Submission + - How not to lose time ? Mistermind (mistermind.com)
Use the power of mind mapping and brainstorming to automatically create your schedule.
Do not hesitate to try this web-based tool free.
You want to grab all the benefits of a functioning society without taking any responsibilities that come with that.
No, I don't. I always pay for goods and services, and would not take them against their owner's will. I'm not a thief.
And just because I was born here doesn't make me a property of an imaginary "society" to which I own things. But even if we accept that such a society exists (it doesn't), I would be also a member of it, and so I would own things to myself then, which would be meaningless (because I would "owe" them to the "society" of which I'm also a part of).
A "society" does not exist in the way a corporation or a government does because it has no ability to interact with people and other entities. It's just a comfortable illusion.
A negative externality occurs when an individual or firm making a decision does not have to pay the full cost of the decision. If a good has a negative externality, then the cost to society is greater than the cost consumer is paying for it. Since consumers make a decision based on where their marginal cost equals their marginal benefit, and since they don't take into account the cost of the negative externality, negative externalities result in market inefficiencies unless proper action is taken.
When a negative externality exists in an unregulated market, producers don't take responsibility for external costs that exist--these are passed on to society. Thus producers have lower marginal costs than they would otherwise have and the supply curve is effectively shifted down (to the right) of the supply curve that society faces. Because the supply curve is increased, more of the product is bought than the efficient amount--that is, too much of the product is produced and sold. Since marginal benefit is not equal to marginal cost, a deadweight welfare loss results.
That sounds like it was written by environmentalists rather than economists. Who decides what is "too much"? The market already has mechanisms for deciding that. Negative externality seems like a redundant concept.
Tax is the price for the privilege of living in a country, don't want to pay? Then the privilege is revoked. I at least am willing to pay the extra tax for the bullet of revocing.
Are you suggesting killing people who don't pay taxes?
How can you be against slavery if you would happily kill someone who doesn't play by your rules. That is slavery. Suppose your rules are the tax system. People who don't play by the rules, you kill them.
Quantity is no substitute for quality, but its the only one we've got.