3 ms·

It would be theft if you didn't use any state infrastructure at all. But you do, your community uses it, your loved ones use it, and you depend on it for person

It would be theft if you didn't use any state infrastructure at all. But you do, your community uses it, your loved ones use it, and you depend on it for personal safety. Private philantropy does not work for maintaining infrastructure. A lot of countries have tax rates much higher than the US, but they don't do the whole War on Drugs thing or Civil Forfeiture. This argument has no logical connection whatsoever.

bko 10y ago
> It would be theft if you didn't use any state infrastructure at all. But you do, your community uses it, your loved ones use it, and you depend on it for personal safety. This is the same argument as "if you don't like it, move". Just because one is part of a system does not make the person's criticisms of the system invalid. > Private philantropy does not work for maintaining infrastructure. You should read some Coase [0]. The Lighthouse in Economics is a different take on public goods and shows that private lighthouses, often considered the model public good, did exist in England prior to public investments. It's difficult to imagine a system that doesn't exist, but I don't think all progress and development would simply cease without centralized control from government. > A lot of countries have tax rates much higher than the US, but they don't do the whole War on Drugs thing or Civil Forfeiture. This argument has no logical connection whatsoever. Not OP, but I think the war on drugs and civil forfeiture has to do more with state control over the personal affairs and finances of denizens. With strong centralized powers with a great power of the purse, the incentive grows to exert more control over people. It may not be expressed specifically in those terms, but it does exist and is prevalent in many very centralized societies. [0] https://courses.cit.cornell.edu/econ335/out/lighthouse.pdf https://courses.cit.cornell.edu/econ335/out/lighthouse.pdf

bko 10y ago

> It would be theft if you didn't use any state infrastructure at all. But you do, your community uses it, your loved ones use it, and you depend on it for personal safety. This is the same argument as "if you don't like it, move". Just because one is part of a system does not make the person's criticisms of the system invalid. > Private philantropy does not work for maintaining infrastructure. You should read some Coase [0]. The Lighthouse in Economics is a different take on public goods and shows that private lighthouses, often considered the model public good, did exist in England prior to public investments. It's difficult to imagine a system that doesn't exist, but I don't think all progress and development would simply cease without centralized control from government. > A lot of countries have tax rates much higher than the US, but they don't do the whole War on Drugs thing or Civil Forfeiture. This argument has no logical connection whatsoever. Not OP, but I think the war on drugs and civil forfeiture has to do more with state control over the personal affairs and finances of denizens. With strong centralized powers with a great power of the purse, the incentive grows to exert more control over people. It may not be expressed specifically in those terms, but it does exist and is prevalent in many very centralized societies. [0] https://courses.cit.cornell.edu/econ335/out/lighthouse.pdf https://courses.cit.cornell.edu/econ335/out/lighthouse.pdf