Darned welfare countries.

[Maxwell511]

I agree that if I was in a 3rd world country my success would be more limited, and my quality of living lower. Of course any success I have is based on others as well as myself.
However, success on an individual level is NOT meaningless. In fact, it is the individual that builds the nation. If you encourage people to succeed and offer monetary gain for such success, you have a nation that is stronger and better for it. The fact that you talk on a phone, type on a PC, and make toast is due to people having a desire to succeed. The individual builds the nation - not the other way around.

The nation also builds the individual it's actually quite circular. Obivously people operate on a reward system so it is important to offer monetary gain for success. However if society actively encourages and helps people to succeed then is it not reasonable for the society to also benefit from the persons success? Especially if the gain is used to benefit others and help them to succeed.

 

[Lifesaver]

I'm not sure what you're saying? It seems like you're saying you're against all taxes. In that case go back to driving on dirt roads cause it was your taxes that payed for them to be built in the first place.

This only happens because the government effectively prohibits private firms from doing it.
In some countries government owns the telephone agencies. Should people thank the government and their taxes for having telephones?

As for not supporting the victims of the hurricane, we'll just see, god forbid something should happen to you, maybe someone has selfish as you can deny you aid.

The latest events in Katrina are a very strong case against governmental intereference (and much less complete control) in cases such as this. From the maintenance of the levees, to the slow reaction to warnings to its behaviour during the emergency, the government failed in all levels. And even worse, it prohibited private organizations from supplying their own help and expelled individuals from their homes at gun point, just to have complete control of the situation.
If the government had at least allowed private initiatives to help as they offered, the catastrophe could have been a lot less serious.

 

[Lifesaver]

The nation also builds the individual it's actually quite circular. Obivously people operate on a reward system so it is important to offer monetary gain for success. However if society actively encourages and helps people to succeed then is it not reasonable for the society to also benefit from the persons success? Especially if the gain is used to benefit others and help them to succeed.

In the market economy, Maxwell, individuals succeed by benefitting others.
It is because an individual provides people with a service others want and for a price they are willing to pay that he becomes rich. It is because he offers people work at a salary they think advantageous that he is able to hire other people. And it is the natural operation of the market, that is, the mutual cooperation of individuals in the pursuit of their desired objectives, that promotes the rise in material standards of living.
There is no antagonism between producer and consumer, between hirer and worker; on the contrary, there is cooperation, voluntary exchange of services which benefit both sides.

The government, on the other hand, doesn't have to offer any benefits for someone. One pays his taxes because if they don't they will go to prison, they will be physically punished.

 

[Maxwell511]

This only happens because the government effectively prohibits private firms from doing it.
In some countries government owns the telephone agencies. Should people thank the government and their taxes for having telephones?

The Irish goverment a few years ago privatised the national phone company. Had no effect on taxes.

 

[Lifesaver]

The Irish goverment a few years ago privatised the national phone company. Had no effect on taxes.

More evidence of the government's insatiable greed for more money (though it is possible this probably monopolistic public phone company was already profitable and thus did not require extra funding). Even when it cuts spending, it doesn't cut taxes as well.

Many politicians, despite what their ads may say, do not care so much about the public as with their own paycheck and with their re-election. So they prefer to make the government as strong as possible (thus harnessing more power to themselves) and pleasing some support groups to re-elect them later on. Needless to say, these are two very harmful measures to society as a whole.

Ireland, by the way, is a very good example of a country which has, in the past years, made many important reforms towards a freer market, and it is already reaping the benefits of sustained economic growth, and consistently raising its standard of living (the magazine The Economist even chose it as the world's best place to live not long ago).

 

[Maxwell511]

In the market economy, Maxwell, individuals succeed by benefitting others.
It is because an individual provides people with a service others want and for a price they are willing to pay that he becomes rich. It is because he offers people work at a salary they think advantageous that he is able to hire other people. And it is the natural operation of the market, that is, the mutual cooperation of individuals in the pursuit of their desired objectives, that promotes the rise in material standards of living.
There is no antagonism between producer and consumer, between hirer and worker; on the contrary, there is cooperation, voluntary exchange of services which benefit both sides.

I understand how the economy works. However it can fail in providing for all and there is a requirement for intervention in some areas such as eduction/medicine.

The government, on the other hand, doesn't have to offer any benefits for someone. One pays his taxes because if they don't they will go to prison, they will be physically punished.

If you refuse to pay a bill to a private company you can also go to prison. Since the goverment does personally benefit you i.e sercurity you should pay them.

 

[Redneck]

As for not supporting the victims of the hurricane, we'll just see, god forbid something should happen to you, maybe someone has selfish as you can deny you aid.

I'm not against helping people that got hit by the hurricane. I'm against legalised robbery (taxes) to give the victims of the hurricane money. If the government wants to make interest free loans with the understanding that people have to pay them back, that's acceptable to me, because that is different than handing out a $2000 debit card and saying, "Here you go."

Of course the government isn't what one could reasonably call efficient, so perhaps, maybe we are better off trusting private charity.

I'm not sure what you're saying? It seems like you're saying you're against all taxes. In that case go back to driving on dirt roads cause it was your taxes that payed for them to be built in the first place.

In theory, in Washington State, the money from fees on motor vehicle fuels and ownership, collected by the state, are supposed to be spent for highway purposes. These taxes are collected in the form of additions to the price of gasoline. People do not have to pay these taxes, should they choose not to drive, thus such a tax is not as evil as an income tax. However, such a tax still represents time which a person still has to spend working for the government though some benefit is derived.

As for not supporting the victims of the hurricane, we'll just see, god forbid something should happen to you, maybe someone has selfish as you can deny you aid.

If something was to happen to me right now, and I didn't have any aid and wasn't prepared, it would be my own fault. I know that I have enough food on hand to eat well for at least a week though. I've got a good first aid kit, plenty of ammunition, several weapons, and warm clothes on hand, but I have not packed them into any form of easily transportable form.

If you refuse to pay a bill to a private company you can also go to prison. Since the goverment does personally benefit you i.e sercurity you should pay them.

Err...in Washington, unless a person actually has debt, and runs away, then that person isn't going to go to prison for debt.

 

[Maxwell511]

Ireland, by the way, is a very good example of a country which has, in the past years, made many important reforms towards a freer market, and it is already reaping the benefits of sustained economic growth, and consistently raising its standard of living (the magazine The Economist even chose it as the world's best place to live not long ago).

It still has a massive welfare system however. Education for example is free for all everyone from the children of millionaires to the children of beggers can recieve a college education for next to nothing.

 

[Lifesaver]

I understand how the economy works. However it can fail in providing for all and there is a requirement for intervention in some areas such as eduction/medicine.

There may be, I don't deny that. But since the government is never under pressure to deliver a good and efficient service, but a wasteful and poorly managed one, the market and private initiative should be always allowed to work to their best capacity.

If you refuse to pay a bill to a private company you can also go to prison. Since the goverment does personally benefit you i.e sercurity you should pay them.

Of course that happens. But if you have a bill with a private company, it means you have signed a contract with them. You have voluntarily made use of their services, and in exchange you have accepted to pay a certain amount of money; should you not pay this charge you have freely accepted in exchange of a service or good, you must be punished.
However, paying taxes is not a voluntary action in most countries. People either pay or are punished, even if they don't want the service provided by the government; even if they think the government is doing a terrible job with that service, they are coerced into paying for it.
If you think a company is doing a service badly or charging too much for it, you will just not hire them; this is not an option with the State, and so it can provide very bad services without the risk of going bankrupt.

 

[Lifesaver]

It still has a massive welfare system however. Education for example is free for all everyone from the children of millionaires to the children of beggers can recieve a college education for next to nothing.

That is very good.
However, you probably know that many American universities, which are privately owned, but which offer scholarships to those who cannot pay for them but do qualify, are among the best in the world. There is a strong case for private universities. In my country, the once renowned public universities are all going down fast while private ones prosper.
Public education on the basic level, though, is absolutely terrible.

I believe, though, that even if people are not willing to pay for basic education for their children, it should be available for everyone, so important it is.
But there are probably better ways of doing that than State-owned schools funded completely with tax money.

 

[Maxwell511]

However, paying taxes is not a voluntary action in most countries. People either pay or are punished, even if they don't want the service provided by the government; even if they think the government is doing a terrible job with that service, they are coerced into paying for it.
If you think a company is doing a service badly or charging too much for it, you will just not hire them; this is not an option with the State, and so it can provide very bad services without the risk of going bankrupt.

I think the problem lies in the fact that is sometimes impossible not to recieve a goverment service such as military protection. I do agree with you on incompetent management of public money and recognise that is a probelm.

Then again it could be worse the goverment might try and tax rain water.

 

[Lifesaver]

I think the problem lies in the fact that is sometimes impossible not to recieve a goverment service such as military protection. I do agree with you on incompetent management of public money and recognise that is a probelm.

I agree with you there. The army is best left under the control of government, the monopolist of such a service, and it does cost money to keep it.
It is a limited impediment to free market in order to guarantee that a much larger one will not impose itself.