6 ms·

You are claiming infrastructure can only be maintained by a government? That's a ridiculous assertion. Most of the work is outsourced to contractors. They are a

You are claiming infrastructure can only be maintained by a government? That's a ridiculous assertion. Most of the work is outsourced to contractors. They are acting as mediocre project managers, not the masters of inscrutable infrastructure technology. The state has a monopoly on certain types of infrastructure that it ultimately sustains through the threat of repossession. It uses that monopoly to racketeer property owners under the threat of repossessing their property. If what you are claiming is true, then why does Malta have higher property values than countries with property tax? https://www.maltasothebysrealty.com/property-for-sale/in/sliema https://www.maltasothebysrealty.com/property-for-sale/in/sli... I would agree to a property tax if the voting systems worked fairly at a sufficiently granular level, but they don't. They are farces maintained by criminal organizations beyond a certain scale.

deleted 1mo ago
[deleted]
louthy 1mo ago
You are part of a society. You exist and thrive because of that society. Otherwise you’d have had to fend for yourself: no healthcare, no education, no roads, no refuse collection, no security, etc. etc. People who think they have no obligation to contribute to the running of society are delusional and utterly selfish. I am assuming you’re American, because it is always Americans who have this selfish individualistic view of the world. Seemingly all cooperation or altruism is communism. It’s a national sickness. Government exists to do the difficult things that individuals or corporations can’t or won’t do. Like build a road network, provide security, or educate the nation’s children (for all, not just you). They have the buying power of a nation, something an individual, local group, or company could t achieve. And they often have the legal authority to do things that individuals or companies cannot (compulsory purchase of land when building a railway or road, for example) And the most effective way of paying for it is through a ‘national insurance scheme’ aka tax. And honestly, who cares about Malta? That’s just blatant whataboutism. Malta is a country of 500,000 people. How they raise funds to pay for their infrastructure isn’t important. The point is, they have to do it one way or another. A tourist destination like Malta could be better off with a tourism tax (assuming there are more hotel rooms than residential properties). The end result is the same. If you want a functioning society it is better to do it formally, rather than ad-hoc (for all but the smallest societies). Because otherwise the bureaucratic processes end up being repeated and become burdensome and in the worst cases descends into factionalism and tribalism. And the ad-hoc approach would certainly lead to inconsistency of provision. That can range from ‘a bit inconvenient’ to societal breakdown between the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’. Is Government perfect? Of course not, but replacing it with an anarchic “I’m alright Jack” free-for-all is madness. It is better to work on the focus of what government is for and how to build the correct incentives for high performance.
- willmadden 1mo ago
  You didn't read my post objectively. My point is that the current governments, with the exception of some local governments, do not represent or serve their constituencies; in fact, they actively subvert them. I'm assuming your European, that's especially true for you.
  - louthy 1mo ago
    That’s just cynical nonsense and a blatant framing of the argument because you want to pay less tax: “I pay tax to the government. The government doesn’t represent or serve its constituents (me). Therefore I should pay less (or no) tax” The play is so transparent. But in reality you said absolutely nothing of substance, you’re just throwing out Randian sound bites to see what sticks.
    - willmadden 1mo ago
      No, you are putting words in my mouth. I would gladly pay more taxes for representation that had me and my peoples' interests in mind. I'm not a libertarian idiot.

deleted 1mo ago

[deleted]

louthy 1mo ago

You are part of a society. You exist and thrive because of that society. Otherwise you’d have had to fend for yourself: no healthcare, no education, no roads, no refuse collection, no security, etc. etc. People who think they have no obligation to contribute to the running of society are delusional and utterly selfish. I am assuming you’re American, because it is always Americans who have this selfish individualistic view of the world. Seemingly all cooperation or altruism is communism. It’s a national sickness. Government exists to do the difficult things that individuals or corporations can’t or won’t do. Like build a road network, provide security, or educate the nation’s children (for all, not just you). They have the buying power of a nation, something an individual, local group, or company could t achieve. And they often have the legal authority to do things that individuals or companies cannot (compulsory purchase of land when building a railway or road, for example) And the most effective way of paying for it is through a ‘national insurance scheme’ aka tax. And honestly, who cares about Malta? That’s just blatant whataboutism. Malta is a country of 500,000 people. How they raise funds to pay for their infrastructure isn’t important. The point is, they have to do it one way or another. A tourist destination like Malta could be better off with a tourism tax (assuming there are more hotel rooms than residential properties). The end result is the same. If you want a functioning society it is better to do it formally, rather than ad-hoc (for all but the smallest societies). Because otherwise the bureaucratic processes end up being repeated and become burdensome and in the worst cases descends into factionalism and tribalism. And the ad-hoc approach would certainly lead to inconsistency of provision. That can range from ‘a bit inconvenient’ to societal breakdown between the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’. Is Government perfect? Of course not, but replacing it with an anarchic “I’m alright Jack” free-for-all is madness. It is better to work on the focus of what government is for and how to build the correct incentives for high performance.

willmadden 1mo ago
You didn't read my post objectively. My point is that the current governments, with the exception of some local governments, do not represent or serve their constituencies; in fact, they actively subvert them. I'm assuming your European, that's especially true for you.
- louthy 1mo ago
  That’s just cynical nonsense and a blatant framing of the argument because you want to pay less tax: “I pay tax to the government. The government doesn’t represent or serve its constituents (me). Therefore I should pay less (or no) tax” The play is so transparent. But in reality you said absolutely nothing of substance, you’re just throwing out Randian sound bites to see what sticks.
  - willmadden 1mo ago
    No, you are putting words in my mouth. I would gladly pay more taxes for representation that had me and my peoples' interests in mind. I'm not a libertarian idiot.