kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (08/10/86)
From: Mills@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
What if the level of service, start-up and maintenance costs and
revenue are such that no business or corporation is interested?
Then it probably isn't practical - yet. Commercial air travel was
possible in 1910, but not practical. Travelling to the moon was
possible in 1969 but not practical (did we really gain anything by
going?).
Is it valid for the government to require people to bear the costs
of such a project?
No.
If the government has to take on the project, is it reasonable to
restrict the actions of others that will make the result more
expensive?
I can see why one would think that it would be, but this merely
becomes another argument that government shouldn't have gotten
involved, then it would not have been in its interest to distort the
economy.
Services expensive to provide should be expensive. Services
inexpensive to provide should be inexpensive. One should never
subsidize the other, nor should taxpayers subsidize either.
The question of requiring people to bear the costs is easy. If
there is a real consensus that the project is a good thing, there
will be little objection to forking over the money for it.
Fine. If it can be done with voluntary contributions, I have no
objection.
You get into problems when people perceive they are paying more
than their fair share or they don't agree with the project in the
first place.
Or if they aren't even aware of what the project is. How many
people have a good idea on just what tax revenues go to pay for? Or
how wasteful and mismanaged most of those projects are? Or how much
of social spending goes to people WEALTHIER than the average taxpayer?
By being citizens of a particular country/government, we have
agreed to a particular method of figuring how much an individual
should have to pay and how that money is distributed.
You might as well say that by being a citizen of Germany in the
1930s, a person has agreed as to what should be done with the Jews.
Hitler was elected by the majority. Does that mean everything he did
was ok?
If you don't like it you can have protests, try to elect
candidates who agree with you...
That's what I am doing.
The question of restricting competition is harder. One hybrid
solution might be to open the profitable parts to free-enterprise,
with the government taking a cut of the the profits.
But the government takes a cut out of ALL profits in EVERY industry.
And it takes a cut of ALL wages, ALL dividends, ALL interest payments,
ALL inheritence. Everything.
Why should there even be a question of restricting competition? You
are still thinking in terms of a totalitarian government. That ANY
competition that takes place takes place because GOVERNMENT willed it.
And that they are free to rescind their consent at any time for any
reason. And that they are free to set tax rates as high as they like,
and increase them at any time for any reason.
My attitude is that GOVERNMENT exists because INDIVIDUALS will it.
That INDIVIDUALS are free to rescind their consent to the government
at any time for any reason.
I feel this would be fair to the companies, as they are not
providing the full range of services, but are increasing the cost
of those services.
If government were not involved in the market, these questions could
not even arise.
If the company would provide the full range of services, then they
should be allowed to compete without special charges.
So you DO oppose taxation for some companies and their employees and
stockholders?
...Keith
-------