5 ms·

>random property owners must provide the safety net Doing business (which renting out property is) is not a given right. The cost of doing business (taxes and

>random property owners must provide the safety net Doing business (which renting out property is) is not a given right. The cost of doing business (taxes and regulations) is what makes possible the existence of the state at all - far from being a 'dysfunctional' concept.

jakelarkin 8y ago
progressive taxation for a safety net is great. let's just apply it equally across income/wealth bands. why should our laws give a few lucky poor people hugely valuable rental subsidies and give many other equally poor people nothing. why should some capital owners (property) pay for the above and while other types of capital (large financial and corporate assets) can pay nothing. narrow rent control law is a capricious policy in general, not just for property owners. a bunch of semi-corrupt political lotteries don't make a good government or just society.
mobilefriendly 8y ago
Doing business -- freely associating and voluntarily contracting with other people to exchange goods and services -- is in fact a natural right. The state is largely a parasite on top of this activity.
- ryanwaggoner 8y ago
  That’s sometimes true, but I don’t think it must be. The state provides an incredibly valuable service to those exercise that natural right: enforcement and conflict resolution. It makes sense to fund the state to perform this functions, and possibly others.
oh_sigh 8y ago
Replace "property owners" with "all people, including property owners and non-rent-controlled renters".
cryptonector 8y ago
Actually, it kinda is. To have property rights means to have the right to use it. That means the right to sell it (and, correspondingly, to buy property so you can enjoy owning it). It means the right to loan it. It means the right to rent it. The same goes for your own time and labor. You can't be a free person (as opposed to a slave) if you can't own your own time and labor -- if you can't sell your labor. As with much else, the state gets to impose taxes and regulations. No argument there. But if those taxes or regulations prevent you from enjoying your ownership of property or self, then they are confiscatory and make you un-free. At the very least unreasonable tax/regulatory burdens make for a dysfunctional / distorted market, though as long as you can freely vote with your feet you're not so un-free as to be a slave. Still, just because you can move to some freer locality doesn't mean it's a good thing that the locality your leaving has high tax/regulatory burdens.
closeparen 8y ago
If the cost of doing one business is to pay the social safety net out of pocket and the cost of doing another business isn’t, all else being equal, a rational actor will choose the latter. You impose disproportionate tax and regulatory burdens on the things you want less of.

jakelarkin 8y ago

progressive taxation for a safety net is great. let's just apply it equally across income/wealth bands. why should our laws give a few lucky poor people hugely valuable rental subsidies and give many other equally poor people nothing. why should some capital owners (property) pay for the above and while other types of capital (large financial and corporate assets) can pay nothing. narrow rent control law is a capricious policy in general, not just for property owners. a bunch of semi-corrupt political lotteries don't make a good government or just society.

mobilefriendly 8y ago

Doing business -- freely associating and voluntarily contracting with other people to exchange goods and services -- is in fact a natural right. The state is largely a parasite on top of this activity.

ryanwaggoner 8y ago
That’s sometimes true, but I don’t think it must be. The state provides an incredibly valuable service to those exercise that natural right: enforcement and conflict resolution. It makes sense to fund the state to perform this functions, and possibly others.

oh_sigh 8y ago

Replace "property owners" with "all people, including property owners and non-rent-controlled renters".

cryptonector 8y ago

Actually, it kinda is. To have property rights means to have the right to use it. That means the right to sell it (and, correspondingly, to buy property so you can enjoy owning it). It means the right to loan it. It means the right to rent it. The same goes for your own time and labor. You can't be a free person (as opposed to a slave) if you can't own your own time and labor -- if you can't sell your labor. As with much else, the state gets to impose taxes and regulations. No argument there. But if those taxes or regulations prevent you from enjoying your ownership of property or self, then they are confiscatory and make you un-free. At the very least unreasonable tax/regulatory burdens make for a dysfunctional / distorted market, though as long as you can freely vote with your feet you're not so un-free as to be a slave. Still, just because you can move to some freer locality doesn't mean it's a good thing that the locality your leaving has high tax/regulatory burdens.

closeparen 8y ago

If the cost of doing one business is to pay the social safety net out of pocket and the cost of doing another business isn’t, all else being equal, a rational actor will choose the latter. You impose disproportionate tax and regulatory burdens on the things you want less of.