I understand that government has an important, but limited role in a free society. That role being primarily to protect the rights of individuals from foreign invasion, criminals, and also for the establishment of courts for the settlement of disputes. My question is: how do the followers of the Austrian School of Economics propose to fund these functions of government? Thanks.
Rubén:Economics & Statistics are in a highly developed stage such as a proper figure can be calculated to draw the line
Can you back this assertion at all? Mises' work on the socialist calculation problem shows that no central planning agency can synthesize all the information of society to set a number like 2%. Any number they set will be arbitrary. That's what the market is for.
Rubén: The article, however, is stating nowhere to get rid completely of the government. Therefore it is safe to assume that the authors favor a small, limited role of government. Such a limited government needs modest funding. I was proposing on an earlier post to calculate a symbolic tax rate of 2 or 3% in order to finance such a small government. Comparing to the 30% or beyond that lots of people pay in taxes everywhere, I believe my proposal is as close as No-Government as anything can be.
The article, however, is stating nowhere to get rid completely of the government. Therefore it is safe to assume that the authors favor a small, limited role of government. Such a limited government needs modest funding. I was proposing on an earlier post to calculate a symbolic tax rate of 2 or 3% in order to finance such a small government. Comparing to the 30% or beyond that lots of people pay in taxes everywhere, I believe my proposal is as close as No-Government as anything can be.
You don't know that. Maybe it really does take 30% of people's income to properly govern them. And where do you get the idea that government should be limited? Maybe people are better off getting a cup of coffee along with their government.
Microsecession as a strategy for revolution | Challenge to minarchist | How would a private road system work?
I started reading Chaos Theory as suggested by Morty, but I quickly remembered that anarchy promotes tribalism with competing warlords. Since the right to life is unalienable, I believe no market for rights or the protection of those rights can therefore exist. This is seperate from the market that can and does exist for the protection of actual life and property. My original question is now reworded as such, "How is the protection of rights funded in a free society?" Katja328 (or someone else), can you please explain the idea of usage fees? I like the idea that all individuals would owe an equal dues for the protection these rights. I wonder, as others have pointed out, how these dues would be assessed?
Sasquatch:but I quickly remembered that anarchy promotes tribalism with competing warlords
Really? Can you back up this claim? I can't say I agree at all.
Sasquatch:Since the right to life is unalienable, I believe no market for rights or the protection of those rights can therefore exist.
How does that follow?
Ruben, I suggest you read R.A. Heinlein. He had some fun ideas on how to fund a government without taxation. I believe, a lottery was one of them.
If I hear not allowed much oftener; said Sam, I'm going to get angry.
J.R.R.Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings
Ntalaie,
And I suggest to Sasquatch that he has to read immediately mises.org .
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." – Barry Goldwater (1964)
www.mises.org.br
Rubén:The article, however, is stating nowhere to get rid completely of the government. Therefore it is safe to assume that the authors favor a small, limited role of government.
How is this a safe assumption when the Economic Calculation Problem applies equally to all forms of government and non-government entities? That's what one would call a non sequitur...
Rubén:I was proposing on an earlier post to calculate a symbolic tax rate of 2 or 3% in order to finance such a small government. Comparing to the 30% or beyond that lots of people pay in taxes everywhere, I believe my proposal is as close as No-Government as anything can be.
Other than the whole monopoly services argument that would make it impossible for a limited government to calculate absent competition.
Once you admit that some competition is good (to ensure they are able to operate efficiently and derive prices) then where do you draw your line between the 'necessary' compulsory services and the merely 'optional' competiting services?
Rubén:Exactly. Every generation has failed in such an ambitious goal. That is why I do not considr seriously the assertions of a no-government world. Why not settle on a minimum government possible?
Why would you succeed at limiting government when every society in history which tried to do such failed miserably? Surely the American experiment, which went from one of the smallest governments in the world to by far the largest in the world in just 200 years, would convince you that such limitations are not possible?
Liberty cannot be maintained by governments and cannot exist so long as governments do.
nje5019: Sasquatch:but I quickly remembered that anarchy promotes tribalism with competing warlords Really? Can you back up this claim? I can't say I agree at all.
Government is the monopoly of the lawful use of coercion. Anarchy promotes the abolishment of government. Therefore anarchy promotes competition for the power of coercion. I don't imagine that these groups will play nice .
nje5019: Sasquatch:Since the right to life is unalienable, I believe no market for rights or the protection of those rights can therefore exist. How does that follow?
The right to life is inalienable. A market cannot exist for something that is incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another. Rights are either respected or disrespected, justice is the absense of injustice, and a competition for the recognition (protection) of the right to life is a conflict of interest.
First of all, what did you read in Chaos Theory that you find so objectionable? Do you have a criticism of any specific argument?
Sasquatch:Government is the monopoly of the lawful use of coercion. Anarchy promotes the abolishment of government. Therefore anarchy promotes competition for the power of coercion. I don't imagine that these groups will play nice
You should read all of Chaos Theory for starters to see some common arguments as to how private law could work in the absence of government. A system with no government would entail competition in the services which government currently monopolizes, namely law and defense. I think a better definition of government would be one that Hoppe proposes in The Myth of National Defense, "a compulsory territorial monopolist of protection and jurisdiction equipped with the power to tax without unanimous consent."
Sasquatch:The right to life is inalienable. A market cannot exist for something that is incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another.
This argument of yours seems to be based on a semantic hangup. It's not a market for "life", it's a market for defense services. You can't buy and sell life, I agree, but what you can do is pay someone to protect you from aggression.
Sasquatch: Government is the monopoly of the lawful use of coercion. Anarchy promotes the abolishment of government. Therefore anarchy promotes competition for the power of coercion.
Government is the monopoly of the lawful use of coercion. Anarchy promotes the abolishment of government. Therefore anarchy promotes competition for the power of coercion.
That's not accurate. Anarchy makes the right of self-defense - the ability to resist coercion - available to everyone. Defense is not coercion.
I don't imagine that these groups will play nice.
Then you need to broaden your imagination.
The right to life is inalienable.
It has nothing to do with the right to life. There is no such thing, except as life exists as a facet of self-ownership; that is, I OWN MY LIFE. People have the right not to have their self-ownership infringed upon, and they can and do delegate the protection of that right to other people.
A market cannot exist for something that is incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another.
No. A market exists for anything that one person wishes to sell and another wishes to buy. If I wish to buy the protection of my person and property from another person or a group of persons, neither you nor any government has any right to prohibit me from doing so. Such a prohibition in itself denies my self-ownership. Nor can a person whose "protection" is forced upon him against his will be said to own himself.
Rights are either respected or disrespected
Irrelevant.
justice is the absense of injustice
Justice exists entirely in the payment of debts. When an injustice (that is, an initiation of force or an infringement of self-ownership, such as prohibiting a person from defending himself from aggression as he sees fit) occurs, justice means that whatever damage is done is repaid. The lack of injustice is a neutral state.
and a competition for the recognition (protection) of the right to life is a conflict of interest.
Consider this scenario:
1. Only one institution has the right to provide justice: Organization A.
If you are accused of having broken the rules of Organization A, you are arrested by Organization A's employees, who then force you to go an office operated by Organization A, to have a bureaucrat paid by Organization A decide whether or not you broke the rules of Organization A. If you disagree with the decision of the employee of Organization A you get to go to another office of Organization A to decide whether Organization A was correct in their decision. Organization A further gets to decide how much you pay them. If you are found to be in the wrong, Organization A decides how much you owe them for telling you so, and how much as a penalty for your crime. If you are found to be in the right, Organization A decides how much you owe them for telling you so, but at least there's no penalty. Oh, and Organization A's employees who wronged you get a few week's paid leave for what they did.
That, my friend, is a conflict of interests.
If, on the other hand, you are free to choose Organization B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I . . . X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI . . . etc. as an arbitor between yourself and Organization A, then Organization A doesn't get away with that so easily. Either they change the way they provide justice, or they go right the hell out of business.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
Ron Paul proposes a small general tariff that funds only Constitutionally authorized programs. Personally I agree with Walter Block in that a government that governs least is good and less is better so a government that governs 0 is best.
nje5019:This argument of yours seems to be based on a semantic hangup. It's not a market for "life", it's a market for defense services. You can't buy and sell life, I agree, but what you can do is pay someone to protect you from aggression.
You have a rather unique and comical way of debating that I have not encountered before. You took something I said in my earlier post out of context, questioned me for a further explanation of it, and are now attempting to refute that explanation by ignoring the original context. If you go back and reread my post in the full context, you will clearly see that I have differentiated between the protection of a right, and the protection of the fruit of that right. My objection to Chaos Theory is anarchy.
There's no need to be rude. I apologize if I took what you said out of context. Let me try again. If i take you out of context again, it'd be constructive for you to point out exactly where so I can be sure i know where you're coming from.
You are claiming that a market cannot exist for the right to life, correct? My response is that nobody is saying a market should be created for the 'right to life', but for services that defend peoples' life and well being. I assume you think that means I took you out of context because you said this:
Since the right to life is unalienable, I believe no market for rights or the protection of those rights can therefore exist.
But I wasn't taking you out of context, I was disagreeing with this unbacked assertion of yours. Please explain why a market for the protection of such rights cannot exist. A thief is clearly violating someone's property rights. A market could exist for the prevention of theft. A murderer is clearly violating someone's right to life. A market could exist for the prevention of murder. Where am I wrong here? If i understand your logic, you're saying a market can't exist for either of these things. Why not?
My objection to Chaos Theory is anarchy.
If you're really interested in having a discussion it'd be helpful for you to elaborate.
Government is the monopoly of the lawful use of coercion. Anarchy promotes the abolishment of government. Therefore anarchy promotes competition for the power of coercion. I don't imagine that these groups will play nice
This is nonsense. It advocates a choice in the matter of whom will provide you with protection, law and order. And please do not say a monopoly is needed to resolve differences in opinion. That is just to impose one party's will over the other's, not to resolve it in any way.
The market is for protection, for law and for order, which are services that must be produced. There is no right to having a right enforced as there are no positive rights. How a right is enforced is up to you to figure out and arrange for.
-Jon
To darkness I condemn you...
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap