Discussion in 'Political Science' started by Maximatic, Dec 21, 2016.
What if a lot of people didn't choose to? How could we afford it?
That is for you to figure out, if you wish to take care of them.
I don't think it would be right of us to steal other people's money in order to afford it. So we had better raise the necessary funds ourselves.
Neither of those are easy questions for the statist or the libertarian. As it stands now, privately owned fire protection services often extinguish fires for non-customers who did not request service, bill the property owner, put a lien on the property, and have that lien backed by the local government.
On its face, that seems like an injustice(to me, anyway). The property owner didn't ask the fire extinguishers to do anything, they acted of their own accord. How can their bill be legitimate? If a guy went around painting houses or fixing cars without permission of the owners and then billing them, would any of us really think they owe him for his service? With a fire, though, we can all recognize that it can spread and damage the property of others, so maybe the owner or occupant of the property where it started is liable. But what if it wasn't his fault at all? What if a lightning strike started the fire? Are we each really liable for any damage in which our property is involved? What if someone steals your car and rams it into some gas pumps and turns the place into a big unrealistic fireball? Are you liable?
I think a case by case basis is the best on which to decide most of these nebulous cases, and I don't see how taxation or legislation can increase the likelihood of achieving just outcomes.
My guess is that, in a stateless society, fire extinguishing services would often put out fires on the property of non-customers, they would bill those non-customers, and sometimes sometimes those billings would be upheld by dispute resolution agencies and sometimes they wouldn't.
The same problems apply in the case of many forest fires. Other than that, though, it isn't clear that extinguishing a forest fire is always the right thing to do. I've heard they benefit the ecosystem in various ways. Many of them, we can't put out regardless of how much effort we throw at them. They end up getting put out by rain or by running out of fuel.
But again, I don't see taxation as the right way to make ourselves feel safer from fire.
This solution reminds me of third world countries where there is no safety net for the most vulnerable. They have to depend on family, if they have family, and to the extent that a family can afford it. If they don't have family who can help, they die.
What a coincidence. Welfare states remind me of the Roman Empire just before its collapse. Its middle class were third-world-poor by today's standards.
I am not an expert on the fall of the Roman empire, but if what you say is true, then I would imagine that the Romans were not really producing anything anymore, and their ability to acquire riches through conquest had ended. The U.S. is not dependent on conquest to acquire riches, but it is essential that our country produces wealth.
It is interesting to me that you didn't counter my concern with a plan. I, for one, am unwilling to see my country turned into one where old, sick, penniless people die in the streets or where children are begging for food on the streets. We are not Ethiopia.
Let's assume a stateless society with a fire-vulnerable township that has decided to pool money for risk prevention.
If one guy doesn't want to pay, and since nobody in their right mind wouldn't put out a fire that could spread, it would seem that that gentleman is stealing the benefits of their pool, no? Thus, if the rest wanted to coerce him for the fees, it would be reasonable if his evasion is reframed as theft.
I think the risks of privatization in roads and firefighters is that they protect infrastructure that doesn't really get a "do-over." It's easy enough to shop for competitive retail products. How many buildings have to burn down before you can evaluate the efficiency of a private fire service, and when should you switch? Is that even possible with firefighting departments? How many (*)(*)(*)(*)ty roads need to be built before we decide we went with the wrong contractors?
What about monopolies? Eventually, somebody's going to get a monopoly on local roads somewhere and privately extort a transit network.
Or the other end, complete destitution and irrationality. A township that has no money for roads or firefighters becomes blighted. Perhaps some ballsy capitalists could invest in the area, but they'd be starting from scratch, whereas standardized infrastructure is at least a start.
In general, I find the inefficiencies of a taxed, public option preferable to the worst case scenario of privatization of these services.
I'm sure there are a great many people who share your concern (including myself). Without taxes, you could devote thirty percent of your income to prevent this from happening.
What has done more to reduce poverty, taxation or voluntary action? Voluntary action includes technological innovation, trade, industry, and charity. Wealth is the alternative to poverty. Voluntary action creates wealth. Taxation can only transfer existing wealth from one party to another. In addition to the opportunities created by innovation, trade, and industry, by which people can pull themselves out of poverty, many people opt to voluntarily give some of their own justly acquired property to others in need. In other words, forcible expropriation is not a prerequisite for charitable giving.
Did your country look like Ethiopia before AFDC and SS were introduced in the 1930s? What about the people in Ethiopia? Is their well being less important than that of the people living within the borders of the area arbitrarily defined as the U.S.A.? Who will help them? But wait, people already do choose to voluntarily help the truly impoverished:
since 1990, private philanthropy has far exceeded government funding. U.S. private donors coughed up an estimated $95.2 billion in 2005 — nearly four times the $27.6 billion spent in official foreign aid — for schools, orphanages, medical clinics, supplies and other development programs in Africa, Latin America, Russia, Eastern Europe and Asia.
“It comes down to religiosity, those who go to church. Those who go to church donate more than those who don’t,”
So, here's a plan: Go to church.
Imagine how much more people would give to charity if so much of what we earn were not forcibly taken by government.
As it is, I paid about 7.6% of my wages to Social Security and Medicare last year.
My parents-in-law are in their 80s and still live independently in their own home. Without these programs, they would be crammed into my house, but I would have no way to pay for their medical care. Truth is, they'd both be dead.
I don't go to church, but I give away a lot of money (a lot for me that is). Anyways, continuing our discussion ...
I have read those statistics on charitable giving in the U.S. We are a generous people. But that said, that 92 billion we give away is dwarfed by the cost of Medicare which is currently around 670 billion just for Part A. Part C and D add close to another 100 billion.
In 2016 Social Security will disburse 918 billion, mostly to retirees. Most retirees return this money right straight back into the economy, and it keeps them independent.
Even though I know you don't like taxation, I take it from our discussion that you do believe in insurance. Social Security and Medicare are insurance. What you don't like about them is that is that they are mandatory insurances, funded by taxation. I will tell you, Max, that I think the good these programs do far outweighs the bad, the bad being their mandatory nature. But the mandatory nature of these programs makes them stable and reliable to those who rely upon them. Voluntary giving cannot provide that reliability. And I also doubt that voluntary giving could replace these programs. And it seems worthwhile for this old guy to say something ...
Life is short, friend. It seems to go by in the blink of an eye. And when you are 60, thinking about retirement and how you're going to manage your twilight years, it feels like life zoomed by so fast. And before you know it, you're at retirement age. Now, these programs are no longer for some "other people"; they're for you. What I'm trying to say is that you are the elderly, inevitably, perhaps just not yet.
By the way, changing gears a little ...
My father-in-law, now in his mid-80s was dirt poor as a boy. Lived in Missouri and Oklahoma. He learned at an early age how to shoot and dress squirrels, rabbits, possums - basically anything with meat on it - to survive. And yes, when things were bad, people went without food at times, in America.
I have little sympathy for able-bodied adults who don't pull their own weight.... people who have made poor life choices as young people, like drugs, dropping out, pregnancy out of wedlock, etc. But neither you or I or anyone got to choose our parents, and I'll be ******ned if I'm going to let children go without food, shelter, clothes, and medical care in my country, America. And I'm willing to pay taxes to pay for that. This may be mandatory, but it is with my permission and approval. Those that don't want to help? ... Screw 'em. They're going to help, and I really don't give a s**t if they like it or not.
Isn't the point of taxation to create a stable foundation for voluntary action? To say that they're diametrically opposed is shortsighted.
Pooling insurance is the cheapest, so doesn't it make sense that we should pay as a group for insurance from invasion, fire, illness, and crime?
That's what they say, but it isn't possible for it to be true.
There can be no taxation without a surplus(there has to be something sustainable to tax).
There can be no surplus without division of labor.
There can be no division of labor without voluntary action.
Voluntary action is always logically and chronologically prior to taxation.
Not sure what we've proven if all we've proven is voluntary action is necessary for taxation.
Sure, there was only voluntary action before taxation, but then somebody decided the cheapest way to pay for group expenditures was together.
Hypothetically, 100% voluntary tax participation is the cheapest way to pay for anything, assuming efficiency.
If efficiency could be assumed, everybody, libertarians and all, would gladly pay into a pool if it was the most efficient use of their dollar.
Of course, efficiency cannot be assumed, and the question of privatizing it all comes up as a hypothetically more efficient plan, but that is the debate, I suppose.
If welfare is the question, I believe paying for the safety net will cost me less than the systemic ramifications of doing without.
You don't think voluntary giving could replace SS or provide the same reliability. It wouldn't have to. There are more efficient voluntary ways to pool savings for the time we each know is coming. I don't think robbing everyone to support those who fail to plan for their own future is justifiable at all. For those who don't or can't save for their own retirement, charity can fill the gap. We should expect more people to plan for their future if they know that no government will do it for them. We should expect more people to give to charity if government doesn't take money from them by force for that purpose.
Also, SS is not reliable in the long run. We all know it is on an unsustainable course. No representative democracy has ever lasted over ~200 years as a welfare state, and, given the incentive structure present in such a system of governance, we shouldn't expect sustainability from it. The electorate is incentivized to choose representatives who will loot the treasury for their benefit, and the representatives, themselves, are incentivized to loot the treasury for their own benefit and manipulate regulatory systems to their own advantage while they have the chance. Our children's children, or their children, will see the collapse of a system we know to be unsustainable. They will have nothing to fall back on other than their own ingenuity. It's only a matter of time.
I doubt you agree with my prediction, and I'm sure you don't want to. But, what if you are wrong?
What if one small group of people wanted out so we could put our convictions to the test? What if libertarians end up outnumbering people of other political persuasions in a small state, say, New Hampshire, gaining control of the government there by the legally established avenues, and seceding from the Union?
Would you respect their decision, or would you prefer that the Union go to war against them and kill them until they change their minds and agree to stay?
In other words; can we agree to disagree about this, or do you insist that violence be employed against those who would separate themselves from your preferred system of governance?
Protect send several agents to collect Jack only to find out Jack has hired (*)(*)(*)(*)off, a private security firm, who inform the Protect agents that they will kill them if they attempt to arrest their client.
What happens then?
Why would Jane be entitled to any payout when Jill had no insurance or protection of any kind?
Why does the fact that she is the victim's mother matter at all when Jill had zero protection insurance?
How does this not devolve into vigilante mob justice by the poor and the rich paying off crimes without ever suffering consequences?
- - - Updated - - -
Ever heard of the tragedy of the commons or the free rider problem?
Protect shows the evidence of Jack's guilt to (*)(*)(*)(*)off, and asks them to examine it and then decide if they really want to press this issue.
Because a dispute resolution agency that everyone in the society respects as reliable has ruled that Jack has incurred that liability to her.
- - - Updated - - -
How does it?
Why would they care? They are being paid for protection detail against anyone who attempts to detain or otherwise harm their client.
- - - Updated - - -
So you are saying there would be a dispute resolution agency with a monopoly? Or are you saying that everyone in the society would respect it?
What is Jack hires a competing dispute resolution agency and they rule against Jane?
Because there is an existing legal order in which they are trying to do business.
A legal order made up of competing businesses. If they don't like the judgment from one legal order, they can just pay another legal order to judge in their favor.
No, that would be a state.
Yes, they would respect it in the same sense in which everyone respects Equifax's opinion of your credit score.
That would be an anomaly, like Trans Union rating you as low risk and Experian rating you as high risk(I stipulated that the evidence is clear in this case). If the evidence is ambiguous, it would be like an appellant court overturning the decision of a lower court. But, in that case, I don't think anyone(Protect, for example) would risk acting against Jack.
- - - Updated - - -
Policies of all dispute resolution agencies that stay in business would have to reflect, to a high degree, a sense of justice common to the people of the society.
Rather they would have to reflect the sense of justice common to their greatest source of profit. Who do you think that would be? The poor masses or the rich elite?
Separate names with a comma.