Comment: Anything worth having, is worth paying for.

(See in situ)


Anything worth having, is worth paying for.

There are two sides to this debate:

The first, which I've made says:

"I do not care how the roads are payed for, as long as it is not done by the violence and threats of taxation.

The other side goes like this:

"I am afraid of road monopolies that will charge me too much to get to work."

I have to state up front, I do not condone corporations owning any roads.

ALL corporations are fascist extensions of the state.

A corporation could not exist without state protection.

They are artificial creations that under the current system, have privileges that would not exist in a free society that respects contracts and property rights.

And as for monopolies, they only exist by legislation.

You may, if you wish, read here:

http://mises.org/daily/5266/

Government = Monopoly

Economic principles cannot be called principles unless they can be applied uniformly throughout all human transactions.

So we all know that socializing health care, education, retirement, housing, etc, are all economically unsound and unsustainable in the long run.

Socializing goods or services violates economic principle.

Not only that, but socialization requires threats of violence and kidnapping to accomplish a task, which is immoral.

So, if economics are based upon principle, how does that principle suddenly not apply to strips of asphalt?

Are roads magic?

Are roads immune to economic laws?

Socialism is bad, right?

Amongst the fears of monopoly it is being overlooked that...

WE ALL READY HAVE A ROAD MONOPOLY

But really, this whole debate isn't about roads.

It's about threats and violence.

I don't care whether a tax is constitutional or not, because you going to have to stick a gun to my head to get me to pay for it.

That makes tax collectors the initiators of violence against peaceful people.

Constitutional theft is still theft.

The constitution is not holy.

It was made by mere mortals, many years ago.

They were doing what they thought best at the time.

And that best, we might remember, included accepting that slavery was aye-ok.

To defend taxation is to defend slavery. Period.

Any human interaction that relies on the initiation of threats to accomplish a task is immoral and barbaric.

Let us imagine a scenario:

20 people live on a street.

12 of them go door to door, armed to the teeth, demanding funding to pave their gravel road.

5 of the threatened neighbors cave in, and pay the extortion.

2 neighbors get thrown into a locked basement for refusing.

1 neighbor is shot dead when he tries to repel the aggressors.

The actual issue here is the morality and reality of taxes and what they imply.

Is that the kind of world you want to live in?

Would you threaten your neighbors?