Comments on: But Who Will Build the Bridges? http://www.nothirdsolution.com/2007/10/12/public-private-bridges/ Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics Fri, 06 Jan 2012 21:07:44 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: no third solution » Blog Archive » Public Goods Do Not Justify Taxes http://www.nothirdsolution.com/2007/10/12/public-private-bridges/comment-page-1/#comment-4664 no third solution » Blog Archive » Public Goods Do Not Justify Taxes Sun, 30 Nov 2008 18:17:47 +0000 http://nothirdsolution.com/2007/10/12/730/#comment-4664 [...] county in the Union. Private parks do exist: Ski resorts, private beaches, dog parks, etc. The largest trade artery between the U.S. and Canada is privately owned, maintained, secured, and operat..., and has been for 80 years. All of these maintain some degree of exclusivity, and they are able to [...] [...] county in the Union. Private parks do exist: Ski resorts, private beaches, dog parks, etc. The largest trade artery between the U.S. and Canada is privately owned, maintained, secured, and operat…, and has been for 80 years. All of these maintain some degree of exclusivity, and they are able to [...]

]]> By: no third solution » Blog Archive » Taxation Really Is Theft! http://www.nothirdsolution.com/2007/10/12/public-private-bridges/comment-page-1/#comment-4530 no third solution » Blog Archive » Taxation Really Is Theft! Thu, 13 Nov 2008 21:20:32 +0000 http://nothirdsolution.com/2007/10/12/730/#comment-4530 [...] me. That’s the least of my concerns. But, how about instead of resorting to the tired “Who will build the bridges?” argument, you try to imagine a world without state-sponsored mass murder. Without a million [...] [...] me. That’s the least of my concerns. But, how about instead of resorting to the tired “Who will build the bridges?” argument, you try to imagine a world without state-sponsored mass murder. Without a million [...]

]]> By: Dan Z http://www.nothirdsolution.com/2007/10/12/public-private-bridges/comment-page-1/#comment-1676 Dan Z Fri, 12 Oct 2007 21:21:23 +0000 http://nothirdsolution.com/2007/10/12/730/#comment-1676 While I do agree the issue is completely asinine, the spurious issue of "public waterway" can be used. If you check this link http://www.gpschools.org/ci/images/AmbassadorBridge.jpg it clearly shows one pilon of the bridge which is located in the water. Should this matter, no, will it probably. A private company has more incentive than anyone else to make sure their structure is safe and secure as it is providing the company and stockholders profit, if the government owns it and it collapses they just throw taxes at it. While I do agree the issue is completely asinine, the spurious issue of “public waterway” can be used. If you check this link http://www.gpschools.org/ci/images/AmbassadorBridge.jpg it clearly shows one pilon of the bridge which is located in the water. Should this matter, no, will it probably. A private company has more incentive than anyone else to make sure their structure is safe and secure as it is providing the company and stockholders profit, if the government owns it and it collapses they just throw taxes at it.

]]> By: David Z http://www.nothirdsolution.com/2007/10/12/public-private-bridges/comment-page-1/#comment-1673 David Z Fri, 12 Oct 2007 17:59:11 +0000 http://nothirdsolution.com/2007/10/12/730/#comment-1673 I didn't notice that important architectural detail - thanks! I didn’t notice that important architectural detail – thanks!

]]> By: olly http://www.nothirdsolution.com/2007/10/12/public-private-bridges/comment-page-1/#comment-1672 olly Fri, 12 Oct 2007 17:18:39 +0000 http://nothirdsolution.com/2007/10/12/730/#comment-1672 It's so asinine that this is even a question. If the company owns the land on either side of the bridge, then why is the government involved? Looking at the picture, it looks as if the current bridge doesn't even use water pylons for anything ... so the government can't even make the tenuous and spurious "public waterway" argument (i.e. that the waterway is "owned" by the "public", so you can't build in it.) -olly It’s so asinine that this is even a question. If the company owns the land on either side of the bridge, then why is the government involved? Looking at the picture, it looks as if the current bridge doesn’t even use water pylons for anything … so the government can’t even make the tenuous and spurious “public waterway” argument (i.e. that the waterway is “owned” by the “public”, so you can’t build in it.)

-olly

]]>