I never signed a contract with Best Buy saying I would give them $200 for the TV I took- is the manager extorting me?
This is one area where Mr. Farnaby also loses me. I’ve asked him before but AFAIK he’s never answered so I’ll ask again: What real-world example comes closest to Farnaby’s ideal? Somalia, during its government-free era? Eastern Europe or Iraq during their Friedmanist experiments with only weak central government? Lord of the Flies or Pan’s Never-never-land, free of adult supervision? Don’t just say these examples are absurd, offer a real example.
One of Mr. Farnaby’s fellow travelers (though not as extreme), Idaho-something, did deign to answer the question. The best example he had was U.S.A. itself before civil rights and aviation regulation. While most rationalists support civil rights and regulations, his answer did at least seem honest and sensical.
You either never got the TV until you forked over the $200, or until you signed the check or the credit card slip.
Many of their goods are just sitting there on the shelf. I don’t recall ever putting pen to paper at a Best Buy.
No it doesn’t. Absent a system of laws and a means of enforcing them, the idea of private property is meaningless. In a state of nature, if I’m bigger than you I can take your “private property” and do whatever I want with it. Without a system of coercion, ownership does not exist.
How is that our problem? In our rational self-interest, we have mutually agreed to enter into a contract amongst one another that involves our mutually determining what taxes and what rates we will pay to support our collective group.
It is not our responsibility to provide you with some alternative in order to suit your tastes. We are not your mommy committed to look after you. It’s a free market world out there, and you are free to go and find your way if you do not like what we’re selling.
Well, that’s autistic in its literalness. It is an implicit contract that you have tacitly endorsed in hundreds of ways each and every day you have been here (presuming the US, for this case, but largely applicable to many other places). But again, nobody is forcing you to maintain the contract if you prefer to void your participation in it. See ya, wouldn’t want to be ya.
Collectively, we do vote on stuff, and votes do make a difference. At the national level, it may be harder to see that, but again, if you don’t like it, there is the door.
The difference is that the slave owner takes all the labor of the slave, not just part of it. And the only beneficiary of the master-slave relationship is the master - the slave only receives enough food and shelter so he can work (for the benefit of the master).
The existence of a Constitution guaranteeing certain rights, such as the right to due process before being deprived of property, and to be protected from enslavement.
Part of the role of government is the enforcement of contracts, especially on those who don’t feel the contracts they enter into should be enforced. Taxes are the fee we pay for this.
Because you are benefiting from the actions of the government whether you choose to or not. You drive on the public roads, you are defended by the military, the police arrest people who want to rob you, etc.
It’s too much trouble to pick out the strict libertarians and not extend to them the benefits of government. It might be nice in principle, but in practice it is more bother than it is worth.
Regards,
Shodan
No. If you’re not hurting, it’s because you’re getting good value for that part of your income that you spend collectively.
About a third of my income goes toward taxes, very roughly speaking. For the money I spend on taxes, I get:
-An educated populace
-Protection from organized criminals and disorganized criminals
-Protection from polluted water and air
-Safe food protocols
-A relatively low poverty level resulting in correspondingly low levels of civil unrest
-An amazing transportation and information infrastructure
-Unnecessary and bloody foreign wars
Nearly everything I get for my tax dollar is pretty awesome. The things I don’t like I resent, but not because of the concept of taxes.
Because of the tragedy of the privates (originally called tragedy of the commons, but I think that approaches the problem ass-backwardly), if we privatized all those services and made their acquisition voluntary, they’d be terrible. (The idea of private courts seems terribly naive to me–there’s no way they’d work in the absence of a default court).
Bob pays dues to the First Court of Jesus Christ, Lawyer. Frank pays dues to the Second Court of the Perfumed Spider. They’re neighbors. Bob claims that Frank’s cow came onto his land and ate all his oleanders and demands damages paid. Frank claims that Frank opened their common gate, allowing Bob’s cow to wander in and die, and demands damages.
What court do they take the case to? How do they decide? If they take it to the first court, what impetus do they have to decide in Frank’s favor, and vice versa?
A single Leviathan court system that requires payment from everybody equally before any sign of dispute and that neither is beholden to anyone nor appears beholden to anyone resolves these problems neatly. Multiple courts with a vested interest in deciding in favor of the paying customer are a nightmare solution.
Private courts only work if the fallback position is a public court.
Edit: And no, of course private property does not exist in a state of nature in anything resembling what we’re currently talking about. You can’t trace private property as we currently recognize it further back than a few millennia, and I’d be surprised if it were really recognizable in any society older than five centuries.
There is no natural law under which you own yourself; ask the mouse being eaten by a snake. The snake owns the mouse by virtue of his teeth. Outside of human society, you are no different from a mouse, or the snake or a tree or an amoeba. All life is equal until one individual exerts dominion over another. There is no divine right of self ownership; that is a human construct, just like government, and laws, and the authority to collect taxes. You contrived self ownership as surely as men contrived government.
Private courts by definition will enforce rights only when both sides acknowledge their authority. If person A who uses Court X takes from person B who uses Court Y, how is Court Y going to enforce the property rights of person B? They send a judgment to person A, who tells them to sod off. Is it time to bring out the guns? Court X might bring out theirs too. Then what?
Ever pledge allegiance? That was it. If you don’t like it, scram - something the slaves were not allowed to do.
Of the thousands of societies that there have been, show me one that lasted more than a few years which implemented your ideas.
Practical is the word you missed. As much as we all buy into the concept of self-ownership philosophically, it ain’t worth a hill of beans unless we have someone we can turn to in order to keep from being enslaved.
Modern slave owners keep their slaves hidden, and are arrested and jailed as soon as they are found out. So I think it is fair to say the government stopped it, certainly relative to when slavery was legal. And slaves have never been a part of the “public” that the government served. As soon as all people were part of this public, all people got the right of self ownership, or rather the government acknowledged it.
And if you can’t afford it? Bring on the shackles?
Which applies only if one of these does:
So the exit tax is not on the person leaving, but on his or her money, if large enough. Clearly this is about the expatriation of money, not people.
But interesting - I never have heard about this, though I’m no planning on leaving.
Well, sort of.
However, any government that includes a modern welfare state, by definition, the average citizen has to pay in more than he receives back. This is to pay for those who receive government benefits without paying taxes. If the average citizen gets back more than he pays in, then the system is unsustainable. You can make the tax system progressive, but that only charges a smaller number of citizens a lot more. The average doesn’t change.
Even if you say that you receive a benefit from not seeing people starving in the street, you are still paying for that benefit while the prospective starvers are not.
I am not saying this is immoral. I am just saying that, for a welfare state to work, the average citizen has to accept that he is paying for services which he will probably never need, or at least not use enough of to recover his taxes.
It is like insurance. The insurance company has to collect more in premiums than they pay out in settlements, or else they go out of business. They can borrow, just as governments can run deficits, but they have to collect more than they pay out in the long run, or go under.
Regards,
Shodan
Part of what I get for my money is a stable society, something I wouldn’t have with a severely impoverished (read: starving) underclass. If I value the stability and safety generated by the lack of that underclass at something greater than zero, I can treat that as a service generated by welfare payments.
Indeed–their side of the cultural bargain is to respect the private property rights created by government. In a state of nature, those hungry masses would just hit me over the head and move into my house. Under the Leviathan (I just read a book about Leviathan and plan to use the word until everyone is sick of me 
), I pay part of my income and return get the stultification of property rights, i.e., I get to keep my stuff instead of getting hit over the head.
But even if they didn’t give up anything in return for those services, it wouldn’t change the fact that I’m getting value for my tax dollar.
I agree that it’s like insurance, but I think I’m putting a monetary value on stability. With insurance, what I’m paying for is peace of mind. I’ve paid tens of thousands of dollars more in various insurance formats than I’ve received in insurance claims, but I don’t feel cheated, because I’ve purchased stability. Those taxes of mine that go toward welfare programs purchase similar stability for me. It’s definitely a value-added proposition.
“The majority citizen”* is probably more apt to matter here than “the average citizen.”
But anyway, even the more wealthy citizens who are shouldering the greater tax burden are getting more out of it than they put in–because what they put in pays for upkeep on the very system which allows them to get anything at all. If they and their compatriots didn’t put in what they put in, nobody would be getting anything.
It’s not like simply divying up the contents of a pot everyone contributed to. It’s more like divying up the fruits of a plant everyone labored on. Some people get a higher fruit-to-labor ratio than others. But the total fruit return is greater than the mere sum of the labor put into it. And if the big contributors hadn’t contributed, then there would be no fruit to divy up in the first place. And everybody needs fruit.
*“Mode citizen”? “Modal citizen”? I don’t know. You know what I mean.
Unless you believe that those non-taxpayers are more productive and contribute more to society as a result of the services and funds they receive. Left Hand of Dorkness talked about “good value” for taxes paid, and you seem to have equated that with the dollar amount of taxes paid. They’re not the same thing.
Also I realize I made it sound like I’m paying poor people not to kill me. There’s a piece of that, sure. But there’s something else I pay for, which is being able to live in a society that respects the inherent dignity of all its members. This is, like interstates, not something I can accomplish individually; rather, feeding the hungry and sheltering the homeless and educating children is IMO best accomplished communally, via taxes.
Property rights are fantastic for most things. But they have the side-effect of starving people to death in some cases, and taxes help ameliorate that side effect. That’s worth paying for.
Not by fiat. The government decides through the elections of the people who would take what and how much. If you don’t like it, your recourse is to get more people than your opposition to agree with you and vote that way. That makes it legitimate. As for morality, I don’t believe in it
That is irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. Don’t get off track on a non-sequitor. I want you to respond to my assertion that without a government, you cannot have private property because what you have will simply be taken from you by more powerful people
Read Ayn Rand’s essays on government. They should be convincing.
She’s coming from your point of view, that individual rights are paramount. But she acknowledges that for individual rights to exist at all, there has to be a sole arbiter of coercive force. In other words, without any enforcement system, there are no liberties, but rather anarchy where might means right.
So, the government has to be the sole arbiter of coercive force, to provide defense against assault, protection from criminals, and a court system to help enforce agreements.
These things cost money, and taxes must be levied to support them. In Rand’s view, these are the only valid purposes of government. I disagree with her on that, but it’s beside the point here.
It all depends on how you value immaterial benefits. The top 1%, say, certainly pay more than they get in obvious return, but how does one value bank bailouts which might have saved them quite a lot?
Insurance is an interesting case, which we teach, since it is relevant to an economic evaluation of the kinds of things we do. Clearly insurance has a greater value than just getting money, or not so many people would buy term life policies. The value of insurance which you don’t directly benefit from is roughly the payout if you did get money times the probability that it will happen. There is also the psychic benefit of knowing your loved ones will get something, which is why single people with no heirs are not a good customer of term life. We might be able to figure out something similar for the government, with some of the benefit being the cost of unrest times the probability of it - avoiding unrest certainly has value.
I can look up the insurance equations if anyone cares. My daughter the economist presents that part of the class.
We have friends who live in Venezuela. He’s a professor. You do not leave your apartment there without arranging for a guard, otherwise your stuff will be gone. So to some extent we might be paying the poor not to steal from us, and certainly we are paying for police to keep crime under control.