Why should I define it? You’re the one who’s asserting it as a universal norm.
But can we agree that, without defining it, we are likely to recognise it when we see it?
Aboriginal Australian societies have little or no concept of private property, but they have authority structures that enforce rules, settle disputes, etc.
This doesn’t make any sense. The thought experiment asks whether A can exist prior to B. If that is only true now, then what does the word “prior” mean?
In a society that has no concept of property, why would any government need taxation?
Because you’re the one asserting there are societies that function without private property.
No. You’ve stated in another thread that you think private property only exists insofar as society claims it does. I claim it is a universal right. Hard to square those two views.
One, I reject that idea that this “prior” state of affairs actually existed.
Two, we’re not talking about some abstract hunger gather society that may or may not have existed the way Western anthropology says it did.
We’re talking about the type of government you, I, and everybody else on this board live under. I’m from the US. At no point has the US government existed without taxation. I know of no other modern government that exists without taxation.
The view that property predates government should be totally non-objectionable. Mainly because it’s true. Also, saying as much doesn’t make the government illegitimate. It only means it is dependent on property.
Where there is no conception of property, there is no need of government.
Please explain how a government can exist without material support. If you concede that a government does in fact need material support to exist, please explain where it obtains this support if not from taxation.
And after you explain all of the above, you’ll have to realize that you can make abstractions all day long. That doesn’t change the fact that we all live under a government that subsists on taxation.
Stop, stop, stop. At least one of us is getting confused.
Back in post 96, you say that property rights precede government, and you point out that governments can’t begin to tax unless there is property that can be taxed. But now reject the idea that this prior state of affairs - property existing before being taxed - ever existed.
And then you say that my argument relies on “some abstract hunter gatherer society”. In the first place, if your own argument appeals to a state of affairs that you deny existed, how can you object to other arguments as “abstract”? In the second place, hunter-gatherer societies aren’t abstract. They exist. They have been observed and described.
We can look at indigenous Australian societies which are real, which exist, which have been observed and described (though few of them survive today). They have no concept of private property. They have well developed rules about who can make use of things that in other societies are considered property (land, water and other natural resources, fabricated goods), who can assert possession of things and for what purpose and for how long, what they can use them for, but they have no concept of “ownership”, and no “bundle of rights” that corresponds to what we call ownership.
And they have governments - they have authority structures and mechanisms to enforce these rules, to arbitrate disputes, etc.
This is a completely different claim from the one you were making earlier, right? All you’re saying here is that there exist governments of a type which could not exist if the concept of private property did not also exist. That’s true, but it does nothing to establish private property as a fundamental natural right, since nature would not be offended or contravened if governments of that type did not exist.
There certainly is, since you can have conflicts of interests and threats to social order which are not about property.
Well, even in a society in which property does exist, a government could obviously derive resources from its own property, without the need to tax others. The government could be wealthy, in other words. (In fact, I’d hazard a guess that one of the ways in which governments evolve in primitive societies is through already well-resourced individuals offering protection and material resources to less happily-circumstanced individuals in return for their loyalty and support, rather than in return for any financial contribution.)
And, of course, in a society which doesn’t recognise property, governments by definition neither have nor need property. I don’t see that you need property to make laws or resolve disputes, for example; you just need acceptance of your moral/tribal/divine/whatever authority to do so, and a willingness on the part of the community to co-operate in enforcing your laws and judgments without being paid to do so.
I have never disputed this, and I think it’s irrelevant to the argument you are trying to make. Lots of things exist without it being a fundamental law of nature that they must exist; why should modern governments not be one of them?
You are stubborn. (Did you read the Atlantic article? I didn’t think so — it’s a splendid feeling to already know the answers. )
Point by point:
Some restaurants add on 15% service charge and another 8% tax. Do you think one is coercive and the other not? I can choose not to buy gas for my car and be inconvenienced by being stranded on the highway. I can choose not to file 1040 form and be inconvenienced by letters from the IRS.
But that doesn’t matter. Some coerced spending is productive; some isn’t. Some uncoerced spending is productive, some isn’t. Do you need examples? (Oh, I forgot — you’re the one arguing that the Highway System represented no “wealth” or something.)
What I do or do not “have an issue with” is irrelevant to this thread.
Yes, and the reason Somalia failed was that it lacked government. Are you just pretending to be so [looks at mod] sub-optimal intellectually?
UIAM, Saudi citizens pay no income tax, no sales tax, and no real estate tax. For centuries the Kings of England had no income except rents and rent-like voluntary fees.
But these exceptions are irrelevant. Because your point is irrelevant, Government gets money from taxes. Pepsico gets money from soft drink sales. The sky is blue. Whippee.
They’re far weaker in the US than in Mexico, so our government is generally far more effective, if still not perfect. Without our government, such organizations would be much, much more powerful, and kill far more people.
I’m making certain assumptions – when I say “effective government”, I’m assuming that they are working to serve the people of their country at large. OPEC governments seem to be working to serve the rich and powerful of their country – they’re probably effective at that, but not so effective at serving the needs of their people.
This is silly. No highway system has ever been built without government intervention. The proof is in the utter lack of action in over 10,000 years of human history.
I did not say that the profit motive was insufficient, I said that mere profit motive is insufficient to provide the funds to do it. No person or private organization has ever had the funds required to build such a system. Floating bonds (the only way the earliest “private” projects were undertaken) still required government support to be feasible, since the return on investment was measured in decades, not years.
Name any wealthy person or syndicate that could have funded any canal, railroad, or highway system.
No. The one dodging is you. There was active opposition to the intervention government in the construction of railroads or canals in the South. Such modes of transportation would have increased the wealth of the South by making it easier and faster to get their products to Europe, yet they chose to ignore such opportunities, based on their philosophy.
This is silly. Of course it is a control. The claim is not that the mere existence of government causes specific things to happen. The claim is that major transportation systems cannot be built without government intervention. The two sections of the same nation where government assistance was offered and withheld demonstrated that to the extent that such assistance was withheld, such systems did not grow.
So your idea of a control is to demand that an impossible act be the standard by which your own position be judged.
:rolleyes:
Regardless of the economic model, (which I never claimed was identical), the South hindered its own wealth and development by inhibiting government intervention in the development of transportation systems. Saying that the North was industrial, (thus ignoring the overwhelming regions of Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota that were agricultural) does not change the fact that the South could have increased its own wealth by the construction of a transportation system. All that cotton and tobacco had to be moved away from the lands on which they were grown to be sold in Europe. The South did not grab a couple million slaves and march them out towing wagons along unimproved roads to ports, thus making a transportation system unnecessary.
Thank you! I think you put that more kindly & more succinctly than I would have.
The government can take over most of what we might expect to be private sector functions, although in some cases it shouldn’t to avoid conflicts of interest, and in some cultures it may be less innovative.
Sectors like social work, courts, regulation, environmental protection, and scientific research and development are naturally going to be funded by the government or by monopolies that are nigh unto government bodies. I know there are public-private-partnerships that employ social workers, but I can’t see that arising in an idealized free market. The competitive private sector can’t do big R&D without government funding and be a competitive private sector. And privatizing law is, well, multiple kinds of problematic absent some “private” company being made the government.
It’s hard to say that private sector enterprise is anywhere near as important or vital as public sector enterprise, but in some cases, again, it may be good that it exists strictly to avoid conflicts of interest.
)