| akuma587 said: Yeah, there are all kinds of services that fall into this category that you could not call "protecting." I mean, hell, the government has always run one of the largest businesses in the country, the U.S. Postal Service. I don't think you can call that protection. And you could even call these regulatory reforms a form of "protection." Mafoo's argument pretty much falls apart when you look at the substance of it. It assumes that everyone benefits equally from the money the government spends on protection, which is not true. Rich people benefit the most from police protection and national security protection because they have the most assets that would be vulnerable if the government was destabilized. There really is no such thing as a "fair tax" even if you charge everyone the same thing. Someone always benefits more than someone else. You can even say the same thing about stupid people who burn their houses down all the time and who require extra police protection because of their own stupidity. |
Thanks for bringing that up, I have never really thought government services not being provided equally. People with more wealth benefit more than those with less, and people in urban areas benefit more than those in rural areas. It would be nearly impossible to have a 'fair tax' that actually charged everyone equally for the services they use.
