Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[GE Morton]

Taxpayers receive a benefit. It's called "due process".

You seem to be badly confused. "Due process" is a set of constraints upon government when it undertakes to prosecute someone for an alleged crime. It has nothing to do with the fairness of taxes or the programs/projects they finance.

The situation is simple: rich people have all the money, therefore they pay the vast majority of the taxes.

Yes they do, under the current unfair tax regime in the US.

On a related note, corporations must, by design and law, benefit their rich owners to the maximum extent possible (no, teacher's union pensions don't matter). That's a big Twinkie (Ghostbusters) and it's an overwhelming fact of American life.

Er . . . relevance to the issues at hand? BTW, corporations are not required "by law" to benefit "their rich owners" or anyone else, unless you mean a contractual obligation to do so. But most stocks don't entail any such obligation. Whether to pay dividends or not, and how much, is entirely at the discretion of the corporation's board.

Who does or does not agree with it is irrelevant. Whether Alfie derives benefit from a particular government expenditure (for which he is compelled to pay) is an empirical, factual question. So the alternative is to assure that taxes pay only for services which unquestionably do benefit everyone compelled to pay for them. I.e., the government may not seize wealth from Alfie to deliver benefits to Bruno, no matter how many allies and cheerleaders Bruno can muster.

Unless, of course, "might makes right" is your governing moral standard, or if you perhaps hold the view that governments are "supreme beings" exempt from plebeian moral constraints.

You're leaving out little things called Democracy and Law. There just isn't any truth to your argument here. There are plenty of pay-to-play taxes. It's not a revolutionary or forbidden concept at all. There are means tests and benefit numbers as part of every bill that appropriates revenue. The Congress regularly decides not to tax at all for a huge portion its spending.

Morality trumps law. Citizens have no moral obligation to obey any law that is not morally defensible. But one can, of course, take the moral anarchist's position that "might makes right" is the only defensible moral position. And I have no idea what you think "democracy" (majority rule) has to do with the morality of a law. Are you committing the ad populum fallacy? But you're right that Congress does not tax to cover much of its spending --- that would be unpopular, and cost the Congresscritters votes. So they borrow the money instead, foisting the bill onto future taxpayers who, not being born yet, cannot vote.

So, the dynamic you cite doesn't exist except insofar as lawmakers have to decide what part of their constituency is topmost in their consideration. Primarily they are is almost always state-centric. Even the most liberal Democrats will vote for corporate subsidies and tax breaks if the corporation is located in their state and/or district.

What "dynamic" is that?

Finally, remember: rich people pay the vast majority of taxes anyway. Unless you make over $80,000-$100,000 your taxes are not very important to the budget.

That is a common, but hopelessly naïve view. The more the government seizes from "the rich," in order to finance free lunches, the less they have to invest in productive endeavors, which means less innovation, less efficiency, fewer benefits and higher costs to consumers of their products. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

[LuckyR]

Not so much. No one said that there is a doctrine of "fairness" associated with paying for group services. Never did. You're just inventing the concept out of thin air for convenience. Thus conclusions based on this false premise are also false, such as labeling taxes as "theft".

Huh? Are you suggesting fairness ought not be a consideration in the apportionment of taxes?

And I didn't suggest ALL taxes are theft, as your re-phrasing implies. Only those which pay for services from which the taxpayer receives no benefit.

"STEAL (intransitive verb):

"1a: to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully
b: to take away by force or unjust means"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/steal

Moving to your (and my) complaining about what our government chooses to spend revenue on, everyone agrees with some of it, no one agrees with all of it, that's the reality of dealing with extremely large groups of individuals with individual opinions. Though I am sure I'd be entertained by your description of a viable alternative.

Who does or does not agree with it is irrelevant. Whether Alfie derives benefit from a particular government expenditure (for which he is compelled to pay) is an empirical, factual question. So the alternative is to assure that taxes pay only for services which unquestionably do benefit everyone compelled to pay for them. I.e., the government may not seize wealth from Alfie to deliver benefits to Bruno, no matter how many allies and cheerleaders Bruno can muster.

Unless, of course, "might makes right" is your governing moral standard, or if you perhaps hold the view that governments are "supreme beings" exempt from plebeian moral constraints.

"A consideration", maybe a minor one. But you're declaring fairness should be THE consideration, which it isn't now and never was (and likely never will be).

Since taxes, unlike fees, go into a pot of money, from which a myriad of services are paid for, there is no practical way to calculate which services benefit which taxpayers despite your glib suggestion (sans examples) to the contrary. Thus your "empirical, factual question" has no practical answer and basically serves as a conversational dodge.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with the government "may not" tax Alfie to pay for Bruno. May not? It's happened every single day since the first taxed penny was collected. Perhaps you mean "should not".

As to "might makes right", that's the last complaint from someone who is just not making headway with the way things are as their theoretical arguments get steamrolled by reality.

[GE Morton]

"A consideration", maybe a minor one. But you're declaring fairness should be THE consideration, which it isn't now and never was (and likely never will be).

Ah. Well, most political philosophers over the centuries have regarded fairness, or justice, as the "queen of virtues."

"Plato in the Republic treats justice as an overarching virtue of both individuals and societies, so that almost every issue he (or we) would regard as ethical comes in under the notion of justice . . .

"Rawls and others regard justice as 'the first virtue of social institutions.'"

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-virtue/

What other considerations override it, in your view?

I agree, of course, that fairness and justice are not likely to be realized in any polities in the foreseeable future.

Since taxes, unlike fees, go into a pot of money, from which a myriad of services are paid for, there is no practical way to calculate which services benefit which taxpayers despite your glib suggestion (sans examples) to the contrary.

Well, the latter part of that claim, that there is "no practical way to calculate which services benefit which taxpayers" at is simply false. Making such determinations is not even difficult, for most government programs, or for any of the "free lunch" schemes, which explicitly set forth who is eligible to receive them. Persons who, for example, do not receive food stamps, or HUD rent subsidies, or Pell grants, or Medicaid assistance obviously don't benefit from those schemes --- and, no, we don't count hypothetical and unsolicited "neighborhood effects" as benefits. Persons who don't attend operas don't benefit from NEA subsidies to opera companies; persons who don't ride Amtrak or local public transit systems don't benefit from subsidies to those services; persons who don't visit national parks don't benefit from the taxes they pay to support them. Etc. All such activities have counterparts in the "private sector," and like them, could be financed by ticket sales to actual users. But the masses want free lunches, and politicians must deliver them to win votes.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with the government "may not" tax Alfie to pay for Bruno. May not? It's happened every single day since the first taxed penny was collected. Perhaps you mean "should not".

Yes, that was the moral sense of "may."

As to "might makes right", that's the last complaint from someone who is just not making headway with the way things are as their theoretical arguments get steamrolled by reality.

Well, that is a pretty clear endorsement of "might makes right." Despots and tyrants of all stripes have endorsed it, and dismissed moral objections as gratuitous, impractical, and frivolous since time immemorial. They accept Mao's "reality": "Political power grows from the barrel of a gun."

[3017Metaphysician]

Not so much. No one said that there is a doctrine of "fairness" associated with paying for group services. Never did. You're just inventing the concept out of thin air for convenience. Thus conclusions based on this false premise are also false, such as labeling taxes as "theft".

Huh? Are you suggesting fairness ought not be a consideration in the apportionment of taxes?

And I didn't suggest ALL taxes are theft, as your re-phrasing implies. Only those which pay for services from which the taxpayer receives no benefit.

"STEAL (intransitive verb):

"1a: to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully
b: to take away by force or unjust means"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/steal

Moving to your (and my) complaining about what our government chooses to spend revenue on, everyone agrees with some of it, no one agrees with all of it, that's the reality of dealing with extremely large groups of individuals with individual opinions. Though I am sure I'd be entertained by your description of a viable alternative.

Who does or does not agree with it is irrelevant. Whether Alfie derives benefit from a particular government expenditure (for which he is compelled to pay) is an empirical, factual question. So the alternative is to assure that taxes pay only for services which unquestionably do benefit everyone compelled to pay for them. I.e., the government may not seize wealth from Alfie to deliver benefits to Bruno, no matter how many allies and cheerleaders Bruno can muster.

Unless, of course, "might makes right" is your governing moral standard, or if you perhaps hold the view that governments are "supreme beings" exempt from plebeian moral constraints.

"A consideration", maybe a minor one. But you're declaring fairness should be THE consideration, which it isn't now and never was (and likely never will be).

Since taxes, unlike fees, go into a pot of money, from which a myriad of services are paid for, there is no practical way to calculate which services benefit which taxpayers despite your glib suggestion (sans examples) to the contrary. Thus your "empirical, factual question" has no practical answer and basically serves as a conversational dodge.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with the government "may not" tax Alfie to pay for Bruno. May not? It's happened every single day since the first taxed penny was collected. Perhaps you mean "should not".

As to "might makes right", that's the last complaint from someone who is just not making headway with the way things are as their theoretical arguments get steamrolled by reality.

LuckyR!

Indeed!! I think GE's crack-pipe has gotten the best of him. It's making his neurons all discombobulated! But seriously, he's having difficulty supporting his theories about a variety of stuff.

[Henry Case]

Twitter's doing fine...as long as Apple and Google don't use their monopoly to destroy it

[Dlaw]

Since taxes, unlike fees, go into a pot of money, from which a myriad of services are paid for, there is no practical way to calculate which services benefit which taxpayers despite your glib suggestion (sans examples) to the contrary.

Well, the latter part of that claim, that there is "no practical way to calculate which services benefit which taxpayers" at is simply false. Making such determinations is not even difficult, for most government programs, or for any of the "free lunch" schemes, which explicitly set forth who is eligible to receive them. Persons who, for example, do not receive food stamps, or HUD rent subsidies, or Pell grants, or Medicaid assistance obviously don't benefit from those schemes --- and, no, we don't count hypothetical and unsolicited "neighborhood effects" as benefits. Persons who don't attend operas don't benefit from NEA subsidies to opera companies; persons who don't ride Amtrak or local public transit systems don't benefit from subsidies to those services; persons who don't visit national parks don't benefit from the taxes they pay to support them. Etc. All such activities have counterparts in the "private sector," and like them, could be financed by ticket sales to actual users. But the masses want free lunches, and politicians must deliver them to win votes.

[/quote]

I think you have to up your economic sophistication before you decide that all government should be done by fees. They try it in Singapore. They try it in all sorts of of states and municipalities and it's a huge "so what?". In all economics, .ross subsidies are the rule, not the exception.

First, consider your bank. You think that you trade fees for service at the bank. Well, that's not how they see it. The book of business are a major bank is almost incalculable by any but a very small number of experts. Therefore, all fees, all borrowings, all "deposits" are consolidated into pools and divided by totally arcane criteria of which you are happily unaware. You think you have a credit card. They think you are a number representing a (very small) probabilistic payment stream within a tranche of revolving credit facility with an overcollaterailized senior tranche - oh and that's before the fancy stuff kicks in.

Take something simpler like direct subsidies - food stamps (EBT), housing subsidies, medical subsidies, subsidies for addiction treatment, subsidies for addiction treatment in jail and on parole, subsidies for mental health care, subsidies for mental health care in jail or on parole. These programs are made this way because it's very important to libertarian fanboys that nobody should get what they don't "deserve". People who have to actually work in this space try as much as possible to combine these programs and administer subsidies on a per-individual basis because it makes sense.

When a person becomes homeless, it's not one thing that happened, it's everything. Homelessness is like a plane crash. It makes no sense to say "well, they only need x for food and y for drug treatment except after 6 weeks where they will have to pay first 30%, then 50, then 80..blah blah blah 'we'll pick up the seats and the bodies from first class but it's not fair if we're asked to pick up the wings and the dead pets because we didn't get our full ambulance painting subsidy last week. And yet this is how things turn out when "fee for service" thinking invades the minds of regulators.

People who have been brought back to society, treated and are ready to live on their own without crashing again then have to wait 8 months AFTER a housing program finds them a place while a case worker shoehorns them into a particular housing subsidy plan. It's beyond ridiculous. Cross-subsidy is the PURPOSE of programs for the homeless. You're trying to maximize impact and minimize resources spent. Programs created by people who think they can quantify homelessness and poverty on a need-by-need basis create a nightmare of regulation that the people who need the help literally cannot negotiate themselves.

In fact, in my view most of the regulation that exists in America exists for the people whose sole concern is not the success of the program but trying to make sure that nobody gets what they don't "deserve". God forbid that some libertarian fanboy spend $1.65 more than he's "supposed" to.

So that's why I created my entirely workable, no-federal-tax system. Create the funding for the Federal budget the way a bank does. If taxes are used only use them to smooth the cash flow at big insurance programs. There are very few people who think that it's so unfair that communities inundated by floods get rescued that they should get a check, too. There are some, though, I suppose.

[GE Morton]

I think you have to up your economic sophistication before you decide that all government should be done by fees. They try it in Singapore. They try it in all sorts of of states and municipalities and it's a huge "so what?". In all economics, .ross subsidies are the rule, not the exception.

Huh? What is a ".ross subsidy"? But you're right, of course, that subsidies are the rule among governments, especially "democratic" ones. Which is not an argument that they are morally justifiable.

First, consider your bank. You think that you trade fees for service at the bank. Well, that's not how they see it. The book of business are a major bank is almost incalculable by any but a very small number of experts. Therefore, all fees, all borrowings, all "deposits" are consolidated into pools and divided by totally arcane criteria of which you are happily unaware. You think you have a credit card. They think you are a number representing a (very small) probabilistic payment stream within a tranche of revolving credit facility with an overcollaterailized senior tranche - oh and that's before the fancy stuff kicks in.

I have no idea what you think that has to do with the issue at hand. The bank has the use of my money during the time I have it deposited there. They use that money to make money. In exchange they offer me various services. No subsidies are involved.

BTW, there is nothing wrong with subsidies per se. If Alfie wishes to subsidize some endeavor of Bruno's, for whatever reason, he is entirely free to do so. A "subsidy" is a gift. Subsidies only raise moral problems when the funds are taken from the "donors" by force, as are government subsidies.

Take something simpler like direct subsidies - food stamps (EBT), housing subsidies, medical subsidies, subsidies for addiction treatment, subsidies for addiction treatment in jail and on parole, subsidies for mental health care, subsidies for mental health care in jail or on parole. These programs are made this way because it's very important to libertarian fanboys that nobody should get what they don't "deserve".

That makes no sense. Government free lunch schemes are designed to please libertarians?

???

When a person becomes homeless, it's not one thing that happened, it's everything. Homelessness is like a plane crash. It makes no sense to say "well, they only need x for food and y for drug treatment except after 6 weeks where they will have to pay first 30%, then 50, then 80..blah blah blah 'we'll pick up the seats and the bodies from first class but it's not fair if we're asked to pick up the wings and the dead pets because we didn't get our full ambulance painting subsidy last week. And yet this is how things turn out when "fee for service" thinking invades the minds of regulators.

People who have been brought back to society, treated and are ready to live on their own without crashing again then have to wait 8 months AFTER a housing program finds them a place while a case worker shoehorns them into a particular housing subsidy plan. It's beyond ridiculous. Cross-subsidy is the PURPOSE of programs for the homeless. You're trying to maximize impact and minimize resources spent. Programs created by people who think they can quantify homelessness and poverty on a need-by-need basis create a nightmare of regulation that the people who need the help literally cannot negotiate themselves.

Yikes. I have no idea how this bears on the question of the justice of taxation.

[Dlaw]

Huh? What is a ".ross subsidy"? But you're right, of course, that subsidies are the rule among governments, especially "democratic" ones. Which is not an argument that they are morally justifiable.

"Cross subsidy" is what I meant to write. Sorry for that - and sorry if it sounded like I was calling you a "libertarian fanboy". I was a little worked up at someone else (not here).

The bank has the use of my money during the time I have it deposited there. They use that money to make money. In exchange they offer me various services. No subsidies are involved.

No, the point is that the bank doesn't "use your money". When you make a "deposit" you GIVE the banks your money. Then, you have a claim on the bank's credit but no money is set aside for you or anything like that. For banks, all loans cross-subsidize each other. So, whether you like it or not, when you have a relationship with a bank that makes home mortages, you subsidize the home mortgage exemption, which is a subsidy.

BTW, there is nothing wrong with subsidies per se. If Alfie wishes to subsidize some endeavor of Bruno's, for whatever reason, he is entirely free to do so. A "subsidy" is a gift. Subsidies only raise moral problems when the funds are taken from the "donors" by force, as are government subsidies.

Ah, the old Ayn Rand folly. Government subsidies not taken by force in any shape or form. They are provided, for good reasons, by democratically-written laws under due process. They're basically the opposite of "taken by force".

Take something simpler like direct subsidies - food stamps (EBT), housing subsidies, medical subsidies, subsidies for addiction treatment, subsidies for addiction treatment in jail and on parole, subsidies for mental health care, subsidies for mental health care in jail or on parole. These programs are made this way because it's very important to libertarian fanboys that nobody should get what they don't "deserve"

That makes no sense. Government free lunch schemes are designed to please libertarians?

Yikes. I have no idea how this bears on the question of the justice of taxation.

We of course not when your model is totally unrealistic. Taxes and indeed the entire financial system operates on cross subsidies. Money is fungible across all categories.

Try to find a specific tax that you think isn't part of a cross subsidy.

[GE Morton]

No, the point is that the bank doesn't "use your money". When you make a "deposit" you GIVE the banks your money.

Sorry, but no, I don't "give the bank your money." You need to look up the meaning of "gift." A deposit is a loan to the bank, not a gift. They pay me interest on it, and will return it on demand.

Then, you have a claim on the bank's credit but no money is set aside for you or anything like that.

That is also false. If I have an account with my name on it and a positive balance, then there is "money set aside for me."

For banks, all loans cross-subsidize each other. So, whether you like it or not, when you have a relationship with a bank that makes home mortages, you subsidize the home mortgage exemption, which is a subsidy.

Another falsehood. Now you appear to be re-defining "subsidy." A subsidy is a gift:

"Subsidy (noun):

: a grant or gift of money: such as
a: a sum of money formerly granted by the British Parliament to the crown and raised by special taxation
b: money granted by one state to another
c: a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subsidy

I make no gifts to mortgagees by maintaining a bank account. Nor does the government "subsidize" mortgages by declining to include mortgage interest as taxable income. Allowing someone to keep more of their money is not a "gift" or "subsidy" from the government. You seem to be trying to defend government subsidies by re-defining that word. That is sophistry.

Ah, the old Ayn Rand folly. Government subsidies not taken by force in any shape or form. They are provided, for good reasons, by democratically-written laws under due process. They're basically the opposite of "taken by force".

Egads. Are you now re-defining "force"? Try not paying income tax and then tell me, while they're hauling you off to prison, whether or not force was used against you. Force is force, whether applied by King George, Stalin, or a "democratic" legislature. Force is force regardless of how good the forcer thinks his reason for exerting it.

We of course not when your model is totally unrealistic. Taxes and indeed the entire financial system operates on cross subsidies.

No, it does not. Again, check the meaning of "subsidy," above.

Try to find a specific tax that you think isn't part of a cross subsidy.

I already did. Automobile fuel taxes are not subsidies, i.e., gifts to anyone. They are payments for the roads I use, and proportional to the extent of that use.

[Dlaw]

Sorry, but no, I don't "give the bank your money." You need to look up the meaning of "gift." A deposit is a loan to the bank, not a gift. They pay me interest on it, and will return it on demand.

You (and most everyone else) has to learn a little more about how banks actually work. When you make a deposit you buy a probabilistically short-dated claim on the bank's liquidity. No money - zero - is set aside for you. Since any bank you deposit money in us going to be backed by the FDIC, the bank doesn't care about your deposit. Banks sell debt. They don't pay you interest your deposit. That's marketing. They would much rather "pay" you with credit card points and new terms on your credit card. Banks use retail accounts to sell credit. It's just that simple.

The point is that even in the private sector you don't know what you're actually paying for because you're only privy to one side of the deal.

If I have an account with my name on it and a positive balance, then there is "money set aside for me."

Just not true. Provably, legally, untrue accounting. Where do you think money comes from, deposits? That hasn't been true since about the 16th century - maybe the 17th.

Banks create money through loans. All loans cross-subsidize each other because money is fungible across balance sheets. So, whether you like it or not, when you have a relationship with a bank that makes home mortages, you subsidize the home mortgage exemption, which is a subsidy. I know what a subsidy is, particularly in economics. It comes from definition C which is not a "gift", it's a grant. The home mortgage deduction is a subsidy created to allow banks to make ultra-long-term loans against (what especially used to be) relatively illiquid real estate collateral on terms that in many situations would otherwise be uneconomic to make. When the 30-year mortgage was introduced banks AND borrowers thought it was crazy. FDR's governments created a subsidy for the product because he felt it would help middle-class Americans build wealth and help an untrusted, damaged banking sector generate more loans and therefore money.
From Britannica . com

[Dlaw]

Sorry about the mess above. I was trying to use two editors at the same time or something.

Ok, a lot of misconceptions: Subsidy

Subsidy per Britannica.com

a direct or indirect payment, economic concession, or privilege granted by a government to private firms, households, or other governmental units in order to promote a public objective. Identification of a subsidy is often complicated because of the variety of subsidy instruments, the multiplicity of the objectives they are designed to serve, and the complexity of their effects.

The best way to think about subsidies both positive or negative subsidies. When you pay a gas tax you negatively subsidize the fuel business to positively subsidize the construction business. Both of these businesses can and do exist without subsidies but that's just how we do it. There are those would think "I'm buying roadways with my gas tax because I use them" and that would be only very partly right. The fuel business is a great example because it is a sea of negative, positive and cross subsidies. There are taxes on most parts of the business from refinery to pump, all sorts of restrictions, export subsidies import subsidies, pipeline subsidies strategic reserves, OPEC production cuts. It is a tidepool of subsidies with crosscutting currents.

Another hyper-complex business is banking - maybe the most complex. First of all, money doesn't come from deposits. That hasn't been true for a few centuries now. Money comes from loans and back in the 1930's FDR's government wanted banks to make more loans (and this create more money), particularly in the devastated real estate sector. So the brain trust got together and created the 30 year, fixed rate mortgage. It was revolutionary AND it required significant subsidies both for the banks and the borrowers. The banks got the FHA to help them with liquidity and risk and the borrowers got the home mortgage deduction off their taxes and (what were then) lower, subsidized payments.

Without those subsidies mortgage lenders and borrowers were just not able to do business. But it also means that without the taxes lost to the government from the home mortgage deduction had to be found somewhere else OR from deficit spending. Moreover although people in government felt that there was little or no risk in the "agencies" that came out of the FHA - like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -we found out different in 2008.

There's no such thing as a free lunch but the mortgage finance infrastructure has still been a roaring success. What it shows is that simple taxation is not the only way to finance and build infrastructure. Specifically, the government can finance programs with deficits and its huge balance sheet to encourage economic growth, facilitate risk sharing and build infrastructure.

We already finance over 20% of the Federal budget through debt finance. Make no mistake, that is not money that will ever get paid back - ever. It's not meant to be paid back. Anti-tax politicians have done a lot of things in this country but they have never paid back Federal debt and they're going to make sure nobody else does either. The Democrats create programs, the Republicans sign onto those programs, they want those programs, they're just not going to pay for them.

Fair enough.

There's an answer for that.

[Henry Case]

This isnt a finance thread....

[Dlaw]

This isnt a finance thread....

Your point is well taken but it's not a Twitter thread either.

What I was hoping is that we'd get to the more philosophical questions of economics. So, with Twitter, we have the question of a public vs. a private good/service. If a service gets so large and reaches so broadly can it really be said to be private? And then, is a better way to regulate a media company benevolent dictatorship or democracy? In either case, how dangerous is it really if this good/service is misused?

Then there's the question of whether or not a private good/service should be understood to be truly private if it takes money from the public but is not economically viable on its own. If it threatens to go away, is it so useful that it should be propped up? If it's not economically viable, will it inevitably court controversy until it is just something political? Will we be talking about Elon Musk's Twitter Party in a few years. He wouldn't be the first to convert a media company into a political party.

It's all about cross-subsidy.

[chewybrian]

This isnt a finance thread....

When Morton chimes in, every thread devolves into an endless downward spiral of 'debating' libertarianism vs. every other idea ever conceived or tried. It's maddening and drowns out many potentially interesting discussions. We should segregate the libertarian 'concerns' to another location, allowing people to discuss other topics without their discussions being coopted.

Your point is well taken but it's not a Twitter thread either.

What I was hoping is that we'd get to the more philosophical questions of economics. So, with Twitter, we have the question of a public vs. a private good/service. If a service gets so large and reaches so broadly can it really be said to be private? And then, is a better way to regulate a media company benevolent dictatorship or democracy? In either case, how dangerous is it really if this good/service is misused?

Then there's the question of whether or not a private good/service should be understood to be truly private if it takes money from the public but is not economically viable on its own. If it threatens to go away, is it so useful that it should be propped up? If it's not economically viable, will it inevitably court controversy until it is just something political? Will we be talking about Elon Musk's Twitter Party in a few years. He wouldn't be the first to convert a media company into a political party.

It's all about cross-subsidy.

^These are exactly the issues I had hoped we might be discussing here.

[Pattern-chaser]

What I was hoping is that we'd get to the more philosophical questions of economics. So, with Twitter, we have the question of a public vs. a private good/service. If a service gets so large and reaches so broadly can it really be said to be private? And then, is a better way to regulate a media company benevolent dictatorship or democracy? In either case, how dangerous is it really if this good/service is misused?

Then there's the question of whether or not a private good/service should be understood to be truly private if it takes money from the public but is not economically viable on its own. If it threatens to go away, is it so useful that it should be propped up? If it's not economically viable, will it inevitably court controversy until it is just something political? Will we be talking about Elon Musk's Twitter Party in a few years. He wouldn't be the first to convert a media company into a political party.

It's all about cross-subsidy.

^These are exactly the issues I had hoped we might be discussing here.

Isn't what we're discussing here the purpose and function of government? If Twitter is a private company, but operating in such a public sphere, their behaviour should be monitored by the government, and, if necessary, moderated. I think this is one reason for government. [There are others, of course, but we're not really concerned with those in this topic, I don't think.]