Free State Project Forum

FSP -- General Discussion => Prospective Participants => Topic started by: Uhuru on November 13, 2006, 11:08:19 am

Title: TAXES!!!
Post by: Uhuru on November 13, 2006, 11:08:19 am
I was just pondering the Taxation dilemma in a Free State.  Here is what I figured...
It would be wrong to make people pay for what they don't use, but if someone does use something, them must pay, or it will deteriorate and no one will be able to use it.  Here is a possible solution to that dilemma...

First off...  There would be no taxes on Property, Income and Sales (with one novelty tax exception at bottom)

Roads:  paid for with a gasoline tax and a toll that charges by the # of axels
Sewage:  Waste bill charge for maintenance use, etc.
Water:  Water bill
Electric:  Electric bill
Garbage:  Garbage bill
etc. etc.
Environmental cleanup
Environmental damage assesment tax.  Before a corporation sets up, they have to pay the fees to clean up what they are about to destroy.
Legal system and State Government:  Paid for with fines to environmental polluters, fines to theft and corruption criminals, and through industries that are staffed by the violent offender inmates.  (license plate manufacturing, powering generators with stationary bike use, etc.)

Education:  Funded by taxes on Free State novelty industries like prostitution, gambling, porn and drug sales.

Environmental pollution would carry HEAVY Fines and costs, as would corporate theft and corruption.  This way billions could be made off of evil doers, while the rest of the people who compete fairly and productively will have no hastles.
Title: Re: TAXES!!!
Post by: greap on November 13, 2006, 11:38:29 am
Roads:  paid for with a gasoline tax and a toll that charges by the # of axels

Make them privately owned

Sewage:  Waste bill charge for maintenance use, etc.

Make them privately owned

Water:  Water bill
Electric:  Electric bill
Garbage:  Garbage bill

Environmental cleanup
Environmental damage assesment tax.  Before a corporation sets up, they have to pay the fees to clean up what they are about to destroy.

Or, perhaps, rely on the effect of the market and danger of litigation to prevent the damage.


Legal system and State Government:  Paid for with fines to environmental polluters, fines to theft and corruption criminals, and through industries that are staffed by the violent offender inmates.  (license plate manufacturing, powering generators with stationary bike use, etc.)

Legal system can be self-funding reasonably easily. If people outside prison have to work in order to survive so should those inside. Once you eliminate all non-crimes (drug use etc) the prison population would be down to a much more manageable level and those remaining should work. A source of cheap labor for the manufacturing industry perhaps. This would not only eliminate the tax burden but also provide offenders with marketable skills when they are released.

Education:  Funded by taxes on Free State novelty industries like prostitution, gambling, porn and drug sales.

Or how about stop the brainwashing of children and the production of sub-intelligent human beings and move it all in to the private sector or home schooling? Why should users of "novelty" items be penalized to educate (poorly at that) other peoples children? How is that not still stealing?

Environmental pollution would carry HEAVY Fines and costs, as would corporate theft and corruption.  This way billions could be made off of evil doers, while the rest of the people who compete fairly and productively will have no hastles.

Or not and we remove government from an area they have no business messing with. Unless a company starts harming PEOPLE the government has no justification for getting involved.
Title: Re: TAXES!!!
Post by: SeanSchade on November 13, 2006, 12:23:09 pm
You can't make roads privately owned. Everyone's answer to eliminating taxes is to make everything privately owned.  ::)

The government is responsible for providing and paying for "infrastructure" items. Items that are necessary, but are also not feasibly profitable for a private party to own. Roads are such an item.

How do you make money off owning certain sections of road? Can you put toll booths at every entry and exit to control traffic, and make sure that people pay? Yes, but can you do it and still earn a profit? NO!

What happens to sections of roads that nobody wants to buy? Who pays for upkeep of those roads? What if over 10 miles 10 different people own sections of the road?

It is plain silly for people to say that roads should be privately owned. It is also stupid to say that the military should be privately owned as well. Hezbolah is a privately owned military.  ::)
Title: Re: TAXES!!!
Post by: greap on November 13, 2006, 12:36:01 pm
You can't make roads privately owned. Everyone's answer to eliminating taxes is to make everything privately owned.  ::)

The government is responsible for providing and paying for "infrastructure" items. Items that are necessary, but are also not feasibly profitable for a private party to own. Roads are such an item.


Privately owned toll roads seem to do quite nicely.

How do you make money off owning certain sections of road? Can you put toll booths at every entry and exit to control traffic, and make sure that people pay? Yes, but can you do it and still earn a profit? NO!

Why do you need people there? Electronic enforcement would do perfectly well.

What happens to sections of roads that nobody wants to buy? Who pays for upkeep of those roads? What if over 10 miles 10 different people own sections of the road?

No one pays for their upkeep. If no one wants to buy them then it would be because no one wants to use them and as such they shouldn't be there in the first place. You might well end up in that kind of situation. In reality I would imagine that management companies would pay a fee to "rent" the sections of road as one and bill them together. Even if that didn't happen the roads should still not be owned by government for the simple fact taxes of any form are not a valid function of government.

It is plain silly for people to say that roads should be privately owned. It is also stupid to say that the military should be privately owned as well. Hezbolah is a privately owned military.  ::)

Military should be state owned (as should the police) but be defensive only (so much much smaller and not consist of an Army) and remove the market protectionism rules they use for bids at the moment.
Title: Re: TAXES!!!
Post by: roland787 on November 13, 2006, 07:55:39 pm
Roads should be free and funded by the federal govt.  Like sumbody already said, sry i cant remember ur name, but it is the govts responsibility to fund for infrastructures that cant be done by private owners.  Plus who the hell wants to have to pay to use roads, its ridiculous and stands against everything we stand for. 

It would slow down transportation and traffic if u had to stop at sum booth to pay a toll just to keep driving.
Title: Re: TAXES!!!
Post by: RalphBorsodi on November 13, 2006, 08:08:31 pm
Roads should be free and funded by the federal govt.  Like sumbody already said, sry i cant remember ur name, but it is the govts responsibility to fund for infrastructures that cant be done by private owners.  Plus who the hell wants to have to pay to use roads, its ridiculous and stands against everything we stand for. 

It would slow down transportation and traffic if u had to stop at sum booth to pay a toll just to keep driving.

the problem we have with roads is that they CONTAIN a common right of way as an individual equal access right (so long as you don't infringe on any other individual's right) that enable freedom of movement.

but the actual road themselves are collectively owned.

if they were privately owned then what of the individual common right of way???
Title: Re: TAXES!!!
Post by: Ward Griffiths on November 14, 2006, 12:33:05 am
Roads should be free and funded by the federal govt.  Like sumbody already said, sry i cant remember ur name, but it is the govts responsibility to fund for infrastructures that cant be done by private owners.  Plus who the hell wants to have to pay to use roads, its ridiculous and stands against everything we stand for. 

It would slow down transportation and traffic if u had to stop at sum booth to pay a toll just to keep driving.
Roland, we pay for the roads either way.  With taxes, we pay for roads we don't use (plus a crapload of overhead, like state police/highway patrol).  With private ownership and tolls, we pay for the roads we want to.

I know you're young, but please grow out of the textspeak spelling.  The spell check button under the message form actually works on this forum.
Title: Re: TAXES!!!
Post by: KBCraig on November 14, 2006, 02:14:27 am
You can't make roads privately owned.

Why not?

Quote
The government is responsible for providing and paying for "infrastructure" items.

"Responsible for..."? Sez who?

Quote
Items that are necessary, but are also not feasibly profitable for a private party to own. Roads are such an item.

Throughout history, roads and critical points like bridges and ferries have been privately owned. Government involvement is a modern development.

Quote
How do you make money off owning certain sections of road?

The government seems to manage, somehow, when they install toll roads.

Quote
What happens to sections of roads that nobody wants to buy?

The same thing that happens to widgets that no one wants to buy: they cease to exist.

If the surrounding road owners are harmed by the loss of a connecting section of road, they will either make a bid for it, or suffer the loss.

Quote
It is plain silly for people to say that roads should be privately owned.

"Plain silly" is arguing without stating your reasons. Please provide the supporting logic behind your arguments.

Kevin
Title: Re: TAXES!!!
Post by: roland787 on November 14, 2006, 06:15:00 am
I understand that we want the federal government out of our lives as much as possible but this is something that they must provided for us.   Theres a lot of roads out there and I doubt that every road will end up being bought. 

How much are we going to be having to spend everytime we leave our house just to use these roads?  How often or how far apart will these tolls be,  everytime we get to a road that a diff person owns or everytime we change roads? 

I'm not sure about anybody else, but I know that I'm not going to want to have to pay along the roads. You know how quickly that would get on my nerves and I'm sure many others will also find it very annoying.
Title: Re: TAXES!!!
Post by: RalphBorsodi on November 14, 2006, 07:00:00 am
I understand that we want the federal government out of our lives as much as possible but this is something that they must provided for us.   Theres a lot of roads out there and I doubt that every road will end up being bought. 

How much are we going to be having to spend everytime we leave our house just to use these roads?  How often or how far apart will these tolls be,  everytime we get to a road that a diff person owns or everytime we change roads? 

I'm not sure about anybody else, but I know that I'm not going to want to have to pay along the roads. You know how quickly that would get on my nerves and I'm sure many others will also find it very annoying.

what about the individual common right of ways contained within the roads themselves that are natural rights which governments are actually constituted to protect - are they to be "sold" too?
Title: Re: TAXES!!!
Post by: roland787 on November 14, 2006, 07:19:06 am
I'd like to see the roads privately owned because the govt needs to focus on other things, but roads cost a lot of money to upkeep and are constantly in need of repairs.  What if the only people who use a specific road can not afford to buy it? or if they do, they cant afford the repairs and upkeep?  theres so many roads and highways i doubt that they will all end up getting bought by people.  plus theres no source of money comcoming from em and the whole toll idea just scares me and not to mention, it kinda pisses me off just thinking of having to pay a toll everytime i leave my house to go sumwhere.
Title: Re: TAXES!!!
Post by: greap on November 14, 2006, 07:22:44 am
I understand that we want the federal government out of our lives as much as possible but this is something that they must provided for us.   Theres a lot of roads out there and I doubt that every road will end up being bought. 

A profit motive is no the only reason they would be bought. I would be very surprised indeed if lots of the roads didn't end up getting bought out by the communities themselves. In addition if ownership was fractured along a stretch of road it seems perfectly obvious that the owners of each bit would enter in to agreement to give each other free access to their part of road in exchange for theirs.

How much are we going to be having to spend everytime we leave our house just to use these roads?  How often or how far apart will these tolls be,  everytime we get to a road that a diff person owns or everytime we change roads? 

That would be variable. Like I said the larger stretches of road might be owned by several people but as with similar industries (think rail network) a small number of companies would operate those on behalf of the owners. As for price on normal roads it would almost certainly work out cheaper then the current fuel tax does as there would be competition rather then a bureaucratic nonsense price. Highways would likely cost the same as toll roads in similar areas do now (IE not much at all).

Inner city would be stupidly expensive, of course. Several large cities already run toll zones (enforced electronically rather then having booths) which might serve as good comparisons for this (London is currently $15 for entire days access, would translate to about $5 over there given how most cost items translate).

I'm not sure about anybody else, but I know that I'm not going to want to have to pay along the roads. You know how quickly that would get on my nerves and I'm sure many others will also find it very annoying.

You already do. I am sure a system similar to EzPass (or even better the one they operate in Singapore that doesn't require speed reduction) would prevent convenience or congestion problems.

Might also point out that the fact it would be inconvenient is no reason to maintain the current system. Some would say it is convenient for the state to collect health insurance money and provide universal health care. The question we should ask ourselves when we think about if government should do something or not isn't if we want them to but if it is justified for them to do so and does it harm anyone to let them do so.
Title: Re: TAXES!!!
Post by: RalphBorsodi on November 14, 2006, 07:29:00 am
Quote
What if the only people who use a specific road can not afford to buy it?

then it should not have been built in the first place and the price you paid for the land under your home was inflated by the amount the access gives you.

all roads should be paid for by the increase to land values that the roads produce.

the maintenance of the roads should be leased out to private companies...the payment for which can be collected on strategicaly located electronic tolls.
Title: Re: TAXES!!!
Post by: roland787 on November 14, 2006, 08:20:27 am
excellent points and thank you for helping me understand how this could possibly work.  it sounds like it just may.  I guess I'm still skeptical on the whole toll thing and having to stop or slow down in order to pay to be able to keep going. 

and may i ask how the one in singapore that does not require speed reduction works??
Title: Re: TAXES!!!
Post by: lloydbob1 on November 14, 2006, 08:33:42 am
Fast
Title: Re: TAXES!!!
Post by: JasonPSorens on November 14, 2006, 10:08:13 am
I still don't see how neighborhood roads could be privatized in the traditional sense. Bryan Caplan's idea of customer ownership of these "natural monopolies" is intriguing, however.
Title: Re: TAXES!!!
Post by: JonM on November 14, 2006, 10:46:55 am
Electronic enforcement would mean someone would know where you are driving . . . and when.  Nah, no possible negative repercussions from that.

If you built sensors to detect the amount of traffic into the roads, private road owners could be compensated out of a pool of funds (gas tax, road tax, some other fee structure) without violating privacy.  But then, a system that can be gamed, will be gamed.
Title: Re: TAXES!!!
Post by: greap on November 14, 2006, 11:39:19 am
Electronic enforcement would mean someone would know where you are driving . . . and when.  Nah, no possible negative repercussions from that.

That assumes that when consumers are aware of privacy issues organizations won't use them as selling points. I have been working on an AI system to track and predict a users online behavior (IE they visit here so will like this, but somewhat more advanced then current systems like Amazon etc) and the privacy issues has been one of the prime considerations during development so far. A closed "black box" system (IE you can only use it for its intended purpose, not data mining) is certainly achievable (no IT system can ever be 100% secure but if you can get it to the stage where it would take decades to decode data for a single journey then there would be no benefit in doing so) it is simply not done yet because privacy is not a primary consideration among most people (and even with those it is only a tiny fraction really understand the difference between a secure and insecure system) and the cost outlay is significant enough that businesses mostly ignore it.

If you built sensors to detect the amount of traffic into the roads, private road owners could be compensated out of a pool of funds (gas tax, road tax, some other fee structure) without violating privacy.  But then, a system that can be gamed, will be gamed.

That is still collectivizing the system and putting it under the purview of the government, very little different from how it is now. Until the word Tax exists nowhere in law (except to explicitly forbid it) we still have work to do to archive the perfect government.

On a last point there are lots of small privately held roads in this area of the world and they seem to operate perfectly fine with residents paying for access if they want to use a car.
Title: Re: TAXES!!!
Post by: SeanSchade on November 15, 2006, 03:58:27 pm

"Plain silly" is arguing without stating your reasons. Please provide the supporting logic behind your arguments.

Kevin

OK, how much different is it to pay a private corporation a toll than it is to pay the government a tax or toll? You still pay to use the resource.

I think the argument is "silly" because not all roads would be leased and managed, and to say "Well those roads will just cease to exist" isn't an answer. Our network of roads is one of the things that has made this country as successful as it is. The ability for any of us to freely travel on those roads, or have roads that service our domiciles and work places is invaluable.

To do something just to eliminate the government without thought to the consequences is both short-sighted and selfish.  ::)

Anarchy only works in small groups. History has proven this. So what makes any of you anarchists on here think it will work on a scale as large as a city, county, state, or country?

It's "We the people" not "Me, Myself, and I"  ::)
Title: Re: TAXES!!!
Post by: greap on November 15, 2006, 06:25:49 pm

"Plain silly" is arguing without stating your reasons. Please provide the supporting logic behind your arguments.

Kevin

OK, how much different is it to pay a private corporation a toll than it is to pay the government a tax or toll? You still pay to use the resource.

A great deal different. Firstly the government enjoy wasting vast amounts of money and the ROI is significantly lower then in the private sector. Secondly, in most areas, the government is not bound by market forces. They will build a road that serves no purpose and will not result in a tangible benefit on the say so of a committee rather then if it will be used (and thus generate a return). Thirdly (and most importantly) it is not a valid function of government to maintain the roads. A government exists solely to protect your life, liberty and persuit of happiness. Driving is not a right, it is a choice and a benefit and as such it would be improper for government to have any involvement. As soon as you say roads are OK then people are bound to ask why not sewage? Why not water and power? There is no middleground, we either have correct government or we don't.

I think the argument is "silly" because not all roads would be leased and managed, and to say "Well those roads will just cease to exist" isn't an answer. Our network of roads is one of the things that has made this country as successful as it is. The ability for any of us to freely travel on those roads, or have roads that service our domiciles and work places is invaluable.

Why wouldn't the roads continue to provide growth? Roads that are used will continue to exists, roads that are not use will not. It is also worth noting that the reason you need the roads to reach your house is due, in large part, to huge post WW2 government subsidies in to housing which created suburbia and necessitated the building of a vast amount of today's highway system.

To do something just to eliminate the government without thought to the consequences is both short-sighted and selfish.  ::)

Some of us take selfish as a compliment so thank you :) As for short sighted it has nothing at all to do with that. The idea of everyone being healthy and living long lives is wonderful and fantastic but that doesn't mean I support universal healthcare. The ends never justify the means and if you have to deprive the right of one man in order to serve another (so in this case taxation to maintain the network of roads) then you are talking about slavery and robbery not rights enforcement. It doesn't matter what you like, it matters what is ethical and not. As soon as you start involving emotions in that process and without remaining objective things go horribly wrong very quickly.

Anarchy only works in small groups. History has proven this. So what makes any of you anarchists on here think it will work on a scale as large as a city, county, state, or country?

Might want to check your terms there sir. Not everyone (most of us IIRC) here is an anarchist and many of us who are not have very strong ethical objections to it. Just because someone supports small government does not mean they are an anarchist. In answer to your question though why shouldn't we think it will work? Do people really need to be all treated like children living in a catholic boarding school who should have the cain taken to them whenever they do something to offend the expected morality? Do business really need to be told what to do and not to do when the market and the threat of litigation face them? Is it really OK for the government to enslave people and steal via taxes while claiming it serves some greater good? All these controls and mechanisms do is prevent us from achieving and accomplishing what we really can as human beings and to keep us thinking that we don't know whats good for us, only an over baring government can.

It's "We the people" not "Me, Myself, and I"  ::)

Unification has nothing to do with being an individualist. have a look through NHFree and you will see how readily people band together to help each other out in a crunch. We don't necessarily all want to live in silos, we just want to be given the choice instead of having it forced on us.
Title: Re: TAXES!!!
Post by: RalphBorsodi on November 15, 2006, 07:31:21 pm
Quote
huge post WW2 government subsidies in to housing which created suburbia and necessitated the building of a vast amount of today's highway system.

I think you actually have it backwards.

large landowners lobby for roads and then reap huge windfalls as land values ballooned...

Eisenhower's interstate had a military justification.
Many mass transit systems were purcahsed by the car companies and dismantled.
Title: Re: TAXES!!!
Post by: DrStrangelove on January 04, 2007, 01:47:54 pm
Privatizing public transportation should be a good thing, because there can be competition between bus, metro, etc ; and of course the individual's own cars, bikes, etc, so the market logic would apply to the bus/metro and it would have to offer competitive prices and performance, which would be a Good Thing.

However, private owned business is here to maximize revenues, so when it gets hold of a monopoly, all hell breaks loose. Remember how much the old (state-sponsored) telephone monopolies charged ?

So, if you privatize roads you have to be very careful about preserving competition which is the driving force behind the efficiency of private business, and which was the point of privatizing to begin with !

But the notion of competition with something like roads isn't easy to define... if all the roads in an area are owned by the same entity, then they can charge whatever they want, and you get back to square one with the state having to cap the prices, which is even worse.

Still, payment should be proportional to use, so I believe roads should be financed entirely by the existing tax on gasoline, and usefulness of spending should be open to public scrutiny...
Title: Re: TAXES!!!
Post by: davek on January 04, 2007, 10:43:57 pm
There is a great deal of good information regarding the nuts and bolts of road privitization at urbanfutures.org.   As to fears of monopolies, they are difficult to both achieve and maintain in the absence of government intervention.  The discipline of the market provides all the protection needed. 
Title: Re: TAXES!!!
Post by: Gabriel on January 13, 2007, 01:09:43 pm
Roads are one of the classic ‘test cases’ for a serious free-market theorist, since they’re one of the classic economics-class examples of a public good. The point that most libertarians fail to note is that roads are as important to defense, or more so, as they are to commerce.

In general, I’m skeptical of the public-goods argument against free markets; I think in most cases, so-called public goods could just as easily be funded by voluntary consortia of those who a) can benefit and b) can afford it. If a group of interested businessmen can’t find a way to increase their own profits by building a lighthouse, maybe the town doesn’t need one after all. And the so-called ‘free-rider problem’ is not a problem at all, but a benefit: If I can get a consortium together, build a lighthouse, and gain a net profit from the increased trade the town draws, then the fact that other people in the town who did not buy in are also benefiting is not a problem, it’s pure gravy.

Roads, however, are a special case. While commercial and private transportation need not necessarily have anything to do with the state, national defense IS a proper function of government if it has any proper function at all. And effective military action requires good roads, as armies since the days of the Romans have known. As I understand it, the idea for our current system of interstate highways was conceived as a direct result of the terrible time Eisenhower had moving war materiel from the East Coast to the West during the final months of World War II, and they were built for the primary purpose of facilitating troop movements and city evacuations in the event of an invasion. The attacker always has an advantage in that he can choose the time and place of his attack; the best way for the defenders to minimize that advantage is to make internal troop movements and redeployments as fast, efficient, and flexible as possible- and that means roads.

Once the roads are built, it would hardly make sense to forbid their use for civilian purposes. Yes, building roads ends up distorting the transportation market and disincenting use of more efficient alternatives, but the consequences of NOT building roads go beyond economic inefficiency and head straight for military conquest. Unless you’re prepared to argue for a free-market civil defense, you must accept the construction of roads as a legitimate part of our government mandate, and the resulting market distortion as part of the price we pay for defense. And, even if you do go whole-hog anarcho-capitalist, it’s likely that any serious defense company would either insist on an adequate road system as a condition of employment, or raise their rates enough to build one themselves.
Title: Re: TAXES!!!
Post by: RalphBorsodi on January 13, 2007, 05:30:36 pm
Quote
Once the roads are built, it would hardly make sense to forbid their use for civilian purposes.

roads present a particular vexing problem because they actually "contain" two different sets of rights/property...

so within a roadway lies an individual common right of way that is an equal right...one is free to use so long as you are not infringing upon the equal rights of any other individual to the same right of way (this is why protestors have to continually move on a sidewalk).

the actual roadway itself (physical) is collectively owned property.
Title: Re: TAXES!!!
Post by: Russell Kanning on January 14, 2007, 08:48:18 am
You can't make roads privately owned. Everyone's answer to eliminating taxes is to make everything privately owned.  ::)

The government is responsible for providing and paying for "infrastructure" items. Items that are necessary, but are also not feasibly profitable for a private party to own. Roads are such an item.
Why not?
If there is no government most roads would be "owned" by someone.
I do not consider any government items necessary.
The government is not feasibly operating the roads right now.
I also live on a private road. With private snow removal.
Title: Re: TAXES!!!
Post by: Russell Kanning on January 14, 2007, 08:53:01 am
I still don't see how neighborhood roads could be privatized in the traditional sense. Bryan Caplan's idea of customer ownership of these "natural monopolies" is intriguing, however.
I live in such a neighborhood.
The neighborhood of Valencia in CA was master planned and all the roads built by Newhall Land and Farming. I bet if they would have never given it over to the government (city of Santa Clarita) the whole area would be much better off.
Title: Re: TAXES!!!
Post by: error on January 18, 2007, 05:18:18 am
I'm in a town full of private roads, and there isn't a tollbooth every block. The "roads" issue is mostly a non-issue.
Title: Re: TAXES!!!
Post by: JasonPSorens on January 18, 2007, 08:51:30 am
I'm in a town full of private roads, and there isn't a tollbooth every block. The "roads" issue is mostly a non-issue.

That's only possible in new developments, though, where a developer owns the roads. How do you privatize roads in a neighborhood that's already built & occupied?
Title: Re: TAXES!!!
Post by: KBCraig on January 18, 2007, 11:45:54 am
I'm in a town full of private roads, and there isn't a tollbooth every block. The "roads" issue is mostly a non-issue.

That's only possible in new developments, though, where a developer owns the roads. How do you privatize roads in a neighborhood that's already built & occupied?

Form a neighborhood association and ask the town to cede to the roads to the group.

Towns cede roads and rights-of-way all the time because they're unused or under-used, and the town doesn't want to pay to maintain them.

Title: Re: TAXES!!!
Post by: Crocuta on January 18, 2007, 01:31:23 pm
Form a neighborhood association and ask the town to cede to the roads to the group.

But you couldn't pay me to live in a community with a neighborhood association unless the bylaws were very narrowly constructed.  Some of those groups are worse than dealing with government building departments!
Title: Re: TAXES!!!
Post by: Gabriel on January 18, 2007, 10:15:53 pm
I'm in a town full of private roads, and there isn't a tollbooth every block. The "roads" issue is mostly a non-issue.

That's only possible in new developments, though, where a developer owns the roads. How do you privatize roads in a neighborhood that's already built & occupied?

Why do we have to invent a solution? Advise the residents that their taxes are being reduced and that the roads will no longer be maintained; let them decide how to handle it.
Title: Re: TAXES!!!
Post by: Batty on March 08, 2007, 04:18:08 pm
Hi everyone.  I found this site today and am still trying to sift through all the information.  I think it's great that people are creating something like this.  I find this a facinating topic and a thought occured to me.  Let's say that I was incredibly rich and had enough money to purchase every road in the state.  I would of course put up toll booths here and there to offset maintainance costs, etc.  Then one day I decided that for my mother's birthday it would be a nice tribute to close all roads for 24 hours.  Mother always hated long car trips.  Then on the following week I decided that for my father's birthday it would be nice to triple tolls for 24 hours.  Father always liked money.  My question is this: If I was prevented from doing these things, it seems that I would be deprived of a measure of liberty.  They are after all my roads.  I payed for them, I maintain them, they're my property.  But if I wasn't prevented from doing this then i'd be depriving a large group of people of a fair measure of their liberty.  Who am I to say when people should be able to travel?  How would you think something like this should be resolved?
Title: Re: TAXES!!!
Post by: error on March 08, 2007, 05:24:56 pm
That's easy. You can't stop someone else from building their own roads.
Title: Re: TAXES!!!
Post by: error on March 08, 2007, 05:25:33 pm
Not to mention, you couldn't buy all the roads anyway. People would start refusing to sell to you.
Title: Re: TAXES!!!
Post by: Felix Benner on March 08, 2007, 05:37:32 pm
Hi everyone.  I found this site today and am still trying to sift through all the information.  I think it's great that people are creating something like this.  I find this a facinating topic and a thought occured to me.  Let's say that I was incredibly rich and had enough money to purchase every road in the state.  I would of course put up toll booths here and there to offset maintainance costs, etc.  Then one day I decided that for my mother's birthday it would be a nice tribute to close all roads for 24 hours.  Mother always hated long car trips.  Then on the following week I decided that for my father's birthday it would be nice to triple tolls for 24 hours.  Father always liked money.  My question is this: If I was prevented from doing these things, it seems that I would be deprived of a measure of liberty.  They are after all my roads.  I payed for them, I maintain them, they're my property.  But if I wasn't prevented from doing this then i'd be depriving a large group of people of a fair measure of their liberty.  Who am I to say when people should be able to travel?  How would you think something like this should be resolved?

Let's say that I was incredibly rich and I would offer every single man and women the tripple of their current wage if they were working for me. And when they all agree I'd tell them to do something totally worthless. Now although I'd pay them the tripple of their previous wages there would be no goods produced that they could buy with their money. So everybody would just starve to death. How would you think something like this should be resolved?
Title: Re: TAXES!!!
Post by: garthwaited on March 08, 2007, 11:58:46 pm
I still don't see how neighborhood roads could be privatized in the traditional sense

You have to expand your imagination to miles of very bumpy, rutty, dirt road. Nothing wrong with them, really.

In my corner of the universe, if only one side of the street is populated, the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations has been very reluctant to maintain the roads.  Guess why?  Profitability.  It is thus easy for me to see that similarly Private Roads would be lesser maintained in those areas more sparsely populated.  What else would make sense.

People immediately cling to THE ROADS, but what if they started thinking of THE POLES, or more specifically, THE CABLE TV!  What is more technologically infeasable?  Universal private dedicated internet and digital HDTV access, or tamped asphalt?  Yet no one is yet screaming for government furnished porn distribution.
Title: Re: TAXES!!!
Post by: LibertyforLife on March 09, 2007, 12:25:34 am
I don't want government to maintain the roads, if it means they have to steal from me to do it. Personally I don't want the government to build or maintain the roads, or buy, maintain, or use equipment for such a purpose. Its not the role of government to provide 'services'.

Like all things if you can't do it yourself, you hire someone who has the experience or knowledge to do it for you. The government should hire a third party(shouldn't it really be second party?) to build and maintain the roads. If you chooses not to, then I want to legally help to maintain the roads I use and not worry about going to jail for trying to do so. I don't want to charge people to use the roads I maintain. I'm not apposed to people making money, I make money, but not at the expense of others trying to exercise their rights.

Oh, and get your damn hands out of my pockets, government, before I cut them off.

Forrest
Title: Re: TAXES!!!
Post by: KBCraig on March 17, 2007, 02:49:01 am
On one of my favorite gun forums, the topic of roads came up recently. I argued against all eminent domain.

http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_Forum/viewtopic.php?p=68456#68456

Kevin
Title: Re: TAXES!!!
Post by: LibertyforLife on March 17, 2007, 09:56:45 am
Personally I want the State government to have the power of eminent domain, so long as the people control it and not the government.

How else are we going to be able to kick the Federal Government out of New Hampshire. I for one want to see what happens when the State tells the Federal Government that its taking back all the land given to it previously. I think that would be justice.

'If you can't act responsibly, then get out of my state Federal Government.'

Forrest
Title: Re: TAXES!!!
Post by: CA_Libertarian on June 09, 2007, 03:16:23 am
I grew up on a privately owned road.  The road was only one block long, was dirt and gravel, and provided access to about 7 houses and a roofing company's storage lot.  All the surrounding roads were publicly owned and maintained.

Our road was graded once per year to keep the ruts out, and to make sure it drained properly.  It was a little dusty, but it worked just as well as the paved roads... for a fraction of the cost.
Title: Re: TAXES!!!
Post by: lloydbob1 on June 09, 2007, 07:53:14 am
Hi everyone.  I found this site today and am still trying to sift through all the information.  I think it's great that people are creating something like this.  I find this a facinating topic and a thought occured to me.  Let's say that I was incredibly rich and had enough money to purchase every road in the state.  I would of course put up toll booths here and there to offset maintainance costs, etc.  Then one day I decided that for my mother's birthday it would be a nice tribute to close all roads for 24 hours.  Mother always hated long car trips.  Then on the following week I decided that for my father's birthday it would be nice to triple tolls for 24 hours.  Father always liked money.  My question is this: If I was prevented from doing these things, it seems that I would be deprived of a measure of liberty.  They are after all my roads.  I payed for them, I maintain them, they're my property.  But if I wasn't prevented from doing this then i'd be depriving a large group of people of a fair measure of their liberty.  Who am I to say when people should be able to travel?  How would you think something like this should be resolved?

Let's say that I was incredibly rich and I would offer every single man and women the tripple of their current wage if they were working for me. And when they all agree I'd tell them to do something totally worthless. Now although I'd pay them the tripple of their previous wages there would be no goods produced that they could buy with their money. So everybody would just starve to death. How would you think something like this should be resolved?

Getting a smarter population?
Title: Re: TAXES!!!
Post by: lasse on June 09, 2007, 08:08:34 am
Hi everyone.  I found this site today and am still trying to sift through all the information.  I think it's great that people are creating something like this.  I find this a facinating topic and a thought occured to me.  Let's say that I was incredibly rich and had enough money to purchase every road in the state.  I would of course put up toll booths here and there to offset maintainance costs, etc.  Then one day I decided that for my mother's birthday it would be a nice tribute to close all roads for 24 hours.  Mother always hated long car trips.  Then on the following week I decided that for my father's birthday it would be nice to triple tolls for 24 hours.  Father always liked money.  My question is this: If I was prevented from doing these things, it seems that I would be deprived of a measure of liberty.  They are after all my roads.  I payed for them, I maintain them, they're my property.  But if I wasn't prevented from doing this then i'd be depriving a large group of people of a fair measure of their liberty.  Who am I to say when people should be able to travel?  How would you think something like this should be resolved?

Let's say that I was incredibly rich and I would offer every single man and women the tripple of their current wage if they were working for me. And when they all agree I'd tell them to do something totally worthless. Now although I'd pay them the tripple of their previous wages there would be no goods produced that they could buy with their money. So everybody would just starve to death. How would you think something like this should be resolved?
You couldn't sustain that long enough to let a single person starve before you'd have to make profits in order to continue paying the way you do. Not to mention that you wouldn't get enough persons to agree to that in the first place.
Title: Re: TAXES!!!
Post by: dalebert on June 09, 2007, 09:19:41 pm
I love when people like to make comparison to things the government is handling right now and how effed up they are, like the DMV. We don't want the government to handle healthcare. Look at the DMV! And then the very same people turn right around and say "but there are some things the government MUST handle because they're too important, like roads and national defense."  :o How do people make that amazing leap of logic?

The other ridiculous argument is pointing out the many potential problems that could exist in a market version of something the government runs now, like roads. But what about the problems we have now? Our country is arguably one of the most free in the world. Yet look at how much destruction has become of our engorged military. Look at how must damage our tax system has caused, including the massive chunk justified for the building of roads and other "public" property.

We have all kinds of problems to work out with a large and diverse population trying to live together and it will never be perfect. There will always be crime, fraud, attempts to exploit people. Creating an arbitrary authority and using aggressive force against innocent people right from the start is NEVER the way to solve those problems. A truly free society will always have the disputes to work out and there will even be violence, but violence will be a lot less common in a society where a select group of people hasn't been given the power to use violence arbitrarily and with an elaborate system of justifications for preemptive force that protect them from the consequences the most free people would face for the same violent acts.

We all believe private charity works better than welfare, don't we? Why do you think that is? Imagine how likely the Iraq war would have been if Bush had to pass a hat for funds. Would it have happened? I don't think so and I see that as an advantage of a free market defense.

We're libertarians. We know the government effs things up. So the next time you find yourself thinking there is something so important that the government must handle it, back up for a moment and rethink that.
Title: Re: TAXES!!!
Post by: dalebert on June 09, 2007, 10:00:24 pm
Many mass transit systems were purcahsed by the car companies and dismantled.

That begs the question of just how profitable they were. If there's real potential to make profit off them, then selfish greedy car companies would be nuts to dismantle them once they owned all that infrastructure. For that matter, why didn't someone else outbid them so they could make money off them? Profitability is based on TRUE cost versus demand and so is a pretty good indicator of how badly something is desired and therefore, whether it deserves to exist. People are willing to spend money for the convenience of cars. Their time had come.

Without even doing any research (I admit it), I doubt there is any large scale public transit system today that isn't massively subsidized. The real cost is hidden from us. I don't use them much because they suck but I'm still paying for them. That disturbs me a lot more than the car companies buying something with their own money and dismantling it. Government is about a select group of elites making arbitrary decisions for the rest of us and forcing those decisions on us. That's worse than the potential for someone to make business decisions with their own property that some of us don't like. If government would just quit meddling, I bet there would be better transit systems already with advances in technology. Some are being developed despite interference from government, but I bet they could have happened a lot sooner. Gas prices, congestion, and just general environmental guilt will push the market if the government will stop effing things up.
Title: Re: TAXES!!!
Post by: GhengisConrad on June 10, 2007, 01:15:40 am
May I kindly refer you all to these topics

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=13483.msg170265#msg170265

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=13482.0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_privatization

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=13739.0

And as for legal courts and what not I actually really like Ayn Rand`s idea she put forth in one of her philosophy books. I couldnt find a link and the book I have is currently being borrowed by my friend but its like, everytime you sign a contract you pay a small insurance fee to the gov.. and yea.

Hope this can shed some light.
 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

and as for healthcare, legalize drugs, and you really dont need to go to a doctor. Half the time I know what I need before I go in. I can just Wiki my symptoms and save about a hundred bucks if I could just go get the medicene myself. Honestly I almost always get exactly what I thought I needed. and if someone doesnt have the internet, for 5$ Ill look it up for them.

Its called the free market. It works ;D
Title: Re: TAXES!!!
Post by: Keyser Soce on June 10, 2007, 06:37:11 am
Many mass transit systems were purcahsed by the car companies and dismantled.

 I doubt there is any large scale public transit system today that isn't massively subsidized.

The only one I'm aware of is the monorail in Las Vegas.
Title: Re: TAXES!!!
Post by: dalebert on June 10, 2007, 08:24:45 am
I doubt there is any large scale public transit system today that isn't massively subsidized.

The only one I'm aware of is the monorail in Las Vegas.

I wouldn't really call that one "large scale". It's pretty localized. Still, I'm glad you brought it up because it's a great example for expanding on my point.

I think that's a great example of a transportation system that exists without any direct cost to users like toll booths because it serves businesses for customers to be able to reach them. They wanted to remove discouragements from patronizing their businesses like walking in the hot Vegas sun, without adding any discouragement like a cost of getting around.

It serves so many aspects of our society for us to have an affordable and practical means of transportation that the market is best for solving the complicated problem of roads. In fact, it is such a complicated problem and that's why it's best solved organically rather than with central planning by bureaucrats. I suspect a lot of roads and other means of transportion will exist without any direct cost to users simply because there are businesses or organizations that benefit enough from their functionality to buy and/or maintain them. They'd rather allow some freeloaders on the Vegas rail than go through the tedium and cost of maintaining a toll system.

If one is of a libertarian mindset, then one presumably believes the free market solves problems better than central planning. Why does one often abandon that belief when it comes to the really big, complex, and important problems and insist an aggressive manipulative force must be in charge of those things? Those problems are particularly suited for an organic and continually evolving solution.
Title: Re: TAXES!!!
Post by: CA_Libertarian on June 10, 2007, 04:19:17 pm
In the area I live we have both public and private bus service.  The private bus service is the same price, and there's no schedules to memorize.  You just call a local number and give an address and time; they'll send a bus around to pick you up anywhere in the city limits.  It's a lot like calling a taxi, but they use buses that seat about 20.

Title: Re: TAXES!!!
Post by: jamesbeebop on June 25, 2007, 12:33:40 pm
This thread bumped right into the ideas from a book I just finished reading ... "Brave New War" by John Robb (http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/).  I can't imagine a worse thing in the world than allowing the state to provide "infrastructure" in the rapidly changing world we face today.  Those who are hung up on figuring out the 'how' ... we don't have to know the answer to every question.  Thats the beauty of the market (or of a deeply networked "open source" society).  The answer to a given problem *will* emerge, or my new favorite way to say this, "Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus's_Law)

Title: Re: TAXES!!! and Monorail
Post by: Porcupine Realtor on June 30, 2007, 06:22:34 pm
I live in Las Vegas, and the monorail IS SUBSIDIZED by the taxpayers.  It was a public-private operation, funded partly by casinos, but the taxpayers are on the hook for bonds.  The sucker loses money every month.
Title: Re: TAXES!!! and Monorail
Post by: WmBGreene on July 23, 2007, 03:34:31 pm
I live in Las Vegas, and the monorail IS SUBSIDIZED by the taxpayers.  It was a public-private operation, funded partly by casinos, but the taxpayers are on the hook for bonds.  The sucker loses money every month.

Monorail is not cost effective only because the automobile is so heavily subsidized. Mass transit only makes sense when the urban area is of sufficient density to make it profitable. You would first have to end all the direct subsidies and indirect privilege to the automobile which includes those to oil and roads.
Title: Re: TAXES!!! and Monorail
Post by: Keyser Soce on July 23, 2007, 06:32:42 pm
I live in Las Vegas, and the monorail IS SUBSIDIZED by the taxpayers.  It was a public-private operation, funded partly by casinos, but the taxpayers are on the hook for bonds.  The sucker loses money every month.

Didn't know that. I was under the impression that private meant private. Silly me. We're crushed on the one here in Phx. Just one more reason to move to NH.  :)