Why do you all want to take away money from the government? Who will then build

Inedible

hero member

Activity: 700

Merit: 500

What doesn't kill you only makes you sicker!

Quote from: Ecurb123 on December 05, 2013, 03:57:54 PM

Quote from: Inedible on December 05, 2013, 09:11:37 AM

Quote from: Elwar on November 24, 2013, 05:33:29 AM

Quote from: Inedible on November 24, 2013, 05:14:07 AM

I suspect most of the people here saying that the roads would be maintained by the users aren't considering areas where there are fewer houses or poorer families.

The areas with fewer houses will either need to be owned by rich people or they'll have to move closer to town. Fine.

What happens to the poor areas?

What about road standards? I built it, I demand people drive on the left.

What about sewage, water supplies, telecoms infrastructure and of course, health care?

How would YOU structure a private road system?

Do you possess the ability to think outside of the box?

I don't think it would work and thus I have no solution other than some form of tax.

I can think out of the box but that doesn't help in a society that won't accept any unusual solutions.

There was once a time when people said that we could not be economically viable without slavery, somehow we managed. Just because you or I don't know the solution, isn't a good reason to attack people.

What do you mean 'attacking people'?

Elwar

legendary

Activity: 3598

Merit: 2386

Viva Ut Vivas

Why do you all want to take away money from the government?

heh

ya guys, why do you want to take away all of government's money?

bunch of thieves stealing from the poor defenseless government

Mike Christ

legendary

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1003

Quote from: BitsPoker on December 06, 2013, 01:43:42 AM

Quote from: gabriella on November 23, 2013, 03:33:11 AM

when money becomes managed by the people not the government, who will build streetlights, roads? who will maintain infrastructure and military? who will save our lives from giving us obamacare?

are you a communist or what?

I thought the government was the people. Huh

It is; she's referring to the difference between representatives and the lack thereof.

BitsPoker

member

Activity: 71

Merit: 10

Quote from: gabriella on November 23, 2013, 03:33:11 AM

when money becomes managed by the people not the government, who will build streetlights, roads? who will maintain infrastructure and military? who will save our lives from giving us obamacare?

are you a communist or what?

I thought the government was the people. Huh

hawkeye

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 253

I think in regards to roads, people fall into the trap of thinking there is one way of paying for them, one way of doing them since government has been doing them for so long.

Surely, if all roads are private then all roads will be toll roads? Right?

Not really. Thinking about the shopping centre car park for example. Do they charge people to park their cars there? No. Why not? Because the amount of money spent in the upkeep of the car park is more than compensated for by the profits that the centre makes. This will be true of many businesses. They will be eager to maintain the roads in their vicinity as a way for customers to get to them.

Then you have residential roads which could be easily maintained by a small annual fee by all the people who live on the road.

For larger roads ,the potential for advertising money is enormous. Think of all that traffic throughput that will be seeing those advertisements. The price of the upkeep of the road will be significantly less than what you could obtain from companies wanting to get their names and products in front of consumers.

These are just things I can think of off the top of my head. I'm sure there are many more free market ideas out there.

Mike Christ

legendary

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1003

Quote from: Inedible on December 05, 2013, 09:15:04 AM

I think you're falling into the trap of believing everyone would be as generous (or even as well off) as you. The problem with people, is they're lazy and greedy. If some people feel they can wiggle out of paying for a road, they'll do that, even if they use it the most.

You probably feel that everyone will be fair about it. They won't.

They're lazy and greedy if they can get away with it; if your road falls into disrepair and you don't want to pay for it to be fixed, and everyone felt that way, then the roads would look like shit and that's okay since the people driving on them don't care enough to pay for it.

I don't believe everyone is lazy or greedy; if there's anything I know about people, it's that they're very, very exhausted from work, and have very little money to work with, but perhaps I see this more often since my family has many Hispanics. Remember that without these fees for government overhead, you become far richer; the amount of greedy people plummet, since they have no more cause for greed; they already have the things they want and need.

Ecurb123

full member

Activity: 182

Merit: 100

Quote from: Inedible on December 05, 2013, 09:11:37 AM

Quote from: Elwar on November 24, 2013, 05:33:29 AM

Quote from: Inedible on November 24, 2013, 05:14:07 AM

I suspect most of the people here saying that the roads would be maintained by the users aren't considering areas where there are fewer houses or poorer families.

The areas with fewer houses will either need to be owned by rich people or they'll have to move closer to town. Fine.

What happens to the poor areas?

What about road standards? I built it, I demand people drive on the left.

What about sewage, water supplies, telecoms infrastructure and of course, health care?

How would YOU structure a private road system?

Do you possess the ability to think outside of the box?

I don't think it would work and thus I have no solution other than some form of tax.

I can think out of the box but that doesn't help in a society that won't accept any unusual solutions.

There was once a time when people said that we could not be economically viable without slavery, somehow we managed. Just because you or I don't know the solution, isn't a good reason to attack people.

Ecurb123

full member

Activity: 182

Merit: 100

Quote from: beetcoin on December 05, 2013, 03:27:54 AM

Quote from: Mike Christ on December 05, 2013, 03:24:01 AM

Quote from: beetcoin on December 05, 2013, 03:03:39 AM

well, i don't entirely disagree with anarchists.. i hate politicians and executives as much as they do. i'm definitely not in favor of the status quo. i just don't think having an anarchistic society really fixes any of those problems.

Yes; anarchism leaves out too many factors to consider, so usually when anarchism is spoken of, it's in a bubble that seems disconnected with all of reality. This is why I push for rationalism, opposed to anarchism; if a person is rational enough to successfully seek the truth, and if I've been successful in my own pursuits, we should always arrive to the same, or at least very similar, conclusions. Once it's understood that anarchism can only remain among a rational society, many of the unknowns become irrelevant; you just can't pull the wool over the rational's eyes.

Anyhow I agree with a very simple philosophy: all societal interactions should be voluntary, i.e. voluntaryism. This happens to include anarchism since the state is involuntary, and rationalism so people are highly resistant to ulterior influence; after all, why pay someone to do what you can easily do for yourself?

i'm not for or against voluntaryism.. but someone told me about it a few weeks ago. if people stuck to their own groups, wouldn't that cause extremism? it's what we are seeing with the american political system.. 90% of republicans are whities. they feel like the non-whities are starting to outnumber them, so they turn more and more "white."

also to point out, in my experience the voluntarists I've met are really the most open people to diversity I've ever seen.

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

Quote from: beetcoin on December 05, 2013, 03:03:39 AM

well, i don't entirely disagree with anarchists.. i hate politicians and executives as much as they do. i'm definitely not in favor of the status quo. i just don't think having an anarchistic society really fixes any of those problems.

The main effect of anarchy is that is converts political problems into financial problems. To keep the problems we have not going, you need political power to fund it through taxation, and enforce it through rule of law. For these same problems to continue under anarchy, you still need to fund them, though your only option is to do something to make people willingly part with their money (offer competitive products and services), and your only option to enforce it is through force, which you would have to pay for and maintain yourself. Forcing people to give you money is difficult, and paying for force is expensive. Often much more expensive than th simply trade with people. Historically, trade has always been more profitable and effective than war.

hashman

legendary

Activity: 1264

Merit: 1008

Quote from: gabriella on November 23, 2013, 03:33:11 AM

when money becomes managed by the people not the government, who will build streetlights, roads? who will maintain infrastructure and military? who will save our lives from giving us obamacare?

are you a communist or what?

Last time I checked the federal reserve doesn't build roads.

Inedible

hero member

Activity: 700

Merit: 500

What doesn't kill you only makes you sicker!

Quote from: MrHempstock on November 25, 2013, 04:20:37 PM

No worries, I'm the exact same way with Thomas Edison. That dirty rat.
And also JP Morgan (the man) and Ronald Regan.

I hope to see an overhaul of my gov during my lifetime. It saddens me deeply to know, based on empirical historical data, that a true overhaul only comes at the cost of bloodshed.

The topic was why do we want to take $ away from the gov, then, secondly, who would then build our roads. Well, here in the USA, it would be the same private contractors that build them now. Tolls would be a lot higher, but without 80% of every dollar I make going directly and indirectly to taxes, if I wasn't losing that the higher toll (for every public service I utilized) would be much easier to manage.

I see your point, and I agree that as a person TJ was in most human aspects a fine upstanding example of utter douchebaggery.

I don't think anyone cares who builds the road, more who pays for it.

Tolls discourage usage too and that'll have a negative impact on the economy.

Inedible

hero member

Activity: 700

Merit: 500

What doesn't kill you only makes you sicker!

Quote from: MrHempstock on November 25, 2013, 03:32:55 PM

Airline style.

Everyone pays for everything they use, and nothing they don't. Plenty of money left over.

Every road is a toll road.
Every bridge is a toll bridge.
Security and protection cost $ (cops don't really protect anymore, they investigate) and those who need it will be able to afford it
The military is in serious need of democratization.

Just research how much of your dollar goes to tax in the end. Not just obvious direct taxes, but indirect taxes. (Costs passed down to you)

Does this exclude the poor from travelling? If a poor person ends up being killed, do we just ignore it?

Inedible

hero member

Activity: 700

Merit: 500

What doesn't kill you only makes you sicker!

Quote from: dank on November 25, 2013, 03:15:55 PM

Wala, anarchy.

Do you mean voilà?

Inedible

hero member

Activity: 700

Merit: 500

What doesn't kill you only makes you sicker!

Quote from: wachtwoord on November 25, 2013, 02:24:24 PM

Quote

Why do you all want to take away money from the government?

Governments are the most inefficient entities that have ever existed. We can choose a monkey at random and he'll perform better at every function a government "performs".

The (local) optimal way to perform these functions is by letting the free market decide. Note that this is also democratic because the market is everyone (weighted by contribution).

Government isn't about efficiency. It's about doing things that people ordinarily won't.

People can barely organise to get a stairwell kept clean between 6 properties. Don't tell me that thousands of people would be fair about getting roads maintained.

Inedible

hero member

Activity: 700

Merit: 500

What doesn't kill you only makes you sicker!

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on November 25, 2013, 02:19:54 PM

Quote from: dank on November 25, 2013, 02:19:10 PM

Taxation is legalized theft. No tax is fair.

Theft is also theft. I thought you had stolen enough and were leaving for good?

I guess it's only unfair if the government does it.

Inedible

hero member

Activity: 700

Merit: 500

What doesn't kill you only makes you sicker!

Quote from: Mike Christ on November 24, 2013, 04:31:06 PM

Quote from: Inedible on November 24, 2013, 05:14:07 AM

I suspect most of the people here saying that the roads would be maintained by the users aren't considering areas where there are fewer houses or poorer families.

The areas with fewer houses will either need to be owned by rich people or they'll have to move closer to town. Fine.

What happens to the poor areas?

What about road standards? I built it, I demand people drive on the left.

What about sewage, water supplies, telecoms infrastructure and of course, health care?

It's not like the roads are made out of gold; suburban roads are often rarely driven on (some do turn into major roads but most of them aren't), and don't need constant maintenance like the road you take to get to work with all the other people in a traffic jam and whatnot. Fewer houses or not, poor or rich, it's a non-issue.

Road standards don't change depending on who built it; if everyone knows "I drive on the right", they're going to do it regardless of how you feel. If you attempt to enforce your strange rule by force, you're probably not going to survive long. Get mad if you want to Tongue

All of these things are already handled by individuals; the illusion is that taxation is necessary or these cease to exist. We know this is false because if we want these things, and we've wanted for far more sillier things than infrastructure and health, then we will pay for businesses to provide it. We must begin with the assumption that people aren't incredibly stupid and inept, for if they are, we really don't want them in any position of power anyway.

I think you're falling into the trap of believing everyone would be as generous (or even as well off) as you. The problem with people, is they're lazy and greedy. If some people feel they can wiggle out of paying for a road, they'll do that, even if they use it the most.

You probably feel that everyone will be fair about it. They won't.

Inedible

hero member

Activity: 700

Merit: 500

What doesn't kill you only makes you sicker!

Quote from: Elwar on November 24, 2013, 05:33:29 AM

Quote from: Inedible on November 24, 2013, 05:14:07 AM

I suspect most of the people here saying that the roads would be maintained by the users aren't considering areas where there are fewer houses or poorer families.

The areas with fewer houses will either need to be owned by rich people or they'll have to move closer to town. Fine.

What happens to the poor areas?

What about road standards? I built it, I demand people drive on the left.

What about sewage, water supplies, telecoms infrastructure and of course, health care?

How would YOU structure a private road system?

Do you possess the ability to think outside of the box?

I don't think it would work and thus I have no solution other than some form of tax.

I can think out of the box but that doesn't help in a society that won't accept any unusual solutions.

Mike Christ

legendary

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1003

Quote from: beetcoin on December 05, 2013, 03:27:54 AM

i'm not for or against voluntaryism.. but someone told me about it a few weeks ago. if people stuck to their own groups, wouldn't that cause extremism? it's what we are seeing with the american political system.. 90% of republicans are whities. they feel like the non-whities are starting to outnumber them, so they turn more and more "white."

Doesn't matter to me, so long as they're not committing involuntary acts, i.e. theft, rape, murder, violence, etc. Once they decide they want to become involuntarists (possibly due to "sticking to their own groups"), then they're no longer voluntaryists and I see them as villains. I suppose you could say it's a form of extremism to stick to the group which upholds morality, but only in the context of the majority being immoral or hypocritical about their morality.

beetcoin

sr. member

Activity: 434

Merit: 250

Quote from: Mike Christ on December 05, 2013, 03:24:01 AM

Quote from: beetcoin on December 05, 2013, 03:03:39 AM

well, i don't entirely disagree with anarchists.. i hate politicians and executives as much as they do. i'm definitely not in favor of the status quo. i just don't think having an anarchistic society really fixes any of those problems.

Yes; anarchism leaves out too many factors to consider, so usually when anarchism is spoken of, it's in a bubble that seems disconnected with all of reality. This is why I push for rationalism, opposed to anarchism; if a person is rational enough to successfully seek the truth, and if I've been successful in my own pursuits, we should always arrive to the same, or at least very similar, conclusions. Once it's understood that anarchism can only remain among a rational society, many of the unknowns become irrelevant; you just can't pull the wool over the rational's eyes.

Anyhow I agree with a very simple philosophy: all societal interactions should be voluntary, i.e. voluntaryism. This happens to include anarchism since the state is involuntary, and rationalism so people are highly resistant to ulterior influence; after all, why pay someone to do what you can easily do for yourself?

i'm not for or against voluntaryism.. but someone told me about it a few weeks ago. if people stuck to their own groups, wouldn't that cause extremism? it's what we are seeing with the american political system.. 90% of republicans are whities. they feel like the non-whities are starting to outnumber them, so they turn more and more "white."

Mike Christ

legendary

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1003

Quote from: beetcoin on December 05, 2013, 03:03:39 AM

well, i don't entirely disagree with anarchists.. i hate politicians and executives as much as they do. i'm definitely not in favor of the status quo. i just don't think having an anarchistic society really fixes any of those problems.

Yes; anarchism leaves out too many factors to consider, so usually when anarchism is spoken of, it's in a bubble that seems disconnected with all of reality. This is why I push for rationalism, opposed to anarchism; if a person is rational enough to successfully seek the truth, and if I've been successful in my own pursuits, we should always arrive to the same, or at least very similar, conclusions. Once it's understood that anarchism can only remain among a rational society, many of the unknowns become irrelevant; you just can't pull the wool over the rational's eyes.

Anyhow I agree with a very simple philosophy: all societal interactions should be voluntary, i.e. voluntaryism. This happens to include anarchism since the state is involuntary, and rationalism so people are highly resistant to ulterior influence; after all, why pay someone to do what you can easily do for yourself?

Topic: Why do you all want to take away money from the government? Who will then build (Read 5731 times)