Capitalism Cures Poverty

[DBTrek]

It takes a special kind of snowflake to not only bitch about the first world infrastructure they inherited by birth, but to also utilize that same infrastructure to complain about it.


Poor Fife.
If only he could live in the third world, somehow. Ah well, at least he can vent his teenage angst over roads existing on the information superhighway!

[BjornP]

So, minarchism?

[DBTrek]

Not sure why Fife is floundering here.

Of all the travesties he could cite to enrage people over the existence of government, it seems like building roads would be a no-brainer, right? What pisses people off about government more than having roads built?

Lulz

[Fife]

Taxation is theft, broham. I can't help what the logical outcomes of that fact might be.

I love roads; I mean who doesn't? Stealing from people to pay for fat-assed pork projects is one thing. Another thing is how totally wasteful and inefficient the state is at allocating resources after they have been stolen. If not for Ike we'd probably be flying around in sky-cars or something by now, Repo Man-style.

:goteam: :drunk:

[Martin Hash]

Every time I hear a lawyer say "taxation is theft," I think disbarment for incompetence.

[K@th]

A collective of people who have roads aren't truly free. Freedom = NO ROADS!

[Fife]

[K@th]

How shall we pay for a group of people whose job it is to fight threats from foreign invaders?

[Fife]

Speaking of actual economics, some of you are still reading things, I'm sure. Here are some words from 1947:

https://mises.org/library/taxation-robbery

The Encyclopaedia Britannica defines taxation as "that part of the revenues of a state which is obtained by the compulsory dues and charges upon its subjects." That is about as concise and accurate as a definition can be; it leaves no room for argument as to what taxation is.

In that statement of fact the word "compulsory" looms large, simply because of its ethical content. The quick reaction is to question the "right" of the state to this use of power. What sanction, in morals, does the state adduce for the taking of property? Is its exercise of sovereignty sufficient unto itself?

On this question of morality there are two positions, and never the twain will meet. Those who hold that political institutions stem from "the nature of man," thus enjoying vicarious divinity, or those who pronounce the state the keystone of social integrations, can find no quarrel with taxation per se; the state's taking of property is justified by its being or its beneficial office. On the other hand, those who hold to the primacy of the individual, whose very existence is his claim to inalienable rights, lean to the position that in the compulsory collection of dues and charges the state is merely exercising power, without regard to morals.

[K@th]

We are long overdue for a thread called "Why Libertarians have it right."

I'd love to hear how some company owning the road next to my driveway charging me $75 to get in and out of my driveway is good for America.