5 ms·

Well, in hypothetical laissez-faire capitalism taxes would not be needed to provide infrastructure - Uber would just have to pay its fees for driving on private

by krotton 11y ago

Well, in hypothetical laissez-faire capitalism taxes would not be needed to provide infrastructure - Uber would just have to pay its fees for driving on private roads (etc.). This would drive prices up, but fairly divide the costs between the roads' users. Although I must admit I have no idea how things could look with purely digital companies like Facebook. I can think of local ISP-s charging the company for allowing access to the website, but that would probably become just an additional earning opportunity for them, without any noticeable positive influence on the local population.

jkahn 11y ago
That's theoretical, whereas government and corporations deal with realities. 100% capitalism isn't practical and is unfair (e.g, to the poor and sick). What is a fair way to divide costs for road usage: time of use, miles driven, emissions, cost of vehicle, ability to pay? It's not an easy answer, and many are practically unenforceable. Hence, tax. And for the record: I'm generally capitalist by economic viewpoint.
- krotton 11y ago
  The way road usage costs are determined doesn't really matter - it's enforced by a mutually accepted contract. Yes, that's theoretical ;).
pjc50 11y ago
This arrangement collapses into monopoly very quickly. Facebook would bypass or buyout the local ISPs. (A world of purely voluntary contracts and no compulsory purchase would never have got past the development of the railway or telegraph, so the whole prospect is ludicrous)
- afsina 11y ago
  Not really. Monopolies are mostly created by the state. Either with crony capitalism, intellectual property laws or directly state controlled production. Besides, Laissez-faire capitalism can create large scale infrastructure, why do you claim otherwise?
  - pjc50 11y ago
    Standard Oil? If you're going to call that "crony capitalism", we're well into the same delusional territory as "true communism has never been tried".
    - afsina 11y ago
      Some disagree. https://mises.org/library/100-years-myths-about-standard-oil https://mises.org/library/100-years-myths-about-standard-oil Crony capitalism is not at all "capitalism". It is an beast created by the state, through military spending, stimulation, infrastructure or the means of social wellfare. The more "militaristic" or "social" a government becomes the more leaches appear.
    - collyw 11y ago
      when was it tried?
      - collyw 11y ago
        I love it when an honest question gets downvoted on here.
        throwaway2048 11y ago
        http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/smarmy http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/smarmy
        collyw 11y ago
        coming from someone who creates a throwaway account to post that link.
        throwaway2048 11y ago
        check my posting history
      - 11y ago
afarrell 11y ago
But you still need taxes to pay for courts, police, armies, etc. Unless you are arguing the An-Cap thesis that these functions can be conducted by private entities. If you are, then congratulations: we're already living under your preferred system! It is just that for most territory, one company has seized monopolistic control of the territory, has called itself "the government", and no other companies have been formed to challenge it. Exceptions such as the West Bank where two companies are competing do exist.
- krotton 11y ago
  I'm not an anarcho-capitalist, I'm just conducting a mental experiment to see how far state minimalism can go. I'm quite convinced we can (and probably should) limit the competences of current behemoth governments - what I don't know (and am therefore trying to discuss) is to what extent.
  - afsina 11y ago
    Just for the context, Anarcho capitalists believe that minimizing the government is not possible. For them, once a government is established, it always gets bigger. From the `Impossibility of limiting the government` section of `What must be done`[1] "Now, once the protection monopoly (government) is in place, a logic of its own is set in motion. Every monopolist takes advantage of his position. The price of protection will go up, and more importantly, the content of the law, that is the product quality, will be altered to the advantage of the monopolist and at the expense of others. Justice will be perverted, and the protector becomes increasingly an exploiter and an expropriator. More specifically, as the result of the territorial monopolization of protection, two tendencies are generated. First, a tendency towards the extensification of exploitation, and second, a tendency towards the intensification of exploitation." [1] https://mises.org/library/what-must-be-done-0 https://mises.org/library/what-must-be-done-0

by krotton 11y ago

jkahn 11y ago

That's theoretical, whereas government and corporations deal with realities. 100% capitalism isn't practical and is unfair (e.g, to the poor and sick). What is a fair way to divide costs for road usage: time of use, miles driven, emissions, cost of vehicle, ability to pay? It's not an easy answer, and many are practically unenforceable. Hence, tax. And for the record: I'm generally capitalist by economic viewpoint.

krotton 11y ago
The way road usage costs are determined doesn't really matter - it's enforced by a mutually accepted contract. Yes, that's theoretical ;).

pjc50 11y ago

This arrangement collapses into monopoly very quickly. Facebook would bypass or buyout the local ISPs. (A world of purely voluntary contracts and no compulsory purchase would never have got past the development of the railway or telegraph, so the whole prospect is ludicrous)

afsina 11y ago
Not really. Monopolies are mostly created by the state. Either with crony capitalism, intellectual property laws or directly state controlled production. Besides, Laissez-faire capitalism can create large scale infrastructure, why do you claim otherwise?
- pjc50 11y ago
  Standard Oil? If you're going to call that "crony capitalism", we're well into the same delusional territory as "true communism has never been tried".
  - afsina 11y ago
    Some disagree. https://mises.org/library/100-years-myths-about-standard-oil https://mises.org/library/100-years-myths-about-standard-oil Crony capitalism is not at all "capitalism". It is an beast created by the state, through military spending, stimulation, infrastructure or the means of social wellfare. The more "militaristic" or "social" a government becomes the more leaches appear.
  - collyw 11y ago
    when was it tried?
    - collyw 11y ago
      I love it when an honest question gets downvoted on here.
      - throwaway2048 11y ago
        http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/smarmy http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/smarmy
        collyw 11y ago
        coming from someone who creates a throwaway account to post that link.
        throwaway2048 11y ago
        check my posting history
    - 11y ago

afarrell 11y ago

But you still need taxes to pay for courts, police, armies, etc. Unless you are arguing the An-Cap thesis that these functions can be conducted by private entities. If you are, then congratulations: we're already living under your preferred system! It is just that for most territory, one company has seized monopolistic control of the territory, has called itself "the government", and no other companies have been formed to challenge it. Exceptions such as the West Bank where two companies are competing do exist.

krotton 11y ago
I'm not an anarcho-capitalist, I'm just conducting a mental experiment to see how far state minimalism can go. I'm quite convinced we can (and probably should) limit the competences of current behemoth governments - what I don't know (and am therefore trying to discuss) is to what extent.
- afsina 11y ago
  Just for the context, Anarcho capitalists believe that minimizing the government is not possible. For them, once a government is established, it always gets bigger. From the `Impossibility of limiting the government` section of `What must be done`[1] "Now, once the protection monopoly (government) is in place, a logic of its own is set in motion. Every monopolist takes advantage of his position. The price of protection will go up, and more importantly, the content of the law, that is the product quality, will be altered to the advantage of the monopolist and at the expense of others. Justice will be perverted, and the protector becomes increasingly an exploiter and an expropriator. More specifically, as the result of the territorial monopolization of protection, two tendencies are generated. First, a tendency towards the extensification of exploitation, and second, a tendency towards the intensification of exploitation." [1] https://mises.org/library/what-must-be-done-0 https://mises.org/library/what-must-be-done-0