ZERO

[John]

The only thing that more people using government services will do is convince the bureaucrats that they should provide us with more services.

I say similar stuff all the time. Most people don't seem to even want to hear it.

Pretty damned circular, methinks. My part is to get off of the stinking evil treadmill whenever I can.

Again: I don't claim to be pure, but I do want to keep moving towards being more pure than I am.

[lildog]

I heard a news story this week that fits the discussion of this thread perfectly.

Curt Shilling and his game company.

Curt was very vocal regarding government bailouts previously speaking out at all the Republican venues and campaigning against Obama.

That was then...

Now after taking $75 million from tax payers and blowing it so bad that he bounced a $1 million check he's now pushing to get more money from the government.


http://news.bostonherald.com/jobfind/news/technology/view/20120517curt_schilling_is_mum_on_his_pitch_bailout_talkwith_ri_bigs_held_in_secret/

Here's a guy who made millions pitching for the Red Sox and millions more from advertisement deals and publicity.  Here's an idea... how about he risk his own money!



And for the record I'm a bit mixed on this story because while I'm very troubled by the hypocrisy of someone who claims to be for smaller government and against bail outs who then turns around and demands more for himself... on the other hand as a Yankee fan I love it when current or former Red Sox players come off looking like asses.

[Free libertarian]

Question - If somebody goes to jail, should they eat the food provided?

[Russell Kanning]

not if they value their health

can you imagine if you tried to stay away from anything the government claimed as theirs?
you can't go near roads (since they claim way out on both sides)
John cannot go forwards or back (hwy 4 and the railroad bed)
the LZ probably puts out some carbon into the air ... which algore owns
Bob's windmill and the other Bob's suncollector can be seen from Fed satellites

but it does make sense to me to try to keep untangling yourself from the Feds.

now with my current job the government gave me a license ..... does that now mean they are mixed up with all my monkeybusiness and monkeywrenching?


hey btw John ..... did the government every decide that they could leave the church building alone and let you keep it up?

[John]

Question - If somebody goes to jail, should they eat the food provided?

I think I should not.

Some might even recall when I was preparing to face their trail against me for "speeding" and I was telling the police (and was quite prepared to tell the judge) that I will certainly never give them money for something I didn't do, part of the prep. was my preparation to fast while in jail.

I recall that I actually began my fast at midnight on the day of court.

[John]

not if they value their health :)hey btw John ..... did the government every decide that they could leave the church building alone and let you keep it up?

nope. caesar always thinks he's God...

[KBCraig]

On a serious note: a fast, or hunger strike, is much harder than it sounds. Many have proclaimed it, fewer have actually tried it, and almost no one, statistically speaking, ever made it to the point of needing medical attention.

I respect anyone who declares they're on a hunger strike, if they actually are. Most aren't.

[Lloyd Danforth]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_Irish_hunger_strike

[Russell Kanning]

many mean to ..... but then the evil fed jailers force feed them through a tube

[KBCraig]

The alternative to eating tax-paid jail food, is relying on money from the outside so you can purchase food from the commissary/canteen.

Not much you can do about living in tax-paid accommodations, though. You'll be forced to wear at least some of the clothing, but the sheets and mattress are optional.

[Russell Kanning]

seems like we can learn from peaceful resisters of evil governments in the past

I myself refused any bologna that was not served on silver platters

[John]

I'm looking for true voluntaryist men and women who are walking the talk by being committed to taking zero-stolen-stuff.
PLEASE help me find them/you.
Some are obvious, but please don't assume I know the ones you do.
PLEASE ask the ones you know if it is OK for you to give me their names.
Please message me in any way convenient to you.
Peace.

only 1 person PMed me to say he is trying to move in this direction.
hmm

[MaineShark]

I think it's not entirely clear what direction that is, and you might get a stronger response if you clarified it more.

For example, as you noted, you're forced to pay taxes on any gasoline you purchase and you do drive on the roads which the government builds and maintains.

I think that's entirely reasonable; if you're forced to pay for something, you have every right to use it.

But might not someone make the same argument with regards to any other "service" that the government provides?

I think that the first test must be whether what you're getting costs more than what you've been forced to pay.  If so, then you would clearly be taking from others, and that must provide a solid "cap" on the level of "service" you obtain.

Below that level, though, you'll find a lot of arguments in a lot of different directions.  You made one in support of using the roads, for example.

So, I think the best bet is to clarify what sort of things you think are acceptable, and what sort of things you think are not (either by simply presenting your opinions, or by asking for discussion) and then ask who will adhere to that particular standard.

[lildog]

I think that the first test must be whether what you're getting costs more than what you've been forced to pay.  If so, then you would clearly be taking from others, and that must provide a solid "cap" on the level of "service" you obtain.

How do you determine the cost of a government service?

As I see it there are two types of costs... those that change depending on how many people use a service and those that are flat regardless of how many use it.

Roads are for the most part a flat cost so if it costs say $100 for a section of road it will cost that much regardless of 1 or 100 people using it.  Yes there is wear due to usage but in the case of roads weather does far more damage then passing cars.

Then you have something like welfare in which you directly take money and more people taking results in more money being taken.

I suppose it could be argued that there is a 3rd type that is a mix of the two.  A library for instance.  The library is going to have a fixed cost no matter what but if demand increases enough it justifies the need to hire additional staff which increases the cost.


Also how you "pay" is also broken down in two different ways.  There are taxes you can avoid and those you can't.  There are also taxes that would take what most people would consider extreme measures to avoid.

[MaineShark]

As I see it there are two types of costs... those that change depending on how many people use a service and those that are flat regardless of how many use it.

Roads are for the most part a flat cost so if it costs say $100 for a section of road it will cost that much regardless of 1 or 100 people using it.  Yes there is wear due to usage but in the case of roads weather does far more damage then passing cars.

Then you have something like welfare in which you directly take money and more people taking results in more money being taken.

I suppose it could be argued that there is a 3rd type that is a mix of the two.  A library for instance.  The library is going to have a fixed cost no matter what but if demand increases enough it justifies the need to hire additional staff which increases the cost.

Any of them are that "3rd type."  A road built for ten cars per day costs a lot less than a road built for a thousand cars per hour.  Providing "welfare benefits" to ten individuals entails much less overhead than coordinating payments to a thousand recipients, but beyond some point, the per-capita overhead costs go down (economies of scale).

In any case, if someone consumes a thousand gallons of fuel per year, and pays $0.30 per gallon in fuel taxes, then it's safe to say that the $300/yr paid is going to exceed that individual's "share" of the construction and maintenance costs of the roads.  So it would be safe to say that John is being reasonable when he drives his car on the road.  He's certainly paid more for what he's "using" than it's actually worth.

On the other hand, if someone who's barely ever paid any taxes, turns around and accepts a grant of $1M to start a business, that would not be reasonable  Some business that's paid $10M in taxes this year, would be far more able to easily justify accepting $1M back...

There's so much complexity that determining actual costs (and actual payments - with all the various taxes, no one really knows how much he's paid) would be nearly impossible, but there are certainly cases in which the situation is obvious.