Is Tax a neccesary evil ?
- Thread starter renovator
- Start date
I can see what Reno is getting at, I had a friend who lived in a village and if you missed the last bus out then that was that, you were stuck in the village because there was no transportation after 17:00.
It wasn't profitable to run buses after this time and if the Gov didn't lean on the bus companies there probably wouldn't have been any service at all.
Everyone in the village who wanted to move around after 17:00 had a car, they were responsible for their own services.
You can't do the same with a doctor but why should our taxes fund a doctor, they can open up a GP Practice and work for themselves.
If enough people want a bridge they can build one, and it won't be a Multi million dollar one that the government would build. If there is not enough demand for a bridge then it wouldn't get built. The idea of building a bridge for the convenience of a few people and at the expense of a great many more is a little unbalanced.
If you build a bridge people will use it, that's not to say they needed it, just that it is more convenient than going the long way round.
It wasn't profitable to run buses after this time and if the Gov didn't lean on the bus companies there probably wouldn't have been any service at all.
Everyone in the village who wanted to move around after 17:00 had a car, they were responsible for their own services.
You can't do the same with a doctor but why should our taxes fund a doctor, they can open up a GP Practice and work for themselves.
If enough people want a bridge they can build one, and it won't be a Multi million dollar one that the government would build. If there is not enough demand for a bridge then it wouldn't get built. The idea of building a bridge for the convenience of a few people and at the expense of a great many more is a little unbalanced.
If you build a bridge people will use it, that's not to say they needed it, just that it is more convenient than going the long way round.
renovator said:
Universal service obligations do more harm than the perceived good they generate. They are a grossly inefficient use of scarce resources that reduce the average standard of living for the perceived benefit of a minority. MRI, CT etc machines and associated equipment are very expensive and the highly trained specialists are scarce. Under the universal service principle, every hospital in every town should all have exactly the same facilities, equipment and staffing which is patently absurd given that is far more efficient to simply transport the patients who use the specialist services to travel 100km so that the specialist services are used to their full capacity rather than sitting idle 80% of the time.
Importantly, as far as I can tell nowhere in this discussion have we said that there are "no good things" done by Government. Of course they can do good things and in fact they do. You asked are TAXES therefore a necessary evil? Our simple answer is "no, taxes are not necessary because the Government does not need to provide anything". Further any provision of Government services are guaranteed to lead to inefficiency and waste and not meet the true desires of consumers.
Whats absurd is people like you wanting to deny services to others because it doesnt make financial sense &/or you wont be using it . We need taxes to pay for those thingsbordsilver said:
Its easy to say you dont need things that are already there & most was paid for by our parents & grandparents ..
fishball said:
Fishball, you are jumping straight to the minimum level of services that are argued to warrant the need for a government - namely the enforcement of private property rights.
Compared to all of the other services renovator rattled off these are sometimes regarded as the most contentious amongst the Libertarians. rather than go all the way to anarcho-capitalism many Libertarians (and I believe the Objectivists) stop at this basic function and are called minarchist Libertarians would retain the state in the form of providing public police, courts and military. From what I have read, they fully acknowledge that the complete abolition could exist but they feel that there are some benefits provided by retaining these functions within a Government entity.
In essence you could say that the minarchists are in favour of the US as at the time of the Declaration of Independence in which the Government acted like a Protectorate. In contrast the anarcho-capitalists argue that such a system is doomed to fail as evidenced by the US in the 20th Centuries and we should never allow even this level of immorality. Personally, I think it's largely academic until I happen to have the opportunity to have this debate in real life by which time all of the other intrusions will presumably have been shed.
You can represent yourself or get lawyers willing to help you out for free (yes they're rare but they exist). Pro bono I believe it's called.
While lawyers are important I was thinking more along the lines of judges being paid by private corporations/people.
When the ultimate decision to free you or screw you falls to somebody who has their best interests aligned with the party screwing you, yeah you're screwed.
bordsilver that actually sounds a bit like my train of thought.
I'm all for cutting useless trash from government but I firmly believe courts, police etc are necessary to be 'public' in order to be functional.
I'm not sure if I'm a libertarian though heh
While lawyers are important I was thinking more along the lines of judges being paid by private corporations/people.
When the ultimate decision to free you or screw you falls to somebody who has their best interests aligned with the party screwing you, yeah you're screwed.
bordsilver said:
bordsilver that actually sounds a bit like my train of thought.
I'm all for cutting useless trash from government but I firmly believe courts, police etc are necessary to be 'public' in order to be functional.
I'm not sure if I'm a libertarian though heh
renovator said:
Again your reasoning is bad. You are the one arguing about not providing the best possible services to the many because you want to ignore the cost. Why would you want to deny a better quality of life for hundreds of sick people in, say, Sydney just so that you can have idle capital equipment sitting in Lightening Ridge for Mrs Johnson who might use it in May 2014?
renovator said:
If we had perfect records of whose taxes paid for what bits of infrastructure then in the event of privatising them I would give the shares to those people that paid for it. Hence my Grandparents would get a greater share of the roads etc than me if they truly did pay for it. Whereas you want to take the fruits of their labour and use them to benefit people who didn't contribute anywhere near as much.
^ Hehe. I'll get you eventually Bord. (in regard to AnCap thing)
But in regards to the law thing. I know it's strange to think of it this way, but it really is just another forced monopoly. Quite possibly the worst of them all.
The law is written by the lawyers. Kind of like how bankers write the banking regulations. It is as opaque as it can possibly be. There is restricted entry into the field. Clasic example of reducing supply.
If you have ever been thorugh the legal system you will realise what a maze it is and how many people are feeding off that fact. It is adversarial in that it doesn't necessarily depend on getting justice, but quite often which lawyer has the best argument. All costs are put on the public guaranteeing that the system can extract as much as possible from the public due to it's necessity.
(in regard to AnCap thing)But in regards to the law thing. I know it's strange to think of it this way, but it really is just another forced monopoly. Quite possibly the worst of them all.
The law is written by the lawyers. Kind of like how bankers write the banking regulations. It is as opaque as it can possibly be. There is restricted entry into the field. Clasic example of reducing supply.
If you have ever been thorugh the legal system you will realise what a maze it is and how many people are feeding off that fact. It is adversarial in that it doesn't necessarily depend on getting justice, but quite often which lawyer has the best argument. All costs are put on the public guaranteeing that the system can extract as much as possible from the public due to it's necessity.
renovator said:
It is still down to taking money by force from one group of people and using it to benefit a different group of people, as chosen by the Government.
They fact that many of us agree that the services provided are necessary and that we need to be taxed to pay for them is a credit to the education system which has taught us to rely on the government.
No one is denying services, the services are there, they just might not be on your doorstep, you may have to weight up the benefit of the service and your inconvenience in accessing it.
It may suck to be born in an area with little to no services but that doesn't mean you have to stay there.
I think also there is likely to be more money to go around even the smaller communities.
And in regards to bridges for example, surely there are differing sizes and designs. Sure if you want a Sydney Harbour bridge across your small river you might need the country as a whole to pay for it, but surely there are cheaper options more affordable for a smaller community.
Although, the Harbour bridge option is guaranteed to create lots of jobs....
There's that meme again...
And in regards to bridges for example, surely there are differing sizes and designs. Sure if you want a Sydney Harbour bridge across your small river you might need the country as a whole to pay for it, but surely there are cheaper options more affordable for a smaller community.
Although, the Harbour bridge option is guaranteed to create lots of jobs....
There's that meme again...
lol my reasoning is bad you want to give back all the profits to people who half of them are dead . :lol:bordsilver said:
Im not arguing about the best possible service . Didnt i just say in an earlier post A service is better than NO service ? keep up BS
So your saying young people & children will not be able to use things because they didnt pay for it ? thats essentially what your saying .
One generation pays for the next . Thats the way it is & always will be get used to it . Your pie in the sky dreams of a perfect world are not going to happen
I will say its a nice sentiment but the world doesnt run on sentiments it runs on reality
Yes, a very necessary evil.
renovator said:
Yes, your reasoning is bad. If I had stolen your Dad's gold pocket watch and you could prove that it rightfully belonged to you (through inheritance) then it should go back to you. This is basic private property rights. It is not stupid, it is moral but sometimes difficult to prove and enforce.
renovator said:
By wasting resources you will have less or no services. Keep up. You can't divide up a stolen cake that doesn't exist.
reno said:
Of course. How did you get your first suit, car, fridge, computer, etc? You work for it or are gifted it by friends and family. If you can't afford to buy now but "need" it, go to Mr Rental. Companies want customers and they don't want to arbitraily turn away anyone aged 16-20 for no reason.
Its not my watch its my dads .he payed for it . Your saying you only deserve it if you payed for it .bordsilver said:
By wasting resources you will have less or no services ? Not last time i looked theres plenty of infrastructure that has been built unless its all been destroyed since i was there ...... What cake ?
so the young kids cant use the roads to get to work because they didnt pay for it ... they need to get a loan out of grandads road paying account to use it ..........right gotcha
: hahahaha
Okay, now you're trolling. Every one of your 'witty' comebacks is nonsense and then pretend you've somehow won in your head by putting a " ".
".