This assumes other people know, even care about whether I pay my bills properly.
filc: This doesn't even make sense. Circular reasoning anyone?
This doesn't even make sense.
Circular reasoning anyone?
It does make sense. The only reason for the acquisition of something to be considered theft is if it is an act of unjustified seizure.This is not circular, it's definitional.
banned:It does make sense. The only reason for the acquisition of something to be considered theft is if it is an act of unjustified seizure.This is not circular, it's definitional.
Which begs the question, is it justified. Which is the premise of this whole discussion. Hence the reason why I mentioned "circular reasoning".
scineram: This assumes other people know, even care about whether I pay my bills properly.
I believe we've been through this with you already. Rent on a good or service is not a form of taxation.
filc: banned:It does make sense. The only reason for the acquisition of something to be considered theft is if it is an act of unjustified seizure.This is not circular, it's definitional. Which begs the question, is it justified. Which is the premise of this whole discussion. Hence the reason why I mentioned "circular reasoning".
So what is the reasoning that taxation is unjustified, other than assuming it?
filc:Which begs the question, is it justified. Which is the premise of this whole discussion. Hence the reason why I mentioned "circular reasoning".
What you quoted never claimed it was justified, so no, it did not beg a question. It was a definitional observation: that it is incorrect to categorize taxation as theft if taxation is justified. I fail to see why there is any reason to disagree with that statement.
banned:What you quoted never claimed it was justified, so no, it did not beg a question. It was a definitional observation: that it is incorrect to categorize taxation as theft if taxation is justified. I fail to see why there is any reason to disagree with that statement.
I fail to see why your going off on an irrelevant tangent.
Scineram stated
Scineram:No, if taxation is justified, thenit is not theft.
If extracting wealth is justified than it's not taxation. It's simply owners of property taking whats rightfully theirs. If you want to continue calling it taxation then you, like Scineram, will kindly explain to us how. Juan already gave a good enough response.
Juan:But since it is not justified it is theft. So, you are not only clueless about inflation, you are also a 'minimal'(or worse) statist ?
Taxation: the imposition of taxes; the practice of the government in levying taxes on the subjects of a state
Theft: The act of stealing property
scineram:So what is the reasoning that taxation is unjustified, other than assuming it?
Simple, I never agreed to nor desire the service rendered to me. In some cases I don't even receive the service I am paying for. I am paying for it by way of extortion. I am unable to discontinue the service. The Mafia historically operated under the exact same premise. You pay them for security as a service, or your business will suffer from some sort of harm. Do you agree than that the mafia's method of operating is legite?
Now explain to me, if I am under a condition where I do not want the services rendered to me by the state, how it is justified that a government can extract wealth and property from me without my consent.
What we are discussing here is the moral issue of taxation. We haven't even touched the economic issues of coercively distributed services which is just as an important one.
scineram:other than assuming it?
There is nothing assumed at all. I don't want your service, I'd like to take my money and property elsewhere.
Honestly Scineram what kind of response did you expect to get on this forum?
Scineram feel free to add something productive to this forum other than witty one liners that you think will return an emotional response. An explanation of your position would be a good start.
I did not expect anything else. You ruled out taxation because of some sort of absolute lockean property rights. But those need justification as well.
scineram: I did not expect anything else. You ruled out taxation because of some sort of absolute lockean property rights. But those need justification as well.
In addition to, the economic problems coercively distributed services bring, which will always under perform a market.
filc: other than witty one liners
Well at least I got 3 sentences out of you this time.
filc:I fail to see why your going off on an irrelevant tangent.
I was responding to a quote made by you. If you think the subject of the quote was irrelevant, perhaps you shouldn't have made it in the first place.
filc:If extracting wealth is justified than it's not taxation.
This is circular reasoning.
filc: If extracting wealth is justified than it's not taxation. It's simply owners of property taking whats rightfully theirs. If you want to continue calling it taxation then you, like Scineram, will kindly explain to us how. Juan already gave a good enough response. [...] Taxation: the imposition of taxes; the practice of the government in levying taxes on the subjects of a state Theft: The act of stealing property
[...]
We've gone over this. As I said earlier, theft is the unjust seizure of property, defining it as an act of stealing doesn't change this. The issue is still over whether a state has an ethical/legal claim to the property of "citizens" or a portion of that property for the provision of a monocentric justice system and military protection. If it does then taxation is justified and is therefore not theft.
filc:There is nothing assumed at all. I don't want your service, I'd like to take my money and property elsewhere.
You're assuming that it is unjust to prohibit you from exercising this preference.
I should also point out, that the crux of both arguments for the justifiability of taxation and for the "un"justifability of it is that there exists a quantifiable and universal system of ethics that can be arrived at/deduced objectively. I have no problem with the view that actions can be just or unjust with respect to certain ethical systems. However I see no evidence that purposeful actions in and of themselves contain "just" or "unjust" as natural traits.
banned: filc:If extracting wealth is justified than it's not taxation. It's simply owners of property taking whats rightfully theirs. This is circular reasoning.
filc:If extracting wealth is justified than it's not taxation. It's simply owners of property taking whats rightfully theirs.
Negative.
banned:theft is the unjust seizure of property
banned:whether a state has a n ethical/legal claim to the property of "citizens" or a portion of that property for the coersive provisioning of a monocentric justice system and military protection.
banned:whether a state has a claim to the property of "citizens" for the coercive provision of Banana's.
banned:whether a state has a claim to the property of "citizens" for the coercive provision of clothing
banned:whether a state has a claim to the property of "citizens" for the coercive provision of Shelter
banned:whether a state has a claim to the property of "citizens" for the coercive provision of <Insert generic market good>.
You may have your own circles to deal with.
Your statement reworded
The states claim to private property is justified because it can better provide goods than a market can. Be it security or whatever.
The argument is utilitarian at best.
And again as I said above the argument fails twofold.
A) Just because a producer may be the most efficient one does not mean he has a right to extract the wealth of everyone, especially for those who do not wish to partake in its services. So it fails ethically still. This is the taxation is theft argument.
B) Socialized goods will always under perform market provided goods. So the utilitarian argument that a government is justified in stealing wealth and property simply because it provides security is false.
On the market we have consumer sovereignty. Only consumers decide who is the most efficient, most attractive producer. A coercive monopoly gets around this simply by forcing everyone to participate in it's services whether they are right or wrong. Long story short there is no economic calculation as there is no consumer sovereignty when taxation is imposed. The coercive organization does not know when it is doing well or poorly, it already has, by way of violent force, compelled the entire nation into its services.
Your signature implies your a mises fan. You should know how prices are formed.
banned:I should also point out, that the crux of both arguments for the justifiability of taxation and for the "un"justifability of it is that there exists a quantifiable and universal system of ethics that can be arrived at/deduced objectively. I have no problem with the view that actions can be just or unjust with respect to certain ethical systems. However I see no evidence that purposeful actions in and of themselves contain "just" or "unjust" as natural traits.
Thats fine but this isn't about right and wrong. This is about stealing. Now whether you think stealing is right or wrong is an entirely separate topic. Feel free to jump on the moral nihilistic bandwagon with Bloom.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
filc: scineram:If property rights are not absolute, and taxation is required to provide defence and security, then taxation is not theft. I respectfully request you to explain to us how the property that I own and have worked to obtain is not absolutely mine. If what you say is true why don't we just give all our wealth and labor to the nation? You go first.
scineram:If property rights are not absolute, and taxation is required to provide defence and security, then taxation is not theft.
I respectfully request you to explain to us how the property that I own and have worked to obtain is not absolutely mine.
If what you say is true why don't we just give all our wealth and labor to the nation? You go first.
"Do Entitlements Imply that Taxation is Theft?", Kearl, J.R. (1977). Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 74-81. Blackwell Publishing (full article available through JSTOR)
"It is not self-evident that each has the right to the product of his labor since that product is not independent of the economic structure or of the initial distribution of endowments that individuals bring with them to the market." (p. 75)
"An alternative approach is to ask whether the government itself provides factors of production whose employment (in either a passive or an active way) leads to an output level higher than that which would exist in their absence. Is the collective action of individuals necessary to insure efficient production? If so, those factors of production have claims, no less moral than any others, to part of the output." (p. 75)
Hi Loftin.
Welcome to the Mises forums. It looks like your getting the hang of the quoting system. Try to "edit" previous posts instead of making new ones.
Can you clarify the following statement?
Loftin:It is not self-evident that each has the right to the product of his labor"
And to clarify the following
loftin:his appears to be an efficiency argument for market provision of all goods. Otherwise "socialized" or "under perform" may require more clear definition(s).
It has to do with the formation of meaningful prices. By socialized goods I mean coercively distributed and funded goods.
filc: Hi Loftin. Welcome to the Mises forums. It looks like your getting the hang of the quoting system. Try to "edit" previous posts instead of making new ones. Can you clarify the following statement? Loftin:It is not self-evident that each has the right to the product of his labor" And to clarify the following loftin:his appears to be an efficiency argument for market provision of all goods. Otherwise "socialized" or "under perform" may require more clear definition(s). It has to do with the formation of meaningful prices. By socialized goods I mean coercively distributed and funded goods.
Regarding the welcome -very kind. I don't expect to be a very long-term contributor (my interest attaches to this particular topic more than anything), although the conversations are pretty interesting and lively - discussion is good when people keep it substantive.
Regarding the fact that I am forum-challenged (an assertion I would not deny), I kept getting messages saying that there had been an error and that it hadn't been posted ... so I kept submitting ... as you can see.
Regarding the first request for clarification, I want to be clear that the quoted selections are not my own so I cannot claim to have the last word (or the first, for that matter) on what the original intended meaning is/was. I provided the relevant reference information for those interested.
With that disclaimer out of the way, I believe (i.e. my opinion regarding) what he is saying requires the rest of the sentence. Here it is:
"It is not self-evident that each has the right to the product of his labor since that product is not independent of the economic structure or of the initial distribution of endowments that individuals bring with them to the market." (p.75)
He later says the following:
"Private rights require the support of a collective body." (p. 79)
What I take away from his article is that the products of our labors as individuals are often not entirely free of input from collective productive factors and that as such we should be careful about making absolute declarations of ownership on that account. Here are a couple more excerpts:
"Introducing a collective agent with the power to define private rights over property leads to greater production by the community. Such collective action can realistically be thought of as a productive factor and thus -as generating a rightful claim to a share of the output. Indeed, the rent accruing to those scarce factors, now privately held, cannot be thought of as naturally theirs-it exists as a joint product of the scarce factor and the (equally important and equally scarce) collective factor." (p. 79)
"Thus, Nozick's notion of full rights to the fruits of a factor's own input is ambiguous and surely cannot be equated with the untaxed payment the factor actually receives. This payment is not independent of the collective agent's factor input. However, the state cannot claim all of the output - output increased because a private agent, using the collective factor, husbanded the scarce resource, which had been commonly held. It is the joint employment of a multiplicity of factors that generates the flow of output to which these factors, in turn, lay claim." (p. 79)
I don't agree with a number of the things the author says in the article; but what I do believe is that effective property rights are a consequence of the institutions, laws, etc. that we collectively have put in place; and that their production is a costly activity that self-interested individuals have reasons to want and to be willing to pay for. Bringing it back to what we own - the labor of our "own" efforts, I think what this author is suggesting (and which I believe ultimately has implications for the choice of tax base) is that our property rights, when they exist, do so in some sense in virtue of the social frameworks/structures within which we live, that there are good reasons for collectively defining and enforcing property rights, and that value is added as a result of this collective action that can render attribution of ownership of individuals' productive efforts more complicated than is typically admitted. I don't know if this helps, or just confuses people more.
My apologies for being so long. Some things cannot be adequately explained in one-liners - or even in 3- or 4-liners.
On a related point, it is important (it seems to me at least) to recognize the fact that to the extent that people are able to move to other nations where the property-rights/tax obligation mix (a sort of quality/price variability across producers) differ; they cannot, strictly speaking, be described as being "coerced". If I don't like the price that one grocer is charging for a gallon of milk, I am free to go elsewhere. If I don't want to pay for property rights, maybe I should move to Venezuela where I won't get much in the way of that benefit - it's a trade-off.
In the end, what I have tried to point out is that we can put government goods/services in a market framework by realizing that as people are more and more able to "shop around" for the mix of attributes and price that they desire, the kinds of disconnects that currently exist between what consumers (economically) gain from government and what they pay for it should result in a greater alignment of the two (benefit and "price"). There are reasons to believe that people should value property rights in a manner that is roughly speaking proportional to their net wealths; so, I suggest that wealth should be the basis (e.g. rather than income) for taxation since property rights are the most fundamental economic product characteristic of "government".
loftin: I don't agree with a number of the things the author says in the article; but what I do believe is that effective property rights are a consequence of the institutions, laws, etc. that we collectively have put in place; and that their production is a costly activity that self-interested individuals have reasons to want and to be willing to pay for. Bringing it back to what we own - the labor of our "own" efforts, I think what this author is suggesting (and which I believe ultimately has implications for the choice of tax base) is that our property rights, when they exist, do so in some sense in virtue of the social frameworks/structures within which we live, that there are good reasons for collectively defining and enforcing property rights, and that value is added as a result of this collective action that can render attribution of ownership of individuals' productive efforts more complicated than is typically admitted. I don't know if this helps, or just confuses people more. My apologies for being so long. Some things cannot be adequately explained in one-liners - or even in 3- or 4-liners.
No problem. Most of the article read as a clever way of justifying socialism.
So to summarize private property is only legitimate because of positive law. To keep the concept of private property legitimate we must pay our dues in upkeep of that positive law.
It's a chicken and egg argument though. The idea that the concept of property was realized only by positive law is most definitely a fallacious one. Man's behavior which exhibits protection of his own objects can be found back to times before governments even existed or had large influence. Man's concept of property predates formal positive law.
If property is not axiomatic this may be a conclusion many come to. IT sounds like that is what Scineram is getting at. I beleive it is more evident however that private property exists as a natural phenomena, it is a desireable phenomena of man. Protection, property, and rights are a part of human action. It is nearly axiomatic that man creates property, not because of positive law but because of his nature. He is inclined to homestead objects and bring them into productive use by his own merits. All his actions are employing objects he owns or objects that others own of which he has agreed to assist in employment.
This can easily be proven by eliminating the coercively distributed security services that exist today and allowing the market to fill the gap. Without a doubt insurance agency's and PDA's would form up probably over night offering such a service. The argument above however stipulates though that without positive law and a social apparatus of coercion the concept of private property would be lost, and un-protected. It is non-sequitur at best.
The concept of property predates positive law and widespread government. Man's actions alone, without government interference, shows behavior of having property and preferring to have property.
There is also the economic issue. There is no calculation in coercively distributed services.
loftin:On a related point, it is important (it seems to me at least) to recognize the fact that to the extent that people are able to move to other nations where the property-rights/tax obligation mix (a sort of quality/price variability across producers) differ; they cannot, strictly speaking, be described as being "coerced".
This is a common mistake. The above statement is ONLY true if we assume that the State owns all property in the entire nation. And that we are only paying rent to occupy that property. It has yet been proven however that the state has a legitimate claim over all the land in an entire region.
It is entirely coercive. People are forced to do things violently against their will, or suffer the violent consequences.
loftin:If I don't like the price that one grocer is charging for a gallon of milk, I am free to go elsewhere.
This is a bad analogy. When you are in a grocery store you are occupying someone else's property, they are not occupying yours. A more acurate analogy would be as follows.
Lets say you move to a neighborhood. The first day there a man shows up to your new house and tells you he will occupy your house for free and rape your daughter every Friday. He will also extract 30% of whatever income you derive. If you don't like it you can choose to move else where.
Given my example you can see that it is a clear invasion of property. The argument "Like it or leave it" is inherently flawed. If the land is mine there is nothing to like, they are stealing it's wealth from me. It is entirely coercive. If this is not the case it must be proven how the land is not mine.
loftin:If I don't want to pay for property rights, maybe I should move to Venezuela where I won't get much in the way of that benefit - it's a trade-off.
If you don't like me raping your daughter your free to move to another neighborhood.
See why the argument does not hold up well?
The stockholm syndrome would describe a situation where you may not recognize state violence when you see it. Ironic though that if wealth is stolen from man to man you see plainly that it is theft. Though if wealth is stolen from man to the state you say that it is ok. The view is inconsistent. You seem to have become apathetic to the violent actions of the state, to the point that you do not even see that when you are kicked off your own property you don't realize that it is done by coercion, force, and violence.
loftin:In the end, what I have tried to point out is that we can put government goods/services in a market framework by realizing that as people are more and more able to "shop around" for the mix of attributes and price that they desire, the kinds of disconnects that currently exist between what consumers (economically) gain from government and what they pay for it should result in a greater alignment of the two (benefit and "price").
The only way meaningful prices can form, and as such correct economic calculation, is by collective valuation done at an individual level subjectively from person to person. Consumers create market prices. Without consumer sovereignty there is no economic calculation. The state would have to somehow reconcile this with taxation which is in direct conflict with the formation of market prices.
loftin:There are reasons to believe that people should value property rights in a manner that is roughly speaking proportional to their net wealths; so, I suggest that wealth should be the basis (e.g. rather than income) for taxation since property rights are the most fundamental economic product characteristic of "government".
So we should punish and stifle the productive portions of our economy and squelch the profit motive. If you happen to be blessed with the ability of being highly productive we will punish you, steal your wealth, and distribute amongst the less deserving masses. Not the kind of solution I had envisioned.
You act as if property is not backed by coercion and threat of violence.
It is, but what of it? You're in the habit of making silly questions, to be frank, that are not unknown or even unanswered in libertarian circles.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Juan:That's not true. Some individuals may abstain from crime because they fear retaliation, but that's not the case of the majority of civilized people. So scineram, as usual, you are wrong.
And If anything securty is an accessory to property.
No, and you just admitted it. Two contradictory sentences after another.
I read three sentences, no two of which are necessarily contradictory, so help me out a little here....
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
scineram:Some individuals may abstain from crime because they fear retaliation
Here he conceded my point. So I was right. Then he said I was wrong.
you made a statement that category A is necessary for category B.
A coercion/violence
B property rights.
he said this was not so as property rights may function through understanding and respect. thereby undercutting your 'necessary' connection between the whole category of A and that of B.
disagree?
Yes. How many people are in jail for theft or trespass?
There must be thousands, I do not know any personally. the point being?
filc: loftin: I don't agree with a number of the things the author says in the article; but what I do believe is that effective property rights are a consequence of the institutions, laws, etc. that we collectively have put in place; and that their production is a costly activity that self-interested individuals have reasons to want and to be willing to pay for. Bringing it back to what we own - the labor of our "own" efforts, I think what this author is suggesting (and which I believe ultimately has implications for the choice of tax base) is that our property rights, when they exist, do so in some sense in virtue of the social frameworks/structures within which we live, that there are good reasons for collectively defining and enforcing property rights, and that value is added as a result of this collective action that can render attribution of ownership of individuals' productive efforts more complicated than is typically admitted. I don't know if this helps, or just confuses people more. My apologies for being so long. Some things cannot be adequately explained in one-liners - or even in 3- or 4-liners. No problem. Most of the article read as a clever way of justifying socialism.
<P> As I said, I don't agree with much of what the article says – I mean I don't believe the reasoning is air-tight. But it would seem better to identify and expose the errors in reasoning than to characterize the piece as you have above. Anyways, my apologies if you found it not worth reading. While I don't know anyone here well enough to label them as dogmatic; I would suggest that dogmatism breeds certain kinds of extremism and generally encumbers the learning process. If you start out with the axiom that collective action is always bad, you will of course find little value in the article.
<P> This said, what I found of interest in that article (what I take away from it) is that there are ways in which value can be added by allowing for the existence of a collective dynamic. Indeed, one is left wondering (if collective actions are to be seen as inherently “bad”) why governments so often come into being through the interactions of self-interested individual human beings.
filc: So to summarize private property is only legitimate because of positive law. To keep the concept of private property legitimate we must pay our dues in upkeep of that positive law.
<P> I don't think I would use the words “only legitimate” as you have above. Clearly, as you point out, we can conceive of a notion of property that exists independent of the kinds of formal government forms that we see in the world today. (For example, the complete absence of formal government would seem to induce a notion of property characterized by the “law of the jungle”.) But the existence of a “lowest common denominator” notion of property or ownership does not preclude the existence of alternative conceptions of property induced by more sophisticated systems of law (forms of governments).
filc: It's a chicken and egg argument though. The idea that the concept of property was realized only by positive law is most definitely a fallacious one. Man's behavior which exhibits protection of his own objects can be found back to times before governments even existed or had large influence. Man's concept of property predates formal positive law.
<P> I've already explained why the above is not an accurate characterization of what I've written: I have nowhere claimed that there is no concept of property or ownership that exists independent of human law or government. But existence does not imply uniqueness, even less optimality. If other notions of ownership exist (e.g. associated with differing systems of law – governments) then it seems like it would make sense to consider their various properties with the purpose of identifying the conditions under which each is most sensible.
filc: If property is not axiomatic this may be a conclusion many come to. IT sounds like that is what Scineram is getting at. I beleive it is more evident however that private property exists as a natural phenomena, it is a desireable phenomena of man. Protection, property, and rights are a part of human action. It is nearly axiomatic that man creates property, not because of positive law but because of his nature. He is inclined to homestead objects and bring them into productive use by his own merits. All his actions are employing objects he owns or objects that others own of which he has agreed to assist in employment.
<P> I'm not sure what it means for property to be axiomatic. Nor what it means that “man creates property” – unless lions and hippos also create property as they act in self-interested ways. While the desire to define (potentially different) notions of ownership naturally results from the self-interest of interacting individuals, as the article reference suggests (the example provided there motivates a desire to shape the definition of ownership in a way that benefits the group in a potentially pareto-improving manner, if I remember correctly) collective action may mediate the self-interest of individuals in ways that result in property rights that are more complicated than simple analogies to the animal kingdom (or for that matter to the early, unobserved, and largely hypothesized organizational forms of humankind) might suggest.
filc: This can easily be proven by eliminating the coercively distributed security services that exist today and allowing the market to fill the gap. Without a doubt insurance agency's and PDA's would form up probably over night offering such a service. The argument above however stipulates though that without positive law and a social apparatus of coercion the concept of private property would be lost, and un-protected. It is non-sequitur at best.
<P> It's an interesting form of proof to be sure – basically a thought experiment. I think it's quite likely (probably even certain) that the market would indeed fill in the gap as you suggest. I guess the unstated assumption is that markets will be more efficient and therefore the outcome is better. Is that right?
filc: The concept of property predates positive law and widespread government. Man's actions alone, without government interference, shows behavior of having property and preferring to have property.
<P> I've already explained why this argument is not convincing to me (which doesn't mean it shouldn't be to you - or to anyone else). The matter of efficiency of markets over government is more convincing; but I guess I have generally taken for granted the “need” for government as I explained in an earlier comment. For example, I wonder why governments exist if they are so much less efficient. Why is it that time after time, century across century, we associate and form governments? The fact that this is what has happened in the past is no proof that it is in any sense optimal (for the same reason that I cite above), but it does seem that it requires some explaining.
filc: There is also the economic issue. There is no calculation in coercively distributed services.
<P> I'm not sure I understand what the second sentence means.
filc: loftin:On a related point, it is important (it seems to me at least) to recognize the fact that to the extent that people are able to move to other nations where the property-rights/tax obligation mix (a sort of quality/price variability across producers) differ; they cannot, strictly speaking, be described as being "coerced". filc:This is a common mistake. The above statement is ONLY true if we assume that the State owns all property in the entire nation. And that we are only paying rent to occupy that property. It has yet been proven however that the state has a legitimate claim over all the land in an entire region. It is entirely coercive. People are forced to do things violently against their will, or suffer the violent consequences. <P> I think I'm beginning to understand your point here. If you have absolute ownership of something, you should not be required to use or not use it in this or that way contrary to your desires. I guess that what I would say is that when we live in societies, there is a sense in which we give up absolute ownership – even of our own person, since we cannot use our physical person in ways that violate the same rights (in property, e.g.) that others have. It seems that as a general rule, absolute rights are an internally inconsistent proposition to start with. This same principle would seem to apply to rights attaching to property/ownership. loftin:If I don't like the price that one grocer is charging for a gallon of milk, I am free to go elsewhere. filc:This is a bad analogy. When you are in a grocery store you are occupying someone else's property, they are not occupying yours. A more acurate analogy would be as follows. Lets say you move to a neighborhood. The first day there a man shows up to your new house and tells you he will occupy your house for free and rape your daughter every Friday. He will also extract 30% of whatever income you derive. If you don't like it you can choose to move else where. Given my example you can see that it is a clear invasion of property. The argument "Like it or leave it" is inherently flawed. If the land is mine there is nothing to like, they are stealing it's wealth from me. It is entirely coercive. If this is not the case it must be proven how the land is not mine. <P> Besides being moderae offensive, the alternative analogy you've provided appears to me to have almost no true correspondence to the situation we're describing and in fact seems to willfully ignore the relevant aspects of the situation the analogy was intended to highlight. The analogy of the milk appears to be much more true to the situation as it was meant (notwithstanding its imperfections) to highlight the relevant aspect of the situation, which is the fact that in the modern nation-states we are generally aware of the conditions attaching to the acquisition and ownership of property (including any limitations) prior to making a purchase. Having knowledge of this information enables us to accurately assess the item's value. <P> Unlike the demands made on the new homeowner ex post in the analogy you provide above, taxation does not come as a surprise to anyone who choses to continue to live in a country where laws exist (including the processes defined as “democratic”); and refusal to pay those taxes once implicit consent to the conditions of ownership is given by choice of residence – especially when one has the ability to do otherwise by choosing a different government to live under – constitutes a flagrant violation of rules that he has agreed to. Unlike taxation, in the case you've provided the additional stipulations come as a complete surprise to the new homeowner: he did not know about them prior to obtaining the new property. Because of this, our sense of justice indeed (as it should do) cries “foul”. <P>As an unrelated note from someone whose attachment to this forum is limited to this topic, a brief comment: I realize that it's easy to make oversights in the heat of the moment; but let's try to be more careful about these kinds of things. No one's survival depends on the correctness of our original arguments. It's a forum: people should feel fine about being wrong occasionally, don't you think? Acting otherwise seems to be something of a statement regarding one's own assessment of his intelligence relative to a population he cannot have complete information regarding – it seems unwise. loftin:If I don't want to pay for property rights, maybe I should move to Venezuela where I won't get much in the way of that benefit - it's a trade-off. filc:If you don't like me raping your daughter your free to move to another neighborhood. See why the argument does not hold up well? <P> I dealt with this above. filc:The stockholm syndrome would describe a situation where you may not recognize state violence when you see it. Ironic though that if wealth is stolen from man to man you see plainly that it is theft. Though if wealth is stolen from man to the state you say that it is ok. The view is inconsistent. You seem to have become apathetic to the violent actions of the state, to the point that you do not even see that when you are kicked off your own property you don't realize that it is done by coercion, force, and violence. <P>While I very much sympathize with your concern regarding the potential for apathy towards state violence – including the corresponding vigilance that such concerns should motivate – I think that the subsequent explanation needs some adjustment to be workable. In particular, I think that most reasonable people would agree that there is a non-trivial difference between “man to man” transactions involving force and the unhappiness of an individual regarding the constraints imposed on him or her by social constructs such as laws to which he implicitly agrees by choice of residence. The difference, as I have tried to emphasize above, exists in the ability to choose. To the extent that one cannot choose, the requirements are more egregious, though still materially different from “man to man” theft. Collapsing such important distinctions does little to further the cause: you want people who can think, not who just dogmatically accept a given position. loftin:In the end, what I have tried to point out is that we can put government goods/services in a market framework by realizing that as people are more and more able to "shop around" for the mix of attributes and price that they desire, the kinds of disconnects that currently exist between what consumers (economically) gain from government and what they pay for it should result in a greater alignment of the two (benefit and "price"). filc:The only way meaningful prices can form, and as such correct economic calculation, is by collective valuation done at an individual level subjectively from person to person. Consumers create market prices. Without consumer sovereignty there is no economic calculation. The state would have to somehow reconcile this with taxation which is in direct conflict with the formation of market prices. <P> I quite like this comment – I agree with it almost entirely. Consumers are indeed the key. What I have suggested regarding taxation moves in this general direction by pointing to a policy that is consistent with the market mechanism in the sense that allocates obligations in a manner that is consistent with what risk-averse individuals' self interest demands. As tax competition becomes global (by greater access to transportation and information), it would seem that countries that ignore the relationship between what benefits they provide and what they demand of their residents can expect to suffer a loss of collective influence as people “vote with their feet”. loftin:There are reasons to believe that people should value property rights in a manner that is roughly speaking proportional to their net wealths; so, I suggest that wealth should be the basis (e.g. rather than income) for taxation since property rights are the most fundamental economic product characteristic of "government". filc:So we should punish and stifle the productive portions of our economy and squelch the profit motive. If you happen to be blessed with the ability of being highly productive we will punish you, steal your wealth, and distribute amongst the less deserving masses. Not the kind of solution I had envisioned. <P> No, quite the opposite would result I believe. To the extent that there is a disconnect between the benefits accruing to individuals from collective dynamics and the obligations they are assessed in connection with those dynamics, existing inefficiencies (suboptimal allocations across different asset classes, etc.) will persist. <P> In fact, I'm even fine considering the scenario you seem to be intent on pursuing – namely that markets should “rule” the economic interactions of individuals and that this somehow precludes the existence of the nation-state - even though I am not nearly as sanguine as you are that the latter half is the necessary implication of the former half of that claim. Considering the scenario you seem to pursue only confirms a primary component of the idea that I have been articulating (the use of wealth rather than income as a basis for paying for that bundle of benefits we loosely call “property rights”). Here's the simple explanation of the relationship: <P> In the absence of the kinds of governments we live under, your wealth requires resources to maintain ownership of (think 18th century France, the cultural revolution in China, etc., as extreme situations of what happens when the notion of property rights experiences real commotion). The resources required will in general be proportional to the level of wealth you have – this seems to verge on indisputable. It follows that the “price” you will pay – that the market will naturally produce - will be proportional to your wealth. Setting the price based on some other quantity (e.g. your income) would be foolish in much the same way that setting the price of any insurance product on something other than the underlying potential loss would be foolish. To the extent that one vendor provides the corresponding services more efficiently, he will have an advantage and thrive. To the extent that he provides the services inefficiently, his market share will wane. At least this is what seems to be the case to me. I have thought about it extensively, and conversed with a number of people on the topic; but am by no means exempt from making material mistakes in the reasoning. <P> I would be interested in understanding any critical insights you or anyone else in this forum might have regarding this aspect of the suggestion I am making, even if you fundamentally reject all possibility for the formation of nation-state governments via the market mechanism that appears to represent (this isn't in my opinion a bad thing) your core tenet.
filc:This is a common mistake. The above statement is ONLY true if we assume that the State owns all property in the entire nation. And that we are only paying rent to occupy that property. It has yet been proven however that the state has a legitimate claim over all the land in an entire region. It is entirely coercive. People are forced to do things violently against their will, or suffer the violent consequences.
<P> I think I'm beginning to understand your point here. If you have absolute ownership of something, you should not be required to use or not use it in this or that way contrary to your desires. I guess that what I would say is that when we live in societies, there is a sense in which we give up absolute ownership – even of our own person, since we cannot use our physical person in ways that violate the same rights (in property, e.g.) that others have. It seems that as a general rule, absolute rights are an internally inconsistent proposition to start with. This same principle would seem to apply to rights attaching to property/ownership.
filc:This is a bad analogy. When you are in a grocery store you are occupying someone else's property, they are not occupying yours. A more acurate analogy would be as follows. Lets say you move to a neighborhood. The first day there a man shows up to your new house and tells you he will occupy your house for free and rape your daughter every Friday. He will also extract 30% of whatever income you derive. If you don't like it you can choose to move else where. Given my example you can see that it is a clear invasion of property. The argument "Like it or leave it" is inherently flawed. If the land is mine there is nothing to like, they are stealing it's wealth from me. It is entirely coercive. If this is not the case it must be proven how the land is not mine.
<P> Besides being moderae offensive, the alternative analogy you've provided appears to me to have almost no true correspondence to the situation we're describing and in fact seems to willfully ignore the relevant aspects of the situation the analogy was intended to highlight. The analogy of the milk appears to be much more true to the situation as it was meant (notwithstanding its imperfections) to highlight the relevant aspect of the situation, which is the fact that in the modern nation-states we are generally aware of the conditions attaching to the acquisition and ownership of property (including any limitations) prior to making a purchase. Having knowledge of this information enables us to accurately assess the item's value.
<P> Unlike the demands made on the new homeowner ex post in the analogy you provide above, taxation does not come as a surprise to anyone who choses to continue to live in a country where laws exist (including the processes defined as “democratic”); and refusal to pay those taxes once implicit consent to the conditions of ownership is given by choice of residence – especially when one has the ability to do otherwise by choosing a different government to live under – constitutes a flagrant violation of rules that he has agreed to. Unlike taxation, in the case you've provided the additional stipulations come as a complete surprise to the new homeowner: he did not know about them prior to obtaining the new property. Because of this, our sense of justice indeed (as it should do) cries “foul”.
<P>As an unrelated note from someone whose attachment to this forum is limited to this topic, a brief comment: I realize that it's easy to make oversights in the heat of the moment; but let's try to be more careful about these kinds of things. No one's survival depends on the correctness of our original arguments. It's a forum: people should feel fine about being wrong occasionally, don't you think? Acting otherwise seems to be something of a statement regarding one's own assessment of his intelligence relative to a population he cannot have complete information regarding – it seems unwise.
filc:If you don't like me raping your daughter your free to move to another neighborhood. See why the argument does not hold up well?
<P> I dealt with this above.
filc:The stockholm syndrome would describe a situation where you may not recognize state violence when you see it. Ironic though that if wealth is stolen from man to man you see plainly that it is theft. Though if wealth is stolen from man to the state you say that it is ok. The view is inconsistent. You seem to have become apathetic to the violent actions of the state, to the point that you do not even see that when you are kicked off your own property you don't realize that it is done by coercion, force, and violence.
<P>While I very much sympathize with your concern regarding the potential for apathy towards state violence – including the corresponding vigilance that such concerns should motivate – I think that the subsequent explanation needs some adjustment to be workable. In particular, I think that most reasonable people would agree that there is a non-trivial difference between “man to man” transactions involving force and the unhappiness of an individual regarding the constraints imposed on him or her by social constructs such as laws to which he implicitly agrees by choice of residence. The difference, as I have tried to emphasize above, exists in the ability to choose. To the extent that one cannot choose, the requirements are more egregious, though still materially different from “man to man” theft. Collapsing such important distinctions does little to further the cause: you want people who can think, not who just dogmatically accept a given position.
filc:The only way meaningful prices can form, and as such correct economic calculation, is by collective valuation done at an individual level subjectively from person to person. Consumers create market prices. Without consumer sovereignty there is no economic calculation. The state would have to somehow reconcile this with taxation which is in direct conflict with the formation of market prices.
<P> I quite like this comment – I agree with it almost entirely. Consumers are indeed the key. What I have suggested regarding taxation moves in this general direction by pointing to a policy that is consistent with the market mechanism in the sense that allocates obligations in a manner that is consistent with what risk-averse individuals' self interest demands. As tax competition becomes global (by greater access to transportation and information), it would seem that countries that ignore the relationship between what benefits they provide and what they demand of their residents can expect to suffer a loss of collective influence as people “vote with their feet”.
filc:So we should punish and stifle the productive portions of our economy and squelch the profit motive. If you happen to be blessed with the ability of being highly productive we will punish you, steal your wealth, and distribute amongst the less deserving masses. Not the kind of solution I had envisioned.
<P> No, quite the opposite would result I believe. To the extent that there is a disconnect between the benefits accruing to individuals from collective dynamics and the obligations they are assessed in connection with those dynamics, existing inefficiencies (suboptimal allocations across different asset classes, etc.) will persist.
<P> In fact, I'm even fine considering the scenario you seem to be intent on pursuing – namely that markets should “rule” the economic interactions of individuals and that this somehow precludes the existence of the nation-state - even though I am not nearly as sanguine as you are that the latter half is the necessary implication of the former half of that claim. Considering the scenario you seem to pursue only confirms a primary component of the idea that I have been articulating (the use of wealth rather than income as a basis for paying for that bundle of benefits we loosely call “property rights”). Here's the simple explanation of the relationship:
<P> In the absence of the kinds of governments we live under, your wealth requires resources to maintain ownership of (think 18th century France, the cultural revolution in China, etc., as extreme situations of what happens when the notion of property rights experiences real commotion). The resources required will in general be proportional to the level of wealth you have – this seems to verge on indisputable. It follows that the “price” you will pay – that the market will naturally produce - will be proportional to your wealth. Setting the price based on some other quantity (e.g. your income) would be foolish in much the same way that setting the price of any insurance product on something other than the underlying potential loss would be foolish. To the extent that one vendor provides the corresponding services more efficiently, he will have an advantage and thrive. To the extent that he provides the services inefficiently, his market share will wane. At least this is what seems to be the case to me. I have thought about it extensively, and conversed with a number of people on the topic; but am by no means exempt from making material mistakes in the reasoning.
<P> I would be interested in understanding any critical insights you or anyone else in this forum might have regarding this aspect of the suggestion I am making, even if you fundamentally reject all possibility for the formation of nation-state governments via the market mechanism that appears to represent (this isn't in my opinion a bad thing) your core tenet.
loftin: I would be interested in understanding any critical insights you or anyone else in this forum might have regarding this aspect of the suggestion I am making, even if you fundamentally reject all possibility for the formation of nation-state governments via the market mechanism that appears to represent (this isn't in my opinion a bad thing) your core tenet.
I would be interested in understanding any critical insights you or anyone else in this forum might have regarding this aspect of the suggestion I am making, even if you fundamentally reject all possibility for the formation of nation-state governments via the market mechanism that appears to represent (this isn't in my opinion a bad thing) your core tenet.
<P> It is the high regard for the market mechanism that I applaud (i.e. that "isn't in my opinion a bad thing), not the more extreme conclusion regarding the value or eventual demise of government (e.g. nation-states) as we know it.
Eric:it is not unfair to tax some of their wealth in order to help those who were unable to benefit as much from the social construct, or to help society at large.
This is where it falls apart. The caste/class system begins to take shape. Taxation will just expand until it consumes everything. It always has it always will. Then we begin again.
Criminals, there ought to be a law.
Criminals there ought to be a whole lot more. Bon Scott.
Wow sorry, It only showed the first three replies when I clicked it.