You Are Paying To Live In An Uncivilized Society

You Are Paying To Live In An Uncivilized Society

Taxation is theft.
20
views

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: entrepreneur.com

Popular Right Now

I'm An 18-Year-Old Female And I Will Never Be A Feminist

Honestly, I'd rather be caught dead than caught calling myself a modern-day feminist.
745425
views

"A man told me to have a good day... I'm triggered." How ludicrous does that sound? Tune in because that is the extent of modern day feminism.

Sure, I think boys are stupid and that I'm probably better than 90% of the male population, but that doesn't make me a modern-day feminist. Now I believe that woman should stand up for themselves, and Golding's quote: "I think women are foolish to pretend they are equal to men, they are far superior and always have been," is by far one of my favorite quotes... but modern day feminism is not something I want to be associated with.

I'm all for "anything you can do I can do better," and "We can do it!" but realistically speaking in some situations, that isn't feasible. As an 18-year-old woman who works out regularly, and is stronger than the average female, I couldn't carry a 190-pound man back to a safe zone after he was shot on the front line of a war even if I tried. It is not anatomically possible for a grown woman to be as strong as a fully developed male.

Reality check: Men and women are not equal.

They are not physically equal, they are not mentally equal. Modern-day feminism is equality between the two genders, but corrupt and on steroids. I support what feminism used to be. I support women who work hard and have goals and ambition... not girls who hate men and stomp around with no shirts on to piss off the public. Feminism has developed into a polluted teaching that young men and women are plunging into.

We are built dissimilarly.

The human brain is literally an organ that is sex oriented. There is a cognitive difference, that singlehandedly destroys gender equality.

I will not spend my time running a revolution against anyone who likes Donald Trump. I am not going to binge watch Trump's twitter in an effort to start some leftist gob of drama. I refuse to be part of this head hunt to attack all Republicans on the newest Instagram post made about how feminism is stupid. I do not hate men, and society would crash and burn without the successful men and women who work together to create what we call the United States of America.

Why, you ask? Why are the 15-25 year olds of our society clinging to feminism? They are hopping on the rapidly growing bandwagon where all the hipsters, feminists and Trump haters reside. It's "cool" to hate Donald Trump. Twitter is a world of liberalism, hatred and fake love towards all. Social media is where this generation is living — and modern-day feminism brews there.

We need to keep separation in the household within roles.

We must raise our children to do what they are best at rather than trying to do something they are incapable of just to prove an irrelevant point.

Women must stand up for what they believe in and be strong in their shoes, while not getting so caught up in what your modern day feminist says she thinks is right.

We cannot let this briskly changing society sway us away from what is going to keep the world working precisely.

Cover Image Credit: Macey Joe Mullins

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

Christian Women And Modern Feminism Cannot Coexist

Women who hold the truths of the Bible cannot also hold the ideas of modern feminism.

206
views

Feminism, as it is defined, is the "advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes," according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary. This is NOT where the problem lies.

Eve was made from the rib of Adam, not from the foot to be below him, or the head to be above him, but the rib to stand beside him. The problem does not stand with the ideology that women and men are equal as humans, as this is a Biblical truth.

The problem lies within what feminism has become.

For Christian women, our calling is outlined directly in Titus 2. It states, "(women) are to love their husbands and children, be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands."

This seems to fly directly in the face of modern feminism, doesn't it? Working at home?! How dare you say that! Notably, this verse never says women cannot have a career outside of the home; it simply says that the home is a priority when a woman has a husband and children.

Submissive to their husbands?! That sounds like slavery!

The church is to submit to Christ's word and will, and the husband is to be the spiritual leader of his home. Similarly, the wife is ideally like the church in which she allows her husband to lead the family. It never says that a woman is a servant and can be abused by her husband.

Modern feminism teaches that women are not just similar to men, but that they should be better.

They constantly focus on what they can do that men can't, and what they can do better than men. Why is this a problem for Christian women? Men and women are meant to complement each other in their personalities and physicalities, they are not meant to try and outdo each other.

God made both man and woman to bind together and live life together, as humans are made for companionship. Modern feminism also teaches that you have every right to abort a child within you, even if it's a result of your own irresponsibilities.

Jeremiah 1:5 states, "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you. Before you were born, I set you apart..." As a Christian woman, how could you support an ideology that completely disregards the sanctity of human life?

Modern feminism attacks the core of Christian womanhood and effectively destroys the special qualities of women created by God.

We are made differently than men and that is OK. If you are a Christian woman, and you hold the truths of the Bible as law in your heart, there is absolutely no logical way that modern feminist ideologies can coexist.

Related Content

Facebook Comments