Nothing that the government provides is actually 'free'.
-
-
Replying to @primalpoly
Voted "true" — but my steelman argument for "false" would be that some services could reasonably be expected to reduce the government's fiscal obligations elsewhere well beyond their upfront cost, and I do find that fairly convincing
1 reply 0 retweets 15 likes -
Replying to @webdevMason
So... some taxes are OK as forced investments to avoid paying higher taxes in the future?
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @primalpoly
I mean, I'm not against taxation in principle even when there's not a clear calculable **financial** return on investment — gov can reduce its obligations by reducing the scope of its responsibilities to its citizenry, but I like having at least *some* social welfare
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @webdevMason @primalpoly
Why does it increase the likelihood that the funds are efficiently allocated for social welfare if the money is first forcefully expropriated from private earners, and then allocated by unelected bureaucrats with no skin in the game and strong principal-agent problems?
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @sovereignfamily @primalpoly
It doesn't. I'm not intending to make an argument for government competency
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes
I'm grappling with what it means for it to be "OK" for a govt to do any particular thing when its purposes are supposedly constitutionally defined but clearly effectively in flux. Assuming it's compelled to do *some* things, there are more & less cost-effective ways to do them.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.