I was reading on Roderick Long's blog today and stumbled upon an amusing question.
So, if the opportunity arises where you could have Megacorp’s, but only Megacorp’s, tax burden lowered the (non-vulgar) libertarian response is to do what?
Its fairness vs freedom. Roderick seems to be dodging the question, so I was wondering what the thoughts were around here. Thanks.
Fairness sucks, freedom rules.
Would you say to the one man on the block that hasn't been robbed that he should be robbed as well, because everyone else was?
We can use economics to determine the negative effects of such an apparently favoritist tax system, but to me supporting freedom is of greater importance than preventing every instance of detrimental economic policies. Fortunately for me I can usually do both at once. :)
Angurse:Roderick seems to be dodging the question
That's not new.
So very well said.
The poster seems to be making that very same point. Roderick has basically said if your not being robbed you're a robber with this:
To the extent that Megacorp is the beneficiary of government privilege, it’s not a slave, it’s a master...
Which is just sounds insane (assuming I'm reading him correctly).
Angurse:Which is just sounds insane (assuming I'm reading him correctly).
That's not new either.
I don't think it's insane to oppose corporations who receive more subsidies than they pay taxes.
That said, a libertarian should always argue to lower taxes to zero (but not below) for either corporations or consumers, as the burden gets shared via pricing anyway making the difference merely semantic.
Consultant isn't comparing taxes to less taxes and calling it a subsidy, he's comparing handouts to taxes and saying if you receive more money stolen from other people than you were robbed from yourself then you're in the wrong. It's something totally different than the OP scenario.
It depends on what Megacorp advocates. They could possibly advocate low taxes for them and high taxes for everyone else, in which case they are trying to foist costs on everyone else. If they are just lucky sitting ducks it is okay.
We don't know anything about Megacorp. Is Megacorp a recipient of subsidies or a beneficiary of protectionism, or isn't it?
cporter: Consultant isn't comparing taxes to less taxes and calling it a subsidy, he's comparing handouts to taxes and saying if you receive more money stolen from other people than you were robbed from yourself then you're in the wrong. It's something totally different than the OP scenario.
So, one can rephrase the OP question as: “if you could give subsidies to Megacorps and those alone, would you?”
I say it depends on whether that income will be subtracted form the state’s coffers, or just be financed through more taxes. The latter case of course to be avoided, while in the former, I’d prefer tax money going to someone else that the collector, in order to lower the collector’s incentive to tax. Thus, I’d advocate Megacorp subsidies.
But of course, the whole scenario is unrealistic.