TakeYouToTasker

When they do it's called a "trailer park".

I'm not sure why any of you are indulging this "tiny house" foolishness in a discussion about mainstream life style energy consumption and revenue replacement. "California won't need to replace revenues lost with the elimination of taxes associated with fossil fuel consumption because it's possible to live an almost cost free existence if you reside in a well insulated shed and drink rain water!"

It's something that happens in others states which could be implemented in California, which is what is being discussed. If we're being dickheads however, I'm not dumb enough to live there so I really don't care if they replace the revenue by jacking up income taxes to 30% or more. They have income taxes in California, right Jim? You're not going to claim some sort of stupid victory through ignorance of that concept as well, are you?

He's going to !@#$ Mueller, marry Putin, and kill Melania. From Keith Olberman's lips to God's ear?

I think where the conversation has evolved is, given California's desire to make alternative fuels mandatory, how they plan on replacing the lost revenue from their current pump taxes. It's California, so they aren't going to shrink the state's role in the economy. So how do they replace the revenue?

I find all taxes to be fairly invasive, so I tend toward tax structures whichat least allow the individuals consuming services to be billed proportionately. I conceded that no form of taxation is ideal, and all are onerous. The way I would implement it would be a meter reading when your car is inspected, with itemized deductions for out of state travel.

Insurance companies do not cover experimental treatment as a standard practice, and for very good reason.

You're going to make the argument that a corporation is capable of greater harm than the government? Really? Outline for me, please, what redress the people have when the government, legally sanctioned to regulate the information people are allowed to receive, regulate the information people are allowed to receive? How is that working out in China?

It's a much greater danger to have the government doing that exact same thing.

What is troubling here, is that the government is trying to grasp control over the internet, which would give them even greater control over the flow of information to the population. That's incredibly dangerous. Even more troubling is the framing of the argument from the pro-government position: "Give me reasons why the government shouldn't control the internet." This is totally backwards in a free society.

So your problem is with capitalism. GG had it right with the Bernie Bro tag.

Of course it doesn't. Legislatures never tie their own hands like that. Everything gets cycled into the general fund, with additional spending mandates added, this way pet projects can be funded, and revenue shortfalls met with additional taxes.

Natural monopolies, when they exist, do so because the service levels, products, and prices they provide are unable to be met or bettered by their competitors. However natural monopolies are exceedingly rare. Most monopolies, or entities you would describe as monopolies, exist because regulatory barriers create insurmountable hurdles for market entry. The solution is to deregulate, thereby lowering the cost of market entry, which will stimulate competition.

If you're an abject moron with zero sense of nuance, sure. Does that describe you, Joe?

No, you're advocating exactly that. The only difference is who you want to run the companies after using government force to take over.

The differences between your philosophy, voiced here, and that of Hugo Chavez aren't all the different.

Which of course entitles you to dictate to others what they must provide you with.

They tax the square footage of all non-impervious property which causes runoff. IE pavement, rooftops, etc.

Your entire argument is a non-sequitur. I don't like the tax/economic system the United States employs; therefor I have the right to dictate to individuals and companies the services they must provide. So that's the fight you fight. Attack state sponsored monopoly. I'll join you there.

So because they are large companies operating within the United States, and are subject to the laws and policies of the United States and the member states; you have the right to dictate to them what services and products they must provide you? So your argument is that because you don't like US tax policy you get to dictate to businesses living under that policy?

No, you don't. What other types of businesses, which have received subsidy, do you have the right to make demands of?

If they stop offering certain packets, you don't have a right to demand that they offer them.

As a paying customer, you have the right to whatever they sell, assuming they are willing to sell it to you. You do not have the right to receive from them products or services they do not offer.

Typically those who don't know are those who lack a fundamental understanding of rights. What gives you the right?

All other arguments aside, what in the world makes you think you have the right and moral authority to tell an individual or private entity what they have to allow within their own networks?