Comments by "James Adams" (@ExPwner) on "Innuendo Studios Doesn't Understand Conservatives" video.

"So no, you don't need the government to pay for roads." THANK YOU!
42
@leonardbreaux3156 if you're talking about timber then you'd also have to acknowledge that those companies build their own private roads too, which factors into the conversation. Now if you want to discuss the issue of heavy users not paying proportional to their use of said road (and subsequent need for repair) then privatizing makes ever more sense. I think we're more or less on the same page here. Make the use line up with the cost of use.
2
@leonardbreaux3156 depends on the specific situation, but based on what you're describing here the most sense imo would be for the businesses to own and maintain the road for their business use and then charge a small fee to residents for their portion of the upkeep. And from what you're describing, residential use may be negligible compared to business use.
2
@leonardbreaux3156 agreed on the not texting and driving. Hope you're staying safe on the roads. It's wild and icy in my area. Never hurts to take it slowly.
2
I disagree that capitalism and democracy aren't in conflict. They are. Capitalism is about private property rights. Democracy is a majority rule. These are fundamentally incompatible since majority rule means that private property rights cannot be consistently upheld unless all of the majority votes go for private property (which they don't).
1
@leonardbreaux3156 they absolutely can profit from making roads in rural areas. They don't have to be pavement and the users of those roads are fine with it not always being pavement because they don't want or need pavement to nowhere. The answer to your question from a person already living in a rural area is that we deal with it privately by either having dirt or gravel roads or forking over the money to make it better. It's not a loss.
1