[ronimacarroni]

Only this, the govt can't take so much from me because I have nothing of value for it to take.

Well the internet and highways were government projects.
The stimulus spending could have been used to improve our internet infrastructure, make trains, provide research grants into energy storage to make green energy viable...
Instead it was used for tax cuts, subsidies and other free market solutions because everyone believes nowadays that the free market is the only solution to everything.
The other thing about government projects is that they end up benefiting everyone rather than those who just can afford it.
Like roads for instance. If all roads were private then everyone would have to pay tolls regardless of income and it'd affect poor people more than wealthy people.

[mikema63]

You have a sweetly naive view, but frankly the government doesn't work to stop or even care about wealth inequality, poor people, or welfare.

[ronimacarroni]

You have a sweetly naive view, but frankly the government doesn't work to stop or even care about wealth inequality, poor people, or welfare.

Well it did during the FDR and Eisenhower administration. I don't see why it couldn't do so again.

[Baff]

The other thing about government projects is that they end up benefiting everyone rather than those who just can afford it.
Like roads for instance. If all roads were private then everyone would have to pay tolls regardless of income and it'd affect poor people more than wealthy people.

How so?

Since I only drive about 1,000 miles a year, why would I be unable to afford paying by the amount I use the roads?
I use the roads much less than average because I am poorer than average.

Currently I pay maximum rate road tax. If I paid by the amount of usuage only, or even by my economic status only, I would expect the relative cost to me to be much reduced.
Also this would enable me to economise on my road costs during harder times.
I could choose only to pay for more essential trips for example.
As opposed to what I do now, which is sometimes not being able to afford the petrol for my car because I had to spend so much on Road Tax. 1/3 of which isn't even spent on roads at all. But is instead spent on trains and buses which motorists do not even use since they all operate a car and can more freely and more comfortably travel for cheaper.

I do not agree that government projects end up benefitting everyone.
I think many of them benefit some people. All of them disadvantage some people.
Some of them benefit very few people and disadvantage more people than they benefit.
Others of them hopefully benefit more than they disadvantage...
And all of them benefit some people more than they benefit others.

Building a road bridge to the Shetland Islands for example, costs every driver in the country but benefits only a mere handfull of them.

Adding the word "government" to a scheme doesn't intrinsically make it good at all. Let alone universally good.
The problem you have identified however, I agree with. Some people can't afford the things they want.
Welcome to the adult world.

The issue for me is a simple one, just because you want something doesn't give you the right to steal from others in order to get it.
Not even... if in your mind it's for the greater good, because everyone else has other idea's and priorities of what the greater good should be and how it can be achieved.
Play at god if you like. But you are not a god. Each man is best placed to decide for himself what he values and how much. No one else can ever be so.

Tyranny is the attempt to force your view upon others who do not share it. You should expect resistance to this if that is your aim.
And I don't care for any protestestations on the greater good. Please spare me your concerns for the poor. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[ronimacarroni]

So you rather pay tolls to go anywhere?
Sounds like prison to me.

[Baff]

Actually I'd rather just pay a reasonable amount of tax and forget about it than have to stop at every toll booth on the way somewhere.
But that's not a deal that is ever likely to be on offer to me.
I'd take toll roads over what I have now on purely economic reasons, but I have to say that in this, convenience is also a factor.
I'm not happy about the way our roads are currently funded, but I'm not exactly too bothered by it either.

Broadly speaking I beleive our roads to be of excellent standard and worth contributing towards. The system is obviously less than ideal but it's clearly adequate. The revolution won't start here.

My future however lies in both paying toll roads and paying road tax. It's a pretty shit thing.
Don't even start me off on fuel tax.

[Rothbardian]

How do libertarians solve the problem of wealth inequality.
inb4 its not a problem.

By rejecting the idea that a select few in society are entitled to the ownership of all the wealth within that society.

[Poelmo]

How do libertarians solve the problem of wealth inequality.
inb4 its not a problem.

I'm too lazy to go through all the previous comments, but I can answer your question.

Libertarians do not consider wealth or income inequality to be a problem per se. There are different strokes of libertarians though, there is the type that believes a libertarian society will be so prosperous and have such strong consumer protection organizations that even the poorest of the poor will have enough (at least those who can work, the handicapped and orphans are f*cked because it's unlikely for charity to reach them all), then there is the type that believes the only people who will be poor will be those that "deserve" it (being a slacker drug addict can make you poor, so if you are poor you must be a slacker drug addict), so who cares if they starve, altruism and empathy are for the weak. In any case what matter to libertarians are abstract economic and political freedoms. They want to be free in theory, even if this restricts practical freedoms for a portion of the population, it's "give me liberty or death" taken to the extreme and with a peculiar definition of "liberty" that's very different from the definitions used in other ideologies.

[Poelmo]

How so?

Since I only drive about 1,000 miles a year, why would I be unable to afford paying by the amount I use the roads?
I use the roads much less than average because I am poorer than average.

The idea is that on average someone who is 10 times poorer uses the road 5 times less or something like that (largely because even the poorest of the poor still make considerable use of roads since food doesn't just magically hover towards them), so a greater percentage of their income goes to toll payments.

[Kman]

The idea is that on average someone who is 10 times poorer uses the road 5 times less or something like that (largely because even the poorest of the poor still make considerable use of roads since food doesn't just magically hover towards them), so a greater percentage of their income goes to toll payments.

Who gives a shit if it does? A greater percentage of almost everything a poor person buys goes to payments of said goods simply because they are you know poor, poor people also spend a much larger percentage of their income on food and hair cuts, does this mean you want to socialize all the supermarkets and hair-dressers?

Fuck the poor, they should pay for the costs of everything they use at 100% of costs just like they do currently in supermarkets for example.

[Poelmo]

Who gives a shit if it does? A greater percentage of almost everything a poor person buys goes to payments of said goods simply because they are you know poor

It becomes a problem when such factors stack up beyond the point where the poor person can still pay for survival. Additionally many ideologies contain the idea that income and wealth are related to merit but not linearly, in other words there are undeserving poor and undeserving rich. That this happens lies beyond doubt (much of the economy is just a chaotic stochastic system, where the best have a higher chance of winning, but only slightly so and the variance is quite large because life is too short to have many repeats, a bit like a short poker tournament), people just disagree about how big a factor it is in the real world. Lastly people value equality of opportunity (if you're gonna have a system that's a rat race, then at least make sure even poor kids get to start at square one instead of square zero), if only because you'd otherwise be throwing away talent (there's no guarantee that the son of the doctor will make a better doctor than the son of the bricklayer). Anyway, because of these ideas many people support the state in taking measures to undo some of the wealth and income inequality in a capitalist economy.

[Rothbardian]

It becomes a problem when such factors stack up beyond the point where the poor person can still pay for survival.

This is why keeping costs down is so important, especially for the poor. Libertarians win this argument again. Check and mate.

[Poelmo]

This is why keeping costs down is so important, especially for the poor. Libertarians win this argument again. Check and mate.

No, almost any product contains fixed costs (energy required for mining, for example) and employs higher level workers (not the poor), so any reduction of x% of the wages of the poor will lead to a reduction in prices of less than or equal to x%, so wage reductions for the poor don't help the poor (unsurprisingly).

I realize you may also be referring to a belief that under libertarianism the toll fare would be less than what a poor person contributes to road taxes today but that's quite a stretch even for a country like Sweden, let alone the United States or the third world (road maintenance would have to be something like 10 times cheaper without lowering workers wages too much, that may be physically impossible). That would basically be like saying that without the government the economy would be at least its current size plus a part that's equal to today's government budget (that's the only way rich people don't have to pay taxes while poor people don't get any poorer), that's at least 30-50% extra, depending on the country.

[Baff]

[]How so?

Since I only drive about 1,000 miles a year, why would I be unable to afford paying by the amount I use the roads?
I use the roads much less than average because I am poorer than average.[/]

The idea is that on average someone who is 10 times poorer uses the road 5 times less or something like that (largely because even the poorest of the poor still make considerable use of roads since food doesn't just magically hover towards them), so a greater percentage of their income goes to toll payments.

Which we can reasonably expect to be a smaller percentage of their income than under the current system
whereby they pay a % of the total cost of road provision = their share of 150% of the total costs of provision, divided with all the other drivers who typically use the roads way more than them.
Plus of course Road Tax is not determined by your wealth. It is determined by the popularity of your type of vehicle with the Greens.
So for example because I run a cheap old car I must pay top rate tax. If I could afford a new greener more expensive car, I would be charged less for my road use although not enough less to make this finacially worthwhile to me.

By no means do poor people all make considerable use of the road system.
For example, many poor people live in urban centres and don't drive at all. So they pay precisely zero for the roads they use. (In my country roads are exclusively funded by Road Tax. You pay per motor vehicle owned). Cyclists, pedestrians, military and farm vehicles all go free.
And the bulk of food that is shipped around the country is shipped around the country at the expense of the producer and retailer. The poor person only pays for the movement of food that he himself takes part in. His drive to the supermarket and back.
the rest of the costs of shipping that food are met by those who ship it themselves. They too pay Road Tax.


Make no mistake this has nothing to do with helping out the poor.
The poor and the rich are minorities. The government panders to the middle classes. The common demoninator.

A load of shithead government types who are the richest section of society in the country..... crying on about how they need taxes to help the poor. But sod all of the money they tax goes to the poor, it goes to them. All of us are made the poorer to feed their greed.

[Poelmo]

Which we can reasonably expect to be a smaller percentage of their income than under the current system.

Why? The commercial road companies would be smaller than today's infrastructure ministries (so more overhead costs), they would have to have a profit margin attractive enough for investors, they would have to have a marketing department, they would charge a cyclist the same toll fare as a Lamborghini driver and they would not be able to use the income tax or corporate tax to supplement their income (usually when you pay an X-tax, X is only partially funded by that tax, or some indirect compensation exists for the poor). So they would have to do some massive cost cutting without lowering the quality of the roads and without lowering the wages of the workers. Just because private enterprise is generally more efficient than government doesn't mean you can't reasonably expect private enterprise to lower costs by any arbitrary amount you desire. There are limits to what's physically possible. I can see why libertarian economists don't use math: if something goes up and another thing goes down and you don't measure their magnitudes you can always hide behind the hope that the net result of the two will be exactly what you want it to be, ingorance is bliss.

By no means do poor people all make considerable use of the road system.

Sure they do, many do so without cars, but they still move around.

For example, many poor people live in urban centres and don't drive at all. So they pay precisely zero for the roads they use. [color=#808000](In my country roads are exclusively funded by Road Tax. You pay per motor vehicle owned).

You do know you're actually arguign for my point here, at least in the case of your country, don't you? If the poor don't pay anything now and they would pay something in a libertarian world (because there would be no government to prohibit charging pedestrians a toll fare and this toll fare would not be based on income) then the percentage of their income that goes to paying for the usage of roads goes up.

[Eran]

It becomes a problem when such factors stack up beyond the point where the poor person can still pay for survival.

So the problem isn't inequality (with which libertarianism isn't particularly eager to deal), but poverty.

Here, by contrast, libertarians have much to say.

In particular, historic evidence clearly shows that the standard of living of poor people is much higher in relatively capitalistic societies than it is in relatively socialist ones (with the most relevant factor being the degree of economic freedom rather than the overall size of government spending).


In general, governments do not work for the benefit of the poor. They serve the interests of the wealthy (who can contribute to election campaigns) and the middle classes (who turn out to vote). They use rhetoric and symbolism to signal their intention to help the poor to the extent and degree that such help appeals to their middle-class voters.

By and large, however, poor people get less out of the system than they would without government. For instance:

1. Poor people pay taxes, often income and invariably consumption taxes as well as bearing the indirect cost of corporate taxation upon the prices of the products they consume.
2. Poor people are forced to pay for levels of quality and safety which they can neither afford nor necessarily desire through middle-class-oriented product and labour regulation regime.
3. Poor people are sometimes forced out of the labour market because their labour is made artificially expensive through minimum wage and various labour regulations.
4. Poor people face artificially expensive housing due to various zoning and building restriction regulations
5. Poor people find it much more difficult to open a business and become independent because of the cost and complexity of business and professional regulations.

In the long term, poor people benefit from the general economic growth that open and free markets bring.

[Baff]

[

Sure they do, many do so without cars, but they still move around.

[Baf"]For example, many poor people live in urban centres and don't drive at all. So they pay precisely zero for the roads they use. [color=#808000](In my country roads are exclusively funded by Road Tax. You pay per motor vehicle owned).[/baff]

You do know you're actually arguign for my point here, at least in the case of your country, don't you? If the poor don't pay anything now and they would pay something in a libertarian world (because there would be no government to prohibit charging pedestrians a toll fare and this toll fare would not be based on income) then the percentage of their income that goes to paying for the usage of roads goes up.

The poor do pay something now. They pay much more than the roads cost to provide.

Why should pedestrians and cyclists go free?

Just because I do not use a car does not mean I am poor. Plenty of wealthy people live in cities too. I have a few friends with bicycles worth more than my car.

All these poeple going for free raises the share of the cost to those people who pay Road Tax. And that includes poor people equally as well as it does rich.


So while a townie gets to walk to his shop for free, a country boy who needs to drive to get to the shops has to pay for both the road he uses and road he does not.
While the townie goes free. Pays for no roads.
No incomes are tested here. This is not decided by your wealth in any way.



The reason Road Tax is charged only to car drivers is because a car is a physical confiscatable asset of a value that many poeple will be willing to pay a nominal sum of tax for in order not to have that expensive asset taken from them.
They are an easy mark. That is all. Rich or poor.
They are taxed more because they are more easy to tax. That is all.


I would certainly like my road companies to be smaller rather than larger. While increased scale may result in economies of scale in certain enterprises and elements of the work, it also always results in reduced efficiencies. A zillion meetings etc. Unionisation and so on.
So one must outweigh the other before increased scale is even desirable.
Plus with a smaller company you have more direct public accountability. They guy who did the job is the same guy who answers the phone. They guy you pay is the same guy who did the work.

I'm not asking private enterpise to lower the costs, I'm asking for taxation to be both fair and honest.
People who benefit from the roads should pay for them. Those who use them should contribute their share towards them.

Money should not be taxed to build and maintain roads and then be spent on something entirely different that is not roads. This is dishonesty. Plain and simple.
If in the private sector I advertised one thing, took the money and then spent it on soemthing completely different, I would expect to see the inside of a jail cell.
We call this "fraud".

This is a form of behaviour which we all consider to be criminal in nature and just because the government writes the laws, they themselves are exempt from honest practise.


So the problem is not that little private companies can't deliver the service for the same money or are incapable of building and maintaining roads, they can.. in fact if they could offer the same service for 140% of the current cost, they would still be significantly cheaper than the current 150% of total cost the govt provides it at.

The problem is that one big monster company has taken over the whole show, and has zero public accountability to the people who are paying for the service. They do what the fuck they like. Charge what the fuck they like, and surprise surprise... no one is getting any value for their money except the people collecting it.


Now as you rightly point out, this could be considered to affect poor drivers the hardest as a greater porprotion of their wealth is being dishonestly and wastefully taken away form them. Obviously Bill Gates or whoever doesn't have to give so much of a shit about not getting value for smaller less personally significant sums of money.


But this was never about helping the poor. It's always been about getting more money from them and everyone else... to better sponsor the public sector.
In my country, public sector = the richest sector.

So some rich twat gets a free pavement off of the back of some poor chap struggling to make ends meet. But rich chap says "hey I'm doing this (sponging) to help the poor". To which poor twats like me, say "fuck you".


So if both fair and honest taxation was an option on the table, I would happily choose that in favour of toll roads. But it isn't, it never will be... and so I do not.

[Poelmo]

So the problem isn't inequality (with which libertarianism isn't particularly eager to deal), but poverty.

Depends on your ideology. I do think inequality is a problem in itself, sure there has to be some difference in reward between slackers and hard workers but the bigger that difference gets and the more it gets detached from actual merit the more it becomes a problem because humans aren't ants: our happiness and success in attracting suitable mates depends on how "successful" we are compared to others in society. Additionally people want to feel like they're getting their fair share: if I do one millionth of the work in my society then I want to get one millionth of my society's wealth as a reward, if my reward goes too far below this I will lose my motivation and may even start hindering my society through crime (if the big guys are stealing then why shouldn't I do the same?), anti-social behavior, disruptive activism, etc... This is why looking at absolute poverty is BS, relative poverty is what counts.

One of the biggest, perhaps THE biggest differences between libertarians and everyone else is that libertarians believe that either everyone gets what they deserve (that wealth is directly proportional to merit) so nothing bad can happen to you if you work hard and smart, while everyone else does not believe this to be the case. My personal take is that the human mind is riddled with blind spots that can be taken advantage of by ruthless people and that much of the economy relies strongly on chance (there is no reason "Gangnam Style" was the most popular song of 2012, it just happened to come out on top at a game of chance where being "better" only slightly improves your chances, while Charlie Sheen checking out youtube right at the moment Gangnam Style appears in the "suggested" bar and then tweeting about it greatly improves the chances of the song going viral).

In particular, historic evidence clearly shows that the standard of living of poor people is much higher in relatively capitalistic societies than it is in relatively socialist ones (with the most relevant factor being the degree of economic freedom rather than the overall size of government spending).

Right, and it's good you point out that government spending isn't harmful per se. Social democracies in Europe are for from libertarian, they have big governments yet they rank high on the list of economic freedom. This is partly because economic freedom is increased by having affordable, quality education for even the poorest children and partly because these countries have found a way to make the free market work for the people instead of the other way around.

[Soix]

One of the biggest, perhaps THE biggest differences between libertarians and everyone else is that libertarians believe that either everyone gets what they deserve (that wealth is directly proportional to merit)

I don't believe 'desert' or 'merit' is part of the libertarian system. 'Justice', however, is a part. When can an exchange between two or more persons be considered 'just'? (See Robert Nozick's "Entitlement Theory").

[Rothbardian]

No, almost any product contains fixed costs (energy required for mining, for example) and employs higher level workers (not the poor), so any reduction of x% of the wages of the poor will lead to a reduction in prices of less than or equal to x%, so wage reductions for the poor don't help the poor (unsurprisingly).

I realize you may also be referring to a belief that under libertarianism the toll fare would be less than what a poor person contributes to road taxes today but that's quite a stretch even for a country like Sweden, let alone the United States or the third world (road maintenance would have to be something like 10 times cheaper without lowering workers wages too much, that may be physically impossible). That would basically be like saying that without the government the economy would be at least its current size plus a part that's equal to today's government budget (that's the only way rich people don't have to pay taxes while poor people don't get any poorer), that's at least 30-50% extra, depending on the country.

There's no such thing as a fixed cost. There will always be costs, but as society and technology progress those base costs are always reduced. No matter what system you intend, even pure socialism or communism, simply being alive will cost more for the poor than for anyone else.