Are the Poor Getting Poorer?

[Lootifer]

I'll bite:

Inheritance should be taxed and in no way does it discourage savings.

You want to pass on all that hard earned wealth to whomever you choose? Well the state, who so helpfully handles a lot of the overheads that helped you earn that wonderful pile of wealth would like to also take a cut. Sure your children deserve the majority of said pile, and the state isn't going to get greedy now, but we think that since you get such a easy and helpful leg up in the wealth ladder, so should others who happen to have jackasses and losers as parents as well, afterall, it's not their fault their parents were chumps.

Obviously this leg up for the sons of losers isn't going to compare to what you get, so you'll likely be able to generate much more wealth, and have a significantly easier time doing so; therefore I wouldn't worry too much about us taking some of your fathers/mothers hard earned savings.

With respect,
The State.

[Phatscotty]

I'll bite:

Inheritance should be taxed and in no way does it discourage savings.

You want to pass on all that hard earned wealth to whomever you choose? Well the state, who so helpfully handles a lot of the overheads that helped you earn that wonderful pile of wealth would like to also take a cut. Sure your children deserve the majority of said pile, and the state isn't going to get greedy now, but we think that since you get such a easy and helpful leg up in the wealth ladder, so should others who happen to have jackasses and losers as parents as well, afterall, it's not their fault their parents were chumps.

Obviously this leg up for the sons of losers isn't going to compare to what you get, so you'll likely be able to generate much more wealth, and have a significantly easier time doing so; therefore I wouldn't worry too much about us taking some of your fathers/mothers hard earned savings.

With respect,
The State.

I don't think it was the state that took care of the overheads that helped earn a pile. I think it was the person and all the people like that person who paid their own money through taxes and supported the government to do what it does. Without taxpayers, there is hardly any government.

[Lootifer]

Even so, my other points stand. Think of it as enforced charity. Deal with it, since it's a good thing to do.

[PLAYER57832]

The government needs money to function. Its a lot easier to take money from dead people, people who did not earn money themselves through hard work, than it is to take it from others. More taxes on inheritances and captial gains mean fewer taxes on everyone else.

AND--- as noted above, those 2 types of gains contribute the least to society as a whole through their creation, so the state has a vested interest in subtly discouraging these gains, at least in excess.

Also, it is the perception of most that people at the top have benefitted more highly from the things taxes pay for than the rest of us.. be it educating themselves and meployees (at the university level, if not earlier), through various tax escape clauses, etc, etc.

[BigBallinStalin]

Your moral argument works for both sides, so it becomes absurd.

Apologies, next time I will attempt a moral argument that only works for the rich, or maybe only for the poor, or something.

What did you mean by that anyway?

The moral argument of "it's not fair" can be used by both sides; therefore, it's not a good justification for confiscating other people's wealth.

[BigBallinStalin]

It's not your money; therefore, you don't have a right to it. Any justification for theft on the grounds of "it's not fair!" is absurd, albeit morally satisfying to only you. Think about the wealth which is created from that invested money, or the job of the financial manager, or whoever is affected by the demand created by that millionaires' money. According to them, it's not fair for them to lose those opportunities simply because you say it's not fair that the recipient gets to keep a tax-free gift (i.e. inheritance).

Your moral argument works for both sides, so it becomes absurd.

Except, who defines whether its "your money" or not?

Private property rights, which would ideally be upheld by public courts.

[BigBallinStalin]

If you had a government that you liked (you know... one that wasn't corrupt as f*ck), would you be more willing to pay taxes to it?

It depends on what my taxes would inefficiently produce, and it depends on available alternatives for providing said goods.

I guess my answer is no, because, holding all else constant, decreased corruption doesn't necessarily lead to better produced goods by the government, or even a better country. There's too many unknown variables with your question.

Let me clarify then: a government, which acted in a way that you would generally be satisfied with, with regards to policy, using tax money, legislation, etc. This hypothetical government would have a low corruption rate, intelligent infrastructure, reasonably low level of unnecessary bureaucracy, and would represent the opinions of the population fairly, with a reasonable spectrum of various political parties.

If you had such a government, would you still be unwilling to pay taxes to it? If so, why?

That's the nirvana fallacy. Such a government could never exist. May as well ask me the question of whether or not I want constant world peace.

[natty dread]

If you had a government that you liked (you know... one that wasn't corrupt as f*ck), would you be more willing to pay taxes to it?

It depends on what my taxes would inefficiently produce, and it depends on available alternatives for providing said goods.

I guess my answer is no, because, holding all else constant, decreased corruption doesn't necessarily lead to better produced goods by the government, or even a better country. There's too many unknown variables with your question.

Let me clarify then: a government, which acted in a way that you would generally be satisfied with, with regards to policy, using tax money, legislation, etc. This hypothetical government would have a low corruption rate, intelligent infrastructure, reasonably low level of unnecessary bureaucracy, and would represent the opinions of the population fairly, with a reasonable spectrum of various political parties.

If you had such a government, would you still be unwilling to pay taxes to it? If so, why?

That's the nirvana fallacy. Such a government could never exist. May as well ask me the question of whether or not I want constant world peace.

It's a hypothetical question. Why are you unwilling to answer it?

[BigBallinStalin]

If you had a government that you liked (you know... one that wasn't corrupt as f*ck), would you be more willing to pay taxes to it?

It depends on what my taxes would inefficiently produce, and it depends on available alternatives for providing said goods.

I guess my answer is no, because, holding all else constant, decreased corruption doesn't necessarily lead to better produced goods by the government, or even a better country. There's too many unknown variables with your question.

Let me clarify then: a government, which acted in a way that you would generally be satisfied with, with regards to policy, using tax money, legislation, etc. This hypothetical government would have a low corruption rate, intelligent infrastructure, reasonably low level of unnecessary bureaucracy, and would represent the opinions of the population fairly, with a reasonable spectrum of various political parties.

If you had such a government, would you still be unwilling to pay taxes to it? If so, why?

That's the nirvana fallacy. Such a government could never exist. May as well ask me the question of whether or not I want constant world peace.

It's a hypothetical question. Why are you unwilling to answer it?

Because it's silly.

I would love a hypothetical government which could impossibly behave against its incentives and human behavior.

I would also love a hypothetical Goddess whose idea of an alarm clock is giving me a blow-job in the morning, and then we could teleport to Xi'an, and I could give highfives to the Qin Emperor's ancient terracotta army.

[PLAYER57832]

It's not your money; therefore, you don't have a right to it. Any justification for theft on the grounds of "it's not fair!" is absurd, albeit morally satisfying to only you. Think about the wealth which is created from that invested money, or the job of the financial manager, or whoever is affected by the demand created by that millionaires' money. According to them, it's not fair for them to lose those opportunities simply because you say it's not fair that the recipient gets to keep a tax-free gift (i.e. inheritance).

Your moral argument works for both sides, so it becomes absurd.

Except, who defines whether its "your money" or not?

Private property rights, which would ideally be upheld by public courts.

Based on what? Why is that better or more correct than the old style which said the monarche basically owns all, or that of some tribal groups that says we hold the land more or less in trust ( We can use it, but not own it, basically) You jump from "its the law" to "it must be correct". I am asking why it is correct, in your mind.

Also, who decides which private property ownership has rights over another?

[natty dread]

It's a hypothetical question. Why are you unwilling to answer it?

Because it's silly.

I would love a hypothetical government which could impossibly behave against its incentives and human behavior.

I would also love a hypothetical Goddess whose idea of an alarm clock is giving me a blow-job in the morning, and then we could teleport to Xi'an, and I could give highfives to the Qin Emperor's ancient terracotta army.

So you are basically saying, there's no possible way to get the kind of government you would be satisfied with?

[BigBallinStalin]

It's a hypothetical question. Why are you unwilling to answer it?

Because it's silly.

I would love a hypothetical government which could impossibly behave against its incentives and human behavior.

I would also love a hypothetical Goddess whose idea of an alarm clock is giving me a blow-job in the morning, and then we could teleport to Xi'an, and I could give highfives to the Qin Emperor's ancient terracotta army.

So you are basically saying, there's no possible way to get the kind of government you would be satisfied with?

Honestly, I've yet to figure that out.

I'm approaching the problem with my ideal worldview and my pragmatic worldview, so I'll keep studying political science, political economy, etc., and then I'll jot stuff down here as I learn.

To sum out my writings in here and elsewhere, it's basically free market principles, public choice theory, and mainly Austrian economics (subjectivist methodology) coupled with a general aggregation of the current approaches toward understanding foreign policy. My national security views are predominantly "defensive realist," which is why I pay so much attention to China.

[Phatscotty]

It's a hypothetical question. Why are you unwilling to answer it?

Because it's silly.

I would love a hypothetical government which could impossibly behave against its incentives and human behavior.

I would also love a hypothetical Goddess whose idea of an alarm clock is giving me a blow-job in the morning, and then we could teleport to Xi'an, and I could give highfives to the Qin Emperor's ancient terracotta army.

So you are basically saying, there's no possible way to get the kind of government you would be satisfied with?

It's a matter of more satisfied compared to less satisfied. There are only degrees, since as you know satisfaction to one person can be severely unsatisfactory to another.

[natty dread]

Honestly, I've yet to figure that out.

Well, I have narrowed this down to a few options.

a) there's no possible way to achieve the kind of government which you would be satisfied with. If this is the case, you have no reason to even try to influence your local politics in any way. Why bother voting for example, if you know the government will still be full of shit, whoever gets elected.

b) there is a possible way to achieve a government which you would be (reasonably) satisfied with. You would gladly pay taxes to this government, since you could trust your government to spend your tax money responsibly and well, building a better future for you, your friends and family.

c) the only kind of government which you would be satisfied with would be one that would not require you to pay any taxes.

[BigBallinStalin]

Honestly, I've yet to figure that out.

Well, I have narrowed this down to a few options.

a) there's no possible way to achieve the kind of government which you would be satisfied with. If this is the case, you have no reason to even try to influence your local politics in any way. Why bother voting for example, if you know the government will still be full of shit, whoever gets elected.

b) there is a possible way to achieve a government which you would be (reasonably) satisfied with. You would gladly pay taxes to this government, since you could trust your government to spend your tax money responsibly and well, building a better future for you, your friends and family.

c) the only kind of government which you would be satisfied with would be one that would not require you to pay any taxes.

I'll go with (c) for most satisfying.

(b) sounds like Limited Government, so that seems satisfactory as well...

Are we assuming that the positive effects of (b) cannot be obtained with no taxes?


Anarcho-capitalism is interesting too, so there's the "no state" option.

OK! Where are we going from here, my natty-headed Friend of Finland?

[natty dread]

I'll go with (c) for most satisfying.

(b) sounds like Limited Government, so that seems satisfactory as well...

Are we assuming that the positive effects of (b) cannot be obtained with no taxes?

Well, that's an interesting question in itself. Can an effective government be ran without collecting taxes from the population? How would such a government be financed?

Maybe you would like a government that would function on capitalistic principles, for example... you pay a small fee every time you use a government service... putting aside the logistical and practical obstacles, would it be any different from having to pay taxes? And who would pay for welfare services, accidents, etc.? Military?

Anarcho-capitalism is interesting too, so there's the "no state" option.

How would that work in practice? Privatize everything and hope for the best?

[spurgistan]

Guns. Lots of guns.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'll go with (c) for most satisfying.

(b) sounds like Limited Government, so that seems satisfactory as well...

Are we assuming that the positive effects of (b) cannot be obtained with no taxes?

Well, that's an interesting question in itself. Can an effective government be ran without collecting taxes from the population? How would such a government be financed?

Are taxes really the measure which determines whether a government can function effectively or not? Or do additional taxes mainly enable the government to expand its seemingly "necessary" role in providing more goods?

And what seemingly necessary goods from the government can individuals within the market more efficiently provide?

I'm not sure; it depends on the topic, but we're both asking the right questions. Part of the answers follow:

Maybe you would like a government that would function on capitalistic principles, for example... you pay a small fee every time you use a government service... putting aside the logistical and practical obstacles, would it be any different from having to pay taxes?

It's different because taxes are collected involuntarily--regardless of your consumption of that good. Taxes tend to incur lower costs on people who consume higher amounts of goods too.

If a fee was charged for every unit used of a government-provided service, then that's just the price of a certain good. You can either choose to purchase it, or seek alternative providers, or find a substitute without incurring any punishment by the state for choosing not to pay the "tax."

And who would pay for welfare services, accidents, etc.? Military?

Non-governmental agents (i.e. firms, charities, etc.) or individuals within the extended family could provide these welfare services. (Beito's From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State: Fraternal Societies and Social Services, 1890-1967, is an interesting read).

Accidents can be resolved through court systems via contract law or common law, which would evolve around the particular individual preferences within some delineated area. If the transaction costs are low enough for resolving a dispute/accident, then the individuals or firms could handle it.

The military... if there was a weak, central government, that could be its main function--along with handling diplomatic issues. Defense could be provided by a volunteer organization, or centrally levied from various local militias--as the US had way, way back in the day. Or maybe it could emulate the Swiss model, maybe give everyone a gun, have occasional training sessions, and nothing happens because the Swiss never really bothered anyone.

Ultimately, if the national government collected taxes for training local militias, having a small but sufficient standing army for defense, for funding diplomats, and for prisons, then I'd most likely be fine with that tax. States could impose taxes for the same goods, but the tax would be extremely small, and probably could be provided by a sales tax, or 3% flat income tax.

Anarcho-capitalism is interesting too, so there's the "no state" option.

How would that work in practice? Privatize everything and hope for the best?

The main problem for them is preventing an eventual rise of proto-governments, which would eventually become governments themselves. Some argue that if people's ideologies were focused enough on finding solutions for their own situations through other individuals, then that system could work... There's also the concern that people would be spending too many resources to correct so many problems, that a government would be necessary to produce an optimum outcome for everyone involved.

There's more to it than that, but some of the explanations will be partially gleaned from the above future discussion. The issue for anarcho-capitalism, or anarchy in general, is: what degree of state intervention is absolutely necessary, and what can individuals within the market not be able to ever achieve? The problem is that it's difficult to answer that question because those alternatives are crowded out by the current government spending. There's studies on lesser state intervention in US history, and there are case studies on existing anarchistic societies--not just Somalia, but also tribal societies...

It's best to read about this on your own because it's difficult for me to explain. If you're genuinely interested, I could find some free 10-15 page articles that could provide more details/a better summary.

[BigBallinStalin]

Guns. Lots of guns.

Maybe. It depends, as I partially explain above.

[natty dread]

Are taxes really the measure which determines whether a government can function effectively or not? Or do additional taxes mainly enable the government to expand its seemingly "necessary" role in providing more goods?

And what seemingly necessary goods from the government can individuals within the market more efficiently provide?

I'm not sure; it depends on the topic, but we're both asking the right questions. Part of the answers follow:

Well, I'd say there are some things that are better provided by governments than the market, and there are some things the government should just butt the f*ck out.

It's different because taxes are collected involuntarily--regardless of your consumption of that good. Taxes tend to incur lower costs on people who consume higher amounts of goods too.

If a fee was charged for every unit used of a government-provided service, then that's just the price of a certain good. You can either choose to purchase it, or seek alternative providers, or find a substitute without incurring any punishment by the state for choosing not to pay the "tax."

Yes, well, this might seem more "fair" on paper and I can certainly see the appeal in it... however, in practice... with today's technology, at least, I don't think it could really work. Also, it would bring up lots of ethical questions, for example... if someone can't afford to pay the police, and he gets robbed, would the police just ignore it and let the crime go uninvestigated? If you can't afford to pay a doctor, and you have a heart attack... if you can't afford to pay the fire dept. and your house catches on fire. And so on.

Not to mention things like roads, etc. How do you measure how much someone uses a service like "roads"? Would you keep tabs on everyone and their walking/driving habits?

Non-governmental agents (i.e. firms, charities, etc.) or individuals within the extended family could provide these welfare services. (Beito's From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State: Fraternal Societies and Social Services, 1890-1967, is an interesting read).

Well, that's one way to solve it. But it brings, again, ethical questions in play. Who would monitor the charities and make sure they dole out the money fairly? And what if people didn't donate enough? Would you just order them to donate more (tax) or would you let the poor go hungry?

Accidents can be resolved through court systems via contract law or common law, which would evolve around the particular individual preferences within some delineated area. If the transaction costs are low enough for resolving a dispute/accident, then the individuals or firms could handle it.

Yes, but again, there are problems. Let's say you get in to an accident and have to be hospitalized. The guilty party is ordered to pay your medical bills, but they are broke and can't afford it. Who would you pass the bill to? Or... would you perhaps... demand that everyone has to have an insurance, by law?

Or let's say you get into an accident, due to some natural disaster like maybe a mudslide or a lightning strike. If you can't afford to pay your bill and don't have an insurance... who will pay? Ok, maybe it's your own fault for being lazy and poor. But what if there's hundreds of similarly poor victims? Who pays the bill? Charities?

The military... if there was a weak, central government, that could be its main function--along with handling diplomatic issues. Defense could be provided by a volunteer organization, or centrally levied from various local militias--as the US had way, way back in the day. Or maybe it could emulate the Swiss model, maybe give everyone a gun, have occasional training sessions, and nothing happens because the Swiss never really bothered anyone.

Well this certainly sounds sensible. Although the Swiss model doesn't really make sense to me... why give everyone guns? A small, organized defense force would be more efficient.

Ultimately, if the national government collected taxes for training local militias, having a small but sufficient standing army for defense, for funding diplomats, and for prisons, then I'd most likely be fine with that tax. States could impose taxes for the same goods, but the tax would be extremely small, and probably could be provided by a sales tax, or 3% flat income tax.

Ok, so... after all, even if you could get away with not having taxes for all those other things, there would still have to be a tax for something. So a totally taxless society seems to be a pipe dream... good on paper, but just not practical enough to work in today's world.

The issue for anarcho-capitalism, or anarchy in general, is: what degree of state intervention is absolutely necessary, and what can individuals within the market not be able to ever achieve? The problem is that it's difficult to answer that question because those alternatives are crowded out by the current government spending. There's studies on lesser state intervention in US history, and there are case studies on existing anarchistic societies--not just Somalia, but also tribal societies...

Well, there's a reason why most tribal societies are small... It's easy to govern yourself when you only have maybe a few hundred people to look after.

Other than that... I don't think it's possible to run a society with no government whatsoever. The question of "how much government is absolutely needed" is a good one though.

It's best to read about this on your own because it's difficult for me to explain. If you're genuinely interested, I could find some free 10-15 page articles that could provide more details/a better summary.

Not sure when I'll have time to read them but sure, bring it on.

[BigBallinStalin]

Are taxes really the measure which determines whether a government can function effectively or not? Or do additional taxes mainly enable the government to expand its seemingly "necessary" role in providing more goods?

And what seemingly necessary goods from the government can individuals within the market more efficiently provide?

I'm not sure; it depends on the topic, but we're both asking the right questions. Part of the answers follow:

Well, I'd say there are some things that are better provided by governments than the market, and there are some things the government should just butt the f*ck out.

It's different because taxes are collected involuntarily--regardless of your consumption of that good. Taxes tend to incur lower costs on people who consume higher amounts of goods too.

If a fee was charged for every unit used of a government-provided service, then that's just the price of a certain good. You can either choose to purchase it, or seek alternative providers, or find a substitute without incurring any punishment by the state for choosing not to pay the "tax."

Yes, well, this might seem more "fair" on paper and I can certainly see the appeal in it... however, in practice... with today's technology, at least, I don't think it could really work. Also, it would bring up lots of ethical questions, for example... if someone can't afford to pay the police, and he gets robbed, would the police just ignore it and let the crime go uninvestigated? If you can't afford to pay a doctor, and you have a heart attack... if you can't afford to pay the fire dept. and your house catches on fire. And so on.

The problem is that the actual price of these services is unknown. We can't compare them to government expenses because of the difference between bureaucratic incentives and profit-seeking incentives. So, what would be the real price for these services? I'd say it would vary enough by differences in quality, but the service would still be provided.

These services are essential, so there's enough demand for it from everywhere. If one makes $15,000 per year, it's not like they'll starve. They'll just have to pay the $1.50 "Bunny Bread" brand of police services (instead of the $4.00 Organic Whole Foods Brand of police). Also, charities would now have the demand for their medical services in poor neighborhoods (since the government is no longer crowding them out); people such as yourself (if they actually cared enough) would donate to the charities to help the poor. As far as moral arguments go, how much are people actually willing to back their moral standpoints with their own money?

Beito covers this in From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State: Fraternal Societies and Social Services, 1890-1967.

Not to mention things like roads, etc. How do you measure how much someone uses a service like "roads"? Would you keep tabs on everyone and their walking/driving habits?

How does Wal-Mart have the world's most efficient supply system? How does DHL maintain a global shipping company? How can oil be extracted from the Middle East and transported to your local gas station?

Surely, all of those would seem impossible without government ownership and direct control.

If you really care about roads, here's some free articles and books:

http://mises.org/books/roads_web.pdf
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-231.html
http://mises.org/daily/3416

Non-governmental agents (i.e. firms, charities, etc.) or individuals within the extended family could provide these welfare services. (Beito's From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State: Fraternal Societies and Social Services, 1890-1967, is an interesting read).

Well, that's one way to solve it. But it brings, again, ethical questions in play. Who would monitor the charities and make sure they dole out the money fairly? And what if people didn't donate enough? Would you just order them to donate more (tax) or would you let the poor go hungry?

1) Reputation, performance, and reputable 3rd parties. Think: Nobel Prizes for Best Charity. Besides, if a charity wasn't performing its function efficiently, it would eventually fail considering that there's competitors in the market. With governments, that isn't possible. You're stuck with one choice, which crowds out demand for charities as well.

2) & 3) They'd either have to adjust their spending habits, have a higher incentive to earn more money/emphasize an education for their kids, or people would have to put their money where their moral concerns are and donate.

Accidents can be resolved through court systems via contract law or common law, which would evolve around the particular individual preferences within some delineated area. If the transaction costs are low enough for resolving a dispute/accident, then the individuals or firms could handle it.

Yes, but again, there are problems. Let's say you get in to an accident and have to be hospitalized. The guilty party is ordered to pay your medical bills, but they are broke and can't afford it. Who would you pass the bill to? Or... would you perhaps... demand that everyone has to have an insurance, by law?

Thanks for providing me with a good reason to have insurance. If you choose not to pay for insurance, then you should bear the consequences of the risks taken. (Unless you believe large corporations should be bailed out for risky behavior, then I'm sure you'd disagree with me here). This example of not having insurance would discourage other people from following this fool's footsteps too.

Also, what would stop the hospital from healing the guy anyway? Wouldn't that infringe upon their morals? It's up to them to decide as well. Surely, there's a price for one's morals as well, and that may save the guy who decided not to pay for insurance.

Or let's say you get into an accident, due to some natural disaster like maybe a mudslide or a lightning strike. If you can't afford to pay your bill and don't have an insurance... who will pay? Ok, maybe it's your own fault for being lazy and poor. But what if there's hundreds of similarly poor victims? Who pays the bill? Charities?

Again, risk-taking behavior shouldn't be rewarded for those who choose not to pay for insurance.

Recall Hurricane Katrina. The government (especially through FEMA) really fucked that one up. Big time. It was so bad, they abolished FEMA by placing it within Homeland Security. How did New Orleans recover? People left to live elsewhere and avoided future costs, other people moved in (mainly Hispanic immigrations, which is a +1 for lesser immigration laws), people used their social networks for help (i.e. donations), charities provided services for free, etc.

So, many people just left to live with extended family. Some moved back, some didn't--and that was with government "aid," which arguably created more problems than solve them. There's the issue of how those levees were designed (poorly, which is no surprise since the plans were modified by politicians, and then the construction was government-owned and operated). There's also the extreme amount of waste created by government spending. Many people who didn't need trailers, got them. And that money comes from other places in the economy, so it's not like any of that is free.

Would New Orleans be totally devastated and in disrepair without any government intervention? No, so I don't see the cause for concern. Even with government "help," the underlying problems weren't magically solved. There's still the risk of living in certain areas of New Orleans due to hurricanes.

The military... if there was a weak, central government, that could be its main function--along with handling diplomatic issues. Defense could be provided by a volunteer organization, or centrally levied from various local militias--as the US had way, way back in the day. Or maybe it could emulate the Swiss model, maybe give everyone a gun, have occasional training sessions, and nothing happens because the Swiss never really bothered anyone.

Well this certainly sounds sensible. Although the Swiss model doesn't really make sense to me... why give everyone guns? A small, organized defense force would be more efficient.

Sure, that possibility isn't ruled out. It would just cost everyone a really small portion of their income via tax--but that doesn't have to be at the national level since American States have populations and resources on par with most countries.

However, what's wrong with militias? Would Mexico really invade the US considering that we could muster a guerrilla army of millions and millions of Americans--all armed with their own guns, and who have been hunting in the backwoods for decades?

Besides, what prevents companies from hiring US mercenaries to defend their property?

Ultimately, if the national government collected taxes for training local militias, having a small but sufficient standing army for defense, for funding diplomats, and for prisons, then I'd most likely be fine with that tax. States could impose taxes for the same goods, but the tax would be extremely small, and probably could be provided by a sales tax, or 3% flat income tax.

Ok, so... after all, even if you could get away with not having taxes for all those other things, there would still have to be a tax for something. So a totally taxless society seems to be a pipe dream... good on paper, but just not practical enough to work in today's world.

I highly doubt it, and after reviewing the above, your case to me isn't that strong to immediately dismiss the possibility. Democracies didn't seem practical 500 years ago. "My God! People voting!! The whole system would collapse!!," cried the aristocrats. Turns out feudalism and monarchies wasn't such a great idea after all.

The issue for anarcho-capitalism, or anarchy in general, is: what degree of state intervention is absolutely necessary, and what can individuals within the market not be able to ever achieve? The problem is that it's difficult to answer that question because those alternatives are crowded out by the current government spending. There's studies on lesser state intervention in US history, and there are case studies on existing anarchistic societies--not just Somalia, but also tribal societies...

Well, there's a reason why most tribal societies are small... It's easy to govern yourself when you only have maybe a few hundred people to look after.

They've ranged up to the millions, but I'll admit that I have a hard time buying anarcho-capitalism's arguments when they get into law enforcement and defense (i.e. military).

This point is a double-edged sword, but the world itself is in a state of anarchy. There's no overarching government, but there are occasional spillover effects from the UN and the US. If anarchy for a country would fail, then why hasn't the world failed?

Other than that... I don't think it's possible to run a society with no government whatsoever. The question of "how much government is absolutely needed" is a good one though.

Agreed.

Another consideration is "anarchy as second-best,"---especially in places with highly predatory governments. The immediate assumption and continued self-reinforcement that every country needs a strong, central government has been disastrous for many countries of Africa and the Middle East.

It's best to read about this on your own because it's difficult for me to explain. If you're genuinely interested, I could find some free 10-15 page articles that could provide more details/a better summary.

Not sure when I'll have time to read them but sure, bring it on.

I'll see what I can electronically dig up. I could have the libraries scan pdfs for me too, so I'll get back to you on this.

[natty dread]

The problem is that the actual price of these services is unknown. We can't compare them to government expenses because of the difference between bureaucratic incentives and profit-seeking incentives. So, what would be the real price for these services? I'd say it would vary enough by differences in quality, but the service would still be provided.

I'm not sure where you're getting at with this...

These services are essential, so there's enough demand for it from everywhere. If one makes $15,000 per year, it's not like they'll starve. They'll just have to pay the $1.50 "Bunny Bread" brand of police services (instead of the $4.00 Organic Whole Foods Brand of police). Also, charities would now have the demand for their medical services in poor neighborhoods (since the government is no longer crowding them out); people such as yourself (if they actually cared enough) would donate to the charities to help the poor. As far as moral arguments go, how much are people actually willing to back their moral standpoints with their own money?

If the police become private operators, 1) who will monitor the police and 2) who grants them the authority to perform police duties? Can anyone start a police department, and start hiring whoever as policemen?

Also, if you have a free market for operators, with no one regulating them, what stops the biggest operator from using their capital to drive smaller ones out of business and then abusing their monopoly, price gouging, etc? That's the biggest flaw I can see in the totally unregulated free market model.

As for charities, what motivates the wealthy to donate money if they don't have to and it doesn't give them any benefits? As I understand, currently a lot of wealthy people donate to charities to gain tax reductions or such. If there are no taxes and therefore no tax reductions, why would they give any of their hard earned money away?

How does Wal-Mart have the world's most efficient supply system? How does DHL maintain a global shipping company? How can oil be extracted from the Middle East and transported to your local gas station?

What I'm getting at is, if you have to get the money to maintain roads from somewhere, and you want to use the model of "only pay for what you use" instead of taxing everyone equally for them, then how do you determine who pays and how much for the roads? What if someone refuses to pay for any roads, will you monitor him and keep him away from all the roads? Will you build fences around each road to fight road piratism?

Besides, if a charity wasn't performing its function efficiently, it would eventually fail considering that there's competitors in the market. With governments, that isn't possible. You're stuck with one choice, which crowds out demand for charities as well.

So... in essence, charities would compete by who does the most charity work, and people would give them money accordingly?

What stops those charities from using things like advertising, propaganda etc. which people have proven to be susceptible to? What prevents these charities from simply hiring good PR agents to fool the people into thinking they're doing good charity work, but instead they're just pocketing most of the money themselves?

Perhaps some kind of regulatory government office would still be needed?

Thanks for providing me with a good reason to have insurance. If you choose not to pay for insurance, then you should bear the consequences of the risks taken. (Unless you believe large corporations should be bailed out for risky behavior, then I'm sure you'd disagree with me here). This example of not having insurance would discourage other people from following this fool's footsteps too.

But then the problem becomes the insurance companies. Naturally, being private operators with their own interests in mind, they will want to make profits out of this whole insurance business.

So what if you want to have an insurance, but all the insurance providers consider you too risky to insure, so they refuse to insure you? You wouldn't want to force the companies to insure people, because that would hurt their profits. But you wouldn't want to encourage risk-taking behaviour, so you don't want to bail out the person who doesn't have an insurance. Effectively, it would be a catch-22 situation for anyone with a chronic health problem, elderly, or perhaps someone in a risky profession...

Also, what would stop the hospital from healing the guy anyway? Wouldn't that infringe upon their morals? It's up to them to decide as well. Surely, there's a price for one's morals as well, and that may save the guy who decided not to pay for insurance.

But if the word gets out that the hospitals will heal you anyway even if you can't pay them, who's going to willingly take an insurance? Especially since a lot of people tend to be of the mindset that "that can never happen to me"...

This would effectively discourage hospitals from performing any pro-bono work.

Well, maybe the charities could pay for them. But then again, who decides who gets a free ride and who has to pay their own bills? Government?

Recall Hurricane Katrina. The government (especially through FEMA) really fucked that one up. Big time. It was so bad, they abolished FEMA by placing it within Homeland Security. How did New Orleans recover? People left to live elsewhere and avoided future costs, other people moved in (mainly Hispanic immigrations, which is a +1 for lesser immigration laws), people used their social networks for help (i.e. donations), charities provided services for free, etc.

Yes, I've heard some things about this. However, just because your government handled the crisis inefficiently, doesn't necessarily mean that governments are always inherently inefficient in handling crisises?

Or maybe it depends on the size of the government. Perhaps a government that spans almost an entire continent is inefficient when it comes to handling local crisises... I don't know.

However, what's wrong with militias? Would Mexico really invade the US considering that we could muster a guerrilla army of millions and millions of Americans--all armed with their own guns, and who have been hunting in the backwoods for decades?

The problem with militias is that they are pretty much obsolete and incompatible with modern warfare. It takes a lot of time and resources to train a soldier for a modern army - especially when you consider the more sophisticated jobs like fighter pilots, submarine crews etc. - basically everyone except the basic ground force grunts.

If you have a haphazardly trained guerrilla militia, armed with rifles and such... even if there's millions of them, a professional army will mow them like a fucking lawnmower. All they need to do is carpet-bomb the f*ck out of them...

What I'm getting at is, it's not cost-efficient to train an entire population as soldiers.

Besides, what prevents companies from hiring US mercenaries to defend their property?

You really want to go there? Look at the current "mercenary" companies and how well that shit works.

I highly doubt it, and after reviewing the above, your case to me isn't that strong to immediately dismiss the possibility. Democracies didn't seem practical 500 years ago. "My God! People voting!! The whole system would collapse!!," cried the aristocrats. Turns out feudalism and monarchies wasn't such a great idea after all.

Well, I think we're going to need a bigger paradigm shift if we're going to get rid of taxes. Like, abolishing the whole concept of money or something.

They've ranged up to the millions, but I'll admit that I have a hard time buying anarcho-capitalism's arguments when they get into law enforcement and defense (i.e. military).

This point is a double-edged sword, but the world itself is in a state of anarchy. There's no overarching government, but there are occasional spillover effects from the UN and the US. If anarchy for a country would fail, then why hasn't the world failed?

It hasn't?

Why do we have wars?

Another consideration is "anarchy as second-best,"---especially in places with highly predatory governments. The immediate assumption and continued self-reinforcement that every country needs a strong, central government has been disastrous for many countries of Africa and the Middle East.

Of course, a government is such a vague concept - it's not inherently bad or good, it's how it's used that counts.

[thegreekdog]

This is probably the best exchange of posts I've seen in quite a while. Kudos to BBS and Natty. In the interest of full disclosure, I generally agree with BBS so that probably accounts for some of my "best exchange of posts" comments.

[PLAYER57832]

This is probably the best exchange of posts I've seen in quite a while. Kudos to BBS and Natty. In the interest of full disclosure, I generally agree with BBS so that probably accounts for some of my "best exchange of posts" comments.

You think there can be government without taxes?

[thegreekdog]

This is probably the best exchange of posts I've seen in quite a while. Kudos to BBS and Natty. In the interest of full disclosure, I generally agree with BBS so that probably accounts for some of my "best exchange of posts" comments.

You think there can be government without taxes?

I wouldn't take it as far as BBS does (which is why I said I generally agree with BBS). I'm still not convinced of what thegreekdog's ideal government would be (and I probably will never have a fully formed opinion).

Here's where BBS and I may disagree:

I think there should be taxes in some form, but I'm not completely sure what kind of taxes I would support. I am still kicking around the idea of a 100% estate tax with a $1 million exemption; I think the ability to do estate tax planning (what you would call estate tax loopholes) results in an oligarchy that passes down generation to generation. I'm not sure that would be sufficient, so I would be supportive of a very small national income tax (not a sales tax though) either with very standard deductions or no deductions at all.

I think that the government should be weak, but should have the following powers at the federal level: (1) national defense; (2) diplomacy; (3) regulatory authority over imports and exports; (4) immigration and naturalization. And the following powers at the state and local levels: (1) public schooling; (2) roads and other public works; (3) police and prisons. I'm sure there are other things I'm missing, but that's a good start. Basically, I would envision something a little stronger than what we had after the American Revolution and just a little bit weaker than what we had before 1865.