If you honestly believe you could afford to pay to pay for the roads you drive on and the services you use if the costs weren’t spread out over a wide populace, you need to do some serious research.
Oh goody, toll roads! Always my favorite part of a libertarianism discussion.
I think highways are a different beast. If you never drive or walk on a public road, you still benefit from the goods that are able to be shipped near your home due to these roads. There is no real way for a person to “opt out” of the good public infrastructure or any feasible way for the private sector to accomplish it.
Sure there is; toll roads will just mean everybody pays more for their goods even if they don’t travel. Surely making a profit is the American Way?! Right?! And fuck the consequences.
…and toll police, and toll firefighters, and toll courts, and toll libraries, and toll schools, and…
I will note that most of the wars that were conducted in the late middle ages up to the 17th century in my part of the Netherlands were not because of toll roads (because there were no useful roads) but because of river tolls. Guess being a “strongman” means you’re living in a city on a major river.
AGAIN, leave the personal comments out of this. If you want to call the OP whiny, do it in the Pit.
Ok ok. Can I still ask him if he’s actually serious? Because I don’t believe it.
The scary thing about this discussion is that emacknight is doing a better job arguing for the Libertarian point of view than I’ve seen actual libertarians do on this very board.
(again, not saying that emacknight is trolling, just that he’s being a very effective devil’s advocate.)
Not really, since he claims that he could pay for his own roads and other public services. It just makes no sense.
I shouldn’t have to point this out to you, but you’re assuming everyone is capable of solving his or her own problems. (And preventing them, too.) This is true in some cases but in other it’s ridiculous.
Again, what happens if they’re not able?
A lot of these fires start naturally - they’re a byproduct of dry conditions and dead foliage. But of those that are started by people, , do you seriously think they are started because people don’t know how much it costs to fight them? I’d chalk them up to carelessness or maliciousness, not ignorance of the financial impact.
And people have almost always lived near rivers historically. The cost of flooding is not the issue, although I am sure some people get away to escape those conditions. Have you considered that they live there for economic reasons (land for agriculture or affordable homes) or because their families lived there?
So no one has ever needed anything they can’t afford?
Yes, I did notice that. I also noticed that you implied it throughout your post. 
I never said anything about ‘the same’ benefits. People with more money almost always get more for it. That doesn’t mean people with less should not have some kind of assistance.
- Ignore question, pretending inconvenient reality doesn’t exist.
How do you prepare for that exactly?
All things considered - I mean in the general sense, considering humanity has survived this way for thousands of years - it’s worked out pretty well.
Yes. You said two things that contradicted each other: ‘the government can’t solve our problems’ and ‘the government shouldn’t use my money to solve other people’s problems.’ The first one says the government is ineffective. The second says it’s effective but you don’t want to pay for it.
Because that’s life?
Do you view all forms of helping people as a punishment to yourself? The general idea is that people need assistance at times, and that society is better off if those people have a chance to recover. Do you disagree?
It isn’t. Now, given that some people plan ahead successfully, is it true that everyone who is not able to plan successfully (either because they’re bad planners or because circumstances did not go as they expected) deserves to hit rock bottom? If you have health insurance, get sick and then it’s taken away, is that your fault for insufficient planning?
You said “It’s time to do away with this concept that you can be part of a society without working.” Does that sound like a criticism of people who are not responsible?
When you plant more, you can sell more. And the people who get some of your crops as assistance might survive until next year, when they can be your customers.
I don’t drive (we have a subway system here, too) and I’m still paying for highways without complaint, so perhaps you shouldn’t take this indignant tone.
Some of what you’re saying - particularly this stuff about flooding - implies otherwise.
And good for you. That’s the same thing I’d do. But we keep coming back to the question of what happens to people who are not able to do the same thing. Your view seems to be ‘They should’ve known better, it’s not my problem, and it has no effect on me.’ None of which is necessarily true.
Wasn’t there an era before public fire departments? They only responded to fires at houses that had subscribed to their services, or they would stand outside until the owners paid up. Sometimes they even set the fires themselves or even saw a fire as an opportunity to loot the building. And there were those pitched battles between competing fire brigades. In ancient Rome, they’d even beat people up for violating fire codes.
Sounds like utopia to me!
Yes there was, and that’s why it’s now publicly funded.
You really should take a look at what the current library system looks like, you’ll be, well, I’ll let you find out for yourself.
Who cares what my parents did, why is that relevant? Are you saying that if my parents used a public library then I can’t advocate we do away with them?
Have you ever asked why they are publicly funded? Why is the government competing with private book stores? Why can’t they simply be a user pay situation? Let them have fundraisers so that people who think they’re worth while can contribute based on how worthwhile they think they are.
QUOTE=Superfluous Parentheses;12363903]You also seem to be under the misapprehension that fire departments are there in case you, personally, start a fire.
[/QUOTE]
Not a misapprehension. But I have never needed the fire department, and I take personal steps so that I don’t need the fire department. And should the time arise that I do, I could have savings (or insurance) to pay for it as needed.
Yes, I would, especially now that we have speed passes.
Where I grew up the city was divided in two by a massive harbour, and connected by two toll bridges. That toll represented the cost of having that bridge, and those that used it paid for it. When it came time to decide where you worked and where you lived, the cost of that toll bridge had to be factored in.
The US is covered with millions of miles of highways, that are covered with millions of cars, all stuck in traffic, causing pollution and all sorts of problems. If people had to pay based on their usage of highways, the real costs would be apparent, and people could make proper choices. Such as not commuting alone, 45min to work, each way, each day.
Notice last year when gas prices spiked and people suddenly drove less (I think there was a 5% drop over a couple of months). When the cost is obvious, people make better choices. If we subsidized gas prices using income tax revenue, do you think people would drive more or less?
That’s right, it’s a democracy and I’m stating my opinion. You’re response is rather hostile. A lot of us are guilted/bullied into thinking that if we don’t want to pay for massive social safetynets that we’re nasty, brutish, sociopaths.
If libraries are so great, let the people that use them pay for them. Allow likeminded individuals to get together and have a system of book lending. And if I decide that I like it, I’ll happily pay my share.
As it stands, I’m paying for tons of libraries that I don’t use. Schools I don’t use. Roads I don’t use.
As to goods and services, if they have to be trucked millions of miles, I should be charged for that. Right now we’re not, so everything gets shipped up from Mexico. If we saw the true cost of that in stores, suddenly “buying local” would make a lot more sense. If you want apples from California instead of down the road, you should pay for that. We don’t subsidize air or sea freight, why are we subsidizing road freight?
And notice that what I am advocating here is a use pay system. I don’t want anything for free, I want to pay for the things I use. If me and the people around me decide we want a full time fire station staffed with state of the art equipment, armed security guards on 24 hour watch, and a bunch of guys in white overalls cleaning up our dog crap, let us. Don’t force us to buy into a system that you think is best.
Is democracy really about the majority bullying the minority? Do we want a system where 95% of the population votes to reduce their taxes while raising it on 5%? That’s a pretty crappy system. 51% thinks we should have government provided [fill in the blank] and can’t afford it so the other 49% get to pay for it.
So now you’re relying on more ad hominem attacks? I’m whiny so I can’t want taxes to be lower? I can’t want the government spending less instead of more?
I will stop using the things I don’t pay for.
And I will pay for the things I use.
What is wrong with that?
UAE has no taxes and it a quite comfortable place to live. Yes, the oil is state-owned and sold to oil companies to fund the infrastructure, but that makes sense to me - everyone in the country benefits from the country’s valuable resource.
I agree that the system should be reformed so that increasing work doesn’t results in reduced benefits. I don’t agree that throwing them out to starve in the snow is good public policy. If a person is unable to work due to a preventable medical condition it is hard to argue that they would be “stronger” if only we took away their medical care. Further as I said later, you don’t want to make them desperate to the point that they decide that what you view as your property they wish to view as theirs and the fact that you keep it sans head is just proof of your weakness.
If you’d read my post completely you would have noticed that I conceded this point.
The answer is to find the correct middle ground. No taxation seems to me to be much more extreme, than “let’s provide basic human services”
Wait, so you think that because you buy your own books, that you don’t benefit from the public libraries? Did you write those books yourself?
I’ve never checked out a book from the Colorado Springs public library (I’ve never even lived in Colorado), but I, personally, have still benefited immensely from the Colorado Springs public library. You see, one of my favorite authors came from there, and if he had never had access to public libraries as a child, I think it’s a pretty safe bet that he probably would never have become a writer, and certainly wouldn’t have been as good of a writer.
And that’s just a small example. You and I both benefit from arts, medicine, and technologies that were developed by others, and those others were, in many cases, only able to produce those things because of public education and public libraries. It’s too late to opt out of those services; you’ve been benefiting from them since the day you were born. If you benefit from all of those services, and then skip out on paying the bill, then that’s theft.
I said I hadn’t checked out a book in 20 years. I visit libraries quite often, thank you very much.
It’s relevant if it helped your general education and “growth” in the world. If you used it (via your parents) and it was useful… etc…
You’re asking that 1) people should just buy books (which is what book stores are for) and 2) that you have funds raised to let people borrow books (or whatever you’re implying) which is what public libraries are supposed to be for.
And your neighbours are just shit out of luck if you don’t feel like paying, right?
This is a serious question, by the way, think it over.
I don’t know. I don’t own a car. I don’t drive a car. I don’t even have a driver’s license (and not because I’m too young either). I still don’t complain about my taxes being used for highways, because they’re generally worth it.
No, the point is that the majority of voters do want a relatively “socialist” system where people are in a sort of collective insurance. Don’t like it? Tough.
Yeah, and that food you eat just spawns from the ground in your kitchen, does it? Likewise electricity, the internet, water, gasoline, educated people you need once in a while (to fix your electricity, water, internet, car etc).
“We don’t subsidize air or sea freight” - you must be kidding.
So you’d be alright with a system that lets you burn down your house on a monday after 12am?
Yes it sucks, but you’re not providing anything better. Everyman for himself is not a workable system. It’s not even a system at all.
I’m not going into this too much because it’s stupid and I’ve been warned already. Suffice to say that “government spending” which is “collective spending” should be efficient. That doesn’t mean we should cut it out entirely, which is what you’re proposing; once you leave government spending up to each and every individual you’ll have no government at all.
Once you do, I will take you more seriously.
You are - mostly. You’re just pretending that every good thing you encounter is there because of your awesomeness. The fact that people can’t just rob you in plain day light is because you (and most people) are paying for the police.
I can’t believe I have to repeat this again.
There is an innate sense within the Conservative community that ‘hard work = wealth’ so thus ‘poverty = laziness’. The hardest I ever worked was when I was 14 detasseling corn at $8 and hour, I make quite a bit more than that now and my job is easy. Your fortunes (both financially and otherwise) are a concern of others even beyond Altruism for it’s obvious that an increasing stratified society is an unstable one. The really wealthy earn their paychecks as much as Goldman Sachs employees earn their bonuses.
Wow! you think Bureaucracy is bad now just imagine if you had to itemize the extent to which you utilized every public service. Let see, today I drove 2 miles along route 5 (form 5762), I enjoyed the clean air for 18,972 breaths (form c75b), I avoided getting mugged by a homeless person (form 482xB).
Of course I’ll also want to keep a record of any food I feed my children so that I can bill them later (lets say 5.125% interest). I wouldn’t want them to steal from me and grow weak. Love and affection is of course extra (25.40 an hour)