4 ms·

If I do not drink and drive, why would I pay money to install a system to detect if I drink and drive? I would be throwing money out the window for zero gain.

If I do not drink and drive, why would I pay money to install a system to detect if I drink and drive? I would be throwing money out the window for zero gain. However, I can with zero hypocrisy argue that everyone should have to do this before being allowed on the road, including myself. We can't tell who needs to have these installed, so we have to specify "everybody" for it to be effective. That would cover myself, which is annoying, but I would still gain a benefit from it would decrease my chances of someone else crashing into me while drunk. And, I should not need to tell you this, but what is stopping me from paying higher taxes right now is that that is not a thing you can do. There is no voluntary tax payment.

jakogut 5y ago
A tax is a compulsory fee, so yes, you cannot voluntarily pay more taxes. You can, however, make a gift to the treasury. https://fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to-government.html https://fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to-government.html
LanceH 5y ago
> However, I can with zero hypocrisy argue that everyone should have to do this before being allowed on the road, including myself. We can't tell who needs to have these installed, so we have to specify "everybody" for it to be effective. They have the opportunity to get one person closer to "everybody" but choose not to, so instead they choose to use the government to force people to do this. You argue that the marginal benefit of you doing it on your own is too little for you to do it. Then you propose using force to add up a whole lot of "too littles" to make into something. >If I do not drink and drive, why would I pay money to install a system to detect if I drink and drive? I would be throwing money out the window for zero gain. And they propose to make millions of people waste this money when they don't believe in it enough to do it for themselves.
- user-the-name 5y ago
  > You argue that the marginal benefit of you doing it on your own is too little for you to do it. No, I argue that the benefit is zero, since I do not drive drunk, and the device will prevent exactly zero instances of drunk driving. > And they propose to make millions of people waste this money when they don't believe in it enough to do it for themselves. Please re-read my post. I explained the reasoning there already. The point is that: a) We do not know who needs to have this installed. b) That means the only way for it to be effective is to make everyone install it. c) However, I know that I am not one of those who needs it installed, therefore, there is zero benefit to me installing it on my own. All of this is perfectly non-hypocritical.

jakogut 5y ago

A tax is a compulsory fee, so yes, you cannot voluntarily pay more taxes. You can, however, make a gift to the treasury. https://fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to-government.html https://fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to-government.html

LanceH 5y ago

> However, I can with zero hypocrisy argue that everyone should have to do this before being allowed on the road, including myself. We can't tell who needs to have these installed, so we have to specify "everybody" for it to be effective. They have the opportunity to get one person closer to "everybody" but choose not to, so instead they choose to use the government to force people to do this. You argue that the marginal benefit of you doing it on your own is too little for you to do it. Then you propose using force to add up a whole lot of "too littles" to make into something. >If I do not drink and drive, why would I pay money to install a system to detect if I drink and drive? I would be throwing money out the window for zero gain. And they propose to make millions of people waste this money when they don't believe in it enough to do it for themselves.

user-the-name 5y ago
> You argue that the marginal benefit of you doing it on your own is too little for you to do it. No, I argue that the benefit is zero, since I do not drive drunk, and the device will prevent exactly zero instances of drunk driving. > And they propose to make millions of people waste this money when they don't believe in it enough to do it for themselves. Please re-read my post. I explained the reasoning there already. The point is that: a) We do not know who needs to have this installed. b) That means the only way for it to be effective is to make everyone install it. c) However, I know that I am not one of those who needs it installed, therefore, there is zero benefit to me installing it on my own. All of this is perfectly non-hypocritical.