Listener Michael suggested this topic today and it seems like the 20 min went by too fast. Michael presented the idea that forced taxation makes the government the aggressor in a less than moral scenario. I presented the argument that we all benefit from the shared burden of taxation, and loath the idea of every living under the “protection” of a privatized police department or military force.
It’s a great discussion to have outside of heated issue-centric disagreements. Michael, if you’re out there, this post is a chance to continue the discussion online.
This is a great topic, Thanks Michael!
And Jason, I cannot believe that we are about to agree on an issue, even if we agree just a little. This has not happened in so long!
To begin I have to disagree with Michael’s notion that all taxation is bad. Without any taxation the entire system of government falls apart. In fact it could be said that taxation is the life blood of government. That said simply arguing that taxation unto it’s self isn’t evil does not mean that it cannot become evil when abused. A modest tax to provide basic security in life is actually a good thing. Without it, the government collapses and we would end up a lot like Iraq following the invasion or Somalia today.
That said, too much tax can also be a bad thing. If for example the tax rate reaches 100% then are by all definition a SLAVE! No that isn’t an exaggeration. Having the government take everything you make then dole out the necessities to keep you alive makes you a slave. Thus the bigger we make government and the more we take from people the closer we drive them into slavery.
The question is, can we reach a middle ground? Many years ago I proposed a Tax Cap where no single individual could be expected to pay over a certain percentage in overall taxes. Now when I say overall, I mean all taxes and fees that go to the government. This even includes the extra little charges on your cell phone bill.
You should check it out if you like the idea. I’ve also put together a proposal for a Voluntary Tax for nonessential programs where liberals can open their generous pocket books all day long if they like and give a boost to every special program they like.
I personally believe that 30% of a person’s income to the government is plenty! I’m curious where everyone else would put it. 10%? Maybe 50%? Is there a single person here that believes a 100% tax should be allowed under our form of government?
30% Tax Cap May Be Best Reform
The Voluntary Tax
Thanks for the opportunity, Jason. Thanks to all of you for allowing the issue to come up on the show, I just wish I could be there rather than trying to drive or cook dinner and talk political philosophy at the same time! Bring me on your show sometime, I would love that.
Anyway… there are a few issues that came up that I wanted to address or continue to address. Firstly, I wanted to explain the place where I come from on this. I believe in approaching politics and philosophy from a principled standpoint, and when you’re going on principle, it’s important to know what those principles are. I value the principles of liberty and equality which lead me to the further principle of non-aggression. Forced taxation violates all of these principles, so I can’t get behind it to any degree without feeling compromised and downright dirty.
Secondly, my ideological preference would be a completely free market system without taxation, but I see progress in every in-between step in that direction, so I don’t consider myself a hard-liner. Basically, I am willing to compromise to the extent that progress toward the ultimate goal of liberty and equality is made.
I want to address the very commonplace fear of privatization of government services, but first, I want to return to the core argument again. You acknowledged the aggression of the government last night, and brought up the notion that we all benefit from “the shared burden of taxation”. That, to me, reads as an argument that the ends justify the means and that you value ease of life and safety over liberty and equality. Far be it for me to try to convince you that your values are not as good as mine, but I can certainly argue that both ease of life and safety would be fulfilled just as well or better under a free market system, and my values of liberty and equality would be fulfilled as well, which creates a better scenario both for the people that identify with your value set AND those that identify with mine. Would you agree that allowing everyone to have the government they want is better than forcing some to obey, under threat of aggression, the divided will of the majority?
I know the argument FOR forced taxation, and it is a good one – certainly much can be done by pooling resources. However, I don’t believe that it’s necessary, progressive, or morally acceptable to force people to pay into anything. Not necessary because people will always pay money for the things they want as long as they feel like they are getting their money’s worth. Not progressive because force creates resentment and a system based on forced payment has no real incentive to improve itself. Not morally acceptable because unwarranted aggression is wrong, anything but a flat tax rate is unequal treatment, and not everyone paying into the myriad agencies and offices of government feel like they are getting their money’s worth.
Now, let’s look at services like the police force, military, and fire. The system we have now functions, essentially, by an agency saying “We are your police force. You pay us to protect you.” The only difference in a privatized option, which services exist successfully already all over the world and in our own country, is that they say “We are your police force. You pay us to protect you.” and you get to say “yes” or “no”, which means that their level of service has to meet your expectations. Imagine having the ability to fire your police service when they get too abusive or when they aren’t keeping you safe enough. As it is, no police officer anywhere has an obligation to protect you beyond that which they construct for themselves as a personal goal. The same is true of the fire service and the US Military.
I have more to say, but I’ll have to jump back to it later…
@Richard Okelberry
Michael,
You make some very good points by I find much of it purely hypothetical. I have a tendency to try and approach the current problems in society from a sensible angle and propose changes to our system that will both be palatable to our current system and effective.
I just can’t get past several flaws in your idea of a completely privatized government. Let’s take police for example. How many police forces would we end up having and who would ultimately be made responsible for policing these forces. Let’s say one police force breaks the law and kills a suspect in a raid who has a completely different force for hire. Would the second force then seek “legal” retribution for the killing? If they then broke the law, would a feud follow? Would we also hire our judges so that we could have people in place to give beneficial rulings when needed? I mean if they don’t do the job we want the way we want it we could fire them right?
I fear that ultimately we would end up with a warlord system of government like in Somalia where those with the greatest resources can hire the biggest and toughest brutes to enforce their agenda. I keep bringing up Somalia because no-place on earth at the moment is a greater expression of complete survival of the fittest free market anarchy. In fact, free markets without any constraints seem instead to defeat liberty and freedoms because liberty and freedoms require enforceable protections. (Jason must be gitty at seeing me write that line)
What you propose will not lead to more liberty and freedom but instead to greater servitude. We also have the feudal system as an example in history of how private ownership of everything ultimately causes huge monopolies to form where all the wealth is centrally controlled and even people end up become property.
Our system is the best of both worlds. We use the advantages of free markets while maintaining true competition through anti-trust regulations. Unfortunately, only a centralized government independent from the free-mark can enforce anti-trust regulations. Privatizing these enforcement powers will only lead more quickly to huge monopolies that control every aspect of every person’s life. The end result would be a nation devoid of true freedom and liberty and dominated by modern Lords, Barons and Kings.
As stewards of this government, we all must ensure that our taxes do not end up enslaving us. Still we must recognize that the funding of our government is necessary to maintain the very freedoms we hold dear. When I joined the military, I sold myself as property to the Federal Government and temporarily gave up many of my freedoms and rights to ensure that our freedoms would remain protected. Freedom and liberty do not come without cost and taxation is simply one of those costs.
I may be a cliché’ but “Freedom isn’t Free” and it certainly isn’t guaranteed even by God! It must be earned and it must be paid for.
Great subject though, Michael!
@Richard Okelberry
– “If for example the tax rate reaches 100% then are by all definition a SLAVE!”
That seems arbitrary. What about 99% ? 95% ? What about 80% or 70% or 60% ? Where do you draw the line? At what point do you, personally, say “Now THERE is an acceptable amount of forced slavery!” and throw out a great big thumbs up? Or are you suggesting that it’s okay as long as the slave master takes pretty good care of you and lets you keep some of your money?
– “You make some very good points by I find much of it purely hypothetical.”
That’s because I’m hoping for something better than we’ve ever seen before in this country. The Obama supporters out there should be familiar with the concept (and ONLY the concept) of Hope and Change*.
* – “Hope” and “Change” are registered trademarks of Barack Obama.
– “I have a tendency to try and approach the current problems in society from a sensible angle and propose changes to our system that will both be palatable to our current system and effective.”
I have a tendency to find out where I should be headed before I head out so that I know wether I’m on the right path, even if people around me want to lead us astray because they would rather be acceptable than challenge others and help change their minds.
Cheek aside, I really don’t mind if people have trouble wrapping their minds around the concept of how liberty works; I still prefer to advocate appropriate principles rather than pandering to popular opinion, and I’ve seen many many people come to understand the viability of a free market over time.
– “Let’s take police for example… (etc)”
I’m glad you brought it up. You see, I know that the mind can get befuddled in dealing with the notion of free market justice and the like – I resisted the idea for a long time myself before finally coming to understand a few things. It helps to be able to approach the issue pragmatically, and it also helps to compare these ideas to what we have now.
You raise a few very common points here that I will address.
– “How many police forces would we end up having and who would ultimately be made responsible for policing these forces.”
How many do we have now? My guess is that we’d have only slightly fewer, many probably falling under the operational purview of a business-like hierarchy, like franchise businesses under corporate scrutiny. Who would “police” them? We would – the neighborhood or city coalitions that we would form to collect and distribute payment for our local police or the business groups that hired for their commercial district would be the direct source of funding for whichever police agency could deliver the best service for the best price, which means the free-market police would actually be much more answerable to those they’re contracted to protect than the virtually untouchable network of politically-tied, tax-funded police we have now. As it is now, the police have no legal obligation to protect you. This has been ruled on in the supreme court numerous times. The added bonus is that a free-market system would guarantee that police would go back to their original function, which was to protect and serve – a model that has long since been deviated from in many districts across the country.
To be clear, I have nothing against law enforcement officers in general, and I certainly believe that much our local law enforcement may very well be some of the best in the world, but the incentives and motives are not always what they aught to be, even here. I’ve been in a unique position to come into contact with some traffic patrol officers that, for example, spoke of the merits of low-profile light bars and non-reflective decals because they made it easier for them to hide from speeders. The goal is obviously not to keep people from speeding, but to CATCH them speeding, which doesn’t promote safety or protection at all. It does, however, increase the revenue for the city, so any city official would be hard pressed to find support in correcting such attitudes. Again, these are not bad people (quite the opposite, mostly) it’s just a bad system, one that would easily be beaten out in a free market.
– “Let’s say one police force breaks the law and kills a suspect in a raid who has a completely different force for hire. Would the second force then seek “legal” retribution for the killing?”
This seems like a far-fetched scenario for many reasons. It would be in each force’s best interests to work closely with each of the others, and certainly each force would have jurisdiction over its own contracted zone, so if a raid was done (which would be unnecessary anyway) then it would be done by that area’s bureau. Unless you’re talking about an individual who hires people to protect him or her personally at all costs, in which case you’re talking about body guards, and the scenario would be much the same as we would see today, I’m sure. As far as seeking legal recourse, there would be no real change.
– “Would we also hire our judges so that we could have people in place to give beneficial rulings when needed? I mean if they don’t do the job we want the way we want it we could fire them right?”
Nobody would opt for a system like that, that’s absurd. Again, free-market justice would be pretty much the same as we have now, only there would be much more transparency and accountability and nobody would be forced to pay for it. If I had enough evidence against someone to go to trial, for example, I would hire my lawyer, he would hire his, and our lawyers would agree on an objective, third-party, private arbiter. In a free market system, the more objective, holistic, pragmatic and fair an arbiter would be, the more successful and prominent they would be.
– “I fear that ultimately we would end up with a warlord system of government like in Somalia where those with the greatest resources can hire the biggest and toughest brutes to enforce their agenda.”
That’s ridiculous in the extreme. You end up in that scenario through poverty and ignorance. Freer markets are more conducive to abundant wealth and a focus on higher education. Do you really believe that the only thing standing between life as we know it and Somalian-style warlord rule and chaos are a relative handfull of bureaucrats? Where do you think the power and stability of our country comes from? Who do you think makes our country what is on a day-to-day level? It’s all of us, the citizens, acting in our own best interests that give this country it’s greatness because ours was the first built up on the realization that it’s the people who give power to their government, not the other way around.
– “I keep bringing up Somalia because no-place on earth at the moment is a greater expression of complete survival of the fittest free market anarchy.”
Somalia, with it’s history, has got to be the furthest reach for an example that you could possibly have come up with. Sure, maybe if we continue on a course to completely bankrupt the majority of the citizenry in our country we could begin to make the comparison, but we’re not exactly looking at comparable scenarios. Let’s not get completely nuts trying to support our points, Rich.
– “In fact, free markets without any constraints seem instead to defeat liberty and freedoms because liberty and freedoms require enforceable protections.”
Make a case for this that I can address – I can’t even begin to see where you get this notion from.
– “What you propose will not lead to more liberty and freedom but instead to greater servitude. We also have the feudal system as an example in history of how private ownership of everything ultimately causes huge monopolies to form where all the wealth is centrally controlled and even people end up become property.”
How many dirt-poor examples can you reach for at a time? To compare the well-educated, relatively wealthy Americans of today to the feudal serfs of ancient Europe is preposterous, and if this is what you have to do to convince yourself that freedom is bad, you aught to take another look. Even the serfs rebelled, so you’d NEVER see such a system in a free market. You’d be better off comparing the feudal system to the government we have now: we all work the land, forced to pay homage to our masters who grow rich and fat off of our labor in exchange for military protection because THEY call a monopoly on force.
Besides, you would never see a monopoly in a free market – it’s a myth that they would or even could exist without governmental interference into the market.
– “As stewards of this government, we all must ensure that our taxes do not end up enslaving us. Still we must recognize that the funding of our government is necessary to maintain the very freedoms we hold dear.”
Prove it. Those words are emptier than a donut box at fat camp.
– “I may be a cliché’ but “Freedom isn’t Free” and it certainly isn’t guaranteed even by God! It must be earned and it must be paid for.”
Of course freedom is free – it’s the natural state of being in our universe. Freedom is free like air is free. I think what you mean to say is “if you want to stay alive, sometimes you have to defend yourself” which is what most people mean when they say “freedom isn’t free”. But life and freedom are not the same.
Freedom is not only free, but it’s unavoidable – we all do everything we do because we want to. When I advocate “freedom” or “liberty”, I’m talking about re-instituting the acknowledgement of the nature of freedom into our ideas of governance. What I want is for people to be able to do as they please, as long as they aren’t harming anyone else, and justice for those who are harmed. That’s an acknowledgement of freedom. Anything else contrary to the way we were created and doomed to failure.
This is an awesome discussion, even at 1:30 in the morning! Thanks Rich!
Whoa… Mike’s principles are cool. Can I have one?
It sounds like only the people that can pay for protection and justice will get it, and that those with greater resources will have greater supply of both than those of limited means.
I would like to know how a completely free market of services such as law enforcement would actually benefit everyone. It seems that laws would be written by those that can pay for them, enforced for those that are the “police company’s” biggest “investors” with no way to directly answer to the general populace that would only be capable of funding a fraction of their operation (considering the current distribution of wealth).
It would simply be replacing our current government with a board of investors, and I don’t see much of a positive difference that would promote freedom more than the system we currently have.
But it is interesting to bounce theories and principles like this back and forth. Do we have a good example from anywhere that would show that free-market utopia protecting liberty equally could actually be a reality?
“Who would “police” them? We would – the neighborhood or city coalitions that we would form to collect and distribute payment for our local police or the business groups that hired for their commercial district would be the direct source of funding for whichever police agency could deliver the best service for the best price,”
You are making the assumption that everyone in a specific district will contract with one specific police force. Isn’t that antithetical to your argument about individual choice and freedom in a free-market? How is this truly much different than what we have now? At least now we attempt to gain sworn allegiances to the law in an effort to support justice. Would those allegiances be replaced by the bottom line in the profit and loss margin? Shouldn’t my next door neighbor be able to contract with whichever police force she desires, independent of my decision? Sounds to me that what you are advocating is a charter system much like we have with the phone system, cable system and power distribution only this charter will involve hiring what can only be called mercenaries. Where is the freedom in that?
I agree with you that it is best for government to contract with private industry as much as possible to provide infrastructure needs, but certain aspects of government like law enforcement simply can not go that route because it adds layers of conflicts of interests that is contrary to what we would consider the enforcement of justice.
This conversation reminds me of the last on-air discussion that I had with Ryan Yonk. The discussion began with a debate over the value of Block Rate billing for water. I argued that the system essentially was a form of rationing that gave more of a shared resource to smaller households and punished homes with large families. The conversation eventually turned towards a discussion about libertarianism with Ryan arguing for the privatization of almost everything like our public parks. I then responded by asking; why not also privatize or roads?
Can you imagine a system where everyone’s property abuts each other and all roads between places are private? Can you imagine the disaster of having to negotiate permission to constantly cross all you neighbor’s private property with one person charging one toll and another charging something different just to get to the store? Isn’t this where true libertarianism ultimately leads; to little or no ownership of public resources?
“Do you really believe that the only thing standing between life as we know it and Somalian-style warlord rule and chaos are a relative handfull of bureaucrats? Where do you think the power and stability of our country comes from? Who do you think makes our country what is on a day-to-day level?… …To compare the well-educated, relatively wealthy Americans of today to the feudal serfs of ancient Europe is preposterous, and if this is what you have to do to convince yourself that freedom is bad, you aught to take another look.”
Do you count the individuals who refused to vacate New Orleans prior to Katrina, then pillaged the purveyors of our free market among those relatively wealthy and well educated Americans that are holding our Democratic system together? The dirty little secret is that every nation, regardless of its lofty status is only one small step from mob rule. If you truly believe that we are impervious to mob rule then perhaps you have been living the comfy life style here in America for too long. I have visited 11 countries in my lifetime and even the most advanced among them, Brazil, illustrated to me all to clearly that corruption and living on the brink of mass disorder is far more commonly experienced by the human race than what we would consider “normal.”
It seems that you and I have a completely different take on Liberty and Freedom. I have often here talked about Economic Darwinism, the concept that free-markets are merely an expression of the natural world. This means that our free-market system is not a human construct but a natural order governed by empirical natural laws and equations, much like an ecosystem. I have also spoken about how free-markets are one of the most natural expressions of freedom even though these two concepts seem to be at odds with each other. After all, if we are bound by a system much like we are bound by the laws of physics, where then is our freedom? You make the argument that freedom is the natural human state that is conveyed without effort. I instead will argue instead that all the efforts of the universe seek to bind us and that freedom must be sought and taken when necessary. Your example of the rebellion of the serfs is a perfect example of this.
Consider for a moment how my body is constantly sliding along a curve in space towards the earth. With little effort I can fight the slide with relatively little effort by gathering food for energy that powers my legs and allows me to stand “free” from the bonds of gravity. Now if I decide that I would like even more freedom and desire to fly like the birds, I must dedicate considerably more effort to developing and apparatus that will take my on it’s back into the sky. If I truly were free, shouldn’t I be able to take flight simply by willing it?
Let me give you a broader example of the “natural” human state by asking a basic question: How many people in the world currently live in a system afford the type of freedom that you are preaching? NONE! If your form of freedom was truly part of the natural condition, it would be the most common condition for the majority.
We as humans need to recognize that even with all of our technology and collective reasoning; we are still bound by the animal kingdom. This is a kingdom that dictates that we will each always be threatened by and thus subject to those things that want to eat us. I will argue that our current government has served as the best defense against those forces and provides us with the greatest approximation to true liberty that the world has seen. Even then, those liberties certainly have been bought and paid for, often with the literal flesh of those who would rise to protect them. Comparatively, I find handing over a bit of labor in the form of taxes to ward off the natural state of mass authoritarianism and slavery an acceptable cost to bear.
It really is nice to see some strong discussion in politics and political philosophy back here at FTP. Thank you Michael. Tyler would do good to have you in as a guest-co-host when he needs fill-ins.
I look forward to your response.
- “It sounds like only the people that can pay for protection and justice will get it, and that those with greater resources will have greater supply of both than those of limited means.”
Just like how only rich people can afford TV’s right? Or how there are people starving in the streets because evil corporations control most of the wealth so they keep buying up all of the groceries…
Just lend a couple of brain cells to the idea, honestly.
– “I would like to know how a completely free market of services such as law enforcement would actually benefit everyone. It seems that laws would be written by those that can pay for them, enforced for those that are the “police company’s” biggest “investors” with no way to directly answer to the general populace that would only be capable of funding a fraction of their operation (considering the current distribution of wealth).”
The benefits come in all of the ways that I have already described, plus several more. A free market system would have to go by a general law of non-aggression and the interpretation of events specific to each case, which is only different from our current system in that it would be much harder to try a case based on previous ruling, which I think would be better anyway – after all, free market arbitration could meet whatever demand existed, and people would want to be sure they got their money’s worth, so expediency is no longer such an enormous issue.
As to police agencies catering to their investors, you may see that to a degree, just as police agencies cater to certain groups now, but I bet it would rarely be an issue because the more you focus your revenue stream on one or two clients, the smaller your jurisdiction becomes and the less service you can provide. If, for example, a certain wealthy family wants to have a crooked police agency for themselves and the agency allows itself to be manipulated into doing the family’s bidding, then they would very quickly lose all of their other clients, and soon their only jurisdiction would be the family’s property, making them little more than security guards. What’s so frightening about that?
Private police agencies would almost HAVE to be funded by consumer groups like neighborhoods or cities because otherwise the costs per person would be too prohibitive. That, or they could be funded by property owners, like in large subdivisions, and could be offered as incentive to move in. There are a lot of options, which is good. Let’s not forget that monopolies are bad, even government monopolies, and the same principle applies to traditionally government-provided services.
– “It would simply be replacing our current government with a board of investors, and I don’t see much of a positive difference that would promote freedom more than the system we currently have.”
Because there would be millions of boards of investors in millions of different industries, and you could belong to any of them that you chose. That’s what freedom is – you do what you choose to, and are allowed to continue to do so unless you harm or aggress against someone else. You could keep all of your earnings, have true property rights, and you could be sure of real justice.
Why are you so satisfied with what we have now? If a gang of thugs extorted 30% of your income from you as protection money, you’d be outraged. However, if they call themselves by the right name, you seem more than eager enough to go right along with it.
– “Do we have a good example from anywhere that would show that free-market utopia protecting liberty equally could actually be a reality?”
There are plenty of examples of how increased market and personal freedoms begets growth in wealth, education, employment, and all of that goodness, but it’s rare to find instances where people are willing to fully allow their neighbors to do what they want, no matter how much they expect to have such freedom for themselves, so taxation has always been present as far as I know.
That said, our species is still capable of innovation in government in the same way that we are capable of innovation in technology, so I consider this possible. The cynic in me says unlikely, but still possible. Definitely worth educating people about.
@Ty Mortensen
You can borrow mine – I listen to Rush Limbaugh some mornings between 10 and 1, so I’ll have no use for them during that time.
“Just lend a couple of brain cells to the idea, honestly.”
I tried. I guess I am just incapable of believing in a utopia like you describe where it will actually not implode upon itself or evolve into exactly what we have right now with unelected boards that public service organizations will have to answer to before the general populace.
Forgive my intellectual handicap.
“Just like how only rich people can afford TV’s right? Or how there are people starving in the streets because evil corporations control most of the wealth so they keep buying up all of the groceries…”
Nice straw man by the way.
@Richard Okelberry
– “You are making the assumption that everyone in a specific district will contract with one specific police force. Isn’t that antithetical to your argument about individual choice and freedom in a free-market?”
Not in the slightest. I don’t count HOA’s as tyrannical.
– “How is this truly much different than what we have now?”
It’s not that different, except the added benefits of accountability, properly incentivized performance, and freedom of choice certainly put some icing on the cake. Any time you don’t have to steal someone else’s money to get your way, you’re looking at a pretty solid benefit in my opinion.
– “At least now we attempt to gain sworn allegiances to the law in an effort to support justice. Would those allegiances be replaced by the bottom line in the profit and loss margin?”
If one private police force cannot uphold justice, they’ll go out of business and be replaced with the one that can. That’s not frightening, that’s reassuring.
– “Shouldn’t my next door neighbor be able to contract with whichever police force she desires, independent of my decision? ”
Sure, and if she can afford to have her own private police force, she can go right ahead. Much more realistic, though, is the concept of a representative committee working with the people in a community to choose a private police force based on whatever criteria the community dictates and paying through a money-pool. Sounds familiar, right? The difference is, nobody is forced into doing anything. The freedom is lost in the application of force, not in the act of cooperating with others.
– “I agree with you that it is best for government to contract with private industry as much as possible to provide infrastructure needs, but certain aspects of government like law enforcement simply can not go that route because it adds layers of conflicts of interests that is contrary to what we would consider the enforcement of justice.”
The conflict of interest is seeking protection and justice from a monopoly group who is not obliged to provide you with either.
– “Can you imagine a system where everyone’s property abuts each other and all roads between places are private?”
I don’t have to. There are several communities across America where that is already the case, and the system works just fine.
– “Can you imagine the disaster of having to negotiate permission to constantly cross all you neighbor’s private property with one person charging one toll and another charging something different just to get to the store?”
Please. We have an incredibly long history throughout the world to look at to see how private paths and roads would work, and it’s not the outlandish nightmare you suggest.
You seem eager to find something to be afraid of. Don’t be afraid of freedom from taxation, Rich – you’re going to be just fine.
– “Isn’t this where true libertarianism ultimately leads; to little or no ownership of public resources?”
It leads to no forced public ownership, yes. Again, this is not a bad thing.
– “Do you count the individuals who refused to vacate New Orleans prior to Katrina, then pillaged the purveyors of our free market among those relatively wealthy and well educated Americans that are holding our Democratic system together?”
Yes – poor people who break the law are still technically American citizens when they live within our borders, Rich. Upstanding behavior is not a prerequisite to humanity.
– “The dirty little secret is that every nation, regardless of its lofty status is only one small step from mob rule. If you truly believe that we are impervious to mob rule then perhaps you have been living the comfy life style here in America for too long. I have visited 11 countries in my lifetime and even the most advanced among them, Brazil, illustrated to me all to clearly that corruption and living on the brink of mass disorder is far more commonly experienced by the human race than what we would consider “normal.””
Rich, the order that you see around you comes from the intrinsic nature of humanity. The presence or not of government, the type of government, none of it PROVIDES us with order. Even in Somalia, everything is peaceful in the community until the A-Hole warlords come by in their jeeps firing off aging Russian automatic weapons. Chaos and disorder have ALWAYS been the exception to the rule, Rich, not the rule itself. Let’s not get delusional here!
– “After all, if we are bound by a system much like we are bound by the laws of physics, where then is our freedom? (etc, etc, etc).”
I’m talking about freedom from taxation, Rich, not freedom from the laws of physics.
– “If your form of freedom was truly part of the natural condition, it would be the most common condition for the majority.”
So you’re suggesting that nobody in the world is ultimately governed only by themselves? Who is making all of your behavioral decisions for you, Rich?
Societal law is not the same as natural law, or else people could only commit theft or fraud or murder in their dreams.
– “We as humans need to recognize that even with all of our technology and collective reasoning; we are still bound by the animal kingdom. This is a kingdom that dictates that we will each always be threatened by and thus subject to those things that want to eat us. I will argue that our current government has served as the best defense against those forces and provides us with the greatest approximation to true liberty that the world has seen.”
Eww. The “ends justify the means” argument feels even dirtier when you try to call it liberty. This statement shows a lot of fear, Rich. I wouldn’t base my ideology on the wildly unrealistic things I’m afraid of if I were you.
– “Comparatively, I find handing over a bit of labor in the form of taxes to ward off the natural state of mass authoritarianism and slavery an acceptable cost to bear.”
That’s my point – I DO NOT. What right do you have to force your way on me? If you want to be enslaved, I’m not gong to stop you, but please don’t advocate forcing me and my family into slavery along side you and then attempt to assume the moral high ground.
If your system was so great, they wouldn’t have to force it.
– “It really is nice to see some strong discussion in politics and political philosophy back here at FTP. Thank you Michael.”
Thank you, Rich! This is an awesome opportunity for growth. I love it.
@North Logan Tyson
– “I tried. I guess I am just incapable of believing in a utopia like you describe where it will actually not implode upon itself or evolve into exactly what we have right now with unelected boards that public service organizations will have to answer to before the general populace.”
To be honest, I don’t foresee it lasting forever. I think people’s irrational fears would get the best of them and we’d see much the same path taken as we’ve seen in this country since it’s foundation.
Still, it’s worth coming as close as we can possibly get.
– “Forgive my intellectual handicap.”
Forgiven! Seriously, I didn’t mean that as “you’re dumb” so much as “give it some serious thought rather than dismissing it offhand”.
– “Nice straw man by the way.”
It’s the same idea, Tyson. Justice is not a limited resource, nor does it have a concrete cost.
“It’s the same idea, Tyson. Justice is not a limited resource, nor does it have a concrete cost.”
It is limited by those willing to enforce the law, and to whom they are more likely to be beholden to.
One hypothetical: CRAP! Turns out one of the largest funders of our Police force also happens to be a child molester. Without this individual and their wealthy friends, we have to lay off 20 officers. If we don’t arrest this person, we will only lose funding for 3 officers to another agency by the family and friends of the victim. We may have to just give this person a slap on the wrist that will minimize impact on our company image nationwide while preserving one of our primary sources of funding for our local force.
I know there is no perfect hypothetical, but we could go back and forth on this example and point out flaws in each ideological approach, but ultimately, from bottom to top, I feel that a free market approach is not ideal in law enforcement or other public services like infrastructure.
A completely free market is admittedly a hard-sell for me. I am not completely against free market principles, but I am not convinced that they would be the best solution when applied to public services such as police and infrastructure. I guess that my view is an impure form of Free Markets, but I am ok with that right now.
I am interested in the discussion obviously. If I could believe everyone was honest and responsible (or could be guaranteed to be compelled to be so by the free market system), I could probably be easily convinced that a complete free market government would actually work. Sadly I have yet to believe it is the case.
@North Logan Tyson
– “It is limited by those willing to enforce the law, and to whom they are more likely to be beholden to.”
Sure, and if they want to stay in business, they need to be able to provide protection to many different clients. No problem.
– ” CRAP! Turns out one of the largest funders of our Police force also happens to be a child molester. Without this individual and their wealthy friends, we have to lay off 20 officers. If we don’t arrest this person, we will only lose funding for 3 officers to another agency by the family and friends of the victim. We may have to just give this person a slap on the wrist that will minimize impact on our company image nationwide while preserving one of our primary sources of funding for our local force.”
I’d like to see any business who’s field is justice survive in a competitive market with a convicted child-molester within their ranks. No business wants to work with them, nobody trusts them… It would be in the company’s best interest, that of the other 400 employees and their livelihood, to fire him and take him in.
– “I know there is no perfect hypothetical, but we could go back and forth on this example and point out flaws in each ideological approach, but ultimately, from bottom to top, I feel that a free market approach is not ideal in law enforcement or other public services like infrastructure.”
I am going to guess that this is due to fear. Bear in mind that there is absolutely no solution that will eliminate aggression entirely, so the question aught to be which solution deals with that aggression in the best way?
– “I guess that my view is an impure form of Free Markets, but I am ok with that right now.”
At least you see the value in higher levels of freedom within the marketplace. Really, the only call for regulation and government of any kind stems from people’s natural fear and distrust of each other. Ironically, it’s this same tendency coupled with the inherent self-serving nature of humanity that makes the free market approach so reliably successful, because for every psychotic aggressor out there, there are 50,000 normal citizens that won’t put up with his crap.
– “If I could believe everyone was honest and responsible (or could be guaranteed to be compelled to be so by the free market system), I could probably be easily convinced that a complete free market government would actually work. Sadly I have yet to believe it is the case.”
Personally, I think the only thing you can trust the vast majority of people to do is look out for themselves. That’s actually what causes my distaste for the type of government we have now – if people can’t be trusted, why do we keep creating positions of control for them to fight over? It’s ridiculous to assume that dishonest and irresponsible people won’t immediately try to grab as much power as they can, and they have a huge advantage over honest and trustworthy people in vying for those positions because they are willing to lie, cheat, and steal to get them.
This has been a great discussion to follow guys but now I’m moved to weigh in. Listening to the program and reading the comments here I’m stricken once again by the level of simplification required to make the free market – limited government argument.
As a 15 year history school teacher the mere idea of turning over our system for educating our children to a system that would be driven by profit rather than education merits makes me shudder. It is similar to much of what we are hearing in the health care debate where so many are claiming providing an alternative that would be run by “government beauracrats” is so audacious, while not even seeming to realize their current insurance is run by insurance company beauracrats who’s yearly bonus depends on denying you coverage and stopping your claim. It amazes me how so many would be willing to put their livelihood and their children’s future in the hands of a system with the same potential for profit driven abuse that we’ve seen in Iraq with the Blackwater contractors, and they would hand this freedom over readily just so that they could tell their neighbors they are for limited government and hate the tax man more than their peers. It’s mob mentality and it’s not got a lot of thought behind it regarding the realities of what our system of government provides. Consider the disabled man unable to work. Consider the abandonded children shuffled around for profit instead of cared for by a foster home and placement program all funded now by those pesky tax dollars. Consider the veteran wounded in war. You would leave him or her to charity upon return to the states with a hearty “Good luck, at least we’re being libertarian about it all!”? Consider the roads you drive on, the state required safety inspections for motorists you’re surrounded by. Consider the state universities and the FBI. The military and our foreign policy travels. Consider our humanitarian aid to other countries which has played a huge role in stopping the expansion of communism. You would leave all of this to Walmart and Exxon Mobile just so that you can go to sleep at night telling yourself you placed a naive free market ideal above all other realities of the world?
It’s shooting off one’s nose to spite one’s face all for the sake of what amounts to little more than a philosophy not a system for effective governance. No doubt you youngsters will call me elitist for stating as much, but I have seen a lot of the world and this fine country, and very little of it is like Cache Valley Utah, nor ever will be.
I am also a veteran and can’t begin to tell you where I might be now were it not for the VA hospitals and medical care I received, all funded by those evil taxes that are keeping us all down (right?).
While I believe the idea of limited government is a fine principle we should all keep in mind, when it comes to our quality of life and the realities versus the quaint notions that make for good talking points to rally angry voters, we need effective governance, and admit it or not, we need and rely and benefit greatly from the services our government provides. We must accept these benefits with a wary eye and a watch for abuse, but we can’t deny they make America what it is today, which is nothing to be ashamed of.
Well, it is a great contribution, but I disagree.
Firstly, I will acknowledge that I am a mere 25 years old, and I am no educator. Your opinions and points are valid and I feel comfortable assuming that there is a weight of practical experience behind them. That said, I feel comfortable, after some serious reflection, in my near total disagreement. Allow me to explain why:
– “As a 15 year history school teacher the mere idea of turning over our system for educating our children to a system that would be driven by profit rather than education merits makes me shudder.”
More often than not, even the most affordable of private education options outperforms public school. This is the case today, even as the cumbersome, elderly public school system carries the weight of government support funded by stolen money.
– “It is similar to much of what we are hearing in the health care debate where so many are claiming providing an alternative that would be run by “government beauracrats” is so audacious, while not even seeming to realize their current insurance is run by insurance company beauracrats who’s yearly bonus depends on denying you coverage and stopping your claim.”
The difference that makes privatization preferable is that in a private industry, if you don’t do right by your customers, you go out of business. As we have it now, nearly 70% of the money that goes through the health care and health insurance industry comes directly from the government tax coffers, clearly not an example of private business.
– “It amazes me how so many would be willing to put their livelihood and their children’s future in the hands of a system with the same potential for profit driven abuse that we’ve seen in Iraq with the Blackwater contractors…”
Are you referring to the system we have now or the system I propose? It sounds more like the system we have now…
– “…and they would hand this freedom over readily just so that they could tell their neighbors they are for limited government and hate the tax man more than their peers.”
Firstly, there is nothing wrong with handing your freedom over (though I disagree that that would be what would happen), but it is morally reprehensible to take it away from someone else through force, which is what we have happening now. Secondly, I don’t hate any person or group – I believe that people like government employees and tax collectors feel, like everyone else in the world, that they are doing the right thing.
– “It’s mob mentality and it’s not got a lot of thought behind it regarding the realities of what our system of government provides. Consider the disabled man unable to work. Consider the abandonded children shuffled around for profit instead of cared for by a foster home and placement program all funded now by those pesky tax dollars. Consider the veteran wounded in war. You would leave him or her to charity upon return to the states with a hearty “Good luck, at least we’re being libertarian about it all!”? Consider the roads you drive on, the state required safety inspections for motorists you’re surrounded by. Consider the state universities and the FBI. The military and our foreign policy travels. Consider our humanitarian aid to other countries which has played a huge role in stopping the expansion of communism. You would leave all of this to Walmart and Exxon Mobile just so that you can go to sleep at night telling yourself you placed a naive free market ideal above all other realities of the world?”
Being able to sleep with a clear conscience knowing that I have not condoned aggression and bigotry is only part of the benefit of a free market. The other benefits, as I’ve outlined clearly previously in this discussion, are that we could lend accountability, competition, the growth and spread of wealth and prosperity, and integrity to our societal system and our economy. All of the services you tout would have their place in a free market, and they would be much more honest and accessible.
– “It’s shooting off one’s nose to spite one’s face all for the sake of what amounts to little more than a philosophy not a system for effective governance.”
So your argument is that effective governance cannot be achieved without a governing body that aggresses against the people it governs? How would you define “effective governance”?
– “No doubt you youngsters will call me elitist for stating as much, but I have seen a lot of the world and this fine country, and very little of it is like Cache Valley Utah, nor ever will be.”
I can attest to that. I would add, however, that people, in general, are pretty much the same everywhere across all time.
– “I am also a veteran and can’t begin to tell you where I might be now were it not for the VA hospitals and medical care I received, all funded by those evil taxes that are keeping us all down (right?).”
If it weren’t for the VA hospitals, you’d have been in a free clinic or you’d be in debt up to your armpits, I’m sure. The shoddy healthcare system we have now is a product of governmental interference. I sincerely hope that we can fix that some day.
– “…we need and rely and benefit greatly from the services our government provides. We must accept these benefits with a wary eye and a watch for abuse, but we can’t deny they make America what it is today, which is nothing to be ashamed of.”
America’s greatness is a product of her people, not of her politicians. I am in no way ashamed of America – I am ashamed of what we let our political leaders do her name. You owe nothing to the government, you owe it all to the strength of the individuals who have come into contact with you throughout your life. Without taxation, all of those people would still be there, and none of them would live under the tyranny of a burdensome nanny government.
Michael,
It’s time for us to take this debate out of the realm of speculation, unproven theory and anecdotal rhetoric. You say that the idea that uncontrolled free markets ultimately leads to monopolies is a myth. So I challenge you to prove it. I can put before you a simple equation under the laws of Complex Networks that will repeatedly show that monopolies are the inevitable result of free markets without anti-trust safe guards. The effect is called Clustering and can be observed not just in economic systems but all forms of networks from genetics & evolutionary science, cosmology & astrophysics, sociology and most prominently the internet. The science of Complex Networks is so compelling that it can even show that Keynesian Economics is a farce. Unfortunately it also shows that pure free-market systems eventually end up destroying competition as competitors get gobbled up by ever larger conglomerates and wealth steadily gathers under the control of a few.
In fact if we had the science of Complex Networks at the fall of Rome (and a few computers) we could have predicted with almost all certainty the rise of aristocracy through out the Middle Ages given the known variables of the time.
Can you show me a competing mathematical system that supports your claim that monopolies don’t occur in an integrated free-market network?
To be honest I am also a little confused about what your ideal government would look like. Would we still have elected officials or would we simply hire them. Would we do away with our right to vote in favor of voting with our checkbook? This all makes for a good sci-fi novel, but it simply isn’t grounded in reality.
Our founding father smartly designed a democratic government that provided protections for its people and their governing states through a central authority. It has been a topic of great debate, even from this beginning, how much power that central authority, but regardless the authority was established. No government of a civilized society can ever exist without at least a little tyranny. In fact government by definition implies control over a population. What you call theft, I call repayment for services and investment in ownership.
I am quickly beginning to believe that you like many have created a mental construct of what a government is, much like liberals like to do when the demonize corporations by ignoring the fact that a corporation is simply a clustering of individuals through a pooling of wealth. Governments around the world can be many things. Many are nothing more than landlords, Kings and possessors of their people. Our system is, at least for now, different. Rather than the way it is under Socialism/Communism we are owners by birth right of our government and nation.
Like owning a condo or timeshare this ownership while very valuable comes with some responsibility for its upkeep. Have some of the owners decided to abuse the need to pay these dues and in many cases required far more than is necessary? Yes, absolutely. Still, regardless of that fact you are responsible for a portion in this ownership of this democracy.
Of course as with the ownership of anything we can all decide to simple abdicate our portion to the other owners by giving up all rights to title. We call it renouncing citizenship; at which point you will experience the greatest expression of freedom in the world, Anarchy. It is truly that easy to find pure freedom. Of course even that comes with a price. You also give up ALL the basic protections of civilized society.
Finally, I have to address this last statement,
“Rich, the order that you see around you comes from the intrinsic nature of humanity. The presence or not of government, the type of government, none of it PROVIDES us with order. Even in Somalia, everything is peaceful in the community until the A-Hole warlords come by in their jeeps firing off aging Russian automatic weapons. Chaos and disorder have ALWAYS been the exception to the rule, Rich, not the rule itself. Let’s not get delusional here!”
You absolutely could not be more wrong with this statement. I promise you with all certainty that the natural disposition of humanity is not to sit around in a moral love fest hugging each other. Our natural inclination is to gather into tribes for protection, then compete even violently against other tribes for valuable resources so that we may pass on our genetic code to future generations. It may sound harsh and lacking idealism but it is a cold reality shared by the far majority of the scientific community.
Some religions call this the sinful nature of man. Scientists call it Sociobiology and believe that even unselfish acts of altruism are nothing more than a part of a species survival strategy that is engrained in its genes. The flight or fight response is a perfect example of such engraining.
Here are a couple quick Wikipedia links to Complex Networks and Sociobiology. I can give you more information on each subject if you like.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociobiology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_Networks
Pay particular attention to the section on Small-World Networks and be sure to following the link on the Clustering Coefficient which perfectly predicts the occurrence of monopolies in pure free-market systems.
Sorry this one was so long. (I seriously think KVNU should bring you on part time or as a fill in. It’s been too long since we have had a good libertarian in the discussion. While I often disagreed with Ryan Yonk he certainly could put up a good argument for it.)
BTW: I am a disable veteran and contrary to popular belief, veterans have earned their medical benefits just as any other pension and compensation package that someone might earn in the private sector. What is not a myth is the fact that it is absolutely the worse form of medical coverage available in the U.S. and is a perfect example of the failures of Socialized Medicine. I really would love to ask Obama if those covered under his new Single Payer plan will receive better, the same or worse treatment than or veterans at the hands of the “Administration.” If our government cannot provide for those few veterans who have TRULY paid for their benefits, how can it ever expect to provide acceptable coverage to 60% or 70% of the nation?
@Richard Okelberry
Thanks for the links, Rich! The complex networking stuff is pretty fascinating. I’m definitely going to look it over more. Seems similar to the chaos theory behavioral stuff I got into a few years ago.
Anyway…
– “It’s time for us to take this debate out of the realm of speculation, unproven theory and anecdotal rhetoric.”
… and into the realm of mathematical theory? That’s fine. It’s no more reliable than speculation, unproven theory and anecdotal rhetoric, but we can certainly “go there”, as it were.
– “You say that the idea that uncontrolled free markets ultimately leads to monopolies is a myth.”
Yes, I did and yes, it is.
– “So I challenge you to prove it.”
Find me a free-market monopoly. Go ahead, I’ll wait… In fact, I challenge you to find some examples from the semi-free market we’ve had in this country, and I’ll show you how they are always propped up or created by governmental intervention.
The only way to achieve a monopoly in a free market is to provide the best perceived value for the lowest perceived cost consistently to your customers. If you can do that, then you DESERVE to be a monopoly, and there’s no harm in it. The second you start to attempt price gouging or sacrificing quality, you open yourself up to competition, and it won’t take long for a few new businesses to take up that mantle. More realistically, however, you’ll never see a business or product that is all things to all people, so you’ll always see competition.
– ” I can put before you a simple equation under the laws of Complex Networks that will repeatedly show that monopolies are the inevitable result of free markets without anti-trust safe guards. The effect is called Clustering and can be observed not just in economic systems but all forms of networks from genetics & evolutionary science, cosmology & astrophysics, sociology and most prominently the internet. The science of Complex Networks is so compelling that it can even show that Keynesian Economics is a farce. Unfortunately it also shows that pure free-market systems eventually end up destroying competition as competitors get gobbled up by ever larger conglomerates and wealth steadily gathers under the control of a few.”
Dots on a screen do not translate genuine social behavior, especially in the context of a global economy. Complex Networks, from what I read in the wiki article you linked to, attempt to recreate general complex social behaviors. It’s definitely fascinating, but I don’t put much stock in it’s legitimacy when it come into conflict with logical conclusion, common sense, and widely supported professional and academic economic theory.
– “Can you show me a competing mathematical system that supports your claim that monopolies don’t occur in an integrated free-market network?”
If one exists, I certainly don’t know about it. All I can tell you is that many professional and academic economists agree that monopolies do not occur in an unimpeded market, for what that’s worth. I understand the logic behind the economic theory, so it makes sense to me. I don’t understand the logic behind Complex Network Theory, so it’s not easy for me to argue in that realm.
– “To be honest I am also a little confused about what your ideal government would look like. Would we still have elected officials or would we simply hire them. Would we do away with our right to vote in favor of voting with our checkbook? This all makes for a good sci-fi novel, but it simply isn’t grounded in reality.”
It actually IS grounded in reality – all of the positions I’ve taken here come with logical arguments and practical examples. In fact, none of the very practical solutions that I’ve been able to provide for the practical conundrums that have been posited to rebut my arguments have been contested, which is usually the case when discussing liberty. It’s always the same conversation:
“I advocate free markets!”
“well what about (some problem)?”
“Well, (solution).”
“well what about (new problem)?”
“Well, (solution).”
“well what about (new problem)?”
“Well, (solution).”
“It’ll never work.”
… It goes that way all the time, unless you’re one of those that can take the idea and try to find the solutions for yourself. It’s not difficult; in fact, most of the solutions that I present I devise myself on the fly by simply following the issues through logically. Once you give it a shot, it becomes clear that free markets really do self-regulate and they are the only real way to treat people equally.
My IDEAL governmental structure would be self-governance, which would lead directly into volunteerism. Again, this would be more of an acknowledgment of what’s already happening than a venture into a new realm of government. I do realize that this would eventually lead to governance of some other type, but change will always be inevitable. What would be great would be if we could keep our centuries-long governmental ebb and flow going back and forth between total freedom and small-government representative republic.
– “No government of a civilized society can ever exist without at least a little tyranny. In fact government by definition implies control over a population.”
Not necessarily. Self-governance is merely control over ones self, and this type of government is the only one that persists throughout the ages. In fact, all human interaction occurs on this basis and rarely goes beyond it into a realm external social government.
– “What you call theft, I call repayment for services and investment in ownership.”
Okay then, Rich, I am going to start a service that keeps rhinoceroses off of your lawn. It doesn’t matter wether you want this service or not, you still have to pay me or you go to jail and I take your house. How do you feel about that? That’s how I feel.
– “Rather than the way it is under Socialism/Communism we are owners by birth right of our government and nation.”
No. Becoming an owner and having a burden forced on you are two entirely different things. If I am an owner, then I want to forfeit my ownership and live freely and unmolested without being subject to it. Only, I can’t. I simply can not, because that’s not the truth about our government. I have granted no man authority over me, yet there are thousands who assume that authority by threat of force, which is wrong, no matter what goal you’re trying to achieve.
This, once again, is the premise of this whole discussion – the morality of taxation. No man has a right to aggress against another, so forced taxation is wrong. The only argument I’ve seen against that is “the ends justify the means” (to paraphrase), which would suggest that there is an elite class of human out there capable of making moral decisions on behalf of an entire society, which is also morally wrong. I’d like to see someone address those points.
– “Still, regardless of that fact you are responsible for a portion in this ownership of this democracy.”
According to the self-imposed legitimacy of this government, yes. However, even according to the very foundational documents of this government, my duty is to do my best to drive it in the moral direction that i see fit, so all of you statists aught to be grateful that those of us that respect equality and liberty are out there agitating for change.
– “You also give up ALL the basic protections of civilized society.”
And it somehow becomes appropriate to throw you in jail. And you keep having these unfortunate logical trip-ups, so I’ll remind you again – “civilized society”, just like order and reason, exists independently of government.
– “Our natural inclination is to gather into tribes for protection, then compete even violently against other tribes for valuable resources so that we may pass on our genetic code to future generations. It may sound harsh and lacking idealism but it is a cold reality shared by the far majority of the scientific community.”
…By this you suggest that our major driving influences are fear and reproduction, but I disagree, as would most intelligent people that ever existed (as long as we’re throwing out apocryphal endorsements). Humans are driven by their values, which are myriad and variable in their imperative. This is a much more elegant and accurate description of motivation.
– “Some religions call this the sinful nature of man. Scientists call it Sociobiology and believe that even unselfish acts of altruism are nothing more than a part of a species survival strategy that is engrained in its genes.”
Hobbes v. Locke, is man inherently good or inherently evil? Man is inherently invested in their own self-interests; man is inherently selfish. That’s a whole other discussion, but that’s my take. Because of the nature of perception, we all behave in the ways that best cater to our highest values at a given time. This makes for a much more complex and unpredictable behavioral pattern than you’re accounting for.
– “(I seriously think KVNU should bring you on part time or as a fill in. It’s been too long since we have had a good libertarian in the discussion. While I often disagreed with Ryan Yonk he certainly could put up a good argument for it.)”
I think that’d be very fun. I call in partly because I enjoy it, but mostly because I feel like there’s an important viewpoint to be acknowledged concerning that specific issue that isn’t represented. I’m totally open to it, but I’m not going to beg…
…yet.
Michael,
I am absolutely dying to pen a response. You and I are so close on so many issues yet still miles apart. Unfortunately, I have to head out camping tomorrow and don’t have time to respond completely. Still I would like to give you an essay topic so that we may continue this when I get back.
When I was young I was an idealist. As I’ve reached the ripe old age of 40 I’ve come to realize that all the idealistic political models in the world don’t mean a thing if we can’t actually put them into practice. Part of doing so requires convincing the electorate of the change you advocate and designing laws to govern those systems. While I understand that your belief in self governance my exempt the later, I would be interested to know how you would take us from our current system to the system you desire. Like would you require any constitutional amendments, etc… Or would we have to throw out our entire government and start over.
As you know, I referenced two past proposals of mine, the Tax Cap and the V-Tax (Voluntary tax). Both were designed to not necessarily by an ideal but a potentially acceptable alternative that would help stem the ever expanding government. In essence I was trying to offer solutions that might actually be politically viable in our day and age.
What would be your method to bring us toward self governance be?
If you were to write an essay on the topic and email it to Tyler, I am certain he would publish it. Also, just ask him for authorship rights and I can’t imagine him not welcoming you in. No begging necessary. Every good political site needs a good libertarian to stir things up and with Tom & Ryan missing in action due to their education, we have been lacking.
Good luck my brother and I hope to join you in discussion again shortly…
Rich, you’re the shizznit. I’m excited to get a lengthy response upon your return.
I’m still looking for something from Jason, too. *ahem, ahem*
– “What would be your method to bring us toward self governance be?”
Well, as I’ve said before, we all self-govern every minute of every day already, so the major change won’t be political, but behavioral. If, for example, you and all of the people in your neighborhood agreed to stop paying your taxes all at once, the change will have been made. Once some success is seen, others will do the same and all of the other solutions come about naturally.
Now, I think i know what someone is going to say, but I want it to be said, so I won’t address it just yet.
Anyway, it would really be that simple. From the initial behavioral change, the art/life cycle and the free market principle of supply and demand would take care of the rest.
I foresee tax hikes causing more and more dissent in small ways among the people until things like agorist markets and off-the-books commercial interactions become so commonplace that similar behavior finds it’s way into personal tax records and such. Then, people won’t be so shy about banding together to peacefully decline participating in the tax system.
Anyway, thanks again Rich! Have a safe trip.
…..Whelp, Michael wins.
@Richard Okelberry
What, nothing? I am supremely disappointed.
Come now Michael… You should not have such little faith… I am top posting my response momentarily.
[...] is a continuation of the post by Jason Williams; The Morality of Taxation. The topic was introduced by Michael Reis, who I must say sounded great when he helped co-host [...]
[...] is a continuation of the post by Jason Williams; The Morality of Taxation. The topic was introduced by Michael Reis, who I must say sounded great when he helped co-host [...]