Hacker News Reader

>As for all the stuff it does pay for, at best it costs exactly the same amount as you have to pay in taxes. But the government spends money on a lot of other things with your taxes that don't really benefit you. So you would save a decent amount of money.

So one way to look at the issue is, which costs me more: individual purchase of exactly the services I need, or public purchases of those services plus others that I don't?

This is an empirical question, and the answer depends both on what I need and what my government is currently spending money on. But in general, I think it's very unlikely that the first option could ever be cheaper, for most people and most government-provided services. This is because buying these things privately would mean I have (a) almost no bargaining power, and (b) much higher costs associated with coordinating my purchases with the needs and desires of other people.

> This applies to any service. Anything from food production to software development. A lot of people need those things, and they could cut costs if they pooled their money together for them.

I think this is actually a good starting criterion for deciding what the government should and should not pay for. The government should not pay for what I can get more cheaply or more efficiently by acting as a private individual. That doesn't mean it should pay for everything else, of course. But if sufficiently many people would benefit from something, and they can get it more cheaply by purchasing it together, there's a good case to be made for public investment.

Figuring out the line between what the public should buy versus what collections of private individuals should buy is a really hard problem. It's not always a matter of simply asking "is it cheaper if everyone pays in, or just the people who need it?" One of the benefits of a democracy is that we can have an ongoing public conversation about just where we want to draw that line.

> The fact that force isn't applied unreasonably doesn't mean it isn't there.

I agree. My point was not that the force isn't there, but that it is not the source of a democratic government's authority to levy taxes, and accordingly not the only reason that its citizens pay them. A government which people only obey because of the threat of force is an oppressive regime. I am fortunate not to live under such a government, as I think most people commenting here are too.

> There are people that don't consent. At best you could say the majority consent. You can justify it by saying it's better than any other system we know of, but not that people consent to it.

This is one of those difficult questions I spoke of. Obviously, most people do not explicitly consent to the authority of a democratic government. On the other hand, I'm not so sure it's clear that there are people who don't implicitly consent. Even people who disclaim support for the government usually don't take all possible measures to avoid its authority and benefits.

But actually, I agree that 'consent' may not be the right concept for explaining the source of the authority of democratic government. Still, I think there's something right about the consent idea, and I don't think it just comes down to our not knowing of any better system.

> First of all the comment he was replying to was talking about services like housing, transportation, and healthcare, which already are provided by the market and aren't really things the government has any advantage in. As for all the stuff it does pay for, at best it costs exactly the same amount as you have to pay in taxes. But the government spends money on a lot of other things with your taxes that don't really benefit you. So you would save a decent amount of money. And with no competition, the services they do provide cost a lot more then they probably could.

Healthcare is one area where a collective (i.e. by the government) approach has a definite advantage. Privatized health care and health insurance is a lot more expensive. The US has the highest medical costs in the western world, yet many people are lacking very basic medical care.

The second most expensive country (at roughly half the cost per capita) is Netherland, where health care is semi-private, semi-government, and health insurance is private but regulated and compulsory in order to provide a uniform standard for everybody. And surrounding countries (where it's cheaper) have better health care at least in some areas.

I don't have numbers, but I expect that the cheapest and highest quality medical care in the western world will be in some country where health care is strongly dominated by the government.

> Everyone pays their taxes to avoid having their property stolen or going to jail. The fact that force isn't applied unreasonably doesn't mean it isn't there.

Just like everybody doesn't steal from their neighbour or kill people who anger them in order to avoid going to jail. That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with taxes; it means we live in a civilized society with some basic standards of behaviour.

> There are people that don't consent. At best you could say the majority consent. You can justify it by saying it's better than any other system we know of, but not that people consent to it.

The same goes for any law. I'm sure there are people that disagree that theft or murder should be illegal. Or slavery, for that matter. And those are the extreme cases. For every law, there are some who don't agree with it. Should every law only apply to those who agree with it? Laws would lose their meaning.

> First of all the comment he was replying to was talking about services like housing, transportation, and healthcare, which already are provided by the market and aren't really things the government has any advantage in. As for all the stuff it does pay for, at best it costs exactly the same amount as you have to pay in taxes. But the government spends money on a lot of other things with your taxes that don't really benefit you. So you would save a decent amount of money. And with no competition, the services they do provide cost a lot more then they probably could.

Health care in the U.S. generally costs a lot more than government-run health care in other western countries.

There is multiple reasons for this, and none of them support the conclusion that "government-run" healthcare is better.

The Current US System is the Worst possible system a culmination of decades of government interference in both employment laws which is irrevocably linked health "insurance" with employment and turned "insurance" into a services prepayment pozi scheme.

Government run systems control costs by having a Fixed Budget, which means each year they outlay X dollars, so if for example there are 100,000 Hip Replacements budgeted for the year, and your Number 100,001 well your SOL. This is called rationing... this is one way government control costs. the other is ignoring or limiting patents for drug companies, so drugs cost less overseas then in the US. There are 1000's of things like this that make the government run systems appear "cheaper".

Cost is not the only factor though, Quality of Care is very important and the US still has more Health Tourists than any other nation... there is a Reason for that.

Can you name a country that has the system you want, and has it work better and cheaper than most of the western world?

The US is the example of the most privatized health care, and it's almost twice as expensive as the #2 most expensive country. That #2 country has a semi-privatized system.

I don't consent to you blocking expenditures on things I need to do my life. So now were fucked. I guess sometimes you just cant get it all your way. Perhaps you should keep up the childish whining about "I don't wanna"... I'm sure that is rational and will fix all sorts of things.