Bitcoin Forum
December 04, 2016, 02:25:35 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: With no taxes, what about firestations and garbage service?  (Read 10114 times)
FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
October 04, 2011, 05:50:03 PM
 #41

It requires that all agree to enter a binding agreement before starting.  The people who prefer to get the service for free won't do that.  So even before you start, you are left with the problem.

A possible solution for new developments would be that the house comes with a ground rent to the fire provider but there is no way to apply that to existing cities.  But then I suppose it would be harder to sell the houses so that won't be done either.

Thanks for the link though.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem describes what I was trying to get at with the selfish home-owner very concisely.

The fire-suppression provider can withdraw all of his services and demand that any closely connected buildings agree to an assurance contract before further service is rendered. If there aren't enough contributors to satisfy his contract, nobody gets service. Of course, some will leave, others will risk it. Or maybe, just maybe, the owner of the building might chip in because he wants to keep his units rented/leased and add that cost to his bottom line or pass it on to his clientele. The free market will prevail eventually even when the aforementioned objects are already in play. Have a little faith.

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
1480861535
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480861535

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480861535
Reply with quote  #2

1480861535
Report to moderator
1480861535
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480861535

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480861535
Reply with quote  #2

1480861535
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
October 04, 2011, 06:30:43 PM
 #42

It requires that all agree to enter a binding agreement before starting.  The people who prefer to get the service for free won't do that.  So even before you start, you are left with the problem.

A possible solution for new developments would be that the house comes with a ground rent to the fire provider but there is no way to apply that to existing cities.  But then I suppose it would be harder to sell the houses so that won't be done either.

Thanks for the link though.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem describes what I was trying to get at with the selfish home-owner very concisely.

The fire-suppression provider can withdraw all of his services and demand that any closely connected buildings agree to an assurance contract before further service is rendered. If there aren't enough contributors to satisfy his contract, nobody gets service. Of course, some will leave, others will risk it. Or maybe, just maybe, the owner of the building might chip in because he wants to keep his units rented/leased and add that cost to his bottom line or pass it on to his clientele. The free market will prevail eventually even when the aforementioned objects are already in play. Have a little faith.

And there you have it.  People will be forced to choose between abandoning the property they paid for or paying extra to support the free riders. 

That isn't freedom - it's exploitation.

paraipan
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924


Firstbits: 1pirata


View Profile WWW
October 04, 2011, 07:04:02 PM
 #43

It requires that all agree to enter a binding agreement before starting.  The people who prefer to get the service for free won't do that.  So even before you start, you are left with the problem.

A possible solution for new developments would be that the house comes with a ground rent to the fire provider but there is no way to apply that to existing cities.  But then I suppose it would be harder to sell the houses so that won't be done either.

Thanks for the link though.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem describes what I was trying to get at with the selfish home-owner very concisely.

The fire-suppression provider can withdraw all of his services and demand that any closely connected buildings agree to an assurance contract before further service is rendered. If there aren't enough contributors to satisfy his contract, nobody gets service. Of course, some will leave, others will risk it. Or maybe, just maybe, the owner of the building might chip in because he wants to keep his units rented/leased and add that cost to his bottom line or pass it on to his clientele. The free market will prevail eventually even when the aforementioned objects are already in play. Have a little faith.

And there you have it.  People will be forced to choose between abandoning the property they paid for or paying extra to support the free riders. 

That isn't freedom - it's exploitation.

 try not to think at it in such a drastic way. How would you feel i take your newspaper every morning leaving you nothing after you pay a year subscription, bad i guess. I will try getting free water from my other neighbor and some internet too. What would you and all other neighbors do when is all found out ? Kick my sorry ass out of the community ? And i will be free to think you we're trying to exploit me and pay for all those services, yeah

@FredericBastiat thanks for the link

BTCitcoin: An Idea Worth Saving - Q&A with bitcoins on rugatu.com - Check my rep
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
October 04, 2011, 07:16:01 PM
 #44

It requires that all agree to enter a binding agreement before starting.  The people who prefer to get the service for free won't do that.  So even before you start, you are left with the problem.

A possible solution for new developments would be that the house comes with a ground rent to the fire provider but there is no way to apply that to existing cities.  But then I suppose it would be harder to sell the houses so that won't be done either.

Thanks for the link though.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem describes what I was trying to get at with the selfish home-owner very concisely.

The fire-suppression provider can withdraw all of his services and demand that any closely connected buildings agree to an assurance contract before further service is rendered. If there aren't enough contributors to satisfy his contract, nobody gets service. Of course, some will leave, others will risk it. Or maybe, just maybe, the owner of the building might chip in because he wants to keep his units rented/leased and add that cost to his bottom line or pass it on to his clientele. The free market will prevail eventually even when the aforementioned objects are already in play. Have a little faith.

And there you have it.  People will be forced to choose between abandoning the property they paid for or paying extra to support the free riders. 

That isn't freedom - it's exploitation.

 try not to think at it in such a drastic way. How would you feel i take your newspaper every morning leaving you nothing after you pay a year subscription, bad i guess. I will try getting free water from my other neighbor and some internet too. What would you and all other neighbors do when is all found out ? Kick my sorry ass out of the community ? And i will be free to think you we're trying to exploit me and pay for all those services, yeah

@FredericBastiat thanks for the link

You can't kick someone out of their property if they are not breaking some obligation.  I'm surprised you'd even think such a thing desirable - surely the idea of ownership is that you can do what the hell you want within the law.

paraipan
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924


Firstbits: 1pirata


View Profile WWW
October 04, 2011, 07:27:03 PM
 #45

@Hawker i guess every person living in a society (community or group) has rights and obligations. I have the obligation to pay the community fee if i want to use the pool, my trash taken care of by the janitor, etc. I'm free to sell my property and leave if the rules are unacceptable to me  Smiley

They can't kick me out legally but if a majority is not happy with my actions they can make me leave in the end.

BTCitcoin: An Idea Worth Saving - Q&A with bitcoins on rugatu.com - Check my rep
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
October 04, 2011, 07:38:02 PM
 #46

@Hawker i guess every person living in a society (community or group) has rights and obligations. I have the obligation to pay the community fee if i want to use the pool, my trash taken care of by the janitor, etc. I'm free to sell my property and leave if the rules are unacceptable to me  Smiley

They can't kick me out legally but if a majority is not happy with my actions they can make me leave in the end.

OK its not clear where you stand.  If taxes are needed to fund a fire service, do you think its OK to tax property owners?

Anonymous
Guest

October 04, 2011, 07:43:54 PM
 #47

@Hawker i guess every person living in a society (community or group) has rights and obligations. I have the obligation to pay the community fee if i want to use the pool, my trash taken care of by the janitor, etc. I'm free to sell my property and leave if the rules are unacceptable to me  Smiley

They can't kick me out legally but if a majority is not happy with my actions they can make me leave in the end.

OK its not clear where you stand.  If taxes are needed to fund a fire service, do you think its OK to tax property owners?
Taxes aren't needed to fund a fire service. Your point is moot.
paraipan
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924


Firstbits: 1pirata


View Profile WWW
October 04, 2011, 07:46:52 PM
 #48

@Hawker depends, it all resumes too not hurting or disturbing another fellow human, if i have a house in property in the middle of the dessert who cares if i'm not paying for a fire service, that would not be the case in an apartment block. I think you get what i mean

BTCitcoin: An Idea Worth Saving - Q&A with bitcoins on rugatu.com - Check my rep
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
October 04, 2011, 07:48:12 PM
 #49

@Hawker i guess every person living in a society (community or group) has rights and obligations. I have the obligation to pay the community fee if i want to use the pool, my trash taken care of by the janitor, etc. I'm free to sell my property and leave if the rules are unacceptable to me  Smiley

They can't kick me out legally but if a majority is not happy with my actions they can make me leave in the end.

OK its not clear where you stand.  If taxes are needed to fund a fire service, do you think its OK to tax property owners?
Taxes aren't needed to fund a fire service. Your point is moot.

As discussed earlier, in rural areas that's true.  But in urban areas, the fire trucks with pumpers cost over $400,000 and you need full time professional firemen.  For safety reasons, there are always 2 trucks at each fire.  So you need $800,000 plus the cost of buying a firestation and the cost of training staff and then you need an ongoing budget for wages.

In most towns, that kind of money means that there will only be one provider.  And the question then is, if taxes are needed to fund that fire service, do you think its OK to tax property owners?

Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
October 04, 2011, 07:49:31 PM
 #50

@Hawker depends, it all resumes too not hurting or disturbing another fellow human, if i have a house in property in the middle of the dessert who cares if i'm not paying for a fire service, that would not be the case in an apartment block. I think you get what i mean

You mean that you'd like to live in a rural area where its easy to run a fire service and there is no need for taxes to support it.  But, for urban areas, if taxes are needed to fund a fire service, do you think its OK to tax property owners?

Anonymous
Guest

October 04, 2011, 07:50:36 PM
 #51

@Hawker i guess every person living in a society (community or group) has rights and obligations. I have the obligation to pay the community fee if i want to use the pool, my trash taken care of by the janitor, etc. I'm free to sell my property and leave if the rules are unacceptable to me  Smiley

They can't kick me out legally but if a majority is not happy with my actions they can make me leave in the end.

OK its not clear where you stand.  If taxes are needed to fund a fire service, do you think its OK to tax property owners?
Taxes aren't needed to fund a fire service. Your point is moot.

As discussed earlier, in rural areas that's true.  But in urban areas, the fire trucks with pumpers cost over $400,000 and you need full time professional firemen.  For safety reasons, there are always 2 trucks at each fire.  So you need $800,000 plus the cost of buying a firestation and the cost of training staff and then you need an ongoing budget for wages.

In most towns, that kind of money means that there will only be one provider.  And the question then is, if taxes are needed to fund that fire service, do you think its OK to tax property owners?


Those prices are inflated due to the horrible inefficiency of our fire departments with the guaranteed wages and excess benefits. They aren't accurate of what market prices with profit-incentive would be.
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
October 04, 2011, 07:56:32 PM
 #52

@Hawker i guess every person living in a society (community or group) has rights and obligations. I have the obligation to pay the community fee if i want to use the pool, my trash taken care of by the janitor, etc. I'm free to sell my property and leave if the rules are unacceptable to me  Smiley

They can't kick me out legally but if a majority is not happy with my actions they can make me leave in the end.

OK its not clear where you stand.  If taxes are needed to fund a fire service, do you think its OK to tax property owners?
Taxes aren't needed to fund a fire service. Your point is moot.

As discussed earlier, in rural areas that's true.  But in urban areas, the fire trucks with pumpers cost over $400,000 and you need full time professional firemen.  For safety reasons, there are always 2 trucks at each fire.  So you need $800,000 plus the cost of buying a firestation and the cost of training staff and then you need an ongoing budget for wages.

In most towns, that kind of money means that there will only be one provider.  And the question then is, if taxes are needed to fund that fire service, do you think its OK to tax property owners?


Those prices are inflated due to the horrible inefficiency of our fire departments with the guaranteed wages and excess benefits. They aren't accurate of what market prices with profit-incentive would be.

With respect, they cost the same in Ireland and England; pumps are amazing pieces of technology.  Our salary costs are a fraction of yours though.

You still have not answered the question.  If the taxes are needed to fund that fire service, do you think its OK to tax property owners?

Anonymous
Guest

October 04, 2011, 07:59:20 PM
 #53

@Hawker i guess every person living in a society (community or group) has rights and obligations. I have the obligation to pay the community fee if i want to use the pool, my trash taken care of by the janitor, etc. I'm free to sell my property and leave if the rules are unacceptable to me  Smiley

They can't kick me out legally but if a majority is not happy with my actions they can make me leave in the end.

OK its not clear where you stand.  If taxes are needed to fund a fire service, do you think its OK to tax property owners?
Taxes aren't needed to fund a fire service. Your point is moot.

As discussed earlier, in rural areas that's true.  But in urban areas, the fire trucks with pumpers cost over $400,000 and you need full time professional firemen.  For safety reasons, there are always 2 trucks at each fire.  So you need $800,000 plus the cost of buying a firestation and the cost of training staff and then you need an ongoing budget for wages.

In most towns, that kind of money means that there will only be one provider.  And the question then is, if taxes are needed to fund that fire service, do you think its OK to tax property owners?


Those prices are inflated due to the horrible inefficiency of our fire departments with the guaranteed wages and excess benefits. They aren't accurate of what market prices with profit-incentive would be.
With respect, they cost the same in Ireland and England; pumps are amazing pieces of technology.  Our salary costs are a fraction of yours though.

You still have not answered the question.  If the taxes are needed to fund that fire service, do you think its OK to tax property owners?
It's not a sane question. It's like asking if we should wear gas masks if flying unicorns are shitting an unknown substance from above.

The fact is when there is a consumer desire that must be met, it will be met by whatever means. People aren't going to go "Nope, what we have right now isn't feasible. Let's throw in the towel and give up on life." What they actually do is innovate and find a more efficient solution. There will be effective fire departments without government. There isn't a natural law saying we can't make cheaper, better fire pumps.
paraipan
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924


Firstbits: 1pirata


View Profile WWW
October 04, 2011, 08:03:17 PM
 #54

@Hawker yes, i think it's ok, in urban areas would be necessary

BTCitcoin: An Idea Worth Saving - Q&A with bitcoins on rugatu.com - Check my rep
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
October 04, 2011, 08:06:41 PM
 #55



With respect, they cost the same in Ireland and England; pumps are amazing pieces of technology.  Our salary costs are a fraction of yours though.

You still have not answered the question.  If the taxes are needed to fund that fire service, do you think its OK to tax property owners?
It's not a sane question. It's like asking if we should wear gas masks if flying unicorns are shitting an unknown substance from above.

The fact is when there is a consumer desire that must be met, it will be met by whatever means. People aren't going to go "Nope, what we have right now isn't feasible. Let's throw in the towel and give up on life." What they actually do is innovate and find a more efficient solution. There will be effective fire departments without government. There isn't a natural law saying we can't make cheaper, better fire pumps.

You say "The fact is when there is a consumer desire that must be met, it will be met by whatever means" but there a million of so Somali consumers who beg to differ.

I admire your faith in the magic of the market whereby things that cost $400,000 will mysteriously cost less just because we don't have taxes to pay for them.  But I think you will agree that expecting people to die in fires while they wait for this magic to work would be unreasonable.

You are asserting that "It will just work" and based on that refuse to consider the real world.  What can I possibly say to you?  

Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
October 04, 2011, 08:07:50 PM
 #56

@Hawker yes, i think it's ok, in urban areas would be necessary

Yes it is necessary.

So what to we say to people that think the fact that they are forced to pay these taxes is an intolerable infringement of their liberty?

Anonymous
Guest

October 04, 2011, 08:11:12 PM
 #57



With respect, they cost the same in Ireland and England; pumps are amazing pieces of technology.  Our salary costs are a fraction of yours though.

You still have not answered the question.  If the taxes are needed to fund that fire service, do you think its OK to tax property owners?
It's not a sane question. It's like asking if we should wear gas masks if flying unicorns are shitting an unknown substance from above.

The fact is when there is a consumer desire that must be met, it will be met by whatever means. People aren't going to go "Nope, what we have right now isn't feasible. Let's throw in the towel and give up on life." What they actually do is innovate and find a more efficient solution. There will be effective fire departments without government. There isn't a natural law saying we can't make cheaper, better fire pumps.

You say "The fact is when there is a consumer desire that must be met, it will be met by whatever means" but there a million of so Somali consumers who beg to differ.

I admire your faith in the magic of the market whereby things that cost $400,000 will mysteriously cost less just because we don't have taxes to pay for them.  But I think you will agree that expecting people to die in fires while they wait for this magic to work would be unreasonable.

You are asserting that "It will just work" and based on that refuse to consider the real world.  What can I possibly say to you?  
It works everyday. Look at the computer you are using, the food you eat and the products you use everyday. The majority of all you major needs and luxuries are met by a constant flux of innovation. Nobody has to be forced to pay for these things to make them possible.  You desired these things and the market made them available to you affordably. What makes it improbable that the same force that makes these products possible will not apply to a fire service? What makes it entirely different?

It's not faith. It's reality. It only comes into question when you suffer through a normalcy bias since the government has been providing the questioned service for the only time period you have known.

Also, Somalia is under constant pressure by an overbearing first-world force called the UN. It is enslaved and not free.
paraipan
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924


Firstbits: 1pirata


View Profile WWW
October 04, 2011, 08:15:02 PM
 #58

@Hawker yes, i think it's ok, in urban areas would be necessary

Yes it is necessary.

So what to we say to people that think the fact that they are forced to pay these taxes is an intolerable infringement of their liberty?

haha, who says that ? depends on taxes though, we pay lots of taxes that i'm sure are used to fund wars and secret ops out there. Blockexplorer for taxes, now ! I have nothing against healthcare, education, public transportation, and few others like the ones you seem to be a part of, fire departments, they save our lives every day and provide very useful services indeed.

BTCitcoin: An Idea Worth Saving - Q&A with bitcoins on rugatu.com - Check my rep
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
October 04, 2011, 08:20:22 PM
 #59



With respect, they cost the same in Ireland and England; pumps are amazing pieces of technology.  Our salary costs are a fraction of yours though.

You still have not answered the question.  If the taxes are needed to fund that fire service, do you think its OK to tax property owners?
It's not a sane question. It's like asking if we should wear gas masks if flying unicorns are shitting an unknown substance from above.

The fact is when there is a consumer desire that must be met, it will be met by whatever means. People aren't going to go "Nope, what we have right now isn't feasible. Let's throw in the towel and give up on life." What they actually do is innovate and find a more efficient solution. There will be effective fire departments without government. There isn't a natural law saying we can't make cheaper, better fire pumps.

You say "The fact is when there is a consumer desire that must be met, it will be met by whatever means" but there a million of so Somali consumers who beg to differ.

I admire your faith in the magic of the market whereby things that cost $400,000 will mysteriously cost less just because we don't have taxes to pay for them.  But I think you will agree that expecting people to die in fires while they wait for this magic to work would be unreasonable.

You are asserting that "It will just work" and based on that refuse to consider the real world.  What can I possibly say to you?  
It works everyday. Look at the computer you are looking at, the food you eat and the products you use everyday. The majority of all you major needs and luxuries are met by a constant flux of innovation. Nobody has to be forced to pay for these things to make them possible.  You desired these things and the market made them available to you affordably. What makes it any more improbable that the same force that makes these products possible will not apply to a fire service? What makes it entirely different?

It's not faith. It's reality. It only comes into question when you suffer through a normalcy bias since the government has been providing the questioned service for the only time period you have known.

Also, Somalia is under constant pressure by an overbearing first-world force called the UN. It is enslaved and not free.

Lol at blaming the Somali famine on the UN.  But we digress.

The problem with your logic is that it isn't based on reality.  Government stepped in to provide fire service because the voluntary ones could not cope.  2 reasons for this jump out:

1. There is a free market in pumps.  The notion that somehow the price of pumps, which are used all over the world in many industries, would fall just because fire brigades can't afford them is simply wrong.  That is not how markets work.  

2. We have already discussed the free loader problem whereby if one house in a terrace pays for cover, the house next door has got cover for free.  Tax is the way chosen to pay for the service to get around the free loader problem.  

Anonymous
Guest

October 04, 2011, 08:23:14 PM
 #60



With respect, they cost the same in Ireland and England; pumps are amazing pieces of technology.  Our salary costs are a fraction of yours though.

You still have not answered the question.  If the taxes are needed to fund that fire service, do you think its OK to tax property owners?
It's not a sane question. It's like asking if we should wear gas masks if flying unicorns are shitting an unknown substance from above.

The fact is when there is a consumer desire that must be met, it will be met by whatever means. People aren't going to go "Nope, what we have right now isn't feasible. Let's throw in the towel and give up on life." What they actually do is innovate and find a more efficient solution. There will be effective fire departments without government. There isn't a natural law saying we can't make cheaper, better fire pumps.

You say "The fact is when there is a consumer desire that must be met, it will be met by whatever means" but there a million of so Somali consumers who beg to differ.

I admire your faith in the magic of the market whereby things that cost $400,000 will mysteriously cost less just because we don't have taxes to pay for them.  But I think you will agree that expecting people to die in fires while they wait for this magic to work would be unreasonable.

You are asserting that "It will just work" and based on that refuse to consider the real world.  What can I possibly say to you?  
It works everyday. Look at the computer you are looking at, the food you eat and the products you use everyday. The majority of all you major needs and luxuries are met by a constant flux of innovation. Nobody has to be forced to pay for these things to make them possible.  You desired these things and the market made them available to you affordably. What makes it any more improbable that the same force that makes these products possible will not apply to a fire service? What makes it entirely different?

It's not faith. It's reality. It only comes into question when you suffer through a normalcy bias since the government has been providing the questioned service for the only time period you have known.

Also, Somalia is under constant pressure by an overbearing first-world force called the UN. It is enslaved and not free.

Lol at blaming the Somali famine on the UN.  But we digress.

The problem with your logic is that it isn't based on reality.  Government stepped in to provide fire service because the voluntary ones could not cope.  2 reasons for this jump out:

1. There is a free market in pumps.  The notion that somehow the price of pumps, which are used all over the world in many industries, would fall just because fire brigades can't afford them is simply wrong.  That is not how markets work.  

2. We have already discussed the free loader problem whereby if one house in a terrace pays for cover, the house next door has got cover for free.  Tax is the way chosen to pay for the service to get around the free loader problem.  
Government stepped in to provide fire service because the voluntary ones could not cope.

PROVE IT!

There is not a free market in pumps because government services have no incentive to be efficient. They are willing to bid inflated prices for them. If a fire service had to sustain without a deficit and with value for all its supporters, bids would be substantially lower and thus the price decreasing.

The free loader problem is not an issue. As long as the fire station is sustaining, nobody is taking a loss. If they voluntarily help houses for free, there is no coercion. Fire services that are charitable will probably use it as a marketing tactic anyways.
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!