4 ms·

> Do you feel the same way about taxes to pay for, say, highways and airports? Or do you give those a pass because it's infrastructure, from which you benefit?

> Do you feel the same way about taxes to pay for, say, highways and airports? Or do you give those a pass because it's infrastructure, from which you benefit? I don't give them a pass. Not by a long shot. Right now I'm only benefiting from one particular nearby highway, and even then only a few miles of its vast length. Of the two nearest airports (both of which are at least an hour's drive away), I have never used one, have not used the other in at least a year, and have no intention of using either for at least a couple decades; yet I am still forced to pay for them, beyond the length of any "professional's retainer" term that I might have voluntarily chosen. (I correctly predicted which airport usage would be my last, several years prior to it.) But of course there are others who feel differently - they'd like to have a different stretch of that highway, a different highway, an airport with nonstop roundtrips to Podunk, Alabama, you name it. And I do not wish to quarrel with them. In a properly-functioning free market, when there is a selection of alternative goods available and different people have different preferences, the result is that the people who prefer one good purchase it, and the people who prefer another good purchase it instead of the previous. Both goods end up being sold to the people who prefer them. The anomalous situation in any of certain markets (e.g. infrastructure of a given kind; security; morals; laws) wherein people must coercively prohibit the sale of all goods except one, the one to be chosen by all manner of unpleasant quarrels - be they the heated vitriol before an election, or the cold hard bullying might of dynasties and coups d'etat ... it only results when there is a localized monopoly on the use of unprovoked force - also known as a government.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago
So this is getting somewhat afield from the original topic, but... have you ever lived somewhere where there is not a monopoly on the use of unprovoked force? (I have never done so, but some who have state rather eloquently why having the government having a monopoly on this is really beneficial compared to the alternative.)
- mmirate 8y ago
  Me neither; and such a place does not (yet) exist, and to my knowledge humans have never truly created such a place since the dawn of agriculture, if not earlier. It's entirely in the realm of theory, for now. I'll even admit: we barely have the information-technology today with which to conduct business as quickly, frequently and frictionlessly as it could theoretically need to be conducted in such a place. In places where there is not only a monopoly on the use of unprovoked force, but where the same entity also monopolizes everything else, there is another collection of people who eloquently state why that was a bad idea. If you're wondering what is the difference between an area with all markets free; and an area whose governments merely don't call themselves as such, and tend to compete via (expensive) violence instead of advertising - then this tome should provide a much more eloquent description (albeit as theoretical as ever) than I could ever hope to achieve: http://www.daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf http://www.daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    I was thinking of, e.g., Somalia. There wasn't a monopoly on violence, but there was still violence, and lots of it. There were competing warlords, not a nice smoothly-running anarchist market. It's... not a pleasant environment. It's closer to hell than to paradise. The government monopoly on violence has problems (much worse when the government goes off the rails), but in the absence of that monopoly, anyone who wants to do violence can. As that strategy turns out to work against those who would prefer not to do violence, more people turn to violence either for gain or for defense against the violence of others.
    - krapp 8y ago
      Anarchy doesn't object to the "violence" aspect of the monopoly on violence, so much as the "monopoly."
      - mmirate 8y ago
        In a way that is true - it merely happens to be that when you don't have the near-infinite resources of a large taxpayer population at your disposal, violence's expensiveness actually becomes relevant.
sethrin 8y ago
Yes, that is the definition of government. Until you remove the capacity of man to do violence, that is the only form of government which can exist.
- mmirate 8y ago
  Others disagree: http://www.daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf http://www.daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf
  - sethrin 8y ago
    You mean, others assume a logical impossibility and proceed from there. Violence is not an eradicable part of humanity, even in prisons. It doesn't go away if you get rid of the violent government, you simply have unrestrained violence (anarchy), which is not a stable state, but an unstable local minimum. Ultimately, might does make right, in the sense that the irresistible (violent) power of the collective does dictate what the rights of the individual are. I'm sorry if you don't like that.
bena 8y ago
You are mistaken about what you use and what you don't. You only really consider what you personally, directly use, but seem to be ignoring all of your indirect use. Those other miles of highway are used by the transportation to deliver goods to your town. That benefits you. Those airports are also used in such a manner. There's also the twice removed use. In order for your community to function, you need a certain population density. Providing service to just you is cost prohibitive for any utility. The last mile is a bitch when it's really the last 100 miles. So, all of those other people in the nearby towns also need to be able to subsist in the area. In order to provide you with service, in order to make it cost effective to run shops, etc. The way I've begun to see it, the government is like a buffet or club and taxes are what we pay for access. Sure, you may not like crab legs, but some portion of what you paid is going to those crab legs. Or maybe you use the pool at the club every day, but Joe can't swim so he never uses it. But the same percentage of your dues go to paying for it. It all comes down to the fact that in order to make the things you want accessible and affordable, you will have to kind of pay for things you don't want. Taxes are the dues you pay to be in the club that is the U.S.A. (or whatever country you're in, but it rhymes with U.S.A.).
- mmirate 8y ago
  What if the store I frequent happens to use one highway, but its competitor across the street uses another? I'd rather pay the "true" price of whatever goods I actually buy - transportation included - than be forced to subsidize the competitors' transportation too.
  - bena 8y ago
    If 'if' was a skiff, we'd all take a boat ride. Everything would have to use those separate streets. All of the customers couldn't use the "competing" store's highway. The two distribution centers have to use only the highways "owned" by the respective store. It gets to the point of the absurd. There must be some property shared by the two stores and the community surrounding them. They couldn't sell the same products because there would be no way to isolate all of that. At some point, there will be a convergence. If you want to pay the "true" price of your goods, you can't use anything that uses a common good for any part of the supply chain. Which is basically everything. And you aren't really subsidizing anything. You are getting a deep discount by virtue of leveraging economies of scale. This is a case where cooperation makes things better for all involved. It's not a zero-sum game. Sometimes trying to be cheap costs you more.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago

So this is getting somewhat afield from the original topic, but... have you ever lived somewhere where there is not a monopoly on the use of unprovoked force? (I have never done so, but some who have state rather eloquently why having the government having a monopoly on this is really beneficial compared to the alternative.)

mmirate 8y ago
Me neither; and such a place does not (yet) exist, and to my knowledge humans have never truly created such a place since the dawn of agriculture, if not earlier. It's entirely in the realm of theory, for now. I'll even admit: we barely have the information-technology today with which to conduct business as quickly, frequently and frictionlessly as it could theoretically need to be conducted in such a place. In places where there is not only a monopoly on the use of unprovoked force, but where the same entity also monopolizes everything else, there is another collection of people who eloquently state why that was a bad idea. If you're wondering what is the difference between an area with all markets free; and an area whose governments merely don't call themselves as such, and tend to compete via (expensive) violence instead of advertising - then this tome should provide a much more eloquent description (albeit as theoretical as ever) than I could ever hope to achieve: http://www.daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf http://www.daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  I was thinking of, e.g., Somalia. There wasn't a monopoly on violence, but there was still violence, and lots of it. There were competing warlords, not a nice smoothly-running anarchist market. It's... not a pleasant environment. It's closer to hell than to paradise. The government monopoly on violence has problems (much worse when the government goes off the rails), but in the absence of that monopoly, anyone who wants to do violence can. As that strategy turns out to work against those who would prefer not to do violence, more people turn to violence either for gain or for defense against the violence of others.
  - krapp 8y ago
    Anarchy doesn't object to the "violence" aspect of the monopoly on violence, so much as the "monopoly."
    - mmirate 8y ago
      In a way that is true - it merely happens to be that when you don't have the near-infinite resources of a large taxpayer population at your disposal, violence's expensiveness actually becomes relevant.

sethrin 8y ago

Yes, that is the definition of government. Until you remove the capacity of man to do violence, that is the only form of government which can exist.

mmirate 8y ago
Others disagree: http://www.daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf http://www.daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf
- sethrin 8y ago
  You mean, others assume a logical impossibility and proceed from there. Violence is not an eradicable part of humanity, even in prisons. It doesn't go away if you get rid of the violent government, you simply have unrestrained violence (anarchy), which is not a stable state, but an unstable local minimum. Ultimately, might does make right, in the sense that the irresistible (violent) power of the collective does dictate what the rights of the individual are. I'm sorry if you don't like that.

bena 8y ago

You are mistaken about what you use and what you don't. You only really consider what you personally, directly use, but seem to be ignoring all of your indirect use. Those other miles of highway are used by the transportation to deliver goods to your town. That benefits you. Those airports are also used in such a manner. There's also the twice removed use. In order for your community to function, you need a certain population density. Providing service to just you is cost prohibitive for any utility. The last mile is a bitch when it's really the last 100 miles. So, all of those other people in the nearby towns also need to be able to subsist in the area. In order to provide you with service, in order to make it cost effective to run shops, etc. The way I've begun to see it, the government is like a buffet or club and taxes are what we pay for access. Sure, you may not like crab legs, but some portion of what you paid is going to those crab legs. Or maybe you use the pool at the club every day, but Joe can't swim so he never uses it. But the same percentage of your dues go to paying for it. It all comes down to the fact that in order to make the things you want accessible and affordable, you will have to kind of pay for things you don't want. Taxes are the dues you pay to be in the club that is the U.S.A. (or whatever country you're in, but it rhymes with U.S.A.).

mmirate 8y ago
What if the store I frequent happens to use one highway, but its competitor across the street uses another? I'd rather pay the "true" price of whatever goods I actually buy - transportation included - than be forced to subsidize the competitors' transportation too.
- bena 8y ago
  If 'if' was a skiff, we'd all take a boat ride. Everything would have to use those separate streets. All of the customers couldn't use the "competing" store's highway. The two distribution centers have to use only the highways "owned" by the respective store. It gets to the point of the absurd. There must be some property shared by the two stores and the community surrounding them. They couldn't sell the same products because there would be no way to isolate all of that. At some point, there will be a convergence. If you want to pay the "true" price of your goods, you can't use anything that uses a common good for any part of the supply chain. Which is basically everything. And you aren't really subsidizing anything. You are getting a deep discount by virtue of leveraging economies of scale. This is a case where cooperation makes things better for all involved. It's not a zero-sum game. Sometimes trying to be cheap costs you more.