What ethics do you have that makes you insist on trying to regulate the behavior of others? What is the philosophy behind it, and how do you deduce that we can achieve peace and prosperity by forcing others to do the will of a small group in power?

Who gives anyone the right to steal from Google? I'm not on board with that. There's a reason companies leave the US and it's because it has the highest corporate tax in the world at 35%. Google does not live in the US. It does not owe anything to public education, healthcare, roads or infrastructure. Google is a company that allows me to search on the internet. They get paid to show me ads. I could go on and on about what they are and the topic of "roads" would never figure.

If you want to argue that the founders or the employees of Google need to care about education, healthcare, roads, that's another topic, but I'm talking specifically about corporate tax. How is Google making billions at the expense of public good? How much do they owe the public, exactly? Is Google forever indentured to the State? Will it never be free? Are you OK with never being free?

I would say Google has provided plenty of goods to the public and it has paid more than its share several times over. We're all better off because it exists, and the service they provide is even free. It's free and you want to make it more expensive.

It's almost as if you're angry at how much money they're making. "Keeping high profit margins" is exactly what anyone would do because as human beings we want to feel safe, and high profit margins provide the safety that you will have enough resources to change your course of action if necessary, adapting to new market conditions and consumer demands. You want to erode that safety buffer and make Google more fragile.

Your wording says it all: "Google [..] could [...] drop a couple of zeros from their [...] profit". The profits are their reward for supplying something we all want. We all use it daily, it's free, it's amazing and they keep making more cool stuff, and because of that the market has rewarded them. And you're advocating stealing their reward to fix roads. But we don't even know if people want roads! They're there so that's why people use them, but who's to say we don't want something better? Well, we'll never know, because the State said "roads it is" and they're sticking to it, even when the upkeep gets harder and harder. Is the State looking into alternatives to roads? No? We went through a bunch of search companies like AltaVista and Lycos and so on and it took all this time to realize Google was what we wanted, and we've rewarded them for that. What is the State doing to foster a bunch of alternative ways of transportation in order to pick the best so we can reward it?

Oh, you mean you just want roads period, and you want to force everyone to pay for this product, and you don't think there could be alternatives so that's why you're not looking into competing ideas? So let's force Google to pay for this product that was artificially designed and not evolved from market forces like Google's product were? And Google should pay up because it has so much money and it would still be profitable if it sacrificed a few zeroes? Can you please justify this line of thinking to me ethically? Here we have two organizations, one puts out a crummy product it can't maintain, and the other puts out a good product that people said they would pay for; and you're saying we should take money from the successful product and use it to build more of the unsuccessful product. Do you see what I see? Because from here it's clear the solution would be for the State to simply stop making crummy products and stop stealing from successful products, but somehow we've escalated this problem all the way to the level of global corporate taxes.