Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!cca!ima!inmet!nrh From: nrh@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Re: gunpoint Message-ID: <1717@inmet.UUCP> Date: Sun, 14-Oct-84 00:50:24 EDT Article-I.D.: inmet.1717 Posted: Sun Oct 14 00:50:24 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 10-Oct-84 05:35:41 EDT Lines: 114 Nf-ID: #R:gloria:-54200:inmet:7800141:000:5676 Nf-From: inmet!nrh Oct 6 13:04:00 1984 >***** inmet:net.politics / ucbcad!faustus / 10:45 am Oct 4, 1984 >Look, I'm sick of hearing knee-jerk libertarians refer to everything that >the government does as 'extortion'. Not everything the government does is extortion. Some of its activities are quite beneficent. The problem is that those activities, unless funded entirely by fees, are paid for by money taken by force. >If you are responsible, and pay for >what the government does for you, it's not extortion or theft, it's just >paying for what you use. Fine. Libertarians would (in general) be the last to insist that anybody give them something they had not paid for. >For people who feel as though their political >beliefs entitle them to a free ride (by not paying taxes), threat of force >is necessary. HOLD IT RIGHT THERE! Are you implying libertarians do this? Are you saying that anyone who does this wants a free ride? If so, you're out of line. Jim Lewis, the Libertarian candidate for US Vice President, has not paid federal income tax for 3 years (this was his answer to a NY talk show host's question about what impact his philosophy has had on his own life. HE DOES IT FOR MORAL AND LEGAL REASONS, NOT BECAUSE HE WANTS A FREE RIDE. >Sure, it's 'tacky', but it's pretty tacky to use roads and >public facilities that OTHER PEOPLE pay for, and take advantage of the >military protection and police protection that they have no right to, >while all the time whining that they don't want to pay for it. You're blurring the distinction between people who pay taxes and complain that they're too high and people who DON'T pay taxes. Watch your implications, buddy. I sure wouldn't mind paying for the roads and stuff that I use, but this is not an option. Why? Because your tax dollars and mine go to fund an inefficient way of building roads. If there WERE no public roads, there would be private ones. If there were only a few public roads, there would be private ones elsewhere. I am told that the majority of the road system in New England before 1850 was private, and one still finds toll bridges here and there. Leaving roads and defense aside, what does the federal government do with your taxes? Of course, you pay for these even if you don't "use" them: Dairy farm price supports, Tobacco price supports (and ongoing cancer/cigarette research), covert aid to various South American factions, Social Security (arguably the world's largest ponzi scheme), enforcement of gambling, prostitution, and drug abuse laws (about half of all law-enforcement money is spent enforcing victimless crimes, such as these), control of the national air-traffic-control system (better done privately), attempts to regulate what may be said in private newspapers (SEC attempts to make journals about the Stock Market "register" with them, and has, one at a time prosecuted those who refused), regulation of the following industries: railroads; interstate trucking; television (though less now); drug production; automobiles (try buying a Citroen or a Japanese car); mail (it is ILLEGAL to run your own mail system for first-class (letter) mail); medical care. >If you >don't want to pay taxes, go and live in the mountains and declare yourself >open to anybody who wants to come and kill you (you didn't want to pay for >police...). I don't have to go to the mountains. Any reasonable ghetto will do fine, if I want inadequate police protection -- paid for by taxation. As for going into the mountains, I'd do it in a minute, were I not convinced the IRS would still come calling (not to mention the state government, and the county....) >Just don't take advantage of MY responsible views towards >paying my fair share. Crowing about how responsible you are, and not even questioning how worthwhile the cause is that you're championing (government action) doesn't strike me as all that responsible. Feel free to pay your fair share, but look over the list above, and ask yourself: how much of "dairy farm supports", or whatever, is my fair share? Should I even be billed for part of it? Should I be forced to pay for any of it? Isn't it TACKY to threaten me with imprisonment so that some schools can have "free lunches"? Look, my argument is NOT that schools should not serve lunch, or that little old ladies should freeze in winter -- my argument is that government (when it does any good at all) does it very inefficiently compared to what private charities would do. As for the non-charitable activities, such as building roads, and running mail, I suggest that people do a little historical probing -- roadbuilding need not be a government activity (and before you rag me about how private roads would result in toll booths everywhere, try traveling on the NY state throughway, and then tell me how public roads are better). I've yet to see a coherent argument about why we need a public post office. The most loudly stated one seems to be based on votes: the postal lobby is strong, and Rural Free Delivery wouldn't happen if it weren't a US-run thing. Such bushwah! *I* am paying for Rural Free Delivery, and you tell me not to protest. *I* am paying for the honor of paying higher prices for milk, and you imply that I'm irresponsible. *I* am paying for the enforcement (by violence) of laws that strike me as moralistic, useless, expensive, and corrupting, and you ask me not to "whine". Don't you understand? I don't want to tax you to accomplish my goals. I'd willingly forgo public roads, public libraries, and the rest, were they not implemented in such a way as to destroy any private alternatives.