Should Infrastructure be Politically Controlled?

Originally Posted by Guru

Which is why, obviously, that I think it's OK that if people want to live extravagant, impractical lives (by living in big houses 50 miles away from work), that they shouldn't gripe about being taxed on infrastructure. (To keep with the context of the thread, at least).

Maybe I missed someone, but I only saw one person here who was griping about being taxed for infrastructure. The people who would be biking in from the suburbs are just those who would be told to suck it up so he doesn't have to pay those taxes.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Styphon: Regardless of whether there aren't real alternatives to the corporation's roads, the corporation must still anticipate and compete with potential alternatives. If the incentives are there, then people will develop alternative forms of transit which do not require the use of roads, such as private rail or cheaper air travel. It's the same reason monopolies are not absolute, since they must constantly compete with upstarts and anticipate new substitute industries.

I think a good solution for the case you pointed out, where the corporation controls all forms of transit, is to seperate each primary form of transit between their own corporations. The problems of shareholder complication is ruled out, since people will gravitate to participate in the corporations concerning their preferred mode of transit.

As Guru points out, cycling is very practical in the immediate area. The reason people drive everywhere in this country is because gas is so cheap. If we remove the subsidies for gas, and people decide to live in closer proximity to their place of work, then the incentives for cycling increase.

Quote:

Taxes are just as much a payment for services rendered as a toll is. Local taxes, for instance, pay for such things as the police and fire departments. They also pay for keeping my bus fares low.

And, to top it all off, the pay for things like public sanitation and the water system, which are useful for disposing of various forms of waste.

It is not about payment, it's about the mode of extraction. Taxes are a form of theft, because they are extracted by force as opposed to consent. Even if people think they do consent to be taxed, they haven't really because there is no way to opt out of the system.

Taxes are bad, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they should be eradicated. It's practical to view taxes as a necessary evil which enables the collectivization of national power so that we're not overrun by the Turks and whatnot. It's key to understand, however, that because they are theft, the government does not experience loss.

Quote:

I already told you, crumbling from the heat and not wide enough.

Sorry, I think I misinterpreted what you were saying. What I would like to know, though, is whether the problem lies in the lack of taxes collected, or the lack of funding to maintenance. Are you voting specifically for taxes which concern road maintenance, or general budgets for transportation?

Quote:

Which is why, obviously, that I think it's OK that if people want to live extravagant, impractical lives (by living in big houses 50 miles away from work), that they shouldn't gripe about being taxed on infrastructure.

For the record, I live within the city limits and have a job which is within cycling distance, but I do not cycle to because doing so would mean that I'd have to ride on the highway.

The issue, though, is not necessarily taxation, but how those funds are distributed.

Quote:

You're serious. You're bona-fide serious in that you think the government has unlimited resources.

No, I'm saying that the government does not lose anything, because it does not create. The resources of a government are only as great as the wealth of its citizens, and its ability to extract that wealth. Because governments do not create wealth, they do not experience financial risk. If you don't gain anything, you have nothing to lose.

Ultimately a government can experience loss, as recessions or overtaxation reduce the general creation of wealth, but governments aren't generally that farsighted.

Quote:

Your libertarianism is an affected youth reading Mein Kampf in the only non-Starbucks coffee shop in town.

Can you stop using ad-hom and start talking to me like a person?

Quote:

Laws are also non-consentual.

Yup, but laws aren't theft. People tolerate laws in the same way they tolerate taxes. So long as laws are considered to be just, the people will tolerate them. So long as taxation isn't excessive, people will tolerate them.

That doesn't counter my point.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

No, I'm saying that the government does not lose anything, because it does not create.

Do you feel that companies who sell services do not create?

Additional Spam:

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Yup, but laws aren't theft.

[...]

That doesn't counter my point.

You said taxes are theft. They are as much theft as laws are.

Quote:

So long as taxation isn't excessive, people will tolerate them.

yeah but the problem with that is that if you think taxes are excessive, you can't just claim they're theft.

Your libertarianism is a six year old who can't understand why mommy won't buy a barbie doll with the grocery money.

I was speaking idiomatically.

No, I do, because companies have to compete to create the wealth which they invest in themselves. The wealth created through services may not be material, (though the end result can be), but that doesn't mean that the service has not generated wealth in one form or another.

A government does not have to compete to acquire the wealth it uses. It doesn't even have to trade for the wealth. Government is ultimately the will of the people, and it is because of that will that the people create highways, armies, and other infrastructure and institutions with government as the middle man. If a government does not represent the will of the people, then it is overthrown.

That's the way government is supposed to work in this country, as power flows from the bottom up instead of top-down.

Edit:

Quote:

You said taxes are theft. They are as much theft as laws are.

You can't be serious. There is no thing of mine that is taken away simply by virtue of there being a law, unless you want to define laws as the "theft of freedom."

Quote:

yeah but the problem with that is that if you think taxes are excessive, you can't just claim they're theft.

Taxes are always theft, regardless of whether or not they are excessive. You're making a big deal over nothing, considering that I've expressly stated that taxes shouldn't be abolished.

Quote:

Your libertarianism is a six year old who can't understand why mommy won't buy a barbie doll with the grocery money.

NO U

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Quote:

I've expressly stated that taxes shouldn't be abolished.

But you say that taxes are theft. Theft, by definition, is wrongful. If taxes shouldn't be abolished, they must not be overly wrongful in your eyes.

Given that, why are you insisting that they're theft?

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

As Guru points out, cycling is very practical in the immediate area. The reason people drive everywhere in this country is because gas is so cheap. If we remove the subsidies for gas, and people decide to live in closer proximity to their place of work, then the incentives for cycling increase.

I don't think you and Guru understand how impractical it is to say, "Well, everyone, why don't you just live closer to where you work??" What about the janitors and food wokers who are employed in rich parts of town but can't afford living there (and don't say buses, when you increase gas, you decrease their ability to ride buses)? What about the people who work hard to be well off but work in places that aren't close to anywhere but slums (see: people who work in downtown LA)?

I love how the more you branch out in your little Libertarian fantasy island, the more you attempt to completely destroy the entire United States economy.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Because they are by definition theft. It is an injustice, but a necessary one. It'd be nice if we lived in the ideal where the world exists in a state of anarchy, but the reality is that nations and states have established themselves as competing powers.

It's within that context that taxation becomes necessary, and we have to insure that the funds acquired through taxation are used to our benefit. If maintenance of infrastructure loses priority because of the state of politics, then taxes are not being used appropriately.

Quote:

I don't think you and Guru understand how impractical it is to say, "Well, everyone, why don't you just live closer to where you work??"

Yeah, it's going to be impractical for a lot of people, but that doesn't mean that the incentive isn't there, and presents an alternative.

Quote:

(and don't say buses, when you increase gas, you decrease their ability to ride buses)

And by that same virtue it would supposedly be non cost-effective because the harm they do to roads can be equated to headcount. Busses present an affordable alternative to transit because the same amount of gasoline is being used to transport a much larger amount of people. Removing subsidies on oil and gas isn't going to cause the price to double.

Quote:

What about the people who work hard to be well off but work in places that aren't close to anywhere but slums (see: people who work in downtown LA)?

Then their investment in the area raises the general quality of living. If somebody works in LA, there's a good damn chance that they can get to LA without using a car, so it's not as if they necessarily have to live right there, it's only the case if they really want to ride a bicycle.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Or not enough are collected!

You can't just make a blanket statement that maintenance ALWAYS comes before new. That's absurd. What if new things were the priority without political motive, would you care then?

Most amazing jew boots

La la, I understand that not everyone has the means or adequate justification to ride their bikes to work. But I still contend that a lot of people who don't, easily could.

Don't read too far into it guys.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Quote:

A government does not have to compete to acquire the wealth it uses.

Brady, you keep saying this. Do you feel that there is one government only? If that is so, can you provide a quick definition of what that government is?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Quote:

Brady, you keep saying this. Do you feel that there is one government only? If that is so, can you provide a quick definition of what that government is?

Don't give me that. It is impossible to opt out of any form of taxation because there is no frontier. All areas with the exception of the Antarctic (uninhabitable) are under the control of a government.

If the government didn't extract taxes, then it would maybe have to compete for wealth. Government-as-business. Or even a government that exists based on gambling. The fact is, though, that all governments as they exist extract taxes.

Quote:

You can't just make a blanket statement that maintenance ALWAYS comes before new.

Too bad. I just did. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that existing infrastructure should be insured not to fail before remaining funds are used to expand the infrastructure or be used in other, non-infrastructure related things.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Don't give me that. It is impossible to opt out of any form of taxation because there is no frontier. All areas with the exception of the Antarctic (uninhabitable) are under the control of a government.

Oh. So, since all governments impose taxes, no government competes?

Additional Spam:

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Because they are by definition theft.

No they're not.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Too bad. I just did. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that existing infrastructure should be insured not to fail before remaining funds are used to expand the infrastructure or be used in other, non-infrastructure related things.

Things fail. I mean, what more do you want? Accidents happen. Take an engineering course or two.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that this is a completely isolated incident and that another one won't happen for another 20 years (which is almost how long it took this one to fail after someone said it was deficient).

You're telling me that we should halt all new projects until we fix the things that are in need of repair, even though they fail at an astonishingly slow rate??

It is obvious to me that you are just trying to apply some Libertarian ideal to something you clearly have no clue of what the fuck you're talking about.

FELIPE NO

It's not entirely accurate to view the maintenance of infrastructure as the repairing of already existing roads and rails. If a bridge cannot be repaired, then it is in the general interest to replace that bridge and remove the liability. In that sense, replacing an old bridge with a new one does not equate an expansion of the infrastructure, because the routes have not been expanded.

If a cost is unavoidable, it should be incurred before the potential for greater damages, and even fatalities. If the cost can be avoided, as was the case with the Viaduct and possibly the case here with the Minnesota bridge, then the retrofits should be given priority.

They knew this bridge was unsound for 17 years, so why then shouldn't efforts have been made to retrofit or replace it before there are fatalities?

Quote:

You're telling me that we should halt all new projects until we fix the things that are in need of repair, even though they fail at an astonishingly slow rate??

Yes, I think that the preservation of lives should take priority over their betterment through an expansion of infrastructure. In the long-term, there is no difference between the infrastructure as it exists in the present, and the infrastructure that would exist by neglecting the bridge. You could argue that the benefits derived from expanded infrastructure before the collapse makes up for the loss, but then you're justifying fatalities.

Quote:

Do you want Haliburton to run the country?

If everybody owned a controlling interest in Haliburton, it might actually be better than a representative government. Of course, it's not as good as no government.

Quote:

Oh. So, since all governments impose taxes, no government competes?

Governments compete for immigrants by virtue of their policies, but they do not have to compete for revenue.

Quote:

No they're not.

From my perspective, any initiation of force is wrong, and since taxation is the forceful seizure of wealth, then I consider it to be theft. It is no less wrong, no matter how one justifies it, for the same reason that killing a person is wrong even though it may be justified within context.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Governments compete for immigrants by virtue of their policies, but they do not have to compete for revenue.

Do you think that foreign nationals are the only people governments compete for?

Furthermore, getting back to an earlier point, how are governments not producers of services?

Quote:

From my perspective, any initiation of force is wrong, and since taxation is the forceful seizure of wealth, then I consider it to be theft. It is no less wrong, no matter how one justifies it, for the same reason that killing a person is wrong even though it may be justified within context.

So are all obligations 'theft' to you?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Quote:

Furthermore, getting back to an earlier point, how are governments not producers of services?

They are producers of services, the nature of the thing is that the government does not trade for its revenue, so the funds cannot be considered government property. In that sense, the wealth created by government services has actually been created by the taxpayers, since it is their money being invested.

Quote:

So are all obligations 'theft' to you?

Taxation is not an obligation. An obligation is something that you are compelled to do based on any criteria, but which you have a choice to fulfill. Being taxed is not a choice. Fulfilling an obligation is.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

They are producers of services, the nature of the thing is that the government does not trade for its revenue, so the funds cannot be considered government property. In that sense, the wealth created by government services has actually been created by the taxpayers, since it is their money being invested.

It is at once both the property of the government and the property of the taxpayers, by virtue of their funds. It is Public. I'll ask again; why do you think the government has unlimited resources?

Quote:

Taxation is not an obligation. An obligation is something that you are compelled to do based on any criteria, but which you have a choice to fulfill. Being taxed is not a choice. Fulfilling an obligation is.

It is absolutely an obligation. It is not an obligation that holds no consequence for breaking, but very few obligations are.

Do you think that 'immigrants' are the only people for whom governments compete with each other over, and furthermore, how do you define an immigrant who has not yet left his current country?

How ya doing, buddy?

Quote:

I'll ask again; why do you think the government has unlimited resources?

I've already answered this question.

Quote:

It is absolutely an obligation. It is not an obligation that holds no consequence for breaking, but very few obligations are.

So... it's an obligation in the same sense that I'm obliged to pay back my loan shark if I don't want my legs broken. If I actually got to choose not to pay my taxes and incur consequences, you might've had me there.

Quote:

Do you think that 'immigrants' are the only people for whom governments compete with each other over

Well no. Governments also have to try and keep people from emigrating and reducing the tax pool.

Quote:

and furthermore, how do you define an immigrant who has not yet left his current country?

A resident.

Edit: Also consider this: The bridge was payed for with Federal money, yet it's the state's responsibility to maintain it. States have to pay to maintain highways, while the Fed fronts the cash for new construction. Now that the bridge has collapsed, it hasn't cost the state anything to rebuild it, since the Federal Government has given them 250,000,000 to build a new one. Doesn't that reflect a conflict of interest?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

I've already answered this question.

Quote:

So... it's an obligation in the same sense that I'm obliged to pay back my loan shark if I don't want my legs broken.

In that the government doesn't inflict physical damage on you not paying taxes in return for the services you receive, yes.

Quote:

Well no. Governments also have to try and keep people from emigrating and reducing the tax pool.

So the government is one homogenous entity that only concerns itself with retention?

Quote:

Edit: Also consider this: The bridge was payed for with Federal money, yet it's the state's responsibility to maintain it. States have to pay to maintain highways, while the Fed fronts the cash for new construction. Now that the bridge has collapsed, it hasn't cost the state anything to rebuild it, since the Federal Government has given them 250,000,000 to build a new one. Doesn't that reflect a conflict of interest?

If I didn't know better, I'd say you were accusing the state of Minnesota of conspiracy and murder.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

then you're justifying fatalities.

As if that isn't done every single day in this country. Everything we do has some loss or risk associated to it and we do it. What's the single biggest way people die accidentally? That's right, car accidents. If we disallowed driving, you would nullify the fatality rate. There is an accepted loss of life when we have laws that allow driving. You used gasoline recently, I'm sure. Releasing harmful carcinogens into the air? No doubt, cancer caused by air quality causes loss of life.

What you're angry about is the justified tragic loss. If it takes a long time or if it's common, just in small quantities, you're fine with it -- we're all fine with it. It's not politically correct to say that the Minneapolis bridge collapse was unavoidable, and perhaps that exact instance was, but to claim that you can avoid all instances of it by throwing any amount of money at it in any single way, whether the feds or your ridiculous scheme, is completely ignorant.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Quote:

In that the government doesn't inflict physical damage on you not paying taxes in return for the services you receive, yes.

I'd probably rather have my legs broken than face a prison sentance, though.

Quote:

So the government is one homogenous entity that only concerns itself with retention?

No, each individual government is concerned with intention. Governments have tendencies in the same way that people do, and they're only interested in serving the people insofar as the people demand service. Since we've got a horrid incumbency rating, I think you can see why this is a problem.

Quote:

If I didn't know better, I'd say you were accusing the state of Minnesota of conspiracy and murder.

You're quite astute. I'm not accusing them of conspiracy and murder, I'm accusing them of negligence.

Mikey: The problem with the risks involved is that those risks are incurred individually via consent. It is not my responsibility to maintain roads and bridges, it is the state's. If the state does not live up to its responsibilities, then it has shirked its duties and endangered those it is meant to serve.

Putting carcinogens in the air is an unavoidable risk. An unsound bridge is not.

FELIPE NO

How is putting carcinogens into the air unavoidable? Make a law that people can't burn gas anymore. Make a law that people can't drive cars anymore. That's no different then spending inordinate amounts of money to fix a problem that, in 17 years of known problems, counts for under 20 deaths.

The funny thing is that you think that being T-boned in the middle of a busy intersection is consentual, but driving over a bridge isn't.

How is making a law for preventing death any different than putting money in a budget to prevent death? Further, the ways I've given you are responsible for a hell of a lot more deaths than this bridge falling down. If your whole reason for doing this was because a few people died, then you're going to have to do a hell of a lot better than spending billions and billions of dollars to fix a few bridges.

There is not enough money in the world, tax or otherwise, to prevent all deaths due to infrastructure from happening. It is impossible. So, if a few people die on a bridge every couple decades, I view that certainly as acceptable. Chaos theory, laws of physics, reliability engineering and all.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

I'd probably rather have my legs broken than face a prison sentance, though.

And I'd rather you didn't drive on roads, educated by the school system, and have the protection of police, military and fire department that my hard-earned and gladly given tax dollars all paid for. But we can't all get what we want!

Quote:

No, each individual government is concerned with intention. Governments have tendencies in the same way that people do, and they're only interested in serving the people insofar as the people demand service. Since we've got a horrid incumbency rating, I think you can see why this is a problem.

is the government of the United States an individual government? That there are not internal agencies and governments on the state and local scale that all compete with each other for the small pool of tax dollars that are there?

god yo

Quote:

You're quite astute. I'm not accusing them of conspiracy and murder, I'm accusing them of negligence.

I ain't seeing the conflict of interest then.

Quote:

Putting carcinogens in the air is an unavoidable risk. An unsound bridge is not.

I would probably put the minnesota bridge at its known deficient state and your carcinogens at about the same level of risk.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Quote:

How is putting carcinogens into the air unavoidable? Make a law that people can't burn gas anymore. Make a law that people can't drive cars anymore. That's no different then spending inordinate amounts of money to fix a problem that, in 17 years of known problems, counts for under 20 deaths.

You're right. Spending several million to repair or replace a bridge would be just like setting us back to to the stone age, before the discovery of fire.

Quote:

The funny thing is that you think that being T-boned in the middle of a busy intersection is consentual, but driving over a bridge isn't.

By driving a car, I am presenting a risk to other motorists and pedestrians. I can alleviate that risk by driving responsibility. The risk presented by a defective bridge is not alleviated by not repairing it.

Quote:

There is not enough money in the world, tax or otherwise, to prevent all deaths due to infrastructure from happening.

No, there is not enough money to prevent all infrastructure failure, because oftentimes it is unexpected or unforseen. It's not like, oh, say, being declared unstable for 17 goddamn years.

But no. I'm the asshole because I think we should fix existing problems before maybe creating new ones.

Quote:

And I'd rather you didn't drive on roads, educated by the school system, and have the protection of police, military and fire department that my hard-earned and gladly given tax dollars all paid for. But we can't all get what we want!

It's pretty obvious you have no interest in what I have actually said.

Your liberalism is the slop cook in Oliver Twist's orphanage.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

By driving a car, I am presenting a risk to other motorists and pedestrians. I can alleviate that risk by driving responsibility. The risk presented by a defective bridge is not alleviated by not repairing it.

Do you believe drunk driving presents an elevated risk?

Quote:

It's pretty obvious you have no interest in what I have actually said.

You are telling me that governments don't compete because they have unlimited wealth (but doesn't eliminate all taxes with all this unlimited wealth and defecit spending that they do). AND, that we should build one Corporation that is unelected and without oversight in order to take over our infrastructure - which, of course, they are suited for because corporations are competitive, even if it's the only game in town. No, all this is facinating, but my ethics preclude me from taking the words of a traitor seriously.

Quote:

Your liberalism is the slop cook in Oliver Twist's orphanage.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.