Why I'm Not 100% Libertarian Anymore

[stevepaa]

Originally posted by snowman
Taxes are fine with me, its just I do not owe you or anyone else ANYTHING in return for your largess.

I am confused by this. Am I somehow expecting something from you other than participation by taxation?

[stevepaa]

Originally posted by fastpat

Taxes are theft, plain and simple. You want things, and have gathered together with enough others that want free or low (to them) cost things and have authorized men with guns to take property from those that have it and buy the things you don't want to pay for.

You're a thief.

Uh NO. I pay taxes because I agree with that method as by default everyone in my community. If you don't like the tax method move somewhere with enough like minded people and see how well you do. I am sure that there will be someone in your group who thinks they deserve better service than the rest.

The book was Animal Farm, but you knew that.

[snowman]

I can agree with Pat on a lot of specifics. For example trash collection. Here in SJC we had private trash collection since before time began. It was inexpensive and reliable and optional. There were no problems with trash pick up or people not doing their duty and keeping the place clean and livable. Then the environmental Gestapo got their way. Now trash collection is mandatory, it cost 3 times as much as it did, all trash is now collected in three categories, even though it all ends up in the same place (there was no value in recycling and there is just so much compost a community can use). You DO NOT have the option to do it yourself, which you did before. This is exactly the kind of operation that Pat objects to, and so do I and most other reasonable people. It cannot be easily changed because the commies (democrats running this state) have forced it upon our community. We get absolutely NOTHING for 3 times the money, we are FORCED to do something that we do not want to do and as a community would never do, something that has NO benefit for anyone except the garbage collectors. I guess that makes me look to libertarians for help. Actually just plain Americans would do, Kick the commies out and start over

[stevepaa]

But this is part of the policy that you can no longer incinerate your waste. That's what you could do before and can't do now. Do you want to bring back backyard garbage incineration?

Sounds like you are against forced recycling also. You would prefer voluntary recycling. Then the landfills get filled up sooner because the majority of people will not have the time or inclination to recycle voluntarily. We then use up our resources faster and may become dependent on foreign sources for materials. Seems you want to cut off your nose to spite your face.

[stevepaa]

The answer to your garbage collection issue is to find out exactly why the costs are 3 times higher and why recycling is not a payback as it is for most communities.

[stevepaa]

Pat, I presume that if you were childless, then you would believe you do not need to pay monies/taxes to support local schools.
Bu then as an employer you get the benefit of that childs education and did not pay for it. You are a thief.

[snowman]

Originally posted by stevepaa
But this is part of the policy that you can no longer incinerate your waste. That's what you could do before and can't do now. Do you want to bring back backyard garbage incineration?

Sounds like you are against forced recycling also. You would prefer voluntary recycling. Then the landfills get filled up sooner because the majority of people will not have the time or inclination to recycle voluntarily. We then use up our resources faster and may become dependent on foreign sources for materials. Seems you want to cut off your nose to spite your face.

ALL the trash is going to EXACTLY the same place as it did before. Recycling does NOT pay and consequently they don't do it, we just pay the price for political correctness. As to actual landfill space there is NO shortage and is likely NEVER to be any shortage. There is just to much underutilized land in this country. If you do not beleive this, you have not traveled and are very ignorant. You can see this with your own eyes if you try. This country is VAST and there are VAST VAST places where you could dump whole cities for hundreds of years and not even know they are there.

[fastpat]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by stevepaa
[QUOTE]Originally posted by fastpat

There is no reason that fire protection could not function precisely in the same manner.

Sure there is. Suppose none of my my neighbors in the Oakland hills can afford fire protection, except me. So the fire protection services would only try to protect my house?
So as the firestorm begins, they cannot get to my house because of the danger. My house burns to the ground also. So, does the fire protection agency then have to rebuild my house?

I have no idea what your personal predicament is, but where I live, private fire protection would work extremely well.

I'm sure that you can work out the details of your special situation with your (hypothetical) fire protection company, but in all likelihood, your insurance company would pay, just like mine would.

In fact, insurance companies would be the driving force for adequate fire protection and fire fighting.

[stevepaa]

I guess it is really hard to answer one's questions.

Notice I did not say there would be a shortage of land fill area, just that we would fill them faster. Landfill development costs money, unless you think we should all just be able to go to the edge of town and make our own dump. So fill them faster and your costs go up. And you then have to keep moving the landfills out farther, costing more money in transportation costs.

[stevepaa]

But Pat. This is a situation where I bought fire protection, my neighbors didn't and I got burned. So I would then have the same redress as my neighbors.

Or are you saying that the rates for my fire insurance would be less than my neighbors because I paid for fire protection? I doubt that would be true as they would take into account that my neighbors did not buy the fire service and thus I am a risk.

So how would private police work? They only pursue criminals that rob people who pay for police services? Same for courts and prisons? They only hold those guilty of crimes against people who paid for police, court and prison services?

[snowman]

About the only services that I can see justified for the government are national defense and national roads. National defense is sort of self explanatory. Pat and people who think like he does would be slaves. The roads need the coercive force of emanate domain to be practical. Scary to even have this power in anyone’s hands, but I do not see an alternative. National defense could be voluntary, like it is now, but in the most dire circumstance, involuntary, the alternate being slavery.

Police can easily be privatized, as it actually is for most gated communities and the like. Such protection is actually preferred as public police cannot prevent crime, only react to it.

Fire has been both private and public in the past. Public fire has a reasonable record, but I suspect private is better as you can fire an underperforming force, but with public you are stuck with whatever you get. I think the public force does well because the private force is a real threat to them and they know they need to perform.

I think taxes are not needed. You pay for fire and police. If you do not and as a consequence others are affected, eg the neighbors house burns down because you did not have fire protection, you have to pay, with all your assets at risk.

For roads we started out with gas tax. They financed the roads and work quite well, but in CA the gov is now taking the money for the general fund and not building roads. Now they want toll roads and to collect the gas tax. Can't trust a politician can you. All private roads would fix this problem. Only gov for the taking of the routes would be required. No one has a RIGHT to use roads, no where in our constitution.

[stevepaa]

Originally posted by snowman
I think taxes are not needed. You pay for fire and police. If you do not and as a consequence others are affected, eg the neighbors house burns down because you did not have fire protection, you have to pay, with all your assets at risk.

I buy fire fighting service, but the fire is so intense it burns my neighbor's house down also. So that is no fault fire service right? Even if my house is $500K and his is $5Mill? We both handle our own losses?


Better yet, my house is not covered but the two around me are and it is the neighbor's house on my right which has a fire, and paid fire service, but it burns down and starts my house on fire which causes the next neighbor's house to burn down. So I have to pay for the loss of the third house?

[snowman]

Situation is exactly the same as it is with public fire protection, your insurance company or you pay.

[stevepaa]

You just before said that I would have to pay because I did not pay for fire fighting service on my house and it caused my neighbor's to burn down. So if the fire starts at a house that did pay for fire fighter service and burns down everyone else's home we all go to the insurance like now.
What about fire starting by act of nature on public land, or is there no longer any public land?

So what about the police question?

[fastpat]

Originally posted by stevepaa

Uh NO. I pay taxes because I agree with that method as by default everyone in my community.

That you agree with the coercive state isn't relevant to the fact it's based on the threat of state violence. Further, just because you and many others have formed what amounts to a criminal gang to collect and distribute your loot to provide services does not lessen the fact that it's theft.

If you don't like the theft (corrected-PAH) method move somewhere with enough like minded people and see how well you do. I am sure that there will be someone in your group who thinks they deserve better service than the rest.

The book was Animal Farm, but you knew that.

Animal Farm was a novel that describes the communist state; and to a lesser degree, the fascist state you now advocate. It in no way is a book about libertarianism, or anyone who advocates libertarianism. What made you think otherwise?

[fastpat]

Originally posted by stevepaa
I buy fire fighting service, but the fire is so intense it burns my neighbor's house down also. So that is no fault fire service right? Even if my house is $500K and his is $5Mill? We both handle our own losses?


Better yet, my house is not covered but the two around me are and it is the neighbor's house on my right which has a fire, and paid fire service, but it burns down and starts my house on fire which causes the next neighbor's house to burn down. So I have to pay for the loss of the third house?

Bogged down in the details, eh?

Why don't you tell us how it works right now, and how much different it would be if private fire fighting services were the norm, rather than cutsey scenarios designed to show the coercive state has merit?

[fastpat]

Originally posted by stevepaa
I guess it is really hard to answer one's questions.

Notice I did not say there would be a shortage of land fill area, just that we would fill them faster. Landfill development costs money, unless you think we should all just be able to go to the edge of town and make our own dump. So fill them faster and your costs go up. And you then have to keep moving the landfills out farther, costing more money in transportation costs.

The cost is incuded with my garbage sdervice. What is it about voluntary arrangements that work don't you understand?

What is it that makes you desire the coercive state so aggressively?

Is it that you like the ability to use force against others?

[fastpat]

Originally posted by stevepaa
But Pat. This is a situation where I bought fire protection, my neighbors didn't and I got burned. So I would then have the same redress as my neighbors.

Or are you saying that the rates for my fire insurance would be less than my neighbors because I paid for fire protection? I doubt that would be true as they would take into account that my neighbors did not buy the fire service and thus I am a risk.

So how would private police work? They only pursue criminals that rob people who pay for police services? Same for courts and prisons? They only hold those guilty of crimes against people who paid for police, court and prison services?

You want me to design you a world in which you can stop your thievery?

It 's llike the armed bank robber who says to me, I'll stop if you give me a job wherein I only work 2-3 days a month and earn $200,000.00 per year.

Neither action is going to happen.

You will have to stop your theft, and you will have to figure out how to manage your life without the income from that theft. I, and everyone else, have no obligation to you to figure that out for you.

[stevepaa]

Originally posted by fastpat
The cost is incuded with my garbage sdervice. What is it about voluntary arrangements that work don't you understand?

What is it that makes you desire the coercive state so aggressively?

Is it that you like the ability to use force against others?

Well, show me a voluntary situation that works. If 90% of the community pays for garbage service. The 10% will dump wherever thay can. So who pays for that cleanup?

It is in the details where your system fails. But I guess this is not a failure since you only are concerned about yourself to start with. If the garbage did not get dumped on your land, you don't care. So there could not be any public land in this scenario.

[stevepaa]

Originally posted by fastpat
You will have to stop your theft, and you will have to figure out how to manage your life without the income from that theft. I, and everyone else, have no obligation to you to figure that out for you.

So it really is completely up to the individual. A gang gets together to start robbing eveyone and killing people, like war, and you would have everyone only fight when they came to your own door.