The Myth of Unplanned Economic Development

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

One of the heroes of libertarian ideology is the railroad robber baron entrepreneur James J. Hill. He is contrasted with the other robber barons entrepreneurs who built the intercontinental railroad. The big difference is that Hill did not leverage public financing to construct his empire organization.

Hill derived his wealth from his serfs yeoman farmers who settled on his land to raise abundant harvests for transport to distant markets on Hills road. The settlers were forced encouraged to sell their produce to grain elevator shysters entrepreneurs at rock bottom market prices. These pilfering enterprising middlemen held on to the grain until a more favorable price was offered on the grain market and they obtained rate rebates by shipping in bulk. (They also bilked optimized grain prices from farmers by underrating the quality of the grain.)

When we look at the surface of Hill's story, it appears that no public planning went into this development. The libertarian historian has conveniently avoided looking at the planning that took place years before Hill obtained his fiefdom property. Racist Forward-looking politicians deliberately expropriated acquired the land from its native inhabitants for the purpose of economic development. Hill and his settlers maintained their holdings under the protective hand of federal and state thugs military personnel, lest it fall back into the hands of the original proprietors uncivilized people.

Although the Solyndra investment appears to be a piece of failed public planning, it has more of the earmarks of traditional robber baron private development. Back in the day, a thieving an enterprising operator would run his business into the ground and sell off the depleted stocks to a shifty trusted new partner, leaving the original investors with little or no return on their capital.

Were it not for public planning, this Internet space would not be available for us to use. In fact, I would not have the capacity to communicate as well as I do had it not been for public planning.

Is there really such a thing as unplanned economic development?

Comments

[zebra24.livejournal.com]

"Taxing on "voluntary" basis is a complete unicorn": No it isn't, HOA is a nice example.

I can even simply imagine step-by-step realization.
You pay taxes-you get the service back. You need Obamacare - you participating in it.
You need social security pension - you must pay for it first.

Enforcing the law is a different issue, but I can imagine even this is possible without the state - community could pay to the sheriff without doubt.
However now we aren't talking even about Minarchism today.

You didn't use word "force" for one simple reason - you are trying to avoid understanding that for all citizens taxes are enFORCED. And when you vote for additional taxation, you actually assume somebody will use FORCE to get it done.

**If you're not part of the community, you can't reap the benefits.**
Surely. That's fair, but I would go further - you should be able to select in which community project are you in, in which you aren't.

It's your choice to pay to the emergency doctor from your own fund, from your insurance or from community project you are participating.

If you are participating on predefined conditions you can get the benefits.

Most libertarians will be happy even to pay involuntary taxes just for Army and law-enforcement and have a choice to exit from other state-sponsored projects.

Today it is much different situation, when bail outs, regulations and stimuluses aren't for volunteers but enforced for all.
(making assumption all the money government have comes from enFORCED taxes)

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

Home woner's association are not the same as voluntary taxes, in fact every HOA I've been in (and I'm in one now in the US) hasn't been voluntary at all. It's a cooperation you pay fees into if you have bought a "share" (condo) in that house. You pay into what the association has decided (majority vote again), you attend board meetings, you can vote ect etc. But once the vote is done, there is *nothing* voluntary about the fees you pay for upkeep etc. If you don't pay your fees, they will eventually put a lean on your property and other actions as such.

Most libertarians will be happy even to pay involuntary taxes just for Army and law-enforcement and have a choice to exit from other state-sponsored projects.

It would still not work having the same state though, because if the vote goes that lots of ppl would want nice parks and a public pool, for instance, or a garbage disposal service, or street lights everywhere, and a hefty amount would *not* - lots of them probably libertarians. In which case more money would need to payed in by those who voted for the suggestions and yet all people even the moochers would benefit from the parks and the rest, because it would be bureaucratically untenable to "card" real tax payers from moochers.

I shouldn't even have to explain such basic crap. I think Colorado Springs as a community is a good example. Very conservative community, many libertarians. Government was utterly starved and goals cheap and unfocused, taxes low. Today they have fantastic issues. Last year many places didn't get their garbage taken care of, many streets have yet no street lights and lots of streets are in bad shape. The public pool is closed and only the rich kids with parents that have memberships can go swimming. On some streets, wealthy inhabitants bought street lighting, but many parts of the town are in dark, leading to unsafe environments. Crime is very high there, both higher than the Colorado average as well as the national average. The bus system is shot, many schools have no basic school materials, such as papers and pens. Kids either bring it from home, or teachers pay out of their own pockets.
There are so many stories. And remember, local government of CO Springs is largely libertarian and wholly conservative. It's considered one of the biggest Libertarian paradises in the US.

So, poorer ppl can't leave with ease, but the middle class has. There are now only wealthy ppl and really poor ones left, with a very small fringe group of middle class citizens still lingering. Lots of meth, lots of druge usage, lots of really unhappy kids. (I am personal friends with a teacher in a public school with kids from poorer families.)

This is a good example of why I think co existence between these two ethical systems (because that's how I see them) are impossible to mach successfully. I want to pay my taxes into a big pool so that as many as possible can reap the benefits, even the unwealthy. I never want to rely on charity or live in system that wholly does so (I might, as I do today, pay into certain areas, but I vastly prefer a tax).

And there we are.

I come from a very well working mixed system of centralized state/tax funded serviced and private services. And that's where I stand politically, and I am yet to see *anything* working as well. So yes, I love my taxes, and I've always played a part in how to pay them, and will continue doing so.

See why one of us needs a state of our own? I just don't want what you want. At All.