

[downtown]

I guess that mass transit is more expensive in less densely populated areas, which have poor people just like the inner cities. I hadn't thought of that.

You really need a city of at least 100,000 to justify having a mass-transit system (and I'm just talking buses, not commuter rail)...any smaller than that and it isn't going to be profitable. There are states that only have one, two cities that size.

Ohio is one of the 10 biggest states, and we only have one city with commuter rail, (Cleveland)...and its scope is really very small. This would crush people who don't live in the 12 largest metropolitan districts.

 

[LightFang]

No! It's a terrible idea.

 

[North King]

This is a stupid idea; roads are one of the few systems of which everyone (who took an economics course, apparently I have to add on that qualifier) can agree should be run by the government. There's no way to compete between road systems without complete inefficiency. The path from point A to point B can only be covered in so many ways, and often only in one.

Not to mention you'd be screwing over the rural areas.

 

[JollyRoger]

The path from point A to point B can only be covered in so many ways, and often only in one.

And you trust the government over the free market to pick the one true path?

Not to mention you'd be screwing over the rural areas.

By not subsidizing them?

 

[North King]

And you trust the government over the free market to pick the one true path?

Yes I do.

By not subsidizing them?

Ah, arrogance. I think I'll ignore it.

 

[Godwynn]

This is a stupid idea; roads are one of the few systems of which everyone (who took an economics course, apparently I have to add on that qualifier) can agree should be run by the government. There's no way to compete between road systems without complete inefficiency. The path from point A to point B can only be covered in so many ways, and often only in one.

Not to mention you'd be screwing over the rural areas.

Close the thread now.

 

[Souron]

Bad idea, it's removing perfectly functioning government regulation from a natural monopoly. Unless there are to be two+ competing highways to get to each house, a monopoly situation is unavoidable.

 

[Sims2789]

Bad idea, it's removing perfectly functioning government regulation from a natural monopoly. Unless there are to be two+ competing highways to get to each house, a monopoly situation is unavoidable.

I wasn't proposing privatizing city streets, only highways. Plus, the overcharging due to monopoly problem could be solved with price regulation, but that would sorta eliminate the point of letting the free market have its go at highways.

 

[Echse]

As long as there is no speed limit i don´t care.

They can privatize the roads as long the country gets the price the road actually costs.
I hate it when the taxpayers allow a discount.

 

[History_Buff]

Why would there be no speed limits? The government doesn't like it when people kill themselves and each other for no reason.


And privatizing roads is a terrible idea as said, I won't bother to repeat the arguments.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I think the idea is on par with privatised heath care.