Darin Sunley [umsunley@cc.umanitoba.ca] wrote:
>I've always felt that the proper role of government is to provide
>services that:
>A) can be provided by the government at a lower cost then anybody else
>can, owing to economies of scale
Of which there are none, as a private organisation of the same size could do it just as cheaply.
>B) services that it would be inapproiate or impossible for private
>citizens to provide.
"Inappropriate"? By whose definition?
Again, there are none; some would argue that area defence would come under this category, but cheap nukes and other mass-destruction weapons make that perfectly plausible on an individual level.
>Viewed this way, the citizen's relationship to the government is no more >coercive then then a citizens relationship to another citizen who is
>providing a service, and taxes are simply a bill for services rendered.
>The only hole in this, of course, is the lack of ability in most countries
>for a citizen to "opt out" of government services.
Let me repeat that, to emphasise the point:
>Viewed this way, the citizen's relationship to the government is NO MORE
>COERCIVE then then a citizens relationship to another citizen who is
>providing a service, and taxes are simply a bill for services rendered.
>The only hole in this, of course, is the LACK OF THE ABILITY IN MOST
>COUNTRIES FOR A CITIZEN TO "OPT OUT" of government services.
I mean, what can I say? This is such an absurdly blatant and contradictory statement that I have a hard time working out where to even start. You say it's not coercive, and then point out that if you want to "opt out" the government will send armed thugs around to beat and kill you. There's just no rational comment you can make to such an irrational statement.
>My brother
>feels that
>allowing opting out would be a bad idea.
Of course he does. Because all of us who get back far less in "services" than we pay would immediately opt out, and the government would collapse. Statist socialists have to use coercion because few productive people will voluntarily work for the good of the state rather than their own good. This is why socialism is blatantly absurd.
Mark