User taxation: Don't give me . - #91745747 added by douthit at You must specify a title.

#6 - douthit

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(05/08/2013) [-]

For most people it's so they don't get their home broken into, their car stolen, get kidnapped, and thrown in a cage. Taxation is simply legalized theft.

#31 to #6 - srskate

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(05/09/2013) [-]

Taxes are payment for a product, that is, unless you don't like roads, hospitals, schools, police officers, fire departments, laws, and not speaking german.

#32 to #31 - douthit

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(05/09/2013) [-]

It's no different than if I forced you to buy something, which you might not agree to. And that thing you're buying is way overpriced and low quality.

#33 to #32 - srskate

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(05/09/2013) [-]

>overpriced
>low quality
couldn't be farther from the truth, my friend
and actually, it is incredibly different. You've basically agreed to the terms and conditions by living in the united states. If you don't like it, you are free to leave, (something that differs us from North Korea).

As for overpriced and low quality, have you seen the roads in goddamn russia? Friggen death trap. Our highways are paved with gold compared to theirs.

#34 to #33 - douthit

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(05/09/2013) [-]

The old social contract response. No, I didn't sign anything, and neither did anyone I've ever met. I can't justly enter you into debt against your will because you live in the house you do, or the neighborhood.

#37 to #34 - srskate

Reply -1 123456789123345869

(05/09/2013) [-]

So you are familiar with the social contract.

If so, why are we having this argument?
The natural state sucks. That's why governments evolved.
And you've agreed to the contract as long as you use the services government provides.
If you don't want to live by the social contract, then you should stop reaping its benefits, unless you have an alternative.

Side note: You are currently using the internet while complaining about Government.
The internet came into being because of the government.
appreciate the irony.

#54 to #37 - douthit

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(05/09/2013) [-]

I know about the so-called social contract, but don't agree with it. People using government-provided services are more or less obligated to use them, because they have reduced income to purchase or use private means because of income taken through taxation, because of the artificially-high prices of private goods because of government subsidization, or because government is the only game in town in a given field.

#55 to #54 - srskate

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(05/09/2013) [-]

You use a government provided service every time you drive to work.
You could try to off road it if you'd like.

#57 to #55 - douthit

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(05/09/2013) [-]

See my three reasons given above.

#62 to #57 - srskate

Reply -1 123456789123345869

(05/09/2013) [-]

Irrelevant

You aren't obligated to use the roads, they are just useful. Thats why we made them, for the common good.
Your reduced income ain't got **** to do with the roads
There is no such thing as a private road, because they wouldn't be feasible without the government. Same thing with railroads, check your history on that one
The government is the only game in town because its the only one who can play. Nothing else matches up, and I honestly trust the government more than companies. I don't need EA giving me **** about how some roads are DLC only.

#66 to #62 - douthit

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(05/09/2013) [-]

We are obligated to use government roads, for the most part. Government generally disallows the building of private roads, and there are few "private" ones in the US. People are prevented from using private roads. However, private roads are certainly possible, although not in our current situation.

But all this is moot when you consider that roads, as well as everything else government does, is funded through the initiation of force, carried out through taxation and enforced through the police. There are more moral options to build roads.

#70 to #66 - srskate

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(05/09/2013) [-]

> funded through the initiation of force

when it comes down to it, everything is.

#71 to #70 - douthit

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(05/09/2013) [-]

Not at all. We should seek voluntary means of doing things, and not resort to beginning the use of violence against others. We each do it all the time, but then turn right around and endow a monolithic government with the right to a monopoly on the use of force. For example, when was the last time you initiated violence against someone to get a date? Or a job? Voluntary cooperation is much better and more moral.

#76 to #71 - srskate

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(05/09/2013) [-]

Voluntary cooperation works great, until you run into assholes.

You always run into assholes. It's genetically favorable to be an asshole. It's why we don't have anarchy. Government can somewhat be simplified to asshole control.

A point I should concede, government is not without its corruption. I would say a better use of time, as compared to privatizing everything, would be to remove government corruption.

#95 to #76 - douthit

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(05/09/2013) [-]

There are sociological ways to deal with assholes. We do it all the time and without even thinking about it. We generally ostracize jerks and those who don't adhere to social norms. It's the reason when you're sitting on a bus with a bunch of strangers, everyone sits in silently agreed-upon silence, and why nobody starts barking or licking the seats. Everyone would provide positive punishment (to use a psychological term) in the form of frowns, ignoring them, and not wanting to associate with them. No government needed, and we don't have to start an episode of violence against them to do it.

#100 to #95 - srskate

Reply +1 123456789123345869

(05/09/2013) [-]

Well in conclusion: Have a good night, sir. It's been a fun debate.

#63 to #62 - srskate

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(05/09/2013) [-]

You still haven't provided an alternative to the system we use, by the way.

#67 to #63 - douthit

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(05/09/2013) [-]

A system of roads funded and built privately.

#69 to #67 - srskate

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(05/09/2013) [-]

Not feasible, either you'd need to get a bunch of companies to work together while ensuring they do not form a monopoly (impossible), or you have one company running it and then negative things ensue.

This is ignoring the high costs of such a thing.

As for additionaly reasons why it isn't as good as a standard government run one, check here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport#Early_railroads_in_the_US
As to why government aid is needed:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Railroad_Act

#72 to #69 - douthit

Reply +1 123456789123345869

(05/09/2013) [-]

I don't understand why we should fear a possible future monopoly by companies, when we already have a nationwide monopoly in the form of government.

And again, at the moment private roads would only be expensive because government subsidizes 99% of all roads, much like public education. If roads and schools were all privatized, costs would plummet, quality would skyrocket, and it would be much more moral because they wouldn't be funded through initiating violence in the form of taxation.

#74 to #72 - srskate

Reply -2 123456789123345869

(05/09/2013) [-]

I'm growing weary, so I figure we'll close it up with a few last points
Govenment is by the people for the people etc. It gets its power from us, thats why its allowed a monopoly. Its a sort of Unitarian thing, where it benefits the majority. Thats why the majority enjoys it.

Without subsidies etc etc, roads are still ******* expensive. They require a lot of work, a lot of maintainence after the initial work, and a lot of materials. Therefore the companies would have to charge a lot. (or, in the case of a monopoly, whatever they want)

As for privatizing everything, that barely even works in theory. Private schools mean individuals must pay for everything, and not everyone can, nor would everyone be willing to. Then we end up with a situation as described in the content. It ends up as a vicious cycle.

You still maintain the illusion that taxation is violent. My counter-argument to that is, no it isn't. No one has ever been shot in the knee because they didn't pay taxes. They have been arrested for technically committing theft.

Prices don't just magically go down after being privatized, either. Materials are expensive, moving them is expensive, and now there are a lot more middle men.

Last point, if everything is private, who regulates the companies?