Would you be better off if there were no taxes, no public services?

Cienciano

bbam wrote: »

It's not that long ago since my sister paid £5000 to have a single phase dimestic supply connected to their house, late 90's maybe. And that's on a main road within 4 miles of the second town in the county.

£5000 for a 4 mile underground or overhead cable sounds very reasonable

OnTheCounter

TeddyTedson wrote: »

Roads would all be tolls. All public transport would be... er.. private I guess.
No medical benefits/child support/pensions.
But I guess you could always have insurance and take out your own pensions.
I would have more more money I feel but am much happier having these services in place even if they're not exactly run efficiently. Private schools would sure make having kids expensive. But just think of all the tax money you have paid over the years...

who would give me my dole money?

oppenheimer1

BOHtox wrote: »

Charities!

Oh how naive!

BOHtox

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Oh how naive!

I mean it's not as if they don't do it now.

wow sierra

Would ye miss the pipes that take what you put in your toilet away from your house and deposit it elsewhere???

Just thought I would pick that one as it is in keeping with what I think of the thread.

On the plus side it does remind me of one of my fav bits of comedy - I think someone else already mentioned it - The Life of Brian - What did the Romans ever do for us.

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso

K-9

BOHtox wrote: »

Corporations are people, my friend!

Only because a Government apparatus said so, so corporations would cease to exist if we bring it to a full conclusion.

Piste

So you only get protection from criminals if you can pay? You only get medical treatment if you get hit by a car if you can pay? You're born to a poor family through no fault of your own and can't afford to educate you cos they can't pay?



Nigs to that.

4zn76tysfajdxp

Governments have no place in a modern society. Self-regulation is a wonderful thing. What can possibly go wrong if you allow multi-nationals to govern themselves? Nothing, that's what!

eth0

Khalid Cuddly Hairline wrote: »

Governments have no place in a modern society. Self-regulation is a wonderful thing. What can possibly go wrong if you allow multi-nationals to govern themselves? Nothing, that's what!

*visit drinkaware.ie

BOHtox

wow sierra wrote: »

Would ye miss the pipes that take what you put in your toilet away from your house and deposit it elsewhere???

Just thought I would pick that one as it is in keeping with what I think of the thread.

On the plus side it does remind me of one of my fav bits of comedy - I think someone else already mentioned it - The Life of Brian - What did the Romans ever do for us.

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso

The government don't sell food, does that mean nowhere does?
the government doesn't build houses, have we a shortage?
The government didn't create boards.ie, but we have it now.

If the government didn't do sewerage, a private company would!

K-9

BOHtox wrote: »

the government doesn't build houses, have we a shortage?

Yet we've an over supply and the biggest property crash in Western Europe..

Waits for the blame the Government part.

TeddyTedson

Take it with a grain of salt. This is After Hours...on the internet. I'm not presenting a manifesto to the people of Ireland. Well not yet.

If you can't get over the fact it's stupid then just don't post in it, simples.

BOF666

I'd imagine some sort of criminal organisation would start policing the country, to their own advantage. So if they made their money from drugs, the streets would be flooded with drugs.

Then they'd start demanding protection money from businesses, and if they didn’t pay, they’d be put out of business.

So you’ve got a major power, policing the country and controlling all the businesses… Sounds like the beginnings of a government to me!

And the only way to get them out of power would be another gang taking over, which would probably be violent. Can’t see it ending well either way…

Wompa1

BOF666 wrote: »

I'd imagine some sort of criminal organisation would start policing the country, to their own advantage. So if they made their money from drugs, the streets would be flooded with drugs.

Then they'd start demanding protection money from businesses, and if they didn’t pay, they’d be put out of business.

So you’ve got a major power, policing the country and controlling all the businesses… Sounds like the beginnings of a government to me!

And the only way to get them out of power would be another gang taking over, which would probably be violent. Can’t see it ending well either way…

Then the pimps will be using the crack to keep their whores in line

BOF666

Wompa1 wrote: »

Then the pimps will be using the crack to keep their whores in line

It'd be like "Boys in the Hood!" :P

ScumLord

Everything would end up being much cheaper once you don't have government organizations like health and safety, fire regulations, standards and all those organizations that increase the cost of services by making them operate to a safe standard. Instead of buying an expensive boiler that won't explode you can get one that might explode for half the cost.

Instead of getting a car that has minimum safety standards like seatbelts you can get one that has none the upshot of which would be a much faster car due to it not being weighed down with safety features. Instead of having schools full of teachers educated to a standard just get someone we believe to be smart to educate our children to our believes. Priests or GAA players would be ideal.

K-9

K-9 wrote: »

Yet we've an over supply and the biggest property crash in Western Europe..

Waits for the blame the Government part.

Of all the things to pick as an example, picking the time the govt gave all sorts of tax incentives to buy, buy, buy and build, build, build is not a good one to make your point

Akrasia

CruelCoin wrote: »

This fee would be competed away. Wouldn't happen.

A prime example is Somalias mobile phone network.
Zero regulation, yet Somalia is possesing of the one of the worlds best mobile networks in terms of call quality, reception coverage and cost of calls.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4020259.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_in_Somalia

You forgot about this part

"Despite the absence of law and order and a functional court system, bills are paid and contracts are enforced by relying on Somalia's traditional clan system, Mr Abdullahi says.

Mobile target

But in a country divided into hundreds of fiefdoms run by rival warlords, security is a major concern.

While Telcom Somalia has some 25,000 mobile customers - and a similar number have land lines - you very rarely see anyone walking along the streets of Mogadishu chatting on their phone, in case this attracts the attention of a hungry gunman.
But despite their success, the telecoms companies say that like the population at large, they are desperate to have a government.


Mogadishu's phone engineers are going to be kept busy
"We are very interested in paying taxes," says Mr Abdullahi - not a sentiment which often passes the lips of a high-flying businessman.

And Mr Abdulkadir at the Global Internet Company fully agrees.

"We badly need a government," he says. "Everything starts with security - the situation across the country.

"All the infrastructure of the country has collapsed - education, health and roads. We need to send our staff abroad for any training."

Another problem for companies engaged in the global telecoms business is paying their foreign partners.

At present, they use Somalia's traditional "Hawala" money transfer companies to get money to Dubai, the Middle East's trading and financial hub.

With a government would come a central bank, which would make such transactions far easier.

"

They have great mobile phone quality, but if you are seen using your mobile phone you have a good chance of getting robbed and killed. Also if you can't afford to pay your bill you'll get a visit from your local friendly warlord

I think I prefer the current system

martingriff

ScumLord wrote: »

Everything would end up being much cheaper once you don't have government organizations like health and safety, fire regulations, standards and all those organizations that increase the cost of services by making them operate to a safe standard. Instead of buying an expensive boiler that won't explode you can get one that might explode for half the cost.

Instead of getting a car that has minimum safety standards like seatbelts you can get one that has none the upshot of which would be a much faster car due to it not being weighed down with safety features. Instead of having schools full of teachers educated to a standard just get someone we believe to be smart to educate our children to our believes. Priests or GAA players would be ideal.

I think you are getting a small bit carried away but I will agree that standards will go down.

martingriff

martingriff wrote: »

I think you are getting a small bit carried away but I will agree that standards will go down.

Until the multinationals don't want to hire workers anymore because our educational standards aren't high enough and they complain to the media about us.
No wait, that already happens

speedboatchase

Stupid question. I consider myself a libertarian and would prefer less government intrusion and a smaller public sector but no public sector would make no sense. Who enforces the law, for one thing? No police, no jails.

Thankfully I pay no tax where I live now but the government (Qatar) can easily foot the bill

martingriff

bluewolf wrote: »

Until the multinationals don't want to hire workers anymore because our educational standards aren't high enough and they complain to the media about us.
No wait, that already happens

Sorry I meant to bold the bit about boilers & cars the education I agree with a standards needs to be ahered to

Guy:Incognito

CruelCoin wrote: »

This fee would be competed away. Wouldn't happen.

A prime example is Somalias mobile phone network.
Zero regulation, yet Somalia is possesing of the one of the worlds best mobile networks in terms of call quality, reception coverage and cost of calls.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4020259.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_in_Somalia

Well that could happen. Or all the private companies could say "run a cable 40 miles into the back arse of Kerry for 1 customers"? **** that.

Much like anything that didnt generate money just wouldnt be done.

Guy:Incognito

speedboatchase wrote: »

Thankfully I pay no tax where I live now but the government (Qatar) can easily foot the bill

Stick around till the oil runs out

Cienciano

BOHtox wrote: »

The government don't sell food, does that mean nowhere does?
the government doesn't build houses, have we a shortage?
The government didn't create boards.ie, but we have it now.

If the government didn't do sewerage, a private company would!

How would you make money on sewage? People can just run a pipe to the nearest river.

Earthhorse

TeddyTedson wrote: »

Take it with a grain of salt. This is After Hours...on the internet. I'm not presenting a manifesto to the people of Ireland. Well not yet.

If you can't get over the fact it's stupid then just don't post in it, simples.

Who are you, the government?

bluewolf wrote: »

Until the multinationals don't want to hire workers anymore because our educational standards aren't high enough and they complain to the media about us.
No wait, that already happens

They complained to the media about us? Heavens to Betsy, how will we get over the embarrassment?

Ush1

It's sorta how America works.

It's great if you're really rich, not so nice for everyone else.

mitosis

TeddyTedson wrote: »

Roads would all be tolls. All public transport would be... er.. private I guess.
No medical benefits/child support/pensions.
But I guess you could always have insurance and take out your own pensions.
I would have more more money I feel but am much happier having these services in place even if they're not exactly run efficiently.

Private schools would sure make having kids expensive.

But just think of all the tax money you have paid over the years...

What about policing, fire services? Happy to do your own?

250 euro to call out the fire brigade already sure

humbert

For me policing, the legal system and monopolies are the big problem in this scenario.

Policing and the legal system suck at the moment due to a lack of accountability (and the daft notion that you can write down laws, blindly interpret them and expect justice) but that could only get worse. Huge companies would become unchallengeable, as in Robocop.

I think a government is necessary but an absolutely minimal one.

Annasopra

Skylinehead wrote: »

So we pay a private company to run the Gardai.

Sounds like taxes :pac:

No - private security companies would police and patrol wealthy areas only because they would pay for it.

Annasopra

BOHtox wrote: »

The government don't sell food, does that mean nowhere does?
the government doesn't build houses, have we a shortage?
The government didn't create boards.ie, but we have it now.

If the government didn't do sewerage, a private company would!

Sewerage for the rich only!

4zn76tysfajdxp

Blowfish wrote: »

The difference being, the Gardai have a monopoly on private security/law enforcement, where as without government, there'd be numerous companies competing for the role and you could choose between them, or even choose not to pay for private security/law enforcement at all.

Blowfish wrote: »

There wouldn't be 'laws' as such, but there are various ideas on private dispute resolution services, most likely this is theorised to be based on reputation. Some of it is covered here.

Here's a scenario: A fiscally-broke young woman (Lucy) is raped. She has no idea who did it. Does a private security/law enforcement investigate the entire crime? She doesn't have any money to hire them with, though. She can't afford counseling sessions afterwards or a trip to the hospital to have her wounds tended to.

Perhaps a crime insurance scheme has been implemented and she would have had a policy taken out. Unfortunately she only got the cheapest policy (she is broke, after all) and that doesn't cover more expensive crimes such a rape and murder. Tough luck, Lucy. Should've gone for the deluxe package.

speedboatchase

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Stick around till the oil runs out

Shouldn't be a problem, they own most of London at this rate

humbert

Khalid Cuddly Hairline wrote: »

Here's a scenario: A fiscally-broke young woman (Lucy) is raped. She has no idea who did it. Does a private security/law enforcement investigate the entire crime? She doesn't have any money to hire them with, though. She can't afford counseling sessions afterwards or a trip to the hospital to have her wounds tended to.

Perhaps a crime insurance scheme has been implemented and she would have had a policy taken out. Unfortunately she only got the cheapest policy (she is broke, after all) and that doesn't cover more expensive crimes such a rape and murder. Tough luck, Lucy. Should've gone for the deluxe package.

Although. Lucy is a financially unfortunate Dub with a grating lower class accent who's on welfare. She gets attacked and raped. She reports it to the gardai who assume she was just drunk and fighting. Nothing happens.

K-9

bluewolf wrote: »

Of all the things to pick as an example, picking the time the govt gave all sorts of tax incentives to buy, buy, buy and build, build, build is not a good one to make your point

Indeed, but his point was Government didn't build houses and they didn't, mostly left even Local Authority housing to the private sector and we certainly didn't have a shortage, oh boy, that is definitely one thing we didn't have.

Tax breaks was a big factor, so was little to no regulation. As I said, somebody would come along and blame Government while ignoring the rest.

4zn76tysfajdxp

humbert wrote: »

Although. Lucy is a financially unfortunate Dub with a grating lower class accent who's on welfare. She gets attacked and raped. She reports it to the gardai who assume she was just drunk and fighting. Nothing happens.

A failure by individual members of the force then, not simply an inherent flaw in the idea of public policing.

ScumLord

martingriff wrote: »

I think you are getting a small bit carried away but I will agree that standards will go down.

Of course they'll go down because there would be few repercussions to companies for making sub standard products.

Companies rarely implement any safety standard off their own bat and in most cases fight them tooth and nail.

They could also start making faulty products and there would be no comeback for the customer.

4zn76tysfajdxp

ScumLord wrote: »

Of course they'll go down because there would be few repercussions to companies for making sub standard products.

Companies rarely implement any safety standard off their own bat and in most cases fight them tooth and nail.

They could also start making faulty products and there would be no comeback for the customer.

That's not true, you can turn to the competition!


Assuming there is any competition. All the while hoping that the competition hasn't also lowered their safety and manufacturing standards even further in order to... compete.

take everything

In before Permabear.

ScumLord

ScumLord wrote: »

Of course they'll go down because there would be few repercussions to companies for making sub standard products.

Like...people not buying them?
If everyone wants cars with seatbelts, companies aren't going to make ones without for too long. It's a waste of their money. They make only sub standard products, they'll go out of business. Unless you really do want the cheap versions of everything and accept it's not as durable. Which we can already get. Look, there's some competition already.

If people care about their safety that much, then they'll all be buying them.

Education? This was my previous point about the big companies such as google complaining about the quality of their candidates and applicants (under the current govt run system, omg): if standards go down (even further), they will stop hiring here, people will then insist on better standards for better employment prospects, standards will go up.
But if you prefer a system where the govt insists we must spend more than double the class time on religion than science and think this is good standards...

http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/education/latest-news/how-schools-are-letting-down-our-young-children-3227280.html

Nobody could afford it? See here:
http://www.cato.org/research/articles/tooley-050901.html

They could also start making faulty products and there would be no comeback for the customer.

Considering companies often pride themselves on service over and above the law (change of mind refunds for one example), I find this unlikely. They want to attract business, not lose it. A budding young entrepreneur only has to see a large potential customer base who are unhappy with current options and realise they'll rake it in by starting up and advertising as "all products safety tested" or something similar.

Khalid Cuddly Hairline wrote: »

That's not true, you can turn to the competition!


Assuming there is any competition.

Where there are people, there'll be urge to make money.

All the while hoping that the competition hasn't also lowered their safety and manufacturing standards even further in order to... compete.

Not when advertising their standards is a selling point in order to attract market share



I didn't even set out to argue for an anarchist position here, just all the examples/arguments so far really don't seem to cut it imo as an example of why things are better the way they are

swimming in a sea

BOHtox wrote: »

The government don't sell food, does that mean nowhere does?
the government doesn't build houses, have we a shortage?
The government didn't create boards.ie, but we have it now.

If the government didn't do sewerage, a private company would!

we don't have a shortage in Ireland of houses for people who want to pay for one, there is a shortage of houses for the lowlifes that sit on their arse all day scratching that want one for free.

Maybe if these lowlifes had to get along with out my taxes they might get of their ass and work, and maybe then teenage girls realise a baby won't get them a free house they might think twice.

K-9

swimming in a sea wrote: »

we don't have a shortage in Ireland of houses for people who want to pay for one, there is a shortage of houses for the lowlifes that sit on their arse all day scratching that want one for free.

Maybe if these lowlifes had to get along with out my taxes they might get of their ass and work, and maybe then teenage girls realise a baby won't get them a free house they might think twice.

Punish a minority of unemployed and single parents by taking away the whole system, if only there was some alternative way.......................

ScumLord

bluewolf wrote: »

ScumLord wrote: »

Of course they'll go down because there would be few repercussions to companies for making sub standard products.

Like...people not buying them?
If everyone wants cars with seatbelts, companies aren't going to make ones without for too long. It's a waste of their money. They make only sub standard products, they'll go out of business. Unless you really do want the cheap versions of everything and accept it's not as durable. Which we can already get. Look, there's some competition already.

If people care about their safety that much, then they'll all be buying them.

People often don't value safety above cheapness. People had to be forced to use seatbelts through the law. While it seems bizarre to us now a lot of people hated deatbelts when they first came out. The fact is people won't pay for safety standards they have to be forced on them against their will

Education? This was my previous point about the big companies such as google complaining about the quality of their candidates and applicants (under the current govt run system, omg): if standards go down (even further), they will stop hiring here, people will then insist on better standards for better employment prospects, standards will go up.
But if you prefer a system where the govt insists we must spend more than double the class time on religion than science and think this is good standards...

If you look at America they have had schools that only wanted to teach religion and I think given the chance you would see similar schools cropping up here. In Ireland I think you'd see shortsighted schools popping up as people jump on learning fads. A building boom would lead to construction schools popping up that ignore anything that isn't directly related to building.

Considering companies often pride themselves on service over and above the law (change of mind refunds for one example), I find this unlikely. They want to attract business, not lose it. A budding young entrepreneur only has to see a large potential customer base who are unhappy with current options and realise they'll rake it in by starting up and advertising as "all products safety tested" or something similar.

very few companies pride themselves on doing anything other than making a profit dispite what they say in the brochure. Without advertising standards they can stop any bad press simply by buying expensive advertising, something that's more or less happening anyway newspapers tend to only discuss the good side of their advertisers products and simply ignore any negative. Then the final nail in the competition argument is the cartel. They'll simply force every company to make their products to the same low standard IE: the lighbulb conspiracy.

Not when advertising their standards is a selling point in order to attract market share

What's to stop them lying? They can already twist the truth as is, without advertising standards they'd simply lie and avoid a bad name by rebranding.

Colmustard

Somalians don't pay taxes and have no public services and that country is a paradise.

They do pay protection to the local warlord, who in return doesn't kill them which is a kind of public service.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Annasopra

Colmustard wrote: »

Somalians don't pay taxes and have no public services and that country is a paradise.

They do pay protection to the local warlord, who in return doesn't kill them which is a kind of public service.

Maybe everyone who moans about taxes and resents paying them should move to Somalia.

Problem solved.

poeticseraphim

Earthhorse wrote: »

Yes, definitely, private businesses never fail (or almost never) and when they do the market quickly adjusts to fill the gaps. By contrast, governments do a lousy job of everything, because there is no incentive for them to perform better (no competition means there is no incentive). The sooner we take areas that have traditionally been the preserve of the state and transfer them to the safe hands of experienced industry heads, the better.

The vast majority of private businesses fail within the first year or two from when they begin...a tiny ..tiny minority succeed.

State and private working together is best...

The us military and a british guy at cern invented the ineternet as we know it (it needed years of state investmet beyond what private enterprise could do) then private enterprise took it to the people...

K-9

Completely agree, I've made similar points myself on here and politics.

To make it more thread relevant, take out the Government part because we agree on that, bubbles and crashes would still occur without Government interference, something that can get missed in the political blame game. Tax breaks aren't necessarily a bad thing, they just lasted too long and seemed to be far too widely available, hell First Time Buyers were getting tax breaks on mortgages of up to a Million Euro.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.