That's not what I mean. Funding it through a tax is subsidization. We don't see the price when we drive, only when we pay the tax. We'll drive whenever and wherever and be completely ignorant of how much that drive costs. Hence it's subsidized.
You are correct that this is a problem with government programs, people take advantage of them without actually understanding how it costs them in taxes.
However, as I said before, the alternative with private local roads would be much worse.
I do support more LARGE private roads because they seem to be more efficent, but my only point is that the government needs to interven in the economy in some areas to make it more efficent.
I wasn't so much going against the idea that the private sector is is more efficenct, but that there is many exceptions where we need the government for things to run as smoothly and efficenctly as they can.
Because they don't know what roads to build, they won't implement traffic reducing programs (such as congestion pricing), and money is regularly taken from the gas tax and taken to the general fund. Not to mention that paying for something through taxation is immoral since it requires intimidation.
This is better then the alternative.
Paying for something by taxes is immoral... so for the sake of your morals that you aren't explaining, you are willing for EVERYONE to suffer from the problems with private local roads and sidewalks.
lol, what is more moral, taxes so I can walk to my friend's house without a permit, or a toll when I leave my house. Lets be practical.
This is similalr to taxes for the mililitary. In theory, it is "immoral" to be persecuted as an individual to pay taxes, but then again without a military we would all be worse off. This is the same concept when the Mayor's office owns local roads.
Charity does that also and by having the government in charity we donate less. In the 1930's during Hoover's presidency the Red Cross actually campaigned against getting the government into social programs.
Americans donate the least amount of their GDP then most other developed nations abroad (even commy-Europe) so I don't think reduced charity isn't much of a problem.
Think of it this way, required charity will always get more money then when you have a choice. And it is very important that the poor have good schools to excell, and that they are properly funded. If there is structural problems in the schools (unlike in commy-europe) then that is another problem.
If you have a link, such that there is actually less spending on welfare programs and charity combined after the New Deal, I would like to see that. That is an interesting comment that the Red Cross made.
Because there doesn't need to be any. Companies hide information, that's ther perrogative. However, if they commit fraud by presenting themselves as something that they're not then you should have every right to sue. That should be the extent of transparency.
Do you want your friends and neighbors to know your income and what you spend your money on?
As I said, to maximize economic growth you need transparency programs. I am not talking about the morals of it. If you disagree with me, or say why it is morally wrong, then I would like to hear that.
And I am not proposing an extreme version of transparency, so that moral problem of a loss of privacy wouldn't happen.
I'm actually very leftist if you knew a real scale of politics. The reason is that government is inefficient and they get their funding through intimidation. Two bad things.
Of course there is more left vs right differences with other issues, and that whole spectrum really doesn't make much sense. It was just a quick comment I was making.
But when it comes to the government's role, if you are against publicily owned sidewalks then I can't see how you could support more "economic freedome."
