Jump to content






Photo

A Liberal and a Libertarian discuss Free Market Economics Part 3

Posted by CommunitarianKevin , in Free Market Discussion 30 August 2012 · 415 views

ANTHONY:
For the record, I did say "most forms of taxation." Essentially this means that taxation is fine as long as it is acquired voluntarily. However, most governments do not allow us to opt out of taxation, and if we try we are imprisoned or killed. The justify this requirement on the basis that our taxes pay for things that we use that the government has provided for us. HOWEVER, we are allowed no alternatives, or if we are allowed alternatives they are at artificially high prices because they are forced to compete with the government. This is the current problem with college education and part of the health care crisis, for example. This is the definition of coercion.The illusion of choice, heavy cost of not choosing the government, punishment for not paying for the public option anyway. Does that seem right to you?

Also, I said nothing about the NAP being against "petty laws." On the contrary, what good is an ethical principle that asserts no laws? There certainly are laws with the NAP, those which punish aggressors and coercers.

This doesn't answer your question, "how does a government provide ANYTHING without taxation?" however. I will answer it now. It can't of course. But taxation should be voluntary. If a citizen doesn't want to pay for the things the government does, then they should not be able to use those things, but they should NOT be forced to do so. Now, here comes "the roads" argument, to which I will preemptively answer, "license tabs." Voluntary fees like this are 100% acceptable under my interpretation of the NAP (my Anarcho-Capitalist brothers would disagree, but fie on them). If they want to use the roads that the government makes and maintains, they can pay for them with their license tabs. So it will be with protection or person and property. If they pay their taxes, they can have police protection. Personally, I find police protection to be the illusion of security. When seconds count, police are minutes away.

The problem of national security is solved with our next point: Private Property. But, we haven't cleared the NAP yet, and you really need to accept that premise for anything else to be clear.

Honestly, I really don't understand what is so hard to understand. Don't kill, don't steal, don't rape or you will be punished. This is really all the NAP is about. It seems like your problem is you want the government to be able to do kill and steal, but no one else. This isn't peace, this is a monopoly on violence.


ME:
Okay, I’ll bite for the sake of advancing the discussion but under one condition…Since this is a discussion between friends and not a debate in debate class, I reserve the right to reverse my decision in the light of new knowledge. None of this “well you already accepted the premise” BS. My problem is not that I do not understand the concept; it is that I want to make sure I am not missing anything. I do not want to ignorantly accept a premise or accept it too quickly. Just to advance the discussion we will leave it here and move on because of course I agree with “Don't kill, don't steal, don't rape or you will be punished.” The problem I see is that many things that make up a FME violate this idea, but I can only assume you will address these things as they come up.


On second thoughts I do have one question. You stated:

“HOWEVER, we are allowed no alternatives, or if we are allowed alternatives they are at artificially high prices because they are forced to compete with the GOVERNMENT. This is the current problem with college education and part of the health care crisis, for example. This is the definition of coercion.The illusion of choice, heavy cost of not choosing the GOVERNMENT, punishment for not paying for the public option anyway.”

Would this argument be the same if I changed the word “government” or “corporation?” In a FME what is to stop the all powerful corporation artificially inflating prices or coercing people into the illusion of choice? As I stated in my opening point, the government at least has some types of checks and balances and the ability to get rid of a leader. A corporation has neither of these unless it chooses to have them. Instead of being pawns of the government, we would be pawns of the corporations. Maybe I should clarify something about my belief of government…

In my opinion, the single greatest thing about our Constitution is the Bill of Rights. The BoR protects people not only from other people but also from the government. My ideal form of government would be an all-powerful monarchy headed by a great philosopher king (acting as the BoR and in the best interests of the people.) Obviously because of human nature this is an unrealistic possibility. The next best thing, in my opinion, is an all powerful government that is kept in check by something like the BoR. Obviously this only works if the government can be kept in check. We are still not enforcing the BoR perfectly but we are getting closer and closer and that is what will make America great. To answer your question…no I do not believe the government should be able to kill and steal but I do believe it should be all powerful if guided by the right things such as the BoR.

But let’s continue with me accepting your first premise.




Recent Comments

0 user(s) viewing

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Latest Visitors

  • Photo
    Hasina
    11 Jan 2013 - 13:35
  • Photo
    Yes_Man
    11 Jan 2013 - 13:03
  • Photo
    Rlyeh
    10 Jan 2013 - 18:57
  • Photo
    OverSword
    10 Jan 2013 - 15:54
  • Photo
    Supersquatch
    05 Jan 2013 - 19:22