Uncle Sam touched me down there

>>>/pol/

>>2730577

(((pol)))

File: dun tred.png (119KB, 1200x800px)

119KB, 1200x800px

>>2730557
All taxation is theft.

>>2730557
>income tax
>uncle Sam
In the US, it's in our Constitution that income tax is legal, that's how US laws work.
Also if you are a business person and you can't figure out how to make a profit and pay taxes, that's not the government's fault.

>>2730557
wrong

but it is theft, as are all taxes

income tax is especially egregious though

>>2730592
as a fellow libertarian i would argue that taxes used to fund public infrastructure and security services is not theft. all other forms i can agree with though

>>2730640
Dont need. Free market would handle all infrasturcture and security, and maintain both more efficiently than any government ever could.

>>2730640
You can't back up the claim that its not theft.

>>2730640
>give us money or we'll throw you in jail
>not theft

hmmmmmmmmm

>>2730654
>hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

See toll roads.

>>2730697
You already have toll roads in the form of a gas tax. If that tax wasnt in place gas would be much cheaper. You can have unobtrusive toll roads using the same technology we use for creditcards. Toll roads only make sense, as the person maintaining the road needs the resources to do so. The USA govt definitely doesnt properly maintain all its roads, but if it were privatized, all of the above would happen.

>>2730654
so are you saying that "opting in" for infrastructure and security would be sort of like a subscription? i have a hard time visualizing that, but not necessarily opposed to it

>>2730670
i guess my implication was that most people would find the social contract agreeable, but you're right, i can't completely argue that it's not theft

>>2730713

So let me get this straight, privatization of roads will somehow magically fix damaged roads? People for the most part do not have a a choice of where to drive, so you'll end up at the mercy of whatever company owns your local roads. What happens if you drive somewhere and they don't take your "toll tag" or "Card?" Am I going to have to maintain accounts with these companies all over the United States to drive where I want? "Oh sorry sir I had to pull you over you can't drive here until you sign up with our road package."

Government doesn't solve every problem by a long-shot but neither does privatization.

>>2730713
Also you can blame shitty roads on and infrastructure on congress and local government pussy footing around the issue. These things have to be fixed but instead of having the stones to do it they instead approve another pork barrel spending project for their private friends and keep kicking the infrastructure can down the road.

>>2730759
Indeed, as opposed to now where the gov't acts like the mafia, you'd have the choice of protecting yourself or purchasing protection. You'd also have the choice of choosing your roads or not using the roads at all.

>>2730763
In the first case of not choosing where to drive, there are many roads to choose from, you don't have to always go 1 route. And if there really is only 1 route, then somebody would eventually make a new road for all the dissatisfied customers. Obviously the credit card like machines would be manufactured by the same or similar companies right? So what would happen is your credit card would be accepted by all tolls that use that function. Alternatively you can have traditional toll booths which accept any type of monetary compensation.

>>2730791
They have no incentive to keep the roads proper, because they can get rich if they don't. If the roads were privatized then someone would have the incentive to take very good care of their roads lest competition siphon their clientele.

>>2730640

Infrastructure spending is the most corrupt and pork riddled state and federal spending of all things.

It even beats out other government slush funds like military and medicare as a percentage of what is spent versus what is embezzled

>>2730654
Hmmm you know what? Maybe a bunch of smaller groups would conglomerate into a larger entity?
And maybe those groups would offer, protection and roads and you know support
in exchange for a percentage of the labor of the inhabitants? If only we hade some sort of word
for this type of conglomeration... hmmm really made me think

>>2730654
>more efficiently than any government ever could
>then why haven't we already adopted it if that were true?

>>2730843
there's no reason to conglomerate, as everything would be localized. And what you describe is a typical mafia.

>>2730855
Because humans don't like to take responsibility for their actions. See: Welfare, Social Security, Food Stamps, etc.

>>2730809
>You'd also have the choice of choosing your roads or not using the roads at all.
>there are many roads to choose from, you don't have to always go 1 route.
>If the roads were privatized then someone would have the incentive to take very good care of their roads lest competition siphon their clientele.

???

People do not have a choice for the most part of how they get to work. There is a highway that leads to my job or I have to take residential roads adding like 30 minutes to my commute plus the wear and tear of that kind of driving. Where are they going to build new roads? 30 miles outside the city? What a waste of time and land. You're also ignoring the fact that in some cities there is no more room for new roads. What are they going to do?

Your idea is inefficient. Public roads are one of the largest boons to intrastate and interstate commerce. Public transportation in general does, it's not perfect of course. Everything has room for improvement, but your idea is not only impractical and inefficient it would actually harm people and businesses.

>no qt pie conservative African goddess to give my seed

Hnnnnng

>>2730867
How would it harm people? If the fees are too high then the road would lose out on revenue, and they would either have to lower the fees or the road would get bought by another company that does. If they can't get to their jobs due to the high fees then the companies they work for have incentive to raise their wages to compensate. But even if they didn't, its not good for the road maintainer to lower the amount of traffic he gets, because that's potential revenue. The person/group that maintains any particular road has incentive to keep the roads clean, keep them in tip top condition, and allow the most traffic possible.

Please expand your argument, as I'm having difficulty understanding what's difficult about this.

>>2730867
He doesn't understand the actualities of economies of scale and scarcity of resources, that or he's just too deep into the whole the government is inherently wrong ideology that he refuses to admit the massive flaws in fully privatized road services.

>>2730898
>>2730922

>>2730654
Why is the free market somehow always supposedly magically more efficient than the government? There are plenty of cases that demonstrate that is not the case. British trains for starters.

>>2730946
That wasnt free market, that was (((privatisation))) of the railway to people who still took government orders. Dont get the 2 mixed up.

>>2730898
>How would it harm people?
Roads are an inelastic good, people have to use roads to get where they need.This gives your road companies all the more reason to raise prices. Why keep them low when people will have to use these roads to get to "X" place?

>If they can't get to their jobs due to the high fees then the companies they work for have incentive to raise their wages to compensate.

Or they'll find someone closer to the job? Why would they raise wages? This doesn't even make sense.

>The person/group that maintains any particular road has incentive to keep the roads clean, keep them in tip top condition, and allow the most traffic possible.

Why don't you understand what an awful idea is this is?

In your scenario we pay for roads, but we have to pay more to access better roads or we have to drive out of the way to get to X location.

Here's an idea how about we pay it of taxes, have roads they efficiently go where they need instead of paying for useless roads that take up land and we have to pay more for the privilege of going out of the way?

Try to use your brain here. Your idea is economically retarded.

>>2730967
By still took government orders, you mean taxpayer handouts? East Line has been privatised, bankrupt, bailed out, nationalised, privatised again something like 3 times. Every time it's been a disaster.

The trains were seriously better when nationalised. Now half the railway lines are run by foreign companies, which suck all the money out of our country. The punchline? Most of those countries keep their rail nationalised. Total fucking joke.

The magical hand of the free market is exactly that: a myth.

>>2731001
Did you forget that if they raise the prices to ridiculous levels that they lose income because people wouldn't be able to pay? In that scenario they would adapt to lower fees or die off. The maintainers have the incentive to keep the fees lower because of this. If the company cant find anybody closer to the job they have the incentive to raise your wage to meet the higher fee, even though that higher fee would eventually lower given the above. And no, you don't necessarily need roads to get to where you need to go. If the roads are too expensive, that means people dont use them. If people arent using the roads that makes roads obsolete. If people use roads then the fee for those roads will be lower. if you take some backwater road that has no traffic then of course the fee will be higher because the maintainer has less income than the highway maintainer. The highway maintainer would keep an appropriately lower fee proportional to the amount of traffic the highway gets. you get what you pay for

>>2731032
>East Line has been privatised, bankrupt, bailed out, nationalised, privatised again something like 3 times. Every time it's been a disaster.
that's market manipulation my good sir, in an actual free market the shitty company would be replaced by a better company, not get bailed out and nationalized several times. Government meddling always creates lower quality than what a good company would.

>>2731074
>in an actual free market the shitty company would be replaced by a better company

Of course it would. Magic of the invisible hand of the free market and all that.

>Government meddling always creates lower quality than what a good company would.

Or (like the NHS) creates a far better version than any company would make. Of course companies have meddled, and the NHS is the worse for it.

When services benefit the country, they should be nationalised, so making them better benefits the people, not some group of shareholders somewhere who are always going to want to make a profit at the expense of the people using the service.

>>2731074
>And no, you don't necessarily need roads to get to where you need to go

Have you ever driven in your life? For some people there is only one route to get where they need to go. It may not be profitable to even set up funding there but it's a common good to have that road for those people aka rural American. Yea nothing screams freedom like what you're suggesting.

What problem does this solve? Roads are set in place that work, the problem is that their is a party in government who's sole purpose exists to prove how ineffective government is by starving it of resources and then saying it doesn't work, then they contract the services to their friends in the private industry who make a killing.

>>2731115
It's not magical. If the people don't want the shitty service they stop paying for it. If people want the better service they start paying for it. That's all a free market is, but if the people want the shitty company to stay then it will.

>>2731124
You're referring to any and all government my man, as they're all the same in the end. And I will say I may have been too hasty with declaring the need for terranian transportation, I was alluding to the possiblity of mass aerial transportation. Obviously not a reality today, but in the near future maybe not. As for what this solves, it:
-lowers gas prices
-eliminates any infrastructure tax
-leads to higher quality roads
-opens more business opportunities and as such stimulates the economy

I'm not sure why you keep harping on the "theres only one way to get to muh work, so free market is shit because they'd hike the fees or i wouldnt be able to pay cus muh toll card is unreadable". You did take into consideration the possiblity that the companies that rely on the people who use that road would purchase it correct? And that they would have the incentive to keep it properly maintained so their employees could safely arrive at their workplace?

>>2731167
It's funny that you suggest how all this money is saved because we aren't paying taxes but now instead we are paying tolls. Why does my wallet care where it comes from?

>>2731177
It's easily cheaper because you don't pay for everyone, you pay for your own use, and when you consider the amount of traffic the roads you use will get, it will assuredly be quite lower than any amount of tax you pay today.

>>2731167
>it will assuredly be quite lower than any amount of tax you pay today.

Why? There's no reason for the costs to be lowered just because the toll amounts result in an excess.

>>2731182
Bullshit. Go take a toll road sometimes and add that up daily. Then tell me it's cheaper. It's not. You're completely ignoring economies of scale as well.

>>2730843
But you forget retard. THOSE COMPANIES CAN NOT MAKE LAWS OR FORCE YOU TO PAY OR FACE PRISON.

You are so fucking brainwashed. In the current system you work along OR THEY FORCE YOU TO WORK ALONG.

There is no "opt out". You can not say, I opt out of the government system, all the laws and protections it provides.

Even though the consituation provides such a situation "citizen of America" instead of "citizen of the USA" it is thrown out as "contempt of court" even though it is perfectly legal.

>>2731189
>-lowers gas prices
>-eliminates any infrastructure tax
All the maintenance company has to do is, you know, maintain the road in comparison to everything the gov't asks of you, they only ask for compensation for your use.

>>2731193
I'm the one ignoring economies of scale? Why didn't you take into account the higher amount of tolls would equal higher amount of revenue = lower fees? And you also realize that you don't necessarily need to have tolls right, roads would also be maintained by people who live nearby, or for example a marketplace, it could be jointly maintained by the merchants who sell there.

File: 1492555758872.jpg (56KB, 583x435px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 583x435px

>>2730557
>playing taxes
What are you poor?

>>2731208
> higher amount of tolls would equal higher amount of revenue = lower fees

So somehow people are paying more but paying less?

>for example a marketplace, it could be jointly maintained by the merchants who sell there.

So a tax?

>>2731198
Go look up labor disputes at the turn of the century, or how people used to earn money that only worked at the company store.

People still have a say in government, (whether they exerciser it or not is another matter) but I don't have a vote in these private companies. Feel free to go to another country and explain the private citizen thing though, that will go over well.

>>2731232
>So somehow people are paying more but paying less?
>So a tax?

No and no. More customers = lower fees. And it's not a tax because the merchants all opt in to maintain the road that they deem necessary for their business. At any time they could choose not to sell the maintenance rights and stop.

>>2731250
Er, I meant they could choose to not maintain the road, sell the maintenance rights, and stop.

>>2731260
>>2731250
How is this anymore efficient than it is now? So now people have to spend time and energy negotiating maintenance contracts for their roads instead of doing whatever else there are specialized in.

>>2731280
Why would they need to negotiate? They can just hire someone to do it for them. Boom, one more job added to the economy.

>>2731208
>All the maintenance company has to do is, you know, maintain the road in comparison to everything the gov't asks of you, they only ask for compensation for your use.

That is my point.

Why would the company lower their own profits? They aren't interested in breaking even, they are interested in making money. i.e. They want to charge the maximum amount the believe they can get out of people, which is extremely high, because 99.999999% of people do not have the means to just build their own roads instead.

>>2731250
What if the merchants don't want to opt in? Are they going to break up the road in-front of his place and build around it?

>Why would they need to negotiate? They can just hire someone to do it for them.

So now they gotta worry about having a road guy and paying him.

>Boom, one more job added to the economy.

Oh so now it's about jobs? Why not just you know have people employed maintaining our infrastructure out of our shared taxes. Why not just pay people to dig holes and fill them back up if we want to add jobs.

Your idea is INEFFICIENT. Go run your ideas by any company and see if they are intersted in dealing with your logistical nightmare.

>>2730557
Thanks OP for yet another thinly veiled ANCAP thread and muh privatized roads argument.

>>2731300
There's no reason for them to raise the fees to such heights for several reasons.

-They get more money by setting a lower fee and getting more people to travel on their road.
-If they make fees higher people will go to a lower fee road.
-If the people they want to fee stop paying such a fee by using other roads or taking a different route to arrive at their destination then they lose profit.
-As such either they hike the rates up even more to make up for their lost profit, which will make the above happen even more, or they lower the fees in hopes more people use their road.
-If they keep raising the rates eventually nobody will use the road and they'll either go bankrupt or get bought out.

>>2731321
Since you don't seem to realize how this would work let me break it down for you:
Merchant A thinks maintaining the road that he uses for his business would be a good idea, but he isn't sure he has the capital alone to do it. So he approaches Merchant B who thinks similarly and has a similar amount of capital. This continues until they feel they have an appropriate amount of resources to maintain the area they choose. No need for breaking up of any road, they just decided that maintaining their road is profitable for their businesses.

Yes they would have to deal with a road guy, but the process would be similar to how real estate agents work today.

No it's not just about jobs, it's about adding worth to the economy. If the economy would benefit from having a guy dig holes then fill them up then adding the job would be beneficial to the economy.

Taxes are an inefficient allocation of resources, in this scenario the maintainers have the necessary incentives and capital to maintain their infrastructre, whereas any type of government has more incentive to bend and break any and all rules they sign.

>>2731369
>They get more money by setting a lower fee and getting more people to travel on their road.
Everyone is already going to be on their road unless there is an alternative, see me previous post.

>If they make fees higher people will go to a lower fee road.
Assuming there is one. There's also no reason for the two companies to not have an unwritten agreement to overcharge. You can already see this in literally every sector of any economy. Look at internet/phone/cable providers, they massively overcharge, and have a working understanding not to dip prices too low, because the customers don't have anywhere else to go anyway. You can't have 20 highways running from A to B.

>If the people they want to fee stop paying such a fee by using other roads or taking a different route to arrive at their destination then they lose profit.
See the above.

>As such either they hike the rates up even more to make up for their lost profit, which will make the above happen even more, or they lower the fees in hopes more people use their road.
No they just approach the owners of the alternate roads and say "Hey there are only two roads from A to B, so people are going to have to take one of them, let's have a tacit agreement to not drop the fee below X amount, so that we can both have higher profits"

Unless that other owner's response is "No! I hate having more money!" This doesn't work.

>If they keep raising the rates eventually nobody will use the road and they'll either go bankrupt or get bought out.
People have to get to work, and school and the grocery store and the hospital somehow. "I'll just not ever use roads" is not an option.


This is why this system is a complete joke that will never work and just dials up the exploitation of the consumer. If your logic was valid, it would be reflected in the prices of goods and services, which should all be low due to competition, but they are exorbitantly high across the board.

>>2731434
You do understand what would happen when somebody creates a service and starts charging for it at a lower rate than it currently is don't you?

And no you may not have 20 highways, but you can always just drive on a dirt road, or use a bus, or maybe use a bicycle or walk, or maybe you could use a taxi! You don't only have to drive there using your own vehicle.

>>2731454
A quick google search showed that the average household pays around $600 dollars in taxes for roads. I paid nearly $10 dollars in just a day driving through Austin the last time I was there using toll roads. You do the math.

>And no you may not have 20 highways, but you can always just drive on a dirt road, or use a bus, or maybe use a bicycle or walk, or maybe you could use a taxi! You don't only have to drive there using your own vehicle.

Boy that sounds super efficient for a modern economy.

>>2731479
>Seriously implying that modern economies are efficient in any way shape or form at anything except making themselves richer

There are multiple layers to this. You may have paid 10$ for a day of driving around, but in such a society you would have a signifigant amount of more capital at your disposal so that fee would be lower percentage wise compared to what it is now. This is also dependant on the roads you chose. If you chose an inefficient route and ended up paying that much then that's on you not the tollers. It's also dependant on the amount of people that actually use the roads like I said earlier, and the roads might not actually have a toll because the owner of that road doesnt care about it, or he maintains it as a hobby. In such a society not only would maintenance companies be interested in owning any specific road, and that means lots of competition, which means the company that does end up owning the road would act in such a way that beats the competition.
For your austin example, someone could just make new roads that are far cheaper than the tolls you went to, and he'd get more traffic due to the lower price, which would starve the other roads, making them lower their fees.

>>2730557
It's not but it's wrong.

If you were taxed 100% of your income it would be clear to everyone that you're a slave regardless of what you received in return. Today's western democracies are taxing well in excess of 40% on income. Are we 40% slave? I can handle sales tax but income tax is simply immoral

>>2731454
I just told you what happens. The price doesn't magically go infinitely down, the two providers of the service come to an understanding on a minimum price they are willing to go down to, and compete in the area near that price.
Oh. Am I going to make the dirt road myself? Or use taxis everyday to go to and from my theoretical child's school, to and from work, and to and from whatever else I need to do that day? Or hope that there is a bus line that will get me to where I need to go--let's also not forget that there isn't any public transportation in this hypothetical, it's all private, so it's costs are going to be way higher, and then made even higher by virtue of the fees of the roads its using.

If
>somebody creates a service and starts charging for it at a lower rate
worked, you would not see the prices for goods and services that you see all around you.

Do you know how little it costs to manufacture most things? You pay 10-1000+ times the actual cost. Competition does not change this, because there is no reason for those competing to drop the price. At 10x profits, you don't need to sell much to be in the green, and there are enough customers to know that a slight price difference isn't going to do much.

>>2731591
The reason things are so high priced compared to their manufacturing costs is because of government meddling, and the consumer not caring how much they pay for the items they want.
If the people actually wanted something cheaper, they'd get something cheaper. But they dont so they wont.

I said it earlier in the thread, but making deals like that wouldn't work due to the competition. If some guy could undercut the competition with a higher quality product that's cheaper than his competition, as long as he could market and manufacture it en-masse then he'd have no problem making the prices lower. Those companies you see today all had to go through rigorous government (((inspections))) to market and sell their items, and those ((((inspections)))) are heavily influenced by other companies who lobby the gov't to lower actual competition. In a true free market you'd see prices that are much closer to their actual worth than you do in our shit system today.

>>2731543
What happens when a road company strikes a deal to put a business out of competition by preventing a corporation from getting to their warehouses or places of business by charging them exorbitant fees?

Sure smells like free market to me. It stinks. Just admit you don't have any idea what you are talking about. You live in a fantasy world and thankfully most people can smell your bullshit a mile away.

>>2731760
Thats an easy one. Dont use the roads.

>>2731770
>>2731760

or alternatively make a new road.

>>2731770
Is the company going to fly their product into their warehouse? Is there other magical floating roads connected to the warehouse?

Happens to be that like most buildings there's one road connected to it.

>>2731778
>>2731782
you dont need magical flying roads, just bypass the roads by using aerial transportation.

>>2731778
>>2731770
What are they going to do build a road hovering about the old ones? Through property they don't own?

You're trolling aren't you? No one is this stupid.

>>2731787
That doesn't sound feasible nor efficient nor sane. What are they going to fly everything in by helicopter? What about ma and pa stores who can't get product to their store because they people who transport their shit can't afford/come to agreement to travel the roads. Even if they do the price will be based to the businesses who either closes or ultimately passes the cost onto you.

>>2731809
They could change suppliers.
They could make deals with the road owners to lower toll fees in exchange for payment.
They could buy property to make roads and pay a pavement company to make a new one.
They could build a runway and have their supplies shipped by air.

>>2731839
Yea maw and paw and millions of other small business can't afford that sorry. Why are you so anti-American? Do you hate small business owners?

>>2731851
>What is a loan.

>>2731851
Anyway, this kind of economy would be great for small business owners. Just because something like that could happen doesn't mean it will, especially if cooperation is more profitable.

>>2731858
>>2731869
How old are you?

>>2731900
Argue against my argument and not my age.

>>2731910
You don't have an argument. You're "argument" basically boils down to "it will work because I say so."

>>2731915
No. My argument is "It will work because it's more profitable for it to work."

>>2730640
As a fellow libertarian kys

>>2730697
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-m6vc7lsmE

you were saying?

>>2730640
>>2730654

Daily reminder that multi million dollar companies wright off theft and the IRS flips the bill with tax payer dollars.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Shoplifting/

http://smallbusiness.chron.com/irs-rules-stolen-business-property-71097.html

You say "infrasturcture", yet it is being used to pay for

> shoplifting
> identity theft (tax refund fraud)
> identity theft (credit card fraud)

And much more.

>>2731928
What are you trying to argue with this? That when people don't have a choice they'll take what they have to? I'm sure they'd rather just have the normal road operational so they don't have to stop and pay a toll.

>>2731967
>road built in ten days
>didn't cost thousands in planning permission, just common sense
>government is too stupid to open a second road for the town, instead they spend months and tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of taxpayer dollars repairing a landslide

>>2732001
>road built in ten days
Yes a little road is much easier to build than a bridge.

>didn't cost thousands in planning permission, just common sense

Are you suggesting the government appropriate that poor farmer's land for a temporary road?

>government is too stupid to open a second road for the town, instead they spend months and tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of taxpayer dollars repairing a landslide

If you actually listened to the video their was a detour road in place.
Yes I see your point this one example invalidates the economical gains of ALL public roads. Silly me.

>>2732024
>Are you suggesting the government appropriate that poor farmer's land for a temporary road?
Compensate the farmer, just like the private citizen did.

>If you actually listened to the video their was a detour road in place.

Which took you miles out of your way.

>Yes I see your point this one example invalidates the economical gains of ALL public roads. Silly me.
What other counterexample is there? Public roads are extremely inefficient, you don't have to pay a toll so you can't see how quickly they drain money from the taxpayer.

>inb4 MUH TOLLS MUH $5
>but government taking 30% of my income is perfectly ok :)

>>2730557
If you don't want to pay income taxes, that's your decision. Enjoy prison time.

>>2732046
>Compensate the farmer, just like the private citizen did.

Eminent domain is ok now but public roads aren't? Get your shit straight.

>Which took you miles out of your way.

Boo fucking hoo. As soon as the road is finished no one will bother with the toll road.

>What other counterexample is there? Public roads are extremely inefficient, you don't have to pay a toll so you can't see how quickly they drain money from the taxpayer.

About $600 per household a year. Google it. Way cheaper than paying tolls everyday.

>inb4 MUH TOLLS MUH $5
>but government taking 30% of my income is perfectly ok

Never said that faggot.

>>2732077
>600 a year
When you realize that none of that money goes towards infrastructure and instead is used by govt officials to line their pockets, youll realize that the true amount you pay for roads is way higher.

File: 1485926722944.jpg (20KB, 306x306px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 306x306px

>>2732077
>compensate means force the farmer to sell his land

is this really how neurostatists think?

>>2732141
>when you realize toll roads still receive tax payer money and you're essentially being double taxed

>>2732158
What if he refuses to sell the land? What's just compensation in that case? Fuck off.

>>2732169
>What's just compensation in that case? Fuck off.
up the value until it's too much for the state? If the farmer still refuses to sell, look elsewhere? There are probably dozens of private owners they could've built through at a fair price without going miles around. You're also forgetting another weakness of government: It's sterile and hostile. There's a reason no one wants to sell to them.

>>2732183

A road is a pretty large piece of land that could go through several properties. Think again brainlet.

>"yes i'm so glad my governemnt wasted all that money on a shitty rinky dink road instead of focusing on fixing the main one while the farmers made off like bandits"

>>2732206
>made off like bandits"
From a fair exchange of value? Oh wait, mutually consenting trade is thievery, I forgot.
>A road is a pretty large piece of land that could go through several properties. Think again brainlet.
Are you stupid or incapable, or both?

>>2732225
All it takes is one to say no and no road.

I'm not going to argue with someone who things the government is inefficient because they think they should spend all this money on a temporary road when their is a detour in place and the current road is being repaired. That is super efficient you're right.

>>2731760
Who actually wins when such a scenario like that takes place?

Candy shop owner A wants to put candy shop owner B out of business so he goes and talks to the road owner.

Now what happens? If the road owner agrees how does he accomplish this? By raising fees to unreasonable levels? If he does that the people will stop using his road and hed lose money. Then candy shop owner A has to raise more funds to pay the road owner, so hed end up raising his candy prices, which would make the possibility of another competing candy shop opening higher, which would make candy shop owner a have to lower his prices, so he wouldnt be able to pay the road owner, so the road owner would lower his prices, and youd now have 3 competing candy shops.

This is of course disregarding the possibility of another competing road being built, which makes the situation even simpler.

>>2732246
>spend all this money
>temporary road
>already spent "all this money" on a detour

stupid it is.

>All it takes is one to say no and no road.
All it takes is not being completely incompetent, and asking someone else

>>2732169
There would be no taxes in this world. Everything would be properly privatised.
There would be no double tax as there would be no initial tax. Think about your rebuttals a bit harder please.

>>2732273
>>2732257
Yes think harder says the guy thinking candy shop owners want to be in the business off figuring out the logistics of maintaining their roads instead of you know selling candy because thats their fucking business. Not only that but thinks that competing roads just spring out of nowhere because land isn't scarce or anything.

Try building a competing road in the middle of Seattle or New York you fucking nitwit.
>>2732269
"Let's make this temporary road 100+ miles because one guy wouldn't sell and there's no other route to go."

Do you people listen to yourself? How fucking cucked are you for toll roads. Good night you guys are some mental midgets.

>>2732289
>"Let's make this temporary road 100+ miles
IN CA PA BLE

>>2732289
The same goes for all competing businesses you genius.

File: 1498969058886.jpg (187KB, 709x946px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 709x946px

But the Roads Senpai.

Look at Mexico, it has the lowest GDP tax collection rate among North American Countries.

Low Public Infrastructure, Corruption, Toll Roads, Low Social welfare, High Inflation.

Government Doesn't have enough money to Enforce laws, run a proper Judicial System, protect private property etc.

Mexico has been Ruled by the Right Since the Revolution.

File: Tax Rate.jpg (56KB, 894x457px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 894x457px

:^)

>>2732469
>>2732473
Yes, being ruled by cartels is a true free market paco.

>>2730688
extortion

>>2730557


PLEASE

post more of this girl.

File: 1499259583097.jpg (64KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 800x600px

>>2732567
>missing the point

>>2730654
>Free market would handle all infrasturcture and security, and maintain both more efficiently than any government ever could.

All that would happen would be an even more extreme situation of "Let's try to spend as little as possible while making the customer spend as much as possible"

>>2733294
these situations you refer to are caused primarily by the government supporting monopolies. In an actual free market competition would keep the prices low.

>>2733309

In a completely "Free" market it'd take an afternoon for corporations to have a nice tea together and go "Monopoly? Monopoly."

>>2733313
>only big corporations exist in a free market
You commies have brain damage.

You do know that big corporations have conflicting interests, right ?

>>2733321

How can Joe McNobody compete though?
I mean, what you suggest is "If there's an evil monopoly, just provide a better option", but how can somebody with a fraction of the resources, no influence, and everything to lose, compete with a conglomerate with virtually infinite capital and power?

>>2733326
conglomeration wouldnt happen because it would be more profitable to keep your businesses localized, as getting too large makes company policies that work in one area not work in a different area, and then the competition that arises from such disparity would drive the original company out of business in that area.
oh and
>what are loans?
>what is the entire fucking internet?

>>2733321
>You do know that big corporations have conflicting interests, right ?
Wrong, they'll have incentive to merge into a single entity to eliminate competition. They're trying to right now but the only thing holding them back are anti-trust laws. They only have conflictig interests so long as they aren't allowed to merge.

>>2733336
Then why are actual businesses today trying to merge rather than split themselves up? What kind of mental gymnastics are you going to perform to blame that one on evil regulations?

>>2733350
But that is due to regulation, in a market that isnt government regulated no official can be bribed to make regulations to stymie competition. You'd have startups that would beat the larger corps if they're good enough. However, if the market wants a conglomerate that you describe, then they get what they pay for. The only vote that matters is the vote your wallet gives.

>>2733359
Great, so now not only are you going to change the political system to a laissez faire one, but you're also going to rewrite human behavior so that consumers prevent monopolies from forming. I might give what you say a passing thought if you were also for breaking up the megacorps prior to deregulation, but as soon as the larger entities are deregulated they'll just abuse their status and absorb the competition.

>>2733382
Yes. I'm for razing all current businesses and starting from scratch.

>>2730654
I don't understand this way of thinking from americans.

I mean, I understand where they're coming from. but it feels like they don't care about human life.
In my country, there was a huge health problem when a company started selling shitty oil as cooking oil and many people died.
Sure, the "free market" would stop buying that. But there was a lot of unnecessary death that could be avoided with regulations.
Unless you're a big company, I don't understand why you'd be against regulation. It's what keeps you alive.

The idea of the free market is that "this is a shit company, let's not buy from it"
But then someone has to discover that it's a shit company, by buying their products.
And there is nothing stopping companies from starting the scam process again under a different name.
Americans are retarded. I'm glad to live in europe.

>>2730670
I can. You pay for services you receive. It's a trade. If you don't want those services move out of the country.

It's like going to a restaurant and say I want to eat my own food here. They won't let you, you have to pay, is that theft?

>>2733392
>Muricans are retarded
>Muh free market deaths could be prevented by government regulation!
You do realize that in a free market that inspectors would still exist right? And that most reputable companies/startups would want to get a stamp of approval right? That's not to say that they would completely control the market, it's more that the consumer would take the chance of getting a potentially higher/lower quality item at a different price at the expense of the inspector label.

>>2733401
I can tell you're semi-serious because your answer is semi-serious, but think about it seriously. You pay an insane amount of money to people that live in areas ranging from your immediate living quarters to 5k miles away from you, because you and they actually believe that you deserve to give them that money because they think they actually provide a service. This is ignoring that it isn't voluntary, which does make it theft don't get ahead of yourself, as moving out of the country is a ridiculous proposition compared to a free society. The gov't gets your money and spends it on their (((programs))) that do what?
>unemployment at an ath
>debt at an ath
>random stupid wars so israel can take over the middle east
>allowing any terrorist through customs even with the patriot act
>allowing any terrorist attack even though the patriot act exists
>Constant ignoring of constitutional ammendments because its more profitable for corporations
>officials constantly bribed because that's all their positions are good for

There are so many other problems that are innate to government that i cant recall all of them off the top of my head, but in a free society those issues would be limited to supply and demand, and outside influence would be business competition. And yes, its theft if you never opted in or had a choice in opting in. Give me the name of a single child that before they were born asked and gave consent to be given the services the government gives in exchange for the production it produces.

>>2733404
>You do realize that in a free market that inspectors would still exist right? And that most reputable companies/startups would want to get a stamp of approval right?
...aaaaaand we're back to regulatory capture. Except now you just changed who the regulating body is working for. Even a system of unenforced warnings is still susceptible to this. Just look at Yelp. They extort businesses, and you can pay them to leave bad reviews at a competitor. It'll be just like that but on steroids.

>>2733510
>it's more that the consumer would take the chance of getting a potentially higher/lower quality item at a different price at the expense of the inspector label.
Are you illiterate?

>>2733482
You forgot that majority vote for that government.

>>2733482
btw I am not a socialist nor do I like income tax, I actually hate it, in UK I pay about 50% of my salary to income tax, NI and student loan repayment.

But the opposite of a free for all where free market takes care of everything doesn't sit with my logical mind. And if income tax is the most enforceable one so we're just getting fucked because they can fuck us. What's the alternative?

>>2733482
The patriot act is aids. It's just a way to undermine and control people like myself (less then 1000 dollars to my name)

>>2733555
Nationalizing the banks and using the revenue from that is a particularly attractive option, IMO. You could eliminate a huge amount of taxes without sacrificing social programs that way.

>>2733581
Some countries like Iran do that. And taxes are extremely low. But again they have natural resources to compensate.

>>2733521
>ignores a direct counterexample of that not working in real life
Also we're talking about health and safety, AKA life and death, not "getting a low quality product"

If the government actually used its funds on infrastructure instead of playing global police we'd be in a fucking transportation utopia with all the money they steal.

>>2733588
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
t. Benjamin Franklin

>>2733482
One more thing about free society. Let's run through a scenario

> I'm rich and have lots of resources
> You don't, maybe have a land
> I hire men, pay them and come and take what's yours and even maybe enslave you
Why shouldn't I, it's in my best interest and no consequences.

Isn't that what we've been doing for thousands of years? Richest call themselves kings, build armies and take everything they possibly can?
humanity is too selfish to respect an honest free market hence it won't work without supervision

>>2733599
Wow, okay. Looking forward to my leaded food so I can get my hands on a bit more "liberty."

>>2733601
Forced slavery < consented slavery

which is why the world we live in today exists.

>>2733606
Nobody has the incentive to poison their food, because their target clientele would die off.

>>2733598
>If the government actually used its funds on infrastructure instead of playing global police we'd be in a fucking transportation utopia with all the money they steal.

You're aware that defense is only 15-20% of the budget, right? And the government sucks at doing anything, including infrastructure.

>>2733609
So why does it happen in China's deregulated market?

>>2733601
> I'm rich and have lots of resources
> You don't, maybe have a land
> I hire men, pay them and come and take what's yours and even maybe enslave you
>Why shouldn't I, it's in my best interest and no consequences.
>Isn't that what we've been doing for thousands of years? Richest call themselves kings, build armies and take everything they possibly can?
>humanity is too selfish to respect an honest free market hence it won't work without supervision

You're basically describing the government. Except the state claims legitimacy because it says it's "democratic."

>>2733621
Are you saying that scenario would not reflect a "free" society without the democracy part?

>>2733620
>Communist government
>deregulated

File: discretionary_spending_pie%2C_2015_enacted.png (145KB, 1003x915px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 1003x915px

>>2733620
Chinks cant think ahead, it's a cultural thing that you get what you pay for, so if you pay for shit you get shit.

also this >>2733626

>>2733613
Pic related

>>2733625
>Are you saying that scenario would not reflect a "free" society without the democracy part?

No, because free society != total anarchy.

>>2733626
That's the political system dumbass. They're as laissez faire as you can get.

File: U.S._Federal_Spending.png (32KB, 350x263px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 350x263px

>>2733629
>discretionary spending only

My god, what an idiot.

>>2733629
So then why was it a major problem in the US until the Clean Food and Drug Act?

>>2733632
actually that is exactly what it is.

No government = no laws
or the fact that no one is forced to respect laws
and if we're not forced, we won't respect them if it's in our best interest not to do so

>>2733634
>That's the political system dumbass. They're as laissez faire as you can get.

>Communism
>political system

lol

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Food_and_Drug_Administration

They're not "laissez faire." They have laws on the books. The only issue is that government bureaucrats can be paid to look the other way by companies that have the money and connections to do it. That's not laissez faire. That's not a free market.

>>2733643
So by removing the regulations entirely then companies will somehow start following the regulations?

>>2733642

I never advocated abolishing all government though, so you'll have to ask the other guy about it.

>>2733648
>So by removing the regulations entirely then companies will somehow start following the regulations?

No, but removing regulations in everything from insurance companies to private oversight groups will mean that consumers can actually hold the producers accountable. Deregulation has to be across the entire economy or it won't really work properly.

>>2733640
The same solution would've been put into place, with the exception that it would've been a private organization and not a government one.
>implying the FDA is good at anything.

>>2733642
>no govt = no laws
really now? so now we need a mafia in order to self regulate. news to me. but being serious, in such a society the potential is higher if you arent being a complete idiot, and as such the incentive for breaking the law is lower than what it is currently. And no this has been said over and over that people need to be forced to do things, when it simply isnt true. People around the world dont care about the shit the govt feeds them daily, they just want to spend time with their family/loved ones. The meme that force is necessary to drive society is just that, a meme.

>>2733648
>forgetting about what competition does

>>2733654
So again, what will make those private oversight groups not behave badly like they currently do? Yelp's business model is extortion, and you can buy Better Business Bureau ratings.

>>2733662
>forgetting about what competition does, again

>>2733657
I think your view of our way of life is too positive. Government isn't responsible for most crimes, they happen out of poverty.

And if someone can't make money following the regulations, even in a total free market they will need to find ways to self sustain.

I actually wish we could make some simulators to simulate actual human behavior in such a situation.

>>2733662
>So again, what will make those private oversight groups not behave badly like they currently do? Yelp's business model is extortion, and you can buy Better Business Bureau ratings.

Competition. And insurance companies will have a vested interest in keeping their customers safe, lest they need to make more payouts. They'll be the ones keeping other companies in check too.

What's your solution to stopping regulatory capture of government oversight agencies, then?

>>2733666
In an actual free market they'd be free to pursue any idea they want. There's no reason to be overtly violent when you can fulfill your desires by doing what you want. Poverty would probably be a meme in such a scenario, because charities would be more powerful and have an actual use.

>>2733657
Actually we have had total freedoms in the past. If you look at each country as an entity (like a person), then the world would be a free society (a few centuries ago and before) composed of countries as members.

Now how many wars happened? Looting? death? destruction? forced slavery of other nation?

>>2733679
>countries are individuals
>but we need governments to keep us from having too much freedom

What are you even trying to say at this point?

>>2733685
I don't think you got the point, it was a simulation of free society with no concept of a governing body.

>>2733679
>Actually we have had total freedoms in the past.
The only time I can think of is back when we were chimps. That comparison is ridiculous due to our advances in technology that make a libertarian society much more reasonable than maybe even 100 years in the past, but even then it was the best period in history when we combined economic freedoms with at the time cutting edge technology.

>>2733665
>>2733670
>le magic competition XD
There currently are no regulations barring conpetition to Yelp or the BBB. Your argument is invalid.

>>2733670
>What's your solution to stopping regulatory capture of government oversight agencies, then?
A corporate tax rate that's proportional to market capitalization. Businesses will automatically arrange themeselves into smaller, more competitive entities and none of them will be powerful enough to subvert the market.

>>2733692
you mean when we decided that we don't control enough land and decided to kill millions to take whatever we want?

>>2733693
>There currently are no regulations barring conpetition to Yelp or the BBB. Your argument is invalid
>Once again forgetting that this isnt a free market
>AGAIN forgetting that what matters is how people vote with their wallet

>>2733697
Colonialism gave many countries the chance to be competitive. The deaths may have been a tragedy, but if they couldn't put up a fight against their opponents they kinda deserved to lose....

>>2733691
>I don't think you got the point, it was a simulation of free society with no concept of a governing body.

You're saying is that we need a governing body to check our freedoms, yet you used giant governing bodies running amok as an example of freedom. What are you even on?

>>2733693
>There currently are no regulations barring conpetition to Yelp or the BBB. Your argument is invalid.

Is anyone forcing you to listen to Yelp or the Better Business Bureau? Moreover, do they have the power to forcibly shut businesses down? Only government agencies do that.

>A corporate tax rate that's proportional to market capitalization. Businesses will automatically arrange themeselves into smaller, more competitive entities and none of them will be powerful enough to subvert the market.

That's not what regulatory capture is. Go read up on that and public choice theory so you'll understand how government is generally a worse option than even imperfect markets.

Who's going to enforce this proportional tax rate? The government. Do governments have a good track record of being immune to corruption and lobbying?

>>2733702
Tell me more about these laws that are keeping me from competing with the BBB.

>>2733705
>Is anyone forcing you to listen to Yelp or the Better Business Bureau? Moreover, do they have the power to forcibly shut businesses down? Only government agencies do that.
No, but you two are implying that I should trust organizations like these that my food isn't poison.

Also you'rw going to have a much harder time passing legislation as a company with a $10mil market cap, as opposed to a company with a $10bil market cap.
Anyway, it's 4am and I'm going to bed. I'll argue with you retards in the morning.

>>2733726
>Also you'rw going to have a much harder time passing legislation as a company with a $10mil market cap, as opposed to a company with a $10bil market cap.

I'm convinced you do not understand our argument.

>>2733726
>No, but you two are implying that I should trust organizations like these

No, when did we say that? You're free not to trust them. That's competition and the free market too.

>Also you'rw going to have a much harder time passing legislation as a company with a $10mil market cap, as opposed to a company with a $10bil market cap.

You're aware that it's not very expensive to bribe government officials, right? It's like $250,000 tops for an average bureaucrat.

>>2733702
just proving my point that total freedom to compete will turn violent.

>>2733770
All the land on earth has been discovered already, and the economic perogative is overwhelmingly towards free market in any developed country. Freedom to compete doesn't have to turn violent, if negotiation is more profitable. But in such a society most likely there would simply be armed militias, or private militaries that are primarliy used as a deterrence, and not for offensive maneuvers.

>>2733808
> private military
that is the definition of mercenary, and whoever pays the most gets their way.

>>2733812
>Freedom to compete doesn't have to turn violent, if negotiation is more profitable.

also

>implying if you're doing something that warrants having mercenaries after you that you wouldn't have the skills to defend yourself or at the very least invest in your protection ala an alternative mercenary group

Private security already exists, but it would be more profitable. The same with any industry really.

>>2731576
>I can handle sales tax but income tax is simply immoral

It's called being part of a society. We aren't all a bunch of individuals trying to win at the expense of the rest, we're meant to cooperate and help each other. Everyone who earns money does so because society has helped them get there. It's just doing your part for the society that raised you.

>>2733875

0/10

>>2730763

This is why they gave up on libertarianism in the US. The basic network of society must be collectivized and then let the free market build on the network.

>>2733971
Wrong. Libertarianism was stopped in murica due to lincoln being a daddy of big government in america. Collectivisation is a giant meme.

>>2733819
> having the skills to defend yourself or invest in protection
I'm sorry how is this not turning into anarchy? Exactly my previous scenario reflects this. Each country spends on military and fight each other for resources. How do you not see this coming down to individual level without a governing body?

>>2734985

Why do you put so little faith in individuals then think that a governing body comprised of individuals is needed to maintain order?

>>2735016
because individuals have proven to be untrustworthy, government is still crap but better than the alternative since it still needs the vote of those individuals

>>2735047
>because individuals have proven to be untrustworthy, government is still crap but better than the alternative since it still needs the vote of those individuals

Actually, free markets work even better because, unlike the government, they can't use force and coercion. And they need peoples' money to make a profit, and they do this by giving people what they want.

>>2735060
Or they can take what they want by force which has always been my original point.

>>2735062
It's less profitable to do something like that, which is why it wont happen. And no, people aren't malicious without being conditioned to be malicious. So long as the social climate was positive there would be no need for forced coercion.

>>2735062
>Or they can take what they want by force which has always been my original point.

And what do you think governments do? Ask for your tax money nicely?

>>2735047
Do you actually think (((democracy))) is a less shit form of government? It has all the qualities of the worst governmental system humans could ever create.
>nobody takes responsibility because everything is decided by the party that makes decisions.
>pacifies everyone by giving the illusion of choice.
>makes football team mentality multiply infinitely.
>takes for fucking ever to do anything because old people dont know how anything works and the system was designed to be slow as fuck

All democratic states are ran by the companies that bribe the officials, because that's all those officials are good for.

>>2735226
At least centralized governments have the benefit of actually getting things accomplished, too bad it's shortcomings are far worse.