5 ms·

Not a libertarian myself but I suppose OP is. You do realize that the "roads" argument is probably the worst one you could use against a libertarian? It's basic

Not a libertarian myself but I suppose OP is. You do realize that the "roads" argument is probably the worst one you could use against a libertarian? It's basically an in-joke in libertarian circles. It's kind of like quoting the bible as an argument when arguing with an atheist, not very convincing.

majos 8y ago
What's so laughable about roads?
- patrickaljord 8y ago
  Not sure it's a good place to have a debate on this, maybe you should ask in a libertarian forum. First link that comes on google when you search for it is this link https://beinglibertarian.com/no-one-talks-regarding-muh-roads/ https://beinglibertarian.com/no-one-talks-regarding-muh-road...
  - rando444 8y ago
    You should at least read an article yourself before you share it with others. That article is about how roads are used, not how they are built. In fact that article even argues that it's perfectly fine for the government to be responsible for building roads.
    - patrickaljord 8y ago
      The libertarian argument is that the government is not the only one that can or should build roads.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  Some (but far from all) libertarians believe that government should not build, own, or maintain roads (including directing those things or enabling them through the exercise of compulsory powers like eminent domain), but that private parties should privately acquire land via the market, build roads, and operate them as supported by the market, either for their own direct use or by selling access to other users.
coldtea 8y ago
Not a libertarian exactly, I'm even in favor of social welfare programs etc, but against the gradual enlargement of taxation beyond all control. Even under the worst rulers, for most of history, it has usually been at 10% of income. Used wisely (and without a huge bureaucracy that finds busy work - including military such, and corrupt healthcare pricing) it should be enough to fund basic government, schools, and so on. For roads, there are tolls and vehicle fees and so on. For pensions and healthcare, we have a special percentage held directly from the salary (at least in my parts). For electricity and telecommunication we pay bills (and still give huge subsidies). There are also municipal taxes for city level stuff.
- Retric 8y ago
  The US like most countries use a toll system for their roads. You can avoid the toll by getting a dyed version of gas that’s illegal to use on public roads. It’s not perfect, but it’s very cheap to implement and electric cars are going to force the system to do something else. https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/fuel-and-road-use-tax-agriculture-tax-tips https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe...
  - stochastic_monk 8y ago
    For a small subset of their roads, not all of them.
    - nerdponx 8y ago
      I think they're talking about using aviation gasoline instead of automotive gasoline, which are identical except the latter is taxed federally and the former is dyed blue.
- dmm 8y ago
  > Used wisely Federal mandatory spending was $2.5 trillion in 2017. Mandatory spending includes social security, medicare, medicaid, unemploy. comp., veterans benefits, EIC, etc. Interest on the debt was $263 billion. Defense spending was $590 billion. Just those categories $2.5 + $.263 + $.590 = $3.353 Trillion Federal revenue in 2017, including payroll and income taxes, was $3.3 Trillion. Just those three categories exceed total revenue and the remaining budget, non-defense discretionary, spending was just $610 billion. Everybody hates taxes and just about everyone thinks the government is too bloated. Politicians love arguing about stupid piddly $10 million programs but real spending changes would be very, very painful. What I'm saying is I don't see a path toward to world you're describing. For example, > For pensions ... percentage held directly from the salary That's great and it can make a lot of sense. But how do we get there? Right now we have social security funded by payroll taxes. Those taxes alone exceed your ideal 10% tax rate for most. We can't remove those payroll taxes because what would fund social security? We can't remove social security because what would happen to the people dependent and soon to be dependent on it?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

majos 8y ago

What's so laughable about roads?

patrickaljord 8y ago
Not sure it's a good place to have a debate on this, maybe you should ask in a libertarian forum. First link that comes on google when you search for it is this link https://beinglibertarian.com/no-one-talks-regarding-muh-roads/ https://beinglibertarian.com/no-one-talks-regarding-muh-road...
- rando444 8y ago
  You should at least read an article yourself before you share it with others. That article is about how roads are used, not how they are built. In fact that article even argues that it's perfectly fine for the government to be responsible for building roads.
  - patrickaljord 8y ago
    The libertarian argument is that the government is not the only one that can or should build roads.
dragonwriter 8y ago
Some (but far from all) libertarians believe that government should not build, own, or maintain roads (including directing those things or enabling them through the exercise of compulsory powers like eminent domain), but that private parties should privately acquire land via the market, build roads, and operate them as supported by the market, either for their own direct use or by selling access to other users.

coldtea 8y ago

Not a libertarian exactly, I'm even in favor of social welfare programs etc, but against the gradual enlargement of taxation beyond all control. Even under the worst rulers, for most of history, it has usually been at 10% of income. Used wisely (and without a huge bureaucracy that finds busy work - including military such, and corrupt healthcare pricing) it should be enough to fund basic government, schools, and so on. For roads, there are tolls and vehicle fees and so on. For pensions and healthcare, we have a special percentage held directly from the salary (at least in my parts). For electricity and telecommunication we pay bills (and still give huge subsidies). There are also municipal taxes for city level stuff.

Retric 8y ago
The US like most countries use a toll system for their roads. You can avoid the toll by getting a dyed version of gas that’s illegal to use on public roads. It’s not perfect, but it’s very cheap to implement and electric cars are going to force the system to do something else. https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/fuel-and-road-use-tax-agriculture-tax-tips https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe...
- stochastic_monk 8y ago
  For a small subset of their roads, not all of them.
  - nerdponx 8y ago
    I think they're talking about using aviation gasoline instead of automotive gasoline, which are identical except the latter is taxed federally and the former is dyed blue.
dmm 8y ago
> Used wisely Federal mandatory spending was $2.5 trillion in 2017. Mandatory spending includes social security, medicare, medicaid, unemploy. comp., veterans benefits, EIC, etc. Interest on the debt was $263 billion. Defense spending was $590 billion. Just those categories $2.5 + $.263 + $.590 = $3.353 Trillion Federal revenue in 2017, including payroll and income taxes, was $3.3 Trillion. Just those three categories exceed total revenue and the remaining budget, non-defense discretionary, spending was just $610 billion. Everybody hates taxes and just about everyone thinks the government is too bloated. Politicians love arguing about stupid piddly $10 million programs but real spending changes would be very, very painful. What I'm saying is I don't see a path toward to world you're describing. For example, > For pensions ... percentage held directly from the salary That's great and it can make a lot of sense. But how do we get there? Right now we have social security funded by payroll taxes. Those taxes alone exceed your ideal 10% tax rate for most. We can't remove those payroll taxes because what would fund social security? We can't remove social security because what would happen to the people dependent and soon to be dependent on it?

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]