>>18472073
How do you think she was in bed? She seems like a true whore, like how most "smart women" are, actual retards that can easily be led to the bedroom even by hobos.

Nah, just gonna use force to achieve my goals and desires
cry about it

What does Rand say about arbitrary laws/rights, like copyright or owning lands

Suppose I figured out a cheaper way of manufacturing a drug, but it's under patent law. Is that something I should respect, would patents even be a thing if true Objectivism was implemented? (I don't know the Rand lore)

If I want a piece of land to live on or develop. But landowners already own all the land, and only want rent it to me or sell it at exorbitant cost
Is that something I should respect? Am I just fucked? Or should I be able to just put my flag on it?

>>18472097
From Rand's philosophy, these are tertiary political/legal questions built on deeper fundamentals about reason, individual rights, and property. Without understanding her philosophy, the answers can seem arbitrary or not sufficiently justified or explained.

In general, Rand defended patents, copyrights, and land ownership as extensions of the right to keep and use the product of one’s mind and labor. So under Objectivism, you do not simply seize land or ignore patents because you want access to them. But she also opposed irrational state privilege, monopoly, and coercive laws masquerading as property rights (colloquially known as regulations).

>If I want a piece of land to live on or develop. But landowners already own all the land, and only want rent it to me or sell it at exorbitant cost
>Is that something I should respect? Am I just fucked? Or should I be able to just put my flag on it?
If someone owns the land, you can’t just take it or “put your flag on it". High cost or scarcity doesn’t create a right to seize property. You’d have to earn, trade, or find voluntary agreement to acquire it.

isn't Stirner just Rand Beta?

File: 1778528470450559m.jpg (71 KB, 474x1024)

71 KB JPG

>>18472073
>Objectivism is a philosophical system named and developed by Russian-American writer and philosopher Ayn Rand. She described it as "the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute".[1]
Kek. So Kikes didn't subvert their Gayreeco-Rawmen high "analytical" philosophical civilization by taking away their Indian-Euro objectivist material view of the world and turning them into religious ooga boogas because they didn't have it in the first place. In fact it's the opposite a Kike gave it to them like everything else. No wonder Kikes have more Atheists than Indian-Eurofags. Kek when will Indian-Euros cope against Kikes stop.

File: S112.png (216 KB, 711x583)

216 KB PNG

>>18472113
>>18472073
Objectivism is just Egoism with coping.
>>18472084
This.

>>18472097
>If I want a piece of land to live on or develop. But landowners already own all the land, and only want rent it to me or sell it at exorbitant cost
>Is that something I should respect? Am I just fucked? Or should I be able to just put my flag on it?
Not specifically objectivist but the libertarian perspective on this is that you would have no right to use force to take land that is legitimately owned. But there would be far more land available for homesteading because the state's claim on unimproved land would not be considered legitimate.

Imagine you and I and our wives are stranded on an island. We each homestead one half. But then I have many children with my wife such that my side of the island can no longer sustain us. Do my children have the right to plant their flag on your half?

>>18472073
> nationalism says sacrifice yourself for the tribe
If you aren’t willing to die for your family and to preserve your face and genetics you’re objectively a genetic failure

>>18472151
Not only that, I’d argue you are evil too. You’re willing to let foreign invaders be imported because it benefits you economically

>>18472073
Alissa Rosenbaum*

>>18472103
>You’d have to earn, trade, or find voluntary agreement to acquire it
Why?
It's not like I agreed to the way land ownership was handled in the first place

It seems super contrary to my own interest to play a game were the rules are so stacked against me
Land is such a basic human need, denying me it at a price I can afford - that is coercive - that is aggression

>>18472164
>It seems super contrary to my own interest to play a game were the rules are so stacked against me
As opposed to what? You're assuming a worst case scenario where all land with productive potential has already been homesteaded and no one is willing to give you a decent job in exchange for your needs. You know what kind of game that's more likely to happen in? One where the state just claims ownership of land by force so that there is no land to homestead.

>>18472135
Objectivism is egoism, yes.
Stirnerism is just subjectivism. A false individualism, alleged egoist. That plays into altruist depictions of what they think egoism is. And feeds non-intellectuals and like Timothy McVeigh.

>>18472128
slogans, tribal hatred, typical, predictable, unimportant

File: IMG_20260512_104547.jpg (100 KB, 435x532)

100 KB JPG

>governmemt interventionism is...LE BAD!
>corruption? market manipulation? insider trading? trusts? N-NO...! those do not exist!!

>>18472324
What are you talking about >>18472260

>>18472084
>>18472135
>just gonna use force to achieve my goals and desires
How far would you go with this? Would you torture someone so they tell you where they're hiding their valuables? Would you participate in child sex trafficking? Would you laugh at the child crying because you pimped them out to some nonce? Violations of the nonaggression principle kill you on the inside. Aggression and violence are justified to defend your person, your individual rights and property, there is honor in challenging the strong whereas hurting the weak robs you of dignity. You are an evil despicable little cretin at heart like all leftists.

>There is a fundamental moral difference between a man who sees his self-interest in production and a man who sees it in robbery. The evil of a robber does not lie in the fact that he pursues his own interests, but in what he regards as to his own interest; not in the fact that he pursues his values, but in what he chose to value; not in the fact that he wants to live, but in the fact that he wants to live on a subhuman level (see "The Objectivist Ethics").

>If it is true that what I mean by "selfishness" is not what is meant conventionally, then this is one of the worst indictments of altruism: it means that altruism permits no concept of a self-respecting, self-supporting man—a man who supports his life by his own effort and neither sacrifices himself nor others. It means that altruism permits no view of men except as sacrificial animals and profiteers-on-sacrifice, as victims and parasites—that it permits no concept of a benevolent co-existence among men—that it permits no concept of justice.

>>18472348
>How far would you go with this? Would you torture someone so they tell you where they're hiding their valuables? Would you participate in child sex trafficking? Would you laugh at the child crying because you pimped them out to some nonce?
Retarded questions because my desires include protecting children. Hypothetically if that wasn't among my desires, then sure.
>Violations of the nonaggression principle kill you on the inside.
Wrong, it kills YOU on the inside. It doesn't affect me at all.

Imagine the earth is hit by a meteor and you are in the only surviving group of humans. Now the women of this group have all decided not to have children. Do you allow humanity to go extinct or do you violate the NAP and threaten to spank the women if they do not take husbands and make babies?

I'm not a leftist by the way, I'm an anarcho-capitalist. I just believe in libertarianism for consequential reasons that align with my desires rather than for some faggy principle.

File: animeclownboy.jpg (35 KB, 636x636)

35 KB JPG

>>18472073
She's nothing, I beat her in a debate on Grok
She's a joke like all women
You even had to make her look like a man for your thread

>>18472181
>As opposed to what?
I was thinking me, and the other peasants team up and eat the landowners, then redistribute their land among ourselves

This current system with landowner aristocrats, where I'm coerced to play slave and pay rent, until I'm like 55 years old. Or be landless.
I'm not gonna engage with it, it's some weird altruist abomination that only works because for some reason altruists goes along with it and plays the landowner's game, giving them their money and protection

>>18472348
>it means that altruism permits no concept of a self-respecting, self-supporting man—a man who supports his life by his own effort and neither sacrifices himself nor others.
Neither does nature.
Humans are social animals, whether or not Rand approves of this fact.

>>18472425
>I was thinking me, and the other peasants team up and eat the landowners, then redistribute their land among ourselves
Cool, then my wife and I have lots of children until our land is no longer enough to sustain us, so we kill you and eat you and take your land.
>This current system with landowner aristocrats, where I'm coerced to play slave and pay rent
The current system is the state owns all the land. It sure would be nice if you could just go find some unimproved land to homestead without the state threatening to kill you.

>>18472432
>Humans are social animals
That's not really an argument thoughbeit.

>>18472079
You would fuck a cantaloupe if no one was watching.

>>18472366
Rapist

>>18472445
>Cool, then my wife and I have lots of children until our land is no longer enough to sustain us, so we kill you and eat you and take your land.
Why wouldn't this happen on Rand's Objectivism?

>>18472495
It's not a matter of what would or wouldn't happen. Land will always be a limited resource so no matter what system you live under it could always be stressed to the point that people go mad. It's a matter of what is legitimate ownership in your system. In libertarian systems, homesteading bestows ownership which can only be transferred by voluntary exchange. In your system, ownership is transferred by eating the previous owner. Which would you rather live under?

File: 1778244911422134.jpg (197 KB, 656x656)

197 KB JPG

>>18472073
>John Galt is spawned on the top of mount everest as a baby with no other people to help him.
How does he innovate his way out of this dilemma? Randism is objectively false if he cannot escape the situation and become a successful capitalist by himself. If you think it's unfair you can replace Galt with Elon Musk, Henry Ford, any capitalist of your choice.

>>18472540
>It's not a matter of what would or wouldn't happen
THEN WHY DID YOU USE IT AS AN ARGUMENT?

>>18472619
>THEN WHY DID YOU USE IT AS AN ARGUMENT?
Because you wanted an argument about principles using extreme hypotheticals. If you'd rather a pragmatic argument exploring what is actually likely to happen under such a system I'd be happy to do that.

>>18472564
>>John Galt is spawned on the top of mount everest as a baby with no other people to help him.
Are you retarded?

>>18472073
>meme philosopher thread
Quick reminder for anyone browsing this, Ayn Rand's argument rests on a modal error.
Her argument is basically that by choosing to live as a human, you're choosing freedom, life, survival etc.
From this basic observation which had been noticed since practically antiquity, she makes a massive leap of faith and says that capitalism is the only system compatible with this.
Yet, ironically, her own life disproves this line of reasoning. She needed herself to become a welfare queen in her later years to maintain the value that her life brought to her (which is literally her argument). This fundamentally and deeply contradicts her own philosophy which treats capitalism as the sole system compatible for you if you value your own life.

>meanwhile Rand
Rand wrote fanfics and had an amateur level understanding of philosophy anon. You could genuinely go to any philosopher bachelor graduate and they could likely dismiss her entire system in less than an afternoon lol.

>>18472164
He won't have an adequate answer. Ayn Rand deeply feared socialism because she saw her own high-status life in Russia robbed from her. That's what motivated her line of reasoning, not logic or whatever brains she had.
You can see that her followers are incapable of responding to basic hypotheticals here >>18472486 and here >>18472666


>>18472633
You're making a modal error, you're treating contingency as necessity.
You have to explain why it would be more rational for someone to accept property laws that he never agreed to than any other system in any scenario, because you're not simply claiming "it's more rational in xyz situation" but rather "it's always rational".

>inb4 I reject analytic/synthetic dichotomy
completely irrelevant to the case at hand

it's pretty telling that those who antagonize Rand can only project their deficiencies
>basic hypotheticals
LOL yeah being born on top of mount everest as a baby is a serious question to you? no, it's just projection and reveals more of their own internal worldview

>>18472686
>Her argument is basically that by choosing to live as a human, you're choosing freedom, life, survival etc.
>From this basic observation which had been noticed since practically antiquity, >she makes a massive leap of faith and says that capitalism is the only system compatible with this.

>>18472694
>can only project their deficiencies
It keeps happening.

>>18472686
Literally how do people keep misunderstanding Rand? Even when they claim to understand her.
>Her argument is basically that by choosing to live as a human, you're choosing freedom, life, survival etc.
That's not true.
>From this basic observation which had been noticed since practically antiquity, she makes a massive leap of faith and says that capitalism is the only system compatible with this.
Capitalism is the only system compatible with freedom, live and survival, yes, but as your first premise was wrong, this is a non-sequitur.
>Yet, ironically, her own life disproves this line of reasoning.
Not really.
>Ayn Rand deeply feared socialism because she saw her own high-status life in Russia robbed from her. That
It has nothing to do with literal millions of people dead or enslaved right?

Bad faith nigger.

>>18472686
>You have to explain why it would be more rational for someone to accept property laws that he never agreed to than any other system in any scenario, because you're not simply claiming "it's more rational in xyz situation" but rather "it's always rational".
No I do not and no I am not. I'm not an objectivist, I'm a libertarian consequentialist.

>>18472722
Rand was a hypocrite who collected welfare that kept her alive only to whinge about how “she’s just getting back what was stolen from her” even though she quite literally was being supported through the charity and good graces of the American system.

>>18472739
You're retarded, that's not being a hypocrite.

>>18472739
You're not supposed to engage with it because everyone knows she's not a hypocrite on the matter, it's just projection. By engaging with the charge of hypocrisy and taking the allegations seriously you diminish the effect of smearing her.

>>18472741
It quite literally is. She didn’t have to collect social security but she still did.

>altruism is evil and you should avoid it, only focus on what benefits you
>except for Israel, you need to support them because they are the chosen people

>>18472744
And what was wrong with it?

>>18472746
Nothing, because taking back money forcibly taken from you by the state is not endorsing the system that took it.

>>18472746
>>18472749

She barely paid into it + she’s like Marx, being a little hypocritical faggot while not practicing what you preach.

>>18472752
>She barely paid
Proof?
>she's like Marx
in what way?

Notice how people like this cannot stand up to basic questioning or explanations to even non-relevant information.

>>18472755
>proof
Her tax returns
>in what way?
Living lifestyles entirely dependent on the goodwill of others and enjoying the fruits of systems they claim to despise

>>18472758
Saying her tax returns is not proof.
>Dependent on the goodwill of others
What are you talking about?
>enjoying the fruits of the systems they claim to despise
That's not even coherent. Nor does it make sense to lump Marx and Rand, for this undefined "fruits of systems" or whatever you're blathering about.

> Rand considered Immanuel Kant her philosophical opposite and "the most evil man in mankind's history". She believed his epistemology undermined reason and his ethics opposed self-interest.

There’s no way people take this bitch seriously

>>18472666
If individuals start out as infants, then they owe some part of their existence to the people who raised and nourished them, gave language, culture and identity. If they exist in modern society, they also owe some part of their existence to farmers, factory workers, software engineers, electricians, construction workers, etc. rather than just themselves. Ironically, Rand's individualism is only a byproduct of society becoming so advanced that the forces that keep you alive can be obscured to such an extent you deny they exist in the first place.

>>18472768
I don't see how people take Kant seriously.

>>18472764
>Her financial statements isn’t proof
It quite literally is
> What are you talking about?
Rands success and comfortable life she was afforded is entirely because the United States afforded her this, particularly the post-FDR welfare state of which she benefited from Medicare and Social security which made it so she wasn’t impoverished in her elderly years.
>how is this like Marx
Marx greatly benefited from the freedom of Capitalist Britian and the charity afforded to him by his industrialist friend in Engels to survive

she was the original "colectivism is evil except for us jews" bitch

>>18472774
Kants categorical imperative is more profound than anything Marx or Rand wrote

>>18472771
Needing other people is not the same as owing them your life you schizo.
Trade, production, and cooperation are not collectivism, they’re free individuals pursuing their own interests.
Your parents choosing to raise you does not place you in permanent moral debt to “society.”
And pretending the creator owes the parasite because civilization exists is exactly the mentality that punishes achievement and worships dependence like the jeet you are.

>>18472776
You do realize she got less out of medicare/ss than she put in right. She was a millionaire when she died.

>>18472782
multi-millionaire in pre-inflated currency pre-totally divorced from gold too
unlike marx she was successful in life

>>18472778
profound isn't an argument

>>18472787
Kant made a much better argument for morality based on actual applicable examples.

>>18472789
>don't lie
>not even to someone asking for victims at your door
riveting

>>18472782
Silents barely paid anything in payroll taxes for dem programs, it was all younger people funding it. “I saved up” is a lie.

>>18472792
>it was all younger people funding it.
so people like Rand?

>>18472793
>89 year old hag
No retard

>>18472790
>Disingenuous faggot
>intentionally misunderstanding
It’s obvious why lying is wrong, as is stealing. Exceptions don’t make it moral.

>>18472794
retard

>>18472800
>no u
I accept the trooncession

>>18472796
How is it disingenuous?
>obvious why lying is wrong
Lying to an axe-murderer at your door asking for victims is "obvious" as to why its wrong?

>>18472804
>>18472800
she was 30 when it started and died at 77
besides you obviously moving the goalpost to "barely paid into it" from "she's a hypocrite for getting her money back"

>>18472805
The act of lying is never moral, no. You can justify it was for a good reason but that will never make it acceptable to do in daily life. One can simply refuse to speak to said axe murderer and get the same or similar results. You are not culpable for the evil they want to commit either way.

>>18472781
>Your parents choosing to raise you does not place you in permanent moral debt to “society.”
There's no "moral debt". It's an objective, material reliance on others that begins with your birth and ends with your death. Rand is making the value judgement that the majority of the population, wage-laborers, are parasites and imagining an autarkic society of capitalists producing value entirely by themselves, which only works in the book because of an infinite free energy machine, which has never existed.

>>18472817
Claiming Ayn Rand imagined isolated capitalists “producing everything themselves” is just admitting you never understood her defense of specialization, production, and free trade in the first place. Much less read any of her works.

>>18472813
“Never lie, even to a murderer” is what happens when people worship rules with no respect to reality. Delusional.

>>18472822
>Never lie even to a murderer
You don’t “need” to lie to anyone, retard.
>when people worship rules with no respect to reality.
Rules are what make human civilization possible and are the foundation of ethics.

>>18472810
Clearly these horrible systems of oppression that stole from her are not so horrible if she enjoys generous benefits as a result

>>18472817
She didn't call wage laborers "parasites".

>>18472821
Explain how a Randian society would work without an infinite free energy machine.

>>18472830
That's like saying you enjoy benefits when a robber returns a spoon after robbing the whole drawer.

>>18472828
Yes you do, if you want to live. Should people fleeing shitholes, with no interest in returning, say they'll return if only to be approved for a visa?

>>18472857
I don't think what's important to a "Randian society" is infinite free energy, not has anyone advocated such lunacy. You're just projecting again, your imagined flaws.

>>18472746
There's nothing wrong with collecting social security on my view

It's Rand who thinks such systems are bad. Which is fucking weird, when it prevents elderly poor people from starving to death. And a bunch of bad things we don't want to see happen (except Rand, she want to see bad things happen to the elderly and infirm)
I got no clue why Rand wants the elderly to starve (except herself, I guess)

>>18472884
Niggas literally admitting their ignorance

>>18472862
>That's like saying you enjoy benefits when a robber returns a spoon after robbing the whole drawer.
No it's not.
You are not serious.

>>18472887
What exactly happens to an old man whose saving have run out living in Randland?

>>18472906
They can ask for help?
Why are you acting as if this is a major political, moral, philosophical problem?

>>18472915
It's because they're projecting again. Next they're gonna act like no one will help them (reflecting their own insecurities).

>it's MY money, I earned it - taxes are theft
Just seems so naive. Money wouldn't fucking work without society and the whole system maintained to facilitate it. Obviously society has a huge say in what goes on with your money.
It makes sense for some taxes to exist, to fund the police, for example. So people wont just come and take your money
Rand agrees with that

What she disagree with is on a case-by-case basis

But I think it's just profoundly silly to disagree with there being some kind of social safety net, and taxes for that
Can Rand explain why removing that would lead to positive consequences? (I view this as an empirical question)
Is she not concerned about crime, or a fucking violent revolution?

Does she really want people to have their lives ruined by circumstances outside their control? Why? Suppose you declined to buy health insurance
I've always thought having the state essentially force retards to get insurance, by baking it into their taxes, was a great idea.

No one want to see retarded starving sick poor homeless people on the street. At least, I don't.
I'm okay with using force to compel people to pay taxes to avoid that shit.

>>18472915
>>18472919
I HATE charity
I have never given a single cent to charities in my adult life

Which is why these things needs to be mandatory with people like me, taxes
I don't want old people to starve
but I sure as fuck ain't volunteering my money

This is why we need laws, to force people to do things they don't want to do

>>18472939
You’re smuggling in “society pays for it” as if that creates a moral claim on the individual.
Ayn Rand wouldn’t deny society exists, she denies it has a right to override individual rights by majority sentiment or emotional preference.
Calling taxation for “good outcomes” a safety net is just rebranding coercion, and on principle cannot lead to "good outcomes" (for who? for some, not for the person, or anyone)
If “need” justified force, then there is no limit principle left, only endless redistribution based on whoever can argue “I don’t want to see that.”
Crime prevention and defense are consistent with rights protection, not a blank cheque for managing everyone’s life outcomes.
A welfare state does not eliminate suffering, it institutionalizes dependency and force as a social rule.
And no, fearing bad consequences is not an argument for violating rights, it is exactly the kind of thinking that makes rights meaningless.

>>18472949
Like dying for Israel?

>>18472915
>They can ask for help?
Help! Would you please pay for my food, lodgings and medical bills?
No?
Guess I'll just fucking die.

Of course stuff like this is a major political concern!
I'm sure it's a big reason why some countries are socialist. The details of how to allocate resources for stuff like this is the #1 thing politicians talk about where I live

>>18472949
so instead of giving my money to cancer research and my local wholesome white protestant church I am forced to give it to shlubby ghetto trash and israel, and it's mostly white middle classes paying the taxes because taxing plutocrats would be "antisemitic" and this, you argue, is the ideal system and to criticize it you are le stoopid like Ayn Rand

>>18472867
That's how she makes it work in the book, obviously it's retarded lunacy.

>>18472967
>override individual rights
The what, what? What are those?
No, but seriously. Rights are totally made-up. Rand can appeal to them all she likes. I can make up rights of my own.
That just means we want different things.

I want a social safety net to keep starving people off the streets. I want this to be equally mandatory for everyone, so I feel like less of a sucker when paying taxes.
Rand doesn't want that. Okay. Agree to disagree.

This whole thing about coercion being unable to cause good outcomes. Total nonsense.
A social safety net keeping people off the streets or not, it's an empirical question. Just have to test it and see what works.

>>18472991
>I am forced to give it to shlubby ghetto trash and israel
Look, I'm not American. Sorry, I'm not into this whole mindset

>>18472993
>The what, what? What are those?
Please read more on the topic before continuing and skipping ahead.

I think the problem is largely people don't understand ethics and morality. They keep jumping to political questions (which they take for granted).

>>18473006
Rights are made-up
There's no fact of the matters as to what they are

You're not gonna find them by reading the big book of rights

>>18473015
Rights are made up just like 2+2=4 is made up, it does not mean they aren't true or don't reflect reality the same way.

>>18472996
>I'm not into this whole mindset
You like paying taxes to people who hate you?

>>18473024
>shlubby ghetto trash and israel
This seems to be the bigger problem, right?
Sort this out first, then you can have socialism.

America being retarded isn't an argument against altruism.

>>18472073
Look I'm not a total Rand hater but she has few original ideas. I think her strength as a philosophical writer is getting people interested in thinking about many philosophical issues. But she is best used as a jumping on point. Study the philosophers that influenced her like Aristotle, Nietzsche or Locke and Rand won't seem as impressive anymore. Or read the ones she criticizes and see if she was right about them. To be honest, Rand is about as unfair to Kant or the postmodernists as most of her critics are to her.

>>18472857
It works literally work exactly like modern liberal capitalist society except if you didn't like it you'd be allowed to fuck off to the woods to start a new society.

>>18472992
No it's not.

>>18472939
I highly recommend reading The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman. It gets away from all the moralizing and focuses on the utilitarian benefits of anarcho-capitalism and the practical steps needed to achieve it.

>>18473210
>read an avowed retard
no thanks

>>18472073
>Ethnonationalism, settler colonialism, land theft and nepotism for me, individualism for the goyim

What did this loathsome kikess mean by this?

Will I be forced to pay for roads?

>>18473237
>>18472260

>>18473257
No

>>18473263
Who pays for the roads?

>>18473291
People do.

>>18472151
>nation/tribe/country
>your family

>>18473296
But not me?

>>18473237
she piratically used the same argument she use to favor Israel over the arabs to justify favoring the white settlers in the Americas over the stone age natives and to say that white guilty was BS

>>18472686
>because she saw her own high-status life in Russia robbed from her.
the crazy high status of a small drugstore owner daughter

>>18473291
>pays for the roads
I'm not a libertarian, but I always found this to be the weakest argument possible against it. You could go on the gazillion wacky situations that libertarianism generate that truly are fucked up and somehow most libertarians can't even begin to articulate... but this one?

Obviously the answer is that a road that isn't needed will not be paid for. If you have economic interest in creating a road, you will pay for it. In a libertarian fictional state, it would be even fairer because you wouldn't be extracting money without consent of the populace to create a road towards them so that the cousin of the governor can sell things to them. If the governor's cousin wants a road he will have to pay it out of his own pocket. If there's no good reason to build a road, the road will not be privately paid.

"But the poor people abandoned in the middle of nowhere, how they will get roads"

Are you going to use the state to force women to get pregnant on towns in the middle of nowhere to mantain population? Then keeping towns in the middle of nowhere isn't worth it enough that you have to steal money to pay for roads to them.

>>18473371
Cross country roads are really fucking expensive and take a long time to build
are we entirely sure people would be able to afford building those?

What if some guy own a strip of land spanning the middle of the country, and don't feel like selling it? Bummer.

>>18472686
Using welfare she was forced to pay into

>>18473400
>Cross country roads are really fucking expensive and take a long time to build
>are we entirely sure people would be able to afford building those?
But the lack of cross country roads would make the unconnected land very cheap, which would create the economic incentive to build the road.
>What if some guy own a strip of land spanning the middle of the country, and don't feel like selling it? Bummer.
Yeah that would suck, I guess if some guy managed to do that you'd have to wait for him to die. But that seems a little far-fetched. If we're considering such unrealistic scenarios, then what if the state just claimed ownership of millions upon millions of acres of land and refused to let anyone build o- oh fuck

It's my road, *I* get to decide the speed limit

Building roads are kind of a massive undertaking, and it doesn't really lend itself to competition (only need 1 road, not a bunch of competing roads running in parallel)
what do you even do if you don't have these titanic persons of industry with the capital to build roads? Team up with other people?

Roads also makes a whole lot more sense if they are planned and coordinated, without people in active competition with conflicting goals

roads seems like such a good idea for something to handle with collectivism

>>18473504
Terrible way to think.

>>18473639
You are right
Infrastructure don't need central planning or coordination