Should Infrastructure be Politically Controlled?

So all roads are tolled? Heh.

And all the poor people stop grocery shopping because their food stamps don't pay for toll roads.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Taxation is theft,

Taxes are the price you pay for the three amenities the government affords you - infrastructure, social services, and defense.

you learn this in seventh grade

Quote:

Even then, you should understand why these projects cost the government nothing.

You're serious. You're bona-fide serious in that you think the government has unlimited resources.

Your libertarianism is an affected youth reading Mein Kampf in the only non-Starbucks coffee shop in town.

Additional Spam:

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Paying taxes does not involve consent, since the taxes are extracted regardless.

Laws are also non-consentual.

that is so unfair

Originally Posted by Lord Styphon

Like air travel isn't practical for short distances, cycling isn't practical for long distances. It would break someone to ride a bike from their home in the suburbs to work in the city, put in their 8 hours a day, and then ride back home five days a week.

Only in Western countries, where people are fat and lazy. People ride bikes everywhere in China, and I bet those Chinese people that ride to work, work longer days doing more strenuous things than we Americans that sit our fat asses in cubicles and type on computers all day long.

Cycling is practical, but people don't like doing things that require effort. It's very practical in the sense that it costs nothing and it gets you from point A to point B in a substantially shorter amount of time than walking would.

Of course, it's not practical if people absolutely must live 30 miles away from where they work. But the only reason people live that far away is for impractical reasons, like wanting to live in a big house that they don't really need. One impracticality begets another.

In short, the suburbs are making people fat.

Guru: Places like Europe and China are much tighter together than the American suburban communities. The Chinese don't bike 20-60 miles to work.

Originally Posted by Arainach

Guru: Places like Europe and China are much tighter together than the American suburban communities. The Chinese don't bike 20-60 miles to work.

I realize this. Still, nobody is ever really forced to live that far away from where they work. By and large it's a personal decision, and usually one rooted in luxury.

Which is why, obviously, that I think it's OK that if people want to live extravagant, impractical lives (by living in big houses 50 miles away from work), that they shouldn't gripe about being taxed on infrastructure. (To keep with the context of the thread, at least).

Originally Posted by Guru

Which is why, obviously, that I think it's OK that if people want to live extravagant, impractical lives (by living in big houses 50 miles away from work), that they shouldn't gripe about being taxed on infrastructure. (To keep with the context of the thread, at least).

Maybe I missed someone, but I only saw one person here who was griping about being taxed for infrastructure. The people who would be biking in from the suburbs are just those who would be told to suck it up so he doesn't have to pay those taxes.

Styphon: Regardless of whether there aren't real alternatives to the corporation's roads, the corporation must still anticipate and compete with potential alternatives. If the incentives are there, then people will develop alternative forms of transit which do not require the use of roads, such as private rail or cheaper air travel. It's the same reason monopolies are not absolute, since they must constantly compete with upstarts and anticipate new substitute industries.

I think a good solution for the case you pointed out, where the corporation controls all forms of transit, is to seperate each primary form of transit between their own corporations. The problems of shareholder complication is ruled out, since people will gravitate to participate in the corporations concerning their preferred mode of transit.

As Guru points out, cycling is very practical in the immediate area. The reason people drive everywhere in this country is because gas is so cheap. If we remove the subsidies for gas, and people decide to live in closer proximity to their place of work, then the incentives for cycling increase.

Quote:

Taxes are just as much a payment for services rendered as a toll is. Local taxes, for instance, pay for such things as the police and fire departments. They also pay for keeping my bus fares low.

And, to top it all off, the pay for things like public sanitation and the water system, which are useful for disposing of various forms of waste.

It is not about payment, it's about the mode of extraction. Taxes are a form of theft, because they are extracted by force as opposed to consent. Even if people think they do consent to be taxed, they haven't really because there is no way to opt out of the system.

Taxes are bad, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they should be eradicated. It's practical to view taxes as a necessary evil which enables the collectivization of national power so that we're not overrun by the Turks and whatnot. It's key to understand, however, that because they are theft, the government does not experience loss.

Quote:

I already told you, crumbling from the heat and not wide enough.

Sorry, I think I misinterpreted what you were saying. What I would like to know, though, is whether the problem lies in the lack of taxes collected, or the lack of funding to maintenance. Are you voting specifically for taxes which concern road maintenance, or general budgets for transportation?

Quote:

Which is why, obviously, that I think it's OK that if people want to live extravagant, impractical lives (by living in big houses 50 miles away from work), that they shouldn't gripe about being taxed on infrastructure.

For the record, I live within the city limits and have a job which is within cycling distance, but I do not cycle to because doing so would mean that I'd have to ride on the highway.

The issue, though, is not necessarily taxation, but how those funds are distributed.

Quote:

You're serious. You're bona-fide serious in that you think the government has unlimited resources.

No, I'm saying that the government does not lose anything, because it does not create. The resources of a government are only as great as the wealth of its citizens, and its ability to extract that wealth. Because governments do not create wealth, they do not experience financial risk. If you don't gain anything, you have nothing to lose.

Ultimately a government can experience loss, as recessions or overtaxation reduce the general creation of wealth, but governments aren't generally that farsighted.

Quote:

Your libertarianism is an affected youth reading Mein Kampf in the only non-Starbucks coffee shop in town.

Can you stop using ad-hom and start talking to me like a person?

Quote:

Laws are also non-consentual.

Yup, but laws aren't theft. People tolerate laws in the same way they tolerate taxes. So long as laws are considered to be just, the people will tolerate them. So long as taxation isn't excessive, people will tolerate them.

That doesn't counter my point.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

No, I'm saying that the government does not lose anything, because it does not create.

Do you feel that companies who sell services do not create?

Additional Spam:

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Yup, but laws aren't theft.

[...]

That doesn't counter my point.

You said taxes are theft. They are as much theft as laws are.

Quote:

So long as taxation isn't excessive, people will tolerate them.

yeah but the problem with that is that if you think taxes are excessive, you can't just claim they're theft.

Your libertarianism is a six year old who can't understand why mommy won't buy a barbie doll with the grocery money.

No, I do, because companies have to compete to create the wealth which they invest in themselves. The wealth created through services may not be material, (though the end result can be), but that doesn't mean that the service has not generated wealth in one form or another.

A government does not have to compete to acquire the wealth it uses. It doesn't even have to trade for the wealth. Government is ultimately the will of the people, and it is because of that will that the people create highways, armies, and other infrastructure and institutions with government as the middle man. If a government does not represent the will of the people, then it is overthrown.

That's the way government is supposed to work in this country, as power flows from the bottom up instead of top-down.

Edit:

Quote:

You said taxes are theft. They are as much theft as laws are.

You can't be serious. There is no thing of mine that is taken away simply by virtue of there being a law, unless you want to define laws as the "theft of freedom."

Quote:

yeah but the problem with that is that if you think taxes are excessive, you can't just claim they're theft.

Taxes are always theft, regardless of whether or not they are excessive. You're making a big deal over nothing, considering that I've expressly stated that taxes shouldn't be abolished.

Quote:

Your libertarianism is a six year old who can't understand why mommy won't buy a barbie doll with the grocery money.

NO U

Quote:

I've expressly stated that taxes shouldn't be abolished.

But you say that taxes are theft. Theft, by definition, is wrongful. If taxes shouldn't be abolished, they must not be overly wrongful in your eyes.

Given that, why are you insisting that they're theft?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

As Guru points out, cycling is very practical in the immediate area. The reason people drive everywhere in this country is because gas is so cheap. If we remove the subsidies for gas, and people decide to live in closer proximity to their place of work, then the incentives for cycling increase.

I don't think you and Guru understand how impractical it is to say, "Well, everyone, why don't you just live closer to where you work??" What about the janitors and food wokers who are employed in rich parts of town but can't afford living there (and don't say buses, when you increase gas, you decrease their ability to ride buses)? What about the people who work hard to be well off but work in places that aren't close to anywhere but slums (see: people who work in downtown LA)?

I love how the more you branch out in your little Libertarian fantasy island, the more you attempt to completely destroy the entire United States economy.

Because they are by definition theft. It is an injustice, but a necessary one. It'd be nice if we lived in the ideal where the world exists in a state of anarchy, but the reality is that nations and states have established themselves as competing powers.

It's within that context that taxation becomes necessary, and we have to insure that the funds acquired through taxation are used to our benefit. If maintenance of infrastructure loses priority because of the state of politics, then taxes are not being used appropriately.

Quote:

I don't think you and Guru understand how impractical it is to say, "Well, everyone, why don't you just live closer to where you work??"

Yeah, it's going to be impractical for a lot of people, but that doesn't mean that the incentive isn't there, and presents an alternative.

Quote:

(and don't say buses, when you increase gas, you decrease their ability to ride buses)

And by that same virtue it would supposedly be non cost-effective because the harm they do to roads can be equated to headcount. Busses present an affordable alternative to transit because the same amount of gasoline is being used to transport a much larger amount of people. Removing subsidies on oil and gas isn't going to cause the price to double.

Quote:

What about the people who work hard to be well off but work in places that aren't close to anywhere but slums (see: people who work in downtown LA)?

Then their investment in the area raises the general quality of living. If somebody works in LA, there's a good damn chance that they can get to LA without using a car, so it's not as if they necessarily have to live right there, it's only the case if they really want to ride a bicycle.

Or not enough are collected!

You can't just make a blanket statement that maintenance ALWAYS comes before new. That's absurd. What if new things were the priority without political motive, would you care then?

Originally Posted by Guru

Of course, it's not practical if people absolutely must live 30 miles away from where they work. But the only reason people live that far away is for impractical reasons, like wanting to live in a big house that they don't really need. One impracticality begets another.

In short, the suburbs are making people fat.

FYI some people don't live in their city of employment because it's too damn expensive. I'd know because most people commute into San Francisco instead of living in it. And the people who might be able to afford San Francisco want a garage and a safe neighborhood, how selfish of them.

La la, I understand that not everyone has the means or adequate justification to ride their bikes to work. But I still contend that a lot of people who don't, easily could.

Don't read too far into it guys.

Quote:

A government does not have to compete to acquire the wealth it uses.

Brady, you keep saying this. Do you feel that there is one government only? If that is so, can you provide a quick definition of what that government is?