Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I find it laughable yet not in a funny way that people who, not only do not claim to be libertarians, rather refer to themselves as independents, republicans, democrats, socialists, communists, Marxists, fascists or some other political affiliation, knowing themselves to be biased to their own beliefs and thinking, would dare to claim they know what libertarians believe while badmouthing every single aspect of libertarian-ism along the way.
One of the big differences is libertarians don't give two hoots if you choose to live under some State (or federal state) run will, beliefs, morality and dictates... as long as you let those of us who don't believe we need masters, rulers and dictators to successfully live our lives, be free to live as we choose.
I have NEVER... not once in my life, met a libertarian who wishes to IMPOSE their will, beliefs, morality and dictates upon any other person yet I can assure you that any and everyone of any political persuasion other than libertarian-ism seeks to impose THEIR will, beliefs, morality and dictates upon society.
Feel free to live in your own self created hyper controlling government as long as you leave those of us who wish to live free to choose alone. As for me... I choose LIBERTY!
Nope. The money belonged to someone so stopping to pick it up on the road is wrong. I still think it was Brinks' money that was stolen, except for the money that blew away in the wind of course... At least least be consistent with property and cash being stolen. Oh wait, that wasn't taxes so I guess it is fine.
People are not going to willingly pay. I used to belong to a HOA responsible for the roads. It was near impossible to get people to pay. The roads were terrible and it was all gave up on and turned over to the county.
Then clearly those people did not feel they needed those roads, and typically your solution was to deposit the costs of maintenance on the wider public. Now the HOA is not paying maintenance, but, the county or state is taxing people some of which maintains roads only of benefit to the residents of the HOA.
(BTW the roads you're discussing were privately financed, because you had to turn them over to the county, whodathunkit)
People willingly pay for things they think or know they need, you see people not paying their utility bills? Occasionally, they don't and the utility is suspended eventually. Which may be why people willingly pay, they understand the connection between paying the utility bills and continuation of service. There is no such connection between roads and road use because they're paid, in general, by taxation.
So if the connection is re-established, there's no reason to believe people wouldn't willingly pay, and if they don't, it's not your prerogative to demand payment for your personal needs, find alternatives.
You have to remember the US is an anomaly, Europe and Asia have had roads and transportation networks for centuries (millennia in truth) much of which it was not government run or maintained. Think of this 20 years before Oregon had any government the first public steam locomotive railroad was in operation in the UK (privately owned and run), that was novel but there were also roads and canals for transportation of goods and people, and in general these were built and maintained without government involvement, but financed by tolls.
Nope. The money belonged to someone so stopping to pick it up on the road is wrong. I still think it was Brinks' money that was stolen, except for the money that blew away in the wind of course... At least least be consistent with property and cash being stolen. Oh wait, that wasn't taxes so I guess it is fine.
Brinks were entirely entitled to any cash they could prove they had possession of at the time of that incident.
They did not however have a blanket entitlement to any an all cash in that general vicinity for an undisclosed period of time.
Healthcare, shelter, heating, etc. are all good things.
But degree matters, and taxing people for broadband, roads, etc. to attract corporate investment isn’t a good thing for the long or short term. Having community interests driving state action should happen on the local level, decided by people, not local officials.
Nebraska’s electric system is operated by worker cooperatives where people who use the system get to decide how it’s operated and how much investment is put into it, usually what happens then is that expenses are kept to fulfilling the daily needs of people rather than trying to attract large corporate investments and gentrify the community for more tax revenue and prestige.
As I said, I do not support everything we do. I'm not tied to any one particular funding system but any system is going to be backed by the power of the group.
pknopp can not wrap their head around how a society would work, without 'taxation' and without 'force'.
It wouldn't. Outside of some theory that wouldn't work. How can I wrap my head around something that hasn't been presented?
In the example given people are still paying with their labor and it is going to be enforced. Calling a tax something different is still a tax. Force is still force. Argue you support taxes and force being done in a different way, you could have a good argument if you could explain how it works (did you note, the toll suggestion still has not been explained).
Quote:
to quote pknopp "We are not going to exist without some sort of force. It's just not going to happen. I'm not into solutions that do not work."
Could be they're right, left leaning Winterfall ... got a solution?
PS: oh look, professor of economics at Montana State University-Northern wrote a paper on it ...
College theory. And I bet you generally make fun of ideas that come out of colleges? The entire argument is like reading Winnie the Pooh. It argues that taxes are OK until we build up a big enough excess. LOL. You really believe this is a good argument? LOL
I find it laughable yet not in a funny way that people who, not only do not claim to be libertarians, rather refer to themselves as independents, republicans, democrats, socialists, communists, Marxists, fascists or some other political affiliation, knowing themselves to be biased to their own beliefs and thinking, would dare to claim they know what libertarians believe while badmouthing every single aspect of libertarian-ism along the way.
That hasn't happened here.
Quote:
One of the big differences is libertarians don't give two hoots if you choose to live under some State (or federal state) run will, beliefs, morality and dictates... as long as you let those of us who don't believe we need masters, rulers and dictators to successfully live our lives, be free to live as we choose.
Libertarians are NOT anti-government. You are not describing Libertarians. If they were anti-government, they would not run for office to start with. You like others are confusing Libertarians and Anarchists. I've worked the campaigns of many Libertarians on the state level. How do you run for something you don't believe in? I was the official photographer at the state Libertarian convention. What was Gary Johnson doing there running for president if he doesn't support a government?
Quote:
I have NEVER... not once in my life, met a libertarian who wishes to IMPOSE their will, beliefs, morality and dictates upon any other person yet I can assure you that any and everyone of any political persuasion other than libertarian-ism seeks to impose THEIR will, beliefs, morality and dictates upon society.
I worked for John Buckley for Senate. I was in his campaign ad. John is Pro-life. John was one of the major players to get the (L) party off the ground in WV.
Feel free to live in your own self created hyper controlling government as long as you leave those of us who wish to live free to choose alone. As for me... I choose LIBERTY!
Nobody cares if you go off and live on your own. If you are going to use the structures of society that was built by society, you are going to have to also pay for it.
Then clearly those people did not feel they needed those roads, and typically your solution was to deposit the costs of maintenance on the wider public. Now the HOA is not paying maintenance, but, the county or state is taxing people some of which maintains roads only of benefit to the residents of the HOA.
You are completely ignoring how people really are as opposed to some sort of rose colored glasses version of people. They most certainly complained about the roads and their property becomes worthless without them.
Quote:
(BTW the roads you're discussing were privately financed, because you had to turn them over to the county, whodathunkit)
No they were built by the government. Upkeep was turned over to a HOA. It was a mostly FHA financed community outside of town for people with lower incomes to be able to afford a house. It was my first house purchased in 1985 and my ex still lives there.
Quote:
People willingly pay for things they think or know they need, you see people not paying their utility bills?
Occasionally, they don't and the utility is suspended eventually. Which may be why people willingly pay, they understand the connection between paying the utility bills and continuation of service. There is no such connection between roads and road use because they're paid, in general, by taxation.
Here you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. People understand they have to pay their utilities except for when they don't. This happens in all of these threads.
Quote:
So if the connection is re-established, there's no reason to believe people wouldn't willingly pay, and if they don't, it's not your prerogative to demand payment for your personal needs, find alternatives.
Everyone uses roads. They become unaffordable financed only on a local level. You would be driving 70 mph across the state where the road would simply end. I've asked over and over and over to describe this local financing plan and I get nothing but "tolls". I will then note that tolls are still a tax and that it wouldn't work on large scale anyway.
Quote:
You have to remember the US is an anomaly, Europe and Asia have had roads and transportation networks for centuries (millennia in truth) much of which it was not government run or maintained. Think of this 20 years before Oregon had any government the first public steam locomotive railroad was in operation in the UK (privately owned and run), that was novel but there were also roads and canals for transportation of goods and people, and in general these were built and maintained without government involvement, but financed by tolls.
The same crap over and over. We are NOT going to go back to dirt roads.
You are completely ignoring how people really are as opposed to some sort of rose colored glasses version of people. They most certainly complained about the roads and their property becomes worthless without them.
So let them deal. Why was it your responsibility to fix a problem that you say they had, from complaints but were not prepared to pay for? And you're saying I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth...
You cleverly ignored my statement that you FORCED the rest of the county and state to pick up the bill, you don't deny this, do you believe that you're entitled to it? Do you believe that because you could not wave your magic wand and make the tenants cough up road maintenance costs, you had a right to everyone BUT that developments taxes to finance your failure?
This is much that is wrong with the US in particular, but most countries in general.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
No they were built by the government. Upkeep was turned over to a HOA. It was a mostly FHA financed community outside of town for people with lower incomes to be able to afford a house. It was my first house purchased in 1985 and my ex still lives there.
Regardless, the FHA in this instance was acting as the subdivision developer, same as all subdivision developments, the contractor (in this instance it happened to be FHA financed, but would be developer financed outside of this) builds roads to permit access to those properties.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
Here you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. People understand they have to pay their utilities except for when they don't. This happens in all of these threads.
The VAST majority of people receiving utilities pay their bills on time, and the full amount, sure there are some cases where people don't and they're important cases, because they're the example of what happens when you do not pay your bill. Why would that not work for "public infrastructure", because well, some folks don't want to pay their bill, wont listen to pknopps threats of smiting with his magic wand, so they must be forced to finance it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
Everyone uses roads. They become unaffordable financed only on a local level. You would be driving 70 mph across the state where the road would simply end. I've asked over and over and over to describe this local financing plan and I get nothing but "tolls". I will then note that tolls are still a tax and that it wouldn't work on large scale anyway.
Tolls are a fee for use, like going on a rollercoaster, you pay to get on, you then get off, in a broad sense you could argue that's a rollercoaster tax, but it's not demanded of everyone in general, so that pknopps subdivision can go on the rollercoaster for free, because threats of smiting with a magic wand failed. Why should people who don't use certain roads be charged for their use? They've had transponders in Racing cars for decades, it's pretty easy to set up junctions with receivers to track where cars go, and then charge drivers a use fee for the trips they take.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
The same crap over and over. We are NOT going to go back to dirt roads.
Why would we? Because you've got this little story in your head about taxes being needed for fully sealed roads? Romans didn't build dirt roads, and didn't publicly fund them either. It was seen as a public service of the wealthy to build them, and those with frontage to maintain them. I mean I just told you that a Railroad was built privately in the UK, using private funding in 1828, for the carriage of goods and services, and you still say "muh! Roads", I mean that railroad had steel rails, and wooden sleepers, on gravel, and a steam locomotive with cars. But hey you think we need taxes?
I NEVER said I was anti-government. I, like most libertarians believe 95% or more of the government we have is unconstitutional and certainly unnecessary.
Yet when a REAL libertarian says things like this, you predictably grunt, Muh roads!
As far as Gary Johnson and John Buckley they are typical big government republicans who claim to be libertarians because they want to get rid of one or two departments or agencies. Anyone seeking to use government and the force of government to impose THEIR will, morality and dictates upon society is NOT a libertarian, regardless of what they call themselves.
Libertarians read the US and State Constitutions, recognizing there ARE needed functions of government and that these are enumerated functions. What they don't accept is government interference in anything it wasn't granted an enumerated power on, nor do they recognize how many in government (all 3 branches are guilty here, both federal and State) bastardize the wording and intent of the respective constitutions like they've done with the "Commerce Clause" and the "General Welfare Clause".
Michael Badnarik the Presidential candidate in 2004 gives an excellent class on the Constitution and the proper role of government in our lives. HE was a genuine libertarian candidate. Here is a copy of his original platform page. http://badnarik.org/index.php
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
