(urth) Urth Digest, Vol 57, Issue 38

[James Wynn]

>David Stockhoff: I still don't think you get the sense of "public" I am 
>referring to. Your scenario has nothing to do with it.
>It's an intangible---it's not a direct benefit.

How is a water well not a direct benefit?

> A hypothetical town factory owner benefits from public
>education because he can hire intelligent, educated workers

Does he benefit more than the people whose children are getting educated?

>---so he happily pays his share of taxes, and he still gets to
>smoke his fine cigars and sail his yacht.

You're concept of the rich is colored by a preconception of Thurston Howell 
III. Typically, an owner of a factory risked everything he had to get there 
and worked 14 hour days for years. He's might be well be strangers by the 
time he can afford a yacht. All this to employ people who just want to get 
their checks on Friday and get home to the barbeque.

> Someone suggested public vs private education as an example.

Why do you believe that something would not occur unless the government did 
it? You want to legislate that everyone spend a certain amount on schools? 
Fine. Why does the government have to do it? In Europe, the money spent on 
child schooling goes to the child.  Why shouldn't a home-schooling parent 
get the money to stay home, buy school supplies, and send their child to 
intellectually enriching experiences?

> Somehow your example gets short-circuited.
>Where did the part about the lake owner paying
>more come from?

Adam and I were discussing progressive income tax. And that is essentially 
the foundation of the sort of system that Wolfe is excoriating in tDiaF. The 
point is that the rich pay more. They are less reliant on public facilities. 
And they are out-voted.

> Racism is illegal?

Errr...yes. I suppose an employer can certainly hold any view he wants 
privately...very privately...but it's illegal for him to act on it. If he 
expresses racist views in private, he opens himself to lawsuit even if he 
doesn't actually do anything. So, yeah. Racism is illegal and socially 
persecuted. Not that I'm complaining about it, but we should face the truth 
for what it is.

> Classism, in this case, means "Sure, I can find
>a spot for your boy on my investment bank team."

This certainly happens for politicians. I'm thinking of VP Biden's son. But 
it's not the thoroughfare to success.

> Who benefits when thousands of people can get into town BY TRAIN to see a 
> basketball game?
> The poor? or the team owner?

So you're saying the rich should pay for a "public space" to benefit the 
owners of a basketball team who probably don't even live locally. Oh yes! 
The owners of a basketball team and the poor.

> No. I meant that (even if everyone else earned the same
>amount and paid the same in taxes) I would still see the
>benefit of shared space and goods.

But we don't pay the same amount in taxes. The top 5% pay 60% of the taxes. 
That is situation Wolfe was portraying in tDiaF.

>For one thing, there is the economy of scale,
>as for example when building a rail system, as well
>as collective bargaining power. How many trains could you build yourself? 
>And it's cheaper than paying for a second car and gas.

No passenger train has ever paid for itself. That's why its "cheaper". You 
pay it in higher costs of everything you buy. Even if the government gave 
the land and the materials, if the riders where charged the real cost to use 
it, they would get a second car. (I live in Austin, TX where three private 
railway systems have started and failed in the last 120 years).

>If I had to pay for everything
>(everything---think no health insurance)
>at (free) market rates, my family and I would starve and die.

You're paying in higher costs, lower salaries, and lost opportunities. So am 
I. There is no perpetual motion machine and there is no free lunch. The only 
thing the Market does is tell you the real value and cost of things.

Look I don't understand why this is so hard to get. You understand that if 
you want more electric cars, you need to subsidize them, right? If you want 
fewer people to smoke, you tax the activity. Why is it so hard to understand 
that if you want more of your populace to be financially independent, you 
need to stop punishing them for it.

J.