From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ
Subject: Re: taxes. (Was: Re: A Simple Thought Experiment)
Date: 29 Sep 92 15:53:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: midway.1992Sep29.155354.13307
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <BvAz11.5CG@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>In article <1992Sep27.225210.17060@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <Bv0327.GIM@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>>>True enough, but whether it's 52% or 36%, don't you think it's FAR too much?
>>>Do you really get 1/2 or 1/3 of your desires from the government?  
>
>>I've probably gotten more.  Government paid for the first twelve years of
>>my education, greatly subsidized the two universities I've went to since,
>
>It certainly spent a lot of money, but what you got for that money was
>probably a thoroughly aweful education, one much worse than you would
>have had in a private education system.  Is ruining your chances for a good
>education really a "benefit"?

I'd like to think I got a good education.  I got into every college I
applied to, and every law school I applied to.  I recognize that a number
of people weren't so lucky with their public education, but that's just
an argument for having competent teachers and insisting on standards.

Anyway, even the private schools in New Orleans got help from the government:
in fact, my public magnet school didn't have a government-funded schoolbus,
and the Catholic schools in the area couldn't have functioned without them.

And every major private university in the country gets a substantial chunk
of its budget from the government.  Surely not all of them are "aweful."

>>increased the social welfare of the society I live in by providing protection
>>for private property, encouraged invention that increased social welfare by
>>providing protection for intellectual property, 
>
>This is the kind of thing that I consider to be valuable and legitimate.
>I should point out though, that this could probably be funded by a 1% tax.
>
>>built and maintained the 
>>roads and public transportation that I needed to access the majority of 
>>my jobs, 
>
>Again, if they had not provided this, it would still have been available,
>and probably at a much lower cost.  

I wouldn't think so.  There are economies of scale in building a nationwide
network of roads, and because the marginal cost of using most roads is so
low, it's far better for society that road useage is free, and there isn't
a single private firm that would build a road for free.

>I suppose the quality of the roads is
>pretty good on the whole, but having the government steal from me in order
>to give me something I could have provided for myself is not what I would
>call a "benefit".

Don't know about you, but I couldn't build a road for myself.  Would
prefer not to, either.

>>And that's before the subjective utility I receive from 
>>knowing that I live in a society which doesn't have the poverty of a 
>>New Delhi because of the safety net provided by the welfare system, 
>>as much as I'd like to see that welfare system made more efficient.
>
>>They're also footing much of the bill for this wonderful medium of
>>communication that you and I are debating on.
>
>Sure, they provided it, but such provisions also open the way for government
>control of the communication down the road too.  I would rather pay for it
>myself and not submit to the whims of bureaucrats who "own" the net.

Strikes me that communication is much more free on Usenet than on Prodigy.
-- 
           .. . . .  .  .   .    .     .     .    .   .  .  . . . ..
          ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
         the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:48744 alt.politics.bush:7284 alt.politics.clinton:7923 talk.abortion:39586