Reactions to AC

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can't vote while writing my check to the IRS, either. The polls aren't open on April 15th.

[/ QUOTE ]
Technically correct, but of course if you want to, you can write your check to the IRS on voting day. Nothing says you can't pay your estimated taxes early (in most cases you won't have your final numbers for the year until the first week of January or so), or file for an extension and pay 'em late, albeit at a higher ("penalty") rate. You can even fill the check out right there in the voting booth if you want.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. You can't file before the end of the year. And extensions expire before voting day.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And if a 2nd grader can't choose which school to attend, it's only because the state is severely distorting the market for grammar schools.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, it's because society recognizes that 7-year-olds can't make intelligent decisions about where to obtain their educations.

[/ QUOTE ]

False anthropomorphization fallacy.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm struggling with this. I didn't bring up 2nd graders, you did. You said 2nd graders can't choose where they go to school (and said it as though this were a bad thing). Are you arguing that 7-year-olds should be allowed to choose where they go to school or aren't you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you arguing that parents can't send their kids to a different school? Quit squirming.

[/ QUOTE ]
Reread your quote. I'll bold it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, semantical nitpicks FTW. hang your hat on that one, be proud of it!

[/ QUOTE ]
I quite literally assumed you meant what you had written. You were giving examples of what you saw as coersion by the state. I took it that way because if you meant to say that a 2nd grader's parents can't choose the school their child attends, you're simply wrong. They can not only choose what school their child attends, they can even choose to send their child to no school at all.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
People are biologically capable of surviving without charges to order about and bosses to recieve orders from.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. Now. Which doesn't negate the last 50 million years of evolution.

[valtaherra]

[ QUOTE ]
And while the government certainly doesn't offer the solution to everything, there are some things it really does do pretty well, EG roads.

[/ QUOTE ]

40,000 people die every year on government roads.<font color="red"> That number would all but disappear on privately operated roads </font>

Many cases of extensive, traffic congesting road construction work have been documented as needless, mere political favors rewarding generous donors, at incredibly steep, unjustifiable costs to the taxpayers. Nothing is done about this.<font color="red"> wasteful road companies habitually hiring needless construction as gifts to pavers would go out of business </font>

Citizens of any given state cherish their Department of Transportation and DMV's like they cherish the black death.<font color="red"> companies that patrons cherish like the black death go out of business, fast </font>

Construction of a major road is often preceded by the violent hijacking and destruction of innocent people's homes in the name of "social efficiency."<font color="red"> Would never happen with privately operated roads </font>

Many of the people paying through the nose for roads don't even use said roads, never have and never will.<font color="red"> Would never happen with privately operated roads </font>

The global warming crowd claims that allowing all licensed drivers unlimited usage, "free" access to almost all roads using any size truck or car may end up killing all of us.<font color="red"> Costs more to drive cars? Costs even more to drive SUVs and trucks? Less people drive cars. Even less people drive SUVs and trucks. Less CO2 emissions. Less global warming. Less apocalypse. </font>

...

Could you explain what you mean by "government does roads pretty well."

[valtaherra]

[ QUOTE ]
They can not only choose what school their child attends, they can even choose to send their child to no school at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not without notifying the state, and maintaining regular upkeep on curriculums, progress, and professional evaluations. Fail and your child may be taken away from you by CPS and sent to a foster home where you can't do any more harm.

[valtaherra]

[ QUOTE ]
and in the process debunks the AC myth that government "monopolies" prevent competition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? What AC myth?

Government monopolies (redundant LDO) do prevent competition (that is to say, they exclude it from legal parameters or expressly outlaw it and attempt to destroy it).

You clearly understand here that government *allows* competition in schooling, so why are you professing that some non-existent monopoly on schools is evidence that the very definition of monopoly isn't in fact the definition of monopoly?

Private security firms and private mediators do not compete with justice and law enforcement. If I hire Brinks to protect my house, its evidence that government law enforcement is a failure (LDO) but it doesnt mean I get to stop paying my taxes that fund the police department. It doesn't mean that a cop doesn't drive up and down my street every other hour. Likewise, if I hire a private mediator, I don't cease paying taxes for state and local courts and judges. You obviously didn't think about this one enough.

Oh, and a big [censored] LOL at linking private defense contractors being paid by the government and claiming they compete with government. (and a residual LOL at your repeated accusations of intellectual honesty)

[valtaherra]

[ QUOTE ]
I know from firsthand experience that the mixed economy of the United States has led to enormous national prosperity,

[/ QUOTE ]

No you dont. You see firsthand enormous prosperity, but you dont know that violent intervention guided by arbitrary, high time preference impulses into otherwise voluntary transactions has led to this prosperity.

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Or instead are you
B) paying a few grand in taxes

[/ QUOTE ]

? Where do you live dude?

TAXES

This list does not assume to be the complete list. Let us know if we have missed any.

Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
Social Security Tax
Medicare Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax
School Tax

Sales Taxes (State and Local)

Real Estate Tax
Property Tax
Building Permit Tax
Well Permit Tax
Septic Permit Tax
Utility Taxes
Severence Tax

Corporate Income Tax
Accounts Receivable Tax
Privilege Tax
Inventory Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel permit tax

Inheritance Tax
Interest Expense
Capital Gains Tax
IRS Penalties
IRS Interest Charges

Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes

Marriage License Tax
Service Charge Taxes

Telephone federal excise tax
Telephone federal universal service fee tax
Telephone federal, state and local surcharge taxes
Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax
Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax
Telephone state and local tax
Telephone usage charge tax

Vehicle Sales Tax
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Trailer registration tax
Road Toll Booth Taxes
Toll Bridge Taxes
Toll Tunnel Taxes
Watercraft registration Tax

Gasoline Tax

Road Usage Taxes (Truckers)

Dog License Tax
Fishing License Tax
Hunting License Tax
Cigarette Tax

[/ QUOTE ]

And don't forget one of the largest taxes: the inflation tax. With fiat money every time the government prints more dollars the ones in your pocket are less valuable. Hence, the inflation tax. But it is not counted because the government doesn't want you to know what it is. The consumer price index conveniently leaves out things like food and fuel so you can't look there.

Nice list by the way.

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And while the government certainly doesn't offer the solution to everything, there are some things it really does do pretty well, EG roads.

[/ QUOTE ]

40,000 people die every year on government roads.<font color="red"> That number would all but disappear on privately operated roads </font>

Many cases of extensive, traffic congesting road construction work have been documented as needless, mere political favors rewarding generous donors, at incredibly steep, unjustifiable costs to the taxpayers. Nothing is done about this.<font color="red"> wasteful road companies habitually hiring needless construction as gifts to pavers would go out of business </font>

Citizens of any given state cherish their Department of Transportation and DMV's like they cherish the black death.<font color="red"> companies that patrons cherish like the black death go out of business, fast </font>

Construction of a major road is often preceded by the violent hijacking and destruction of innocent people's homes in the name of "social efficiency."<font color="red"> Would never happen with privately operated roads </font>

Many of the people paying through the nose for roads don't even use said roads, never have and never will.<font color="red"> Would never happen with privately operated roads </font>

The global warming crowd claims that allowing all licensed drivers unlimited usage, "free" access to almost all roads using any size truck or car may end up killing all of us.<font color="red"> Costs more to drive cars? Costs even more to drive SUVs and trucks? Less people drive cars. Even less people drive SUVs and trucks. Less CO2 emissions. Less global warming. Less apocalypse. </font>

...

Could you explain what you mean by "government does roads pretty well."

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow! Fantastic examples. Thank you for your time putting this together.

I just found this thread. I wish some of you ACers would come over to the legislation section and discuss Barney Frank's bill. I am the only one over there that thinks that more government regulation of poker will not be a good thing and that handing the gov't that much power over the industry will not be good for us.

For the statist out there, I understand your position. I grew up a liberal New Yorker (I think it is a mandate) and used to feel the way you do. I thought that the only question in politics was how should the money get spent. Of course, I thought it should go to the poor and they should have things like higher minimum wages etc.

I went to public schools until grad school, that was private. However, I did not learn anything about Libertarianism and AC there. I had to learn it on my own.

My first revelation came when I discovered that the government has no money. None at all. Whatever they get they take from us. That started to change the tide for me. I think thieving is immoral. Since I do not agree to the money that the gov't takes from me I call it theft. Many statists call it a privilege.

Then I find it fascinating that statists (a word that does not even show up in my spell checker by the way) go straight to roads and the military and ignore all the rest of the theft and wealth distribution. Although I would be happier with a private military and roads, if that was all the gov't was doing I might be able to live with that. But that is not all.

In this country 95% of the people own 5% of the wealth and 5% of the people own the other 95%. That is not due to a standard market distribution. That is due to government wealth distribution.

You claim that we are the wealthiest best off nation on the earth. But what we are saying is that that is the case DESPITE the gov't not because of it, and if the gov't would get out the way then one can only imagine the riches and wealth for us all.

Most of government is legislation and court action that gives the possessor of the greatest amount of power the greatest gifts. I am against that power.

When added up this government is spending over 1 trillion a year on the war in Iraq. (See Congressman Ron Paul for a citation for this figure.) One trillion. Do you know how much money that is? Start in the year zero, take one million dollars every day of every year and still it would take you over 730 YEARS from today to spend it. I think we as a people over here are better off with that money. I also think that we as a people are better off without a gov't that has the power to take that much money from us.

But pvn makes much more eloquent arguments than I. So do James Bovard, Harry Browne, Milton Friedman and Ludwig von Mises.

I think that to truly understand the AC position you need a good understanding of Austrian economics and to get away from that awful Keynesian (sp?) crap we all learned in our public schools.

One more question... Why is that most people have no trouble seeing that government control over the press is a very bad idea while they push for more government control over the schools (public education)? I know, I know, because we all want little Johnny to get a good education and to prohibit him from getting one is evil. But what if what he is being taught is evil?

Finally, I saw a poster saying that a vote for a libertarian is a wasted vote. I used to vote for the lesser of two evils. Now I don't vote for evil anymore. I vote libertarian. If you do vote for evil then you are sanctioning and endorsing evil. Do you get a prize somewhere for voting for the winning candidate I don't know about? Then why bother? Either don't vote or vote libertarian. Or of course, this year, vote for Ron Paul. He rocks.

I don't mean to dumb down the discussion but I am not as eloquent or well versed in AC to do much better. I am learning.

[timotheeeee]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No problem at all! Tell him to start here:
link He should be able to figure out what to look at next. If you find anything not to your liking, try any of the methods I suggested above for bringing about change, or you could make your exit, per the "throwing off the chains" link, also above.

[/ QUOTE ]


cool .. since the constitution is the contract. I should have no problem holding these [censored] in breach. I cant wait to get the refund plus damages for paying them to represent me for all these years.

[/ QUOTE ]
Collecting damages from the government wouldn't make much sense, since you'd (in effect) be paying yourself. You're of course welcome to take 'em to court though for whatever breaches you believe they've committed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Citizens have no standing to sue the federal government for not doing what the government is supposed to. There is one narrow circumstance where a citizen has standing as a tax-payer to bring suit against the government, and that's when the government over-steps its spending power and violates the Establishment Clause (like if the government was handing out billions to parochial schools). But that's the only time a tax payer has standing as a tax payer. The courts call situations such as these 'generalized grievances' and tax payers don't have standing when they're harm is relatively minute, or shared equally with everyone.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
40,000 people die every year on government roads.<font color="red"> That number would all but disappear on privately operated roads </font>

[/ QUOTE ]
"That number would all but disappear on privately operated roads." -&gt; Source?

[ QUOTE ]
Many cases of extensive, traffic congesting road construction work have been documented as needless, mere political favors rewarding generous donors, at incredibly steep, unjustifiable costs to the taxpayers. Nothing is done about this.<font color="red"> wasteful road companies habitually hiring needless construction as gifts to pavers would go out of business </font>

[/ QUOTE ]
"Nothing is done about this" -&gt; Sources?

[ QUOTE ]
Citizens of any given state cherish their Department of Transportation and DMV's like they cherish the black death.<font color="red"> companies that patrons cherish like the black death go out of business, fast </font>

[/ QUOTE ]
Sort of. I think you're right that people habitually dislike their DOT's, but this doesn't necessarily demonstrate that DOT's are bad, and in that sense, people's (possibly misplaced) dislike might actually be harmful in a one-sector world. For instance, I would guess that most people don't like surgeons who perform amputations (not that this is necessarily a modern surgical specialty per se, but bear with me for the sake of example)... but on the off chance I ever develop a serious case of gangrene, I'm quite sure I don't want the profession eliminated.

[ QUOTE ]
Construction of a major road is often preceded by the violent hijacking and destruction of innocent people's homes in the name of "social efficiency."<font color="red"> Would never happen with privately operated roads </font>

[/ QUOTE ]
Like you, I have problems with eminent domain powers. (I see them as solvable, however, without eliminating the power; if you're interested, ask, and I'll explain how.) That said, at times the process truly is for the good of society, and if it could be made harmless or all but harmless to the eminent domainee, having the possibility would be better than not having it. Even today, it wouldn't surprise me if this was the case. (And incidentally, my perspective holds despite the fact that my father used to own a tennis court as a business, which the city snagged it via e.d. to put up a fire station.)

[ QUOTE ]
Many of the people paying through the nose for roads don't even use said roads, never have and never will.<font color="red"> Would never happen with privately operated roads </font>

[/ QUOTE ]
False. You don't need to drive on a road to receive benefits from it. How did the grocer who sells you groceries get them? How does the pizza guy you called deliver your order? When your grandpa has a heart attack during Thanksgiving dinner, how do the paramedics get to your house to try and revive him? Etc, etc, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
The global warming crowd claims that allowing all licensed drivers unlimited usage, "free" access to almost all roads using any size truck or car may end up killing all of us.<font color="red"> Costs more to drive cars? Costs even more to drive SUVs and trucks? Less people drive cars. Even less people drive SUVs and trucks. Less CO2 emissions. Less global warming. Less apocalypse. </font>

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, even though everybody knows that global warming is a precisely documented phenomenon leading with perfect certainty to a highly predictable, utterly bleak outcome, I'm going to decline to argue with you about this "issue". I'll leave it to you to decide whether that's fair.