5 ms·

By the same logic, if you every drive or walk or bike on a road or sidewalk, you are taking what does not belong to you. If you ever eat food that is healthy a

By the same logic, if you every drive or walk or bike on a road or sidewalk, you are taking what does not belong to you. If you ever eat food that is healthy and nutritious because the government has tested and regulated food production, you are taking what doesn't belong to you. If you live in your home safe and secure from crime . . . Taxes pay for basic infrastructure, defense, education, and regulation. These things that taxes pay for are good for us and you use them every day. You want them for free apparently. Do you seriously think you would be better off having to procure all those benefits yourself as an individual?

germandiago 5y ago
there are things we pay and maybe I would pay that are good for all of us. There are also things I would pay for even if my neighbour cannot and would let them use them or even consider it common property, as it is today. What I do not want is a fully coactive, unjust system with artificial regulations and countless state monopolies on top of me. I do not think spoiling half of the effort to someone is a promising proposition or that it is what it takes to sustain this. Needless to say, I am against welfare in a setup where it must be paid with debt. This is not what a responsible person does at home, why they can do it with taxes? Who told you I need the government to not eat poison? This is so absurd. They have a chain of responsibility to do that today, maybe, but you could have certifications also, without any government intervention. Do you think people manufacturing the products you buy are interested in poisoning you? Would they do it? They would lose all their customers, their reputation would be damaged... no, I do not see it. You think because the government is not there people do not care anymore whether they eat poison or not? Seriously? There is a clear demand for someone saying: this is safe food. It does not need to be the government. It just happens it is them who do it today. This is like saying people would not want schools if the government does not pay for them or hospitals. It is totally absurd. Things exist because people value them. And many do exist with no value because someone creates artificially from our taxes stuff. There is no more to it. BTW, security, this is something many of you do not get either: you are safe because people around you have a mindset of respecting others, mainly and above everything else. That is why there are districts where you can go 2:00 a.m. safe and you know nothing will happen to you and some you would not go even at 20:00 p.m. a normal day! It has nothing to do with the police, or to a very little extent. You cannot have a police after each person. If someone takes out a gun and shoots you it will happen anyway. If the police gave you unconditional security then that could not happen. On the other side, if you go to a prison, you have state workers every few meters. Is it any safer that good districts that are police-free? No way!! They are not. There are people passing drugs and violence, more so than anywhere else. Security comes first, and foremost, by what people are willing to respect or not, and later, there are outliers, yes, but this is not at all all the story.
- MAGZine 5y ago
  If you do not see it, you are blind. The food you ate this week--where did it come from? Which pesticides were used in it's production? Was the product adulterated (see: honey)? Do you know the list of food additives the FDA has banned, and do you look for their inclusion on labels? Because someone in the government does, for your protection. So you don't have to. But you would! Where was the "and then they'll be ruined and they'll never make another red cent," attitude when we received toys with lead paint? Never mind obvious malintent, what about products that have been unintentionally but irresponsibly handled--a e. coli or listeria outbreak? Lots of people who have perfectly good intentions can still kill people. My question is, why are you so against a government agency (i.e. the people) from taking care of this matter? You get a lot of services at cost. It's cheaper, and there is no weird incentive structure where "well, we could let this product that doesn't make standard, because the ratings company stands to make a lot of money if goes through." Remember fannie mae AAA rating junk mortgage bonds because if they didn't, their competitors would? At least their industry was financial instruments and not food. We've strayed too far from the topic, though. Calling taxation theft while reaping the benefits is hypocritical at best. And saying "well, some taxation is ok, but partially removing the QSBS break is theft," comes across as disingenuous. Who's to say your QSBS break didn't fund a school or the FDA or a sidewalk?
- Jochim 5y ago
  > Do you think people manufacturing the products you buy are interested in poisoning you? Would they do it? They would lose all their customers, their reputation would be damaged... no, I do not see it. There's a long history of businesses adulterating their products in order to increase profit. One of the most infamous being the Chinese infant formula scandal[0]. It seems incredibly naive to think that these regulations haven't been paid for in human lives. The main reason for having the government take responsibility for certain things is that they should be available to everyone in society. Roads and schools are a great examples of this in practice. Also, who wants to live a world where you constantly have to figure out if something is safe to fucking eat. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chinese_milk_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chinese_milk_scandal
  - 5y ago
germandiago 5y ago
btw about sidewalks, etc. and public areas. They belong to all of us, we paid them through taxes. It is called common property. (Propiedad comunal en español, mi lengua nativa)

germandiago 5y ago

there are things we pay and maybe I would pay that are good for all of us. There are also things I would pay for even if my neighbour cannot and would let them use them or even consider it common property, as it is today. What I do not want is a fully coactive, unjust system with artificial regulations and countless state monopolies on top of me. I do not think spoiling half of the effort to someone is a promising proposition or that it is what it takes to sustain this. Needless to say, I am against welfare in a setup where it must be paid with debt. This is not what a responsible person does at home, why they can do it with taxes? Who told you I need the government to not eat poison? This is so absurd. They have a chain of responsibility to do that today, maybe, but you could have certifications also, without any government intervention. Do you think people manufacturing the products you buy are interested in poisoning you? Would they do it? They would lose all their customers, their reputation would be damaged... no, I do not see it. You think because the government is not there people do not care anymore whether they eat poison or not? Seriously? There is a clear demand for someone saying: this is safe food. It does not need to be the government. It just happens it is them who do it today. This is like saying people would not want schools if the government does not pay for them or hospitals. It is totally absurd. Things exist because people value them. And many do exist with no value because someone creates artificially from our taxes stuff. There is no more to it. BTW, security, this is something many of you do not get either: you are safe because people around you have a mindset of respecting others, mainly and above everything else. That is why there are districts where you can go 2:00 a.m. safe and you know nothing will happen to you and some you would not go even at 20:00 p.m. a normal day! It has nothing to do with the police, or to a very little extent. You cannot have a police after each person. If someone takes out a gun and shoots you it will happen anyway. If the police gave you unconditional security then that could not happen. On the other side, if you go to a prison, you have state workers every few meters. Is it any safer that good districts that are police-free? No way!! They are not. There are people passing drugs and violence, more so than anywhere else. Security comes first, and foremost, by what people are willing to respect or not, and later, there are outliers, yes, but this is not at all all the story.

MAGZine 5y ago
If you do not see it, you are blind. The food you ate this week--where did it come from? Which pesticides were used in it's production? Was the product adulterated (see: honey)? Do you know the list of food additives the FDA has banned, and do you look for their inclusion on labels? Because someone in the government does, for your protection. So you don't have to. But you would! Where was the "and then they'll be ruined and they'll never make another red cent," attitude when we received toys with lead paint? Never mind obvious malintent, what about products that have been unintentionally but irresponsibly handled--a e. coli or listeria outbreak? Lots of people who have perfectly good intentions can still kill people. My question is, why are you so against a government agency (i.e. the people) from taking care of this matter? You get a lot of services at cost. It's cheaper, and there is no weird incentive structure where "well, we could let this product that doesn't make standard, because the ratings company stands to make a lot of money if goes through." Remember fannie mae AAA rating junk mortgage bonds because if they didn't, their competitors would? At least their industry was financial instruments and not food. We've strayed too far from the topic, though. Calling taxation theft while reaping the benefits is hypocritical at best. And saying "well, some taxation is ok, but partially removing the QSBS break is theft," comes across as disingenuous. Who's to say your QSBS break didn't fund a school or the FDA or a sidewalk?
Jochim 5y ago
> Do you think people manufacturing the products you buy are interested in poisoning you? Would they do it? They would lose all their customers, their reputation would be damaged... no, I do not see it. There's a long history of businesses adulterating their products in order to increase profit. One of the most infamous being the Chinese infant formula scandal[0]. It seems incredibly naive to think that these regulations haven't been paid for in human lives. The main reason for having the government take responsibility for certain things is that they should be available to everyone in society. Roads and schools are a great examples of this in practice. Also, who wants to live a world where you constantly have to figure out if something is safe to fucking eat. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chinese_milk_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chinese_milk_scandal
- 5y ago

germandiago 5y ago

btw about sidewalks, etc. and public areas. They belong to all of us, we paid them through taxes. It is called common property. (Propiedad comunal en español, mi lengua nativa)