| Aielyn said: There's no need to regulate religion. Just remove the special treatment - tax-free shouldn't be a given for a religious group, just because they're a religious group. They should also be subject to the same kind of scrutiny that any other company is subject to. Beyond that, existing laws should already take care of the real issues.
The only people who ever make these suggestions are people who don't have any knowledge of game theory. Game theory demonstrates why, without some form of government, society would NOT be optimal at all. Even something as simple as two people making independent decisions can result in a worse result for both than if they coordinate. Look into Prisoner's Dilemma, and think about its implications for your viewpoint. Also, if society were forced to operate on the basis of your idea, including the tax argument, the result would be that roads would only go as far as the company that is building it wants it to go, schools and hospitals would only be built in rich areas, and the entire country would be overrun by those who envy its resources, as there would be no army to defend it. The poor would be locked into a downward spiral, there would be no form of public transport (meaning that only those who could afford cars would be able to travel), the majority of the public would be living without safe drinking water or any form of power, and there would be no publicly-available, free resources where people could learn things (libraries). Those are just a few of the problems with your idea. Of course, your idea will never happen, anyway. Any attempt to implement it will necessarily fail, for the same reason as why attempts to implement communism inevitably fail. It is inherently unstable, as "no government" very quickly turns into "dictatorship". |
Since I actually have no knowledge of game theory, I won't comment on the first part of your post, but the second half has me intrigued.
I think you're underestimating the power of supply/demand. Less tax (or no taxes at all) would increase the purchasing power of the poor, and they'd be able to spend their own money on services they actually want. Besides tax being looting, I don't think there's a service the private sector can't do better than the government. I've seen some charts that exemplify how GDP and overall satisfaction decrease as government spending increases. To bring alleviation of the poor makes the most sense. Free-markets have always worked, because the existence of free services just make those that are paid even more expensive (healthcare, for example). Besides, not everything a private company does has to necessarily charge the customers. As an example, you have sites with unlimited content that are free and they all rely on donations or they charge companies to run ads. You don't have to pay a fee as you walk into a shopping mall. Some points that are also worth addressing:
- The roads would go as far as our needs, since the companies are working to meet demand;
- No factual evidence that public transportation wouldn't exist;
- What does exactly safe drinking water have to do with this? I honestly don't get the connection.
Nothing is indeed free as an entity has to pay for it, you know it. We libertarians just think it's wrong that the whole society has to compulsorily pay for a service which some won't want to use. Let everybody choose what fits their taste best. We despise mandatory charity.
