3 ms·

If I'm living paycheck-to-paycheck in a generally poor area, I likely don't have the money to invest in roads near me, which means the roads near me are not mai

If I'm living paycheck-to-paycheck in a generally poor area, I likely don't have the money to invest in roads near me, which means the roads near me are not maintained and deteriorate in quality, which means I have fewer opportunities to earn money, and so the cycle continues. I understand there's an incentive to invest in infrastructure, but if you're in a very poor area, you don't have that money to invest in the first place. If I have the money to invest in roads near me, surely I'm even more incentivised to use that money to move elsewhere, where people are already paying for the roads? The costs of building roads overall may work out lower than taxation, but if you're in an area where on average people are in the minimum tax bracket, it will likely work out higher for you. This comes at the expense of those who earn more ofc, and I guess that's where we differ in perspective. My personal perspective would entail that someone born into an impoverished area should have the opportunities to succeed, and (ideally) taxation can at least ensure they have the infrastructure around them to do so. It's difficult for me to consider a society as one that ensures everyone's liberty, if some people are massively disempowered by society by luck of birth.

pdonis 5y ago
> someone born into an impoverished area should have the opportunities to succeed, and (ideally) taxation can at least ensure they have the infrastructure around them to do so. Taxation can do this, but that does not mean it's the only way to do it. As I see it, we as citizens of a free society who want to give equal opportunity as much as humanly possible, have two choices for how to do that: (1) Coordinate it with a government; (2) Coordinate it with private entities. Unfortunately, neither of these choices works very well. The problem with #1 is that it never stops with just enabling equal opportunity. Yes, the government builds roads and other infrastructure. But the same power we give it to do those good things, it also uses to do lots of things that are at best wasteful and at worst actively harmful. There's no way to have a government that only does good things with our tax money. The problem with #2 is that it's like herding cats. Most people want infrastructure in the abstract, or want it if it already exists, but don't want to actually do the work required to create it, even to the extent of participating in community discussions about it. They just want it to happen somehow. However, the failure modes of these two choices are also very different: With #1, the failure mode is for government to keep expanding and expanding, taking more and more power, and putting more and more restrictions on people's freedoms. The end state of that is tyranny for everyone. With #2, the failure mode is less equality of opportunity, or at least more difficulty in pursuing opportunities for people born into less fortunate circumstances. But there are many ways to compensate for this. Even if the fraction of more fortunate people who will do actual work to help less fortunate people is small, technology can give them leverage. As long as people have freedom, they will use it. Libertarians do not advocate #2 over #1 because they think it works great. They advocate it because it is less bad in terms of failure modes than #1.

pdonis 5y ago

> someone born into an impoverished area should have the opportunities to succeed, and (ideally) taxation can at least ensure they have the infrastructure around them to do so. Taxation can do this, but that does not mean it's the only way to do it. As I see it, we as citizens of a free society who want to give equal opportunity as much as humanly possible, have two choices for how to do that: (1) Coordinate it with a government; (2) Coordinate it with private entities. Unfortunately, neither of these choices works very well. The problem with #1 is that it never stops with just enabling equal opportunity. Yes, the government builds roads and other infrastructure. But the same power we give it to do those good things, it also uses to do lots of things that are at best wasteful and at worst actively harmful. There's no way to have a government that only does good things with our tax money. The problem with #2 is that it's like herding cats. Most people want infrastructure in the abstract, or want it if it already exists, but don't want to actually do the work required to create it, even to the extent of participating in community discussions about it. They just want it to happen somehow. However, the failure modes of these two choices are also very different: With #1, the failure mode is for government to keep expanding and expanding, taking more and more power, and putting more and more restrictions on people's freedoms. The end state of that is tyranny for everyone. With #2, the failure mode is less equality of opportunity, or at least more difficulty in pursuing opportunities for people born into less fortunate circumstances. But there are many ways to compensate for this. Even if the fraction of more fortunate people who will do actual work to help less fortunate people is small, technology can give them leverage. As long as people have freedom, they will use it. Libertarians do not advocate #2 over #1 because they think it works great. They advocate it because it is less bad in terms of failure modes than #1.