Because they are taxes.
This is a false assumption (see below).
I suggest you read up on the histories of toll roads and railways and canals in the UK and the London Underground. All built in large part through private enterprise by paid labour.
So are you saying that roads should be privatised? Do you deny that there are people who use public roads, who object to paying taxes?
No, I’m not. I’m saying that your assumption is incorrect, no more.
So why don’t you break the mold of “Nope, that’s not right” Libs and put forth a corrected assumption, instead of furthering this tiresome “you’ll never guess it” hide-and-seek game?
Libertarianism has only survived, IMHO, because it resolutely resists making any concrete claims at all. It stops with a vague appeal to “individual freedom” and lets its followers define the rest in their heads but never, never break the secret compact and actually, you know, speak of any of it.
Put up or shut up… make that STFU.
Meaning, not the assumption that roads are necessary but the assumption that they must be tax-funded?
Excuse me, but I’m not a Libertarian. I’m simply pointing out that the OP’s assumption is incorrect. Is that really so hard to understand?
Except of course they’re wrong; it’s neither. Libertarianism is anti-freedom, and opposes all responsibility save blaming the victim for being victimized. It’s the philosophy of a predator or parasite.
OK, so some questions for the Libertarians:
In a theoretical libertarian society, how do the poor survive? How do they get medical care?
Who is responsible for product safety? For example, cars only got much safer after the government got involved. Sure, these days it’s a marketing issue, but most cars built in the mid-1980s and earlier were a joke, safety wise. Should local codes be abolished; should I be allowed to build an unsafe house, even if only I am going to live in it? What happens if I sell it?
I suggest you read the whole thing, but have put the relevant parts in bold.
[QUOTE=George Washington, Farewell Address (1796)]
As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it, avoid[ing] likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertion in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should co-operate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment, inseparable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties), ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue, which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.
[/QUOTE]
George Washington would be appalled in present America where we decided to cut taxes instead of paying down the debt. It is precisely exactly what 1st President warned against in 1796 and was echoed by both Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln. The underlined quote is a remarkable one, but that’s exactly what Reagan and Bush II did, creating the record peacetime deficits that will have to be paid back by the next generation of Americans, because our current generation is too selfish to pay the debts we ourselves have accumulated.
- Honesty
Just about the only thing I like from Jonah Goldberg is when a conservative like him called Libertarianism ¨a philosophy for teenagers.¨.
Well, in a theoretically laissez-faire market, competition would promote lower prices, which would make healthcare MORE accessible to the poor. If you don’t have any money or insurance? Well, just like now, you hope that you can find a doctor that can help you out of the goodness in his heart.
The competition of free-markets promote improved product quality and lower prices. It goes for almost everything. The same could be said for many things. For example, I think the Department of Education should be abolished, and education should be left to individuals and the free market. Privatize it all. Privatize (almost) everything.
So you believe that libertarian policies in 1970 would have resulted in greatly tightened pollution and fuel economy for passenger vehicles? Or how otherwise would you define “improved product quality” beginning with 1970 vehicles?
Desk Sergeant: Before you go any further, pal, I gotta tell ya it’s cash up front. A thousand bucks a day for a full investigation, another thou’ if the assailant is caught. Do you understand?
Cool. Hope you won’t complain when I drive through your neighborhood at 100 miles an hour while texting my friends. And I assume with no traffic laws there’s no stop sign to slow me down, and even if there was it would only be a suggestion.
OK, and just how do you plan on achieving a free market if you remove all the regulations and privatize everything? Historically, those two moves have tended to make markets considerably less free.
Once again, you seem to think that I am anti-tax. I am not. I am anti-income tax. There are still non-protectionist tariffs, excise taxes, property taxes, corporate taxes, etc.
The income tax makes up less than 50% of the government’s revenue. If we cut needless spending, legalize drugs, put excise taxes on them, and return to sound currency, our government will have plenty of money, no one will be robbed of their labor, and deficit budgets and massive inflation will cease to exist.
If people desired it, yes. See, the great thing about a free market is that it reflects what the people want. If a company provides bad services, people won’t do business with them. If they do, people will. No monopolies, no subsidies, just open competition that encourages lower prices and higher quality.
I said almost everything.
Why should corporations pay for services people use? Shouldn’t people take responsibility and pay for their own services?
It has been established in this thread that the government wastes 5% of its budget. You want to cut 44% of its budget. If all but 5% is necessary, where you do get the other39%?
Well, that “article” leaves out a few (many, many, many) things:
- Welfare for illegal immigrants.
- Our unneeded military presence in nearly every country in the world.
- Funding for retarded studies, like a study in China on why dogs lift their legs to pee.
- Foreign aid.
- Subsidies.
- The ridiculous amount of people in the federal workforce.
- Congressional pay and perks.
- Expensive travel for government officials.
- Unneeded departments in the government (Education, Energy, Commerce, Interior, etc.).
Just to name a few.