I read somewhere that Any Rand suggested the idea of government-owned casinos as a means of funding the minarchist state. All of the profits from these casinos would go into providing whatever few government services there were. Taxation would effectively become voluntary, thus solving one of the major moral problems of the State. What do you guys think of this idea? Is it plausible? Is it moral?
I Samuel 8
You need to stop thinking about the government as an entity which "provides services".
I don't like this idea( as well as the fact you called government intervention "services") but lets take a closer look at it.
1.Before these casinos are built how would the government be funded? by taxation most likely.
2.How would funds be raised to build these casinos? taxation.
3.After these casinos are built how much would go to maintaining the many casinos that the state would require? most likely alot.
4 .This would encourage those with gambling addictions to love all their money.Those who didn't previously have such addictions might develop them.
5. Surely government would eventually make it compulsory to fund these casinos since it's possible not enough people would go into them or people would try to find a way to trick the machines.
6. It would require large amounts of people to gamble 24/7 most likely.
7. If I refused to go to these casinos I'd be punished.
8. those who oppose gambling would most likely be forced.
9. As government grew quickly there would need to be more casinos and more money to funding .This would lead to mass poverty of society and then government bankrupcy (which doesn't bother me too much as an anarchist) or both at the same time.
10. Government would never chose this idea.It's too risky for them because it gives a choice to individuals.
I don't really want to comment or read anything here.I have near zero in common with many of you.I may return periodically when there's something you need to know.
Near Mutualist/Libertarian Socialist.
Jesse:I read somewhere that Any Rand suggested the idea of government-owned casinos as a means of funding the minarchist state. All of the profits from these casinos would go into providing whatever few government services there were.
This proposal seems more economically naive then some of the libertarian socialist ideas out there. I can't believe that Rand suggested such a stupid idea. Do you have a reference?
Jesse: I read somewhere that Any Rand suggested the idea of government-owned casinos as a means of funding the minarchist state. All of the profits from these casinos would go into providing whatever few government services there were. Taxation would effectively become voluntary, thus solving one of the major moral problems of the State. What do you guys think of this idea? Is it plausible? Is it moral?
Either it's voluntary or it isn't. If it's voluntary, then it isn't a ruling class (a 'govern'-ment).
If you want to offer gambling services to fund some other free service, then that's up to you. If you want to prevent competition or take anything by force, then that's not up to you.
DD5: Jesse:I read somewhere that Any Rand suggested the idea of government-owned casinos as a means of funding the minarchist state. All of the profits from these casinos would go into providing whatever few government services there were. This proposal seems more economically naive then some of the libertarian socialist ideas out there. I can't believe that Rand suggested such a stupid idea. Do you have a reference?
She mentions the idea in her essay "government financing in a free society", which can be found in her book, the Virtue of Selfishness. Looking over the essay, I realize that she never actually used the world 'casino,' she just suggested a 'government lottery.' I'm not sure if this changes the objections to the idea.
This idea is obviously still subject to the normal anarco-capitalist objections to the State. It just struck me (compared to the other ways taxes are collected) as being slightly less-bad.
But state lotteries exist already. The reason they succeed is that the state makes it very hard or just outright illegal for a private lottery to compete with them.
So in essence it is something similar to the monopoly on salt the kings used to had. It is an improvement but we can not really talk about it being voluntary funding.
This system already exists. It's called Wall Street.
Marko: But state lotteries exist already. The reason they succeed is that the state makes it very hard or just outright illegal for a private lottery to compete with them. So in essence it is something similar to the monopoly on salt the kings used to had. It is an improvement but we can not really talk about it being voluntary funding.
Good point.
A casino that donated its profits to security agencies?This isn't a state unless it forcibly excludes it competitors...
I’ve heard of this idea too. I’d say that either of two things will happen:
1) People tolerate the use of force by the government. Hence, there is a much bigger profit to be reaped by taxation than casino-management. Casinos shall be reprivatised, and competition highly regulated.
2) People do not tolerate any further government intrusion in their lives. It becomes costly for the government to do anything but operate the casino. It relinquishes any other activity, pays for protection like anyone else, and dedicates itself entirely to casinos, as a profit-maximizing choice. It clearly stops being a government.
Marko: You need to stop thinking about the government as an entity which "provides services".
I was trying to be charitable to the view.