Sorry, but only some people paying to avoid sewage in the bay does not provide you protection from cholera the way a publicly run sewer does. This is what I am talking about. Even with individual choice, there are actions taken by the few that can have severe, life-threatening effects on the many. And your privatization does not allow for the protection of the many.
I'm sorry, but this is all I got. Arguing with you folks really is like arguing with a brick wall.
The reason why you're arguing with a brick wall is because you're trying to convince us that theft of another person's property is acceptable if it improves a public service. The same logic is employed when taking from the wealthy to give to the impoverished since the poor would have a better life. Wealth distribution is just another colloquialism for theft.
Theft is never justified. The proper construction of law, and the logic and reasoning it exists (prevent theft, injury and enslavement), is the only way to
legally deal with others. It is never justified to sacrifice the few for the many, the many for the many, or the many for the few. Never.
Just remind yourself that whenever you try to use law for something
other than self defense and restitution, you really are committing a crime. You, your "representative", your "agent", your "government", or your "legislator", makes no difference what you call it, if you use the law for other than the above reason, you are a partner in crime.
Don't conflate lawfulness with whatever can be done with a majority of force, whether you do it personally or with a vote there is no difference (individual vs gang). The ends do not always justify the means.
Fred your position is fine if you are happy that the people with money deserve to have it. What about situations where the people with money only have it because their ancestors conquerored your ancestors, took their lands and your family have lived as sharecroppers since? Or where the wealth is based on an educated workforce paid for by the taxpayer?
Just because someone owns something doesn't mean they deserve to keep it. The people who are currently poor may well have a valid claim to that wealth.
