Raise the Hammer

nobrainer >> Free-rider problem. If you don't pay, you still benefit from other peoples contribution to public services.

Why does that have to be the case? Just ensure that those who don't pay taxes, don't have access to public schools, public hospitals and public roads. Real easy.

Furthermore, if you don't like people getting a free ride, then you are also against the idea that the top 10% of income earners having to pay 53% of income taxes. Furthermore, the bottom 50% of all earners in Canada only pay 4% of income taxes. That's so unfair and a according to your logic, a big free rider problem.

>> You admitted it by giving up the pretence of a real case and resorting to the same old smears that libertardians all eventually resort to when pushed against the wall.

This is what i actually said...

"The USSR had 100% government spending and how did it fare? 1917 to 1991, 74 years and not much in the way of an economic legacy to the world.

Compare that to the U.S., where from 1776 to 1929, government spending comprised less than 10% of GDP (exception being WWI) and where it became the preeminent economic power in the world, producing many valuable inventions ( tinyurl.com/coadkg ). "

This is how you replied...

"By trying to compare any government spending to the USSR you just admitted that you don't have a leg to stand on. "

So rather than address the lack of success that the Soviet economy had in producing anything of lasting value to the world, you simply resort to defending big government spending by lying.

Why not address the comparison of the private sector economic model vs the government sector economic model. Can you do that, or is lying the only thing you can do?

Ryan >> What do you think of allowing registered users to:

1. Vote comments up or down; and
2. Set a net vote threshold for display of comments

Dissenting views bad, groupthink good. So sad.