Pages:

Author

Topic: Why are people scared of taxes? - page 30. (Read 31541 times)

sturle

legendary

Activity: 1437

Merit: 1002

https://bitmynt.no

Quote from: Richy_T on October 23, 2012, 10:50:51 PM

Quote from: sturle on October 23, 2012, 04:36:31 PM

Not every market can be an effective free market.

Cool. Let's start with you list absolutely anything you can think of that you feel cannot be a free market and that the government absolutely must be involved in and then let's get the government out of everything else. Then we can talk again.

The list would be far to long, and some areas need less regulation than other areas. E.g. power lines. Every house need power, but it would be very inefficient and even dangerous if every house had lines from six different companies.

In my country it is solved by having a free market for electric power, an exchange where the power companies buy and sell power. As a private person, I can buy from any power company I want to, and change any time I want to. Currently I pay spot price for power (available any time from the exchange I linked to) + a fixed monthly fee of 35 cents. The company that owns the lines to my house have to deliver that power to me. And the fee they can take to deliver the power I bought is strictly regulated. This is a very effective system, combining free market for what it is possible to make a free market for, and a strictly regulated market where a natural monopoly exists and is the most effective organization.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: sturle on October 24, 2012, 12:29:03 PM

Quote from: myrkul on October 23, 2012, 07:17:17 PM

If I mug you, and then promise to buy you a stereo with some of the money, is that moral?

Why do you care? You are an anarchist, so I guess you think it is anyone's right to mug you? You don't want any laws against it.

That makes three people who have responded to this question, and not one of them have actually answered it. Dear god, that's sad.

I care because you claim taxation is moral. I am attempting to determine what aspect of taxation makes it moral, and differentiates it from simple theft. So far, we've ruled out majority consensus (voting), so I'm now looking into whether it's the fact that some of the money comes back to the person you're taking it from.

If you think that as an anarchist I think that it is anyone's right to mug a person, you are sorely mistaken. You must not even understand the core principle that informs AnCap: the Non-aggression principle. That is the law against it.

So, want to take a swing at it? Yes or no, is it moral to mug someone if you promise to purchase something for them with the money?

sturle

legendary

Activity: 1437

Merit: 1002

https://bitmynt.no

Quote from: Richy_T on October 23, 2012, 10:43:37 PM

Quote from: sturle on October 23, 2012, 04:36:31 PM

Quote from: asdf on October 23, 2012, 03:24:41 PM

No, it will be vastly cheaper if privatised. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem. Also, business are accountable, because I can take my money elsewhere if I don't like their services. The government monopolises its services.

The Economic calculation problem only applies where there is a market which can be free.

Can you explain then why The USA, which has the most privatised health system of all developed nations of world, pays more per capita for it's health services than any other country? That is only counting public spending, not private insurances. The USA are far from the top quality wise. Number 38 in the world on life expectancy, which is lower than even Cuba.

The private sector will organize itself to maximise profit. This is not automatically the most cost effective way.

There are several factors, the chief amongst which is that health insurance is heavily regulated, creating high barriers to entry and suppressing competition. Employer provided healthcare also tends to lead to people not examining the actual cost of their healthcare leading to higher prices. Employer provided insurance arose, of course, from government wage control legislation.

This may explain why health insurance is more expensive for average people (because the companies can't deny insurance to e.g. obese people or smokers), but it does not explain why the U.S. government pays more per capita than any other government for a health system which is less effective than in most other countries. The insurance comes in addition to what the government spends, just to underline the problems. Private health insurance wouldn't be necessary if the USA copied the standard European like health system, and you would get a more effective system for less tax money.

sturle

legendary

Activity: 1437

Merit: 1002

https://bitmynt.no

Quote from: myrkul on October 23, 2012, 07:17:17 PM

If I mug you, and then promise to buy you a stereo with some of the money, is that moral?

Why do you care? You are an anarchist, so I guess you think it is anyone's right to mug you? You don't want any laws against it.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Richy_T on October 24, 2012, 11:34:32 AM

Quote from: myrkul on October 24, 2012, 10:58:22 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

If you were true to your Libertarian principles, you would respect my non-answer. Grin

Why should I give legitimacy to your analogy by voting one way or the other? Tongue

I guess I should expect no different from someone who uses "blahblahblah" as their username... I'm done talking to you until you answer whether or not a mugger becomes moral when he promises to spend some of the money on the mugged.

I take objection to your example.

You should have *two* muggers. Then they can clearly come to a majority consensus over the use of your money.

We've already ruled out majority consensus as legitimizing theft. I'm isolating each factor to see which one it is that makes it moral.

Richy_T

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 2267

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k

Quote from: myrkul on October 24, 2012, 10:58:22 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

If you were true to your Libertarian principles, you would respect my non-answer. Grin

Why should I give legitimacy to your analogy by voting one way or the other? Tongue

I take objection to your example.

You should have *two* muggers. Then they can clearly come to a majority consensus over the use of your money.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: ?? on ??

If you were true to your Libertarian principles, you would respect my non-answer. Grin

Why should I give legitimacy to your analogy by voting one way or the other? Tongue

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Kontakt on October 24, 2012, 10:47:28 AM

Quote from: myrkul on October 24, 2012, 10:33:17 AM

Quote from: Kontakt on October 24, 2012, 10:29:50 AM

http://www.linfo.org/standardoil.html
Bout a quarter of the way down the page.

That's nice. Is there a reference for that? And how does that jive with it losing over 20% of it's market share?

http://books.google.com/books?id=9VJIAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA179&lpg=PA179&dq=standard+oil+thugs&source=bl&ots=AXMGarHe3V&sig=--1LPewdkSVbHtXJgmIZ9BW9hOE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oQyIUJzBOIa50AHi14DABg&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=standard%20oil%20thugs&f=false

Even if this were what I would call an "unbiased source", it refers to breaking up a strike, not destroying competitors.

Quote from: Kontakt on October 24, 2012, 10:47:28 AM

http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/pds/gilded/power/text2/standardoil.pdf

This seems to discuss solely the transportation deals.

Any real references? (You still haven't answered my second question)

While you're at it, feel free to answer this one:

Quote from: myrkul on October 23, 2012, 07:17:17 PM

If I mug you, and then promise to buy you a stereo with some of the money, is that moral?

Kontakt

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

Quote from: myrkul on October 24, 2012, 10:33:17 AM

Quote from: Kontakt on October 24, 2012, 10:29:50 AM

http://www.linfo.org/standardoil.html
Bout a quarter of the way down the page.

That's nice. Is there a reference for that? And how does that jive with it losing over 20% of it's market share?

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Kontakt on October 24, 2012, 10:29:50 AM

http://www.linfo.org/standardoil.html
Bout a quarter of the way down the page.

That's nice. Is there a reference for that? And how does that jive with it losing over 20% of it's market share?

Kontakt

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

Quote from: myrkul on October 24, 2012, 10:25:09 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Resorting to semantics? By your own argument, your government is not a "monopoly on violence" either -- or a monopoly on anything else for that matter -- because there are plenty of people around who are a "law unto themselves" and do all of the same bad stuff but on a smaller scale, and therefore the govt has less than 100%.

Uh, yeah... no. Standard Oil did not enforce it's market share with the use of force. The government wants 100% of the "market" in violence, and uses force to keep it. (That's the definition of "monopoly on violence", btw.)

http://www.linfo.org/standardoil.html
Bout a quarter of the way down the page.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: myrkul on October 23, 2012, 07:17:17 PM

If I mug you, and then promise to buy you a stereo with some of the money, is that moral?

Your answer would be very helpful. I'm trying to tease out what, exactly, makes taxation moral. We've already established it's not the voting.

It depends. Perhaps I forgot to pay protection money to one of the ~~mobsters~~ private, non-governmental entities in your Libertarian utopia? Surely it would be immoral to avoid paying for private services? Your fellow Libertarians are entitled to receive fair compensation for ensuring my safety, even if it seems like stealing, right?

If you could at least come up with a ~~superior~~ (edit) reasonable, thought-provoking alternative to taxation that gives people a real choice, then they would have the ability to act morally by choosing.

You're cute. First you accuse me of "resorting to semantics", and then, you resort to semantics, and sidestep the question. Come on, can't any of you answer a yes or no question with yes or no?

If I mug you, and then promise to buy you a stereo with some of the money, is that moral? Yes or no?

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Since you seem to like monopolies so much, what have you got against dictatorial governments with a "monopoly on violence"? Disappointed that you don't get to be on top? You should be rejoicing that the Anglo-sphere is finally seeing the light!

Maybe you missed this the first time I posted it:

Quote from: myrkul on October 23, 2012, 07:17:17 PM

If I mug you, and then promise to buy you a stereo with some of the money, is that moral?

Your answer would be very helpful. I'm trying to tease out what, exactly, makes taxation moral. We've already established it's not the voting.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Kontakt on October 23, 2012, 11:18:44 PM

It's not your fault, really. Rockefeller was quite farsighted. He lowered prices to drive his competitors down about six feet. Without competitors, who is to stop you dictating prices? Lowering prices is a chess move, and your logic is that of a pawn's.

I see. He drove the prices down so he could then drastically increase them. And he did this through having a monopoly on oil. You'll find this enlightening, then.

Quote

The argument that Standard Oil extorted high prices from the public is simply unsupported by evidence. Indeed, the opposite appears to be true: Refined oil prices "fell from over 30 cents per gallon in 1869, to 10 cents in 1874, to 8 cents in 1885, and to 5.9 cents in 1897."

Quote

While Standard Oil owned 88% of refining business at its height (by no means a monopoly), its market share had already decreased to 64% by 1911 (before the anti-trust case).

Kontakt

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

Quote from: myrkul on October 23, 2012, 11:15:24 PM

Quote from: Kontakt on October 23, 2012, 11:09:13 PM

Quote from: myrkul on October 23, 2012, 10:59:06 PM

Quote from: Kontakt on October 23, 2012, 10:47:53 PM

I read a book on the beginning of big oil I found interesting that chronicled the start of Rockefeller and all the other giants.

Fun fact: Standard Oil dropped kerosene prices from 58 cents in 1865 to 26 cents in 1870.

I don't see where that's a problem.

Their monopoly allowed them to do that. Due to the vertical and horizontal control it exerted on the western market, he could dictate the price of crude as he wanted it; there was no one else to sell to. When you control everything, you can do as you please. Rockefeller was no man's fool. He knew how to play the public opinion.

I still don't see that as a problem. He lowered prices. That's a good thing.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Kontakt on October 23, 2012, 11:09:13 PM

Quote from: myrkul on October 23, 2012, 10:59:06 PM

Quote from: Kontakt on October 23, 2012, 10:47:53 PM

I read a book on the beginning of big oil I found interesting that chronicled the start of Rockefeller and all the other giants.

Fun fact: Standard Oil dropped kerosene prices from 58 cents in 1865 to 26 cents in 1870.

I don't see where that's a problem.

I still don't see that as a problem. He lowered prices. That's a good thing.

Kontakt

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

Quote from: myrkul on October 23, 2012, 10:59:06 PM

Quote from: Kontakt on October 23, 2012, 10:47:53 PM

I read a book on the beginning of big oil I found interesting that chronicled the start of Rockefeller and all the other giants.

Fun fact: Standard Oil dropped kerosene prices from 58 cents in 1865 to 26 cents in 1870.

I don't see where that's a problem.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Kontakt on October 23, 2012, 10:47:53 PM

I read a book on the beginning of big oil I found interesting that chronicled the start of Rockefeller and all the other giants.

Fun fact: Standard Oil dropped kerosene prices from 58 cents in 1865 to 26 cents in 1870.

I don't see where that's a problem.

Richy_T

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 2267

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k

Quote from: Kontakt on October 23, 2012, 10:53:02 PM

Quote from: Richy_T on October 23, 2012, 10:50:51 PM

Quote from: sturle on October 23, 2012, 04:36:31 PM

Not every market can be an effective free market.

Well, for starters, any service that is controlled by large interests. We all see how well OPEC can make us sweat.

What? OPEC *is* government(s). Just not ours.

Kontakt

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

Quote from: Richy_T on October 23, 2012, 10:50:51 PM

Quote from: sturle on October 23, 2012, 04:36:31 PM

Not every market can be an effective free market.

Well, for starters, any service that is controlled by large interests. We all see how well OPEC can make us sweat.