Immigration Tax

[Kludge]

Setting: Present United States. Pretend that there currently are NO restrictions/disincentives to becoming a U.S. citizen and those born to citizens become citizens at birth.

Why or why wouldn't you support a tax on people immigrating.

ASSUME: If you vote for an amendment, it automatically is attached to the bill. (as in, if you wouldn't support Bill 1 unless amendment 2 passes, vote for amendment 2 AND Bill 1)

Bill One - People immigrating must pay $1,000 one time to become a legal U.S. citizen.

Bill Two - People immigrating must pay $2,500 initially, and $2,500 every year thereafter to become a legal citizen.

Bill Three - People immigrating must pay $5,000 initially, and 10% of their annual income as determined by an [independent government] {<-- TW, ":rolleyes: Another BARBARIC and SAVAGE oxymoron from a BARBARIC and SAVAGE moron."} firm.

Bill Four - People immigrating must pay 10% of their income annually as determined by an independent government firm.

Amendment One - (Applicable only to Bill 2,3, and 4) If immigrants do not pay their annual fee, they (and their family, if applicable) will be immediately deported and not allowed to immigrate back in without paying a specified fee.

Amendment Two - People immigrating into the United States MUST submit to background and health checks. Those who fail to pass the checks will be forced to leave and have an RFID chip implanted (with their consent given before submitting to the test) into them to ensure they don't try to illegally immigrate into the States.

Amendment Three - All immigrants not submitting to the bills and amendments above which you passed will be sent to for-profit labor camps and treated as enemy combatants.

[Kludge]

My argument in favor of these bills is that the proposed "immigration tax" would be entirely voluntary. You choose to immigrate, and thus you'd be choosing to pay the taxes attached. It'd become a type of user fee. The tax revenue would assist in paying off the national debt (or assist in correcting the deficit....) and hopefully become one of the only needed user fees for the government to run once shrunken down to an acceptable size.

[RSLudlum]

What if one was pregnant and wanting to enter legally? Considering Bill 1, would the woman have to pay another $1000 for the unborn child entering also?

[Kludge]

What if one was pregnant and wanting to enter legally? Considering Bill 1, would the woman have to pay another $1000 for the unborn child entering also?

Can't really argue against that without going pages into off-topicness. Assume that there is no charge for those inside a womb (My God -- naturally only, of course!), and that they become a citizen once born. Under amendment 1, they would still be deported with their parent(s) (BTW, both parents must be deported for the children to go with them, though if the other parent agrees to emigrate, they may take the children without forfeiting their citizenship privileges) if their fee isn't paid.

[Agent Chameleon]

Can I add another option?

End immigration for the next fifty years? ;)

[nickcoons]

My argument in favor of these bills is that the proposed "immigration tax" would be entirely voluntary. You choose to immigrate, and thus you'd be choosing to pay the taxes attached.

Here is my argument against all of these bills (which is also how I voted).

Imagine if I went out to the middle of the highway and setup a blockade. I then required anyone that wanted to pass to pay a user fee. I could use your argument that this fee is entirely voluntary, because those paying it would only pay it if they wanted to pass. I could argue that sales taxes and phone excise taxes were voluntary too, because only those voluntarily making a purchase or subscribing to phone service use them. Heck, for that matter, I could argue that income taxes are voluntary, because only those choosing to make an income pay those taxes.

The problem with your argument is that it presupposes someone (in this case, government) has the right to decide who may enter on to property that they don't own. If you want to argue that government owns public property, then you'd be legitimizing the unlibertarian concept of public property.

However, let's say that public property is legitimate. Your immigration bills could only legitimately effect those immigrants setting foot on public property. There would be nothing illegal about an immigrant completely ignoring your immigration taxes so long as they only set foot on to private property within the country. They could take a helicopter and land on my vast acreage, with my permission, and stay there as long as I allowed.. without having to pay your tax. If your bill didn't allow for that, then it would be operating under the implication that government has jurisdiction over my private property.

Now from a pragmatic standpoint, I would probably support any of your bills as a replacement to what we have now, because I have prefer incrementalism over zero progress.

[Kludge]

The problem with your argument is that it presupposes someone (in this case, government) has the right to decide who may enter on to property that they don't own. If you want to argue that government owns public property, then you'd be legitimizing the unlibertarian concept of public property.

How do you argue that without admitting the ethical need for open borders -- or don't you? If there are no borders, there cannot be a government or country. That leaves anarchy as the only option, which is painful to argue in favor of as it'd likely just result in people banding together to form their own small governments and then merging until the whole damned cycle starts over.

[nickcoons]

How do you argue that without admitting the ethical need for open borders -- or don't you? If there are no borders, there cannot be a government or country. That leaves anarchy as the only option, which is painful to argue in favor of as it'd likely just result in people banding together to form their own small governments and then merging until the whole damned cycle starts over.

You can have countries, governments, and borders without having border restrictions. A border doesn't necessarily need to be a barrier; it can be an organizational structure.

I live in the Phoenix metropolitan area where many suburban cities neighbor against each other. There are zero restrictions about crossing these borders and moving between cities, but they are borders just the same.

[Kludge]

You can have countries, governments, and borders without having border restrictions. A border doesn't necessarily need to be a barrier; it can be an organizational structure.

I live in the Phoenix metropolitan area where many suburban cities neighbor against each other. There are zero restrictions about crossing these borders and moving between cities, but they are borders just the same.

But to have borders the government controls (and thus to have government), doesn't it require that all property within it submit to the rule of the government which claims it, thus essentially making it public property (as proven by such rights-violations as eminent domain)? Of course, that assumes there isn't some type of opt-out program, and if you did, it again leads to anarchy.

It's virtually impossible to own property in America (unless a Native American or a very rare citizen of Texas), as we must submit to the local, state, and federal governments' rule. In a very offensive manner, they also charge us rent on the property under the guise of property tax, in which the government claims "the people" own all land in the United States.

[nickcoons]

I'm not sure how you get from here:


But to have borders the government controls (and thus to have government),

...to here:


doesn't it require that all property within it submit to the rule of the government which claims it,

Government's sole purpose is to protect individuals from the initiation of force, and it is to do so without itself initiating force. If this is the rule of the government to which you refer, then we are in agreement so far. But I don't see how this implies the concept of public property. The government mustn't necessarily own anything to fulfill its sole purpose.

[Agent Chameleon]

I just think that a country has a right to decide who can come into their country and who cannot.

Uncontrolled immigration is suicide.

[nickcoons]

I just think that a country has a right to decide who can come into their country and who cannot.

The term "their" implies ownership, and the country is not a single piece of property owned by a single entity. I own what I own, you own what you own, and everybody else owns what they own. We cannot collectively, democratically decide how the minority may use their property or who they allow to pass on it, because we're then infringing on their rights.


Uncontrolled immigration is suicide.

Care to provide a basis for that claim?

[Kludge]

I suppose I don't understand how property isn't owned by the government when the gov't is able to control the property. If I truly owned property, shouldn't that land be autonomous of any rule except my own (anarchy)?

For anyone to truly own property, doesn't it have to be free from any claims of power by others?

Again, I cite present-day America. I don't believe I own my property because I am (and thus my property is) controlled by the government's laws.

(BTW, I'm really glad you're here and patient ;))

[Agent Chameleon]

The term "their" implies ownership, and the country is not a single piece of property owned by a single entity. I own what I own, you own what you own, and everybody else owns what they own. We cannot collectively, democratically decide how the minority may use their property or who they allow to pass on it, because we're then infringing on their rights.

Why do our rights apply to foreigners? Why do we have to allow foreigners into our land?

I do not accept this all-or-nothing thinking that the government either owns all the property or none of it. To me it's perfectly fine for a government to control the borders of a country it is supposed to defend.





Care to provide a basis for that claim?

Roman Empire, ancient pre-Mongol tribes in Central Asia, Native Americans, Khazar, ancient Britain, Romano-Britain, England, the list goes on and on. If you don't control your borders, you get invaded, simple as that.

[libertea]

None of the above,

They pay up to 5000 to a coyote. Why not charge that and process them legally instead of the coyote getting the money and have them here illegally. You could staff as many processors as needed with the income. The market will limit the number who come.

Why add additional tax on top as they would be paying income tax?

I agree with nickcoons but this would be my alternate intermediate proposal.

[nickcoons]

I suppose I don't understand how property isn't owned by the government when the gov't is able to control the property. If I truly owned property, shouldn't that land be autonomous of any rule except my own (anarchy)?

For anyone to truly own property, doesn't it have to be free from any claims of power by others?

Again, I cite present-day America. I don't believe I own my property because I am (and thus my property is) controlled by the government's laws.

You're definitely right about this. I guess the confusion is stemming from the differences in is vs. ought. The government does control your property, my property, and virtually all property within the confines of the country's borders. But this isn't because they have taken the steps necessary to legitimately own it (i.e. putting it to productive use and/or creating wealth and purchasing it). It's because they have bigger guns.

My goal is a totally free society. Whether government exists in that society or not isn't really important to me, so long as the non-aggression principle is followed.

As I mentioned before, given our present-day situation, I would support your proposal, because it's an incremental increase of freedom (whereas most legislation is an incremental decrease of freedom). But I wouldn't support it if it meant a decrease in freedom (i.e. we had open borders and were looking to close them).


(BTW, I'm really glad you're here and patient ;))

As long as the discussion stays civil and constructive I'm usually interested :).

[nickcoons]

Why do our rights apply to foreigners?

Because rights are natural and not granted by government.


Why do we have to allow foreigners into our land?

We don't.. I can keep anyone off of my land, and you can keep anyone off of your land. And if you and I owned a tract of land jointly, then we could decide to keep foreigners off of "our" land.


I do not accept this all-or-nothing thinking that the government either owns all the property or none of it.

Government can't rightly own property because it doesn't create wealth in order to purchase property. It steals from us; it creates nothing. If I break into your home and steal some cash, and then I buy something with that cash, do I own the thing I bought?

On a side note, some governments do produce voluntarily to some small degree. For instance, many state governments run lotteries. These are funds that the government can use legitimately, and it would have proper ownership of whatever it paid for with these funds. But this is an extremely small portion of a government's overall revenue stream; almost insignificant.


Roman Empire, ancient pre-Mongol tribes in Central Asia, Native Americans, Khazar, ancient Britain, Romano-Britain, England, the list goes on and on. If you don't control your borders, you get invaded, simple as that.

You get invaded if you have something that someone has enough motivation to try and take. Making a law that prevents someone from passing except under certain criteria doesn't prevent this (obviously). You prevent invasion by making the risk of entry too great. Switzerland avoided invasion by the Germans during WWII because it was too great a risk for the Germans give the Swiss' armed citizenry.

But we're getting off topic. Immigrants are not military invaders. They are not coming here to conquer us. If they were, then the only reasonable policy would be to completely lock down the borders and allow no one in (consequently, allow no one out). Why would you have a policy that allowed an invader if they paid a tax or passed a test? That wouldn't make sense.

[nickcoons]

I agree with nickcoons but this would be my alternate intermediate proposal.

As I mentioned, I agree with an incrementalist approached. Right now, it can take years for someone to be in the country legally. My wife is from Canada. We were married in January of 2001. She didn't receive her permanent residency and legal status until September of 2006. That's just ridiculous.

This is after several meetings with our attorney, and a few meetings with INS because they thought we were married only on paper and not in practice. We had to prove to the INS that we were married in practice by providing evidence. This came in the form of friends and neighbors writing letters, and having them notarized, indicating that they witnessed us being married. We also had to provide such items as vacation photos, joint financial information, and private sentimental items. The whole process was entirely embarrassing.

It's this lengthy process and its associated costs that prevent people from going about it the legal way. From a pragmatic approach, I think the process should boil down to the following as a way of transitioning towards a freer society:

- Immigrants to the US are granted legal residency status after a background check (this costs about $25 and takes a few days).
- Immigrants are not eligible for any government-funded social programs.
- Immigrants who commit acts, such had they shown up on a background check would have prevented them residency, would be deported.

This would decrease the number of "illegal" immigrants in two ways:

- The ease of immigrating legally would make the process more attractive.
- The lack of ability to collect government-funded welfare would cause the system to attract only those that intended to work for a living, therefore contributing to society.

So in essence, I agree with the spirit of Kludge's proposal as it's an improvement over what we have today. But I think both of our ideas would need to be relaxed further as we approach the goals of a free society.

It should be noted that the term "illegal immigration" was created by the far right in order to demonize immigrants. Putting this into perspective, entering the US illegally is not a felony, nor is it even a misdemeanor. Instead, it's more like receiving a traffic ticket. But calling something "illegal" is an excellent way to drum up support for its opposition:

Illegal Immigration: Surely This is a Victimless Crime (http://www.joecobb.com/blog/2007/05/21/surely-this-is-a-victimless-crime/)

[mediahasyou]

There is no liberty in restricting the free migration of people.

Immigration taxes are un-libertarian.

[Agent Chameleon]

Because rights are natural and not granted by government.


Works on an abstract level, but not in practice. Most countries in the world don't have a concept of "natural rights".



We don't.. I can keep anyone off of my land, and you can keep anyone off of your land. And if you and I owned a tract of land jointly, then we could decide to keep foreigners off of "our" land.


So are you going to tell me that we don't need an army?



Government can't rightly own property because it doesn't create wealth in order to purchase property. It steals from us; it creates nothing. If I break into your home and steal some cash, and then I buy something with that cash, do I own the thing I bought?


Government can own property. The Constitution allows it, and it would be silly to have our government own nothing. It shouldn't own much, but it does need at least a little. It needs something to operate on.



On a side note, some governments do produce voluntarily to some small degree. For instance, many state governments run lotteries. These are funds that the government can use legitimately, and it would have proper ownership of whatever it paid for with these funds. But this is an extremely small portion of a government's overall revenue stream; almost insignificant.

Where did this come from? o_O




You get invaded if you have something that someone has enough motivation to try and take. Making a law that prevents someone from passing except under certain criteria doesn't prevent this (obviously). You prevent invasion by making the risk of entry too great. Switzerland avoided invasion by the Germans during WWII because it was too great a risk for the Germans give the Swiss' armed citizenry.

But we're getting off topic. Immigrants are not military invaders. They are not coming here to conquer us. If they were, then the only reasonable policy would be to completely lock down the borders and allow no one in (consequently, allow no one out). Why would you have a policy that allowed an invader if they paid a tax or passed a test? That wouldn't make sense.

Illegal immigration is an invasion. An invasion is not defined as strictly soldiers funded by armies. It can be colonists, squatters, etc, people who move into someone else's land without their permission.

Throughout history, invasions weren't always pure military campaigns. The Romans didn't conquer Britain all at once. They planted trading posts and gradually colonies along the coasts and inched their way within the sovereignty of the British tribes until Claudius finished the deed.

Germanic people overran the Roman Empire after decades of the Romans not doing anything to halt Germans from squatting on their lands and gradually setting up their own kingdoms within the very borders of their empire.

Europeans gradually intruded upon the borders of Native American lands inch by inch through settlement, not necessarily through military armies.

And this current wave of illegal immigration is an invasion. When illegals are murdering our people, burning our flags and replacing them with Mexican flags, refusing to assimilate, and proclaiming our land to be "theirs"; that's an invasion. And nothing you can say will persuade me otherwise.

[Agent Chameleon]

There is no liberty in restricting the free migration of people.

Immigration taxes are un-libertarian.

Why does everything have to be all-or-nothing with libertarians?

Is libertarianism identical to anarchism?

Because some libertarians make it seem like it's "un-libertarian" to have borders and a standing army.

Well then if that's true, then libertarianism is not for me, even though RP often identifies with the label.

The problem with open-borders libertarians is that the they assume that the rest of the world adheres to concepts of natural rights.

They don't.

If we make our borders wide-open, then we're painting a giant red target sign on ourselves.

People invade, people conquer, people kill, it's simply human nature, and we Americans can't afford to sacrifice our country just so we can pat ourselves on the back and be proud of our anarchistic society which is what a lot of libertarians seem to favor.

[Agent Chameleon]

It should be noted that the term "illegal immigration" was created by the far right in order to demonize immigrants. Putting this into perspective, entering the US illegally is not a felony, nor is it even a misdemeanor. Instead, it's more like receiving a traffic ticket. But calling something "illegal" is an excellent way to drum up support for its opposition

[/URL]

Illegal immigration is a real term. It's not the creation of the Minutemen, nice try buddy.

And if it's just equivalent to a traffic-ticket as you claim, then why are they supposed to be deported by law which is what the government does on occasion when they get their act together?

[Agent Chameleon]

You know I'm going to stop right here, as I don't see the point of continuing this.

We operate on very different perspectives: myself believing in national sovereignty, and you (Nick Coons) believing in unrestricted human movement.

I think we have different views on human nature, mine is very negative, which is why I don't trust the world, and yours seems to be much more positive, which seems to be true with a lot of libertarians.

We're not going to make any ground.

So before this turns into a flamewar, which may happen as immigration is a very important issue for me and I get very impatient with pro-open borders people, I will cease now. There's plenty of drama going on in this forum, we don't need anymore for the sake of Ron Paul.

Go ahead, refute everything I'm saying, I won't argue back. It's not like it really matters. The government is going to shove amnesty down our throats anyway and I'm going to lose my country.

So I wish you peace and good luck with your 2010 campaign. Even though I strongly disagree with your views on immigration, it's better to have someone who is 95% correct rather than 5%. :)

[The_Orlonater]

I'm on the side of Nick Coons. I'd vote for you if you lived near me, heh.

[nickcoons]

Works on an abstract level, but not in practice. Most countries in the world don't have a concept of "natural rights".

It's our job as active libertarians to persuade people otherwise so that their governments will adapt.

Your only argument for saying that it doesn't work in practice is that it never has occurred yet (which is debatable). The same argument could be made 200 years ago about the inevitability of slavery. "Throughout history, we've always had slaves, so we always will have slaves." Today, we know better.


So are you going to tell me that we don't need an army?

We don't need an army like the one we have. In Switzerland, the citizenry is the army, and it works far better for them than our system works for us.


Government can own property. The Constitution allows it, and it would be silly to have our government own nothing. It shouldn't own much, but it does need at least a little. It needs something to operate on.

The Constitution is a contract to which no living person has agreed, so they cannot be rightfully bound by its terms. The Constitution gives government authority to steal (tax), but that authority is ill-founded because no one can be given the right to take something from someone else without their permission.

The Constitution of no Authority (http://www.lysanderspooner.org/notreason.htm#no6)


Where did this come from? o_O

As clearly indicated, it was a side note. I made a statement suggesting that government produced nothing and earned nothing, therefore it can own nothing. That was a general statement, and I wanted to clarify that in some very small circumstances that government does produce and earn, and in those circumstances it can use what it has earned to purchase property. But this is the rare exception and not the method by which government claims ownership of most of what it claims to own.


Illegal immigration is an invasion.

An invasion is force. If I break in to your house, I am invading your property. If I step foot on to unowned property (like most property in the US), then I am initiating force against no one and therefore not invading.


And this current wave of illegal immigration is an invasion. When illegals are murdering our people, burning our flags and replacing them with Mexican flags, refusing to assimilate, and proclaiming our land to be "theirs"; that's an invasion.

If your complaint is that someone is murdering people, then attack murderers, not immigrants. If your claim is that someone is claiming land to be theirs that is already owned by someone else, then attack trespassers, not immigrants.

You seem to attribute these acts to immigrants. Worse, you attribute them to all immigrants by implying that we can rightfully regulate all immigrants the same way. In reality, most immigrants (even undocumented ones) don't murder, burn flags, or claim to own land that they don't rightfully own. Most immigrants are harder working than many Americans, and our prosperous society was built on the backs of these immigrants that moved here in search of the American dream.


And nothing you can say will persuade me otherwise.

That's an interesting comment. It implies that even if I presented you with overwhelming evidence that you were wrong and I was right, you'd hold your position just the same. I'm sorry you're therefore not open to a logical discussion.

[Agent Chameleon]

That's an interesting comment. It implies that even if I presented you with overwhelming evidence that you were wrong and I was right, you'd hold your position just the same. I'm sorry you're therefore not open to a logical discussion.

I have seen enough evidence to support my own personal views. There is no way you can persuade me on this topic as I have firmly made up my mind. And honestly I highly doubt you would change your mind if I presented you with overwhelming evidence. Immigration is a hot-button topic that people are rarely open-minded about. I'm admitting that I am not open-minded about it. I've seen enough problems that immigration causes in my own area to cement my opinion. Do yourself a favor and admit that your views are unlikely to change as well. People usually are stubborn.

The reason I pulled out was because I've been in this debate before. No one ever changes their minds, people just get more angry.

That's why I'm offering the olive branch and leaving gracefully. I'd appreciate it if you would show me the same grace.

[nickcoons]

The reason I pulled out was because I've been in this debate before. No one ever changes their minds, people just get more angry.

That's why I'm offering the olive branch and leaving gracefully. I'd appreciate it if you would show me the same grace.

I won't continue to argue with you about this subject. But I will disagree with your point about my views being unlikely to change. They have, in fact, changed. It was a mere six months ago when my views on the border were more inline with Ron Paul's and the idea of "securing" the border. Likewise, I change other people's minds all the time.

I'm someone that prides myself on my ability to reason, and I value that above almost everything else. To be consistent, I must be open-minded about everything, including topics where I may be emotionally vested in a given position.

To close, I will say that we don't punish people because of what others in their defined groups do. We don't jail all blacks because some of them have murdered. We don't jail all whites because some of them have stolen. Likewise, we should not demonize all immigrants because some of them have murdered or stolen. We should be going after the individuals committing the crimes, not the violent-less innocents in the group to which they belong.

[heavenlyboy34]

I won't continue to argue with you about this subject. But I will disagree with your point about my views being unlikely to change. They have, in fact, changed. It was a mere six months ago when my views on the border were more inline with Ron Paul's and the idea of "securing" the border. Likewise, I change other people's minds all the time.


So, you would agree with abolishing "public property" and allowing government land(including roads) to be owned privately, yes?

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm on the side of Nick Coons. I'd vote for you if you lived near me, heh.

Ditto for me...if I ever vote again. ;)

[nickcoons]

So, you would agree with abolishing "public property" and allowing government land(including roads) to be owned privately, yes?

Absolutely.

[The_Orlonater]

I don't believe in making everything private(like roads).

[nickcoons]

I don't believe in making everything private(like roads).

Do you propose that the government should steal (tax) citizens to pay for it? If drivers are to pay for the use of the roads in a user-fee model, then what difference does it make if the we pay government for the use of roads or we pay private road owners for the use of roads?

[The_Orlonater]

Do you propose that the government should steal (tax) citizens to pay for it? If drivers are to pay for the use of the roads in a user-fee model, then what difference does it make if the we pay government for the use of roads or we pay private road owners for the use of roads?

I would rather have a local government build the roads. Reason being, is that they can do a good job at it. The reason some roads are not fixed is because we spend to much overseas. It's a complete nuisance to carry around a sack of quarters to pay a toll every road you take. So what if you pay a small tax to fund the roads? Do you feel like you've been exploited, is your life any worse? What happens if that one road(take for example in an urban community) is the only road that gets to your job and you don't have enough money and you can't pass through. I rather would pay a small tax with everyone locally to pay for the roads and management than to bring money with me to stop at a toll at every street or two I turn on. Why would you rather do it the other way? Taxing is not necessarily stealing if everyone in a local community voluntarily comes together to impose a tax to pay for the roads. A road is not always a good you can make choices a compete on. There isn't a road that leads to everywhere, but many roads.

[nickcoons]

I would rather have a local government build the roads. Reason being, is that they can do a good job at it. The reason some roads are not fixed is because we spend to much overseas. It's a complete nuisance to carry around a sack of quarters to pay a toll every road you take. So what if you pay a small tax to fund the roads? Do you feel like you've been exploited, is your life any worse? What happens if that one road(take for example in an urban community) is the only road that gets to your job and you don't have enough money and you can't pass through. I rather would pay a small tax with everyone locally to pay for the roads and management than to bring money with me to stop at a toll at every street or two I turn on. Why would you rather do it the other way? Taxing is not necessarily stealing if everyone in a local community voluntarily comes together to impose a tax to pay for the roads. A road is not always a good you can make choices a compete on. There isn't a road that leads to everywhere, but many roads.

If everyone comes together to voluntarily pay for roads, then you have unanimous consent, and then I have no problem with it. But I don't think that would happen.

If my property (in this case, my money) has been taken from me without my consent, then I have been stolen from, no matter much of a benefit I may receive because of the theft. And if I didn't consent, then it is theft.

I think the OP had a good insight when he mentioned that in a free market system there may not even be a need for roads, given potentially alternate and more efficient modes of transportation. You mentioned not wanting to have to stop at toll frequently. We have other threads on this board discussing how a pay-for-use road system could work without that inconvenience.

Government is inefficient, and that's across the board. As you mentioned, they waste money overseas; as well as the countless trillions they waste elsewhere. Government is wasteful because it spends money that it doesn't earn. This is the same whether it's a federal government or a local government. Businesses provide better goods and services than government. I don't see any reason to think it would be any different with roads.

[The_Orlonater]

If everyone comes together to voluntarily pay for roads, then you have unanimous consent, and then I have no problem with it. But I don't think that would happen.

If my property (in this case, my money) has been taken from me without my consent, then I have been stolen from, no matter much of a benefit I may receive because of the theft. And if I didn't consent, then it is theft.

I think the OP had a good insight when he mentioned that in a free market system there may not even be a need for roads, given potentially alternate and more efficient modes of transportation. You mentioned not wanting to have to stop at toll frequently. We have other threads on this board discussing how a pay-for-use road system could work without that inconvenience.

Government is inefficient, and that's across the board. As you mentioned, they waste money overseas; as well as the countless trillions they waste elsewhere. Government is wasteful because it spends money that it doesn't earn. This is the same whether it's a federal government or a local government. Businesses provide better goods and services than government. I don't see any reason to think it would be any different with roads.

One key element to our revolution is to make government not wasteful and I think that's one reason you want to run for Congress. I'm just asking, why wouldn't you want to pay a small for public roads take care of and you get to use them. It's more convenient that to pay a toll everywhere. Also give me a link to the pay-for-use road system.

[nickcoons]

One key element to our revolution is to make government not wasteful and I think that's one reason you want to run for Congress.

Yes. And just to be clear, privatizing the roads is down near the bottom of the priority list. For me, the discussion of private roads is purely academic.


I'm just asking, why wouldn't you want to pay a small for public roads take care of and you get to use them. It's more convenient that to pay a toll everywhere.

Businesses are more efficient than government. I'd rather pay a monthly or annual subscription fee to use roads than to pay a tax, because the tax will no doubt be higher due to these inefficiencies.


Also give me a link to the pay-for-use road system.

It took a bit of digging, but I found it here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=162339

It's a 9-page thread.

[Spirit of '76]

Just to inject a little reality into this thread (in relation to the original topic), those who choose to immigrate legally already pay thousands of dollars in fees and go through health and background checks.

My wife is from Europe, and the immigration process is a nightmare -- for Europeans, anyway. If you're from a third world country you can usually get some church group to sponsor you and do all the legwork, including giving you money and a place to live, and if you're from Latin America you just waltz in and hope Señor Juan McCain sponsors another amnesty bill.

All told, we paid thousands of dollars in fees to the government.

We spent years waiting for background checks to go through. She studied in Russia for a year in high school, and it took nearly three years for her background check to come back because of it.

We both had to sit in government offices and answer probing personal questions. "What color toothbrush does your wife use? Does your husband ever snore? Let me see the past three years of your tax returns. Let me see your family photographs. Who's this standing beside the Christmas tree in this picture? Do you want children? Can you show me a current lease, or at least three months' worth of utility bills in both your names?"

My wife had to have health screenings signed off by a doctor, despite the fact that she's from a civilized Western European country where people are generally much healthier than the average American because they eat right, exercise, and aren't pumped full of Big Pharma's worthless prescription drugs.

She had to go in TWICE to be fingerprinted, photographed, and have her retina scanned by the government for their biometric database.

When we moved, we both had to submit separate forms notifying them of our new address. And I'm a native-born citizen of the US! Hell, my family was here before there even was a US, and I had to notify Immigration and Customs Enforcement every time I got a new address!

Most people require the services of a lawyer to guide them through the bureaucracy and fill out all the paperwork. We lucked out and found some law students studying immigration law who were willing to work on our case pro bono, which saved us from having to shell out additional thousands of dollars just to get the forms filled out right.

And then there's the waiting game! While waiting for her green card, she had to get a work permit (two completely different sets of fees, interviews, and appointments). After two years of waiting for a work permit renewal, a process that was supposed to take 60 days, I had to get my congressman to force the bureaucracy to tell us what the hold up was.

Turns out they lost the paperwork! "Oops! We sent it to Chicago instead of Vermont. No, no, the computers in Vermont and Chicago offices are on two completely different networks and can't share data. We'll have to have you fill out this form requesting that your papers be transferred from Chicago to Vermont. It'll only take a couple months. Oh, by the way, this means you'll have to come back in for a third biometrics appointment because that stuff can't be transferred."

We'd have been better off to buy a couple tickets to Mexico and have her swim across the Rio Grande.

In summary, for those who choose to immigrate legally, it's already a nightmare. A bureaucratic nightmare. There's really no need to make it more so.