Taxation.

jazzc said:

They probably got "nationalized" I suppose. Besides, there is no reason for the industry to pay and build your own when you have a mafia stealing and doing it with other people's money, is there?

The company called "the kid's parents".

Click to expand...

It's evident that you're cynical of central government and sure there's a lot to be cynical about but the principle of government it's self (rather than it's current state) is the central pillar of my argument. The idea that passing a portion of money to leaders whose judgements we trust (in principle), to do the best for the people they rule over and not just for a select few who have become successful due to a mixture of good fortune, perhaps created by the system and their own initiative.

As an example of the government doing it's best for the general population...often 'the kid's parents' don't have the means for whatever reason, now there's an argument for cutting them loose, hang the kid out to dry, it's the parents fault they had the same opportunity as me but I would argue there's more of an incentive both moral an monetary to give that kid a real shot at succeeding and paying into the system.

I would also argue that roads not directly benefiting big business would not be built at all that way.

jazzc said:

That's a common "argument" and too easily refuted. Here's two(!) refutations.

a) Ok, how about you ALLOW me to PAY for the stuff I actually use and not tax me? You know, like I do for everything else that I'm allowed to? Oh the horror!

b) Did the plantation slaves owe their "masters" because they provided them with food and shelter? For using their roads? For drinking water from their wells?

Click to expand...

a) Your argument seems to be based on the idea that every man acting for himself makes the system better as a whole but there are cases when this simply isn't true and intervention is required by government, i.e taxation, especially when again going back to education certain aspects of society need funding despite there being no immediate monetary return for the individual.

b) An emotive but incorrect comparison. Are you free? Despite taxation, I do not regard myself as a slave. A democratically elected government made up of the people (in theory) is saying, live here? Follow our rules...if not you're FREE to leave.

myopic1 said:

It's evident that you're cynical of central government and sure there's a lot to be cynical about but the principle of government it's self (rather than it's current state) is the central pillar of my argument. The idea that passing a portion of money to leaders whose judgements we trust (in principle), to do the best for the people they rule over and not just for a select few who have become successful due to a mixture of good fortune, perhaps created by the system and their own initiative.

Click to expand...

Cynical: showing contempt for accepted standards of honesty or morality by one's actions, especially by actions that exploit the scruples of others.

Oh yes, I assure you I'm totally showing contempt to theft and its "morality".

As an example of the government doing it's best for the general population...often 'the kid's parents' don't have the means for whatever reason, now there's an argument for cutting them loose, hang the kid out to dry, it's the parents fault they had the same opportunity as me but I would argue there's more of an incentive both moral an monetary to give that kid a real shot at succeeding and paying into the system.

Click to expand...

a) I understand how getting free stuff coming from plunder is "doing its best" for the people who benefit. Never met a recipient of plundered good who didn't love it.

b) Do you know why I don't have 10 kids? Because I can't afford to provide them the standards of living I want. But I have to pay to provide for somebody else's kid because he decided he wants one but doesn't bother providing for him/her. Makes total sense...

a) Your argument seems to be based on the idea that every man acting for himself makes the system better as a whole

Click to expand...

Yes, it does. It is proven both in theory and historically.

but there are cases when this simply isn't true and intervention is required by government, i.e taxation, especially when again going back to education certain aspects of society need funding despite there being no immediate monetary return.

Click to expand...

As I said, people who get free plundered stuff love it. No monetary return? Who cares, it's not like it's their money spent

b) An emotive but incorrect comparison. Are you free? Despite taxation, I do not regard myself as a slave. A democratically elected government made up of the people (in theory) is saying, live here? Follow our rules...if not you're FREE to leave.

Click to expand...

It is totally non emotive - on the contrary it's 100% real.

No, I am not free. I am required to pay more than half my work's worth or my masters will send their enforcers to take my stuff and put me into prison (for my "good" and society's). Try not paying your master's dues and let me know how free you are then.

Democratic or not does not matter the tiniest bit. If your neighbors decide it's ok to steal your stuff, doesn't make it less of a theft. If the plantation slaves voted, they'd lose. Does that justify their slavery because "democracy"? Is slavery and theft ok if the majority advocate it?

Every single thing the government does can be done by the private sector without any higher fees or bs. All roads can be private without paying a toll use if they charge businesses a fee to allow them selves to be connected to the road. And if the private company doesn't maintain the road the payments can stop.

STKMKTFTGRU said:

Every single thing the government does can be done by the private sector without any higher fees or bs. All roads can be private without paying a toll use if they charge businesses a fee to allow them selves to be connected to the road. And if the private company doesn't maintain the road the payments can stop.

Click to expand...

Do you even public good brah? Non-rival and non-excludable goods require provision by an organisation, granted not necessarily the state, that is not a private firm.

Why would I pay you to manage a lighthouse when you can't stop me using it and it's "good" can't be used up?

jazzc said:

Cynical: showing contempt for accepted standards of honesty or morality by one's actions, especially by actions that exploit the scruples of others.

Oh yes, I assure you I'm totally showing contempt to theft and its "morality".

Click to expand...

I suppose this is what our differing viewpoints come down to. Our very definitions are different, while I too show contempt for theft, the definition of taxation for me doesn't involve theft. Maybe it is a bad system but I truly believe it's the best there is but there's plenty of room for adjustment for how the system works.

jazzc said:

a) I understand how getting free stuff coming from plunder is "doing its best" for the people who benefit. Never met a recipient of plundered good who didn't love it.

Click to expand...

It's tempting the think of it as plunder from a position of privilege, I'm there with you too so don't get me wrong. For me though, the measure of a society is how it treats and cares for the lowest and the weakest who through circumstances often beyond their control, find themselves unable to provide or care for themselves. There are detestable abuses, we see them on the news but they are just that, abuses and not the general rule.

jazzc said:

b) Do you know why I don't have 10 kids? Because I can't afford to provide them the standards of living I want. But I have to pay to provide for somebody else's kid because he decided he wants one but doesn't bother providing for him/her. Makes total sense...

Click to expand...

It's true a portion of your taxation goes to other people's kids and that is indeed one of the abuses mentioned above, I hate that probably as much as you. For every one of those abuses there's 100 genuine cases where a kid is born into poverty and the money gives him some measure of equality to those lucky enough to be born into good circumstances.

jazzc said:

Yes, it does. It is proven both in theory and historically.

Click to expand...

Strong disagree but that's a massive area to get into that isn't particularly about taxation.

jazzc said:

As I said, people who get free plundered stuff love it. No monetary return? Who cares, it's not like it's their money spent

Click to expand...

You misunderstand me, I'm saying that essential things would not get funded that are vital for a functioning country/society because there wouldn't be individuals willing to fund them because they are acting for themselves.

jazzc said:

It is totally non emotive - on the contrary it's 100% real.

No, I am not free. I am required to pay more than half my work's worth or my masters will send their enforcers to take my stuff and put me into prison (for my "good" and society's). Try not paying your master's dues and let me know how free you are then.

Democratic or not does not matter the tiniest bit. If your neighbors decide it's ok to steal your stuff, doesn't make it less of a theft. If the plantation slaves voted, they'd lose. Does that justify their slavery because "democracy"? Is slavery and theft ok if the majority advocate it?

Click to expand...

Rather than 'masters' I choose my 'country' and it's government because I'm afforded luxury, safety and opportunity, a lot of which is paid for by the taxation of those before me and now it's my turn to reciprocate, it's completely a choice and one that I make willingly. Equally I could uproot and relocate, to less taxed shores as someone else pointed out.

Again our definitions of theft are completely off, you're right democracy doesn't equal 'right' nor do I believe taxation is theft, however I'm saying people elected by the majority choose to run a country with certain rules.

I guess we're at a stalemate!

Deleted member 364366 said:

Do you even public good brah? Non-rival and non-excludable goods require provision by an organisation, granted not necessarily the state, that is not a private firm.

Why would I pay you to manage a lighthouse when you can't stop me using it and it's "good" can't be used up?

Click to expand...

I would thank you for that point but I'm all out.

Deleted member 364366 said:

Do you even public good brah? Non-rival and non-excludable goods require provision by an organisation, granted not necessarily the state, that is not a private firm.

Why would I pay you to manage a lighthouse when you can't stop me using it and it's "good" can't be used up?

Click to expand...

Because they could stop up the entrances the business is connecting to the road with, and lighthouses aren't even used much at all, with gps and radar and a few other navigation aides.

STKMKTFTGRU said:

Because they could stop up the entrances the business is connecting to the road with, and lighthouses aren't even used much at all, with gps and radar and a few other navigation aides.

Click to expand...

Yes, the "stop ups" or tolls attempt to make roads more excludable but my post referenced a public good that cannot have the same applied to it. Therefore the necessity for an organisation to provide public goods remains.

Deleted member 364366 said:

Why would I pay you to manage a lighthouse when you can't stop me using it and it's "good" can't be used up?

Click to expand...

Zero problem. The business in the port would pay for it. Doesn't make much sense having a port if ships sink trying to reach it.

Just like business today make huge malls to gather crowds instead of doing it in tent-style bazaars. Last time I heard, I wasn't asked to pay for the mall construction. I do pay it in terms of prices, which as you will conclude is how it would work with the ships and the lighthouses.

jazzc said:

Zero problem. The business in the port would pay for it. Doesn't make much sense having a port if ships sink trying to reach it.

Just like business today make huge malls to gather crowds instead of doing it in tent-style bazaars. Last time I heard, I wasn't asked to pay for the mall construction. I do pay it in terms of prices, which as you will conclude is how it would work with the ships and the lighthouses.

Click to expand...

A fair few lighthouses are positioned to warn of shallow water and outcrops of rock; away from ports, harbours or other commercial entities. Furthermore, other public goods exist so to debunk the point, you cannot merely use the example of the lighthouse.

Deleted member 364366 said:

A fair few lighthouses are positioned to warn of shallow water and outcrops of rock; away from ports, harbours or other commercial entities.

Click to expand...

So the ship owners would pay for them. It doesn't make much sense to do commerce though an area if your ship (which costs a boatload of money) sinks every other Tuesday.

Furthermore, other public goods exist so to debunk the point, you cannot merely use the example of the lighthouse.

Click to expand...

Ehm, I used it only because you did as proof of the necessity of government, I didn't arbitrarily cherry pick it.

Deleted member 364366 said:

A fair few lighthouses are positioned to warn of shallow water and outcrops of rock; away from ports, harbours or other commercial entities. Furthermore, other public goods exist so to debunk the point, you cannot merely use the example of the lighthouse.

Click to expand...

If the ships sink along the way to the port, the port won't get any money from the ship docking to unload.

Deleted member 364366 said:

This would still give way to the Freerider Problem. Jazzc Shipping would build a lighthouse and Deleted member 364366 liners would steam on through the nicely lit route without needing to pay.

Click to expand...

a) Tolls.

b) Even if tolls are not practical, it doesn't matter. If a group has incentive to profit from an action, it doesn't matter if some will freeload. Why would JazzC Shipping care if Deleted member 364366 liners' customers benefit for free if JazzC shipping made millions were it wouldn't have before?

And couldn't a steam liner still go by without paying the government lighthouse fees?

jazzc said:

b) Even if tolls are not practical, it doesn't matter. If a group has incentive to profit from an action, it doesn't matter if some will freeload. Why would JazzC Shipping care if Deleted member 364366 liners' customers benefit for free if JazzC shipping made millions were it wouldn't have before?

Click to expand...

The flaw then is when a destination requires ships but is not a profitable enough customer to warant the building of lighthouses by one firm.

STKMKTFTGRU said:

And couldn't a steam liner still go by without paying the government lighthouse fees?

Click to expand...

The entire point of state provision of public goods is that no fee is charged. Check here.

Deleted member 364366 said:

The flaw then is when a destination requires ships but is not a profitable enough customer to warant the building of lighthouses by one firm.

Click to expand...

So it doesn't require ships then. It just wants them, for free - or better said, by forcing others to pay for it.

Deleted member 364366 said:

The flaw then is when a destination requires ships but is not a profitable enough customer to warant the building of lighthouses by one firm.


The entire point of state provision of public goods is that no fee is charged. Check http://beta.tutor2u.net/economics/reference/public-goods

Click to expand...

So everyone that doesn't need the lighthouse is being threatened at gunpoint with prison time if they don't pay for it?

STKMKTFTGRU said:

So everyone that doesn't need the lighthouse is being threatened at gunpoint with prison time if they don't pay for it?

Click to expand...

This is exactly why it is so hilarious that this perversion is called "justice".

jazzc said:

So it doesn't require ships then. It just wants them, for free - or better said, by forcing others to pay for it.

Click to expand...

I appreciate that you're a decentralist and not a strong believer of doing things for the good of an entire society but surely you would agree that state provision of some goods that cannot be afforded by all, is a positive thing even for the individual? Clean streets, healthier people etc.

STKMKTFTGRU said:

So everyone that doesn't need the lighthouse is being threatened at gunpoint with prison time if they don't pay for it?

Click to expand...

You seem to have taken it too far. I don't know what your actual point is.