How to Answer the Census.
in [Physics]
|
From: Strabo on 25 May 2010 05:57 Remy McSwain wrote: > In > news:ef9f7d09-970f-4ed8-b7ed-a57c3dbce10e(a)t34g2000prd.googlegroups.com, > Jackney Sneeb <jackneysneeb(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Apr 18, 8:42 am, Iarnrod <iarn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> <snipped> >> >> What's the matter, not feeling all that socialist right now? > > The imposition of taxes for the common good is not socialism. > No, it is *socialistic*. But that's not a problem so long as the services cannot be performed by private means. Electricity, water and sewage come to mind as delivery of each constitutes a natural monopoly. In such cases a tax or bond funded service is appropriate.
From: Jackney Sneeb on 30 May 2010 02:41 On May 24, 7:52 am, "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Yes, I agree that the tax system would be more fair if the people > who use the roads, either directly, or indirectly, had to pay for > it. We do pay directly, by buying gasoline - and there's no reason other companies that directly or indirectly benefit from good roads cannot contribute instead of pretending we "need" an income tax to finance them. It's not a matter of fairness, it's a matter of economics. Stealing people's money is uneconomical for everyone but the thieves. It finances people who do nothing to contribute to society, and eventually becomes the generator of war and destruction. It's not necessary to accept war in order to have roads. > However, it'd still be a tax, and so if you believe that taxes > are extortion, I'm not sure that you've gained anything much. Not necessarily - oil companies, insurance companies, car manufacturers and other industries that depend on good roads would find it in their interest to fund road construction and maintenance without taxes. A tax is different from a voluntary contribution by definition: it is exacted by threat of force. Oil companies don't try to weasel out of paying the taxes on their products because they know the benefit they get from them, and they would still get that benefit if it were truly a matter of voluntary participation in a road maintenance plan, but only if they continued paying. If they and others who benefit directly didn't fund roads, they'd go out of business when people couldn't drive on the roads any longer. > > Again, bad logic. People build roads. Even the state hires > > private contractors to build and maintain roads. Roads existed > > before "government." Roads are to humans as beaver dams are to > > beavers. Who builds beaver dams - beaver "governments"? > > Actually, even in nature, the collective works on behalf of all, and > all are "charged" for, the cost. All are NOT charged for the cost. In fact one of the tenets democrats and socialists brag about is that even those who have no money get the same benefits from the collectivist system as the rich. But even the rich often don't pay. This is a constant criticism made, ironically, by some of those same people. And the collective is made up of individuals. Each person working to further his own interests benefits the collective. When we look at the "collective" metaphorically as those who claim to represent us, i.e., politicians, we find that some people benefit from their largess more equally than others, and some benefit not at all, while still others actually get screwed. (Or even killed.) > > > I have a suggestion for you: if you think socialism is so > > wonderful, quit using things provided by the free market. Give > > up your bad capitalist habit of going to the grocery store for > > food; stop patronizing privately owned gas stations; stop using > > free enterprise internet service providers; refuse to pay a > > private garbage collection service; don't patronize any business > > that hires private cops; don't drive a car (exception: > > "government"-built cars like the Yugo are okay) . . . > > > What's the matter, not feeling all that socialist right now? > > The imposition of taxes for the common good is not socialism. I disagree. I think that is the essence of socialism. Taxation is the sine qua non of socialism. Without taxes, what is socialism? --Jackney Sneeb
From: Jackney Sneeb on 31 May 2010 19:07
On May 31, 11:26 am, nat <esen...(a)tx.rr.com> wrote: > You could build a road by just walking. Your road would be a trail > and not much more than a path. The problem is not so much about > building roads, but about building PUBLIC rights of way. That takes > cooperation that requires some force. Cooperation is mutually voluntary action. Force is slavery. Cooperation is the exact opposite of force. Cooperation is community. It is networking. It is spontaneous order. It is the non-initiation of violence. Its result is peaceful order. PUBLIC is force; PUBLIC is hierarchical order; PUBLIC is mass theft and coercion. Its consequence is glaringly obvious: war. "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence it is force!" ~George Washington "Coercion is the essence of government in the same way that profit is the essence of private businesses. In the same way that businesses occasionally finance social projects in order to polish their public image, government occasionally engages in noncoercive activities. But, for both institutions, these are sideshows." ~James Bovard "Every government program, law, or regulation is a demand that someone do what he doesn't want to do, refrain from doing what he does want to do, or pay for something he doesn't want to pay for. And those demands are backed up by police with guns." ~Harry Browne "[W]hen you come right down to it, almost everything that governments do would be crimes if committed by individuals." ~Dan Evans "Government" therefore is the institutionalization of criminal force. If I could choose between a more peaceful society at the cost of a few extra potholes in the road, and a criminal regime that funds roads sometimes - even though I know the roads would be better maintained by people primarily concerned that they be in good serviceable order, which excludes politicians - I would choose the former without hesitation. --Jackney Sneeb .. |