> all people care about is the state not wasting money. - completely dismissing worries about data exposure
A tangent here, but: Gas taxes paying for roads. There is a relationship between inefficiency and privacy.
I often encounter some libertarian-types complaining about this, that they should only be taxed for the construction and maintenance of infrastructure they personally drive upon. Indirect benefits aside, I try to point out that the billing-system they're asking for requires a creepy surveillance panopticon, something far more ripe for abuse than any gas tax.
In every state I’ve looked up, a majority of roadbuilding and maintenance funds don’t come from gas taxes. Not even close.
It can be hard to tease out since, contrary to belief, gas taxes end up mixed with the general fund in most cases. If you look at total road expenditures against gas tax revenues, drivers don’t come close to paying for the road infrastructure they use.
Note: This isn’t a comment on whether drivers should fully fund roads, or if it is perfectly fine given the external benefits of a robust road network. It is simply a comment about real numbers vs perception.
True, gas taxes don't pay for it all, but it's easier than saying: "Whatever mix of stuff the place you're living in does/will use that may include gas taxes plus other taxes but their commonality is that they are largely unrelated to your particular choice of where to drive."
Either way, the point is that there's a conflict between the demands of "never charge me an extra cent" versus "don't poke your nose into my business."
My point is that gas taxes don’t even cover a majority of it. US roads are paid for out general funds, and pretending that they are paid for out of gas taxes exclusively, or even in a majority is dishonest.
Any argument that argues that gas taxes are a use tax for the road is dead in the water.
I’m pretty sure highways already have enough actual surveillance cameras that the marginal threat of surveillance from toll-collecting hardware is tiny.
I'm curious, what do libertarian types think of the per-mile car insurance deals that require the driver to install a surveillance device on their own vehicles?
I haven't talked much in those same circles after the forum was destroyed by a ban-happy Republican-lite takeover, but possible things that come to mind are:
1. It's philosophically acceptable since it's not the government doing it, even if I don't like the deal.
2. I shouldn't be forced to have insurance in the first place.
3. That wouldn't happen since I could buy insurance from another competitor that doesn't require it.
Or grocery store checkout, where there is an individual dollar amount associated with every single item in your cart and calculating the total amount due requires knowing the entire contents of the cart.
A tangent here, but: Gas taxes paying for roads. There is a relationship between inefficiency and privacy.
I often encounter some libertarian-types complaining about this, that they should only be taxed for the construction and maintenance of infrastructure they personally drive upon. Indirect benefits aside, I try to point out that the billing-system they're asking for requires a creepy surveillance panopticon, something far more ripe for abuse than any gas tax.