4 ms·

(on libertrarians) House cats. They are convinced of their fierce independence while utterly dependent on a system they don't appeciate or understand. -- John

by sofixa 3y ago

(on libertrarians) House cats. They are convinced of their fierce independence while utterly dependent on a system they don't appeciate or understand. -- John Spaulding

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
Cats are quite capable of subsisting on squirrels and birds. But if you put cat food on a plate, they do what's easier. The question is, does "free" stuff justify its true cost? How many people would willingly pay the amount they currently pay to Raytheon or upper middle class retirees with plenty of savings, if they actually had a choice?
- Retric 3y ago
  Spending isn’t just individual choices it’s a tradeoff. I can guarantee you want a lot of government spending that I would be happy to cut. If I argue for canceling all weather satellite funding you can bet many would object and so it goes. I personally think the CIA, NSA etc are a waste of funds let’s slash funding by 90% and see what happens. But that doesn’t mean everyone else agrees with what I think is worth funding.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    But that's kind of the point, isn't it? If all the people who want GPS didn't have to pay for bridges they don't want (and war machines and corporate welfare) then they'd have enough money to pay for GPS even if they were the only ones paying, and vice versa. You can still have GPS and bridges because they each have a set of people who value them at more than their cost. Whereas if the only people who want corn subsidies are the people receiving them and not the people paying for them, you wouldn't have them anymore.
    - Retric 3y ago
      It’s a more complicated problem because if you get rid of say prisons and the police you don’t get groups of individuals privately funding such things. It’s a free rider problem where as can be demonstrated around the world the only known solution is collective taxation. If you want GPS and are happy to pay for it then why should I pay if I can get it for free without paying? With GPS the idea of encrypting the data might work, but that doesn’t work for say vaccination were public safety results from individual choices.
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        Governments don't actually solve the free rider problem though. Taxpayers in the US pay for GPS and then everybody gets it all over the world; why should they pay anything when they can get it for free? The same goes for vaccine research and things like that; once it exists everybody gets it even if only one country was to pay for it. But it still works because people can see that they're better off funding something that benefits them even if it also benefits someone who didn't pay, and so it is whether it's a government or not. Now, sometimes a government might be more efficient at these things. Having people pay for GPS might be one way to get it, but then you have to collect money from everyone, which has administrative costs, and people who can't afford it can't use it even though there is no incremental cost in providing it to them. But when you weigh that against the colossal amount of waste and violence governments commit in the process, the math doesn't look good. And you can get the same level of efficiency from a nonprofit that provides the service for free to the public, if the public wants it enough to donate to it. Which people would have more money to do if they weren't paying taxes to fund the maintenance of empty government buildings etc.
        Retric 3y ago
        People outside the US using GPS isn’t a free rider problem, that use is at the mercy of the US government which is inherently valuable. Do you think the US would vote for or against the UN to making a global competitor?
        AnthonyMouse 3y ago

by sofixa 3y ago

(on libertrarians) House cats. They are convinced of their fierce independence while utterly dependent on a system they don't appeciate or understand. -- John Spaulding

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

Cats are quite capable of subsisting on squirrels and birds. But if you put cat food on a plate, they do what's easier. The question is, does "free" stuff justify its true cost? How many people would willingly pay the amount they currently pay to Raytheon or upper middle class retirees with plenty of savings, if they actually had a choice?

Retric 3y ago
Spending isn’t just individual choices it’s a tradeoff. I can guarantee you want a lot of government spending that I would be happy to cut. If I argue for canceling all weather satellite funding you can bet many would object and so it goes. I personally think the CIA, NSA etc are a waste of funds let’s slash funding by 90% and see what happens. But that doesn’t mean everyone else agrees with what I think is worth funding.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  But that's kind of the point, isn't it? If all the people who want GPS didn't have to pay for bridges they don't want (and war machines and corporate welfare) then they'd have enough money to pay for GPS even if they were the only ones paying, and vice versa. You can still have GPS and bridges because they each have a set of people who value them at more than their cost. Whereas if the only people who want corn subsidies are the people receiving them and not the people paying for them, you wouldn't have them anymore.
  - Retric 3y ago
    It’s a more complicated problem because if you get rid of say prisons and the police you don’t get groups of individuals privately funding such things. It’s a free rider problem where as can be demonstrated around the world the only known solution is collective taxation. If you want GPS and are happy to pay for it then why should I pay if I can get it for free without paying? With GPS the idea of encrypting the data might work, but that doesn’t work for say vaccination were public safety results from individual choices.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      Governments don't actually solve the free rider problem though. Taxpayers in the US pay for GPS and then everybody gets it all over the world; why should they pay anything when they can get it for free? The same goes for vaccine research and things like that; once it exists everybody gets it even if only one country was to pay for it. But it still works because people can see that they're better off funding something that benefits them even if it also benefits someone who didn't pay, and so it is whether it's a government or not. Now, sometimes a government might be more efficient at these things. Having people pay for GPS might be one way to get it, but then you have to collect money from everyone, which has administrative costs, and people who can't afford it can't use it even though there is no incremental cost in providing it to them. But when you weigh that against the colossal amount of waste and violence governments commit in the process, the math doesn't look good. And you can get the same level of efficiency from a nonprofit that provides the service for free to the public, if the public wants it enough to donate to it. Which people would have more money to do if they weren't paying taxes to fund the maintenance of empty government buildings etc.
      - Retric 3y ago
        People outside the US using GPS isn’t a free rider problem, that use is at the mercy of the US government which is inherently valuable. Do you think the US would vote for or against the UN to making a global competitor?
        AnthonyMouse 3y ago