Well, that last lot (by G T) was just useless rightwing dogma, so probably is not worth replying to.

Notice how these rightwingers deliberately flout social conventions, and social rules to inflict their dogmas on the rest of us. For example;

A rule in OnlineOpinion is that contribs are kept to 350 words. So what does the rightwinger do - deliberately replaces the gaps between words wiht another character, so as to foil the normal regulations.

When they do this, they must be ignored as the profoundly unethical, unreasonable operators they in fact are.

We must judge people not by what they say, but by what they do. These disruptive rightist people infest the internet.

Mark

Mark,
For right wing extremeists there are no rules, they believe that they are above the rules, that the rules don't apply to them. They are in possesion of a blinkered view of the world, and think everyone else must conform to their view. Does this remind you of anyone in particular, current, and historicly? G.T. certainly does not stand for Grand Tourer, his post confirm he doesn't travel very far and sticks to his own limited dogma.

Poor chap, we all feel sorry for you G.T.

It's always great when some people play the man and not the ball, especially when they're lacking in any form of wit. Then again, wit usually requires intellect.

MonashLibertarian: I've always been curious how the roads could or would work under a privatised/free market system. What do I do if someone who owns the roads puts the cost of using them up to a level that I'm able to pay (since it's obviously pointless to charge someone more than he or she can pay), but which is extremely uncomfortable?

Unlike most other products or services, I can't go to a competitor since I would have to drive my car on the roads I don't want to drive on to do so.

How can this be resolved without resorting to fanciful explanations (building my own bridge over the road, installing a helipad on my roof, etc.)? A mind that could resolve this problem is a better one than mine!

shorbe: It wouldn't happen like that because not everyone values roads the same as you. What the road companies would try to do is get the most possible income from operating the roads, and this would usually mean charging less. While you may find $5 unbearable, somebody else may only find $4 unbearable, so lowering the toll to $4 would generate a total of $8 dollars from both of you, rather than $5 from just one of you.

Keep in mind that price signals can entice not only consumers, but also potential competitors. Charging exorbitant rates for a particular route is just BEGGING for a competitor, seeing the large potential profits to be made by offering a slightly lower rate (and so capturing the market), to build a road right next to it, or an alternate transport system (whether it be a tunnel, a monorail, a train, or an above ground road). The devaluation of the land surrounding an expensive road as a result of that expensiveness would make such a venture even more affordable and enticing.

And after all that, what is to stop a group of citizens starting their own collective to run and build roads (just like the government, but with voluntary participation) to ensure cheap prices?

If you ask me whether I'd pay a toll or be forced to pay taxes, I'd pay a toll.

G.T.,
Still banging on with your contorted view of the world I see. Unfortunately you fail to realise that workers are capitalists also, and seek to sell their labour for the highest possible price, to give them the best possible life for themselves and their families.

This is the reason workers need unions, much the same as employers need their unions sometimes called associations, but as they say a rose by any other name is still a rose.

This is what tories can't/won't see, however some of us live on Earth, some like you prefer to live on Zircon. We need a national poverty audit.

SHONGA, don't put words in my mouth. I never said anything of the sort.

Workers are no more special than anyone else, so why should they have any special rights above others, such as the right to force their employer to pay a certain wage, or the right to sue them for "unfair dismissal"? Employers can't sue for unfair resignation, so why should employees be able to sue for unfair dismissal? Even worse, people who AREN'T EVEN EMPLOYEES can sue because THEY WEREN'T CHOSEN FOR THE JOB! http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200510/s1478569.htm

Who owns these businesses? Certainly not the employees. Employees are lucky that someone went to the trouble of creating oppourtunity for employment to begin with. An employer didn't have to create that oppourtunity in Australia, they could have gone to another country. How dare people bite the hand that feeds them. If they want to have a say in how a business is run, they should make their own business.

A business owner should have every right to run their business however they want. After all, it is their business. If not providing employment for certain people is considered "harming" someone, then everyone who doesn't employ ANYONE (which is the majority of Australia) would causing "harm".

Employees demanding a minimum wage and forming unions is akin to a merchant demanding people buy his goods for a minimum price and setting up a cartel. After all, both are just selling their products, as you say. Only in reality, the merchants are slammed as exploitative. How is that fair?

By the way, I am not a "right winger", I am a libertarian. I believe in a free market and I don't believe any government has a right to forcefully alter the way people produce and trade. Believing such intervention works, and worse, believing oneself to have the ideal scheme of altering peoples' actions to make society better, is a dangerous way of thinking, similar to dictators who have a vision of a "perfect" society.