Re: Sources and Sinks
James A. Donald wrote: -- On 3 Jan 2004 at 8:09, Michael Kalus wrote: Yes, the way this usually works is that the government builds the road, then sells it to a private company for some money and then the upkeep is handled by the company. It is rather seldom that someone builds a road for a business venture. Used to happen all the time, before governments became so intrusive. Not that often. The usual way of making & fixing roads before the late 19th century was - and had been for centuries - collective. At best some charity or other got people together to help out. At worst the local lord of the manor or big landowner forced a sufficiently large number of peasants to do the job. In lots of places landowners had the duty to maintain roads across their property, and the government would force them to do it. There are lots - many thousands I think - of legal records in England way back to the middle ages A bit different in the western parts of USA if only because so many roads there are new, but even then the vast majority either were started by government (or some other non-commercial organisation) or else taken over by government after built. Canals and railways were mostly built by private business - and mostly came into public ownership when they went broke, often bailing out the failed investors. In both Europe and North America.
Re: Sources and Sinks
At 01:50 PM 1/3/2004, James A. Donald wrote: -- On 3 Jan 2004 at 8:09, Michael Kalus wrote: > Yes, the way this usually works is that the government builds > the road, then sells it to a private company for some money > and then the upkeep is handled by the company. > > It is rather seldom that someone builds a road for a business > venture. Used to happen all the time, before governments became so intrusive. In the U.S. government involvement in road, bridge, railroad and canal building really got its start during the early- to mid-1800s. The Whig Party's platform was called, by Clay, the American System. Today we call it mercantilism. The Whigs pushed their internal improvements agenda (building unneeded and/or grossly overpriced roads, bridges or canals supplied by political contributors) across all the states in the early 1800s. Everywhere it was a disaster bankrupting several. So much so that by 1850 all state constitutions banned internal improvement activities. This was the downfall of the Whigs, but many of its leaders resurfaced in the Republican party whose first presidential candidate was Lincoln. steve
Re: Sources and Sinks
From: bgt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Sat, 2004-01-03 at 07:09, Michael Kalus wrote: > > > > Where there is no governmental police force, their is demand for > > > private enforcement. And you know what? They regularly do their jobs > > > better than the police. > > > > Of course there is no oversight body, so if they use "excessive force" > > well, It's all part of doing business and after all they didn't smash > > YOUR skull so what do you care, right? > > The only necessary "oversight body" is the courts. Both public and > private police (should) operate under the Rule of Law just like everyone > else. As with the public police, if private police have public > perception problems related to excessive force, abuse of power, or > whatever, they may opt to use a third-party interest to do > "self-policing" by fining, firing, etc (much like pro sports > organizations do... contractually). This is strictly a business > management decision however, the only "legal" oversight should be > the court. Police (public or private) should be judged and punished > (in the legal sense) in the same way any other citizen is. http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm Seton Hall Constitutional L.J. 2001, 685 ARE COPS CONSTITUTIONAL? Roger Roots* ABSTRACT Police work is often lionized by jurists and scholars who claim to employ "textualist" and "originalist" methods of constitutional interpretation. Yet professional police were unknown to the United States in 1789, and first appeared in America almost a half-century after the Constitution's ratification. The Framers contemplated law enforcement as the duty of mostly private citizens, along with a few constables and sheriffs who could be called upon when necessary. This article marshals extensive historical and legal evidence to show that modern policing is in many ways inconsistent with the original intent of America's founding documents. The author argues that the growth of modern policing has substantially empowered the state in a way the Framers would regard as abhorrent to their foremost principles.
Re: Sources and Sinks
On Sat, 2004-01-03 at 07:09, Michael Kalus wrote: > > Where there is no governmental police force, their is demand for > > private enforcement. And you know what? They regularly do their jobs > > better than the police. > > Of course there is no oversight body, so if they use "excessive force" > well, It's all part of doing business and after all they didn't smash > YOUR skull so what do you care, right? The only necessary "oversight body" is the courts. Both public and private police (should) operate under the Rule of Law just like everyone else. As with the public police, if private police have public perception problems related to excessive force, abuse of power, or whatever, they may opt to use a third-party interest to do "self-policing" by fining, firing, etc (much like pro sports organizations do... contractually). This is strictly a business management decision however, the only "legal" oversight should be the court. Police (public or private) should be judged and punished (in the legal sense) in the same way any other citizen is. > > Show me a company that doesn't pay a dime in taxes, please, make it one > > that actually has employees and does something useful and makes profit. > > Amuse me and try it out. > > I don't have a link ready right now, but there were several US > corporations as well as some in Germany who did NOT pay any taxes for > the past couple of years because of either "breaks" they got so not to > leave, OR because they posted such high losses that they did not post > any profit on the books, thus not pay any taxes. Purely for the sake of argument, even if this is correct (which I'm not conceding), a company that is truly in business to make a profit by doing something useful (creating a product, providing a useful service, etc) pays employees who pay taxes, pays employee payroll taxes, pays shareholders who pay taxes, and produces something (product or service) which is almost always taxed, usually in several ways. Just because a company does not pay an income tax DOES NOT mean it isn't heavily taxed in other direct and indirect ways. > But all of you who seem to think that social services et al, should be > run on a profit maximiation basis, tell me this: How much are you worth > in Dollars and cents (or Euros)? I would like to know how much you > think you are worth to your friends, family, kids, spouses etc.? I'm not sure what that's got to do with it. (We're talking about "essential social services" meaning services designed to protect lives, right?) How I value my life is measured by exactly what I will do to protect and enhance my life. I am worth to other people exactly what they would do /voluntarily/ to protect/enhance my life. What that's got to do with whether these services should be privatized or not I'm not sure. Unless you're arguing that (by that definition) I'm not worth very much to very many other people, and since that leaves the responsibility for my life squarely on my own shoulders (and on the shoulders of people I voluntarily engage to start caring about me!). Well, that's the only fair way... coercing other people to care for and by extension pay for my own welfare is immoral and evil. If you care so much for everyone else's welfare, there's plenty of charities you can voluntarily donate your money to that will be happy to look after everyone else. Oh, most people are selfish and wouldn't /voluntarily/ give 30-50% of their money away to total strangers (favoring their own families and close friends instead)? Then please explain how it's moral to FORCE them! (Jeez, I just recently got back onto this list after a several-year hiatus. How the hell did so many statists ever get the idea that ubiquitous cryptography would ever further their goals? Or are they just here to distract us with statism vs liberty type political debates so we can't get any real work done??) --bgt
Re: Sources and Sinks
-- On 3 Jan 2004 at 8:09, Michael Kalus wrote: > Yes, the way this usually works is that the government builds > the road, then sells it to a private company for some money > and then the upkeep is handled by the company. > > It is rather seldom that someone builds a road for a business > venture. Used to happen all the time, before governments became so intrusive. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG r2w6MRt6gtWxRchZBu1JrSIiuDCvgG7FBMjxy3Vx 4tEo5v7x66WtikBVLHafpzaGm84hGQZvHy0qBcgKn
If you drive, you're a slave (Re: Sources and Sinks)
At 08:09 AM 1/3/04 -0500, Michael Kalus wrote:
>Yes, the way this usually works is that the government builds the road,
>then sells it to a private company for some money and then the upkeep
>is handled by the company.
>
>It is rather seldom that someone builds a road for a business venture.
Come visit SoCal some time. I'll show you some roads built as
investments.
Many of them. Sometimes, if they fail as investments ("hey, we're
losing money, lets
raise tolls"), the investors will sell to the govt ---the opposite of
your assertion.
But it shouldn't matter to a socialist like you: if I've driven on a
taxpayer
road, I'm therefore a slave to anyone's (or everyone's) 's need. Anyone
who can convince a politicowhore to give them a slice, that is.
Re: Sources and Sinks
Tim May (2004-01-02 05:46Z) wrote: > On Jan 1, 2004, at 8:26 PM, Justin wrote: > > >Do those who have previously been in the workforce, in your opinion, > >have the right to reclaim through welfare any amount up to that they've > >paid through taxes to the entity providing welfare/unemployment? Or is > >all unemployment money Pluto's fruit? > > No, as there is no "fund" that this money is in. Once taxes are paid > in, the money has gone out to crack addicts, Halliburton, welfare > whores (excuse me, "hoes"), foreign dictators like Mubarek and Sharon, > and so on. I don't think money is as easily traceable as you'd like it to be. Say Bob is self-employed and hasn't payed quarterly or is employed by others and simply doesn't withhold. If Bob's loses his job March 31, he'd pay his last year of income taxes at approximately the same time he became eligible for unemployment. Is there no time neighborhood after payment of taxes (State taxes for this discussion) within which the collection of unemployment is justified as "collection of stolen money"? (Assume Bob earned plenty of money last year and didn't withhold, so that the portion of his taxes allocated to unemployment covers at least one unemployment check. Then consider the ethics of Bob claiming just one unemployment check.) > Just because money was stolen from you doesn't give you any right to > steal from me. Suppose Bob screws up his taxes and pays too much (2003-04), and upon discovering his mistake the next year he refiles (2004-04). Does he not have any right to a refund because that money will end up being stolen from you (2005-04, presumably)? As for your 30-40 trillion estimate, It seems to me that including SS payouts would make the debt unbounded. Regardless, SS payments aren't guaranteed so considering them as debt is faulty.
Re: Sources and Sinks
On Jan 1, 2004, at 8:26 PM, Justin wrote:
Tim May (2004-01-02 02:42Z) wrote:
Bob, a crack addict collecting "disability" or welfare or other
government freebies, works 0% of his time for the government/society.
("Dat not true. I gots to stands in line to get my check increased!")
Do those who have previously been in the workforce, in your opinion,
have the right to reclaim through welfare any amount up to that they've
paid through taxes to the entity providing welfare/unemployment? Or is
all unemployment money Pluto's fruit?
No, as there is no "fund" that this money is in. Once taxes are paid
in, the money has gone out to crack addicts, Halliburton, welfare
whores (excuse me, "hoes"), foreign dictators like Mubarek and Sharon,
and so on.
In fact, the estimated overall debt is something like $30-40 trillion.
I've outlined how this number is arrived at a few times in the past. As
there are about 100 million tax filers in the U.S.--the other 175
million being children, spouses, prisoners, welfare recipients, illegal
aliens, non-filers, etc.--a simple calculation shows the average
indebtedness per tax filer is around $300,000 or more. This is far, far
beyond what the average household owns in total. Because the U.S. has
been "charging it" for the past 40 years. Quibblers will say we can
reduce this indebtedness by selling off government-owned lands, which
would be a good start. Or be taxing corporations more, but this still
ends up with the individual tax filers, ultimately. Or by devaluing the
dollar dramatically, which is the likeliest strategy the kleptocrats
will follow, after gettting enough advance warning to get their own
assets out of dollar-denominated vehicles.
So, you see, there IS NO FUND one can withdraw money from.
Anyone claiming new welfare benefits requires even more thefts from
those still working.
Just because money was stolen from you doesn't give you any right to
steal from me.
--Tim May
Re: Sources and Sinks
Tim May (2004-01-02 02:42Z) wrote:
> Bob, a crack addict collecting "disability" or welfare or other
> government freebies, works 0% of his time for the government/society.
> ("Dat not true. I gots to stands in line to get my check increased!")
Do those who have previously been in the workforce, in your opinion,
have the right to reclaim through welfare any amount up to that they've
paid through taxes to the entity providing welfare/unemployment? Or is
all unemployment money Pluto's fruit?
Sources and Sinks
The jabber about how poor people are actually paying for the successful
is beyond belief. All sorts of arguments are being made about how poor
people somehow pay for the infrastructure the wealthy exploit.
And the chestnut about how tax breaks aid the wealth disproportionately
is once again brought out.
(Yeah, if Alice was paying $50K in taxes and the taxes are cut to $40K
she "benefits more" than Bob the Wino who got no tax benefits because
he paid no taxes. Which misses the point about Alice's high taxes in
the first place.)
This is why the "Tax Freedom Day" approach is more useful. Tax freedom
day is of course the day when the average American or Brit or whatever
has stopped working for the government and has the rest of his income
for himself. For most years, this is estimated to around May-June. That
is, for almost half of a year a typical taxpayer is working for the
government.
Not a perfect measure, as it averages together folks of various tax
brackets, including the many in America who pay nothing (but it doesn't
assign a negative number to those who receive "net net" money from the
government). And it fails to take into account the double taxation
which a business owner faces: roughly a 50% tax on his profits, then
when the profits are disbursed to the owners of the corporation,
another 35-45% tax bite. For a business owner, he is effectively
working for the government for the first 70% of every year. Which means
only October-December is he working for his own interests.
Jabber about how poor people are actually receiving fewer tax benefits
than rich people misses the point of who's working for whom.
Alice, an engineer or pharmacist or perhaps a small business owner,
works between 40% and 70% of her time to pay money into government.
Bob, a crack addict collecting "disability" or welfare or other
government freebies, works 0% of his time for the government/society.
("Dat not true. I gots to stands in line to get my check increased!")
Alice is a source, Bob is a sink. Talk about how Alice gets benefits
ignores the fact that she's working for the government for a big chunk
of her life. Bob is not. Alice is a slave for the government, and
"society," so that Bob can lounge in his mobile home watching ESPN and
collecting a monthly check.
(I'd like to know why all of the folks here in California who are
getting "benefits" and "services" are not at my door on Saturday
morning to help me with my yard work. I'd like to know why finding
reliable yard workers has become nearly impossible in the past couple
of decades. "Will work for food" signs are a fucking joke...try hiring
one of those layabouts to actually do some work for food and watch the
sneers, or watch them threatening to fake a work injury if a shakedown
fee is not given to them. These people should be put in lime pits.)
When you hear John Young and Tyler Durden nattering about the "persons
of privilege" are reaping the rewards of a benificent government, think
about Alice and Bob and ask yourself who'se doing the real work. Ask
who're the sources and who're the sinks.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his
need...and I've got a game to watch on satellite...and where's my
check?"
--Tim May
"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any
member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm
to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient
warrant." --John Stuart Mill
