It’s called human nature. Go outside, read a newspaper, experience it. Then ask your question again.
The free rider problem. Most of the goods that government provides are public goods, In fact, that’s one of the primary functions of government; to provide those goods that it’s inefficient for individuals to provide for themselves. So, the government pays for an army, because it’s more efficient for there to be one organized army than a lot of little ones, and it’s expensive, and not really one of those things that you can make a profit on. And, if, I don’t know, the Chinese invade, the army can’t say, "Well, the Joneses are our clients so we’ll protect them, but the Smiths aren’t, so they’re in trouble. Or, roads. You could have all private roads, where everybody owns a mile of road or something and puts toll booths up to recoup their costs, but it’s a lot easier to have a government providing the roads for everybody…so the roads and the military become public goods.
But then, if you rely on donations, you run into the free rider problem. We’ve got these public roads that rely on donations to keep them going, but then I decide, “Well, I’m not going to donate this year. I use the roads and I like them and all, but there’s other stuff I can spend my money on, and it’s not like my money will be missed.”
And then more and more people think like that, and you end up with not enough money to pay for the roads.
Just history. Look at, for instance, how the Bow Street Runners, a group of private thief-takers, evolved into the London Metropolitan Police.
Look at the history of public fire departments in this country. Compare it to the evolution of the public fire department in ancient Rome. (Take particular note of Marcus Crassus and his private fire department.)
Look at the public freeway system in the U.S. We moved beyond private roads for a reason. And, yes, a lot of people really hate the power of eminent domain, by which governments can seize private property – but freeways could not exist without this. Does anyone believe the U.S. could function with only a network of private roads?
We’ve tried it the other way. We’ve tried private sewer systems and private security forces and even private systems of weights and measures. They don’t work as well as the public systems do. For-profit corporations cannot be trusted to regulate themselves. To save money, and compete more effectively, they will dump pollutants into the drinking water. They have to: if they don’t, they succumb to their competitors.
The libertarian ideal is like Rosseau’s “noble savage” ideal. It looks good on paper, but doesn’t work in the real world. It has been tried.
Edited
No, we’re not proposed a theory. We’re talking about political systems that exist in the real world. They’re not perfect but they do function. Your proposed system - while arguably better - is purely theoretical.
You’re essentially claiming a unicorn could beat a horse in a race.
Nice to know I wasn’t the only one.
I don’t think it’s taxes=civilization, it’s civilization=taxes.
So in other words, you are saying that the way things are is how they ought to be, but you don’t have any reasons supporting this?
Read this again.
Your way has been tried. It didn’t work. Read the post I quoted above.
Well, it seemed to me that the poster was making a standalone point and didn’t mention the previous posters post, so I was responding to what I saw.
No, it would be great if we didn’t have to pay taxes. I’d love it if such a system could work.
But I realize that wanting to have something doesn’t make it real.
Show me a single example, in all of recorded history, of a civilization that functioned without taxes. If you can do that, then we’ll compare how well it worked to all of the other civilizations.
Well , I’m not sure it is there or if is possible, especially given the examples the other poster listed. I am proposing it as a theory and seeing how others respond, seeing if I can learn something basically.
Among the very first written human records which anthropologists have decoded are taxation accounts.
OP speaks of property ownership. Much of the land in medieval England was owned as knight’s fees, i.e. the owner would be taxed, not in money, but with service as a mounted soldier (with esquires) in time of war. A knight who wished to double his land-holding would not only have to pay the other land-owner, but hire another knight and entourage to pay the extra tax.
But if you want a demonstration of very early taxation, skip feudal land ownership and 7000-year old writing and just consider Oog the Baboon, who was signaled by his grandfather to share a banana with his cousin. Perhaps OP thinks baboons should stop obeying their band leaders.
Many people have the relationship between property rights and government reversed. They imagine that property ownership is a natural state with which government interferes. The reality is exactly the opposite. Property rights are created by government to serve the public interest. As an example, consider intellectual property rights:
[QUOTE=U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 8, Clause 8]
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
[/QUOTE]
The purpose of patents and copyrights is not to reward authors and inventors – that’s the means to the end – but to serve the public interest, by “promot[ing] the progress of science and useful arts.”
Adam Smith’s book was titled The Wealth of Nations, not The Wealth of Some Greedy Lunatic Spouting “Freeman on the Land” Doctrines.
I think OP is just playing games with us in suggesting donations could replace taxes. The U.S.A. taxes but comes up way short. Does OP think that a taxpayer who begrudges the $30,000 he pays now would suddenly start paying $50,000 if he were charged $0? (I’m sure OP will argue that less money for the government means less wasted on public schools, fire protection for the indigent, etc., but that’s a separate “debate.”)
[QUOTE=Gateway]
-How the government I am thinking of would be paid for is by donations. I know you guys won’t go for this, but again: do you have any objective proof it won’t work?
[/quote]
Yes. What you’re proposing can be, and has been, tested: the Public Goods game.
Guess what’s been discovered? Cooperation is greatly increased by the ability of the group to punish free-riders, and greatly decreased by the inability to do so. Punishment outperforms rewards as a motive for greater cooperation, so you can forget about the social prestige or whatever of being a donor being enough. Thus, relying on donations cannot be a substitute for a tax code with punishments for non-compliance.
There’s all kinds of reasons, but it requires that you read a first year economics textbook and concentrate on the parts that use the word “externalities.” In effect, you need a government to control externalities. You need taxes to support a government to control externalities. If you don’t have that, externalities will effectively destroy society.
If your reaction to this paragraph was “what’s an externality?” then you aren’t presently in a position to understand the debate you started.
I could write up four or five hundred works explaining externalities, but, really, just go to Wikipedia or pick up a basic economics textbook.
Can you explain in your theory how government will be financed? That is the logical follow-up question to what you’ve proposed in your theory.
Note of course that we don’t have to call these things “government” or “taxes”. We can call them “custom”, or “leaders” or “family”. There are societies without modern government. But these societies don’t have everyone working for themselves. They have social customs that force people to share the goods they produce, or face intense social pressure.
If your brother has a hurt foot, you don’t let him starve, you bring back meat from your hunt and give him some. If your neighbor’s barn burns down you help him build a new one. If bandits are raiding the area you get some guys together and try to track them down. When you have a lot of extra yams you throw a big party and serve everyone in the area as many yams as they can stomach.
These contributions aren’t exactly taxes, but they aren’t voluntary either. You don’t have a choice whether to help or not, because if you don’t you’ll be ostracized by your community, and if that happens you’re fucked, because the next time something bad happens to you–you hurt your foot, your barn burns down, someone robs you–nobody is going to help you. And enforcement of these sorts of contributions isn’t enforced by a government, but by family and neighbors and “big men”.
The problem is that there is no getting around the fact that human beings need other human beings to survive. You can live in the wilderness by yourself, but then what happens with some other human being wanders into your territory? Fight him? What happens if there are 10 of them and only one of you?
There are species that live by themselves and are aggressive to all other members of their species except during mating season or when raising offspring. That sort of social system works for badgers, but it won’t work for human beings.
The same reason you need to pay taxes to protect you from the other assholes is the reason assholes make you pay your taxes. Yes, it’s coercive. Yes, there might not be much difference between a mugger who points a gun at you and demands your wallet and a tax collector who doesn’t have to point a gun at you but has an entire police force with guns ready to point them at you if you don’t pay your taxes. And what’s your point? We make you pay your taxes for the same reason a mugger takes your wallet. We’ve got shit we want to pay for, you’ve got money, and if you don’t contribute we’ll fuck your shit up. Now, what are you going to do about it? Complain?
You say you’ve got a plan for a better way of doing things. Sure, sure. Lots of people have better plans. Before we enact your plan you have to convince lots of people that your plan will make them better off than they were before. Otherwise, they’ll choose the status quo. Of course they would. Note that “it would be more fair if I didn’t have to pay taxes” isn’t a convincing argument. Nobody gives a shit how unfair it is. They care about improving their lives, not making things more fair. If it was more fair but everyone was worse off, they’re not going to choose fairness.
Too bad I’m no longer a libertarian. You guys are really pathetic in your criticism of it. And even still, the neo-lib is even more pathetic trying to defend it.
By all means, feel free to take swing if you think you can do better. How would you go about disabusing the OP of his misguided libertarian principles?
The problem is it usually takes about a hundred posts for anyone to figure out what a particular libertarian thinks libertarianism is. As far as I can tell, each libertarian has their own political philosophy. And half the time they haven’t figured out what it is yet.