Jews or no jews, central planners will always run into knowledge problems, because no one has enough expertise to run society from the top down.
Having subject matter experts in government doesn't imply central planning.
No. Socialism is fundamentally flawed. A high-IQ, high-trust society will make it work better than a low-trust low-IQ society, but only because they could make anything work better.
That's what I mean by "work." It will never achieve what it promises, but a high iq, high trust society could make it work well enough that there weren't bread lines and people starving to death.
Who maintains them?
Whoever broke it.
Who ensures there's a bike where you need one when you need one?
Nobody. This isn't a government program to make sure you have a bike. It's a community thing. They're there if you want to use them, and if they're not, they're not.
Who pays for them all?
Again, you're imagining a government-style program. Who pays for them is irrelevant to whether people will steal the bikes and/or vandalize them
Who recycles them when they reach their end of life?
How does this person calculate how much should be spent on each bike and how much investment is justified?
I'm surprised at how statist this style of thinking is coming from you. It's a very centralized, top-down view of the world.
Why does paying for the services you consume make you lose trust exactly?
It doesn't. Stealing a community resource and then charging people to use what was theirs is what causes the loss of trust. I never would have taken you for a jew in all the years we've gone back and forth on voat.
I would like to hear back from you on this btw. Judging from your reply we may have been talking at cross purposes.
Hoppes9 is just a reference to the eponymous gun cleaner.
I wasn't talking about somebody creating a program of bikes to lend out. I was saying that people could leave bikes around for their neighbors to use in a high trust society. Having some centralized management is going way too far IMHO.
Hoppes9 is just a reference to the eponymous gun cleaner.
Ah! Fair enough. There's a german ancap philosopher called Hoppe (the guy who came up with the term "physical removal") so I was surprised a guy named after him seemed to be making anti-market arguments.
I wasn't talking about somebody creating a program of bikes to lend out. I was saying that people could leave bikes around for their neighbors to use in a high trust society. Having some centralized management is going way too far IMHO.
Oh ok, I see what you're getting at. I agree that could work on a small scale, although it's still a little tricky since it you could never guarantee your bike (or any bike) would be there when you need it. There are examples of people doing things like that in racially homogenous areas, like those mini lending libraries made out of old phone booths where you just pinkie promise to bring the book back after you're done.
Stuff like that works well at a small scale with relatively cheap, non-scarce objects like second hand books. If it's ever going to scale up though or deal with more important things like transport, I think markets and prices are a good way to make it happen.
Having subject matter experts in government doesn't imply central planning.
Well, having a government implies central planning. Are you a hoppian? Or is the username a coincidence? Genuine question.
That's what I mean by "work." It will never achieve what it promises, but a high iq, high trust society could make it work well enough that there weren't bread lines and people starving to death.
Well sure, but why settle for socialism? It's a bit like saying "if I were a professional mechanic I bet I could get this lada to run almost as smooth as a western car."
Who maintains them?
Whoever broke it.
Maintainence is usually about upkeep and replacing things before they break. The point is that there's a lot of hidden costs and economic decisions that go into running a bike hire service. I see no reason why those decisions shouldn't be made through price signals, as opposed to guesswork.
Again, you're imagining a government-style program. Who pays for them is irrelevant to whether people will steal the bikes and/or vandalize them
But someone has to buy the initial lot of bikes, and replace the ones that wear out. They also have to decide what kind of bikes to buy and whether it's worth buying fancy super-light carbon-fiber bikes or shitty steel ones that feel like pedalling a tank.
I'm surprised at how statist this style of thinking is coming from you. It's a very centralized, top-down view of the world.
It doesn't matter how centralised or decentralised it is, someone still has to make those spending decisions and assess value. In a for-profit model they have thousands of consumers telling them how valuable the bikes are and they can adjust the resources they allocate to it accordingly. In a gift economy they're just guessing.
It doesn't. Stealing a community resource and then charging people to use what was theirs is what causes the loss of trust. I never would have taken you for a jew in all the years we've gone back and forth on voat.
How is it theft to buy a bike and rent it out?
Like... is there a free-bike tree growing in a commons somewhere? :P
(post is archived)