7 ms·

The thing to look at is incentives. What behavior the system incentivizes? People are elected for some n years and it is very difficult to fire them even if the

by snitko 13y ago

The thing to look at is incentives. What behavior the system incentivizes? People are elected for some n years and it is very difficult to fire them even if they don't keep their promises and are doing a crappy job. More importantly, they take away taxes by force from the population, then redistribute those money and pretend they are doing something useful. "We built those roads, we gave you education". Yes, except you didn't. When you take someone else's money by force, for whatever reason, even if you intend to give it to the poor, it is theft. But when a government does it, it suddenly becomes taxes. It can be argued that in a democracy people generally agree that taxes should be payed, but when you actually ask people whether they want to fund wars and NSA spying, turns out they really don't want that. It is sold as a package and people are tricked and forced (whichever is needed) into financing horrible things with their own money. Finally, you see, if a politician does a bad job, he still gets paid and keeps his job at least until the next election. If a private company messes up, people leave in droves and it goes bankrupt. There might be some good people in the government, who truly believe they are doing some good. That doesn't make the system good and they have zero chances to make it a good system.

nemothekid 13y ago
I don't think this supports that the government is bad or inherently bad, its just inefficient. The question you have to ask yourself, can you run a country (not even America, take a small country first like Belgium, less than a 10th the pop. of America), and can you run that country efficiently. Like it or not, most government systems humans have invented so far are woefully inefficient and provide perverse incentives from time to time. However it seems our current democratic/republican system works the best, if not on any objective scale, but for the fact is the most relatively stable and proven. Now, anyone can see that our current government has issues, much like the ones you pointed out. And most people have known that for ages, the hard part is can you devise a better system, and how would you go about testing it without ruining a generation? How do you go about minimizing corruption. Sure the "lets-all-live-in-the-forest" and "burn-down-the-institutions-and-the-rich" route is nice and ideal, but its a pipe dream that will fall apart instantly (some people like to point out examples of small villages living without electricity and money - but you simply cannot scale that "lifestyle" to 300 million people). I'm not a political philosopher or an economist so I won't assert that the system we have now is greatest and you are wrong. I just want to see more expanded thought on the idea that "politicians are crooks and we should get rid of the system."
- snitko 13y ago
  Why do you need to "run a country"? What does it really mean? What is it about a government that only it can do certain things, while private enterprises and persons are claimed to be incapable of accomplishing it? But the fundamental question is not whether we can make our system better or worse. The fundamental question is, is it okay to steal from others? When government takes taxes, it steals. You may call it a "perspective", but if I disagree to pay, you and I know very well I'm gonna be at the very least intimidated by the government agents and may possibly go to jail. If all people in a given country indeed agreed that taxes are good, you wouldn't need to enforce collecting it, you would just let people donate, like on kickstarter. If, however, some disagree, you can't claim it's fair simply because the majority is sort of okay with it. The majority supported a lot of horrible things throughout history, yet now we don't see them as being on the right side of it.
  - nemothekid 13y ago
    If you drive on public roads without paying your taxes, are you stealing? If your car gets stolen and you ask the police for help, are you stealing? If you don't want to pay your taxes, leave the country and build your own, with roads, running water, infrastructure et. all. If you find you need outside investment to "bootstrap" your new country, then you may end up paying dividends to your investors just so you can have running water - how is this any different from taxes? Okay, you might say - but why don't we let private companies manage roads, infrastructure, and others? You should ask yourself, do you really want a company whos job it is to maximize profits to be running these basic services? We already have a couple examples of how privately run institutions with perverse incentives can ruin peoples lives. Lets look at the prison industry, which is now private. They benefit from the free labour of prisoners indirectly giving them an incentive to have as many people as possible in prison. As a result America has the worlds highest incarceration rate by a wide margin[1]. Often these people are in prison for reasons illegitimate. While these people are in prison they also represent an innumerable net loss to the actual economy. These are people who could be getting educated or running higher worth jobs. It shouldn't be a stretch of the imagination that running a country - managing the resources and happiness of millions of people as well managing relations with other countries as represented by millions of other people is an incredibly complex task. Simply boiling down "taxes = stealing" is too simple and naive to actually strongly consider. [1]http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2012/us-incarceration.aspx http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2012/us-incarcerati...
IanCal 13y ago
> When you take someone else's money by force, for whatever reason, even if you intend to give it to the poor, it is theft. But when a government does it, it suddenly becomes taxes. I'd see taxes more like calling in a debt. It costs money to live here, you have to pay for that. You can't shout and scream "THEFT" when a hotel is trying to get you to pay for your stay, even if you don't want to use the TV yet still have to pay for it. > "We built those roads, we gave you education". Yes, except you didn't. I'm not sure which country you're from, but I'm guessing there are schools and roads funded by the state. > Finally, you see, if a politician does a bad job, he still gets paid and keeps his job at least until the next election. If a private company messes up, people leave in droves and it goes bankrupt. There are plenty of companies that do bad jobs and are still running.
- snitko 13y ago
  > I'd see taxes more like calling in a debt. It costs money to live here, you have to pay for that. What do you mean costs money to live here? I already pay my rent and utilities. When I walk or drive on public roads, it is only because it is a monopoly and I have no other choice. Do you think in the absence of government no one would build roads? Or schools? Or do you argue that it costs money to stay on a piece of land? Then maybe we should start taxing breathing the air as well. > There are plenty of companies that do bad jobs and are still running. Because there's a demand for that particular level of service, not because they force everyone to visit them and become their customers.
  - Kliment 13y ago
    Except your friendly neighbourhood power or telecom monopoly.
    - snitko 13y ago
      You see, I live in Russia. Historically, up until recently, the telecom was a very unregulated industry. Government just didn't care enough. So do you know what am I paying for a 100Mbps connection and unlimited traffic? $10/mo. Do you know what I'm paying for an unlimited 3G and calls? ~$10/mo. And this has been the case for many years. No monopoly here. Monopolies only emerge when governments and companies start making sweet love to each other.
abenga 13y ago
Why do you assume that the person whose money the government "steals" would have made any of that money in the absence of government? How would they buy and sell goods or services without legal tender mandated by a government, enforce contracts arising therefrom without a legal system that is a part of government, that your borders would be secure without a military and police force (or service) paid for by government, that you'd move yourself, goods, services, and information without transport and communications infrastructure funded by government? We may assume that in the absence of government, we'd have the same economic station as we do, forgetting that that wealth we do have is the result of the whole economic system we have now, including the government, imperfect as it may be. Without government, you'd get to keep all of your income (all the income that the marauding bandit with a bigger gun than you lets you keep) but it would be far, far lower than the amount of wealth you now possess. You could argue that you don't need a "government" for any of these things, that communities could come together and provide them without the "government" stepping in. Of course any administrative mechanisms the community puts in place to manage these will very quickly begin to look very like the "government" we despise.
- snitko 13y ago
  Like it was said in some comment below, there is no shortage of ideas of how a society would work in the absence of government. Yet people mostly ignore them and ask the same questions again and again, not even willing to hear the answer. I recommend reading Murray Rothbard, David D. Friedman and Stefan Molyneux. And I would like to answer one of your questions specifically: "How would they enforce contracts arising therefrom without a legal system" by pointing you to an Bitcoin-related idea by a friend of mine: http://blog.oleganza.com/post/58240549599/contracts-without-trust-or-third-parties http://blog.oleganza.com/post/58240549599/contracts-without-...
  - abenga 13y ago
    My qualms are not about whether such a society working starting now, since they would be building upon a foundation (infrastructure, ideas to founders due to education from public institutions, a generally prosperous society, etc.) already laid by previous generations, with the help of (or despite hindrance by) government institutions. I do wonder though whether some projects of grand scale that work for the greater good at the detriment of or discomfort of a disadvantaged few, e.g. roads or railway lines cutting through people's property would work in such a society, really (even now with eminent domain and coercion at work, the NIMBY brigade manages to block a large numer of such projects). One may say that if you offered a high enough price people would agree to sell the land, but there are many reasons people would refuse to let go (sentimental reasons, ancestors' burial grounds, etc.). I'll be the first to admit I'm ignorant about these ideas, though.

by snitko 13y ago

nemothekid 13y ago

I don't think this supports that the government is bad or inherently bad, its just inefficient. The question you have to ask yourself, can you run a country (not even America, take a small country first like Belgium, less than a 10th the pop. of America), and can you run that country efficiently. Like it or not, most government systems humans have invented so far are woefully inefficient and provide perverse incentives from time to time. However it seems our current democratic/republican system works the best, if not on any objective scale, but for the fact is the most relatively stable and proven. Now, anyone can see that our current government has issues, much like the ones you pointed out. And most people have known that for ages, the hard part is can you devise a better system, and how would you go about testing it without ruining a generation? How do you go about minimizing corruption. Sure the "lets-all-live-in-the-forest" and "burn-down-the-institutions-and-the-rich" route is nice and ideal, but its a pipe dream that will fall apart instantly (some people like to point out examples of small villages living without electricity and money - but you simply cannot scale that "lifestyle" to 300 million people). I'm not a political philosopher or an economist so I won't assert that the system we have now is greatest and you are wrong. I just want to see more expanded thought on the idea that "politicians are crooks and we should get rid of the system."

snitko 13y ago
Why do you need to "run a country"? What does it really mean? What is it about a government that only it can do certain things, while private enterprises and persons are claimed to be incapable of accomplishing it? But the fundamental question is not whether we can make our system better or worse. The fundamental question is, is it okay to steal from others? When government takes taxes, it steals. You may call it a "perspective", but if I disagree to pay, you and I know very well I'm gonna be at the very least intimidated by the government agents and may possibly go to jail. If all people in a given country indeed agreed that taxes are good, you wouldn't need to enforce collecting it, you would just let people donate, like on kickstarter. If, however, some disagree, you can't claim it's fair simply because the majority is sort of okay with it. The majority supported a lot of horrible things throughout history, yet now we don't see them as being on the right side of it.
- nemothekid 13y ago
  If you drive on public roads without paying your taxes, are you stealing? If your car gets stolen and you ask the police for help, are you stealing? If you don't want to pay your taxes, leave the country and build your own, with roads, running water, infrastructure et. all. If you find you need outside investment to "bootstrap" your new country, then you may end up paying dividends to your investors just so you can have running water - how is this any different from taxes? Okay, you might say - but why don't we let private companies manage roads, infrastructure, and others? You should ask yourself, do you really want a company whos job it is to maximize profits to be running these basic services? We already have a couple examples of how privately run institutions with perverse incentives can ruin peoples lives. Lets look at the prison industry, which is now private. They benefit from the free labour of prisoners indirectly giving them an incentive to have as many people as possible in prison. As a result America has the worlds highest incarceration rate by a wide margin[1]. Often these people are in prison for reasons illegitimate. While these people are in prison they also represent an innumerable net loss to the actual economy. These are people who could be getting educated or running higher worth jobs. It shouldn't be a stretch of the imagination that running a country - managing the resources and happiness of millions of people as well managing relations with other countries as represented by millions of other people is an incredibly complex task. Simply boiling down "taxes = stealing" is too simple and naive to actually strongly consider. [1]http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2012/us-incarceration.aspx http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2012/us-incarcerati...

IanCal 13y ago

> When you take someone else's money by force, for whatever reason, even if you intend to give it to the poor, it is theft. But when a government does it, it suddenly becomes taxes. I'd see taxes more like calling in a debt. It costs money to live here, you have to pay for that. You can't shout and scream "THEFT" when a hotel is trying to get you to pay for your stay, even if you don't want to use the TV yet still have to pay for it. > "We built those roads, we gave you education". Yes, except you didn't. I'm not sure which country you're from, but I'm guessing there are schools and roads funded by the state. > Finally, you see, if a politician does a bad job, he still gets paid and keeps his job at least until the next election. If a private company messes up, people leave in droves and it goes bankrupt. There are plenty of companies that do bad jobs and are still running.

snitko 13y ago
> I'd see taxes more like calling in a debt. It costs money to live here, you have to pay for that. What do you mean costs money to live here? I already pay my rent and utilities. When I walk or drive on public roads, it is only because it is a monopoly and I have no other choice. Do you think in the absence of government no one would build roads? Or schools? Or do you argue that it costs money to stay on a piece of land? Then maybe we should start taxing breathing the air as well. > There are plenty of companies that do bad jobs and are still running. Because there's a demand for that particular level of service, not because they force everyone to visit them and become their customers.
- Kliment 13y ago
  Except your friendly neighbourhood power or telecom monopoly.
  - snitko 13y ago
    You see, I live in Russia. Historically, up until recently, the telecom was a very unregulated industry. Government just didn't care enough. So do you know what am I paying for a 100Mbps connection and unlimited traffic? $10/mo. Do you know what I'm paying for an unlimited 3G and calls? ~$10/mo. And this has been the case for many years. No monopoly here. Monopolies only emerge when governments and companies start making sweet love to each other.

abenga 13y ago

Why do you assume that the person whose money the government "steals" would have made any of that money in the absence of government? How would they buy and sell goods or services without legal tender mandated by a government, enforce contracts arising therefrom without a legal system that is a part of government, that your borders would be secure without a military and police force (or service) paid for by government, that you'd move yourself, goods, services, and information without transport and communications infrastructure funded by government? We may assume that in the absence of government, we'd have the same economic station as we do, forgetting that that wealth we do have is the result of the whole economic system we have now, including the government, imperfect as it may be. Without government, you'd get to keep all of your income (all the income that the marauding bandit with a bigger gun than you lets you keep) but it would be far, far lower than the amount of wealth you now possess. You could argue that you don't need a "government" for any of these things, that communities could come together and provide them without the "government" stepping in. Of course any administrative mechanisms the community puts in place to manage these will very quickly begin to look very like the "government" we despise.

snitko 13y ago
Like it was said in some comment below, there is no shortage of ideas of how a society would work in the absence of government. Yet people mostly ignore them and ask the same questions again and again, not even willing to hear the answer. I recommend reading Murray Rothbard, David D. Friedman and Stefan Molyneux. And I would like to answer one of your questions specifically: "How would they enforce contracts arising therefrom without a legal system" by pointing you to an Bitcoin-related idea by a friend of mine: http://blog.oleganza.com/post/58240549599/contracts-without-trust-or-third-parties http://blog.oleganza.com/post/58240549599/contracts-without-...
- abenga 13y ago
  My qualms are not about whether such a society working starting now, since they would be building upon a foundation (infrastructure, ideas to founders due to education from public institutions, a generally prosperous society, etc.) already laid by previous generations, with the help of (or despite hindrance by) government institutions. I do wonder though whether some projects of grand scale that work for the greater good at the detriment of or discomfort of a disadvantaged few, e.g. roads or railway lines cutting through people's property would work in such a society, really (even now with eminent domain and coercion at work, the NIMBY brigade manages to block a large numer of such projects). One may say that if you offered a high enough price people would agree to sell the land, but there are many reasons people would refuse to let go (sentimental reasons, ancestors' burial grounds, etc.). I'll be the first to admit I'm ignorant about these ideas, though.