The roads themselves are not "owned" in the "model" - the private enterprises just maintain them. Because you can drive on the roads either way - the privatization is just in who maintans them and gets paid to do so.
-
Follow our Instagram!
-
Curious about what we're currently doing about bots? Check out the latest updates from staff in this thread.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Election 2008, United States
- Thread starter Great Sage
- Start date
The roads themselves are not "owned" in the "model" - the private enterprises just maintain them. Because you can drive on the roads either way - the privatization is just in who maintans them and gets paid to do so.
Sure they would. The problem is that, more often than not, THEY DON'T GET THESE THINGS. When an industry is controlled by a government, it becomes controlled by politics as well as the inherent issues of the industry. When the politics are off, then the industry always suffers. At the risk of exaggerating the point, this is why the Soviet Union fell - political concerns trumped economic concerns and the whole thing become a complete mess. For a more local example, see Minnesota's problems, which, more likely than not, stem from a conservative governor's single-minded spending-cutting agenda - meaning there was suddenly a lot less money in the budget for fixing roads.
Keep in mind - I don't disagree that roads should be publicly owned, I just think your argument isn't the right reason.
I don't see how that changes anything I said in that specific post (though it does have meaning for my other, about access denial).Ancien Regime said:
I must have a different understanding of privatization, because as I understand it privatization means ownership. Does the bill that involved testing the privatization waters ever define it, exactly? Or a better question: was anyone ever actually brave/bored enough to read it and check? :-P
I'm not sure why you even said this to me -- I said the same thing in my post, though with different words.Misty said:
because american corporations have always been shining beacons of humane practices
I think I misunderstood your post.
Well, in the purest sense, yes. However, (and I never did read the bil), I think it would be defined more in terms of private management of the resource. The roads themselves would remain "public property/commons" - but the management/building/maintainence of the roads would be in the hands of enterprise.
Even if the roads were owned, if the roads were maintained poorly, etc, the people could either simply refuse to pay, or sue for fraud (the people paid for services that were not delivered - paying for the road not only grants access, but entitles you to have the road maintained; people would not accept any deal otherwise; and if a company refused to accept it, the company at BEST just wasted a shitload of money to acquire the road, and at worst are still in legal trouble)
God. said:
And governments do a lot better in everything correct?
not our current western governments, because the same people tend to run both
um give me a SINGLE government that has outpeformed private initative in ANYTHING. Or has had a better human rights or corruption record. The worst private industry does is Enron/Bear Stearns-type stuff (and is far more rare) - government props up dictators, subverts elections, wastes other people's money on a mass scale, etc.
And that's in the West.
I imagine that there's no clear answer right now, even for those who have read the bill, and if the road to privatization (heh) continues it will end up being a question for the courts: whether the right to maintain and collect tolls also gives the right to perform other aspects that one would associate with ownership (including the aforementioned denying of access) or not. And like any question for the courts: who the fuck knows?Ancien Regime said:
Unless I'm totally missing Ron Paul's wonderful ideas, we have the "adopt a highway" program here in New York - you adopt say...3 mile piece of a route, a highway, etc, and you maintain it (pay for repaving, pay for landscaping, etc). However, the owner doesn't have the right to toll that stretch (in fact, thats why they have the "Adopt a highway" program), nor would they have the right to prevent any car without good reason from driving (ie, weight restriction). All they are allowed to do is every say 50 - 100 feet, a sign is up saying "so and so has adopted this highway", basically as advertising. High cost, imo, but it shows they are involved in their community.
On to bigger news, the first time a black man has actually dissed Obama since Hillary dropped out. Jesse Jackson, one of the die-hard liberals and big activist in civil rights era (right alongside MLK) has stated that because Obama talked down to Black people, he would like to "cut his nuts off". ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25611808 )
Something tells me that Obama can't unite anyone - the Hillary women hate him, working blue-collar men hate him, and now a prominent African American hates him. The last group that isn't about ready to kill him are the farmers, solely because Obama wants to expand the ethanol research.
If Obama does get elected, odds re that he'll get assasinated in the first 4-6 months in office. My mother says that I'm being to optimistic for Obama - anywhere from the day after election day to about 2 weeks into his candidacy, with it most likely happening at inauguration.
On to bigger news, the first time a black man has actually dissed Obama since Hillary dropped out. Jesse Jackson, one of the die-hard liberals and big activist in civil rights era (right alongside MLK) has stated that because Obama talked down to Black people, he would like to "cut his nuts off". ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25611808 )
Something tells me that Obama can't unite anyone - the Hillary women hate him, working blue-collar men hate him, and now a prominent African American hates him. The last group that isn't about ready to kill him are the farmers, solely because Obama wants to expand the ethanol research.
If Obama does get elected, odds re that he'll get assasinated in the first 4-6 months in office. My mother says that I'm being to optimistic for Obama - anywhere from the day after election day to about 2 weeks into his candidacy, with it most likely happening at inauguration.
It's not exactly news or anything anyone should truly care about. But it is fun to see Jesse Jackson say he wants to cut Obama's nuts off.
Also, what's all this "Barack Obama's gonna get assassinated" bullshit I've been hearing? It seems like it's mostly coming from teenagers too for some reason.
I don't necessarily think that it's pure bullshit. From what I know, the argument would go as follows:
Just like Lincoln and Kennedy, there are people who hate Obama. Some people hated Lincoln for being an abolitionist, some hated Kennedy for being Catholic, and some will hate Barack for being black. While racism isn't a mainstream thought anymore, you can be assured that in the heart of the south there are at least a few people who are still white supremacists.
While no one deserves to be assasinated, I would understand that it could happen. Wherever there are controversial leaders, there are also radicals ready to eliminate them. For examples, just look at Ghandi, MLK, Kennedy, Lincoln, (recently the PM of Pakistan), etc. But this where the truth ends and the uncertanties begin.
I wouldn't discount it, but being shot at the Inaugural Speech is just a little too early. I mean, come on, how would you get away with that on national television? If he was assasinated, it wouldn't be anywhere near the white house.
Zogby Interactive did 34 polls. Most of the polls are pretty reasonable, but there are some things that stand out, like Obama leading in Arizona, North Carolina, and South Carolina. Interactive online polls tend to be bullshit anyways, so I wouldn't put too much trust into them.
The Scandinavian countries would like a word. Though, the economic policies are hyper socialist, so there really isn't and private companies...
Think about this for a second - if leaders become SO hated that someone finally goes off and assassinates them, why is W still alive?
The answer - because security for the president has gotten WAY better since 1901 (when McKinley was shot). This is especially true since Sept 11. Also, medical technology is far better than it was even in 1963 - which is why Ronald Reagan survived his assassination attempt.
The answer - because security for the president has gotten WAY better since 1901 (when McKinley was shot). This is especially true since Sept 11. Also, medical technology is far better than it was even in 1963 - which is why Ronald Reagan survived his assassination attempt.
Actually, they tend to encourage private industry (corporate taxes are WAY lower than corporate taxes in the U.S., and way higher than income taxes - )
But then again, apparently, according to the Timbro Instiute in Sweden, Denmark is poorer than Kentucky.
Thank GOD you said that. That has become such a huge problem with our electoral system these days; the division of Democrats and Republicans has gotten to the point where you're only allowed to agree with one or the other, and disagreeing on a main point is grounds for calls of betrayal. It sickens me, you just don't see moderates anymore because they're ostracized by their own parties.
Well, I'm not "moderate" - in terms of how the government is run and structured I'm radical (i.e. I want large parts of it dismantled) so yeah. Even so, if their general value system and attitude to governance is something I agree with, they have my vote, even if they disagree with me on specific issues.
sure, though he has a point - most of this whining is about not being able to keep stuff that they couldn't afford in the first place (if you can't afford a house/car/pool/etc long-term DONT BUY ONE)
I just think people are TOO sure in their belief that Obama is going to get assassinated. They speak of it like it's an inevitability. It's not. There is a small possibility, sure. But there's a chance any president will get assassinated. There are probably millions that would like to kill the president of the United States no matter WHO it is.
Barack Obama's "eligibility" for assassination is a ridiculous issue to raise.
Barack Obama's "eligibility" for assassination is a ridiculous issue to raise.