As I find myself frequently the lone supporter of Austrian Economics in debates with my friends there are two challenges I have been unable to aptly reply to. The first being, without government aid, how would we protect society from natural monopolies such as energy companies expanding its service area to such an extent that it could price gouge consumers?
Second, is always about without the income tax, how could government, assuming its newly appointed role was primarily for national defense only, raise the revenue to pay for this?
Robert:The first being, without government aid, how would we protect society from natural monopolies such as energy companies expanding its service area to such an extent that it could price gouge consumers?
Without state licensing monopolies, there is no way for a business to raise prices (so-called gouging) above what would attract competitors. The government creates energy monopolies (and all monopolies) through regulation (higher cost of operation/entry) and licensing (monopoly titles).
Claiming to protect consumers by limiting open competition is the state's m.o. They create the problem (monopoly licensing), then they offer the solution (regulatory policy).
Robert:Second, is always about without the income tax, how could government, assuming its newly appointed role was primarily for national defense only, raise the revenue to pay for this?
Are you sure you want to step through the looking glass?
With respect to natural monopoly, Tom DiLorenzo has a paper on it, claiming the entire natural monopoly theory is an ex-post rationale for previous interventions in otherwise competitive markets.
http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/R92_3.pdf
Irish Liberty Forum
Price gouging is a chimera. If you correctly understand supply and its production then you realize that gouging is impossible.
Suppose that a utility company is the lone producer of energy over a large area. The productive capacity of this energy comes at a price. Intense capital investments must be made to be able to produce and distribute energy. The only way to raise prices in order to gouge is to shrink demand for energy, in this case turning a large proportion of invested capital equipment into useless junk. This would cause the utility to suffer losses on its prior investments.
The situation is similarly impossible if you assume that the utility was underpricing energy while waiting for its competition to exit the market, in order to raise prices afterwards. It would require an investment in capital that created losses upon losses to provide subsidized energy to the market, in the slim hope that at some point competitors would stop supplying and there would be a sufficient increases in prices to erase the initial losses.
That doesn't mean that a situation where losses are incurred on investment cannot arise. They may arise as a result of a planning error by investors. The increase in prices is not the outcome of gouging, but of the market returning to normalcy.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Robert:Second, is always about without the income tax, how could government, assuming its newly appointed role was primarily for national defense only, raise the revenue to pay for this? Are you sure you want to step through the looking glass?
Any type of reasonable answer or explanation of this would be greatly appreciated, because not just in my circle of highly intellectual, educated friends whom debate these concepts with me, do I fail to conincingly articulate how national defense could be funded without taxation, but I feel the general layman's first serious question in response to the conecpt of laissez-faire or discussion about ron paul's constant call for abolition of income tax is, well then how will government raise revenue?
MatthewWilliam: With respect to natural monopoly, Tom DiLorenzo has a paper on it, claiming the entire natural monopoly theory is an ex-post rationale for previous interventions in otherwise competitive markets. http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/R92_3.pdf
This looks awesome. Thank you very much for the link!
Stranger: Price gouging is a chimera. If you correctly understand supply and its production then you realize that gouging is impossible. Suppose that a utility company is the lone producer of energy over a large area. The productive capacity of this energy comes at a price. Intense capital investments must be made to be able to produce and distribute energy. The only way to raise prices in order to gouge is to shrink demand for energy, in this case turning a large proportion of invested capital equipment into useless junk. This would cause the utility to suffer losses on its prior investments. The situation is similarly impossible if you assume that the utility was underpricing energy while waiting for its competition to exit the market, in order to raise prices afterwards. It would require an investment in capital that created losses upon losses to provide subsidized energy to the market, in the slim hope that at some point competitors would stop supplying and there would be a sufficient increases in prices to erase the initial losses. That doesn't mean that a situation where losses are incurred on investment cannot arise. They may arise as a result of a planning error by investors. The increase in prices is not the outcome of gouging, but of the market returning to normalcy.
Some very interesting and compelling points are made here for sure. I'm not sure I can reach the conclusion that the situation would be impossible, as you assert. Certainly seems rather unlikely, as a result of the utility company taking losses on its earlier capital investments etc, but I do not know I can conclude with certainty that such a situation is impossible, based on your otherwise seemingly very valid points. Overall, some very compelling arguments against the price gouging fear, so thank you very much for the post.
Robert:I feel the general layman's first serious question in response to the conecpt of laissez-faire or discussion about ron paul's constant call for abolition of income tax is, well then how will government raise revenue?
Well, that's the trick with Ron Paul. He wants to abolish the income tax and replace it with nothing. And he is a free trader thus opposing tariffs.
He also doesn't want government in the business of licensing. So sounds to me like his government has no money.
Robert: Robert:Second, is always about without the income tax, how could government, assuming its newly appointed role was primarily for national defense only, raise the revenue to pay for this? Are you sure you want to step through the looking glass? Any type of reasonable answer or explanation of this would be greatly appreciated, because not just in my circle of highly intellectual, educated friends whom debate these concepts with me, do I fail to conincingly articulate how national defense could be funded without taxation, but I feel the general layman's first serious question in response to the conecpt of laissez-faire or discussion about ron paul's constant call for abolition of income tax is, well then how will government raise revenue?
Interesting how your friends and you came to this conclusion. True conclusion, but interesting none-the-less.
ugh. An actual reply to the question of how national defense would be provided if there is no income tax would be appreciated.
wilderness: Robert: Robert:Second, is always about without the income tax, how could government, assuming its newly appointed role was primarily for national defense only, raise the revenue to pay for this? Are you sure you want to step through the looking glass? Any type of reasonable answer or explanation of this would be greatly appreciated, because not just in my circle of highly intellectual, educated friends whom debate these concepts with me, do I fail to conincingly articulate how national defense could be funded without taxation, but I feel the general layman's first serious question in response to the conecpt of laissez-faire or discussion about ron paul's constant call for abolition of income tax is, well then how will government raise revenue? Interesting how your friends and you came to this conclusion. True conclusion, but interesting none-the-less.
My friends and I have not come to any conclusion. I am in favor or small government in an Austrian economics viewpoint where the federal government does not intervene in the free market, and it's primary role is to provide national defense. As there would be no income tax in this world, my friends immediately ask where would funding for national defense come from? I am unable to adequately answer that. I feel like I've been repeating this one request over and over, as each reply merely whimsically observes I am asking something? I am a bit confused. If there are some special forum procedures I need to go through to result in replies that actually address the question I am trying to ask, please let me know.
Attack their premise: why do we need a "national defense"? Tell them to prove that a "national defense" is more efficient/effective/better/whatever than "private security". Also, in the United States can have a "national defense" to protect itself fromforeigners, why can't California have a "national defense" to protect itself from Nevada? Why can't San Francisco have a "national defense" to protect itself from Oakland? Why can't an Individual have "national defense" to protect itself from other individuals? Your friends gotta prove that prove that a "national defense" is better than "private security" before they can demand that YOU prove anything derived from that premise. Btw, don't forget that value is subjective.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Robert: My friends and I have not come to any conclusion. I am in favor or small government in an Austrian economics viewpoint where the federal government does not intervene in the free market, and it's primary role is to provide national defense. As there would be no income tax in this world, my friends immediately ask where would funding for national defense come from? I am unable to adequately answer that. I feel like I've been repeating this one request over and over, as each reply merely whimsically observes I am asking something? I am a bit confused. If there are some special forum procedures I need to go through to result in replies that actually address the question I am trying to ask, please let me know.
Robert. I said your correct. What would happen if the government had no taxed revenue coming in?
Thanks alot for the replies. I agree with the principle and of course I understand federal government dissipates if there is no revenue coming in. My point is that we live in this world. Let's be realistic about that for a moment.
Daniel, your ideas are very intriguing and are ones that have made me stop for a moment and give serious pause for consideration over. It is certainly feasible that a national defense is not needed, private security is more efficient, better, etc. But the reality of it is, that unfortunately we do need to attack the status-quo, and they do not need to defend it. For it is already the way things are. So unless it is forcibly changed, no real defense is necessary. Again not on a philosphical level of which is right etc, but rather on a practical level of is this the world I want to live in, and if not how can I go about attempt to make a change in policy or people's viewpoints in an effective manner in this world.
So I am trying to suggest realistic potential changes both in reforming government and people's viewpoints about government and its consequently grater impact on liberty as its size and power expands.
I think government does have a role. I agree strongly with Mises that calling government a necessary evil is false. Government is not an evil, but rather it is a means, and the only means available to make peaceful human coexistance possible. Government has its definite purposes and can be quite useful. It is certainly always the opposition of liberty but that certainly doesn't mean it can not have massive social benefits, specifically like in the role of national defense. The idea is to limit the sphere of power government has over society at every turn and at all costs. Ok, I'm digressing a bit, but I've been reading alot of Mises, so it's hard not to.
Anyways, my point again is in this world suggesting that there be no federal government at all and consequently no military and that privatization would be better and more efficient, even if its completely true, just is not going to be effective in getting people to come around. I agree with Mises, Ron Paul, and the Constitution that government has a definite role and national defense is a major component of that role. That doesn't mean I like government. I'll paraphrase some more Mises in saying that government is the negation of liberty. But, we live in this world. Marginal units. And in that vein, I feel the suggestion a total and complete elimination of government in all forms as well as military just is not a viable option to present for anyone to take seriously in our current policital climate.
I feel it's important to try and win the actual battle. Not the philosophical war of who is right. Because after all, we still live in this world, for better or worse, right or wrong. So it is within this world we must try to affect change. And it is in that spirit that I have been having numerous dialogues with my friends whom are all very bright, but just conditioned to accept things as they are.
I'd like to imagine the possibilty of one day being in a situation where "national defense" was not even a concept. But I don't see that happening anytime soon. So, to wind this ridiculously extended and superflous mini-rant down, when push came to shove as to how I would propose this newly limited in both size and power government to fund the military, I chose taxation on value of land, but am not really sure how that is any different or better than an income tax, granted one that would be drastically smaller to correspond with the decrease of the smaller federal budget, but still didn't seem too satisfactory to me. So any alternatives or new ideas would be appreciated. Thanks for reading.
Robert:Any type of reasonable answer or explanation of this would be greatly appreciated, because not just in my circle of highly intellectual, educated friends whom debate these concepts with me, do I fail to conincingly articulate how national defense could be funded without taxation, but I feel the general layman's first serious question in response to the conecpt of laissez-faire or discussion about ron paul's constant call for abolition of income tax is, well then how will government raise revenue?
Once upon a time the Federal Government was a union of member states, and this was reflected by the fact that the states jointly controlled the upper chamber of congress, the Senate, with the control over budgets that this implies. Then senators became directly elected instead of appointed by state governments, and at this moment the Federal Government became an imperial government, no longer accountable to member states. With this new power it was able to directly tax the citizens of the member states through the income tax. State governments became irrelevant, and could easily be bribed with the money taxed from their citizens.
So to answer your question, where would government raise its revenues should the Federal Government return to a federation? It would raise them from the state governments, who would determine themselves how to raise the money.
Robert:ugh. An actual reply to the question of how national defense would be provided if there is no income tax would be appreciated.
It wouldn't. There would be no nation without taxes.
I know you don't want to deal with anarchism, but it's really the only answer we have to give you.
Stranger's answer is probably as good as anything Ron Paul will offer.
liberty student: Robert:ugh. An actual reply to the question of how national defense would be provided if there is no income tax would be appreciated. It wouldn't. There would be no nation without taxes. I know you don't want to deal with anarchism, but it's really the only answer we have to give you. Stranger's answer is probably as good as anything Ron Paul will offer.
I found ron paul's answer right here in his own book, probably should have looked there sooner.
"What we should work toward, however, is abolishing the income tax and replacing it not with a national sales tax, but with nothing. Right now the federal government is funded by excise taxes, corporate income taxes, payroll taxes, the individual income tax, and miscellaneous other sources. Abolishing the income tax on individuals would cut government revenue by about 40 percent. In order to imagine what it would be like to live in a country with a federal budget 40 percent lower than the federal budget of 2007 we would have to go all the way back to....1997" - Congressman Ron Paul, "The Revolution"
Robert:Thanks alot for the replies. I agree with the principle and of course I understand federal government dissipates if there is no revenue coming in. My point is that we live in this world. Let's be realistic about that for a moment.
Being "realistic" is what got us here. Why do you bother to ask the questions you asked in the OP? Afterall, going back to minarchism is unrealistic.
Robert:... But the reality of it is, that unfortunately we do need to attack the status-quo, and they do not need to defend it. For it is already the way things are. So unless it is forcibly changed, no real defense is necessary. Again not on a philosphical level of which is right etc, but rather on a practical level of is this the world I want to live in, and if not how can I go about attempt to make a change in policy or people's viewpoints in an effective manner in this world.
Sure, but your defense of minarchism will be destroyed by the greater statists. Just letting you know. They're gonna find all the contradictions and fallacies in your defense of minarchism and point them out to you.
Robert:So I am trying to suggest realistic potential changes both in reforming government and people's viewpoints about government and its consequently grater impact on liberty as its size and power expands.
Eliminating the income tax is not a realistic potential change. Philosophically, sure, but not in reality. Just saying.
Robert:I think government does have a role. I agree strongly with Mises that calling government a necessary evil is false. Government is not an evil, but rather it is a means, and the only means available to make peaceful human coexistance possible. Government has its definite purposes and can be quite useful. It is certainly always the opposition of liberty but that certainly doesn't mean it can not have massive social benefits, specifically like in the role of national defense. The idea is to limit the sphere of power government has over society at every turn and at all costs. Ok, I'm digressing a bit, but I've been reading alot of Mises, so it's hard not to.
The State is evil by definition. So you wanna coerce people to live with each other in peace? Do you see the contradiction? Why don't we put each other in jail, that way we can be free from each other's potential threats?
Robert:Anyways, my point again is in this world suggesting that there be no federal government at all and consequently no military and that privatization would be better and more efficient, even if its completely true, just is not going to be effective in getting people to come around.
Why not? It got me to come around.
Robert:I agree with Mises, Ron Paul, and the Constitution that government has a definite role and national defense is a major component of that role. That doesn't mean I like government. I'll paraphrase some more Mises in saying that government is the negation of liberty. But, we live in this world. Marginal units. And in that vein, I feel the suggestion a total and complete elimination of government in all forms as well as military just is not a viable option to present for anyone to take seriously in our current policital climate.
It worked on me.
Robert:I feel it's important to try and win the actual battle. Not the philosophical war of who is right. Because after all, we still live in this world, for better or worse, right or wrong. So it is within this world we must try to affect change. And it is in that spirit that I have been having numerous dialogues with my friends whom are all very bright, but just conditioned to accept things as they are.
We gotta win the philosophical battle.
Robert:I'd like to imagine the possibilty of one day being in a situation where "national defense" was not even a concept. But I don't see that happening anytime soon. So, to wind this ridiculously extended and superflous mini-rant down, when push came to shove as to how I would propose this newly limited in both size and power government to fund the military, I chose taxation on value of land, but am not really sure how that is any different or better than an income tax, granted one that would be drastically smaller to correspond with the decrease of the smaller federal budget, but still didn't seem too satisfactory to me. So any alternatives or new ideas would be appreciated. Thanks for reading.
I wish "national defense" was only a concept and not a "reality". Your hopeless; we get it, but you're gonna get destroyed by the fullblowned statist on your position of minarchy. We've gotten to statism because of the justification, "if we can do this, why can't we do that?"
Also, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but you seem to believe that an-caps don't believe in any government. A voluntary government is A-ok, just like Disneyland has its own "police" force. If in a minarchy we are going to have a police force to protect us, why should individuals have the right to defend themselves?
I think you're having the same problem that a lot of people have when running into serious anarchists for the first time. You're talking in terms of what works, and we're talking in terms of what's right. We are anarchists, as I've said before, not because we have a perfect system. We don't. We're anarchists because we do not believe that problems should be solved through coercion. The state is a coercive entity, so we automatically rule it out as the grand solution to any problems that we encounter.
Generally speaking, for most an-caps, we would support steps towards liberty; we just push to take it further. And we never cede moral ground to statists (e.g. the vast majority of an-caps would aggree that minimal taxation is better than what we have now, but all taxation is unjust.)
I don't presume to speak for anyone else, of course.
"Constitution worship is our most extended public political ritual, frequently supervised as often by mountebanks as by the sincere"-James J Martin
whipitgood:I don't presume to speak for anyone else, of course.
Of course not, but that was pretty good.
I try to remember what a big leap it was from minarchism to anarchism but it's not easy.
my apolgies, I was looking for insights along the lines that are outlined in the austrian school of economics. Specifically, in following with Ludwig Von Mises, I was never looking to address anarchists. Thanks for the responses anyway.
Natural monopolies are a synonym for club goods. Club goods are goods which are rivalrous but excludable. Because of its excludability, club goods do not suffer from the free rider problem. Anyone can exclude the free rider form enjoying the good.
A method to protect natural monopolies from unfairly raising its prices or limit its supply is the consumer cooperative method and the contract method. Consumer cooperatives are firms operated and controlled by consumers. Let us say that the utility company is controlled by the same consumers who use electricity. Because consumers control them, they have an incentive to not gouge their prices.
Another method to prevent price gouging is called option contracts. The consumer contract with the utility company to set a price ceiling with their energy prices. Many other anarcho-capitalists also suggest that option contracts can regulate private road tolls.
If nonconsenting individuals can have the option to not pay any taxes, then the usual opinion is that national defense will be underproduced. This is not always the case.
If money is provided by coercion instead of free choice, national defense will not be frugally provided. There will be waste because consumers do not have the freedom to join a tax protest in response to lavish defense expenditure.
Voluntarily provided national defense will almost always outweigh its free rider problems. Payments extracted from coercion are horribly inefficient at funding any good or service.
The free market even can have mechanisms to minimize the free rider problem. For example, people can boycott or ostracize the free riders. This creates an incentive for free riders to pay for national defense.
Another way to minimize the free rider problem is by insurance companies. Insurance companies will have the incentive for national defense. The Myth of National Defense also mentions how insurance companies can provide defense.
The above claims summarize all my arguments against natural monopolies and the free rider problem.
Life is filled with misinterpretations, misrepresentations, and prodigal folklore.
Daniel: Robert:Thanks alot for the replies. I agree with the principle and of course I understand federal government dissipates if there is no revenue coming in. My point is that we live in this world. Let's be realistic about that for a moment. Being "realistic" is what got us here. Why do you bother to ask the questions you asked in the OP? Afterall, going back to minarchism is unrealistic. Robert:... But the reality of it is, that unfortunately we do need to attack the status-quo, and they do not need to defend it. For it is already the way things are. So unless it is forcibly changed, no real defense is necessary. Again not on a philosphical level of which is right etc, but rather on a practical level of is this the world I want to live in, and if not how can I go about attempt to make a change in policy or people's viewpoints in an effective manner in this world. Sure, but your defense of minarchism will be destroyed by the greater statists. Just letting you know. They're gonna find all the contradictions and fallacies in your defense of minarchism and point them out to you. Robert:So I am trying to suggest realistic potential changes both in reforming government and people's viewpoints about government and its consequently grater impact on liberty as its size and power expands. Eliminating the income tax is not a realistic potential change. Philosophically, sure, but not in reality. Just saying. Robert:I think government does have a role. I agree strongly with Mises that calling government a necessary evil is false. Government is not an evil, but rather it is a means, and the only means available to make peaceful human coexistance possible. Government has its definite purposes and can be quite useful. It is certainly always the opposition of liberty but that certainly doesn't mean it can not have massive social benefits, specifically like in the role of national defense. The idea is to limit the sphere of power government has over society at every turn and at all costs. Ok, I'm digressing a bit, but I've been reading alot of Mises, so it's hard not to. The State is evil by definition. So you wanna coerce people to live with each other in peace? Do you see the contradiction? Why don't we put each other in jail, that way we can be free from each other's potential threats? Robert:Anyways, my point again is in this world suggesting that there be no federal government at all and consequently no military and that privatization would be better and more efficient, even if its completely true, just is not going to be effective in getting people to come around. Why not? It got me to come around. Robert:I agree with Mises, Ron Paul, and the Constitution that government has a definite role and national defense is a major component of that role. That doesn't mean I like government. I'll paraphrase some more Mises in saying that government is the negation of liberty. But, we live in this world. Marginal units. And in that vein, I feel the suggestion a total and complete elimination of government in all forms as well as military just is not a viable option to present for anyone to take seriously in our current policital climate. It worked on me. Robert:I feel it's important to try and win the actual battle. Not the philosophical war of who is right. Because after all, we still live in this world, for better or worse, right or wrong. So it is within this world we must try to affect change. And it is in that spirit that I have been having numerous dialogues with my friends whom are all very bright, but just conditioned to accept things as they are. We gotta win the philosophical battle. Robert:I'd like to imagine the possibilty of one day being in a situation where "national defense" was not even a concept. But I don't see that happening anytime soon. So, to wind this ridiculously extended and superflous mini-rant down, when push came to shove as to how I would propose this newly limited in both size and power government to fund the military, I chose taxation on value of land, but am not really sure how that is any different or better than an income tax, granted one that would be drastically smaller to correspond with the decrease of the smaller federal budget, but still didn't seem too satisfactory to me. So any alternatives or new ideas would be appreciated. Thanks for reading. I wish "national defense" was only a concept and not a "reality". Your hopeless; we get it, but you're gonna get destroyed by the fullblowned statist on your position of minarchy. We've gotten to statism because of the justification, "if we can do this, why can't we do that?" Also, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but you seem to believe that an-caps don't believe in any government. A voluntary government is A-ok, just like Disneyland has its own "police" force. If in a minarchy we are going to have a police force to protect us, why should individuals have the right to defend themselves?
Your post represents a common trend I have noticed on internet forums. You do not further advance the conversation or even your own point of view, but rather piece by piece attempt to address any perceived differences or disagreements in my post from your point of view, and then systematically explain why I am wrong in each itemized quote of the original post. One would to infer, to validate your position as right.
It is quite clear you fail to do so, even giving me as many generous opportunities for me to return the favor, ie. "it worked for me." or "state is evil by definition" but that is not the cause of my response here.
I think it would be more beneficial to resist the urge to assume a defensive stance, and try and maintain a positive discourse in the increase of understanding and spread of knowledge when possible. An example would be of your posts where you say, abolishing the income tax is not realistic, just saying. End Post. So what is realistic? What furthers your ideas constructively? I must admit I am all too often reminded why I generally shy away from this form of discussion, and it's just unfortunate. I mean these boards are on mises.org if it's going to work it should be here. I feel foolish for writing this as I'm bracing for the defensive attack to come, but I just wanted to end with that thought.
Just finished this paper, really amazing and very helpful stuff. I love how he explores all the perceived natural monopolies in history to basically assert there has never been a genuine "natural monopoly" in history that was not created in some extent by government intervention. Thanks again for the link, very good stuff.
Robert:my apolgies, I was looking for insights along the lines that are outlined in the austrian school of economics. Specifically, in following with Ludwig Von Mises, I was never looking to address anarchists. Thanks for the responses anyway.
AE is not restricted to Mises. Most of us here are heavily influenced by Hoppe, Rothbard and Long. All 3 are anarchists.
So when you asked about natural monopolies, I answered you with a free market position that is consistent with the Austrian view. When you went to national defense, the modern AE view tends towards private defense (user pays).
I realize, Ron Paul being an elected politician makes this all very confusing because he is for no-income tax, but that passage from his book is not entirely precise either. Paul also opposes tariffs, because a tax on imports is also a tax on exports. He's a free trader. You can find this in many of his speeches on trade.
So while you might not appreciate the sentiment of the anarchist Austrians, we're being 100% honest and sincere with you. There is no moral high ground to get rid of one tax, without getting rid of all taxes. That is to say, all taxes are immoral. So if you don't want a moral argument for your friends, then you will have to look for a utilitarian one.
The Austrian perspective on utilitarianism favours a free market. That is to say that the state doesn't do things better than the market because there is no competition, and thus the prices derived for security are not valid, and the resources are confiscated not earned. So even from a utilitarian-Austrian perspective, it is hard to make the case for national defense as provided by the state.
I hope you're not turned off. But you've stepped through the looking glass and we're not in Kansas anymore.
How you choose to argue with your friends is your call. As another poster pointed out, if you go the minarchist route, it will be exceptionally hard for you to defend some state intervention or service provision while rejecting others. Particularly if your audience is very intelligent, which I think you already indicated.
liberty student: Robert:my apolgies, I was looking for insights along the lines that are outlined in the austrian school of economics. Specifically, in following with Ludwig Von Mises, I was never looking to address anarchists. Thanks for the responses anyway. AE is not restricted to Mises. Most of us here are heavily influenced by Hoppe, Rothbard and Long. All 3 are anarchists. So when you asked about natural monopolies, I answered you with a free market position that is consistent with the Austrian view. When you went to national defense, the modern AE view tends towards private defense (user pays). I realize, Ron Paul being an elected politician makes this all very confusing because he is for no-income tax, but that passage from his book is not entirely precise either. Paul also opposes tariffs, because a tax on imports is also a tax on exports. He's a free trader. You can find this in many of his speeches on trade. So while you might not appreciate the sentiment of the anarchist Austrians, we're being 100% honest and sincere with you. There is no moral high ground to get rid of one tax, without getting rid of all taxes. That is to say, all taxes are immoral. So if you don't want a moral argument for your friends, then you will have to look for a utilitarian one. The Austrian perspective on utilitarianism favours a free market. That is to say that the state doesn't do things better than the market because there is no competition, and thus the prices derived for security are not valid, and the resources are confiscated not earned. So even from a utilitarian-Austrian perspective, it is hard to make the case for national defense as provided by the state. I hope you're not turned off. But you've stepped through the looking glass and we're not in Kansas anymore. How you choose to argue with your friends is your call. As another poster pointed out, if you go the minarchist route, it will be exceptionally hard for you to defend some state intervention or service provision while rejecting others. Particularly if your audience is very intelligent, which I think you already indicated.
I agree with word for word everything you said, as well as both your examples of moral and utilitarianism arguments. The intellectual arguments have already been won, there is no doubt about that. Free-market ideas are the way to go. In my personal practical experience, however, I find it less than effective to fully embrace all elements of an ideal, when attempting to convey the concept that government isn't the be all and end all, that most citizens were raised to believe.
You are even right that it is getting exceptionally hard to defend some state while rejecting others, as well as it being a bit hypocritcal to be sure. It's just frustrating on my end, to not be able to get otherwise brilliant people to see the inefficiencies as well as assaults on personal liberty that comes with an expansive government that I do. And I have employed both arguments, to which they readily agree, but dismiss the idea as simply being too impractical and unlikely to occur to really matter. At which point the conversation then turns into an attempt to find some practical ideas to help lessen the power of the state while keeping it within the realistic realm of possibilites.
Anyways, thanks for the reply libertystudent, you as always, make some very great points.
Robert:It's just frustrating on my end, to not be able to get otherwise brilliant people to see the inefficiencies as well as assaults on personal liberty that comes with an expansive government that I do.
Patience is the tough one. You will find what works for you. I found it was important to tone down my approach or I risked alienating folks (family!).
The failure is not in your ideas or understanding. It's that the world isn't particularly receptive to them right now, but even that is changing, because I have seen in 2 years that things have become much, much easier. It will progresively become easier to have these conversations with your associates as time goes on.
Robert: Your post represents a common trend I have noticed on internet forums. You do not further advance the conversation or even your own point of view, but rather piece by piece attempt to address any perceived differences or disagreements in my post from your point of view, and then systematically explain why I am wrong in each itemized quote of the original post. One would to infer, to validate your position as right.
Yes. There is no need to explain why I am right if I can explain why you are wrong. But notice that don't defeat strawman's, misquote you, or commit any of the many other fallacies.
Robert:It is quite clear you fail to do so, even giving me as many generous opportunities for me to return the favor, ie. "it worked for me." or "state is evil by definition" but that is not the cause of my response here.
You make a claim, and I refute it. You gotta be careful with the hasty generalizations.
Robert:I think it would be more beneficial to resist the urge to assume a defensive stance, and try and maintain a positive discourse in the increase of understanding and spread of knowledge when possible. An example would be of your posts where you say, abolishing the income tax is not realistic, just saying. End Post. So what is realistic?
That's exactly the point I was trying to make. Sorry for coming off as an A hole.
Robert:What furthers your ideas constructively? I must admit I am all too often reminded why I generally shy away from this form of discussion, and it's just unfortunate. I mean these boards are on mises.org if it's going to work it should be here. I feel foolish for writing this as I'm bracing for the defensive attack to come, but I just wanted to end with that thought.
I'm sure your argue with much more difficult people during your lifetime.
Robert: MatthewWilliam: With respect to natural monopoly, Tom DiLorenzo has a paper on it, claiming the entire natural monopoly theory is an ex-post rationale for previous interventions in otherwise competitive markets. http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/R92_3.pdf Just finished this paper, really amazing and very helpful stuff. I love how he explores all the perceived natural monopolies in history to basically assert there has never been a genuine "natural monopoly" in history that was not created in some extent by government intervention. Thanks again for the link, very good stuff.
I could have linked to that article too. But then it wouldn't have been my own point of view?
liberty student: AE is not restricted to Mises. Most of us here are heavily influenced by Hoppe, Rothbard and Long. All 3 are anarchists. So when you asked about natural monopolies, I answered you with a free market position that is consistent with the Austrian view. When you went to national defense, the modern AE view tends towards private defense (user pays).
This is true. Butmy attempt was mostly to make Robert realize that his position on "realistic solutions" would be easily defeated.
liberty student: I realize, Ron Paul being an elected politician makes this all very confusing because he is for no-income tax, but that passage from his book is not entirely precise either. Paul also opposes tariffs, because a tax on imports is also a tax on exports. He's a free trader. You can find this in many of his speeches on trade.
I have no proof, but I maintain that RP is a closet an-cap. But anything to further "the cause".
liberty student: I hope you're not turned off. But you've stepped through the looking glass and we're not in Kansas anymore.
You're more harsh than I am.
liberty student: How you choose to argue with your friends is your call. As another poster pointed out, if you go the minarchist route, it will be exceptionally hard for you to defend some state intervention or service provision while rejecting others. Particularly if your audience is very intelligent, which I think you already indicated.
One problem with the minarchist route is that it has led us to where we are now. In reality, the courts, the police, and [whatever the third "must" of minarchism is] have all been high-jacked by special interests. Anarcho-capitalism may be "unrealistic", but we know that minarchy has failed.
Robert:You are even right that it is getting exceptionally hard to defend some state while rejecting others, as well as it being a bit hypocritcal to be sure. It's just frustrating on my end, to not be able to get otherwise brilliant people to see the inefficiencies as well as assaults on personal liberty that comes with an expansive government that I do. And I have employed both arguments, to which they readily agree, but dismiss the idea as simply being too impractical and unlikely to occur to really matter. At which point the conversation then turns into an attempt to find some practical ideas to help lessen the power of the state while keeping it within the realistic realm of possibilites.
The problem isn't you; the problem is that some people are simply evil. Look at Bernanke, he got a 1590 on the SAT, but he's a liar and evil.
whipitgood: I think you're having the same problem that a lot of people have when running into serious anarchists for the first time. You're talking in terms of what works, and we're talking in terms of what's right. We are anarchists, as I've said before, not because we have a perfect system. We don't. We're anarchists because we do not believe that problems should be solved through coercion. The state is a coercive entity, so we automatically rule it out as the grand solution to any problems that we encounter. Generally speaking, for most an-caps, we would support steps towards liberty; we just push to take it further. And we never cede moral ground to statists (e.g. the vast majority of an-caps would aggree that minimal taxation is better than what we have now, but all taxation is unjust.) I don't presume to speak for anyone else, of course.
I really like this post whipitgood.
Daniel: Robert: Thanks alot for the replies. I agree with the principle and of course I understand federal government dissipates if there is no revenue coming in. My point is that we live in this world. Let's be realistic about that for a moment. Being "realistic" is what got us here. Why do you bother to ask the questions you asked in the OP? Afterall, going back to minarchism is unrealistic. An example would be of your posts where you say, abolishing the income tax is not realistic, just saying. End Post. So what is realistic? What furthers your ideas constructively? I must admit I am all too often reminded why I generally shy away from this form of discussion, and it's just unfortunate.
Robert: Thanks alot for the replies. I agree with the principle and of course I understand federal government dissipates if there is no revenue coming in. My point is that we live in this world. Let's be realistic about that for a moment.
An example would be of your posts where you say, abolishing the income tax is not realistic, just saying. End Post. So what is realistic? What furthers your ideas constructively? I must admit I am all too often reminded why I generally shy away from this form of discussion, and it's just unfortunate.
Robert,
Daniel answered your first comment with "realistic" included due to you said it as well. Your sentence, "Let's be realistic about that for a moment," sounded a bit arrogant to me with a wave of the hand to dismiss somebody without intellectual consideration. But I understand the reaction, but perception can lead to misleading conclusions, so, I try not to become too offended or else I'll never get anywhere.
I admit. Anarchist are stubborn.
wilderness: Robert: Daniel: Thanks alot for the replies. I agree with the principle and of course I understand federal government dissipates if there is no revenue coming in. My point is that we live in this world. Let's be realistic about that for a moment. Being "realistic" is what got us here. Why do you bother to ask the questions you asked in the OP? Afterall, going back to minarchism is unrealistic. An example would be of your posts where you say, abolishing the income tax is not realistic, just saying. End Post. So what is realistic? What furthers your ideas constructively? I must admit I am all too often reminded why I generally shy away from this form of discussion, and it's just unfortunate. Robert, Daniel answered your first comment with "realistic" included due to you said it as well. Your sentence, "Let's be realistic about that for a moment," sounded a bit arrogant to me with a wave of the hand to dismiss somebody without intellectual consideration. But I understand the reaction, but perception can lead to misleading conclusions, so, I try not to become too offended or else I'll never get anywhere. I admit. Anarchist are stubborn.
Robert: Daniel: Thanks alot for the replies. I agree with the principle and of course I understand federal government dissipates if there is no revenue coming in. My point is that we live in this world. Let's be realistic about that for a moment. Being "realistic" is what got us here. Why do you bother to ask the questions you asked in the OP? Afterall, going back to minarchism is unrealistic. An example would be of your posts where you say, abolishing the income tax is not realistic, just saying. End Post. So what is realistic? What furthers your ideas constructively? I must admit I am all too often reminded why I generally shy away from this form of discussion, and it's just unfortunate.
Daniel: Thanks alot for the replies. I agree with the principle and of course I understand federal government dissipates if there is no revenue coming in. My point is that we live in this world. Let's be realistic about that for a moment.
Dude, fix your quotes. You have me and Robert switched.
opps... fixed. Thanks!
wilderness:I really like this post whipitgood.
Thanks! I feel like I'm channeling Stef Molyneux sometimes. I know he's controversial, but he does a good job of framing his arguments. Why worry about statistical arguments in favor of this or that? Just let someone know that their solution to a problem involves mass theft, and ask them why that's ok. It usually works. The vast majority of people are vehemently opposed to violence. Show them the violence of the state and plant that seed of doubt.
Edit: Robert, sorry if we took your thread off the tracks. ; )
Robert:As I find myself frequently the lone supporter of Austrian Economics in debates with my friends there are two challenges I have been unable to aptly reply to. The first being, without government aid, how would we protect society from natural monopolies such as energy companies expanding its service area to such an extent that it could price gouge consumers?
I'm near the end of chapter 10 of Man, Economy and State. Rothbard goes over all possible angles of these kinds of arguments. He explains why, on the free market, it is impossible to conceptually distinguish between a monopoly price and a competitive price. You should give it a read.
whipitgood: wilderness:I really like this post whipitgood. Thanks! I feel like I'm channeling Stef Molyneux sometimes. I know he's controversial, but he does a good job of framing his arguments. Why worry about statistical arguments in favor of this or that? Just let someone know that their solution to a problem involves mass theft, and ask them why that's ok. It usually works. The vast majority of people are vehemently opposed to violence. Show them the violence of the state and plant that seed of doubt. Edit: Robert, sorry if we took your thread off the tracks. ; )
Does he go into further details on the wrongs of State action upon its citizens and foreigners?
liberty student:Patience is the tough one. You will find what works for you. I found it was important to tone down my approach or I risked alienating folks (family!).
There is a profound quote from the film The Matrix that helps deal with such a situation. Before the ruling board of elders, the military commander turns to Morpheus and says "damn it Morpheus, not everyone believes what you believe." Morpheus replies: "my beliefs do not require them to."
Sorry to bump/hijack a thread, but I had a small question about monopolies and didn't want to create an entire new thread.
In a discussion somebody mentioned a reason they were against total deregulation was because of monopolies. I mentioned how they wouldn't really exist in the current sense without the government allowing them to. He asked about businesses that require high initial investment (and can therefore "break the laws of supply and demand by controlling the supply") He gave the example of AT&T in the 80's and how they owned most of the phonelines in the US and nobody else could come in b/c of the startup cost with little guarantee of success.
I'm sort of new to all this and was confused by his response. I was wondering if anybody could either address it, or point me to a paper or something.
Thanks!
Fluery: Sorry to bump/hijack a thread, but I had a small question about monopolies and didn't want to create an entire new thread. In a discussion somebody mentioned a reason they were against total deregulation was because of monopolies. I mentioned how they wouldn't really exist in the current sense without the government allowing them to. He asked about businesses that require high initial investment (and can therefore "break the laws of supply and demand by controlling the supply") He gave the example of AT&T in the 80's and how they owned most of the phonelines in the US and nobody else could come in b/c of the startup cost with little guarantee of success. I'm sort of new to all this and was confused by his response. I was wondering if anybody could either address it, or point me to a paper or something. Thanks!
Well how did AT&T have such high initial investments? This isn't a free market unbridled by the government and any company that lays it's foundation even before an AT&T could get to such a point had to paddle through numerous upon numerous government regulations. Sometimes it's about knowing the game and getting to a certain point and the government is on the company's side merely because the company knows how to play the game better than other company's. So to pick out any business in this socialist culture of government intervention and try to simplify the event hasn't weeded through the mess enough. I would start small and ask to see how AT&T got started and to see all of its' interactions with the government, to know of the regulations, and to see it's historical interaction with other businesses. It's probably too complicated for the other person to do all this, which is exactly the point. They probably don't know everything that actually happened.
its a ridiculous argument, assume that there is some wonder product that it costs terrific sums of capital to get off the ground, and scrooge mcduck is the only individual rich enough to possibly invest.
..........
so , scrooge shouldnt be allowed to make the investment...., and so then no-one invests.... surely even a 'monopoly' product is better than none of that product at all.
even though there is no such industry that requires such high capital investment that is unapproachable by others, since entrepeneurs can get investment from capitalists who have money to invest. so the competition for such an entrepeneur who makes a deal to get big dollar investment backing is some other similar entrepeneur with a similar pool of capitalists to make deals with. competition .
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
nirgrahamUK: since entrepeneurs can get investment from capitalists who have money to invest.
since entrepeneurs can get investment from capitalists who have money to invest.
Good call. Yeap a good idea will find investors to back it.
Stranger: liberty student:Patience is the tough one. You will find what works for you. I found it was important to tone down my approach or I risked alienating folks (family!). There is a profound quote from the film The Matrix that helps deal with such a situation. Before the ruling board of elders, the military commander turns to Morpheus and says "damn it Morpheus, not everyone believes what you believe." Morpheus replies: "my beliefs do not require them to."
Good reply, but my comment was more along the lines that sometimes we can (and perhaps, should) make our case with patience. A diversity of approaches and tactics are strengths.