4 ms·

You can get you own armed guards - but you will still subsidize other people's police force. You pay taxes to provide a minimum service to all of the community

You can get you own armed guards - but you will still subsidize other people's police force. You pay taxes to provide a minimum service to all of the community, you can then take advantage of it or not - that's your prerogative. I pay for school taxes, but I don't have kids - should I get my money back?

Spivak 5y ago
This line of reasoning could be used to justify government expansion into literally any market. Given that most people don’t want government providing services in every market there has to be some other factor that limits the scope which is where the disagreement lives. Government mediating equal access to last mile lines and funding their construction — probably good to everyone. Government running consumer ISPs end-to-end is a tougher sell.
- 8note 5y ago
  Having a government provided baseline for all markets sounds great. Private business should justify itself by doing better and ensuring nobody wants the public version -- which also ensures the public version stays cheap. [Expensive per unit, but inexpensive overall]
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
nickff 5y ago
I understand you're trying to use examples that seem clear to you, but you're begging more questions than you answer: >" You can get you own armed guards - but you will still subsidize other people's police force." Why? This is an especially open question in areas with large police forces and high crime rates, or histories of police abuse of power. >"You pay taxes to provide a minimum service to all of the community, you can then take advantage of it or not - that's your prerogative." Again, why? What's 'a minimum service to the community'? Do you mean public goods, or services that have positive externalities, or things that help the poor? >"I pay for school taxes, but I don't have kids - should I get my money back?" Maybe! Depends on your beliefs surrounding political authority and ethics. Perhaps you might do better to point to your ethical framework, and highlight what it means with respect to municipal fiber.
- FactolSarin 5y ago
  Public Schools aren't just benefiting people with kids. It benefits society (a society you and OP are members of). Getting rid of schools is like getting rid of the military. Maybe you feel like you don't personally benefit from it and you want your taxes back, but that's not how it works. Not should it. An ideal government functions to help the people not individual persons.
  - nickff 5y ago
    >”Getting rid of schools is like getting rid of the military.” I see national defense and public schools as very different. Defense is a non-excludable, fixed cost, so-called ‘public good’. Primary and secondary education are not public goods, though they may be long-term investments (which defense is not). I am not saying that I ‘like’ or ‘dislike’ either, but they’re very different. >”An ideal government functions to help the people not individual persons.” I’ve never heard this argument before, could you please elaborate, or point to a good source for your “ideal government” ethical framework?
    - 8note 5y ago
      Defense seems very excludable. If I've got a gun, I'm doing the defense by myself. No need to pay for aircraft carriers in the middle of the unpopulated ocean
- zarzavat 5y ago
  There exist many countries where you do need armed guards. I've never once heard someone from one of those countries express the viewpoint that it is a desirable state of affairs. Ironically a functioning police service is a necessary condition for far-libertarianism to exist. It is a self extinguishing ideology.

Spivak 5y ago

This line of reasoning could be used to justify government expansion into literally any market. Given that most people don’t want government providing services in every market there has to be some other factor that limits the scope which is where the disagreement lives. Government mediating equal access to last mile lines and funding their construction — probably good to everyone. Government running consumer ISPs end-to-end is a tougher sell.

8note 5y ago
Having a government provided baseline for all markets sounds great. Private business should justify itself by doing better and ensuring nobody wants the public version -- which also ensures the public version stays cheap. [Expensive per unit, but inexpensive overall]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

nickff 5y ago

I understand you're trying to use examples that seem clear to you, but you're begging more questions than you answer: >" You can get you own armed guards - but you will still subsidize other people's police force." Why? This is an especially open question in areas with large police forces and high crime rates, or histories of police abuse of power. >"You pay taxes to provide a minimum service to all of the community, you can then take advantage of it or not - that's your prerogative." Again, why? What's 'a minimum service to the community'? Do you mean public goods, or services that have positive externalities, or things that help the poor? >"I pay for school taxes, but I don't have kids - should I get my money back?" Maybe! Depends on your beliefs surrounding political authority and ethics. Perhaps you might do better to point to your ethical framework, and highlight what it means with respect to municipal fiber.

FactolSarin 5y ago
Public Schools aren't just benefiting people with kids. It benefits society (a society you and OP are members of). Getting rid of schools is like getting rid of the military. Maybe you feel like you don't personally benefit from it and you want your taxes back, but that's not how it works. Not should it. An ideal government functions to help the people not individual persons.
- nickff 5y ago
  >”Getting rid of schools is like getting rid of the military.” I see national defense and public schools as very different. Defense is a non-excludable, fixed cost, so-called ‘public good’. Primary and secondary education are not public goods, though they may be long-term investments (which defense is not). I am not saying that I ‘like’ or ‘dislike’ either, but they’re very different. >”An ideal government functions to help the people not individual persons.” I’ve never heard this argument before, could you please elaborate, or point to a good source for your “ideal government” ethical framework?
  - 8note 5y ago
    Defense seems very excludable. If I've got a gun, I'm doing the defense by myself. No need to pay for aircraft carriers in the middle of the unpopulated ocean
zarzavat 5y ago
There exist many countries where you do need armed guards. I've never once heard someone from one of those countries express the viewpoint that it is a desirable state of affairs. Ironically a functioning police service is a necessary condition for far-libertarianism to exist. It is a self extinguishing ideology.