Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
Okay, let's take a look at the question as the author poses it:
There are goods (roads, schools, military hardware, etc.) and services (police, military, health regulation, etc.) that are expensive enough, and provide little enough benefit to any individual or group of individuals, that no one person or group would find it economically efficient to pay for such goods and services. However, these goods and services supply us as a democratic society with a collective benefit greater than the benefit each of us enjoys individually.
|
If you go back to the article, the Williams is not arguing for zero taxes. Many of the items you cite (military hardware, roads, etc.) I would bet he would say are proper uses for taxes. What he is arguing against redistribution (i.e., taking from one and giving to another) of wealth because he believes it is legalized stealing.
Quote:
We provide a afety net for those who cannot provide for themselves because we find it prefereable to them killing us and taking what they need since they have no other means to live.
|
I've head this argument made many times before. Frankly, I'd rather have the money go to more police to protect me from these folks than give in to blackmail.
