> 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... I have to disagree here. Nobody would like to pay tax, right? While you can go back in time and could say that if you enter to a road you have to pay a fee (still exists in some motorways/highways/bridges) you can't say that you do not want to 'buy' NASA things because you do not need to use it. NASA invents lots of things that you do not necessary know. They had millions of invent about aerodynamics and they have the most comprehensive books about that area. Also they made many investigations about the earth, the global warming etc. Without them you would not be able to use GPS, there were no satellite TV etc. OK, for the TV you pay money, but without first exploring and sometimes exploiting the space flying it would not be possible at all. Also personally I would not pay any money to the military staff, but it is better to be protected than to die by some other people who would do use their weapons. You could not do the same as in the middle ages when few people owns the army, they took the money from the people (as a tax, but they called it something else, and of course they used their weapons to do so). And then if you are lucky your lord saved you if not you become a victim to a hoard of betrayers. I do not want to go back in time, I do not want to live like that! I'd rather pay tax as the price of my safe and comfortable life. Tamas On 26/09/06, Juan Garofalo wrote: > > > >> 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 > -- unPIC -- The PIC Disassembler http://unpic.sourceforge.net -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist