so by what method of transportation do you get the material goods that you find valuable? is it just through private transportation. we are using the internet, that’s not something that has been created only through private methods.
one way to measure wealth could be access to food, cities have more access to food usally than people living in cabins in alaska who farm and hunt . stories donate all sorts of food to people in cities and there are shortages in alaska wild.
Obviously wealth refers to subjective valuations. Coercive acts deprive an individual of wealth, whereas catallactic acts result in net increase of wealth, as viewed by the individuals who trade. You can invent another “measure” of “wealth” but youre really just saying you want other people to pay for stuff that you value.
how many people don’t use public resources? if more people use public resources, would that not mean that more people subjectivly value them more than living without connection to them? if all public resources were privitised, would people reject these now private resources in favor of resources that have never touched public funds?
sure wealth can be subjective, but it’s more objective that a lot of business goes on with the usage of public roads, and would go on with the usage of those roads should those roads have been private or should they become private.
roads would be made privately if not made publicly, so roads are seen as value by many that use roads with or without government.
sure, people want people to volunteer to pay for stuff people like. these things would still be built without government, and no need to call for the government to tax to build them.
no, because they werent given an option to live in a world where their money wasnt taken from them to build things, like monopoly roads. Youre ignoring that which is not seen. The truth is that if they preferred to have the road, they wouldnt have needed to be taxed to provide is as they would have contracted to build it earlier.
what other option do they have? Of course they use the roads, there arent many other ways to get around because, guess what, govt steals money and builds roads.
those roads wold surely take a different form and represent more wealth because they would more accurately reflect the values of those individuals who funded their construction
so you concede that govt is superfluous?
governments don’t build roads that noone voted for , so i don’t think people that vote for a tax for roads counts as a person being stolen from when they voted for it. it’s only the people who don’t want to be part of the system that are stolen from, those that would not tax.
a lot of people use roads made before they were born or before they moved into the area, so no chance to make a road before it is made.
government taxes still leave plenty for people to build roads, people have enough to run business that use public roads, so i assume they would have enough to build the road itself. lack of space for new roads is not solved by private roads, as there is still limited space and natural monopoly and a area can only have so much going on at one time.
private roads representing more wealth does not mean public roads represent no wealth. don’t think i said government was not superfluous, just that it was more than zero wealth.
I’m pretty sure you have devolved into trolling me. Let me know when you want to discuss this issue seriously.
say government takes 50% of profits, how could the government then do something that could not be done in the private sector?
Say I robbed you of half your net worth. Has your wealth increased or decreased? What if I spend the money on a nice motorcycle and let you watch me video of me riding it around? Now do you feel wealthier?
if i sell that video and make products and end up with more wealth than before, sure i feel more wealthy, because i would be. if more people are able to do more business with me because of it, sure that can make me more wealthy.
someone could end up with more wealth if the wealth is donated, traded, or stolen, depending on circumstances. traded and donated will be more, but it does not mean by neccicity that stolen wealth cannot make a person more wealthy.
You dont get to keep my video, silly!
what are you talking about?
100-10=90
90+20=110
110>100
120>110
130>120
As many as possible? No. A large number? Obviously. The welfare-state in the US wasn’t created in a fit of absentmindedness.
They know what they’re doing.