4 ms·

> Taxes are the money that we pay to make our society civilised. I would say that trade and enforcement of contracts are what make our society civilized. I thi

by drcode 16y ago

> Taxes are the money that we pay to make our society civilised. I would say that trade and enforcement of contracts are what make our society civilized. I think it makes sense to have the government help in the enforcement of contracts to some degree, through modest fees and/or taxes. > provide the services necessary to allow those of talent to rise up above the crowd I'm sure John C wouldn't advocate throwing orphans and disadvantaged children into a "dog eat dog" world. In a longer essay he would agree with you that children need to be cared for by society and that this requires tax money to some degree. His argument is focused towards how competent adults should be treated. Once a person reaches a certain level of adulthood, giving him/her additional resources through government programs (in the millions of different ways the government distributes money, directly or indirectly) is a very inefficient proposition. > There are exactly zero examples of meritocracies without taxes in history At one point there was no state in history in which women could vote. At one point there was no state in history in which slavery was abolished. Sometime you need to buck history to progress. That said, I don't think it's clear who to cast a vote for to accomplish John C's goals- It's hard to know who the candidates are who "vector in that direction." Even though I agree with the thesis that "less government is usually better" I still end up voting mostly for Democrats, since the Republicans in recent history seem anti-rationalist to me. Rationality is a necessary ingredient. Just because the Tea Party folks say "let's decrease government programs" doesn't mean casting a vote for them is actually a step towards accomplishing that goal. I'm sure if they got power they would think _their_ government programs would be a fine way to spend money.

eru 16y ago
> In a longer essay he would agree with you that children need to be cared for by society and that this requires tax money to some degree. Yes. Actually children could probably be provided for to a large extent with charity. Though I imagine less sexy causes are more in need of public money.
- drcode 16y ago
  > Actually children could probably be provided for to a large extent with charity. I wish I wasn't a cynic and could believe that.
forinti 16y ago
>I would say that trade and enforcement of contracts are what make our society civilized. That's a businessman's perspective; there are a lot of other players and concerns in society. What about caring for the environment, enforcing better safety regulations, enforcing better work conditions, etc?
- drcode 16y ago
  > What about caring for the environment... I'm familiar with the "tragedy of the commons" issue but there just isn't any clear evidence that: More government spending -> better environment What do you think all this government money is going towards? A lot of it is used to run cars and do other things that hurt the environment. Do you think this whole "government stimulus" stuff made the environment better off? > ...enforcing better safety regulations... I won't argue with you that the government does a fantastic job creating more regulations of all kinds :) > ...enforcing better work conditions, etc? Again, the benefit of government here is tenuous. Sure, some things they do might help, but these benefits need to be weighed against the "opportunity costs" of what else could have been done with that tax money.
- dpatru 16y ago
  The environment is taken care of when it's privately owned. People take care of their own properties. Safety regulations and working conditions are improved via the free market and productivity increases and, to a much lesser extent, by the tort system which punishes unreasonable behavior.
  - CamperBob 16y ago
    Someone modded you down and ran off, but I wish they'd stuck around to talk about whether the worst safety/environmental hazards have been traditionally associated with governments or corporations.
    - dualogy 16y ago
      Those who'd argue "corporations", usually mean big businesses operating in corrupt countries. They are right with their examples, say Shell in Nigeria or where was it -- but Government is usually involved too in these cases. From a pure capitalist point of view, there will always be isolated instances of short-term enterprises destroying the source of their wealth --- their river, land, fishing or hunting grounds --- but the ones that will logically prevail are those that protect and future-proof their resources for long-term wealth gains, especially when the investment is very high (talk about oil, mining etc.) so that the return on investment will need to be earned over decades. It is not in the interest of the farmer to devalue his land. It is not in the interest of the fisher to exterminate all fish. It may well be in the interest of global corporations to drain the natural resources of poor countries where the land is granted by the government rather than privately owned and only the short-term monetary gain matters to both parties. But libertarians also make a credible case that Big Corporations would have a much tougher time, and would be a lot smaller, in government-free or minimal-government environments.
varjag 16y ago
> At one point there was no state in history in which women could vote. At one point there was no state in history in which slavery was abolished. Sometime you need to buck history to progress. There however were places without central government or tax collectors. Like Somalia, or Afghanistan.
- drcode 16y ago
  ...in which you can't trade (because of theft) and no one enforces contracts.
  - demallien 16y ago
    ... and there is no enforcement of contracts, and lots of theft, because... no-one paid taxes for the police, judicary, and prison system See the problem?

by drcode 16y ago

eru 16y ago

> In a longer essay he would agree with you that children need to be cared for by society and that this requires tax money to some degree. Yes. Actually children could probably be provided for to a large extent with charity. Though I imagine less sexy causes are more in need of public money.

drcode 16y ago
> Actually children could probably be provided for to a large extent with charity. I wish I wasn't a cynic and could believe that.

forinti 16y ago

>I would say that trade and enforcement of contracts are what make our society civilized. That's a businessman's perspective; there are a lot of other players and concerns in society. What about caring for the environment, enforcing better safety regulations, enforcing better work conditions, etc?

drcode 16y ago
> What about caring for the environment... I'm familiar with the "tragedy of the commons" issue but there just isn't any clear evidence that: More government spending -> better environment What do you think all this government money is going towards? A lot of it is used to run cars and do other things that hurt the environment. Do you think this whole "government stimulus" stuff made the environment better off? > ...enforcing better safety regulations... I won't argue with you that the government does a fantastic job creating more regulations of all kinds :) > ...enforcing better work conditions, etc? Again, the benefit of government here is tenuous. Sure, some things they do might help, but these benefits need to be weighed against the "opportunity costs" of what else could have been done with that tax money.
dpatru 16y ago
The environment is taken care of when it's privately owned. People take care of their own properties. Safety regulations and working conditions are improved via the free market and productivity increases and, to a much lesser extent, by the tort system which punishes unreasonable behavior.
- CamperBob 16y ago
  Someone modded you down and ran off, but I wish they'd stuck around to talk about whether the worst safety/environmental hazards have been traditionally associated with governments or corporations.
  - dualogy 16y ago
    Those who'd argue "corporations", usually mean big businesses operating in corrupt countries. They are right with their examples, say Shell in Nigeria or where was it -- but Government is usually involved too in these cases. From a pure capitalist point of view, there will always be isolated instances of short-term enterprises destroying the source of their wealth --- their river, land, fishing or hunting grounds --- but the ones that will logically prevail are those that protect and future-proof their resources for long-term wealth gains, especially when the investment is very high (talk about oil, mining etc.) so that the return on investment will need to be earned over decades. It is not in the interest of the farmer to devalue his land. It is not in the interest of the fisher to exterminate all fish. It may well be in the interest of global corporations to drain the natural resources of poor countries where the land is granted by the government rather than privately owned and only the short-term monetary gain matters to both parties. But libertarians also make a credible case that Big Corporations would have a much tougher time, and would be a lot smaller, in government-free or minimal-government environments.

varjag 16y ago

> At one point there was no state in history in which women could vote. At one point there was no state in history in which slavery was abolished. Sometime you need to buck history to progress. There however were places without central government or tax collectors. Like Somalia, or Afghanistan.

drcode 16y ago
...in which you can't trade (because of theft) and no one enforces contracts.
- demallien 16y ago
  ... and there is no enforcement of contracts, and lots of theft, because... no-one paid taxes for the police, judicary, and prison system See the problem?