Topic: Defend Taxation - page 2. (Read 6164 times)

Right, but the point is

There's no way to quantify what research is worth beforehand, because this isn't a video game where you can choose to tech up to level two crops and increase yields by 20%.

Not precisely, no. But if I am forced to pay for shitty research, I'm going to be pissed off. If I choose to pay for research that fails to pay off, I made a bad investment. It happens.

And how are you going to know what the increased yields from research will be? You don't.

If each person spends on his own crops, then, would not all the farmers be better off by a lot, rather than the little the research would produce? Your example doesn't make much sense. If the end result is that the research would help more than spending on his own crops, any rational farmer would fund the research. If the end result is the research would help less than spending on his own crops, no rational farmer would.

Let's say spending on his own crops nets an increased yield of 3 tomatoes, and that research would result in an increased yield of 2 tomatoes for everyone. It would then be in everyone's best interest to spend on their own crops. But if the research would yield 5 more tomatoes for everyone, it's now in everyone's best interest to fund the research, and it would get funded.

If you give a rational tomato farmer the choice between
A. Spending on his own crops (which helps him a lot)
B. Spending it on tomato research (which helps him little)
He will choose A, even though B helps the average tomato farmer more. It's a prisoner's dilemma.

It could. That funding could just as easily (and more efficiently) have come directly from the farmers themselves, however.

Your example shows the inefficiency of simple restitution, assuming no negative externalities caused by poverty.

For counterexample, the tomato state could sell some tomatoes and spend the proceeds on public tomato farming research, thus increasing the total tomato supply even more.

How can you argue that, when I just gave an example that shows it's false? Land taxes are only efficient when compared to the current system.

Present a counterexample to the tomato farmers.

Well, I don't have to describe in detail the system I propose, because it has been described in great detail elsewhere. Specifically, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

As to the prison system, you are conflating prison (where the inmates are held) with justice (where the decisions are made) separate these two institutions, and even (in fact, especially) if both are private, you will get laws that reflect the best interests of everyone, and a prison system that doesn't mistreat its inmates.

I would further argue that land taxes enhance the efficiency of a society. First of all, land taxes don't cause a significant deadweight loss.

Then the state can then spend those funds on positive externalities, which are more efficient than basic income. This is less ethically justifiable than simple restitution since it's paternalistic, but we have moved on to efficiency after all.

Net effect = externalities - tax revenue - admin overhead
It can be positive and promotes growth.

If you ask that question, this must be the first of my posts you have read. Yes, I challenge the legitimacy of the state. I'll be getting back to the other conversation in a little bit, but first, I wanted to take care of this post.

First, I don't deny that those are all useful and indeed in some cases, necessary services. (maybe not so much prison, but that's another debate)

What I contest is that those services need to be paid for by force. All of those, even prison, can be provided on the open market, and paid for, voluntarily, by those who need them. A little reference material for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_anarchism

Now, back to the greater debate.

All of this depends on whether you define land in it's state of nature as being unowned, or collective property. If you allow that all land, and indeed, all things not man-made, are collectively owned by all until appropriated by someone, then you have an effective argument for taxation. I do not. And it's not just on principle that I reject this notion. There's a very practical reason why I reject it. It's inefficient.

Let's take your tomato example. Let's say that I and 10 of my neighbors grow tomatoes. To illustrate the concept, I'll limit the redistribution to just those 11 people. I start out with 100 tomatoes, and so does everyone else. the land, naturally produces 10 in that area, so the government comes along and takes those 10 from each of us. Now, it has 110 tomatoes, and we each have 90. The government then takes it's cut - 11 tomatoes, leaving 99 - and redistributes the others evenly. So now the government has 11 tomatoes, and we each have 99. The net effect is that someone has come along and stolen 1% of our tomatoes, and given us nothing in return.

Scale this however you want, it comes back to the same fact: paying everyone else for the use of your property is, at best, a shuffling of resources with no net effect, and at worst, a waste of some percentage to whatever administration oversees that shuffling.

nimda,

Furthermore, in addition to the above post, it should be clear what would actually be accomplished if I stopped eating beef: Nothing. My cessation of beef consumption would not change beef consumption in total. The only thing that would result is me not being able to enjoy beef anymore, while others continued. If I died tomorrow, obviously my beef consumption would cease as well, but it would achieve nothing with regard to the environmental effects of the cattle industry.

And that's why voluntary environmentalism is a solution without teeth. Unified action, generally in the form of regulation and policy does have teeth.

It's directly analogous to the "Buffett tax". Buffett was ridiculed by the right, who suggested that Buffett should just voluntarily donate more taxes. Again, it would accomplish nothing. What Buffett clearly meant, was that he would pay more taxes if all the super rich had to pay taxes. And that would have an effect.

No. But you must understand that I have stated more than once that environmentalism is about reducing ignorance on how it works, and enacting policy and processes which work at a large scale through scientific study. I have specifically stated that actions at the individual level are not the solution. As an example, I have stated that people who think recycling plastic bottles is a solution to the environment are not understanding the real processes, and the real issues.

Do you deny that by eating beef, you are creating demand and creating an incentive to wrong the environment?

For the loss of cattle? There are already too many cattle on the planet. The extra ones do not provide ecosystem services. The real question should be: does the cattle industry reimburse the environment for the damage it does by the extermination of wolves, by polluting the ground, and so on. If governmental policy would be more proactive in this arena, then beef would cost more. Depending on what that price rose to, then at some point I would stop eating beef.

Do you reimburse society for them?

What are you addressing, as it seems clear you're missing something here. Did you know that I eat and enjoy hamburgers and steaks, as well as chickens?

Empathy need not be metered out on a black and white scale. I truly loathe the argument that says "They're not people." That's black and white. Likewise, arguing for the rights of that fly or mosquito that is annoying you is not something I particularly wish to hear either.

But even in the case of flies and mosquitoes, I'm in favor of arguing for the necessity of preserving species, as they are beneficial to ecosystems and by extension the ecosystem services they provide.

I'm going to continue eating. Thank you for your consideration, FirstAscent, but I will not become a vegetarian either. I also have no problem eating octopus; it's quite delicious.