How do you pay for these things?
Aside from the bolded section, the rest of your statement is just fluff and platitudes, and does nothing to actually answer **Early Out’s ** statements. Aside from pulling the whole ‘I’m for freedom, aren’t you?’ routine, there’s no guarantee (especially in the case of crime, race relations, etc.) that your state would do any better than the one we have now.
As for discussing actual defense (military), you still have not mentioned how one would provide that without taxes. A voluntary system would quickly end up with a lot of deadbeats, until you had to tax to generate the revenue you need. There’s no effective way to maintain sovereignty over territory if you do not defend it all. So even if New York only has 3% of it’s population paying into your system, you still need to defend it, or else settle for it being quickly taken and claimed by a foreign power.
Monaco doesn’t have taxes - it funds the entire state from the takings at the casino.
However it helps if your entire population are squillionaires already.
Which is political suicide. Look at John Kerry. He had a fair number of denials, and tons of explainations.
If I were a political advisor to the OP who sought to build such a party, I’d suggest that he pick out one tax that he wants to eliminate, and figure out what to do to continue the services that would have to be cut by some other means. (I.e., how to line up contracted garbage services for your city’s residents.)
And then prepare to get blown out on election day. If Bush can’t cut $20 billion from a $2.5 trillion Federal budget without cries of pain from both parties, there’s no way that you can basically eliminate government spending from a particular city or county. Like it or not, the reality is that politicians get recognized and elected for making the lives of their constituents easier. There’s a far more compelling political argument that the OP’s agenda would make people’s lives more complex.
I have to admit, when I read this thread title I immediately thought of Hari Seldon’s line in ‘Forward the foundation’: “There are only two ways a government can raise money to support itself. Tax its citizens, or take the money away from another country by force.”
I suppose he hadn’t thought of government-run businesses, especially in lucrative monopolies. Of course, if the guvmint doesn’t actually run the businesses, just takes a healthy cut, that’s still a tax, if not a tax on individuals.
I like this idea. We could just use the army to pillage another county every few years and then live off the proceedes from that.
Some empire at some point in history must’ve tried this (Rome?, Athens?, The Mongols?). Anyone have any historical examples.
I don’t understand the question. My first blush answer is “with money”, but surely that isn’t what you meant. Could you clarify your question for me, please?
Whose money was more the question. In the case of your volunteer fire dept., for example, my small town has a volunteer fire dept. as well. This hardly means that its free, of course, as most of the cost of running a fire dept. is not labor but equipment/overhead/training, etc. So the town still collects taxes and buys the fire dept. trucks and pays for the building and for the volunteers to get training and so on and so forth. I would imagine that your system would require you to collect money from everyone who wants to receive protection from the fire dept. in which case it would seem that you’ve effectivly slid back into paying taxes again.
I don’t agree. I believe I answered his statements directly.
I didn’t say it would. He is the one who said that what I advocate “doesn’t address the real-world problem of trying to defend a population selectively”. I merely pointed out that neither does his. If he wants to make problem solving a criterion for good government, then he needs to hold them all to the same standard.
Sure I have. I said hire the services if you want them.
That’s conjecture on your part, since no such system exists. It is clear, however, that in the present system, there are deadbeats galore — tax evaders, chiselers, welfare queens, food stamps for drugs schemes, powerful corporations exempt from tax (General Electric alone got almost $10 billion dollars in tax subsidies between 2001 and 2003), and so on.
That’s true only if you govern people without their consent. But you have yet to show why it is ethical to do so.
I agree completely, and that’s why the LP can’t get a foothold in this system’s politics. It is designed to serve its governors rather than the governed. In fact, laws themselves are made to protect government from its citizens, when it ought to be the other way around.
Okay. Then I’d answer, yours for you, and mine for me. Surely, you don’t think I should have to pay to protect property I know nothing about, let alone have any say over.
It sounds to me like your town has redefined “volunteer”. Apparently, all they mean is that the firemen aren’t slaves.
Well, no. Voluntary payments aren’t taxes. If you want to protect your home yourself, then don’t pay for someone else to protect it. As I see it, it kind of goes like this. It’s no different than hiring a gardener, or an electrical contractor. You wouldn’t call those taxes, would you?
Liberal-
What of the people that won’t be able to afford schooling for their kids, food, health care, housing? What is stopping our economic system from going back to the days of workers working 16 hour days 6 days a week and not being able to afford decent housing and food?
Are we speaking about our current government (US) or the foreign power that would annex NY should they no longer want to pay for defense? I will posit that the foreign power cares nothing for consent and everything for exploitable resources. Ethical or not, that’s the way the game of nations is played.
If we’re talking about us, the issue has nothing to do with ‘consent to be governed’- it has everything to do with wanting the perks, but not wanting to pay the bill. Why would, for example, Wyoming care about an invasion against New York? Since national defense is an all or nothing proposition, there’s no way to penalize deadbeats, or even to encourage supporters. Corrupt as it might be, our current system has this going for it, at least.
There are other all or nothing propositions as well. Public health, education, fire protection, courts…none of these systems can really afford to exist with gaping holes in their coverage- a gap of significant size renders the rest of the system useless.
Of course, I will also ask if you are envisioning a reduction in size of the state (geographically). Managing a union the size of the USA is virtually impossible without a very strong central government. I really don’t see the ‘no taxes’ proposal going any farther than commune size, and that for not much more than a generation.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
Our fire protection is volunteer, and of excellent quality. [ QUOTE]
So do the volunteer firemen drive their own fire engines and bring their own water?
I apologize in advance for giving you a John Kerry answer, but that’s just the nature of the beast. 
First off, I want to reiterate that there are already people who can’t afford schooling for their kids, food, health care, or housing. So what they end up with is a metal-detection hell-hole where their kids go until they drop out, whatever amount and kind of food someone else says they need, the lowest priority and poorest quality health care available, and a roach infested two-room paper-wall apartment with a no-show landlord — if they’re lucky. Some of them live on the streets and under bridges. Some of them just die. People are adaptive creatures, and whole generations have now adapted to these conditions.
But I do understand that that isn’t what you’re asking. You haven’t said that the present system is better than any alternative. You’re asking what classical liberalism can do to solve people’s problems, and the short answer is nothing.
But the longer answer is that it can provide them a context of life in which they have a far better chance, in my opinion, of solving their own problems than they would otherwise. The worst problem with the present system, as I see it, is the obstacles that are placed in the paths of people who want to succeed. There are literally millions of rules, decrees, laws, regulations, and directives on the books — and astoundingly, ignorance of any of them is no excuse for running afoul of them. The sole purpose of some legistlation is to make it easier for Mr. Smith to do business than Mr. Jones. Some businesses, for example, get tax subsidies, while some don’t. Not surprisingly, those that do are those that have political clout. They make contributions, sometimes to both parties in an attempt to cover all bases. They have lobbyists, and they entertain powerful people who make laws. Some are personal friends. When all that disappears, it seems to me that the playing field now becomes much more level.
Of course, not everyone has, not just the desire or motivation, but the ability to succeed. Some people are just ignorant of how to begin, or lack the intelligence or foresight to formulate a plan, or even lack the means to put an effective plan together. So there will always be people who are left behind while others move ahead. It isn’t pretty, certainly, but it is fair. It’s fair because it is not someone else who is stopping them.
I mentioned before a context of life. What liberalism provides is a context of peace and honesty. A liberal government will ensure that no one coerces you either by force or deception. It won’t allow your neighbor to succeed at your involuntary expense. It won’t write laws that make it easier for your neighbor to educate his children than for you to educate yours. And so forth.
Obviously, once you have the freedom to pursue your own happiness in your own way so long as you initiate no force or deception in your dealings, you also have the responsibility to deal with your failures as well. It is critically important to plan ahead. Presently, there are people who give more thought to buying a new car than to having a child. That won’t work in a liberal system. It is important that you assess what you can afford. If you can’t afford to feed children, then your priority ought to be to get yourself into the position where you can before you have them. If you know for a certainty that someone else will pay for your children’s care, why should you give any thought about how many you can afford or indeed, even whether you have the parenting skills to raise them?
So to summarize, a liberal government won’t solve any of the problems of the poor (or the rich, for that matter). But it will ensure that you are safe and free from the coercion of others so that you have the best chance at solving your problems for yourself, and in the way that you think is best.
Right. But the domestic power doesn’t care for consent any more than the foreign one. If it did, you could secede.
Absolutely. No disagreement there. Even North Korea has its pluses. The crime statistics alone are to die for.
Maybe. But the US defends Hawaii, Alaska, the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and even far-flung places over which it has no de jure sovereignty, like Iraq and Kuwait. Michigan has a great lake between its land masses. And people in one portion of Mecklenburg county have to drive through another county to get to Charlotte.
Practicality is a matter of practice. If you are practicing the building of massive nation-states, then coercion is the only practical method. But if you are practicing voluntary relations in a context of peace and honesty, then it seems to me that noncoercion is definitively the only way to achieve it.
We contribute $20 to $50 a year. Other homeowners contribute according to their own conscience and means. They drive the fire engines we bought them. They serve probably 2,000 households. Their water is from a municipal utility, but then ordinance prohibits competition for that service.
Aren’t you paying to protect others property.
Lib: We contribute $20 to $50 a year. Other homeowners contribute according to their own conscience and means. They drive the fire engines we bought them. They serve probably 2,000 households. Their water is from a municipal utility, but then ordinance prohibits competition for that service.
Who are the “other homeowners”? I don’t think you’ve explained whether the contributions are mandatory or voluntary. If the latter, are there some people in the community who don’t contribute to support the fire department? If so, what happens (or would happen) if they have a fire? Will the firemen put it out anyway?
(By the way, if your contribution is of average size, then the fire department is serving 2000 households at a cost of about $40–100 K annually. However, as I understand it, a fire engine itself will cost at least $100K. How did you pay for the initial equipment cost? )
I know this is getting somewhat off topic, but a question I’ve been dying to ask: Let’s say an overwhelming majority of people – let’s say 85 percent – want to provide health care for old, poor people, and they decide that the government is the best means to efficiently provide that service, in terms of collecting funds, making contracts with hospitals, hiring auditors, etc.
Under your idea of a more perfect government, would the will of 85 percent of the people be struck down because a small minority do not wish to have the government coerce them into paying the Health Care for Old People tax?
What if 100 percent of the people agree to such a program, so that literally everyone is okay with paying that tax? Would that be okay?
As a followup, let’s say that one person then moves to this fictional country from, say, Mexico, and he becomes the only person who doesn’t want to pay the tax. Must the system then be scrapped?