With Government Roads, the Customer Is Always Wrong

The state has no motivation to accommodate users’ needs, but to crack down on anyone who does not conform to its timeworn model of road usage. …

If deaths occurred to this degree, relatively speaking, on private roads in gated communities or in shopping mall parking lots, criminal lawsuits and bankruptcy filings would be rampant. At a minimum, insofar as blame is placed on individual drivers, it must be remembered from where they received their licenses to drive. Furthermore, by looking for new traffic laws as a preventative measure, there is at least implicit blame placed on state institutions because in that case they should have passed these laws decades ago (and more laws next year too).

The reality is that new traffic laws are enacted every single year, yet the tragedies continue, and the most obvious change such legislation has actually managed to effect is increased revenues for governments through increased fines and citations. For every ticket that is written, for every accident that occurs, and for every person who is injured or killed on the nation’s roadways, witness the failure of state bureaucrats to meet the consumption demands of the driving public.

To be more specific, people want to be allowed to drive faster; to not spend hours per day sitting in traffic; to make U-turns when necessary; to blow red lights and stop signs when safe; to drive on roads without gigantic pot holes; to be able to read street signs; to text or talk on the phone while driving; to be notified of road closures; to have construction projects on their preferred roads be completed as quickly as possible at times that are convenient; to be surrounded by competent motorists; to drive in cars that will not malfunction; to drive where extreme weather conditions are minimized as much as technologically possible; to assume the potential risks of driving after consuming alcohol; and perhaps most importantly, to not lose their lives in the process of moving from place A to place B.

For those accustomed to living with a real lack of alternatives, it’s difficult to envision how such seemingly contradictory demands are to be satisfied — but that’s the point entirely: a uniform approach by definition only serves one set of interests, typically those of the people administering and enforcing it. …

Where there is a monopolistic provider, as is the case regarding roads, bureaucrats are relatively comfortable in their privileged positions. Even when public protest reaches such levels that someone must take the fall and either resign or be let go, the institution itself faces no sizeable danger whatsoever. While private companies depend on the voluntary support of their patrons, the state extracts its continual revenue supply (taxes) and denies its victims alternatives (monopoly), both at the barrel of a gun.

Fear-mongers will claim that without such practices, the roads and thus society itself would fall into chaos and disarray. To such objectors, reference may be made to anything from hectic city and rush hour driving, delayed accident clean up and endless highway construction, to the common practice of cops blatantly disobeying their own traffic laws. Needless to say, such disorder is everywhere already.

(Source: laliberty)

21 notes

(Source: rollership, via maxlibertarios)

64 notes

houseofalexzander:

Lustrous.

A man in the grocery store line today approached me and said, “Sir, when I first saw you I was extremely attracted to you, but then I noticed that you are a boy. How… I mean, why do you dress so provocatively?”

I responded, “Well, in today’s world the majority of the straight male race view women as objects, or something that belongs to them. I dress provocatively because it attracts the attention of men in a sexual and OBJECTIVE way. However, when realized that I am actually male, they often become confused, disgusted, upset or all of the above. By inflicting this minor emotional damaged upon the ego of a man raised by twisted societal gender norms, maybe, just maybe the individual will think twice before viewing another woman with an objective attitude and sense of belonging. No woman, belongs to ANYONE. Male or female, the equality of human beings needs to be a priority. It is something worth dressing up for.”

I AM NOT KIDDING. The woman behind me, the female cashier, the old lady bagging groceries and the woman in front of me who was talking on the phone STOPPED, …. and proceeded to gasp and clap. The man shook my hand, told me to have a blessed day and then said, “excuse me ladies, I need to visit my daughter.”

…. I was shaking by the time I walked out of the store.

- Elliott Alexzander

100000000000% none of that happened. not even a little bit. 

(via themagicalpurplemonkey)

214,212 notes

Some Links on Earth Day

laliberty:

(via perfectclassic)

55 notes

White people

eltigrechico:

themagicalpurplemonkey:

Getting butthurt when you treat them like they’ve been treating minorities for centuries since forever.

you’re so enlightened michael 

"you" "them"

Does OP know how pronouns work?

5 notes

eltigrechico:

blackcreaturefromthelagoon:

eltigrechico:

honeyflowed:

blackcreaturefromthelagoon:

"why do black girls smack their lips and roll their necks all the time" idk why do white boys fuck their pets and shoot their classmates

image

combatting ignorance, prejudice, and stereotypes with more ignorance, prejudice, and stereotypes

stereotypes about black girls get them killed, stereotypes about white boys get their feelings hurt, NEXT

and a heaping spoonful of generalizations on top!

I like Dan as Minister of Race Relations. Keep it up.

47,120 notes

Look What Happened To Amazon's Revenues When A Sales Tax Was Imposed ...

sugashane:

dagwolf:

association-of-free-people:

class-struggle-anarchism:

association-of-free-people:

class-struggle-anarchism:

omg no! ..not a sales drop at Amazon!? Oh cruel, heartless world

It’s protectionism on behalf of box retailers. This is fascist corporatism.

The consumer was the winner before, now it is Walmart and Target thanks to the State.

There is no justification to tax Internet sales. Amazon and other direct to consumer retailers already pay taxes on all of the infrastructure they use to deliver product and their physical operations are centralized.

The only reason to tax Internet sales is to make an increasingly obsolete and doomed corporate business model competitive.

But it’s just Amazon that’s getting taxed, and they are famous for fucking over smaller internet sellers, who, according to your article, sold 20% more as a result of this tax.

You don’t like “corporatism” but you do like Amazon… that ancap logic hard at work once again

No, you’re confused. Amazon is saying that other online retailers of comparable size should have to collect sales taxes as well.

Amazon has a very unique business model, they remain highly competitive if not dominant by focusing on volume over markup.

They move lots of product at the cost of it being cheaper per unit. The consumer was the winner by their model. If other outlets couldn’t match them that is the way it goes.

The article plainly states that the tax is an effort at corporate egalitarianism which translates to State interference in the market. This action targets one efficient company to the benefit of other less efficient ones. Ultimately we pay for it, corporations pay no taxes. Consumers do.

Your arguments are so fucking convoluted. Your avid support for consumers, in this case, is the reason you must support the problematic corporatism you earlier maligned.

I don’t know why anyone even focused in on Amazon as a company when the article was simply about how taxation led to a drop in economic activity. 

Consumers can’t benefit without the fascist corporatism.

What? 

They will buy the cheapest shit, or they won’t buy anything.

Absolutely not true. If it was true, no one would own iPhones, Ferraris, houses, or anything else. 

Your argument is on behalf of Amazon here; it’s not on behalf of consumers. I don’t know why you’re being so disingenuous.

I have argued why the tax is necessary in the free market.

I’d understand if you said taxation could exist in a free market, the same way HOA fees or CAM charges exist in a private market today (in regards to property, in case you have no idea what I’m talking about). 

But to say taxation is necessary? Then it’s not a free market. Then your argument is that truly free markets can’t exist. 

You don’t want such a model for social action, thought. You must be willing to admit that your “free” market is a fucking illusion—that it’s always going to be highly regulated and for good reason.

I disagree but at least you’ve been consistent for a whole 2 sentences. 

Without heavy taxation, employees (your consumers) would have nowhere to turn to for affordable clinics, roads, hospitals, food, schools, et al.

Absolutely wrong. In fact, it’s the government supplied assets and services that the average and sub-average consumer can’t afford. Through taxation, inflation or both, consumers end up paying, many times more than they would have, for services and goods that prima facie seemed cheaper. 

You’re completely ignoring that the social relation you’ve implemented, consumer-businessowner, is actually better expressed as employee-employer.

You’re going to have to explain this because as it stands now, there is no prior context to this and it makes no sense unless you’re saying that all consumers are more like employees to corporations… (in which case, whole shit…)

That really shitty argument made me think: “this reminds me of that ‘dagseoul’ asshat who used to blog around here years ago. Hmmm… the name also starts with ‘dag’” [CLICK] “Yup, lives in Seoul…”

Sometimes shit carries a very particular stink.

114 notes

laliberty:

Busy intersection in Ethiopia

Anarchy.

No lanes, no paint, no signs, no lights… hundreds of cars and pedestrians in seeming chaos all safely traversing a major intersection with no significant traffic jam or delay. Self-interested individuals all vying for position and yet non-verbally negotiating with each other for safe and efficient passage? Hmm…

-

EDIT: Some anecdotes on the safety or lack thereof of this intersection can be found in the discussion here - some claim “places like this” have lots of accidents but there are others still who claim to have been exposed to traffic in this city and never witnessed an accident. Unfortunately, I can’t seem to find an actual breakdown to be able to compare. Ultimately, the big question is about liability and therefore whether private property rights are properly recognized.

[Incidentally, you can slow the video on youtube. Note pedestrians for what looks like “real” speed. To me, it’s mostly between 25% and 50%. Still, everyone seems to cross very quickly, and far more quickly than any intersection here in LA during rush hour.]

that’s insane.

but yeah, better than Hollywood/Highland pretty much any time of day

31 notes

thedoomreport:

Fuck Earth day. What about a day that celebrates the extraordinary survivability and ingenuity of human kind? Every day our species survives (or sometimes doesn’t) the shit that that bitch mother nature throws at us. 

Open a window, clean out your bong, and just motherfucking think. 

(via eltigrechico)

29 notes

Petty Law Enforcement vs. the Poor

laliberty:

Related: How Government Hurts the Poor

(Source: laliberty)

57 notes