>>         If 30% of the price of gas is taxes, the the real price of gas is
>> 30% lower...
>
>Let's say what you call taxes is the price for you being able to use the
>common infrastructure... 


        Let's say that you are badly twisting the meaning of words.

        A tax is something you are FORCED to pay. A price is the outcome of
a VOLUNTARY agreement.  Unless we stick to english, (not newspeak and
doublethink!), this discussion makes no sense.

        And let's follow your argument of 'correct acounting', that is, to
have people pay for what they get.

        If I buy gas, I should pay for gas. If your gang of
violent-world-improvers want  to finance roads, wars, 'public' 'education'
or the NASA, then they should stea, I mean, create specific taxes for those
purposes. So people that wants the NASA pays for it...farmers who want
subsidies pay for them...hmmm...there seems to be a flaw somewhere...



>>         Perhaps you should look up 'mob rule' ? 
>
>As opposed to 'intelligent individual rule' aka dictatorship? It's only
>your (possibly as twisted as my) brain that says that this is so...

        Fallacy : Straw man attack. I'm  not proposing dictatorship.

        Perhaps after looking up 'mob rule' you should continue with
'self-government'.


>> What 'difference' are you alluding to, btw ? 
>
>The difference it makes that these people you so despise (epsilon-minus or
>so :) exist. Maybe you should try to get reborn on a different planet :)

        Fallacy : Straw man attack. I only despise individuals willing to
use force to impose their religious beliefs. In case it's not clear what I'm
talking about, so called 'enviromentalism' is a revelead religion. It has
nothing to do with science and/or reason.


>>>I simply don't think I get compensated enough for the negative effects that
>>>burning oil by others has on me.
>> 
>>         That's what makes you a green. Now, if you also believe that the
>> govt. must fix the price of the compensation you fancy you deserve, that
>> makes you a leftie. There you are : a green leftie.
>
>No, not the government in principle. The one who causes the burn. But I
>see, your argument in favor of free-market is just an attempt to freeload
>on someone else's back. 

        By 'fix the price' I mean 'control the price' or 'set the price',
not undo the damage.

        And, you are seeing my argument wrongly. I'm willing to negotiate a
price with you. That is, as long as no government is involved. Translated :
as long as no violence is used and we keep the deal to ourselves.


>You don't want to carry the cost of what you do,
>and rather have a communist-style dictatorship dictate that everyone has to
>pick up a share of the costs that your actions cause.

        That's preposterous.


>I didn't sell you my clean air, right? 
>So why do you think you have the
>right to damage it? I also didn't sell my part of the water under my
>property, so what gives my neighbor the right to pump out water that comes
>from under my property?
        
        It's not clear at all that the water under your property is yours.
At any rate, if you want to hoard it so that the price goes up and more
people suffer, you are indeed free to do it. Pump as much as you want and
store it. I've no problem with that.


>I just don't want anybody
>damaging my goods or subtracting them from me without my consent. Isn't
>that what you are proposing? 

        Yes of course.
        
>Or are there subtle details that you failed to
>mention (like you get to define what can be taken from me and what not)?

        The sarcasm is pointless. We should agree what property exactly
is...and if we can't, then there's secesion.

>
>>>Start talking about what you really mean with "production of energy".
>> 
>>         The oil in 'your' commons is only sitting there. It's useless unless
>> it's extracted and refined. 
>
>So you get to define what is useless for me, when I have a right to
>consider something useful for me and when not. Sounds... hm.... :)

        Sounds like you are putting words in my mouth.

>
>If there's no private property, there's no free market of goods, not 'REAL'
>nor otherwise. So if you propose a 'REAL free-market' (as you did), then
>we're bound to assume private property, no?
        
        Of course.

        I do agree with you...up to the point that  we should carefully
refine the concept of property. That's the key point of the system...Let me
add that, it seems to me (but may I be wrong) that your concept of property
is a bit confused :)


J.




-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist