Topic: Why are people scared of taxes? - page 31. (Read 31541 times)

Cool. Let's start with you list absolutely anything you can think of that you feel cannot be a free market and that the government absolutely must be involved in and then let's get the government out of everything else. Then we can talk again.

That's a neat story, and I quite enjoyed it. Reminded me of when I was little reading old issues of science fiction magazines with Asimov and the other greats. The problem is that it's only topical when there is an alternative, the 'old man on a back road' as it were. There is nothing to stop a large conglomeration of companies from starting off the oil wars again. I read a book on the beginning of big oil I found interesting that chronicled the start of Rockefeller and all the other giants. I feel that privatization will lead to this scenario once again. Ideally, the consumer can choose the cheapest, or rather, most economic option, but that's in a fair society. Big companies play dirty.

There are several factors, the chief amongst which is that health insurance is heavily regulated, creating high barriers to entry and suppressing competition. Employer provided healthcare also tends to lead to people not examining the actual cost of their healthcare leading to higher prices. Employer provided insurance arose, of course, from government wage control legislation.

Someone should be scared of taxes if not paying them.. In Canada, elsewhere too im pretty sure, not paying due taxes lead to enormous fees and possible prison time.. The wrost of it, if the tax-man decide you owe them X, then you have almost no say, pay or get to jail, even if they are wrong, they must not care, those tax-man are god in face of your money and liberties.. I can assure you, you dont want problems with those taxman, so pay your taxes, dummy slaves that we are !

In order to draw parallels, it is sometimes necessary to use extreme examples. This is one such.

As is this:
If I mug you, and then promise to buy you a stereo with some of the money, is that moral?

Assuming the vote is not tampered with, then the mob will have to use aggressive violence to achieve its violations of liberty, assuming either the arbiter sides with them, or the arbiter sides with the individual whose liberty is violated, and the mob uses aggressive violence anyway.

Which important issue would that be? As stated, the question simply asked if voting made robbery acceptable. Later, it was clarified that they simply thought he had too much money. So, motivated by simple envy, they voted to deprive a man of 50% of his money. Are you claiming that that would be moral?

And to counter your wikipedia link, here's one of my own.

It's complex, but Christopher Anvil's short story "Positive Feedback" gives a pretty good analogy.

The Economic calculation problem only applies where there is a market which can be free.

Can you explain then why The USA, which has the most privatised health system of all developed nations of world, pays more per capita for it's health services than any other country?  That is only counting public spending, not private insurances.  The USA are far from the top quality wise.  Number 38 in the world on life expectancy, which is lower than even Cuba.

The private sector will organize itself to maximise profit.  This is not automatically the most cost effective way.

Sometimes taking your money elsewhere is not a possibility.  If you fall ill in Nowhere, and need immediate treatment there, you don't have the option to take your money to another hospital.  Not if you want to live.  The closest hospital has a de facto monopoly, and in a truly free market it can take whatever it wants for your treatment.  If you are travelling between two small cities, and a highway runs between them, you can't take your money to drive on another highway.  It wouldn't make economic sense to build another one.  The highway has a monopoly.  If you built another highway anyway, the first would quickly put you out of business by offering free rides for the next five years while you struggle to pay back your loans.  If your country is attacked, it wouldn't make sense if everyone should pay their own army to defend it in their own way.  Using their own nukes.  With no coordination.  Not every market can be an effective free market.

No, it will be vastly cheaper if privatised. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem. Also, business are accountable, because I can take my money elsewhere if I don't like their services. The government monopolises its services.

Which is why I'm an anarchist.

Depends what you consider protection. Should we be protecting you from yourself? Others?

Citizenship? I didn't have to renounce. They don't even pretend that exists anymore.


https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

Ah, but you see, the scary part is that I have just as much say in the political process as you do. Doesn't matter if I'm an idiot or a genius, I have the same amount of rights as you.

From which country?  When did you give up your citicenship of your old country?  Do you bring passports and pass border control when you leave your land?

I think latest theory is that the real Robin Hood was a thug who took the money of others and spent it. The popular fairy tale is nice though.

Then we can safely disregard your political opinions as the ravings of an idiot.

Of course I'm an idiot. Those who think themselves smarter than everyone else are often the dumbest of them all!

^EXAMPLE^


LOL

Yourself included?

I don't need examples. I hold my truths to be self evident. If that line of logic can work for churches, it can work for me. People are idiots. All of them. No matter how clever they think themselves. Taxes aren't going anywhere anytime soon.