abolish income tax? How does government have revenue?

Peter Cohen:

And I myself have never been able to see how the total privatization of law and security would not turn into armed gangs enforcing their street corners and demanding protection money

It's really very simple.  Whereas the state has a herd of tax cattle from which it can appropriate the resources needed for security (or "security") production and so will lose nothing (except prestige occasionally) in so doing, private security producers have only finite resources (viz. their own property) and so must exchange a loss for any gain they hope to achieve in their performance; moreover, any such individual is subject to legal expenses whenever he damages another's property (compare with public law enforcement or military incursions).  Essentially, PDAs will not thuggishly go around attacking people for the singular reason that it is in their own self-interest to refrain from doing so.

Conza88,

I appreciate the links, but for some reason they are unavailabe. Anyone know why? Says, "not authorized to view this page"

 Matt

Wow. That will teach me to not make a post and then not go back to the thread for several days. I am revealing my newbieness to this forum by my not anticipating such an upheaval from my one post.  I may do a rewrite of this post and stick it in my blog, as it would appear a good idea to state my position for the record.

While I am a newbie to this forum, I am not a newbie to Austrian economics. I was converted thirty years ago, clued in by Ayn Rand, then through formal studies in Economics, greatly accentuated by reading some of the classic Austrian texts of that time. In short order I found myself involved in Libertarian politics. And shortly thereafter I was gently eased out of the Libertarian politics of my area, because I am not an anarchist. I am a pragmatist.

It is interesting to note that the one election I was involved in, I was one out of ten Libertarian candidates. I was the only candidate who got enough votes to actually get mention on the day of the election, gaining enough votes to place third in my riding, beating eight other candidates. I suspect that a primary reason for that is that I do not espouse the utter abolition of all government, and the other candidates did. I was nowhere near as frightening to the electorate as the other candidates.

My minarchism is motivated as much by practical expediency as anything else. What is the point of our discussions here? Is it to engage in a 'quaint' intelectual debate amongst ourselves, as an exercise in mutual mental masturbation?  Or do we actually desire to accomplish something, to bring about an evolution in our society that allows for greater freedom? If this is simply an intellectual exercise, I would bow to the superior argument of the anarchists (and quietly recuse myself, as I have better things to do). If however we wish to actually accomplish something, I would suggest that the anarchists get out of the way.

A transition from the current statism to an anarcho-capitalist society is simply impossible. You could scream your message loudly from every street corner from here to eternity and achieve absolutely nothing. 99% of the people will utterly reject everything you say for the simple reason that they fear the idea of anarchy, and the louder you scream, the more fearful they likely would be. However a transition from the current statism to a minarchist 'Libertarian' government, contrained by a constitution to the classic provision of a legal system, police and military, limited to protecting the people from force and fraud, that IS possible. That society is a practical goal, one we might even achieve within the lifetimes of some of the posters here.

And here I would offer the olive branch to the anarchists. Once the people are living in such a minarchist society and they see that extremely minimal government has not led to the destruction of society, the transition from there to a wholly anarcho-capitalist society will not be seen with the same degree of fear as it is now. The evolution of society into one utterly devoid of coercive government would actually then be possible.

Peter Cohen:

What is the point of our discussions here? Is it to engage in a 'quaint' intelectual debate amongst ourselves, as an exercise in mutual mental masturbation?  Or do we actually desire to accomplish something, to bring about an evolution in our society that allows for greater freedom?

There is no more common act of mental masturbation than the pursuit of political means to solve problems of too much politik.

Peter Cohen:

If this is simply an intellectual exercise, I would bow to the superior argument of the anarchists (and quietly recuse myself, as I have better things to do). If however we wish to actually accomplish something, I would suggest that the anarchists get out of the way.

It's not an intellectual exercise, nor a corrupt one.  Non-voting, anarchist or anarch-sypathetic individuals have been leading the charge.  The people who compromise, the pragmatists like the LP and Cato have accomplished nothing but to reinforce the state.

To the first question I quoted, we're here to advance the scholarship of liberty in the Austrian tradition and all that entails. Including Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism and Hoppean rejection of democracy as a false paradigm.

Peter Cohen:

A transition from the current statism to an anarcho-capitalist society is simply impossible.

No one is saying it will all come at once, but few of us will equivocate on what liberty is and what it is not.

Peter Cohen:

You could scream your message loudly from every street corner from here to eternity and achieve absolutely nothing. 99% of the people will utterly reject everything you say for the simple reason that they fear the idea of anarchy, and the louder you scream, the more fearful they likely would be.

I don't recall fear being a tactic anyone here discusses.  Nor screaming.

Peter Cohen:

However a transition from the current statism to a minarchist 'Libertarian' government, contrained by a constitution to the classic provision of a legal system, police and military, limited to protecting the people from force and fraud, that IS possible.

You can't protect people from force and fraud by making it institutional.  Government by definition is coercive, and politics is based upon the redistribution of property, which means it logically cannot protect property.

Peter Cohen:

And here I would offer the olive branch to the anarchists. Once the people are living in such a minarchist society and they see that extremely minimal government has not led to the destruction of society, the transition from there to a wholly anarcho-capitalist society will not be seen with the same degree of fear as it is now. The evolution of society into one utterly devoid of coercive government would actually then be possible.

Gradualism never works.  Radicalism pulls the center.

Satisfy yourself with weakened bonds and you will still spend a lifetime in chains.

Peter Cohen:

A transition from the current statism to an anarcho-capitalist society is simply impossible. You could scream your message loudly from every street corner from here to eternity and achieve absolutely nothing. 99% of the people will utterly reject everything you say for the simple reason that they fear the idea of anarchy, and the louder you scream, the more fearful they likely would be.

That leads me to a new thread...

liberty student:

...we're here to advance the scholarship of liberty in the Austrian tradition and all that entails. Including Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism and Hoppean rejection of democracy as a false paradigm.

Ok, that is a perfectly legitimate raison d'etre for these forums. I shall for the most part then remain silent, as I am much more interested in moving the hearts and minds of Joe Bloe public towards a more serious consideration of the economics of freedom. And my own experience has me utterly convinced that the trick to that is teaching people the basic principles of Austrian economics, not Objectivist philosophy or whatever other brands one puts to anarchy.

liberty student:

I don't recall fear being a tactic anyone here discusses.  Nor screaming.

I apologize for my lack of clarity. I did not mean to imply that anyone here would use fear as a 'tactic'. I meant to suggest that fear is an impediment to people listening your message. As for screaming, I meant that as a metaphor only for speaking often and writing prolifically, not to imply that anyone's voices or arguments are shrill.

liberty student:

Gradualism never works.  Radicalism pulls the center.

Certainly radicalism pulls the center and energizes the movement. It is absolutely necessary and I would not suggest that anyone here is wrong.  I would however disagree that gradualism does not have it's place. Ron Paul is a gradualist. Would you suggest that he has not had a beneficial effect upon the cause of liberty? There are far more people listening to your voice now due to the gradualist voice of Ron Paul.

Peter Cohen:

Ron Paul is a gradualist

That's a joke, right?

 

GilesStratton:

Peter Cohen:

Ron Paul is a gradualist

That's a joke, right?

Er,... no.  Perhaps I aught to define what I mean when I say gradualist.

I understand gradualism to mean making progress toward total freedom in steps rather than in one grand leap. Ron Paul has spoken many times of how America would have to be weaned off the welfare state, that his policies would involve decentralizing the authority of government and reducing it's scope and taxation. That is not an all or nothing position, that is a gradual diminution of government power.

Peter

Have you read this post http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/7827.aspx ?

I am interested in what your answer would be.

Mr Paul ran for president on a platform of abolishing the Fed, the warfare state, the welfare state and eventually the income tax. I don't think you have any idea how many special interest groups he pissed off, otherwise you wouldn't be doubting that he is radical.

In fact, there's a good reason that RP was successful and Barr wasn't.

Peter Cohen:

Ok, that is a perfectly legitimate raison d'etre for these forums. I shall for the most part then remain silent, as I am much more interested in moving the hearts and minds of Joe Bloe public towards a more serious consideration of the economics of freedom. And my own experience has me utterly convinced that the trick to that is teaching people the basic principles of Austrian economics, not Objectivist philosophy or whatever other brands one puts to anarchy.

So this means you won't defend your ideas in discussion?  I ask because you started off poo-pooing anarchism, then claimed minarchism might be a path to anarchism.

What principles do you hold as libertarian?  Take them to their logical conclusion.  If you believe liberty and property, self-ownership and natural rights are the foundations of libertarianism, then they do not lead to minarchism.

Peter Cohen:

Ron Paul is a gradualist.

Ron Paul is not a gradualist.  He is a free trader, so he opposes tariffs.  And he wants to eliminate the income tax, so there would be no income for government in that manner.  What other conclusion can we draw, than Ron Paul is for 100% voluntarism, which is, anarcho-capitalism?

I think you will be able to avoid coming around to anarchism, only by choosing not to engage people with your ideas.  And by people, I mean people who disagree with you re: the state, not people who think the state is acceptable in some form.  Again, radicalism leads to significant change.  Gradualism does not.

MatthewF:

Peter Cohen:

A transition from the current statism to an anarcho-capitalist society is simply impossible. You could scream your message loudly from every street corner from here to eternity and achieve absolutely nothing. 99% of the people will utterly reject everything you say for the simple reason that they fear the idea of anarchy, and the louder you scream, the more fearful they likely would be.

That leads me to a new thread...

I guess it depends on what new thread you have in mind, unless you mean this:  http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/7790.aspx

 

GilesStratton:

... otherwise you wouldn't be doubting that he is radical.

I do not doubt for a second that Ron Paul understands and believes in Austrian Economics right to his core. Certainly his point of view is by far the most radical of any current congressman. I support him all the way. But he has never called for the utter abolition of all government, the absolute dissolution of the military, etc.. He is by his own admission a Constitutionalist. He believes in a minimal government limited in it's authority by the constitution.

liberty student:

So this means you won't defend your ideas in discussion?  I ask because you started off poo-pooing anarchism, then claimed minarchism might be a path to anarchism.  It's all very confused Peter.

What principles do you hold as libertarian?  Take them to their logical conclusion.

Is it a necessary precept that anyone on these forums either prostrate themselves in obeisance to the god of anarcho-capitalism, at least to the point of lip service, else they must devote hours a day in the writing of hundreds if not thousands of posts in an utterly futile debate?

Someone asked how a minimal government might derive revenue. I made a post to suggest what I would prefer, given such a government. I naively mentioned that I felt the absolutist anarchist position to be a futile one, unaware of the furor it would awake. I am well aware that if one derives one's political precepts from a perspective of moral absolutes, and is utterly unwavering in them, then it is hard to not arrive at anarcho-capitalism if one starts from the assertion of self ownership. And here is my sin; I don't care.

I do believe in freedom and I work to bring it about. However I am much more motivated by the expediency of the moment, in what actually works, now, to achieve that end. The assertion here is that only a position of absolute unwavering devotion to anarchism can have any positive effect whatsoever.

I do not denigrate the idea of anarchism. I simply respectfully disagree that it has much practical benefit towards moving society towards greater freedom, except perhaps to motivate young people to not vote for Ron Paul, because that would be supporting government.

eliotn:

http://mises.org/books/chaostheory.pdf

Many thanks to you; that .pdf was brilliant.

Peter Cohen:

But he has never called for the utter abolition of all government, the absolute dissolution of the military, etc.. He is by his own admission a Constitutionalist. He believes in a minimal government limited in it's authority by the constitution.

He knows the audience, that's all.