You Are Paying To Live In An Uncivilized Society

You Are Paying To Live In An Uncivilized Society

Taxation is theft.

Taxation is theft. Not only is it theft, but it is the least effective way of getting things we want. When it comes to important things like justice and infrastructure, the use of taxation as a primary way of funding these things is immeasurably harmful to you and I.

Taxes are the price we pay to live in an uncivilized society.

Schools, fire departments, protection from criminals, libraries; these are just a handful of the prominent public service industries that, while currently provided, controlled, and essentially monopolized by the government: would both cost less than we pay for them now, and have a much higher level of service quality, if the state completely stopped providing them. Discontinuing the government-provided versions of such services would entail relinquishing control of them to the public, allowing services to be inevitably offered by the hungry private sector. We as a society seem to callously overlook all the highly detrimental economic consequences that we suffer as a result of the current monopolization of such large industries, while we ignore the colossal benefits we could all potentially reap by putting the public in charge of them through natural private enterprise. Might sound counterintuitive, but let me explain why it would cost us all less and provide us with better service.

The reason for increase in quality and decrease in price upon privatizing an industry is that if the government stopped providing these services, that would immediately reveal an ENORMOUS demand for these services. When you open up a new, widespread market for ANY industry, you're giving it not only an abundance of new enterprises ready to profit from it, but an imminent spring of competition in prices; which does and always will cause prices to lower as to acclimate to the consumer's budget, under the constant implied economic threat of failing to attain customers and losing money. The same exact principle applies to service quality. Nobody can reasonably deny that a sudden onset of competition for any given consumer base provides blatantly obvious competition to attract consumers by providing better quality of service, which will, 100% of the time; aggressively incentivize the companies within the industry to innovate and increase their service quality in order to win over enough of the consumer base to succeed and profit. When the government-controlled version of one of these industries provides you with less-than-ideal service as far as any basic societal need goes; that's just too damn bad for you, you're still gonna pay every greasy cent of the government mob's protection money, or suffer the consequences, bitch. When it's only private companies providing this same service, and your currently chosen company provides you with less-than-ideal service, then that's just too damn bad for that company, because they've just lost a customer to their competitor and damaged their own reputation as a company. Every single one of these companies, unless they're being owned and run by a herd of livestock, would be well aware and constantly reminded of this economically implied ultimatum to either provide good service at modest prices, or simply fail as a revenue generator.

People want to get rich. When a new and widely viable door to the creation of wealth presents itself, there is never a shortage of ambitious opportunists ready to capitalize on it. That is the one economic crutch that we can always rely on. We can try to pretend it does not exist because the idea of utilizing greed just feels dirty to the average voter, or we can use this greed to society's advantage by utilizing and even relying on it to enable the financial cornering of these industries into continuously and competitively lowering their prices to appeal to a larger consumer base (simply by providing an enormous influx in competition), and to increase their quality for the very same reason. Chances are, as with any industry, there would be those slight per-company trade-offs in terms of quality vs. affordability, so the companies revered as providing the highest quality service would be able to charge somewhat higher prices than their more average-quality competitors, but as a whole, these industries would inevitably become increasingly and reliably affordable, often more affordable than the mandatory income-percentage we had been paying for them before their privatization, especially as technology progresses at such a reassuring speed, particularly when profitable. That's that greed again. It never fails to motivate businesses to innovate. The ability to provide lower prices without sacrificing net profit is a universally appealing concept to any entrepreneurial entity.

If you're more of a visual/imaginative learner; to further envision and comprehend what this basic-service privatization would actually look like in a real-world scenario; imagine that suddenly the government stopped providing fire departments.

Two things would happen:

-Firstly, it seems, to me anyway, to be a reasonable assumption that the percentage of your income that you had become accustomed to being forced into paying the government to fund the "free" fire departments would no longer be taken from your paycheck.

-Secondly, the consumer base for fire departments, which is pretty much everybody, would suddenly start looking for another way to be protected from fires, so the demand for firefighting companies would immediately skyrocket, inevitably causing a gigantic influx in the amount of private firefighting companies that we can choose between. When a viable demand is created, money-hungry entrepreneurs will always jump into the competition to profit from that demand. We can trust greed. At least based on what I've seen; greed is the only unchanging variable in the entirety of economics (and, generally speaking; human nature as a whole). When the number of firefighting companies skyrockets, each company has to compete as far as prices and quality go. I know I'm just getting tediously redundant now but there is a point to this. The consumer demographic for basic safety services like fire departments is an all-encompassing customer base that, for the most part, will not pay high prices when there are other, competitively affordable options. A demand for a given industry and the industry itself, in this case fire safety, is omnipotent enough and when left unfettered, conveniently enough, is particularly favorable towards the small business element that there is no viable potential for affordability or quality problems such as price-fixing and corporate monopolies. Without coercive regulation and taxation, it cannot become overpriced or monopolized (and then overpriced by the monopoly-holding company) simply because there is, in an unfettered market, absolutely nothing stopping small firefighting companies from seizing the opportunity, popping up, and out-pricing/out-servicing the larger ones right out of their customer base, which any entrepreneur worth his/her salt would immediately jump on the opportunity to do if a demand for it arose. The same principle could not necessarily be applied to private jets and mansions, but as far as fire departments go; the companies would have no leeway to rip off the average joe. It would be financial suicide to even try it. The fire departments that the majority of the consumers decide to sign-up for and pay their hard-earned money to are going to be the ones with the highest quality of service and with the lowest prices for such service; AKA the best value. Those are the ones that will succeed, with their emulating counterparts continuously forcing them to innovate and further compete in regards to affordability. This would inevitably and speedily drive the prices down to a lower cost than the taxpayer had previously been forced to pay, and it would provide that same former-taxpayer with a plethora of affordable and higher-quality private fire departments to choose from. This would, most realistically, save the former-taxpayer a few bucks per month and allow them to utilize a more personalized, perhaps more nearby and competent fire department, so that instead of waiting the 10 minutes they would've waited for the nearest public fire department truck to arrive and provide basic service with no incentive to impress; that consumer instead winds up waiting only 2 minutes for the private one right down the street from their own home/business, with the company's team financially motivated to do the best job they possibly can. Every reference to "fire departments" in this entire paragraph could be replaced with the words "education", "personal protection", or "public transportation", etc., and it would be no less applicably accurate.

When the government is providing a service to everybody and making them fund it by using the force of law; the most significant and detrimental effect is that the government is directly robbing that service industry of any of it's potential demand, therefore ensuring that there will be NO reliable incentivizing of that industry to offer any competitively better or more innovative service at any more affordable of a cost. The two things that drive the prices of ANY industrial complex down the most are their services' demand among the lower & middle classes and the individual companies' competition within the same industry trying to attract the same consumer base, often by offering combatively lower prices.

In a sentence; a government controlled high-demand service is an innately unmotivated service that you're paying however much the government decides to force to you pay for it, whereas an unregulated private-sector controlled service with a widespread demand (as any basic service would have) is automatically burdened with an aggressive monetary motivation to provide you with the best possible service at competitively appealing prices.

Cover Image Credit:

Popular Right Now

5 Perks Of Having A Long-Distance Best Friend

The best kind of long-distance relationship.

Sometimes, people get annoyed when girls refer to multiple people as their "best friend," but they don't understand. We have different types of best friends. There's the going out together best friend, the see each other everyday best friend and the constant, low maintenance best friend.

While I'm lucky enough to have two out of the three at the same school as me, my "low maintenance" best friend goes to college six hours from Baton Rouge.

This type of friend is special because no matter how long you go without talking or seeing each other, you're always insanely close. Even though I miss her daily, having a long-distance best friend has its perks. Here are just a few of them...

1. Getting to see each other is a special event.

Sometimes when you see someone all the time, you take that person and their friendship for granted. When you don't get to see one of your favorite people very often, the times when you're together are truly appreciated.

2. You always have someone to give unbiased advice.

This person knows you best, but they probably don't know the people you're telling them about, so they can give you better advice than anyone else.

3. You always have someone to text and FaceTime.

While there may be hundreds of miles between you, they're also just a phone call away. You know they'll always be there for you even when they can't physically be there.

4. You can plan fun trips to visit each other.

When you can visit each other, you get to meet the people you've heard so much about and experience all the places they love. You get to have your own college experience and, sometimes, theirs, too.

5. You know they will always be a part of your life.

If you can survive going to school in different states, you've both proven that your friendship will last forever. You both care enough to make time for the other in the midst of exams, social events, and homework.

The long-distance best friend is a forever friend. While I wish I could see mine more, I wouldn't trade her for anything.

Cover Image Credit: Just For Laughs-Chicago

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

10 Common Spelling And Grammar Mistakes You Need To Stop Making

Your a disappointment. *you're


As a Professional Writing major, I am greatly disturbed by spelling and grammar mistakes. I admit I sometimes make them, but it's not because I'm too lazy to use the correct word or check my spelling. I do a lot of writing, so I'm bound to mess up when I'm rushed or otherwise distracted. I'd like to help you avoid making those mistakes. Trust me, you'll look, and feel, a lot smarter.

1. To try and go

The words 'try' and 'go' can be replaced with any verb. The point is that 'and' is not the correct word. 'To' is. Since 'to' is always followed by a verb, it should be an infinitive (to+verb). For example: I'm going to try to go to the store later.

2. To not go

This is another example of an infinitive. 'To' always needs to come right before the verb. Instead of 'to not,' it should be 'not to.' For example: I don't know how not to think about you. (This is a line from the song How Not To by Dan + Shay, which is featured in another article of mine.)

3. I like it to

If you're meaning to say 'also,' then the correct word is 'too.' When you use 'to,' it is usually followed by a verb. 'Too' is a stand-alone word that expresses agreement or addition. If someone says they like dogs, you could say, 'I like dogs, too.' It could also mean you're adding something. 'He is coming, too.' However, 'to' and 'too' are most often confused in the first case. Keep in mind that 'too' is always preceded by a comma.

4. Your pretty

Can we get this right, once and for all? This is the incorrect use of 'your.' 'Your' is possessive. It indicates that the following noun belongs to you. For example: Your dog; Your house; Your happiness. The correct word to precede 'pretty' is 'you're,' which is technically two words: You are. If you're trying to figure out when to use 'you're,' separate it out into its two words. If you can't use contractions properly, then don't use them.

5. Its a nice day

While it may be a nice day, that's not how you say it. 'Its,' like 'your' is possessive. The proper use would be: Every dog has its day. 'Its' is used when the gender of something is unknown or when referring to a group. In the sentence above, the correct word to use is 'it's,' which is a contraction that expands into 'it is.' Again, if it helps, don't use the contraction.

6. Their taking there vacation they're

While this sentence may sound right, it's actually very wrong. Those three words are homonyms, which means they sound the same but have different meanings. They are not interchangeable. The proper order of the sentence above is 'They're (they are) taking their (belonging to them) vacation there (in that place).'

7. I could care less

This is a pet peeve of mine. When people say this, they want to convey that they don't care at all. However, they are saying it is possible for them to care less, which means they care at least a little. The proper way to say this is 'I couldn't care less,' which means you care as little as possible.

8. I have less food then him

'Then' is not the correct word. It should be 'than,' which is used in comparison with something else. Remember math? In x<y, x is less than y. 'Then' indicates time. 'I did this, then I did that,' or 'I was younger then.'

9. I have less than ten water bottles

This may seem right because a lot of people forget about the other word that's used when 'less' doesn't work. It's 'fewer.' I admit that I, too, make this mistake from time to time. 'Less' is used when referring to mass objects such as water, food, or money. 'Fewer' is used with objects you can count, such as pillows, bottles, or tables.

10. To who

I bet you can guess what I'm going to say. It should be 'whom.' No, I'm not just being fancy. There are actually certain times when 'whom' should be used. You can think of 'whom' as going along with 'him' or 'them,' which also end with 'M.' It also goes with 'her.' 'To whom are you referring?' 'To him.'

Now that I've familiarized you with basic grammar and spelling, I'm going to give you a fun video to reference in case you forget. Weird Al Yankovic made a parody of Blurred Lines called Word Crimes. It's entertaining and educational.

Also, here's a moment from the show Psych that involves grammar:

Chief Vick: It goes without saying, Mr. Spencer, that your father is in no way to participate in this investigation. He's no longer on the force, and his meddling could compromise the case in court. Do I make myself clear?

Shawn: Yes, you do, Chief. What isn't clear is why people always say 'goes without saying,' yet still feel compelled to say the thing that was supposed to go without saying. Doesn't that bother you?

Chief Vick: No, and frankly, I could care less.

Gus: Now, that's the one that bothers me. Why do people say, 'I could care less' when they really mean, 'I couldn't care less?'

Chief Vick: Well, why don't you tell me how to properly say this? If you share any official information about this case with your father or let him anywhere near any new evidence, then the two of you will have to find another police department to work for, and I will personally see to it that each of you is charged with obstruction of justice.

Gus: You split an infinitive.

Shawn: Good catch, Gus!

Chief Vick: You two realize I carry a gun, right?

Gus: That was perfectly elocuted.

Related Content

Facebook Comments