Originally Posted by BucEyedPea
No you don't. You suffer from mainstream in-the-box thinking which omits a lot of economic history. Most historians don't write about economic history because they don't know economics well enough. You have not studied alternatives and are closed to new ideas.
Again, I am NOT a libertarian.
And you suffer from independent thinking that is so idealistic that it doesn't factor in realities. As much as you push for the privatization of road building, you leave out an enormously long economic history of sharks in the private sector who, in their self-driven motive to either make money for themselves or drive a profit for their business, will engage in behaviors that are terrible for the public. It's why we have proactive laws to bust monopolies, regulate financial markets, outlaw collusion, create FDA standards and fair advertising standards, etc.... You're talking about different territory here. You can break up a corrupt business -- a new tenant will eventually take up that property. You can tear down buildings. You can't **** up infrastructure because it's tough to fix mistakes.
My thinking is not "in the box." I am for increasing privatization of roads and a more democratic process for deciding which projects get funded. But I pointed out plenty of reasons why privatization is a terrible idea. Much as I disagree with loneiguana, he's made some outstanding points in this thread.