5 ms·

> If there were no taxes, you'd probably have to buy tickets to walk and drive on roads, stroll in the park, swim in a sea Do you have to insert coins into you

by snitko 11y ago

> If there were no taxes, you'd probably have to buy tickets to walk and drive on roads, stroll in the park, swim in a sea Do you have to insert coins into your smartphone every time you call someone these days? And yet it's almost impossible to live without a smartphone today, so people buy them and pay for the plans. But, but, they do have a choice of which operator to use (and, frankly, US is the worst example here, Europe/Asia is much less regulated in this respect, so it's cheaper and simpler there). Do you see where I'm going with this example? Yes, I only want to pay for things which I use. And have a choice of, for example, which school to send my kids to (if any) without having to pay the same price. I want things provided on the market, which generally makes them cheaper, not more expensive. Almost any example of a market you take, where government once heavily regulated or provided a product or service, but then deregulated it and invited private companies to fill in - you will find that the price fell and quality rose, giving more people (not less) access to the said service or product. I don't want to pay for: 1) wars 2) torture 3) police abuse 4) government mismanagement 5) that guy who has no job and has a gambling addiction 6) that guy who smokes 3 packs a day and demands free healthcare 7) politicians flying big jets and employing goons with guns to protect them.

cm3 11y ago
You buy a recurring ticket for your phone and it's billed for anything else. It's like a tax plus extra use fees. Privatization is not a general solution though. It needs regulation and oversight to keep unfair market practices to a minimum. I totally get why you'd not want to finance many things, and I'm with you on most of those, but the world isn't that simple and human behavior/psychology surely isn't. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7) Totally with you here. The biggest defect is that government officials cannot be held responsible for their mismanagement and thus have no incentive to not screw up. This is totally different in a company. Steve Jobs got kicked out but that won't happen to a politician let alone made to pay for losses created. This needs to start with the people. First, getting elected to an office and office in general has to stop being about who gets the most money and money/favors must be eradicated from lobbying totally. Second, voters must stop treating elected persons as if they're replacement monarchs. They should just use Hollywood stars for that and buy their t-shirts or whatnot instead. I'd argue that feudalism still exists in the minds of most if you look at the way governors, ministers (not the religious kind) are treated with a red carpet, awe and looking up to. They're representatives voted into an office to manage things and are still just nothing more than a city clerk but with more decision power in the chain. People have a fascination with those in power and won't stop living in virtual feudalism because of that. Also that a US candidate has to look for campaign money and cannot focus on the agenda (s)he is trying to get votes for is a huge defect in the system. This is less of a problem in other countries. The spending of taxes is broken and sadly you cannot hold anybody accountable. We could be living on Europa by now if we spent just 0.1% less on wars. 5, 6) The guy who doesn't want to work but gamble or waste his life leading an unhealthy lifestyle won't magically become a productive member of society. He will find other ways to use but not contribute. Some might argue that by supporting him to survive one prevents a worse fate for him and the society.
- snitko 11y ago
  > Privatization is not a general solution though. It needs regulation and oversight to keep unfair market practices to a minimum. That's a statement, not an axiom, although it's taught as an axiom. Did you know that the US military is the biggest polluter? Who regulates it? If government can't regulate itself, what kind of regulation of private companies do you expect from it, when said private companies have money to bribe it? In reality, what regulation comes down to in 90% of the cases is just granting monopoly rights and artificially increasing barrier for entry. That is all. Give me any example of a good (in your opinion) regulation and I will almost certainly find how it works to the benefit of a small group of people. > The biggest defect is that government officials cannot be held responsible for their mismanagement and thus have no incentive to not screw up Precisely. > First, getting elected to an office and office in general has to stop being about who gets the most money and money/favors must be eradicated from lobbying totally. Second, voters must stop treating elected persons as if they're replacement monarchs. My argument is that you should show a reliable mechanism of how we can elect the right people first. If you can't show the mechanism, I'm defaulting to the assumption that politicians will always be incentivized to be corrupt. And I'd argue that there is no such mechanism, because lying to people will always be easier and more profitable than telling the truth, and so only liars will get elected. In fact, that's the difference between a businessman and a politician: a businessman has to provide a service or product first, then he gets paid. A politician just promises things to get elected and then is in no way legally bound to keep the promises. And you can't just say "we should...". I think we should all not work and just chill and enjoy life. If I find out a reliable way to replicate that, I'll be the first to share. > The spending of taxes is broken and sadly you cannot hold anybody accountable. And it will stay this way. How do you expect government to behave when they spend somebody else's money (taxpayers) on somebody else (government employees and subcontractors) (see Milton Fridman "4 ways to spend money) and are not accountable for any of it? >5, 6) The guy who doesn't want to work but gamble or waste his life leading an unhealthy lifestyle won't magically become a productive member of society. He will find other ways to use but not contribute. Some might argue that by supporting him to survive one prevents a worse fate for him and the society. Not convinced. If the majority agrees with you, but I disagree, does it mean you have the right for the chunk of my money that will go into financing those things? I'd say no, you don't have that moral right, even though the majority agrees with you.
seanalltogether 11y ago
It's weird you would use the telecom industry as an example of the wonders of laissez faire capitalism. This is an industry that naturally tends toward monopolies and once acquired, have shown in the past a willingness to overcharge and under deliver. > Europe/Asia is much less regulated in this respect Do you have a source for that in Europe? Ofcom in the UK is far more powerful then the FCC and actively inserts itself into all aspects of the telecom industry there. Additionally the EU just passed free roaming laws, a pretty big piece of regulation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_roaming_regulations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_roaming_regulat...
- snitko 11y ago
  I don't need a source. I'm from Russia and also lived in Latvia. Internet and phone calls are super cheap. I normally pay about $5/mo for my phone (unlimited calls, unlimited 4G internet) and $50/year for a decent internet connection at home. Industries are unregulated and there's a lot of competition.

by snitko 11y ago

cm3 11y ago

You buy a recurring ticket for your phone and it's billed for anything else. It's like a tax plus extra use fees. Privatization is not a general solution though. It needs regulation and oversight to keep unfair market practices to a minimum. I totally get why you'd not want to finance many things, and I'm with you on most of those, but the world isn't that simple and human behavior/psychology surely isn't. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7) Totally with you here. The biggest defect is that government officials cannot be held responsible for their mismanagement and thus have no incentive to not screw up. This is totally different in a company. Steve Jobs got kicked out but that won't happen to a politician let alone made to pay for losses created. This needs to start with the people. First, getting elected to an office and office in general has to stop being about who gets the most money and money/favors must be eradicated from lobbying totally. Second, voters must stop treating elected persons as if they're replacement monarchs. They should just use Hollywood stars for that and buy their t-shirts or whatnot instead. I'd argue that feudalism still exists in the minds of most if you look at the way governors, ministers (not the religious kind) are treated with a red carpet, awe and looking up to. They're representatives voted into an office to manage things and are still just nothing more than a city clerk but with more decision power in the chain. People have a fascination with those in power and won't stop living in virtual feudalism because of that. Also that a US candidate has to look for campaign money and cannot focus on the agenda (s)he is trying to get votes for is a huge defect in the system. This is less of a problem in other countries. The spending of taxes is broken and sadly you cannot hold anybody accountable. We could be living on Europa by now if we spent just 0.1% less on wars. 5, 6) The guy who doesn't want to work but gamble or waste his life leading an unhealthy lifestyle won't magically become a productive member of society. He will find other ways to use but not contribute. Some might argue that by supporting him to survive one prevents a worse fate for him and the society.

snitko 11y ago
> Privatization is not a general solution though. It needs regulation and oversight to keep unfair market practices to a minimum. That's a statement, not an axiom, although it's taught as an axiom. Did you know that the US military is the biggest polluter? Who regulates it? If government can't regulate itself, what kind of regulation of private companies do you expect from it, when said private companies have money to bribe it? In reality, what regulation comes down to in 90% of the cases is just granting monopoly rights and artificially increasing barrier for entry. That is all. Give me any example of a good (in your opinion) regulation and I will almost certainly find how it works to the benefit of a small group of people. > The biggest defect is that government officials cannot be held responsible for their mismanagement and thus have no incentive to not screw up Precisely. > First, getting elected to an office and office in general has to stop being about who gets the most money and money/favors must be eradicated from lobbying totally. Second, voters must stop treating elected persons as if they're replacement monarchs. My argument is that you should show a reliable mechanism of how we can elect the right people first. If you can't show the mechanism, I'm defaulting to the assumption that politicians will always be incentivized to be corrupt. And I'd argue that there is no such mechanism, because lying to people will always be easier and more profitable than telling the truth, and so only liars will get elected. In fact, that's the difference between a businessman and a politician: a businessman has to provide a service or product first, then he gets paid. A politician just promises things to get elected and then is in no way legally bound to keep the promises. And you can't just say "we should...". I think we should all not work and just chill and enjoy life. If I find out a reliable way to replicate that, I'll be the first to share. > The spending of taxes is broken and sadly you cannot hold anybody accountable. And it will stay this way. How do you expect government to behave when they spend somebody else's money (taxpayers) on somebody else (government employees and subcontractors) (see Milton Fridman "4 ways to spend money) and are not accountable for any of it? >5, 6) The guy who doesn't want to work but gamble or waste his life leading an unhealthy lifestyle won't magically become a productive member of society. He will find other ways to use but not contribute. Some might argue that by supporting him to survive one prevents a worse fate for him and the society. Not convinced. If the majority agrees with you, but I disagree, does it mean you have the right for the chunk of my money that will go into financing those things? I'd say no, you don't have that moral right, even though the majority agrees with you.

seanalltogether 11y ago

It's weird you would use the telecom industry as an example of the wonders of laissez faire capitalism. This is an industry that naturally tends toward monopolies and once acquired, have shown in the past a willingness to overcharge and under deliver. > Europe/Asia is much less regulated in this respect Do you have a source for that in Europe? Ofcom in the UK is far more powerful then the FCC and actively inserts itself into all aspects of the telecom industry there. Additionally the EU just passed free roaming laws, a pretty big piece of regulation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_roaming_regulations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_roaming_regulat...

snitko 11y ago
I don't need a source. I'm from Russia and also lived in Latvia. Internet and phone calls are super cheap. I normally pay about $5/mo for my phone (unlimited calls, unlimited 4G internet) and $50/year for a decent internet connection at home. Industries are unregulated and there's a lot of competition.