How can private infrastructure be competitive under a free market?

Attached: 1553670734917.png (644x598, 150K)

Most infrastructure in the early modern and early industrial periods were financed and privately owned.

It wasn't until the late 19th century that infrastructure started to become nationalized

Attached: 1545474096499.png (1000x1000, 122K)

Attached: Screenshot_20190327-002705_DuckDuckGo.jpg (965x692, 212K)

Sure, but that doesn't address my question: how can private infrastructure be competitive? You can't have redundant sewers.

Attached: 1553361088316.png (500x372, 83K)

Why doors in US open inside?

We have the law doors must open outside.

Attached: 132658360492.jpg (251x204, 6K)

Doors open in both directions when you use a battering ram.

Government has money from taxes, uses money to hire companies who pay contractors to fix and make stuff. It works because everyone wins, even the tax payers

Attached: the-ussr-wasnt-real-communism-stopp-the-nazis-22836458.png (500x782, 211K)

What do you mean? Yes you can.

You can just install a subpump on the property and contract someone to periodically remove sewage.

But that's state-enforced monopoly, not free-market competition.

That might work if we all lived out in the boondocks, but cities exist.

I always wondered that myself. It will be easier to break into a swing in door

Attached: 1550787405936m.jpg (961x1024, 238K)

Then whatever apartment building you own part of feeds it into a septic tank and they handle it as a part of condo fees.

How is that state forced monopoly. I genuinely have no idea how you got to monopoly from that. The government will hire the company who will be on time under budget to hold onto more money. FREE MARKET.

Attached: 1554220971794.gif (728x408, 1.18M)

But how is that any more efficient or desirable than a centralized sewer system?

Are you arguing for natural monopolies?

That's basically the only situation in which capitalism does not work perfectly and requires some regulation.

Even in situations which are generally considered natural monopolies, such as power lines, traditional methods of transmission have been developed.

For example, wireless technology is in the process of supplanting traditional cables, which have generally been considered within the real of natural monopolies.

The most problematic natural monopoly is piping; however, there is no reason why improvements to septic tanks and waste management/water collection couldn't provide adequate, if not better, options over so called "natural monopolies"

Only one business can operate the infrastructure at any given time. The state decides which business is in charge. The state excludes any other business during that period. It's monopoly.

Road projects will be crowdfunded by those who need them.
Then they get investment back by visiting clients or road fees.

Who maintains those sewers? The company hired to maintain it. Good grief, lord help this man.

Attached: 1554207154674.gif (492x342, 781K)

This is that youtube ancom right? Why is his nose so red and irritated?

Natural monopolies, yes. What makes the convoluted schemes to try and "decentralize" piping/sewage efficient or desirable? Why not simply democratize a centralized system?

But who would then own the roads? Are you arguing for *gasp* collective ownership?

1. You don't have pay an intermediary bureaucracy; the money goes directly to whatever needs to be built.

Also you don't get city sewage pipes bursting out into your basement because someone in the government fucked up 20 years ago and never told anyone (I know 2 people who this happened to).

And they repair it because the 'public' can't handle it.

But then how would other companies compete with an already-established centralized sewage operator? There's no way to break into the market.

I can tell you've never had a blue collar job.
The state gives the job to the company who does the best job and is under budget. IF ANOTHER COMPANY can come in and DO IT FOR LESS while still being to standard, the state will more likely CONTRACT THE NEW COMPANY TO SAVE MONEY.

Attached: 1554123365613.jpg (754x1024, 99K)

What prevents the incorporation of a privately-operated bureaucratic middleman (e.g. the situation with janitorial companies in the US today)?

Yes, but that has nothing to do with the question of how there could be competing private roads without massive inefficiencies due to redundant road systems.

The state decides the budget and the metrics for determining qualified contractors. They still own the infrastructure in this case. It's a monopoly.

It's not a designated sewer company. Contracts are renewed and broken all the time.

Liability

Then the state is still the owner of the sewer. Either the sewer is privately owned or privately managed but state-owned.

was wendys girl a mistake? corporate smugness is soul crushing.

Liability as in?

You're assuming that competing infrastructure means parallel infrastructure in the same place. In practice it's been a cooperation between different companies to make mutually beneficial contracts and share/connect eachothers systems.
Only when no agreement can be made between property owner and competing companies, you need to build parallel infrastructure.

Government sewage systems are often inefficient.

As far as water delivery, just look at flint michigan.

The most "green" options are things like composting toilets, which hold all of the waste and turn it into fertilizer combined with "grey water" collection systems which store water on hand to reuse later.

Is there any justification for creating a complex infrastructure that outweighs the benefits of using the resources in places in which they currently exist?

It's only a question of how to make it profitable. If there's money there's a way.

So collective ownership?

You basically ignored everything I just said, are still in college, have 0 reading comprehension, or just a troll. 10/10 bait. You got me. I'll leave you with this: everyone hates communism because it's like an ex girl who keeps trying to make things work out but you know shes broken. You can tell by her past failed relationships.

Attached: PatrickCommieGif.gif (320x240, 3.27M)

Would private roads incentivize flying cars?

No, there isn't. I'm not arguing in favor of the existing capitalist state and its madness, I'm arguing against laissez-faire "solutions".

Profit is not a virtue nor is the profit motive magic.

>lets put the hinges on the outside where jamaal and miguel can tap the pins out
how the fuck did this not occur to you

Why couldn't flight paths be privatized?

>what is bidding for contracts

In a system that doesn't provide limited-liability legal status to corporations, whoever did the installation would be legally liable for the damages caused by the faulty installation.

How it would work is that you either sue the company directly, or you have insurance which pays you out and then the insurance company can sue the sewage company to recoup their payment to you.

So you're willing to argue that we should keep and regulate and subsidize the existing system (which prohibits the introduction of competing systems), but would not argue for creating that system in the first place?

Bidding for contracts to operate and maintain state-owned infrastructure systems. If the infrastructure were truly privately owned, there would be no bidding.

Fucking KEEEEEK. Dude looks like a pothead.

Attached: 1536774009584.jpg (400x386, 25K)

Firstly the state adds extra cost to the whole process.
Secondly the state has no incentive to choose carefully which subcontractor to choose. Often in road construction a contractor offers a ridiculously low bid to win the tender, then they do half assed job, go bankrupt, make a new company and the state makes a new tender to finish the job with extra money.
The state never goes bankrupt and not to mention the possibilities of corruption in this way of doing things.

Is there a legal framework for privatizing flight paths? And why can't I just fly 1 micron higher?

so if I own a car I cant take it to a mechanic or it's not mine?

No, I would argue in favor of giving the community the power and resources to make whatever adjustments or overhauls they feel is necessary to solve their own problems and accomplish their own goals without having to accede to the authority of the state or of private owners.

So then the government does the second thing I mentioned in the thread you failed to read.

Bidding for contracts often leads to shoddy corporations placing low bids just for the money and then providing substandard service at an unacceptable rate.

Just compare any road work to the buildings and businesses that pop up alongside any construction site.

Yes, airspace can be surveyed and policed, allowing it to be privately owned if a capitalist state ever feels the need to implement such a system.

Roads would be maintained by the nearby businesses. If they had no roads, they would have no business. Similar things happen in housing communities where private roads are maintained by the residents living on the street who must agree to the terms before they can purchase the house.

If you own a car and take it to a mechanic, your car does not become the property of the mechanic, no. Same goes for infrastructure: if the state contracts out maintenance companies, it still owns the infrastructure. Contracting private maintenance does not privatize the infrastructure. The infrastructure has to be wholly owned by one or more private entities to be considered "private infrastructure".

Does that make "natural monopolies" uncompetitive? Are you arguing for allowing a system that creates the very problem which you intent to solve?

It's owned by the investors....

Yes, and I was not arguing in favor of such bidding, I was arguing against such bidding being considered a system of private infrastructure.

So collective ownership?

So the problem is the authority we extend to the government and this is, as i just said, a problem of your own creation.

Why would we bid on projects for infrastructure that isn't in the public domain? you're not making sense

It's owned by investors and they are incentivized to make these decisions efficiently. The state can fuck up investments as much as they want, they have guaranteed customers.

Natural monopolies are uncompetitive. I was arguing against the idea that a "competitive free market" can exist within the realm of infrastructure. Infrastructure is always going to be a monopoly, the question is who is in control of such a monopoly: the state, the corporations, or the people?

As equals, or if one investor invests a larger chunk of the investment, do they have a larger amount of authority over the investment?

I'm not arguing in favor of state control. I'm arguing in favor of community control.

Ok and my examples were ones that compete with "infrastructure" in the traditional sense. The point was that a "natural monopoly" is a fallacy in itself

The virgin Ancap / The Chad minarchist distributist with direct electronic democracy

When state-owned infrastructure is privately managed, the general scheme involves private contractors bidding on the rights to manage the infrastructure, with the lowest bidder earning those rights. My retort was that such a system is not private infrastructure and is in fact a state monopoly.

go fuck yourself HOA.

Nothing wrong with bidding for contracts.
If the client is a private entity, the client is incentivised to carefully choose which bidder to choose because otherwise he loses in money or quality.
The state can fuck up as many times as it likes, its pockets are endless with taxpayers money.

An audible kek, thank you.

I'm well aware of how it works, I'm saying that it's not necessary.

Your examples can't scale up. If you're going to have decentralized infrastructure, it might as well be communist. Capitalism cannot remain decentralized.

So just good ol' liberalism only this time you're sure to get it right?

HOA isn't community control, it's capitalist control.

>must agree to the terms
No, it's signing a contract to agree to pay extra for the road to live there. Collective ownership is by definition involuntary.

The doors here open outside for emergencies. A battering ram doesn't care though; it'll bash through whatever

Neither am I. The others in this thread were arguing that that is how a system of private infrastructure would operate. I argued that that is not private infrastructure, but instead state monopoly.

If a collective comes together in shared ownership of a property, how is that not collective ownership?

no extreme form of any ideology works.

Attached: 1552020582046.png (531x660, 379K)

Why do you ask and answer your own question?

how would that be communist? and why would you want it to scale up?

That's like saying "well toilets can't scale up and we need a giant toilet for everyone to shit into"

You're just full of arbitrary distinctions aren't you?

What do you think you mean by communism?
Just the word itself implies central purpose and state.

Wow, brilliant centrist mind we got here

The system of private infrastructure would not necessarily be regulated.

In an opportune world, the government would provide alternative, competitive infrastructure to promote progress.

For example, cities taxing their citizens to lay fiber optic lines to provide internet as a utility would be acceptable; however, declaring an existing fiber line to be the authority of the state is not.

>every type of ownership thats shared by more than one person means COMMUNISM IS SUCCESSFUL COMRADE!!!!