Taxation is theft and immoral

No, I'm okay with the mafia collecting money from people who choose to accept its rule and benefit from its services.

No, but if a kid tells me that they're coming to pull/spray my weeds, and I let it happen because I enjoy the benefit, then I should. I tacitly accepted his offer.

Oh, good question. I haven't thought about it in depth, but probably as much money as the government spent on those workers. With things like roads, it's easier - you just can't use them.

 

What if you have no choice but to accept the mafia's rule? For example, let's say the Mafia protects all the grocery stores, and similar verticals; they have no choice in the matter, if you are in this industry, the mafia will protect you, for an nonnegotiable sum.

Should other people contribute to the mafia if they wish to purchase groceries then?

You missed the first part.

In this case there was an offer (to spray weeds), and a tacit acceptance. Does the government offer to supply you with services that you can decline? Is the price and quality identical or better than the free markets?

Let me be more direct. Do you think the government crowds out certain markets? If the answer is yes, if the government is responsible for jacking up the price, why must I pay this jacked up price? If I am happy to pay a free-market price, for free-market quality, why do I have to pay government-price for government-quality?

Oh, good question. I haven't thought about it in depth, but probably as much money as the government spent on those workers. With things like roads, it's easier - you just can't use them.[/QUOTE]So basically the government owns the person they educate, and if you want to employ that person (and opt-out of taxes), then you must rent that person from the government?

What if a person, publicly educated, opts out at an early age, and starts a business and makes many millions of dollars. Do they have to give any money to the government? [assume this person did not otherwise use government property or receive government services, other than public schooling until adulthood].

 

If there's an option to leave for a government-free reservation, then yes.

It should.

Yes, it absolutely does crowd certain markets, and you shouldn't have to pay.

No. If a person is state-educated, and you employ them, you're taking advantage of the rest of society paying taxes to support that education.

A one-time buyout would be fine.

That's tricky. I suppose the government could send them a bill for what services they provided.

 

Don't understand your meaning of 'government-free reservation'.

And if it doesn't, which, it often doesn't.

Every market. Whenever any supplier enters a market they either source their demand from pre-existing consumers or new ones. Unless your argument is that they source all their demand from new consumers, we can logically conclude that at least some of its customers are pre-existing consumers of other enterprises.

And the State owns their labour, which all taxpayers have an implied license to use for free, and non-taxpayers relinquish, hence have to pay the license fee? You would obviously have to pay for the slaves you use!

So, a one-time fee for a non-certain employment term? You need to think about the quantification model more. If I employ this employee for 1 year vs 5 year, I've derived more use from the public service (at a diminishing return per unit of use), but yet I'm still only required to pay the same fee?

I would send the government a bill for denying me the opportunity to have a decent education by crowding out the education market. How do you show a nexus between the government service provided and my making of money? Why do you automatically assume there is one?


What about a person who has never interacted with any government services. One day they have a conversation with a state-educated person. Later, the person goes off to start a business and makes millions of dollars. Under what circumstances does the government invoice this person?

What if I employ a foreign state-employed worker?

 

Without taxation your country would get invaded and you would be turned into somebody's butt-slave.

 

Governments should provide an area where you're free to move to if you don't want to pay taxes. This area would receive no government benefits.

Wait, what?

What about, say, the lawnmower market?

The state doesn't own their labor.

The fee would be reimbursing the state for the cost of their education, so yes, it would be the same.

I don't know if you're in the U.S. or not, but here at least, you're perfectly free to attend a private school.

This hypothetical person might've become a millionaire even without any government services, so in this case, the bill would be for services rendered only.

They wouldn't, I assume. That would be far too tenuous a connection.

Same situation, you'd just reimburse a different government.

 

How would you select the area? Not all areas are equal from a settlement perspective independent of whether government has been there or not. For example, natural water resources, farming land, etc. The government is going to compulsorily acquire the land of all the homeowners in this area?

Their are lower barriers to entry, but the logic is still the same. Any market where there is a new business, that business must obtain market share from someone else's business, or new customers entirely. This is true whether the business is private or public. More broadly, governments would have to finance these ventures. They may issue bonds at an increasingly higher coupon rate, thereby increasing interest rates and increasing the WACC for private entrepreneurs, decreasing the capital expenditures projects they embark upon.

So I am free to contract with that person without paying any license fee? Remember, the other person does not wish the government to charge the fee (since it makes themmore expensive).

Let's break ownership down in Hohfeldian terms. You claim the government doesn't own its taxpayer. If this is true, then the government will have neither a right nor a privilege in respect of that taxpayer. Yet, if that taxpayer contracts with a nontaxpayer, you seem to be suggesting that the government has a right in respect of that taxpayer, to charge a fee, and the nontaxpayer is under the correlative duty, to pay the fee. All taxpayers are granted the privilege in respect of other taxpayers, and hence no fees need be paid (ie a license).

So the government would be reimbursed for the same cost of education many times over? Well. How about if I incorporate a taxpaying company, and hire the worker through the company, but, I myself, do not pay taxes? I make most revenue payable to me, only contribute enough capital to cover the wages, and only receive small amounts of revenue from the company to make everything above board.

Crowding out effect. I look at things from an opportunity cost perspective. Had there been no public school, there would have been a better private school at a higher quality with lower cost.

I see. But what if the person can only live a life of meager subsistence? Would they still be billed for services rendered? [I'm assuming by services rendered, you mean the public education the person received prior to opting out].

What if they exchanged ideas in a lengthy discussion - I would suggest that sometimes, it takes just that one moment to change someone's outlook. One suggestion could send someone down the alley of success.

And what if you're a domestic tax payer? Do you still have to reimburse the foreign government?

 

There's still a lot of wilderness to seize - perhaps the government could offer buy-outs to those who happened to live in areas that had low population density and adequate natural resources. I doubt very many people will opt to live outside of government control, though.

Interest rates will affect the availability of capital, but only to the extent that capitalists choose to invest their money elsewhere.

I suppose if you go off to live on a reservation, nobody can force that fee from you, but you're still taking advantage of taking the many to benefit yourself.

No. I only mention repaying a government its expenses in training/educating a specialist to highlight that it's one thing to go off to a nice anarcho-capitalist reserve, and another thing entirely to benefit massively from state social programs (anything from public education to public infrastructure to rule of law). That's why I originally posted:

Let every government sponsor a reserve for anarchists, and let every reserve be fair and equitable in terms of natural resources, terrain, international trade, access to the sea, etc. If such anarchist reserves can succeed based on their own merits, without depending on government in any capacity, then I'll consider them worthwhile.

In that situation, I would guess that the government would be reimbursed at its total cost in educating those workers. That's not double-dipping, that's the government billing what it cost each educator, on average, per student.

Do you know that to be the case, or is that an assumption?

Governments are run by humans, for humans. In this scenario, I would hope that the government would be merciful. Governments typically try to achieve an increase benefit for the average person, so while a multi-billionaire might've been better off in a less regulated society, so too might a disadvantaged person be better off in a more regulated society.

If I were to guess, the law might be similar to laws revolving around intellectual property. I'm not a lawyer, so I can't say for sure, but there are court cases where 2 parties argue about which party had an idea first. It might be similar.

In this scenario, I would imagine so, yes.

 

The most desirable settlement areas are likely to have already been settled (because people tend to want to settle in the most desirable areas).

This doesn't address the whole point, and capitalists tend to demand a certain return on investment, typically denoted r. Calculating r has various methodolgies, one of them being WACC. Cost of debt is part of the WACC, which is a function of interest rates. If you increase r you decrease the range of projects that would deliver a NPV of > 0.

Furthermore, with government increasing spending in a particular area, it is also possible it would reduce the Future Value of the future cash flows received as a result of the capital expenditure, since potential revenues may be reduced. Decreasing the FV of any future cash receipts has the same effect as increasing r (interest rates). The crowding out effect happens from two directions: 1. by increasing r; 2. by decreasing FV of cash flows.

This causes an illusion: Significant government intervention leads people to believe that the government intervened because private enterprise did not provide the relevant services, but it is actually the case that government intervention reduces the ability for private enterprise to enter the market by increasing the discount rate, or decreasing the FV of cash flows (or both), hence reducing the number of projects that could possibly generate a NPV > 0.

The latter part is begging the question as one of the things we are debating about is whether government expenditure actually benefits the many relative to if the government had not intervened at all.

This is a redherring. Even if government has no jurisdiction in the anarchist zone, it does not detract from them potentially having a right to taxpayer's labour enforceable in their own jurisdiction. If I trespass on government property, and employ many taxpayers in my reservation, would I be locked up in government jail for unpaid debts? If the answer is yes, then the this is predicated on the government having a right to taxpayer's labour, otherwise, there would be nothing the claim-right can rest on, and the government could only lock me up for trespass.

See I don't believe one is benefiting from state social programs because my contention is that absent government intervention, private actors would have provided better services at a lower cost (or at least comparable services) in most areas [I say most areas because I am perhaps a minarchist (I am undecided on total anarchy)].

Government's either have the right to seek reimbursement, or they do not. Which is it?

It would be a very interesting concept, however I do not believe practicably that good reserves (in terms of natural resources) would come about simply because most of the good areas would have been settled in the first place, and would be of high density.

I would consider that double-dipping because theoretically, a government's total cost would be X, and a government could receive infinite returns. The premise is that government receives its return from expending resources on its citizens via tax revenue. But if the employee is employed by a non-taxpayer once, then the government has received all its outlay on that taxpayer. Contemporaneously, the taxpayer employee is still paying taxes! So, the government has received all its outlay + more!

You also didn't address simply incorporating a company to get around this.

Economic theory. You're welcome to debate the economic theory.

Do you know whether governments provide better or comparable services to private actors, or is that an assumption?

Why do you think governments can allocate resources better than private actors. I also think that the less well-off in a regulated society. For example, Governments have central banks which adjust the money supply via fractional reserve banking. By doing this, governments print money. What that printed money is spent on increases the demand for what the money is spent on hence increasing price. It is far easier for billions of dollars created out of nothing to be spent on real property, capital expenditures, shares, etc, than it is to be spent on bok choy and tomatoes. Consequently, you get an increase in these assets. These assets are disproportionately owned by the rich, and are effectively unobtainable by the not so well off. Consequently this increases inequality of wealth. This is a direct consequence of central banks maintenance of targetted CPI levels (which don't take into consideration inflation in capital goods) and a progressive increasing in the money supply. This increase funds government debt which funds government intervention.

You say that government wants to help the average person. I don't disagree, but they do nothing good for the average person. Looking at it from a nominal perspective and not from an opportunity cost perspective is inappropriate.

If you simply got rid of governments tampering with the money supply and central banks, you would eventually increase the range of projects private enterprise could take up (since their would need to be a correction first as by reducing the money supply demand or these capital goods decreases causing the asset bubble to burst, causing lots of distressed debt, unemployment, etc).

Copyright Law protects ideas not expression (ie if you have an idea, it will only be protected if it is reduced to some material form [expression]). Patent Law only operates when you file a patent, and novelty renders any idea non-patentable.

If the cases you are referring to are about Novelty and Patent Law, then the question is usually whether the idea was in the public before the patent applied. If the idea was in the public beforehand, then the patent is invalid - in the public is very broad, if the idea is in an obscure journal in a foreign language, that counts as in the public! (at least in Australian Patent Law). But in any event, that only applies when/if a patent is filed.

That aside, it seems you are suggesting that if a nontaxpayer merely talks to a taxpayer, then they can be charged the total cost of the governments expenditure on the taxpayer...

So, you think all companies who employ foreign residents should pay the total cost of the respective foreign governments expenditure on the foreign resident? This is incredibly protectionist (even if stemming from a different purpose). Do you realise how much America's technology industry is dependent on foreign labour? This would single-handedly reduce the economic growth of many nations.

 

In what way could private actors distribute social benefits/assistance/unemployment in a better way than the government currently does, and why would they? There are things we benefit from in civilization that do not originate in profit and have no desire from private actors to perform.

 

I'm sure there's a couple of places on the planet left.

Oh, I see what you're saying. Even if a government doesn't intervene directly in a certain market (demand for lawns to be mowed, for example), they still exert influence through affecting the availability of capital through, say, bond issues. Did I understand that right?

I can see how such an illusion could be possible, but it's equally possible that government intervened because private enterprise actually was unable to provide certain services. Unless evidence is introduced either way, it remains theoretical.

I only take issue with people who employ state-educated workers, use state-funded infrastructure, take advantage of state-provided legislation, and then try to claim that having benefited massively from the state, that their success was the result of themselves and themselves alone, and that it's preposterous that they should owe anything back to the state.

Whether government expenditure benefits the many compared to a pure anarcho-capitalist/communist/etc. society is an empirical matter.

In such a world where there was an anarchist society that people could choose to move to, I would take their decision to stay as consent to the concept of the state. So if you trespassed, and profited from taxpayer labor, I would suppose confiscating the fruits of your enterprise would suffice, especially if you knew what you were getting into. Booting you back into anarchy-land and putting up "Do Not Admit" posters would probably help too.

Okay, fair enough.

They do, but they have discretion as to whether or not to do so.

It's probably not practical, no.

Taxes are not meant to reimburse the government, as it isn't seeking to create a profit. Taxes are the cost of living in a state-run society.

The main idea behind the cost would be to encourage the anarchist to rely on their own "country's" privately-educated employees.

Would the anarchist or the state-educated person be the one incorporating a company?

One of the central requirements of a theory is that it can provide verifiable predictions. A prediction one might make: "People living under state rule are, on average, better off than people living under no state rule." Would you disagree?

Why do you think governments can allocate resources better than private actors.[/quote]

Being run by humans, they have all the intelligence and capability of humans, but properly operated, they lack the greed factor.

Central banks both buy AND sell government debt. This drives the prices up AND down, in order to control interest rates and inflation. If you say that buying debt increases wealthy's wealth, then selling it decreases it.

If there are flaws in how central banks operate (and I'm sure there are), that doesn't necessarily indicate that the entire concept is flawed, only that it needs refining.

Is there an example of a society where the average person is better off without the government?

Sure. And you would immediately bring back the possibility of the "Great Recession" of 08-09 turning into something far, far worse.

I'm unsure of the specifics, but I feel like reasonable discretion could be used. If it was fairly clear that it was an ordinary conversation, then no action taken.

Sorry, I thought that you were speaking as an anarchist employing state-educated workers from various countries. If you're living under state rule, I'm sure we could continue the system of various states coming to agreements with each other.

 

Perhaps.

That's the indirect effect on the market, yes. There is also a direct effect however.

It is arguably theoretical both ways, but the question is which theory makes sense/is justifiable. This is why I think economics is fundamental to taking an informed political position.

Yea so I agree that if you use services you should pay for them - my point is that they would be paying less with a considerably smaller government.

I have responded to this before elsewhere, but I prefer the Austrian approach outlined by Mises (Chapter 2 of Human Action for a basic overview). In any event, how is your hypothesis falsified?

There is a difference between whether some knowledge is ascertainble via empirical evidence, and whether it is ascertainable by reason.

I could not trespass, and fly the taxpayers to my land to work (they would have to pay tax on their salaries since a lot of taxation systems tax on worldwide income), but I would not have to pay tax to the government since I am outside its jurisdiction (or at least denying its jurisdiction applies). So, what will you do?

Go back to the ownership/rights scenario and inspect very carefully. If you are arguing that if X trespasses on government property, and hires taxpayers and makes a profit, that therefore Government can boot X out (fair enough), and confiscate the profits X made (investigate this). If you are saying government action is predicated in X's trespass, fair enough. BUT, what if X merely hires Government taxpayers to work for X, AND, X is not trespassing on Government land?

You therefore have no claim-right to retake X's profits by reason of trespass, since he is not trespassing. Answer this question: Does the government still have a right to take X's profits? Whether they can enforce it is a jurisdictional question, but whether they have a right is a very important question.

I will divert to the next layer on that specific point. What if X then contracts with a taxpayer, and spends his profits on purchasing goods from the taxpayer. The taxpayer now has X's profits. Does the government own the now, taxpayer's money? How you answer the first question will affect the answer to this question. There are legal/equitable rules which deal with this (Tracing (law) - Wikipedia)
​

If you answer yes to the question, that the government does have a claim-right, then it cannot be rooted in the notion of trespass (since no trespass occurred), but is instead rooted in the notion that the government has a claim-right to the taxpayer's labour (justified by it spending money on its citizens/general taxing power). Therefore, by using its taxpayers without being subject to the taxation system, and without a government license to do so (the government grants licenses to fellow taxpayers, and perhaps taxpayers of other States), you are trespassing on the governments claim-right to the taxpayer's labour. Ergo, the state owns their labour, insofar was we have analysed ownership from the Hohfeldian view of ownership being a bundle of rights and analysing which rights are at play.

Ok, so government does have a claim-right to their labour, which was my initial point.

One has a discretion with respect to most rights. For example, when owning a property, a right a person has is the right to exclude. This is obviously discretionary, as holding a party where you exercise your right to exclude would fill the party with exactly no people.

Taxes are to fund government expenditures. The two should at least break-even. Taxes may be the cost of living in a state-run society (or large civil society in general), but that is only because it is premised on certain goods and services (read public goods) only being able to be supplied by government.

How can that be the case if the metric for calculating the cost is the expenditure on the taxpayer? Why not just put an arbitrary figure? That would equally encourage the anarchist to rely on non-taxpayer employees.

The anarchist could incorporate the company in the taxpayer's jurisdiction and hire the taxpayer. Then, simply collect most of the revenues in their own name. That way, a legal person is paying taxes in the taxpayer's jurisdiction. There are ways to prevent this sure, but what is your proposed solution?

This is probably true.

So your argument is that greed causes a misallocation of resources? Why not socialise all factors of production then?

Why do you assume that such humans will properly operate such as to be absent of greed? This seems like an empirical point. Do you think that those in the 'government' are humans which are absent greed?

Except the money supply (whether M0, M1 or M2) has been steadily increasing. Your argument is that the Central bank can reduce the money supply and therefore cause deflation. I agree, but they don't - literally every economist believes (unfortunately) that small inflation is good.

It depends how it is flawed. But in short, my whole point is that government's tend to disadvantage the average person, one of them is being by how they administer monetary policy; in my opinion, it is actually a very significant disadvantage, and is one of the reason why the wealthy get wealthier so easily.

Probably not, but there is also no example of a society where the average person is better off with government. If you try to use a government today as an example, you're going to have hundreds of millions of intersecting variables - there is no way to draw a conclusion. I don't believe this point can be determined empirically, it must be determined with the use of reason - empirical points are cute to make, but they often fit into a premise along the chain of ones reasoning process.

The GFC was caused by something entirely different (although increasing the money supply was one aspect that fed the real estate bubble), there were many other things at play. You very well may get a not insignificant recession, however that is the byproduct of poor choices in the past. A person who eschewed education to smoke dope in the hood, and now wants to get his life on track, will have to endure quite a time studying, etc etc. The premise is that the future society justifies such a sacrifice in the present. The difficulty is experiencing the unpleasant present. It's not easy, and there is no solution to my knowledge around that. However, maintaining the status quo, you will only see increasing wealth inequality, and a reduction in the average person's purchasing power (although that purchasing power can potentially buy more ironically due to innovation/technology). Without technology or some innovation in the future, the current society is not sustainable. So, you'll eventually get the same far, far worse possibility of a recession. If you accept that analysis you really only have two options: sacrifice the present for a future reward; or enjoy the present at the expense of the future.

So the government has the right to tax me for having conversations with taxpayers (which would include on the internet) — this seems quite a bit ridiculous because now you are saying that not only does the government have a right to the taxpayer's labour, but also to their thoughts! You say a reasonable discretion could be used, but understand most/all rights have a discretion.

Alright, so similar to a Double Taxation Agreement?

 

Actually, I say that the question is which theory works. I believe that empiricism trumps pure conjecture.

Sure, but they would also benefit less from the state. Whether they'd benefit more from a private system is another question.

It is easily falsified - demonstrate that a private capitalist market provides better services than a state-funded one.

All knowledge that isn't based upon axioms and pre-set definitions is built on an empirical framework. It's easy to get from A=B=C to A=C, but you can't translate that into "this particular bridge design works best".

I suppose I could try to take compensation from the taxpayer as they cross the border. I might employ very skilled interrogators to try to weed out the ones who intend to receive a full free education, then go off to tax-free land, but that's about all I'd have a right to do.

Morally, I suppose that no, they don't have a right.

The taxpayer would own any profits, after any and all tariffs were paid.

No, I meant reimbursement at the border. If a government decides, using reasonable judgment, that the wealthy are fleeing the country with the benefits of their state-assisted profits, then taxes are due. On the other hand, if the government, again using reasonable judgment, decides that it's just an exceptionally intelligent person seeking honest emigration, then good luck to them.

In my imaginary world, the government would be reasonable with its exercise of whether or not to seek reimbursement.

From an economic point of view, no, they should not necessarily break even. For a Keynesian, surpluses and debt during economic booms and recessions are to the benefit of all, as long as they are spent wisely.

I agree, an arbitrary figure 2, 3, 5, or 10 times higher would be effective as well. In my imaginary society, I would try not to be grossly unreasonable, though.

The government could ban denizens of anarchist areas from creating corporations. Or tax them at particularly high rate, I suppose.

If we can eliminate greed, sure!

You cannot change humans on a fundamental level to eliminate greed, but you can arrange government such that everything is transparent, and corruption is quickly exposed.

Thank goodness they do. Deflation = curbing of economic growth. Why invest your currency today when it'll be naturally worth more tomorrow, so to speak?

I'm a fan of the average person - how does monetary policy disadvantage them?

Are there no examples of under-regulated industries that government has brought to heel? Not a single one?

You might as well tell the poor to stop being poor. It's all very well and good to say "well they should have known better", but in reality, if the rich and powerful lend to the poor and under-educated, promising them the American Dream, you're bound to end up with somebody being taken advantage of. Hint - it's not the rich and powerful.

Maintaining the status quo, yes - but there are a billion factors to the status quo. Is it unequal tax burdens? Inequality of opportunity? Being born into the mindset of poverty? All you say is that the current society is not sustainable (which I agree with), without proving that it's taxes/government ruining us. Consider that other countries exist with higher taxes, with less income disparity, and higher levels of happiness.

Are there not laws/court rulings that decide on "who stole the idea from who"?

Something like that, I suppose.

 

Most empirical arguments about the economy are conjecture. I think you have a tremendous amount of balls to claim that you know how to order society, because the fundamental difference between a market based solution and a non-market based solution is how to allocate the factors of production, and you are arguing that you know how they should be allocated, whereas I am saying I do not know how they should be allocated. Your position needs a hell of a lot more evidence.

This is circular reasoning. You are assuming that they benefit from the state relative to what their situation would have been under a private system (ie the opportunity cost), and then arguing that it is unknown whether the opportunity cost is actually better than the actual decision. If you are uncertain about the second point, then you cannot make the first point.

What is the standard of evaluating whether a 'better service' is provided?

That depends on how you use reason. You cannot derive any information from sensory experience without the use of reason. All you will have is Bridge A's schematics fell-down and Bridge B's schematics did not. You need reason to make the conclusion that Bridge A's design is better.

A good bridge has the necessary condition that its schematics will not fall down. Bridge B's schematics did not fall down. Therefore Bridge B has the necessary condition to be a good bridge. Using similar sensory experience to make economic arguments is incredibly difficult as there are millions of variables at play that are harder to disentangle.

By taxpayer in the first sentence, they already pay taxes (since most jurisdictions tax on worldwide income). If you meant the anarchist, then the government would still have the right to the money (it is just legally/morally unenforceable for jurisdictional reasons). But they still have the claim-right, which is an aspect of ownership which was my initial point that you rejected. You cannot muddle the issue by saying the claim-right cannot be enforced outside the government's jurisdiction, because that is a jurisdictional question.

Even if they then trespass onto government land?

Are the tariffs the same for goods in the same class, or are you going to put an arbitrarily high tariff against exports to the anarchists?

Reimbursement justified by a claim-right which is now jurisdictionally enforceable.

That's not the point, the point is whether a claim-right exists or not. If it exists, then labour is owned, my initial point.

If you oscillate between surplus during a boom, and deficit-financing during a bust, then you are averaging break-even.

You cannot tend towards infinite debt, since it means infinite spending and infinite prices, at some point in time you have to curtail debt, in which-case, your break-even shifts from 0 to debt as a percentage of GDP.

Advocating for protectionist policies (which is what you are doing), does not seem reasonable to me; it sounds childish: let's get back at those anarchists. Who cares if them transacting with us is mutually beneficial.

I wonder if your feeling is analogisable to the ultimatum game in game theory (where you would rather receive nothing than an unfair amount of the $100). Or instead, is it that you think that the anarchist wouldn't survive if you implement your policies, and so you want to make it a rational decision to stay.

So if we could eliminate greed, we should socialise everything. But therefore because we cannot eliminate greed, therefore we should only some things? But you'll have greedy people in charge of the socialised factors of production, and what's worse, they don't have any skin in the game! At least with a greedy capitalist if they screw up then they lose money. If a public bureaucrat screws up, the loss is more or less externalised away from themselves.

Your argument is that a greedy institution will organise itself to curtail greed?

This is a huge economic myth. You will always invest your currency if you exceed your required purchasing power return over a given holding period. What actually happens is the factors of production get conserved and only deployed when the projects which may meet the above criteria arise. This is in contradistinction to an inflationary economy where as interest rates decrease the suite of projects vying for capital increase, since the projects which generate a NPV = 0 increase, and the capital is increasingly deployed towards that are relatively worse. What you have is fake growth insofar as it is spending, and insofar as total spending = GDP; not all spending is growth. Spending money to dig and fill-in the same holes contributes to GDP, but is it not growth in any honest sense of the word.

Your policy basically advocates for vast inequality of wealth, since the printed money is being spent mostly on capital assets which has the biggest effect on those whose portfolios include them: ie, the well-off. It also destroys people on fixed-income (for example pensioners).

See above.

Let me put it in different terms. The Free-market is like playing normal chess. Government intervention is like playing without your Queen (your opponent keeps theirs). You cannot draw conclusions about the free-market by looking at the government intervention chess board, simply because it is so difficult to know what moves you would have taken had you had your queen, but one thing is still for certain, you would almost certainly have been in a better position!

I don't blame the 'poor' for the GFC, though making bad financial decisions is something one should be held accountable for AND a factor to the crisis (also, didn't a lot of people own more than 1 home; it wasn't about just owning your home, but also being able to make a good income by owning many and renting them).

Government had a huge role to play in the crisis as well: Bill Clinton's policy (pressuring mortgages to be made to low-income individuals as an example), the ratings agencies, fractional reserve banking (you cannot write that many mortgages on a full-reserve), etc. The banks were crooked too, they gambled with peoples money and externalised the risk which actualised.

I have spoken plenty about the central banks influence.

Not for non-patents and ideas which have not been reduced to material form. If you allow ideas not reduced to material form be protectable material under IP law, then as a matter of evidence law, it becomes a clusterfuck, as you would first need to convince the Court what the actual idea was (which would just be conflicting oral evidence), then you would need tests that compare the similarity with the alleged idea to the working product (tests can be adapted for this), then you would need a balance of probabilities test. But the big problem is the first step. If something isn't reduced to a material form, then it is basically he said she said over what the idea was.

If the idea was reduced to material form (Eg chats on the internet), then you would have to effectively ignore the execution of the idea (which if you speak to any venture capitalist, is the most important thing), if you are going to tax it. If you don't ignore the execution of the idea, then there's no meaningful method to award a remedy.

There are cases in law where key employees have worked for a business for a while, then stolen intellectual property, contacts, etc, to start their own business. The courts have awarded the former business an account of profits, but there is no real objective way to arrive at the amount (i've read those judgments, and they're highly subjective), and this scenario is vastly different since employees are fiduciaries and sign a contract with their employer, and most of the IP was reduced to material form and directly used in the new business).

 

I said nothing like that. I said that empiricism trumps pure conjecture, that empiricism is the best way to learn about reality.

No, I am saying that they would benefit less from the state - if there was a smaller government. If you claim that they would benefit more from a private system, I am happy to see any evidence.

Good question. Personally, I would define the best service as the largest reasonably possible benefit provided to the population as a whole.

Absolutely, pure reason cannot solve everything a priori, it must be applied to existing bodies of evidence.

Agreed, which is why I'm so leery of people arriving at conclusions that aren't based on studying available evidence.

I'm talking about a claim-right to the money, in such situations as somebody benefited from a "free" (not paying taxes while in education) education, while fully intending to go off somewhere else with lesser/no taxes. As in, people who, fully understanding the consequences of their actions, benefited off the taxpayers of a state, and then left for a land where they could reap the benefits of their education without having to pay taxes on their subsequent profits.

Even then, no, but I should clarify: The government has no right to come after X, in this scenario, but they have every right to come after the taxpayer. Think of it as similar to country A having sanctions against country B, but individual X from country A secretly doing business with country B, or somebody from country B. As far as country A is concerned, the hammer will come down hard on individual X. There might be some complications in relations with country B, but if country B is an anarchist country, it doesn't really apply.

I would assume them to be the same. Personally, I'd be against manipulating tariffs based on how I feel about the politics of the outside world.

That's fine. I said that they should not necessarily break even.

I agree. What's spent during recession should be recouped during expansion.

The arbitrary figure is simply to prevent my previously mentioned scenario - where rational adults knowingly enter into state-sponsored programs, reap their benefits, then move to an anarchist state where they don't have to pay out-of-pocket. I love mutually beneficial trade! It's just that, mutually beneficial!

Neither.

I didn't make myself clear, I apologize.

What I meant is that properly operated human institutions lack the greed factor. That is to say, government institutions, made transparent, with an educated, activist public, have less of a greed factor than, say, Fortune 500 companies.

Also, with regards to your "capitalists having skin in the game" argument, consider: Golden parachute - Wikipedia

There are plenty of cash-based investments such as money markets, and plenty of people who will save their money in a bank account if general markets are doing poorly.

No. Keynesian economics advocates increased government spending in times of recession or anticipated recession. It doesn't specify what to spend the money on. There are plenty of things that you can spend money on to stimulate the economy that doesn't involve purchasing debt from the government/government agencies.

That's a terrible analogy. Chess is a 1 v. 1 game where one person wins, the other loses, and your analogy would put one at a permanent disadvantage that everybody is familiar with, while making your own advantages (implying "if they exist at all") murky.

In a capitalist society, sure, you're responsible for your own decisions.

Also, I don't quite know. Did a lot of people own more than 1 home? Not to be aggressive, but you're the person introducing this line of thought.

Absolutely. I'm not a partisan at all. The guilty are guilty.

True. I'd imagine that the defendant would walk away just as often as they do now.

Not necessarily. If you can reasonably demonstrate that one person obtained the idea from another, then began to capitalize on it, that's actionable.

I have to admit, though I have experience in the world of fiduciary financial advice, I have no experience in the world of law.

 

If you argue that government provided goods/services are better than in a capitalist society (in some areas), then you are saying that you know how to order society — order some of the factors of production. To me, this is an extraordinary claim. You didn't explicitly say it, but it is the logical implication.

Conjecture is drawing conclusions with a lack of information. If you don't believe your conclusions are drawn from empirical evidence that is not lacking, then point to all the information you have used to come to your conclusion, and I will point out variables not factored in.

No, it's circular reasoning. You are first assuming they are benefiting from the state at all, to then say a removal of services is a reduction in benefits received.

If they are harmed by the state, then a reduction in state supplied goods/services is a benefit to them (and a reduction in harm). Given the whole debate is whether government helps/harms society, it is circular reasoning to presuppose that it helps society as a predicate in your argument.

Think from an opportunity cost perspective.

How is that measured?

Like mathematics?

If they benefited without intending at the time to go off elsewhere?

Your claim-right is predicated on the government first having a right to its citizens labour; you say that Anarchist benefited from citizen labour, therefore government is entitled to benefits anarchist received. That benefit however is predicated on the citizens labour. Also, I doubt the claim-right would actually be to the money; it would be a debt, like a tax debt that one owes.

The problem here isn't the taxpayer, because the taxpayer is not evading tax: they are happy to pay tax on their income derived from working in the anarchist state.

Are you saying that, if the anarchist profits from using taxpayer labour in their country, then, carries money across the border into the relevant State, are you saying the government now has no right to come after X? This is contradictory to you saying the claim-right is against the anarchist's money.

Ignoring game theory, it would still be mutually beneficial trade: comparative advantage, the only difference here is the rationale is different.

Honestly, my first response was 'lol'. Given, by the way, that governments educate a vast majority of the public, who exactly is to blame for a non-activist public?

Transparency is interesting, as it is one way to solve the information asymmetry problem, but it is not clear how that will be achieved as a matter of practice. However, all the above applies to a corporation: 'companies, made transparent, with educated activist shareholders, lack the greed factor'.

The shareholders own the company, not the directors. The agency problem applies just as much to public servants as it does to directors. If you have a solution to the agency problem, please submit to a Journal (only being half snarky here). One of the reasons, by the way, that directors often own shares in their company, and have options that vest after a long period of time is to try and combat the agency problem and align incentives. Pages and pages of articles has filled Management Journals on this topic, and it's a fascinating topic, and I absolutely reject that you will craft a government that solves it any better than the corporate sector.

This isn't a response to what I said?

How exactly do you think this government spending comes about? It doesn't go around spending money on bok choy. Government looks to lower interest rate to stimulate borrowings, borrowings which typically are spent on capital goods or real property, or alternatively spend money on infrastructure projects.

All you have to ask yourself is what that money gets spent on first.

That's not the point of the analogy. The point is you can't draw conclusions about System X by looking at System Y when System X differs materially from System Y. It's the whole reason why experiments done on animals don't readily translate to humans!

https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/staff_reports/sr514.pdf

1 quote:

"A third channel affecting real estate investors concerns the use of second liens on existing mortgages to facilitate the down payment and meeting of loan requirements for purchasing additional investment properties. As documented in earlier work by Chakrabarti et al (2011), with house prices appreciating homeowners extracted home equity through higher balances on first mortgages, cash-out refinances, second mortgages and home equity lines of credit."

Really not much different from IBs gambling on CDS's.

There are no defendants now because there is no cause of action, so I don't know what the 'just as often as they do now' refers to.

To clarfiy, based on my understanding of the law, you are trying to create a whole new cause of action that, quite frankly, would make little sense in its mechanics.

See below generally, but I really think you are going to have an impossible task showing causation. Just imagine. Let's say the anarchist capitalises a business venture worth $2 million. How much are you going to apportion to the person who discussed the idea with them, given the anarchist took all the risk, and applied their care, skill and diligence to the task.

A good area in fiduciary law is a fiduciary which defaults by diverting a business opportunity away from the other party — the issue, assuming the fiduciary profited, would be how much of the profits should be apportioned between the fiduciary (For an allowance of skill, care, diligence, risk taking, etc) and the person to which the duty was owed.

Have a think about the material form requirement, and evidence. Lets take a literary work in copyright law, like a novel, a poem (some literary writing).

One of the requirements in copyright law is that it be reduced to material form. Think about why. It's so that if there is alleged copying, then it can be compared to the work allegedly copied from — you have a clear and obvious means of saying, yup, there is sufficient similarity.

Now imagine of there was no material form requirement. That would mean someone could sue someone for copying a novel that was in their brain (right now they can't because one of the elements is that it be reduced to material form). But how would they prove that? Just imagine cross-examination trying to elicit what it is that was allegedly copied. Now try imagining the judge taking that, and then comparing it to the alleged copied work. You should be able to see why a material form requirement is so important then.

 

Tax evader for 2 years woop woop! Fucked when the government catch up to me

 

i think the main problem with taxing is u seeing are tax dollars being give and used in other countries then are own. I have a huge problem with billions of dollars being sent to other countries when we have other people here that need help that could use the money to improve are country as whole. we need to help ourselves before were able to help others

 

I mean can the money that goes to taxes be used more efficiently? Of course. But just cause theres some corrupt uses of tax money, doesnt mean that its not necessary

 

just watch this