this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2023
485 points (91.2% liked)

Political Memes

5605 readers
658 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Do you think roads, police and fire departments should have a pay-per-use system?

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago (3 children)

i think air should be bottled and sold on the free market.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

The free market will set a fair price.

Lack of regulation will make sure it’s a low price and why would a company want to kill off its customers?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago

Sure if the market has healthy competition and the time horizon of the shareholders is long and if everyone is perfectly rational.

You know the 3 things each of which almost never happens.

Markets rarely have healthy competition. Usually for all practical purposes consumers have few if any choices where they can spend their money. Your supermarket might have a million items but you only have two supermarket and those million items are made by 10 companies.

Time horizons of shareholders are infamous for being short. With the larger they are the shorter they are. We live in a world where for decades stocks are bought and sold with high frequency trading. Long term means a business quarter.

Homo Economis never existed. If that abomination against all that is decent ever did form it would die off having no offspring. Humans smoke, they eat junk food, they buy boats, they lose their temper, they spend 45 billion dollars on Twatter and run it into the ground. This is why you don't leave things that matter to one asshole and just have faith that your invisible sky friend Market will correct it all eventually.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

More customers dying means fewer people buying, therefore it's better to rent them. See, the invisible hand of the free market(swt) correcting itself.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

And of course, if a company successfully corners the market and extracts value beyond the tolerance of some customers who eventually attempt to harm the company and force it out of business, the company is entirely justified in using assassination drones against the insurgent NAP-violators.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I would say that boycotting is contained within one's freedom of association. Unless you are talking about physical damages at which point an individual should have the right to protect their property, and this is also where tort law comes into play.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

It’s what the free market wants.

All hail the free market.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I generally just go straight to libraries as it’s not designed to trap/bait and it more often than not leads to productive discussions where we are both attempting to gain mutual understanding.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It’s not a trap or bait, it’s pointing out that it takes money to use and maintain these things.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My apologies, I realize it seems I implied you were baiting/trapping, but that wasn’t my intention. That being said I’m sure libertarians get examples like firefighters a LOT and they probably just glaze over and dismiss it as a result. But again, didn’t mean to imply that you were engaging in bad faith and such.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

It’s because it is a fairly obvious example.

It’d be better to have a response that makes sense instead of ‘glazing over and dismissing it’.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Libraries are a great resource for keeping information free and protecting free speech. I think it's very reasonable for taxes to be used in ways that benefit the community as a whole, as that serves the people who pay the taxes.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Yes, if you consider existing in society "use". I think that's just a standard annual tax. Roads, that's tricky. Otherwise no.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

In a Night-Watchman State, wouldn't a public police force be necessary?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

No - roads are for the public good and should be supported by taxpayers that benefit with the possibility of 'penalizing' heavy vehicles that do more wear on roads.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

No problem, SatansMaggotyCumFart

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Sorry, didn't mention the others but generally things that are for the public benefit/use should be maintained through tax dollars without profit-pressure to extract 'value'. How does a fire department generate revenue? Or police? They don't and they shouldn't be designed to - they're a public utility for the supposed benefit of all in the community.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Firefighters should be a private enterprise and figure their revenue streams out themselves. They don't need the government telling them how to run a business.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Roads can easily made all private for-profit toll roads and people could decide for themselves if they want to use the McHighways or the WalMiles.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Roads are a complicated issue. I feel that roads fall under the idea of an "intrinsic monopoly" -- by their very existence, they create a monopoly, and are thus anti-competitive, and thus anti-free-market.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I would argue that it depends on context. Take the following two examples:

  1. A densly packed urban environment
  2. A rural countryside with sparsely placed dwellings

In the first example, a fire on one person's property can quickly threaten the property of many others around it. This danger could be argued to be so great that, if in a system where each individual must pay for fire services, and one individual does not, this can be seen as a threat to the livelihood of others -- a form of "aggression", if you will. It would be in everyone's best interest to have a municipal, or community fire department that the public pays for.

In the second example, no dwelling, or proprety is realistically a threat to any other. The only danger is to one's own property. As a result, it could be argued that, in such a situation, the individual could not be expected to pay for the fire service. If they wish to have its benefits, they could choose to pay, say, a subscription fee.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

generally things that are for the public benefit/use should be maintained through tax dollars without profit-pressure to extract ‘value’.

Generally, I would be inclined to agree, but one must tread cautiously.

How does a fire department generate revenue?

Presumably, one could pay a subscription fee for the pleasure in having the added level of safety, similar to paying for insurance; however, it could be argued that, in certain scenarios, the lack of a publicly funded, mandatory fire department is an intrinsic threat from one to another. For example, if you look at a densely packed city, a fire can spread very rapidly, and indiscriminately. This would be funded through tax dollars. In other scenarios, for example, a rural, sparsely populated region of farmland, there could be no perceived intrinsic thread, so a mandatory fire department would not be necessary.

Or police?

I would argue that it would be a conflict of interest for police to be payed. One could pay for their own private security, sure, but the state should provide the means to ensure that the rights, and freedoms of the individual are upheld. This is outlined in something called a Night-Watchman State.

they’re a public utility for the supposed benefit of all in the community.

This does raise the question if everyone must pay taxes for utilities even if they do not use them. I would personally argue that no an individual should not be expected to pay for a utility that they are not using.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I personally feel that roads are a complicated issue. A public police force is necessary to ensure the best equal application of the law. Fire departments are sort of a contextual issue -- I am inclined to treat fire departments as more of a utility.