Re: How to solve the tax problem w/o anarchy or force
Vladimir writes:
what we really need is a government which can personalize its services, and people pay for what they use.
yes, agree. In other words we need freedom for business to compete in provision of all services currently monopolised by government.
more and more this is becoming technically feasible. it will bring the potential of capitalistic competition and free markets to govt. how? well services that no one uses will tend to whither, and the healthy ones will receive greater budgets.
But also you need multiple providers of services, otherwise your freedom of choice is limited. If you can opt out of literally any goverment service, I suspect government revenues would nearly disappear. Everything they "supply" can be supplied more cheaply by business. So what government remained would have to compete on a fair basis with private industry.
the big quandary is people who can't pay for what they use like social security. ultimately the question is how much money the state has the authority to collect for this kind of thing, and the political answer has varied every year, but it has gone up every year in the 20th century generally.
I think the state should have no authority to collect anything. Charity at the point of a gun is not charity. The state is an extremely inefficient distributor of charitable funds anyway.
the big problem imho is fraud/waste/corruption in govt though. I think if a lot of it were eliminated we would be flabbergasted at how little a personal contribution it takes to take care of people who need it. bureaucracies are the most expensive thing on the planet. here's hoping that cyberspace will cut through the *ultimate* middleman: govt.
Amen to that. Adam
the distinction between govt and business is sometimes an arbitrary one. for example govt agencies typically contract with private companies to perform govt services. a massive example of this is the defense industry. what I would tend to propose is a system where this is augmented and finetuned to the point the govt become a very efficient sorting mechanism for channeling money to businesses that are the most efficient. a very interesting combination of the ideas of free market and govt service. AB, I disagree that people would opt out of virtually all govt services. bzzzzzzzt. think of things like trash collection etc. I do believe the vast majority of things the govt does would tend to stay there even if people had a choice. the big libertarian question is, as you raise it: should people have to pay for things they don't want. well consider things like roads, police or fire protection, or the court system. what if you don't pay, but then dial 911 anyway? or you dial 911 and they ask for your credit card first? <g> it really does seem to me like there is a legitimate role for a certain amount of money to be collected for govt service. imho it is far, far less than whatis being collected today. if taxes were 5-10% people wouldn't give as much a damn about the govt and how it worked. it's because taxes are so high that people are screeching more. screeching but not acting, as usual. libertarians tend to be awfully realistic some times. who pays for roads when everyone uses them? but I'm definitely into the basic libertarian ideas.
Vladimir Nuri writes:
the distinction between govt and business is sometimes an arbitrary one. for example govt agencies typically contract with private companies to perform govt services. a massive example of this is the defense industry. what I would tend to propose is a system where this is augmented and finetuned to the point the govt become a very efficient sorting mechanism for channeling money to businesses that are the most efficient.
Even when government does sub-contract, the inefficiency is usually I think pretty horrendous by industry standards: 1. the subcontracted work is probably not at all desired by the customers (us the tax payers) 2. the subcontracted work is probably poorly specified, so the contractor does work which inefficiently works towards the customers requirements 3. because governments are monopolies they have no incentive to choose the best value for money contract, or to try hard to obtain reasonable contracts 4. because governments employees are often corrupt kick backs are taken by corrupt employees to accept other than the best value for money contractor
AB, I disagree that people would opt out of virtually all govt services. bzzzzzzzt. think of things like trash collection etc. I do believe the vast majority of things the govt does would tend to stay there even if people had a choice.
Everything that can easily be privatised would either be privatised (because it would be so much cheaper without all the corruption, ineptitude and lack of efficiency insentive), or for the first time some competition would be introduced into government and they would actually compete on an even basis. Either outcome is preferable over the current situation, and a direct result of allowing competition.
the big libertarian question is, as you raise it: should people have to pay for things they don't want.
absolutely not.
well consider things like roads,
if you don't drive you shouldn't have to pay for them.
police
if you have hired a private security firm for protection you shouldn't have to pay for the police (who as others have noted mostly do unproductive things, and prosecute victimless crimes, and generally harrass people).
or fire protection
well if your house burns down, and you haven't taken fire insurance with a fire fighting service, and can't afford the fee, well that's tough luck.
or the court system.
I don't want to subsidize arbitration services locking away people for victimless crimes, so I will subscribe to arbitration services which don't do this. See "Machinery of Freedom" by David Friedman for a plausible frame work for choice in arbitration services and intra service negotations. Note quite a lot of business use independent arbitration services, because it is much cheaper, fairer, and more predictable than the government monopoly court system.
what if you don't pay, but then dial 911 anyway?
they ask for your to authenticate your chaumian credential insurancce contract. if you can't do that they don't come, same as any other 0800-RENTACOP service.
or you dial 911 and they ask for your credit card first? <g>
yup, exactly.
it really does seem to me like there is a legitimate role for a certain amount of money to be collected for govt service.
I think you can privatise everything. Things which are called natural monopolies could be managed by trade organisations or companies bidding for management getting efficiency related fees. Why should politicians and the rest manage roads, why not a company.
imho it is far, far less than whatis being collected today.
zero I think woudl be best, or very very close.
if taxes were 5-10% people wouldn't give as much a damn about the govt and how it worked.
What all could you spend 5-10% of GNP on that couldn't be privatised? Sounds like an awful lot of legalised theft yet!
libertarians tend to be awfully realistic some times. who pays for roads when everyone uses them?
don't pay not allowed to use. not everyone uses them to drive cars on. Adam
Adam Back wrote:
Vladimir Nuri writes:
the distinction between govt and business is sometimes an arbitrary one. for example govt agencies typically contract with private companies to perform govt services. a massive example of this is the defense industry. what I would tend to propose is a system where this is augmented and finetuned to the point the govt become a very efficient sorting mechanism for channeling money to businesses that are the most efficient.
Even when government does sub-contract, the inefficiency is usually I think pretty horrendous by industry standards: ... ...
it really does seem to me like there is a legitimate role for a certain amount of money to be collected for govt service.
I think you can privatise everything. Things which are called natural monopolies could be managed by trade organisations or companies bidding for management getting efficiency related fees. Why should politicians and the rest manage roads, why not a company.
imho it is far, far less than whatis being collected today.
zero I think woudl be best, or very very close.
if taxes were 5-10% people wouldn't give as much a damn about the govt and how it worked.
What all could you spend 5-10% of GNP on that couldn't be privatised? Sounds like an awful lot of legalised theft yet!
libertarians tend to be awfully realistic some times. who pays for roads when everyone uses them?
don't pay not allowed to use. not everyone uses them to drive cars on.
There is a real live example of this kind of transition. New Zealand. New Zealand is the nation that coined the term 'cradle to grave socialism' (and also the first to offer women the vote -- coincidence?). In 1986, the country was as close to bankrupt as was possible to be. The socialists were ousted and taxes slashed from 60+% to 28%. A GST was introduced, government monopolies were sold off -- mail delivery, post offices, power generation, water supplies, telephone service, ports, airports, medical, road maintenance etc. Military investment was reduced to a coast guard and a professional infrastructure required for UN involvement. The (almost) immediate result of this divestiture, was for affluence to skyrocket due to the release of the entrepreneurial spirit (remember the kiwi-fruit?) By the early '90s New Zealand was upgraded from 17th standard of living in the world, to 3rd. Since then, taxes have been cut thrice more. Currently income taxes are at 21% and plans have been made to eliminate them entirely in '00. The entire economy is supported by the GST of 12.5% (consumption tax). Welfare still exists, although the population is steadily being weaned off it. Most of the diehard dole-bludgers have moved to Australia (coinciding with a move of many businesses from Australia in the reverse direction), which still has a 45% income tax rate to support them. Much to the chagrin of the doomsaying socialists, the standard of living actually improved for all the population. The atmosphere of economic repression was replaced by cheerful optimism within 6 months of the transition, and has been growing ever since. Currently, along with Argentina, New Zealand is the only other country in the world to be in the black. Income taxes were kept on solely for the purpose of eliminating foreign debt. This is due to be completed by '00. The change in people's attitudes has been radical. During the latest asian economic crisis, New Zealand found itself severely affected by the decrease in its markets. Rather than a return to printing money and increased taxation, New Zealand has further reduced its tax burden in the belief that the free market will find the correct solution. One other interesting change happened at the same time as the above. During the post world war II period, New Zealand (and Australia) were afflicted by something that was known down-under as the 'English disease' -- viz: trade unionism. This second government was virtually abolished in New Zealand by the passing of the Employment Contracts Act of 1986. Under this act, all people are considered to be self-employed in the sense that everyone has the right to negotiate their own employment contract, or to collectively bargain as they see fit. What this means, is that there is no single standard of employer to employee relationship defined by the government (or trade union). For a corporation to require exclusivity of its hired help is considered to be an invalid employment contract under the act. Consequently, becoming an 'employee' in this sense implies that the income, derived from such employment, is tax free. This has been tested in the courts successfully on a number of occasions. Several benefits have ensued from this: firstly, everyone has developed an understanding of how to organize their own financial affairs to minimize their tax burden; secondly, being self-employed means the 20% tax rate can be largely reduced through business write-offs; thirdly, negotiation of contracts, in such an atmosphere, has largely eliminated the 'us and them' mentality between the corporation and the worker. Now it is just a lot of independent co-operating peer companies; fourthly, because there are no 'bosses' as such, people have a lot more latitude on how and where they perform their work. This has led to an incredible amount of home office and business de-centralization and flexibility. Its not yet perfect by libertarian standards, but the direction has been chosen towards a model of government limited to an arbitration function and to provide a common foreign policy. My belief is that the creation of a libertarian environment in the US, is unlikely without much social disruption and bloodshed. Similarly for the EU. A more productive course of action is for libertarian minded folk, to relocate themselves to countries that are amenable to such changes in direction (Max! where can we go? Argentina maybe?), and work to effect the creation of a showcase example of how it can work in practise. With the examples of New Zealand and Argentina and the growth in their stability and affluence, this would be a constructive means of affirming your libertarian beliefs, without violating the principle of not initiating force, fraud or coercion.
At 3:39 PM -0500 11/10/98, Adam Back wrote:
Vladimir Nuri writes:
well consider things like roads,
if you don't drive you shouldn't have to pay for them.
libertarians tend to be awfully realistic some times. who pays for roads when everyone uses them?
don't pay not allowed to use. not everyone uses them to drive cars on.
Roads are the easiest (assuming a government model) things to apply road use taxes to, simply tax gasoline, oil, and tires. Scale your tire tax based on weight and apply it to bicycles as well, then everyone (execpt peds) who uses pays. -- "To sum up: The entire structure of antitrust statutes in this country is a jumble of economic irrationality and ignorance. It is a product: (a) of a gross misinterpretation of history, and (b) of rather naïve, and certainly unrealistic, economic theories." Alan Greenspan, "Anti-trust" http://www.ecosystems.net/mgering/antitrust.html Petro::E-Commerce Adminstrator::Playboy Ent. Inc.::petro@playboy.com
participants (4)
-
Adam Back -
Petro -
Soren -
Vladimir Z. Nuri