3 ms·

Very cute, but there is actually a difference: the gov is only supposed to provide public goods. Voting either directly or through a representative still can le

Very cute, but there is actually a difference: the gov is only supposed to provide public goods. Voting either directly or through a representative still can lead to a scenario where the gov steals from some to give to others. Here is a real-life example: I live in the Portland metro. A couple of years ago, voters decided to vote to tax my income above a threshold to pay for preschool for people who have incomes below the threshold of taxation. This does not lead to increased economic efficiency. Every year I now have to pay $x dollars directly to other people's children under the threat of state violence. I would much rather put that money in my child's 529. Or use it to pay for my child's daycare! This isn't increased economic efficiency. It is literal theft.

shuntress 3y ago
> the gov is only supposed to provide public goods This is simply not how it works. "The Government" is just what it's called when The People work together to solve shared problems. Taxation is not theft just because you voted against it and lost. I wouldn't pretend to have enough information to determine exactly how efficient Portland's redistribution of wealth through taxes and schools is, but basic logic tells us that several moderately well educated people should likely be more efficient overall than several uneducated people plus one exceptionally well educated person.
- hellojesus 3y ago
  > but basic logic tells us that several moderately well educated people should likely be more efficient overall than several uneducated people plus one exceptionally well educated person. I'm not arguing that having a greater number of educated people wouldn't be more productive. I'm arguing that redistributing wealth involuntarily is less efficient. """ Economic efficiency implies an economic state in which every resource is optimally allocated to serve each individual or entity in the best way while minimizing waste and inefficiency. """ https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/economic_efficiency.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/economic_efficiency.asp Robbing Peter to pay Paul necessarily leaves Peter worse off. The solution is not pareto optimal, and therefore cannot be a solution in a maximal efficiency. Furthermore, in the daycare example, the solution necessarily creates deadweight loss. Robbing me to pay for someone else's daycare now increases daycare demand, which given a fixed supply, makes daycare more expensive for everyond, myself included. So not only am I paying for someone else's kids to go to daycare, but now I have to pay more for my kids to go to daycare to outcompete the demand they now present with their free money. > Taxation is not theft just because you voted against it and lost. If your city's population got together and voted to tax people who post on HN at 99% to fund banquets for children, would you similarly not consider that theft?
  - shuntress 3y ago
    A community pooling money then using that money to buy things that the community needs is not "Robbing Peter to pay Paul". "Robbing Peter to pay Paul" means "shuffling debts around". That's not what is happening here. > If your city's population got together and voted to tax people who post on HN at 99% to fund banquets for children, would you similarly not consider that theft? This is why courts and judges exist. Obviously that would be an unreasonable tax under normal circumstances that no rational judge would uphold.

shuntress 3y ago

> the gov is only supposed to provide public goods This is simply not how it works. "The Government" is just what it's called when The People work together to solve shared problems. Taxation is not theft just because you voted against it and lost. I wouldn't pretend to have enough information to determine exactly how efficient Portland's redistribution of wealth through taxes and schools is, but basic logic tells us that several moderately well educated people should likely be more efficient overall than several uneducated people plus one exceptionally well educated person.

hellojesus 3y ago
> but basic logic tells us that several moderately well educated people should likely be more efficient overall than several uneducated people plus one exceptionally well educated person. I'm not arguing that having a greater number of educated people wouldn't be more productive. I'm arguing that redistributing wealth involuntarily is less efficient. """ Economic efficiency implies an economic state in which every resource is optimally allocated to serve each individual or entity in the best way while minimizing waste and inefficiency. """ https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/economic_efficiency.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/economic_efficiency.asp Robbing Peter to pay Paul necessarily leaves Peter worse off. The solution is not pareto optimal, and therefore cannot be a solution in a maximal efficiency. Furthermore, in the daycare example, the solution necessarily creates deadweight loss. Robbing me to pay for someone else's daycare now increases daycare demand, which given a fixed supply, makes daycare more expensive for everyond, myself included. So not only am I paying for someone else's kids to go to daycare, but now I have to pay more for my kids to go to daycare to outcompete the demand they now present with their free money. > Taxation is not theft just because you voted against it and lost. If your city's population got together and voted to tax people who post on HN at 99% to fund banquets for children, would you similarly not consider that theft?
- shuntress 3y ago
  A community pooling money then using that money to buy things that the community needs is not "Robbing Peter to pay Paul". "Robbing Peter to pay Paul" means "shuffling debts around". That's not what is happening here. > If your city's population got together and voted to tax people who post on HN at 99% to fund banquets for children, would you similarly not consider that theft? This is why courts and judges exist. Obviously that would be an unreasonable tax under normal circumstances that no rational judge would uphold.