A thought experiment for Libertarians

[stevea]

I was fully prepared to ignore stevea's Libertarian Talking Points Memo #214, but these little gems stood out:


There have been lots of people who became obscenely wealthy by impoverishing others. They go by individual names like Boskey, Ichan, Sorros. They go by corporate names like Countrywide and Enron and Wal Mart.

They are the spiritual heirs to the abuses of the Colonial powers, the Robber Barons, and the Dickensian industrialists.

NIce little progressive rant ... Keith Olbermann would be proud of his student.

1/ What is obscene about wealth ? The obscene part is your vehement envy and hatred.
2/ How did any of those entities or people "impoverishi[ng] others" ? Pick one - Give specific detailed example with evidence - not another hand-wavey "money=theft" Marxists screed.

I think you'll find that to the extent these people or entities did impoverished anyone (unproven) - that it was clearly outside the free-market system and involved fraud or deception or intentional distortion or misrepresentation OR monopolies. Things that are generally illegal and also violate Classical Lib ideals.

Of course I have no doubt that you have a distorted notion of what impoverishes means in any context. I'll wager that you'll try to insist on the Luddite fallacy.

Have a try ....

then there was this little parting shot:

Translation into English: "Muldur, I can't refute you, so I'm going to take my ball and go home..."

More like - "you make no sense - why am I wasting my time - goodbye".

 

[Muldur]

1/ What is obscene about wealth ? The obscene part is your vehement envy and hatred.

There is nothing wrong with a modicum of wealth, honestly obtained. When wealth is obtained by exploiting workers, consumers and societies, then it very much is obscene.

2/ How did any of those entities or people "impoverishi[ng] others" ? Pick one - Give specific detailed example with evidence - not another hand-wavey "money=theft" Marxists screed.

The predations of the Dickensian industrialists and Robber Barrons are well documented in history, and I feel no need to retype them here as they are well understood.

The junk bond kings destroyed jobs by destroying the companies that provided them and pocketed the "value" extracted in the process. A side effect of attempting to compete with companies under the gun of the "corporate raiders" drove down wages in OTHER companies and forced them into shedding jobs as well.

Wal Mart's long history of wage/hour violations, sexual and other discrimination, anti-union activities, and their key role in the end of several industries in the US (such as textiles) is also well documented.

Of course I have no doubt that you have a distorted notion of what impoverishes means in any context. I'll wager that you'll try to insist on the Luddite fallacy.[/QUOTE]

If it takes away the value of a worker's wage, or denies him the full value of his labor, it impoverishes him.

And I will freely state (because it is true) that some technology destroys jobs and impoverishes not just workers directly, but also those who depend on the trade and custom of those workers for THEIR living.

When a company, for example, brings in tech that lets one worker do the job of two, then fires half it's workforce and keeps it's prices the same, it exploits both workers AND consumers. Half it's workers no longer have jobs, and consumers are paying too much for the goods produced.

That's why anyone who knows how the economy REALLY works (a catagory of persons that pretty much by definition excludes Libertarians) snorts when people tout "productivity gains", because said gains seldom if ever benefit workers or consumers.

 

[Muldur]

double post

 

[Mister Agenda]

The problem is and always has been the overy-narrow interpretation of "force" and "coercion" to mean only physical violence on the part of a "rights" holder. It ignores all other forms of force and coercion, even though their power is VERY real in real world terms.

Example:

There is an island. On this island is a stand of fruit trees, as well as a fresh water source and other needful materials for building shelter.

A shipwrecked man washes up on shore, finds the island empty, and settles in, claiming "ownership" of the island. He has to pick the fruit to eat them of course. If he wants shelter, he must build it himself as well.

Another man washes up on shore. He wishes to build a shelter, gather water, and pick fruit for himself. The first man says "No, you may not. It's MY island, and MY fruit trees/water/shelter materials. If you want any of it, you must do as I say." The Libertarian would find no fault in this as the island is the first man's "property".

Now the 2nd man is hurt, weak, and hungry, and thirsty from being shipwrecked. He doesn't want to die, so he asks for terms. The first man says "You will do anything and everything I say to do. You will make all the repairs on the shelters, gather all the water, pick all the fruit. In exchange, I will allow you just enough fruit and water to live, and just enough shelter material to block MOST of the elements. You will be hungry, thirsty, and constantly weakened by exposure, but you will live."

Having no REAL choice, (he's tired/hurt/etc, and cannot fight the first man for access to the resources) the 2nd man agrees and becomes the first man's slave. Libertarians would say that this "choice" was freely made. After all, the 2nd man could elect to leave the island, or to starve if he REALLY didn't want to be the first man's slave, they will claim.

Now along comes a THIRD survivor. The first man gives him the same "It's MY island speech" and tells him if he wants to live, he must agree to accept even LESS fruit, water and shelter than the 2nd man. He too will be constantly weak and suffering (even moreso than the 2nd man, but he does not want to die either, so he "agrees" to this treatment.

Now the first man turns to the 2nd man and tells him about the deal and says "If you want to CONTINUE to receive fruit/water/etc, you will accept even LESS than what I just agreed with the third man, or you will do even MORE work. Take it or else."

Again, the Libertarian will nod in approval at the whole sordrid affair, as it IS the first man's island by their reasoning, and the other two men "freely agreed" to accept what is plainly immoral treatment on the part of the first man.

The first man realizes that, weak or not, he is now outnumbered, so when yet another man washes up, the first man goes to him and says (after his "my island" speech), "I will treat you better than the first two men, if you will help me by keeping them from stealing fruit water and materials. You will also keep them from attacking me. They will suffer, but we will not. This newcomer, seeing that he will get more fruit, etc for less effort if he aids the first man in exploiting the two weak men agrees.

Again, all perfectly kosher in Libertarianland, as all parties "freely agree".

The two weak men decide they have had enough of doing all the work and getting ony a pitiful amoung of the resources, and decide to TAKE the things they need. They go to the resources and start loading up on resources.

NOW the Libertarian has a problem. The two weak men have "no right" to more resources than that which they "agreed" to take originally, so it is within the first and fourth man's rights to use violence against them to "protect their property".

And it's ALL built on the illusion that the first man had any "right" at all to more than what he needed to survive, and that he had the best "claim" on the island and it's resources based merely on the point that he got there first.

I'm not sure if I'm a libertarian-leaning liberal or a liberal-leaning libertarian, but the above is why I'm not an 'arch-libertarian' and I notice no one has even tried to refute it. I certainly can't. Clearly the above scenario is not a just state of affairs. If a theory doesn't work at the extremes, there is a problem with the theory and it should be modified. It may not be as neat and tidy to acknowledge limitations to a scheme, but we don't live in a neat and tidy world.

 

[Muldur]

I'm not sure if I'm a libertarian-leaning liberal or a liberal-leaning libertarian, but the above is why I'm not an 'arch-libertarian' and I notice no one has even tried to refute it. I certainly can't. Clearly the above scenario is not a just state of affairs. If a theory doesn't work at the extremes, there is a problem with the theory and it should be modified. It may not be as neat and tidy to acknowledge limitations to a scheme, but we don't live in a neat and tidy world.

I don't see any real way to resolve the situation within "Libertarianism" as it is defined currently. Under the larger extension of my scenario, the logical Libertarian response by workers would be to form a "fruit pickers and shelter workers' union", freely entered into by all the "lesser" island inhabitants. They would then negotiate with the island owner with the power of unity behind them. If the owner wants his fruit picked and shelter maintained and doesn't want to do it himself, he will give the workers more fruit and materials for their own uses.

Now, that scenario has it's own problems: 1) what if the owner decides "Frak it, I'll pick my own fruit and maintain my own shelter rather than give more resources away!" What do the workers do then? By "arch" (as you term it) Libertarian principles, they must simply crawl off into the bushes and die of starvation and/or exposure if they are "moral" people, because to take the things they need from the "owner" would be theft. Any scheme that would have them using their collective numbers to force a redistribution of the resources would likewise be decried by the Libertarian as "theft" and "coercion".

2) The island owner could decide to pick his own fruit and shelter materials and wait for additional people to wash up on the island. He then turns to THEM and tries to keep them out of the union but working for him, thus "defanging" the union by doing an end run around it. Or waiting until there are enough people who have washed up but don't want to join the union who are desperate enough for food/etc that he can hire them to take up arms on his behalf and put down the union (aka, defend the "owner's property rights").

Ultimately, the only logical conclusion is that Libertarianism as currently defined cannot effectively govern a democratic society of equal citizens, because it inevitably makes some citizens "more equal than others" based on their accumulated "ownership" of available resources.

That's why I'm a "mixed economy" advocate. Let competition and markets spur improvement, development and growth, but do in a carefully regulated way that respects basic human rights and dignity and restrains system imbalancing greed on ALL sides.

ETA:

I think that if you modified Libertarian theory to proceed from a basis of equality in fact of all actors and admit that government has a role to play in protecting a minimum level of equity it would be more palatable.

"Coercion" in that case would also include imbalances of power between parties that render one side or the other with overwhelming advantage (such as the case of the island owner with food and the starving shipwreck survivor), and an acknowledgement that "Freedom" in order to work, has to include Positive obligation freedoms (that is a right TO some things from society) as well as negative obligation freedoms (those that require either noting from society or that hold it at bay).

 

[Muldur]

double post

 

[EGarrett]

Libertarianism is one of those philosophies that I disagree with, but am inclined to respect, in general principle.

However, something that came up in a recent thread made me wonder how libertarians, those of you who are most opposed to government use of force and taxes, would react to a certain thought experiment.

Libertarians aren't opposed to government use of force and taxes. You're thinking of anarcho-capitalists.

There would be a temptation to present this in a pseudo socratic style, asking questions and getting agreement at each step, but let me just post the whole thing, and you'll tell me where I'm wrong.

We're going to imagine a business, one with many different attributes, and I want you to tell me at what point that business crosses the line and uses uncalled for force.

1) When you step inside the store, you defacto agree to certain common sense rules. For instance, you can't break their stuff, or steal it.

2) It is reasonable for that business to use force to enforce those rules.

Not exactly. It's reasonable for the police to use force to enforce the law. Businesses can refuse service to people for their own reasons, or ask the person to leave their property, but they can't make up their own rules then punch you in the face for not complying.

4) Such rules can extend to the way you pay the business, and so long as they make the rules clear, they have every right to enforce them. For instance, a restaurant can have a policy that every time you fill up your soda at the self serve station, $1 will be added to your bill.

Yes. They can add $1,000,000 to your bill, as long as they make it clear to all the customers before they fill up.

To advance my premise a bit, how about another example of the last rule?

My business is a trade show. I rent out a huge convention center, and vendors can set up tables to sell whatever they want. My rules are as follows.
A) You have to pay $5 to set up a table.
B) At the end of the day, you owe me 5% of your sales in addition.

Now these rules are posted clearly, everyone in the convention center can see them. SO if someone tries to sneak into my property and set up their table without paying, I do have a moral right to throw him out, right? The same would go for someone who refused to pay the 5% at the end.

If you own or have rented the property, you can call the police or have them removed.

Are you still with me? Good.
Now I happen to own the whole building with the convention center, and it just so happens that there's a huge apartment building above the main hall. I mean massive. It even has a hospital, a mall, everything. So people could live their whole lives without ever leaving.

In fact, a good number of people are born in my building, grow up, and when they're ready to start earning a living, they rent a table at the trade show downstairs. We've established that I can make the rules for people who live and work in my building, they've entered into a contract with me.

I have a feeling where this is going. There are special rules for landlords and others who own property on which people live. You can't just throw them out on a whim. Furthermore, you can't make rules that violate the law.

If they don't like my rules, they can leave. If they insist on breaking their contract with me, while on my property, I may use reasonable force to protect my contract.

At this point, in my mind either at some point we've crossed a line where this property owner can't use force to protect his property, or the government can use force to levy taxes and protect their citizens. if there's a meaningful difference, please point it out to me.

As I expected. See above.

 

[Mister Agenda]

I I think that if you modified Libertarian theory to proceed from a basis of equality in fact of all actors and admit that government has a role to play in protecting a minimum level of equity it would be more palatable.

"Coercion" in that case would also include imbalances of power between parties that render one side or the other with overwhelming advantage (such as the case of the island owner with food and the starving shipwreck survivor), and an acknowledgement that "Freedom" in order to work, has to include Positive obligation freedoms (that is a right TO some things from society) as well as negative obligation freedoms (those that require either noting from society or that hold it at bay).

Someday someone will think of a better word for it, but this kind of thinking is what I mean when I say 'liberaltarian'. Reducing social welfare programs is completely off the table for me (except improving them), although I hope fewer people will need them in a better economy, and I would be willing to see more spent on new programs, if they were effective in getting people out of poverty altogether. Large-L Libertarians, small-l libertarians, and liberals don't have to agree on this, if they can agree that there are cuts to be made in corporate welfare and palatable cuts in military spending, and can agree to go after those together, they can disagree later about social programs.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Someday someone will think of a better word for it, but this kind of thinking is what I mean when I say 'liberaltarian'. Reducing social welfare programs is completely off the table for me (except improving them), although I hope fewer people will need them in a better economy, and I would be willing to see more spent on new programs, if they were effective in getting people out of poverty altogether. Large-L Libertarians, small-l libertarians, and liberals don't have to agree on this, if they can agree that there are cuts to be made in corporate welfare and palatable cuts in military spending, and can agree to go after those together, they can disagree later about social programs.

But the social programs are where the primary problem is. IIRC, we could shut down our entire spending other than SS, Medicare, etc and still be operating at a deficit.
So, no -- it's not reasonable to spend energy rearranging deck chairs on the sinking ship. We need to go down and fix the hull breeches.

 

[Muldur]

But the social programs are where the primary problem is. IIRC, we could shut down our entire spending other than SS, Medicare, etc and still be operating at a deficit.

That's actually not true.

So, no -- it's not reasonable to spend energy rearranging deck chairs on the sinking ship. We need to go down and fix the hull breeches.

We need to stop drilling new holes with unaffordable and unwarranted tax cuts for people who have far more money than they reasonably need. We need to patch the existing holes by rescinding unwise tax cuts already passed, and judiciously passing some new increases.

Social Security can be put back to a "surplus revenue " condition by simply raising the FICA/ODSI tax to an additional 5 cents on the dollar.

 

[Astrodude]

I haven't read the entire thread, but the opening post was very interesting and raises a good point: the free market naturally provides a base from which the government can evolve. This is why I regard pure libertarianism more as a philosophy than an actual practicing form a government. Since government is simply a compact of recognized property owners, then government regulation is simply a natural outgrowth of a market compact. The market demands that some form of government exist.

The only problem is that the government doesn't usually like to renegotiate its contracts concerning its citizens and laws. We may agree to follow the FDA because women are going blind from lash-lure dye, but the FDA won't agree to renegotiate its powers when it tries to delay Avastin dispensing to cancer patients, some of whom would probably die without it.

That's actually not true.

Social Security can be put back to a "surplus revenue " condition by simply raising the FICA/ODSI tax to an additional 5 cents on the dollar.

That's an enormous tax increase on people who work for $15 an hour or less! It's nearly double the current rate of FICA taxation! If you care that much about social security, and I don't, try taking from income taxes from income earned at high brackets or raise the wage base. It isn't fair for generations of younger workers to pay more tax at a regressive level to have to support a larger older middle-class population!

It's also costing people jobs because of the burden placed on employers.

 

[gnome]

There are certainly costs that cannot easily be reduced to a "user fee". Those that can - should be.

One point that often becomes an issue here is who the users are.

A favorite example of mine is public schools--do you consider the students to be the only beneficiaries of that spending?

For items that are intended to have a net positive effect in practical terms (such as trading spending on jails for spending on preventative programs) isn't EVERYONE the user? While surely these decisions cannot be made arbitrarily (that's why we get representatives and voting), a lot of items that are attacked for "why should I have to pay for that, since I don't use it" have benefits that extend past the direct recipients.

 

[AvalonXQ]

A favorite example of mine is public schools--do you consider the students to be the only beneficiaries of that spending?

I agree with this point, but it's also a situation where those other beneficiaries -- primarily employers looking for employees with certain skills -- can still aid the process directly. Companies that need certain skills can pay to send students to schools where they learn those skills.

Heck, the military does this already, paying for college in exchange for some number of years' commitment of service, or alternatively paying for education for those on active duty.

It may be a little more difficult to extend this into lower-level schooling, though. Few companies may be thinking about the long term benefits of paying for Little Bobby's third grade, and it may be unreasonable to commit Little Bobby to GE sometime on the future on the basis of a benefit he derives before he's old enough to sign a contract.

 

[Muldur]

That's an enormous tax increase on people who work for $15 an hour or less! It's nearly double the current rate of FICA taxation!

Let me clarify for you, as you are laboring under a misperception and I could have explained it better:

Currently, the FICA/ODSI tax is 14.9%. That amount is split in two. Half comes out of the paycheck, and half comes out from the employer contribution. The 5 cents is the combined rate. The worker would only lose $2.50 out of each $100. That's about the same as 1 large Starbucks coffee, less than 1 gallon of milk, and about 1 1/2 2-liters of soda on average.

If you care that much about social security, and I don't, try taking from income taxes from income earned at high brackets or raise the wage base. It isn't fair for generations of younger workers to pay more tax at a regressive level to have to support a larger older middle-class population!

Everyone pays into, and everyone gets benefits. That's how it works. This "opt out" BS is just that: BS. SS only works if it is a universal plan.

It's also costing people jobs because of the burden placed on employers.

Who have been getting a free ride off of taxpayers for years by not paying the tax rates they SHOULD have been paying to accurately reflect the costs of needful gov't programs democratically voted.

 

[stevea]

Ancient thread but it's so juicy

There is nothing wrong with a modicum of wealth, honestly obtained. When wealth is obtained by exploiting workers, consumers and societies, then it very much is obscene.

SO YOU and the 'proletariat committee of the people' get to decide exactly how much wealthl is OK and when it becomes "obscene". The only thing obscene is YOUR disgusting attempt to FORCE YOUR normative values to others. I sincerely want everyone to be obscenely wealthy, and capitalism has gotten us darned close. I suggest you compare YOUR status vs the avg person in the middle ages or in China and try again.

Your obsessive focus on fantastical "exploitation" of workers is nonsense like most of Marxism. There can be no exploitation except by force.

The predations of the Dickensian industrialists and Robber Barrons are well documented in history, and I feel no need to retype them here as they are well understood.

Rubbish thinking. Dickens wrote FICTION, and you swallow it wholesale as if fact! The "Robber Baron"(sp) notion is a popular fantasy that no economic thinker takes seriously. No serious person thinks that we are economically worse off for the existence of Schwab, Carnegie & Rockefeller - that's pure progressive-ish class-hatred that leads to massivelly negative outcomes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmzZ8lCLhlk

The thing your philosophy ignores is that no lawful free-market transaction can execute without increasing net social value. Even in un-free markets - no Chinese laborer works at an Apple slave-labor factor EXCEPT that it is better than all other alternatives.(unless by actual force).

Maybe you had better make your plea of "social justice" against the hunger in your belly, and your biological preference to be warm and dry that "exploits" you forcing you to slave-labor planting and tending crops and building dwellings.

Your clownish attempt to claim that someone making money by giving even greater value to others is very anti-social thinking.

The junk bond kings destroyed jobs by destroying the companies that provided them and pocketed the "value" extracted in the process.

And Milken -the "junk bond king" was sentenced to prison. We both agree that CRIMEs are wrong - move along to your over generalizations wrt free markets.

A side effect of attempting to compete with companies under the gun of the "corporate raiders" drove down wages in OTHER companies and forced them into shedding jobs as well.

FAIL! Corporate raiders are merely ppl who bring corporate management & workers back to reality. They can't exist except that the assets they buy (companies) have greater value under alternative management. YOU obviously believe that waiting until a company is bankrupt then firing everyone is best. The Corporate raider and the eventual stock customers believe that making the companies more efficient and market response is best.

You and your socialist-idiot kin are perfectly free to up-bid the prices of inefficient companies to prevent this - but you don't - WHY IS THAT ? The obvious reason is that you socialist types are greedy and 'exploitative' too, and further that your money isn't where your mouth is. You TALK about the problem but are unwilling to INVEST in your proposed solution of propping up losing ventures.

Wal Mart's long history of wage/hour violations, sexual and other discrimination, anti-union activities, and their key role in the end of several industries in the US (such as textiles) is also well documented.

Uhhh - so is WalMart in net more or less guilty of lawful violations than Mom&Pop shops ? I'sd wager that WalMart is pretty clean. Show evidence or shut-up. WRT "anti-Union' activities", these are generally lawful and not a crime and not a problem. Unions deserve no special exemption from anti-trust law; they are labor monopolies and therefore create market inefficiency that harms everyone.

[/QUOTE]Of course I have no doubt that you have a distorted notion of what impoverishes means in any context. I'll wager that you'll try to insist on the Luddite fallacy.[/QUOTE]

Why shouldn't I express that YOU are proposing the Luddite fallacy ? You are proposing measures that interfere with markets and make production and society generally less efficient - just like idiotic, short-sighted Luddites. Your special pleading that I might make argument X does not mean that argument X doesn't severely challenge your case.

If it takes away the value of a worker's wage, or denies him the full value of his labor, it impoverishes him.

If it took anything away from the workers wage - then the worker OBVIOUSLY would take his talents elsewhere. The worker gets full value and is always (in a free market) able to vend his talents for the greatest wage.

And I will freely state (because it is true) that some technology destroys jobs and impoverishes not just workers directly, but also those who depend on the trade and custom of those workers for THEIR living.

And I will clearly state (because it is true) that you are an economic ignoramus incapable of addressing the most fundamental econ issues. Your argument fails to even address any believable point. No rational person believes that lower prices or better features for an item benefits no one - and in fact is a general benefit to society. Get a clue.

When a company, for example, brings in tech that lets one worker do the job of two, then fires half it's workforce and keeps it's prices the same, it exploits both workers AND consumers. Half it's workers no longer have jobs, and consumers are paying too much for the goods produced.

So for example YOU are in favor of using not farming with tractors nor fishing with nets b/c since this eliminates jobs - - right Luddite ? How is anyone paying "too much" when they freely choose to exchange cash for goods ???? Your thinking is all emotional and in fact anti-rational.

Perhaps you fail to understand fundamentals:
1/ ALL free market exchanges are voluntary.
2/ No rational actor VOLUNTARILY exchange A for B except that they believe that the value of B is greater than the value of A (values are subjective, therefore both parties expect gain).
3/ Net expected value therefore increases by all free-market exchanges

Labor/Wage is just another free-market exchange (time for work product exchange). No one works at a jobA if they expect better value from jobB. Exploitation is a nonsense concept in free markets. No one employs workerA if they believe workerB can produce better value. People generally exchange work-effort at market prices and this makes optimal use of the labor resource. It's an efficiency that results from free-market exchanges.

That's why anyone who knows how the economy REALLY works (a catagory of persons that pretty much by definition excludes Libertarians) snorts when people tout "productivity gains", because said gains seldom if ever benefit workers or consumers.

Your slur against Libertarians is an ah-hom fallacy they belies your inability to muster a serious counter-argument.

Workers are suppliers of services, and of course in a free market these service providers benefit (from higher prices=wages) when the service they provide is of greater value (aka in greater demand).

Come back when you can make an economic argument that isn't dependent on pre-enlightenment concepts. ad-hom fallacies, Luddite-thinking and distortions based on pure emotionalism.

 

[psionl0]

More like - "you make no sense - why am I wasting my time - goodbye".

Maybe you should have left it at that. North Korea is too libertarian for Mulder's liking.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I have a fair answer. Let me put myself in this world...

...as a libertarian, I take a look around me in my mega apartment. I reach two conclusions about this place. 1) management, and through previously bad board decisions we all voted for, has placed some real onerous restrictions on what I can say. I know we can vote to impose it, but we hurt each other with it. I'm going to advocate changing it.

2) the part where I pay a building fee, and the building maintenance drops by once a month is stupid. Some months I don't need a visit. Some of the crew isn't even good. I will advocate that we make that service private.

 

[stevea]

I have a fair answer. Let me put myself in this world...

...as a libertarian, I take a look around me in my mega apartment. I reach two conclusions about this place. 1) management, and through previously bad board decisions we all voted for, has placed some real onerous restrictions on what I can say. I know we can vote to impose it, but we hurt each other with it. I'm going to advocate changing it.

2) the part where I pay a building fee, and the building maintenance drops by once a month is stupid. Some months I don't need a visit. Some of the crew isn't even good. I will advocate that we make that service private.

Oh yeah - the OP we almost forgot about.

Let me object to your solution Bob'. Advocating changes you want of course makes good sense, but this is described as a comparable to re-negotiating a contract when it is not actually very comparable.

In a contract there must be two parties, but "the people" are both the building owners and the tenent/residents in this fractured analogy. In a contract there must be voluntary and often explicit agreement to terms, but the infants born in the building gave no such agreement. In a contract there must ne an exchange of value, and the builing owner certainly takes 5%+ to enforce his policies, but what exactly is the advantage to the building dwellers of a "break the rulesaand a police force will eject you" policy ? Neither building owner nor tenents can unilaterally revise a contract, so the analogy breaks down.

In the 'building of state' we carry both sides of the social contract. We as owners make some rules, and then we as tenent/residents must follow them. So I think the issue becomes - is there a reasonable quid pro quo; a sufficient benefit to offset a tax.

I think a lot of non-anarcho-capitalist type libertarians are willing to pay a tax to have fair courts, and a defensive army, and perhaps (more tentatively) a public police force. Few would object to laws against murder or theft or a reasonable tax to enforce these since it advances the GENERAL WELFARE. OTOH rules such as you must pay X amount into social security, and you will collect SocSec at Y rate after retirement is a very dubious value proposition for many people; it's about personal welfare not general. Forcing people into Social Security or ACA has no place in a libertarian world - those sorts of costs & terms are for individuals to decide.

Taxation is a forced payment - a nationalization of your personal assets. The construction of our state, and certainly a libertarian state, would be that governments functions are to be limited to a proscribed list, just the few necessary. That plan isn't working out very well.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

OTOH rules such as you must pay X amount into social security, and you will collect SocSec at Y rate after retirement is a very dubious value proposition for many people; it's about personal welfare not general. Forcing people into Social Security or ACA has no place in a libertarian world - those sorts of costs & terms are for individuals to decide.

You phrase this as a general moral objection, but I'm curious to know where the heart of it lies. Is it that money is being taken from you and put toward something that does not directly benefit you? Is it that the money is going to someone who did nothing to deserve it? Is it that you see it as a losing value proposition - society wasting money by "propping up" an aspect of itself that should be left to adapt or die?

 

[Ladewig]

For those of you who are interested, here is how a voluntarily funded government would work:

http://www.fascistsoup.com/2011/05/12/the-state-or-a-private-law-society-hans-hoppe/

A fascinating read.

May I ask you questions about your opinion of how such a society works?