The Economics of Taxation
In this excerpt from my new book, I argue that any form of taxation implies a reduction of income a person can expect to receive from original appropriation, from production, or from contracting. Since these activities require the employment of scarce means — at least time and the use of one's body — which could be used for consumption and/or leisure, the opportunity cost of performing them is raised. The marginal utility of appropriating, producing, and contracting is decreased, and the marginal utility of consumption and leisure increased. Accordingly, there will be a tendency to shift out of the former roles and into the latter ones. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (33)
That was an excellent read.
Published: February 24, 2006 8:01 AM
Another excellent piece by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. If you haven't yet read his "Democracy: The God That Failed", it should be at the top of your list for the next book to order.
Regarding consumption taxes -- Hoppe had a good point in stating that consumption taxes "push back" on the production process and inevitably hurt producers. But isn't it implied that it is better to levy this tax at the end of the production process than at the beginning? If the Gov't takes their cut at the beginning of the process through income and capital gains taxes, wouldn't that distort the production process and lower time preferences much more? To me, to state that all types of taxes have an equally damaging impact on the production process sounds absurd and illogical.
Then, if all types of taxation ARE NOT equally damaging, then we should at least make efforts to shift taxes to the end of the production process, rather than the beginning. That way, the reduction in time preference caused by taxation is lessened.
One way to do this would be to shift to something similar to the FairTax.
How The FairTax Will Renew America
Published: February 24, 2006 8:17 AM
Nick Bradley,
Ach, this "fair tax" nonsense; first of all, it assumes that there is anysuch thing as a fair tax, a major concession. Secondly, despite the good intentions of those proposing it, it is absurd to think that it won't be used by Congress as just a scam to add one more tax, while claiming to remove the others, but then add back the others later on.
Regarding taxes, I don't see any logic behind your position on why it would be better to tax at the end of the production process. You see, if they do that, then the gov't is just going to tax more (as the taxes would happen later, so they'd want to make up for that).
Published: February 24, 2006 8:54 AM
If there's no difference in damage done between different types of taxation, why not just apply a 100% tax on capital gains? See what that does.
It's a reductio ad absurdum argument, but it proves my point.
Published: February 24, 2006 9:29 AM
Nick, There is No Such Thing As a Fair Tax (see my Mises article of that name). When will you FairTax people get it? Whenever someone writes anything about taxes you people have to go on and on about the benefits of the FairTax. But what makes you people think that the government is entitled to a 23% (really 30%) tax on every transaction? (Yes, I know that used items aren't included so please don't try to change the subject). You recommend Hoppe's book Democracy: The God that Failed, but then you treat the state as a god when you maintain that it is entitled to its 23% cut. The true God only required 10% in Old Testament times.
Published: February 24, 2006 10:56 AM
Lawrence,
Did you even read my post? Did I ever say that the state is entitled to a 23% cut? All I said was that I'd rather have Uncle Sam take a 23% cut at the sales counter than 39% out of my paycheck.
Taxation IS theft. I have never said anything to the contrary. Because Taxation IS theft, there is no "Fair" tax per se. I think a large part of the problem you and others have with the "Fair"Tax is it's orwellian name. If it was called the Consumption Tax Act of 2006 instead, would that make you feel better?
As I've said before, a consumption tax is the least worst option available.
Although they have no right to, the government is going to traw their quart of blood, so to speak. If that's the case, I'd rather have them use a syringe than slit my wrists. That is my point.
The tax code costs US producers over a half a trillion dollars a year in compliance costs. The FairTax could cut that by 80%. Is $400B a year in wealth worth saving? In my opinion, yes. In your opinion, since taxation is unjustified, $1 in taxation is just as unjustified as $1 Trillion in taxation.
Published: February 24, 2006 11:19 AM
I absolutely agree with the above comments directed at Nick Bradley. In my opinion, Rothbard's "Power and Market" presentation is a much clearer and more powerful argument. He absolutely devastates the notions of a fair tax and a consumption tax. Hermann-Hoppe's "Democracy: the God that Failed" is brilliant and extremely well written. I found this article to be less clear. Of course, it could be that my brain is just operating more slowly today.
Published: February 24, 2006 11:29 AM
Nick, no, it would not make me feel better. I would rather starve the state by paying it nothing. That would make me feel better. What would make me feel worse is a FairTax that goes up every year (read the bill) in addition to my income tax (read the bill--it doesn't get rid of the 16th amendment). You can have your syringe, but I prefer not to get stuck at all. But how would the government operate? Exactly. The government wouldn't, at least not at its current level. We had no income tax until 1913. If Congress cuts spending by 90% like it should then we would not need the income tax or any kind of a FairTax right now.
Published: February 24, 2006 11:56 AM
Brilliant as always, but my analysis is a little more rudimentary:
Three results of taxation
1) Least damaging is when you give a bureaucrat a dollar and he sleeps at his desk. Cost a dollar
2) More damaging is when you give a bureaucrat a dollar for regulation, this imposes an interest penalty on future activity raising costs perpetually. Cost one dollar plau interest accrual
3) Most damaging is when you give the military a dollar. First able bodies are removed from productive economic activity (soldiers), secondly military hardware is procured which further reduces the capital pool for productive activity, and third the soldier delivers the weapon provided by his military on some hapless "enemy" whose loses love, life, infrastructure and culture. This is an inestimable cost as the history if warfare illustrates.
Published: February 24, 2006 12:22 PM
An even more rudimentary analysis on how production can be seen to go up after taxation.
The government takes away the one of two carrots from you that it deigns to dangle out in front of you, but it simply takes a picture of said carrot, consumes it for its purposes and cons the productive into thinking it has both its original carrot AND will eventually get the carrot that is dangled out in front of it. In actuality it will simply take the second carrot and tell you its the original carrot.
Meanwhile you've run faster and harder in the short to medium term making up for difference. So looking busy and productive producing and consuming looks good but eventually the shell game/ponzi will be revealed. So just as a runner can look good for a short distance, using up its reserves, productive efforts will peter out.
But myopic, short term, election to election spanning public policy doesn't care to think about the gasping idiot miles short of the end line.
Published: February 24, 2006 1:14 PM
In his list of the three ways of acquiring valuable assets at the beginning of the article, Hoppe omits inheritance - a popular target for taxation, of course. Although he also omits theft (unless that be subsumed under "taxation"), he mentions theft (including membership in unions and the like) toward the end of the article as a common method of acquiring valuable assets.
Second, his point about producers of goods for which there is "inelastic" demand (say, drugs of abuse, or alcohol) facing elastic demand curves INDIVIDUALLY is correct, the aggregate of ALL dealers in said good may face a rather INelastic demand curve. In that a tax will apply to all (legitimate) suppliers of a good, such suppliers may for a time truly be able to shift a tax onto consumers. In this respect, a tax can be somewhat cartel-inducing.
But not for long. If the tax is high enough, bootleggers begin to be significant suppliers (indian reservations, the next county, etc.). The idea of an inelastic demand curve is a useful concept, but so unrealistic that it can throw your thinking off if you let it.
Published: February 24, 2006 2:02 PM
NJP, doesn't Hoppe's third means of acquiring property -- "through voluntary, contractual acquisition from a previous appropriator or producer" -- cover inheritance and other gifts?
(Of course, you can inherit from an inheritor, rather than from a homesteader or producer, but natural language doesn't lend itself to precise specifications of recursive functions.)
Published: February 24, 2006 2:38 PM
Let me tell you ANOTHER reason why no taxation is fair.
Lets go back to a time where a country was peaceful prosperous, and had no taxation (or any active gov to speak of) One day the king says "ok look, all i want is a 1% final goods sales tax so we have a backup police force to help you all catch criminals, for everyone's protection" everyone agrees its a great idea and the tax goes into effect.
Now the government has surplus revenue, since there is not as much crime to take up all the funds. Right there, the first flaw of taxation that when there's a surplus, government has the incentive to spend money in other place for "the common good" and that consumption will distort production as it is.
Now lets say a major crime has been commited. Three pirates robbed a family and burned down their house. They run off and split apart along with the loot, the community hunts them down to bring them to justice. It's already costly what they did, and now its costing more in resources for hunting them down, which the whole community suffers on. Now the lender of last police get involed and spend all the tax money as well trying to get these guys as well. All three are finally capturing, and are convicted of a grand theft charge in court.
However, the families of the pirates are there, making emotional pleas (SO implausible right!) to show mercy on these poor misguided men, to lighten to penantly and restitution costs despite their hideously reckless and negligent behavior. Now, ofcourse the opposition will react "We lost soo much looking for these idiots, they hurt everyone in the community and they need to be paid back! Who's gonna pay them huh"
And yes... you guessed it. The judge will be conflicted, but much more likely, he will proceed with "yes what they did was terrible, but the police are already payed by your taxes, so they need no restitution, and i will reduce their penalty to private citizens losses only". The unexamined result here is that, due to the incentive to ignore costs of enforcement by the public police, the burden of criminals is effectively reduced. There is more incentive to be a fugitive instead of bringing yourself to justice faster, because the costs of evading the law for any period of time is subsidized by, ultimately, the initial sales tax. No tax can be fair or impartial because it give a HUGE incentive to distort and destroy the impartiality of the legal justice system.
The end of all taxation is to give an incentive to interrupt production (people working) in favor of things people could not want (robbing, violence) by subsidizing costs (people hunting for criminals so they cant work) and giving incentives to commit to the not-wants (fugitives of law). And apparently, this is also the area where most people (inclusing libertarians) think if there has to be a government, then punising criminals like what i just explained is all it should do.
Sorry to burst their bubble.
Published: February 24, 2006 3:07 PM
Laurence,
I would be very happy if we didn't get "stuck" at all by the Gov't.
But do you have a gameplan to accomplish that?
I would be very happy if Congress cut spending by 90%.
But do you have a gameplan to accomplish that?
I don't think you do. I think many libertarians don't. Far too many libertarians spend far too much time debating "what should be" and far too little time discussing strategy on how to get there.
I only see four possible successful strategies to get where we want to go:
1. Change the national mood, vote 95% of Congress out of office, elect 9 Janis Rodgers Browns to the Supreme Court who will declare all unenumerated federal powers unconstitutional, and convince all those who benefit from federal wealth redistribution that they are much better off without all the free goodies.
2. Secession or the threat of secession. A state (or group of states) secedes and starts an new gov't based on limited gov't, preferably guided by something similar to the Articles of Confederation; this new state then crosses its fingers and hopes it is not snuffed out in Lincolnian fashion. A project similar to the Free State Project, however, could be promising in keeping the mere threat of secession alive and well.
3. Shift to a "reverse revenue" system of taxation, wherein the Federal Government can only raise funds by taxing state treasuries (at an equal rate). States would then naturally reduce their tax liability by either (1) cutting spending, (2) pushing programs down to the local level, or (3) lobbying to reduce federal spending. Such a tax system was hinted at in a CATO paper about a decade ago: http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj14n1-7.html.
4. Nullification of Federal Laws. States can simply refuse to recognize federal laws, as Jefferson so eloquently argued states had the right to do in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions.
#1 is clearly unfeasible
#2 is feasible, but unlikely to happen in the next few decades, IMHO
#3 is a great idea, but why on earth would the Feds buy off on it?
#4 would be pretty easy to accomplish and would put a serious check on federal excesses. However, I don't see any state having the tenacity to nullify a Federal law (there are too many goodies from the Federal Government).
Published: February 24, 2006 3:19 PM
First, I want to say that I am a novice lay Austrian Economists. I discovered Austrian Economics about a year ago and I like & agree with what I am learning. So, I ask a little patience with me when I make a comment and ask a question in the following paragraphs.
I've read an Article about Henry George in a Economic Insight newsletter. According to the article, " 'Henry George: Antiprotectionist Giant of American Economics' Economic Insight Volume 10, Number 2", Henry George pretty much stated that the only tax needed by the government is the property tax. This tax would tax the value of unimproved land. He advocated the abolishment on all other taxes.
My question to my more knowledgeable fellow Austrian Economists, Would this propety tax, on the unimproved value of land, proposed by Henry George be considered as a viable alternate tax system compared to the existing one we use today?
Mind you, I am for the abolishment of all taxes. But this is unlikely to happen in this day. So I believe that an alternate is needed. Henry George's proposal seems logical and it looks like it will starve government.
Published: February 24, 2006 3:33 PM
Quincy, why don't you join the Austrian Forum? You can post your question there, too, and receive (sometimes) very sound answers. There are also a great variety of topics where you can draw much knowledge.
Published: February 24, 2006 3:44 PM
Quincy,
The problem lies with the term "unimproved" - it is as subjective as value. This would only encourage a government to set an unreasonable standard of "improvement" in order to tax more property, whether individuals have improved their property (at least to their liking) or not.
Published: February 24, 2006 3:49 PM
"Quincy, why don't you join the Austrian Forum? You can post your question there, too, and receive (sometimes) very sound answers. There are also a great variety of topics where you can draw much knowledge."
Thanks Francisco.
Published: February 24, 2006 3:49 PM
But let me add a 4th choice for the taxation, not the bureaucrat who sleeps, regulates, or the military, but it applies to #3-
4) Don't give anyone anything for protection against external threats and watch the barbarians take everything they can and destroy what they can't.
I am someone who will admit that taxation is theft, and thus evil, however in the presence of people who do not believe in property rights (sometimes people who are outside and want to steal from people within), some wealth must be spent to protect that which is accumulated. It is also generally not feasable to protect a checkerboard pattern of those who pay and let the barbarians have at those who do not. (I've already had someone deny geometry in the form of straight lines when building roads becomes a problem, perhaps someone will move into the plane).
If sufficient people with enough wealth will fund such protection voluntarily (and promote and support the freeloaders - which is an evil too), then you don't need taxation.
If they will not come forth, or are inadequate, then the choice is between collective defence with a necessary but undesired evil of taxation, or a far greater evil collective destruction.
It is a bit like a doctor who says you have a tumor that must be removed, but you don't want to be cut open because you hate knives. Even if they have arthoscopic techniques, they will have to break skin. You can say "no" on principle, but you will die.
Both me and Mr. Hoppe are also going to die one day. It is silly to pretend otherwise. It is a necessary evil of our bodies. Death is sure. Taxation might not be but it looks like it, or the lesser the surety of taxation the greater the surety of death.
It would be nice if we lived in a world where everyone had the same understanding of property rights, and no one ever did anything violent or destructive, but we don't. Those we appoint and pay to suppress such things aren't supplied by divine mandate.
And this is where a particular error comes from. Yes, taxes are evil. Yes they destroy productivity (taken in isolation). If someone came around and took everyone's coins and threw them in a deep part of the ocean the same thing would happen. But that isn't what is done. The other side is the money taken provides (or ought to provide and be exclusively used) for the preservation of society.
The optimal result as far as I can determine is the petty evil of taxation for very limited government that checks the gross evil of barbarism from within and without.
And this is the reason we probably will never recover our freedom is that too many libertarians won't pay even a small amount in tears, toil, and treasure even if it could bring down leviathan tomorrow, because that would be imposing on their freedom. Instead many will merely whine or consider how things could work in a never-to-be utopia. If the people here won't risk their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor, who will?
Part of my rent goes for condo association fees, so I can have my packages taken care of when I'm not there, the lawn mowed, and various amenities. I don't use all these, but they are a package. I use few of them, but I pay for all. They don't have an opt-out program because no one would pay for taking care of the lawn, or so few and only when they wanted to use it - the lawn can't be brown for me and green for them. It is in this way a tax (and if it is not paid I will be forceably evicted).
I've already suggested in another thread we all move to Somalia and form the Mises jilib, but I don't know if there will be many takers.
Even in the microcosm of private security, there are economies of scale. If a government will provide protection to all for $5 per month, but it would cost $50 for you to individually protect your property (which may include more restrictions on what you can do than a government might to get that fee - unlimited liability might be available for a price, but it would be higher), some would say they prefer that because they would have the choice. But it would still be the choice between paying or destruction. And for all the claims of rights, the $5 may imperfectly protect the homeless and penniless man, but it does provide him with equality under the law. The $50 protects only you and leaves those who can't afford rights without those rights.
I don't know about the undeveloped property tax, but I have thought of a counter-proposal. Property will become more valuable as a result of a collective protection (either from nature or criminals). Attach a lein to property and sell a bond for the same amount so no one would have to pay out of pocket for the service, but when they did sell the land they would not benefit from the increased value they didn't pay for.
I also don't see why some believe - selectively - that people will be smarter or more moral collectively (government or corporations) v.s. individually. "Government" doesn't set "unreasonable standards of improvement" - the people in the government do. If the people are thieves within government, why do you expect them not to be thieves without? If people can avoid becoming thieves outside government, why do they become thieves only inside, and if it is corrupting power, why political and not economic?
I would think the person who hates inflicting pain the most would make the best surgeon. And I look at government the same way - as an evil I would try to find the best of good men to run.
Just like bodies occasionally develop tumors that require surgery, society has its evils that requires removal. Leave them in and society dies.
But it is just as illusory to believe you can have rights enforced without someone bearing the costs as it is to believe that you can have health-care without someone bearing the cost.
Published: February 24, 2006 4:57 PM
TZ:
Very well put, tz. I think you made excellent points.
I believe that my taxes are for the most part theft. For the most part, I say, because I am willing to pay taxes for limited government. I agree with a lot that I read at this site (I am relatively new to it), but I think that limited government is a more achievable goal than no government, and, in my opinion, a more desirable goal for the reasons you so eloquently stated.
Published: February 25, 2006 10:46 AM
One question that is not addressed in this analysis that I know my "mainstream" friends will inevitably bring up: even if taxation brings about a relative decrease in production, it is taxation itself that brings about the conditions for economic activity in the first place. Without taxation and the accompanying order that it supposedly provides, life would be "nasty, brutish, and short," thereby rendering economic production impossible or at least greatly hampered. Of course, I believe this argument to be utterly false, but I think it will be reason enough for the mainstream economist to dismiss Hoppe's argument.
Any suggestions for refuting this argument? My guess is that without having to construct an entire theory of the private production of security, it can at least be said that there is no means of empirically proving the thesis that taxation for the provision of monopolistic security increases production. I think this point must be addressed to have any hope of persuading the mainstream.
Published: February 25, 2006 6:51 PM
Don't give anyone anything for protection against external threats and watch the barbarians take everything they can and destroy what they can't.
What barbarians?
Published: February 25, 2006 7:41 PM
plowman,
The difficulty in refuting an argument such as this: "it is taxation itself that brings about the conditions for economic activity in the first place." is that you are likely endeavoring to overcome a substantial level of thoroughly entrenched economic ignorance in your opponent.
Unless the person you are discussing with is open minded to learning from you as apposed to debating with you, you will find that you will need more than a lot of patience and several lunches to get through to him.
I have taken the opportunity of presenting Austrian, libertarian and anarchist ideas it seems to me, now, for the main purpose to thicken my skin and solidify my own understanding of the principles. I have given up on being persuasive to state school indoctrinated and propagandized adult people.
After two years of discussions with my best friend, his final assessment of me and the libertarian movement is that we are “losers� and “dangerous�. Two years ago, this would have hurt my feelings. Today it’s funny. (I’m sorry if I’ve given the movement a bad image!)
In other words, I don’t think we have “any hope of persuading the mainstream.� I think the people who will be receptive to the logic of Austrian and libertarian ideas will be the young who have not yet completely identified themselves with their state and like to learn new and different ideas.
I take every opportunity to express my thoughts to my kids and read to them from the greats such as Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe, Block and others. Today, my youngest asked me how I would answer the objection that anarchy would degenerate back to a state. I said their worst case scenario is that we would have a state, the very thing they are advocating in place of anarchy. She thought that was a pretty intelligent first response. The young at heart and responsibly minded is where the future of this movement is at.
Published: February 26, 2006 12:02 AM
"even if taxation brings about a relative decrease in production, it is taxation itself that brings about the conditions for economic activity in the first place."
Why shouldn't you be able to pursue this security and peace on your own, spending the resources *you* feel fit and holding the people you employ responsible for providing a quality product? That's what liberty and libertarians are all about — the freedom to choose how your protect yourself, instead of having "protection" forced on you at gunpoint.
Published: February 26, 2006 5:55 AM
Personaly, I read this blog alot, I also have read ALOT about economic theory(Mostly neoclassical/mainstream stuff ALOT of it beeing about international trade theory and refutation of protectionistic fallacies),in addition to that I have read the entirety of Man, Economy and State by Murray Rothbard.
I can agree with 90-95% of what he says in there maybe even more.
I really would like to become an anarchocapitalist, but despite all of this I am not, far from it actually. My main issue has to do with the poor and with the concept of private courts.
For instance how could a private court force you to pay for its services ?
Say If person A robbed Person B, then Person B would have to sue person A.
But if the court was private how could it get Person A to pay for its services, recognize its authority and abide by its decision ?
For me that seems unlikely that a robber would do that(or even worse, a rapist or murderer), I mean when you rob someone you show that you atleast to some extent have bad morals.
Also who would decide the laws in such a society/societies ?
With competing sets of laws wouldn't people be able to pick and chose which ones to follow ? If any ?
A group of people could just decide not to abide by ANY laws AT ALL, including any prohibition against murder.
Surely murdering someone is a violation of that persons self-ownership ?
Also what is the difference between sucking all the air out from a persons proximity(Conceded in a paper on this side as beeing Murder)and a hospital refusing vital care for the victim of say a a car crash because he is to poor ?
Published: February 26, 2006 6:26 PM
For instance how could a private court force you to pay for its services ?
It couldn't. To do so would be criminal theft, just like when the government forces you to pay for its services.
But if the court was private how could it get Person A to pay for its services, recognize its authority and abide by its decision ?
Presumably, A would be a client of an insurance company that agreed to the use of that court. If he failed to abide by the decision of the court, they'd drop him as a client, and publicize the fact to other insurance companies, who would then be disinclined to take him on as well (a similar result may obtain if he's found guilty). Of course, once he's convicted, and has no insurance agency, the use of necessary force to extract restitution for his crimes is not unjustified aggression. Etc. But nobody can really answer your question - imagine if you lived in a totally socialist world (if such a thing could exist), and someone asked "if the government didn't provide food, how would anyone eat?" Nobody would know the answer. But we eat, without government.
A group of people could just decide not to abide by ANY laws AT ALL, including any prohibition against murder.
Sure. Some people do that now. Worst case scenario: you're no better off than you are today. Big deal.
Also what is the difference between sucking all the air out from a persons proximity(Conceded in a paper on this side as beeing Murder)and a hospital refusing vital care for the victim of say a a car crash because he is to poor ?
Enclosing someone in a bubble and evacuating the air is a positive act, taking something away from them. Refusing care is taking nothing that the person already had, or has a right to - his situation is no worse than if you simply hadn't happened to be there. That said, nobody's going to refuse care to a victim of a car crash because he's poor - I've seen car crashes, and most people rush to help.
Published: February 27, 2006 4:03 AM
tz,
Great comment, with which I can find little to disagree.
Published: February 27, 2006 10:00 AM
All tz's arguments for state are completely demolished by a simple observation:
There's an unstated assumption that a state truly representing people would do (whatever function is presumed to be obtainable from state only) better or differently than a voluntary, private association of the same people.
If there's a difference then either: 1) having a different name magically transforms the organization, or 2) state does *not* represent all subjects, but rather imposes will of some group of people on all others.
Now, "barbarians", thieves, murderers, etc, do exactly the same as #2. Putting a fox in charge of protection of the henhouse never striked me as particularly smart.
The rest of pro-state arguments are, basically, fluff, held together only by the willful blindness to the criminal nature of the state itself.
Published: February 27, 2006 4:35 PM
I really don't understand the critiques of anarchism that begin "But someone might X ..." For one, I don't know of any X that governments are uniquely and inherently more competent to deter than nongovernments.
Since I've been wrong once or twice before, I'll suppose that perhaps there is something that governments, just by being governments, can provide more competently than nongovernments. So what? To impeach anarchism via these consequentialist objections, it should be shown that anarchy is worse than government on balance, not that some hand picked attribute of anarchy is worse than the corresponding attribute of government. I'm not so keen on consequentialism myself, but the consequentialist minarchists don't even know their own position well enough to set the problem up this way.
Besides all that, it's cherry picking to analyse anarchism in terms of its worst case outcomes but not to analyze states in the same way. Frankly, I'd rather the worst case version of anarchy than the worst case version of government.
Published: February 27, 2006 7:13 PM
Having lived through (near) anarchy of the collapse of the communist regime, and having listened to what my grandparents had to tell about the last world war, I'd take anarchy any time.
Any person who has a minimal knowledge of the history of the last century and more than half a brain whould know that the worst case of statism amounts to megamurder. No petty criminals or even crazed serial killers come close to the well-groomed "leaders of nations". By many orders of magnitude.
And this megamurder is not some hypothethical "what if". It is what happened, and keeps happeing. How stupid one has to be to keep pretending that states are benign given the ugly truth of mass graves?
Published: February 27, 2006 10:48 PM
James and averros,
Well said, both of you. Having just emerged from a severe debate with a friend over the merits of the arguments (and other side issues) presented and that came up over the Somalia article, it is relaxing to read something i can agree with again. (Ha!)
I've had my yearly dose of extreme contention. It's back to the mises.org books and articles for me :)
Published: February 27, 2006 11:23 PM
I have met many folks from the former Iron Curtain both here and abroad and not one, NOT ONE, has said life was better under communism than it is now. And nearly all said the reports of chaos in the western media were exaggerated. My old office mate is Bulgarian and he said basic stuff like milk and gas became easier to get almost overnight following the regime collapse. He would tear up when he described the sense of freedom that he experienced 'having the box lid opened and standing up to the sun' is how he put it.
As any Mises visitor knows, there have been virtually stateless societies in the past and there will be again no doubt. After all we live most of our day to day lives in deliberate disregard of the state, only acknowledging its existence when we are forced to (taxes , regulations and laws) or when we want to use its power for our own ends (elections and lobbying). Other than these occasions our lives are spent in peaceful, voluntary association. Since the vast majority of life is spent in the latter condition, there is no reason to believe that such voluntary associations would not supply needs currently monopolized by the state. Do I know how this would be done, no. But I certainly do not know how to set up the internet or build a car or cut lumber from tree either. Other folks who are more talented and interested do those things and I pay them for their ingenuity and time, and so it would be with schooling, security, roads, space exploration, etc
Published: March 2, 2006 6:47 AM
Rob's point is a good one - the state, as onerous and omnipresent as it is, is also largely blind. Particularly so out in the country, but even in the city the state is still blind to most of what we do.
The state's minions loudly assert responsibility for all good outcomes and interactions, and quietly deny responsibility for the bad outcomes that are positively their fault (see Iraq, Katrina).
The state is simply a fat, blind, theiving liar that takes credit for everything and avoids responsibility for anything. Simply starving it of 98% of its booty will not change anything about its fundamental nature, nor prevent it from growing back even larger.
Published: March 2, 2006 11:11 AM