Freedom Infringing Freedom

[shanek]

Peace of mind is not a benefit unless you suffer anxiety from thoughts of possible misfortunes befalling you. I am not so burdened,

What, you never do risk assessments?

so I derive no benefit from insurance policies; I have them in case I ever need them, which I haven't.

Well, I guess you must have done risk assessments, otherwise you would not have decided that the risk was enough to cause you to part with a certain amount of your money. So here you contradict yourself.

I don't know what you meant by this statement "Why do you think the free market operates by this ridiculous requirement of yours?" as I have put no 'ridiculous requirement' on anything other than applying the definition of 'benefit' to public services and insurance policies.

You're insisting that there must be a direct benefit, which obviously is not the case.

According to libertarian ideals, I am being robbed.

By whom? By the government, sure, but not by insurance companies as you have voluntarily decided their money is worth the effort.

And the government is only robbing you through taxes. But there are other methods, such as excises and fee-for-services, that you can avoid just by declining to use government services. That's why I say, for example, that parents who put their children into private schools or home-school them should have that portion of their taxes refunded.

 

[kimiko]

The real problem with the concern of special-needs students is the insistence that it costs more to educate them, therefore private schools can't do it. Ridiculous! So what if it costs more? If there were no government schools, there would be a buge demand for this service which could easily overcome the costs. Maybe not every single private school could cover them, but there's no reason to think they'll be left out.

There is very good reason to think that not only special needs, but average school-age children will be left out without publicly funded education.

First of all, the market has no use for disabled children being schooled unless they will be making future contributions to the economy as workers. That will eliminate the severe/profound retarded children immediately. I'll ignore the immorality of judging people's worth only in terms of market utility for now.

"Barely half of all high school students in Dallas and Fort Worth schools graduate, according to a new study by a conservative think tank. That includes less than 40 percent of Latino students." http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_dmn-dropout_study_paints.htm

Those are students who don't even have to pay to attend. We could expect those numbers to increase from inability to pay when switched to an all-private school system. Your plan for income tax credits wouldn't work as income taxes are paid more by upper classes, whereas lower classes are burdened more by payroll/state/local taxes.

You seemed to scoff at my suggestion that I do not benefit from police. How about this? Do you not benefit from most of your countrymen being literate? Does having an educated workforce not support the production of higher valued goods and services which increase the wealth of society and enhance your standard of living accordingly? According to the CIA factbook, we have a literacy rate of 97%.

At the beginning of WWI, there were two forms of the intelligence test administered to new recruits. They needed two because they had to have one to accomodate the 40% of people joining who were functionally illiterate. By WWII only 63% of recruits could read or write above a third grade level.

What guarantee would our society have that if public schools disappeared, our literacy rate wouldn't fall to 40% or lower? It's been there before, and that was with free schooling.

 

[kimiko]

What, you never do risk assessments?

Well, I guess you must have done risk assessments, otherwise you would not have decided that the risk was enough to cause you to part with a certain amount of your money. So here you contradict yourself.

You're insisting that there must be a direct benefit, which obviously is not the case.

By whom? By the government, sure, but not by insurance companies as you have voluntarily decided their money is worth the effort.

And the government is only robbing you through taxes. But there are other methods, such as excises and fee-for-services, that you can avoid just by declining to use government services. That's why I say, for example, that parents who put their children into private schools or home-school them should have that portion of their taxes refunded.

I have done risk assessments. Risk assessments judge risk. I have never derived benefit from the economic safety measures I have willingly purchased, as I have never needed them. I have likewise never benefitted from the services I mentioned that I pay for through taxes. Not everyone suffers mental anxiety from the mere possibility of misfortune as you apparently do, so no, I have not contradicted myself.

You haven't shown that I benefit from police or fire services at all. I suggested that perhaps I benefit indirectly, but again, that is mere speculation. The job of police is not to protect people, but to respond to crimes. Given the second amendment, it is unclear anyone needs any police services for violent crimes.

I never suggested I was being robbed by insurance companies, only by taxes. I never even mentioned fee-for services because they aren't relevant, as if I elect to pay them I am willingly parting with my money, such as with gas taxes. You still have provided NO justification for taxation from a libertarian perspective. Wouldn't it be more libertarian to charge people whose houses and businesses have burnt and been attended to by fire departments? Charge people whenever the police respond to a call from them? Charge individuals whenever the police have to pick up their bits and pieces of car and body from the road after car wrecks?

It seems you don't mind taking people's money/infringing on their freedom for things you want, like fire and police services, just not for things you don't, like public schools.

 

[kimiko]

username, thanks!

 

[Beth]

Really?

First of all, we'd stop the biggest polluter of them all: the US Government, which pollutes more than the top 5 chemical companies combined.

Really? How would that happen?

Second of all, we'd employ a system of property rights to protect pollution allowing for organizations similar to the Anglers Conservation Association in England.

I'm not familiar with this organization, nor the system of property rights you're referring to here. Mostly what I've read are economic arguments along the lines of assigning ownership to one party and letting the other parties try to negotiate with them, buying and selling rights to pollute. Dr. David Friedman's probably the most well known libertarian economist of those I've read.

Third, we'd get rid of as much government land as possible, as that's where most of the pollution takes place since companies have an incentive to take care of their own property.

And the government doesn't have that same incentive to take care of their own property?

How would that be worse?

Why is that?

I think it would be worse because the schemes I've heard of all end up leaving some people vulnerable to the bad effects of pollution without recourse to solutions. Someone who doesn't have the money or the brains to buy/find themselves and their family living space in a relatively unpolluted environment would be up the creek without a paddle or the wherewithall to acquire one. Our current system, bad though it might be, at least has the EPA, superfund (??? not sure if I've remembered the right name there), and elected representatives available as ineffective instruments to help those without the means to help themselves. I guess I just think a poor solution is better than none.

Oh, and I don't think I've said this to you yet: welcome to the Forum!

Thanks. So far it seems quite nice here.



Beth

 

[shanek]

First of all, the market has no use for disabled children being schooled unless they will be making future contributions to the economy as workers.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. The market has a use for anyone being schooled that there is a demand for. And I don't mean demand as in workers; I mean demand as in parents wishing such an education for their children.

Those are students who don't even have to pay to attend. We could expect those numbers to increase from inability to pay when switched to an all-private school system. Your plan for income tax credits wouldn't work as income taxes are paid more by upper classes, whereas lower classes are burdened more by payroll/state/local taxes.

Um...first of all, there's no difference between a payroll and an income tax. Second, most of the school funding comes from state and local taxes in the first place; the Federal government only provides about 5-7% of the funding, depending on the state.

You seemed to scoff at my suggestion that I do not benefit from police. How about this? Do you not benefit from most of your countrymen being literate?

Yes, I do. And private schools have a much better track record at this. In fact, historians have found that in the late 18th/early 19th century, before we had government schools, there was universal literacy among free men and near-universal literacy among free women.

Does having an educated workforce not support the production of higher valued goods and services which increase the wealth of society and enhance your standard of living accordingly?

Yes, and this is anothe reason why the funding will be there for it.

According to the CIA factbook, we have a literacy rate of 97%.

Whereas 25% of high school graduates cannot read their own diplomas (source: A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform, National Commission on Excellence in Education). What does that tell you?

 

[shanek]

I have done risk assessments. Risk assessments judge risk. I have never derived benefit from the economic safety measures I have willingly purchased, as I have never needed them.

But you have judged that your risk of being in such a situation is high enough to warrant the money you are paying into it. Ergo, you are getting a benefit and wealth is being generated in the economy.

Not everyone suffers mental anxiety from the mere possibility of misfortune as you apparently do,

Let's quit with the strawmen, okay?

You haven't shown that I benefit from police or fire services at all.

Uh, yes, I have.

You still have provided NO justification for taxation from a libertarian perspective.

As I don't recall saying taxation is justified, I fail to see how this is a problem.

Wouldn't it be more libertarian to charge people whose houses and businesses have burnt and been attended to by fire departments?

There are actually places in Arkansas (and probably elsewhere, too) where the fire department charges each residence directly, sort of like a power bill. If there's a fire, they go and put it out. If you're paid up, no problem. If not, they send you a bill for their services. I don't see the problem with such an arrangement.

Charge people whenever the police respond to a call from them?

An area should be able to, on its own, hire its own police force and not have to pay for government police. And again, there are places that do exactly that.

[flamebait deleted]

 

[shanek]

Really? How would that happen?

By getting the government out of all of the things it isn't authorized by the Constitution to do in the first place.

I'm not familiar with this organization, nor the system of property rights you're referring to here.

Just peruse the website. They do a wonderful job of explaining it.

And the government doesn't have that same incentive to take care of their own property?

No, they don't. Because no one has to pay the consequences for its misuse.

Our current system, bad though it might be, at least has the EPA,

That's not a good thing. I attended a local air quality meeting by the EPA. Nothing but a bunch of pseudoscience. They were going on and on about ground-level ozone and its health risks. I asked them, in the meeting and afterwards, for information on studies that would be at least the minimum you should do to even make such claims: studies of hospital records from one ozone season to the next showing how GLO concentrations affect hospital admissions for respiratory diseases. They admitted that no such studies had been done. Other organizations have done studies showing no correlation between GLO concentrations and respiratory illness at all.

They measure GLO concentrations by putting a bunch of detectors in a region. You'd think they'd take the average, right? Nope—the maximum reading is considered to be the reading for the entire region! And all the counties get sanctioned. By the way, the only detector in Lincoln County is in a town called Crouse, in the southwestern part of the county near the Gaston County line. The weather patterns cause Crouse to get air from the more urban Gaston County. There are no other detectors in Lincoln County, and the weather patterns push Lincoln County air outside of the region where it isn't measured. And yet, Lincoln County would get sanctioned along with the rest of the region should the concentration levels move out of compliance.

Not to mention the fact that their own statistics show North Carolina's air getting cleaner.

It's all political.

 

[username]

Um...first of all, there's no difference between a payroll and an income tax.

What???

The income tax is a progressive tax that is based upon a person's taxable income.

A payroll tax is is regresive tax like social security and medicare. The tax is capped to the first 80 something thousand dollars of income. Additionally employers and employees contribute to payroll taxes, employers do not contribute to income taxes.

 

[a_unique_person]

By getting the government out of all of the things it isn't authorized by the Constitution to do in the first place.

Repeat after me, "The consitution is not holy writ, not everything in it is necessarily right, it is quite possibly wrong in some ways".

Just peruse the website. They do a wonderful job of explaining it.



No, they don't. Because no one has to pay the consequences for its misuse.



That's not a good thing. I attended a local air quality meeting by the EPA. Nothing but a bunch of pseudoscience. They were going on and on about ground-level ozone and its health risks. I asked them, in the meeting and afterwards, for information on studies that would be at least the minimum you should do to even make such claims: studies of hospital records from one ozone season to the next showing how GLO concentrations affect hospital admissions for respiratory diseases. They admitted that no such studies had been done. Other organizations have done studies showing no correlation between GLO concentrations and respiratory illness at all.

They measure GLO concentrations by putting a bunch of detectors in a region. You'd think they'd take the average, right? Nope—the maximum reading is considered to be the reading for the entire region! And all the counties get sanctioned. By the way, the only detector in Lincoln County is in a town called Crouse, in the southwestern part of the county near the Gaston County line. The weather patterns cause Crouse to get air from the more urban Gaston County. There are no other detectors in Lincoln County, and the weather patterns push Lincoln County air outside of the region where it isn't measured. And yet, Lincoln County would get sanctioned along with the rest of the region should the concentration levels move out of compliance.

Of course they would measure the maximum. We are talking about something that is toxic, and you don't really want to know so much what the minimum or average is, but what the maximum concentration is, because that is what is doing the most harm. The average may not do much harm, but the maximum considerable harm.

The case for each pollutant may vary, and there is also the consideration for long term effects on people in high pollution areas.

Ozone is a very powerful oxidant. Are you claiming it will not cause health problems in people?

Not to mention the fact that their own statistics show North Carolina's air getting cleaner.

It's all political.

 

[kimiko]

most of the school funding comes from state and local taxes in the first place; the Federal government only provides about 5-7% of the funding, depending on the state.

And private schools have a much better track record at this. In fact, historians have found that in the late 18th/early 19th century, before we had government schools, there was universal literacy among free men and near-universal literacy among free women.

Whereas 25% of high school graduates cannot read their own diplomas (source: A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform, National Commission on Excellence in Education). What does that tell you?

Payroll taxes are a flat rate capped tax, income taxes are not, so yes, there is a difference.

And school funding doesn't come only from people with children in school, it comes from everyone, therefore, parents aren't already paying for their children, but they are benefiting from public subsidy. Local and state taxes burden the poor more as a percentage of their income compared to higher income groups, not that they actually pay a larger percentage of the total.

You'll have to name actual historians to support your assertion that there was ever near universal literacy. As I said, 40% of WWI recruits were functionally illiterate according to the Army Beta tests. This is the first source I found on google, but my original info was from a textbook: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_g2699/is_0003/ai_2699000355

Unless you compare and contrast public and private school students and their ability to read their diplomas, your source is irrelevant.

 

[dsm]

In fact, historians have found that in the late 18th/early 19th century, before we had government schools, there was universal literacy among free men and near-universal literacy among free women.

Of course, this depends upon your definition of "literacy"...

http://www.ukans.edu/~stl/historyofliteracy.htm

 

[kimiko]

But you have judged that your risk of being in such a situation is high enough to warrant the money you are paying into it. Ergo, you are getting a benefit and wealth is being generated in the economy.

Let's quit with the strawmen, okay?

Uh, yes, I have.

As I don't recall saying taxation is justified, I fail to see how this is a problem.

When a person takes out a policy, they are basically betting the insurance company X amount per month/year that they will lose their goods in a fire in exchange for the company's agreement to pay for replacement in case that actually happens. No matter how much money you have paid on a policy, it is worthless to the buyer unless/until they actually suffer a fire. People are willing to part with their money because they see that as a smaller loss than the loss of their property would be. It is worth the amount paid in only to the company, because they have extracted that amount of value from their promise. Buyers have received nothing of value from purchase of the policy/ have not benefitted from the policy because they have recieved nothing of value in return for their money. If and when they lose goods in a fire, then they will actually benefit from the policy. But you were the one who brought up insurance to begin with, it has little place in this discussion as insurance is paid freely.

The strawman is yours, as you are the one insisting people receive some irrational "peace of mind".

No, you haven't shown that I receive any benefit from fire/police forces. Since you insist you have, why don't you repeat it so I'm sure of what you think supported that contention. "Peace of mind" doesn't count.

In response to this: Taxes become necessary to pay for things like courts and police/fire services, road building, maintaining public property and all the rest. ... taxation itself, is depriving a person of their right to property

You said this: But those things are all of benefit to individuals.

You seemed to be defending taxation when individuals benefit from them. I was contesting your insinuation that people actually do benefit from them.



If we wanted to really start a fight, it would be interesting if anyone would like to prove that people receive benefit from having a military. We are in no obvious danger of being invaded and the last time we were truly in danger of losing our country in a war was the War of 1812, so why pay exorbitant amounts for something many individual Americans recieve no benefit from? Military defenders would suggest that the military is what gives us our freedom. Does the freedom provided by the military justify being forced to pay taxes under threat of incarceration to pay for the expense?

If we believe the Quakers, 40% of the federal budget goes to military expenditures. So let's say Mr. Anonymous Taxpayer pays $30,000 in income tax this year. He's paying $12,000 for military expenses alone.
http://www.fcnl.org/issues/mil/sup/military_federal-taxes-FY02.htm

 

[username]

But you were the one who brought up insurance to begin with, it has little place in this discussion as insurance is paid freely.

A small nitpick, but many forms of insurance are not paid freely. If you wish to drive a car you must have insurance, government mandates this. Some states will allow you to drive without insurance, but you have to provide proof that you have x amount of dollars in the bank to cover liability.

Homeowner insurance is also mandated. Try and get a home loan without the insurance. You can't.

While I do think homeowner and auto insurance is a good idea, the fact is you have to buy them to drive or buy a home, so it isn't freely paid.

Like I said, this is a small nitpick.

 

[kimiko]

A small nitpick, but many forms of insurance are not paid freely. If you wish to drive a car you must have insurance, government mandates this. Some states will allow you to drive without insurance, but you have to provide proof that you have x amount of dollars in the bank to cover liability.

Homeowner insurance is also mandated. Try and get a home loan without the insurance. You can't.

While I do think homeowner and auto insurance is a good idea, the fact is you have to buy them to drive or buy a home, so it isn't freely paid.

Like I said, this is a small nitpick.

I completely understand, but the libertarian response, regardless of actual feasability, would be that you don't have to live in a house, you can rent, and you don't have to own and drive a car, you can walk/use public transportation/beg for rides/whatever. As I don't even want to bother arguing about that, I just went with the insurance = optional argument.

 

[Cain]

I did not bother to read any of the above replies. I will make my comment brief.

Some people take the view -- no doubt this is expressed above -- that certain restrictions on behavior are not restrictions on liberty. For example, when the government restricts person A from inserting a knife into person B, it is not restricting person A's liberty because people are not "free" to subvert the rights of others.

A problem with this view is that freedom then becomes bound up in rights of ownership. So one might ask what property rights, in their person and the external world, does the individual possess and why. Those who take the above view cannot assert that we have certain property rights to "maximize freedom" or "to be free" or "as a consequence of fundamental notions of liberty" because they have already subsumed freedom under rights. How do we know what "freedom" even means before we know what rights we have? The argument is circular. So libertarians and others who take this view have to find a foundation for property (self-ownership, property rights) outside of liberty.

(This is just one reason why I derisively refer to them as propertarians rather than libertarians. )

This argument is expressed far more eloquently in Jonathan Wolff's _Robert Nozick: Property, Justice and the Minimal State_ and Will Kymlicka's _Introduction to Contemporary Political Philosophy_. Both are highly recommended.

 

[Earthborn]

An appraiser is a trusted third party used by insurance and mortgage companies. He's not an "official" as he's not with the government. But his findings are admissible in court.

That does not answer the question about which criteria s/he can use to measure 'actual damage'.

By getting the government out of all of the things it isn't authorized by the Constitution to do in the first place.

That may make sense in the US where the a constitutional government would closely resemble a libertarian one, but what about countries that have constitutions that list many duties of the government that conflict with Libertarianism? How can they get closer to a libertarian society without violating their own constitutions?

 

[TragicMonkey]

A small nitpick, but many forms of insurance are not paid freely. If you wish to drive a car you must have insurance, government mandates this. Some states will allow you to drive without insurance, but you have to provide proof that you have x amount of dollars in the bank to cover liability.

Homeowner insurance is also mandated. Try and get a home loan without the insurance. You can't.

While I do think homeowner and auto insurance is a good idea, the fact is you have to buy them to drive or buy a home, so it isn't freely paid.

The government couldn't care less if you have home insurance. It's the mortgage companies that insist on it, to protect their investment. If you can find a lender who doesn't mind if you're uninsured, there are no legal objections at all.

As for auto insurance, I've never heard of a state wanting to know you had $X in the bank. In my state, you either have insurance or just pay the state $500. The $500 doesn't go back to you if you have a wreck or anything, it's just an idiot penalty designed to encourage people to have auto insurance.

And everyone, in every state, should carry adequate levels of uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage on their auto policy. This is money that your company will pay to YOU when some moron hits you and it's the moron's fault.

 

[Beth]

By getting the government out of all of the things it isn't authorized by the Constitution to do in the first place.

Putting aside the highly debateable subject of what the government is and is not authorized by the constitution to do in the first place and whether or not it should be limited to those activities so authorized in the second place, this is not a solution to the problem of pollution. For example, if the government ceased operating the postal service and we went with private companies to handle the mail, the pollution generated by that industry is not going to go away.

Just peruse the website. They do a wonderful job of explaining it.

Well, I've been perusing it for some time now, but it's a big site. I'll keep my eyes open for such a topic, but without a more specific pointer to it, odds are I won't stumble across it for a while.

No, they don't. Because no one has to pay the consequences for its misuse.

I'm sorry, but I don't follow why corporate employees somehow have to pay for the consequences of misuse but government employees do not.

As I said to begin with, I generally like the libertarian philosophy, but there are certain areas, such as pollution, where I feel their approach is inadequate. The points you have brought up so far just confirm my opinion. I don't see how privitization of government functions will result in a better, cleaner environment for the general public.

Beth

 

[username]

I'm sorry, but I don't follow why corporate employees somehow have to pay for the consequences of misuse but government employees do not.

As I said to begin with, I generally like the libertarian philosophy, but there are certain areas, such as pollution, where I feel their approach is inadequate. The points you have brought up so far just confirm my opinion. I don't see how privitization of government functions will result in a better, cleaner environment for the general public.

Beth

What I believe Shanek is referring to are the "superfund" sites. Those areas that are so polluted they basically sit untouched because the cost to repair the pollution is prohibitive.

There is some truth to the idea that government is responsible for many of them. In some cases government owned the land and allowed a corporation to use it. The corporation polluted the snot out of it because they had nothing to lose, they weren't the owner of the land. It is kind of like leasing versus owning a car. If you own the car and are concerned about it's resale value you have a greater incentive to take good care of it than if you are going to just turn it in at the end of the lease period.

The idea is that if the land were owned by a private entity, they would not allow their property to be so polluted as it affects their property value.

Anyway, you can google on "superfund site". The EPA has a superfund site that is great at meaningless speak.

Consider:

"One of EPA's top priorities is to get those responsible for the contamination (the PRPs) to clean up the site. If the PRP cannot be found, is not viable, or refuses to cooperate, EPA, the state, or tribe may cleanup the site using Superfund money. EPA may seek to recover the cost of clean up from those parties that do not cooperate."

So, when the government is called the largest polluter in the world, the claim usually refers to the superfund sites. I do not know, however, the process by which a particular superfund site is considered to be a government caused problem vs. a privately caused one.