That is certainly an option, as neatly described in Becker's approach to the behaviour of rational economic man when confronted with an expected utility problem involving legitimate and criminal activity. Economics, as a discipline, separates into two aspects: exchange theory and conflict theory. You ignore the latter and form naïve comment based on utopian understanding of the former
Stealing/taking is always an option...but why isn't it a GOOD choice to make? There's an easy but empty answer and a hard but filling answer. A. Easy answer: Because it's morally wrong to do. For example the 10 commandments and the US laws both say that you should not steal. 2. Hard answer: Because stealing prevents the victim's perspective from mattering Now, clearly I struggle to help you understand why your perspective should matter. Which is really strange...because you sure spend a lot of your limited time sharing your perspective with me and everybody else who reads this. Why would you share your perspective if you thought that your perspective did not matter? Let's say that I steal $1 from you and use it to cure cancer. Would I be a hero or a villain? Let's say that I steal $1 from you and use it to blow up a bus full of children. Would I be a hero or a villain? Robin Hood wasn't a hero because he stole money...he was a hero because of what he did with the money he stole. He helped people. But did he really help those poor people simply by giving them money? If it was really that easy to eliminate poverty...then wouldn't poverty have been eliminated long ago? One thing I'm certain of...is that we don't eliminate problems by destroying perspectives. This is why we say that a mind is a terrible thing to waste. It's a terrible thing to waste because we all benefit when you apply your unique perspective to solving problems. Yet, your mind is wasted if other people prevent you from choosing how you spend your time/money. Therefore, my issue isn't so much with taxes...my issue is when 538 congresspeople choose how 150 million people's money is spent in the public sector. That wastes a lot of minds. We would all benefit when we allow taxpayers to decide for themselves whether they give their taxes to congress or whether they directly allocate their taxes.
I'm not interested in your non-economic prattle. In terms of theft, there are two aspects. For society we can of course refer to social costs. For the individual we can refer to the nature of deterrence and how that impacts of the utility maximisation decision. The important point, however, is that we have another we have another example (adding to your little green men) where exchange is avoided. Your position is based on the myth that 'exchange is always best'. Pigs may fly with that one! He didn't exist. Its romantic clap-trap to keep the consumer zombies on track. You should have gone with Rob Roy. He did exist! However, he was a proper git and in reality he's nothing more than a call towards nationalism. That would also be embedded within conflict theory, rather than exchange.
I don't think you know what you are. You've become too reliant on one argument, which necessarily ties you up in knots when the difficulties in economic relations are presented
I'm too reliant on one argument? All your arguments basically boil down to market failure... The only one they're missing is your favorite...transaction costs. That's it...market failure market failure market failure...you're simply a one trick pony. Pragmatarianism...on the other hand...takes both market AND government failures into account. A market failure only makes sense if the government succeeds in that area. And a government failure only makes sense if the market succeeds in that area. Who do we allow to determine success? Taxpayers. They should determine whether the government is truly succeeding where the market is failing. Because surely the government itself cannot objectively measure its own degree of success. That would be as absurd as companies determining how much money consumers gave them. Go spend as much time learning about government failure as I have learning about market failure. Then perhaps you'll be able to effectively evaluate the merits of pragmatarianism.
Yep, the sorry business of economic reality! Out of interest, do you get all of your economic knowledge from wikipedia? For a text example of something that takes into account govt and market failure, try something like Le Grand et al.(The Economics of Social Problems). Just an introductory text mind you, but it will give you some economics to work with. At the moment your one dimensional approach is woeful, failing to integrate basics such as influence and agency costs.
