01-31-2018, 06:21 PM
(01-31-2018, 02:46 PM)SammyOES Wrote: I could be wrong when I say you're being intentional with your error here. But I think your posting on this forum shows that you're easily smart enough (and precise enough with language) to know your claim in the first quote is in no way justification for your claims in the second quote.
Yup, you’re wrong. And you would be well advised to avoid accusations of dishonesty in a discussion without clear and specific evidence. Just some free advice on getting along with people from a non-expert on the topic.
Quote:And, of course, this distinction is really important to having a meaningful conversation about paying for roads.
Edit: I find this conversation so intriguing because it seems so very obvious to me. Nobody would try to say "Netflix viewers do not pay to use Netflix".
Right, because Netflix is entirely funded by its subscribers (and its investors, OK, but let’s not get into that whole can of worms!), who pay for the privilege of watching Netflix.
Whereas the roads are funded entirely by the general tax revenues, which comes from a group of people with a large overlap with drivers, but which is not the same as drivers, and who pay taxes because they are required to do so, not in order so that they may drive. There are non-taxpayers who drive on our roads perfectly legally, and there are taxpayers who do not drive on the roads. Interesting point which occurred to me earlier today: even if I skip out on my taxes, I am still allowed to drive on the roads. I may be prosecuted or my property seized to pay the taxes, but “can’t drive on the roads” isn’t an available penalty to my knowledge (except for licensing fees, which are pretty small potatoes).