6 ms·

Government schemes are ridiculously inefficient for a simple reason: they take their money by force. This means that they are not financially accountable to a

by fexl 16y ago

Government schemes are ridiculously inefficient for a simple reason: they take their money by force. This means that they are not financially accountable to anyone. Yes, you can vote in some new bosses, but those are just new people in charge of using force, so nothing fundamental has actually changed. For example, if everyone in my area were forced to shop at a specific grocery store, I'm almost certain that their produce department would suck within a few months. But even if it didn't, I would still object to the use of force for basic moral reasons. I'm not a pragmatist. When you pay taxes, you aren't "contributing" anything. Perhaps you would pay those taxes voluntarily, but that point is moot because you are not given the option of paying them voluntarily. I gladly pay the annual fee for maintaining our private roads up here, so don't mistake me for a miserly free-riding ingrate who wants to use other people's property for free. I'm just saying that when the initiation of force is involved, people are no longer customers who can take their business elsewhere. Inefficiency is a likely outcome of the initial moral offense.

jbooth 16y ago
Of course they're accountable. Ever heard of a little thing called democracy? Oh, the lines of accountability are too indirect? Fine, call your cable company and health insurance company and try demanding some direct accountability. Also, you're free to take your business elsewhere, just live in another first-world country. Oh, they all have higher taxes than the US? Hrm. Too bad you're not running things, then we could clear all this inefficiency right up. What's your budget plan?
- steveklabnik 16y ago
  > Of course they're accountable. Ever heard of a little thing called democracy? He addressed this directly. > Too bad you're not running things, then we could clear all this inefficiency right up. What's your budget plan? This kind of snark is not constructive.
  - jbooth 16y ago
    Sorry if I'm not constructive. But you ignored my actual point, regarding that fact that he can in fact take his business elsewhere. If no country exists that conforms to his expectations, perhaps he should revise his expectations or design his own country. The GP poster is advocating eliminating taxation period, because it's based on force, if I'm understanding things correctly here. How can someone respond constructively to that? Guess you're right, I'll stop wasting time engaging.
    - steveklabnik 16y ago
      > If no country exists that conforms to his expectations, perhaps he should revise his expectations or design his own country. Unfortunately, the second option there isn't really possible anymore. > How can someone respond constructively to that? Have you never encountered this political opinion? Maybe we travel in different circles, but this seems like a pretty common line of argument to me. However, you're right: it's hard to respond to constructively, because you two are operating on different fundamental axioms: 'initiation of force is sometimes okay' versus 'initiation of force is never okay.' This is a pretty big and decisive difference, made from two different ideologies... there's no real way to argue if one is better or worse. This is getting fairly off-topic, though. If you'd like a further discussion of the libertarian viewpoint on taxes, feel free to email me. I'm not exactly a libertarian anymore, but I was for long enough to explain it to you fairly thoroughly.
      - jbooth 16y ago
        Sure, I've encountered lots of stupid opinions that don't make the least bit of sense in reality. There's exactly one country in the world that just plain does not have taxes: Somalia. It's a reasonable (but silly and immature) opinion to demand that the country slashes taxes in, say, half, without outlining the spending cuts. Demanding that they're slashed by 100% is just madness.
        steveklabnik 16y ago
        Often, moral positions aren't based in reality; they're based on ideals. Just because all current countries do thing one way does not mean that it's the best way; there isn't really a large variety of government/economic systems in use. Yes, there's variability, but essentially all of them are based in capitalism, and most governmental systems are either some form of western "liberal democracy" or monarchy. I personally find it tragic that there's no place left in the world to experiment with different ways of organizing governments; I always fear monoculture. And even if you do move to other countries, sometimes, there's just no fit. This is a question I've given a lot of though to lately, and there's really no place that I could live where I'd consider the government to be truly moral. I'd simply be trading one kind of unhappiness for another, and while it might get _better_, it won't reach maximum. > Demanding that they're slashed by 100% is just madness. Even those who advocate such a thing consider it to be drastic, yes. Life wouldn't continue in the same way, but they have other solutions to those problems.

by fexl 16y ago

jbooth 16y ago

Of course they're accountable. Ever heard of a little thing called democracy? Oh, the lines of accountability are too indirect? Fine, call your cable company and health insurance company and try demanding some direct accountability. Also, you're free to take your business elsewhere, just live in another first-world country. Oh, they all have higher taxes than the US? Hrm. Too bad you're not running things, then we could clear all this inefficiency right up. What's your budget plan?

steveklabnik 16y ago
> Of course they're accountable. Ever heard of a little thing called democracy? He addressed this directly. > Too bad you're not running things, then we could clear all this inefficiency right up. What's your budget plan? This kind of snark is not constructive.
- jbooth 16y ago
  Sorry if I'm not constructive. But you ignored my actual point, regarding that fact that he can in fact take his business elsewhere. If no country exists that conforms to his expectations, perhaps he should revise his expectations or design his own country. The GP poster is advocating eliminating taxation period, because it's based on force, if I'm understanding things correctly here. How can someone respond constructively to that? Guess you're right, I'll stop wasting time engaging.
  - steveklabnik 16y ago
    > If no country exists that conforms to his expectations, perhaps he should revise his expectations or design his own country. Unfortunately, the second option there isn't really possible anymore. > How can someone respond constructively to that? Have you never encountered this political opinion? Maybe we travel in different circles, but this seems like a pretty common line of argument to me. However, you're right: it's hard to respond to constructively, because you two are operating on different fundamental axioms: 'initiation of force is sometimes okay' versus 'initiation of force is never okay.' This is a pretty big and decisive difference, made from two different ideologies... there's no real way to argue if one is better or worse. This is getting fairly off-topic, though. If you'd like a further discussion of the libertarian viewpoint on taxes, feel free to email me. I'm not exactly a libertarian anymore, but I was for long enough to explain it to you fairly thoroughly.
    - jbooth 16y ago
      Sure, I've encountered lots of stupid opinions that don't make the least bit of sense in reality. There's exactly one country in the world that just plain does not have taxes: Somalia. It's a reasonable (but silly and immature) opinion to demand that the country slashes taxes in, say, half, without outlining the spending cuts. Demanding that they're slashed by 100% is just madness.
      - steveklabnik 16y ago
        Often, moral positions aren't based in reality; they're based on ideals. Just because all current countries do thing one way does not mean that it's the best way; there isn't really a large variety of government/economic systems in use. Yes, there's variability, but essentially all of them are based in capitalism, and most governmental systems are either some form of western "liberal democracy" or monarchy. I personally find it tragic that there's no place left in the world to experiment with different ways of organizing governments; I always fear monoculture. And even if you do move to other countries, sometimes, there's just no fit. This is a question I've given a lot of though to lately, and there's really no place that I could live where I'd consider the government to be truly moral. I'd simply be trading one kind of unhappiness for another, and while it might get _better_, it won't reach maximum. > Demanding that they're slashed by 100% is just madness. Even those who advocate such a thing consider it to be drastic, yes. Life wouldn't continue in the same way, but they have other solutions to those problems.