What is the ideal method of Taxation for libertarians?

[ClayTrainor]

i see alot of talk from people around here about how they are against direct taxes, and even some who are against any form of taxation whatsoever.

What, in your mind is the best way to go about funding a constitutionally sized government? Taxing the Free Market? the government needs at least some money to function right?

[Andrew-Austin]

lol, well.... I'm not sure where other libertarians stand, but I'm primarily just against property tax and income tax.

[Brassmouth]

A voluntary tax system. If the government was doing a good job, people would be happy to pay.

Same for local level, most people would see the importance of police, fire stations, so they'd pay anyway.

This way it isnt coercive and the government is limited by what we the people see fit to give it.

[OKRonPaul]

Voluntary is nice, but I can't see it ever working. I'd like to see taxes in logical places as much as possible.

gas tax pays for roads - makes sense to me. Not sure you can do that for everything.

I live in a rural area, volunteer fire department. I pay a couple bucks extra on my electric bill for the fire department. I could choose not to, but then if they did have to come out I'd get a bill. It's basically insurance.

[Kade]

lol, well.... I'm not sure where other libertarians stand, but I'm primarily just against property tax and income tax.

You and I agree on something. I too am against property tax and income tax.

[Mini-Me]

I am absolutely against property tax and personal income tax. Inherited assets cannot always be objectively differentiated from personal income tax, so unless a non-privacy-invading way could be found for collecting on inheritance, I'm absolutely against that one as well. Except for logical taxes like gas taxes to pay for roads, I'm absolutely against excise taxes as well, because moral high-horses can use them to effectively ban the sale of products they don't like...and even when you're dealing with "logical" taxes like gas taxes, you have to be careful. After all, lobbyists could easily push for taxes against the kind of products their competitors sell. (That's not to say alternative energy wouldn't be a better idea in the long run than gas anyway...but still...)

I feel that the federal government should only be able to levy tariffs (uniform, as yongrel says below) and tax the states. At the state level, I wouldn't object to one of the following: Business income tax, sales tax, tariffs, VAT's, etc...but whatever tax is chosen, it should be very low and only enough to fund the absolutely essential functions of government (from the Constitutional rights-protection perspective). I don't like any taxes, but I'm not an anarchist, and I'm pragmatic enough to see that certain government functions, like high-tech defense, cannot be paid for with user fees alone.

[yongrel]

If we must be taxed, I think it makes sense to have a universal border tax for both imports and exports. Say a .05% tax on goods imported and exported across the border. It would apply equally to all products from all countries, and would be rather slight, so as to not interefere in any meaningful way with the markets. Also, this border tax would essentially be charging for a service, since the goods are either entering or exiting from the law enforcement jurisdiction of the government levying the tax. As someone paying this fee, I would either be preemptively or retroactively paying for the services of law and order granted to me within the border of the country.

This is just my fanciful musing.

[dannno]

If we must be taxed, I think it makes sense to have a universal border tax for both imports and exports. Say a .05% tax on goods imported and exported across the border. It would apply equally to all products from all countries, and would be rather slight, so as to not interefere in any meaningful way with the markets. Also, this border tax would essentially be charging for a service, since the goods are either entering or exiting from the law enforcement jurisdiction of the government levying the tax. As someone paying this fee, I would either be preemptively or retroactively paying for the services of law and order granted to me within the border of the country.

This is just my fanciful musing.

I made a similar post yesterday.

[jblosser]

A voluntary tax system. If the government was doing a good job, people would be happy to pay.

Same for local level, most people would see the importance of police, fire stations, so they'd pay anyway.

This way it isnt coercive and the government is limited by what we the people see fit to give it.

This. People pay for what they want, and if they fail to pay for it, it doesn't happen.



Voluntary is nice, but I can't see it ever working. I'd like to see taxes in logical places as much as possible.

This means you assume people are not smart enough or logical enough to pay for things they want, and must be forced to do so.


gas tax pays for roads - makes sense to me. Not sure you can do that for everything.


Usage fees make complete sense, and are voluntary in that if you don't want to pay them, you don't use the service. But how often are gas taxes today used for anything related to highways?

[rbu]

Free Market :)

[ClayTrainor]

Free Market :)

you mean, tax the free market?

[IPSecure]

What is the ideal method of Taxation for libertarians?

Just like marriage: "'Till Death Do Us Part!"

[SeanEdwards]

If we must be taxed, I think it makes sense to have a universal border tax for both imports and exports. Say a .05% tax on goods imported and exported across the border. It would apply equally to all products from all countries, and would be rather slight, so as to not interefere in any meaningful way with the markets. Also, this border tax would essentially be charging for a service, since the goods are either entering or exiting from the law enforcement jurisdiction of the government levying the tax. As someone paying this fee, I would either be preemptively or retroactively paying for the services of law and order granted to me within the border of the country.

This is just my fanciful musing.

I agree with this.

In addition to massively simplifying the tax code, this would have the added benefit of increasing the friction that opposes globalization.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

i see alot of talk from people around here about how they are against direct taxes, and even some who are against any form of taxation whatsoever.

What, in your mind is the best way to go about funding a constitutionally sized government? Taxing the Free Market? the government needs at least some money to function right?

no taxes

second best is voluntary contributions

the third is to leave taxes to states

the fourth would be a flat tax

ordered from ideal to less ideal

[nickcoons]

As a libertarian, I oppose all forms of taxation. I don't understand how a libertarian can support any taxation.


Conventional wisdom puts the so-called “necessary evil” of taxation on par with death—inevitable, unavoidable, the way the world works. Our society seems to believe that taxation is indispensable to civilization. Our ancestors once believed the same thing about slavery.

Today, we know better. Slavery is not only unnecessary to civilization, but hinders its development. What we call “evil” has a way of doing that.

One day, the “necessary evil” of taxation will be recognized for what libertarians know it to be: legalized theft, a hindrance to civilization, prosperity, harmony, and happiness.

- Dr. Mary Ruwart

I love going into all the different ways of answering the question "but how do you pay for things without taxes?", but that's already been done (http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/rutoc.html).

[Truth Warrior]

i see alot of talk from people around here about how they are against direct taxes, and even some who are against any form of taxation whatsoever.

What, in your mind is the best way to go about funding a constitutionally sized government? Taxing the Free Market? the government needs at least some money to function right? I'd say the current Federal government is "constitutionally sized". :(

Lysander Spooner once said that he believed "that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize." At the same time, he could not exonerate the Constitution, for it "has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." -- Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

[TheEvilDetector]

1. User Fees.
ie. Pay per use, or pay flat fee per year.
User choice as to which within practical constraints.
Users go to a web page, pick level of government, pick what they want to pay for and how.

2. Minting/Storing fees of Gold/Silver by government
(private sector competition in minting and storing is allowed, but small tax is payable to government in case of minting,
because government delegated their responsibility allowing for a profit to be made)

3. Interest on loans of Gold/Silver by government
(private sector competition in lending is allowed)

4. No Taxes otherwise.

5. No Tariffs otherwise.

[Kalifornia]

in a minarchic society, we must have some means to pay for minimal government. I think that taxes should be levied in the order that they impact personal individual liberty, with preference on those that impact liberty less.

1. Universal Tarriff - People are free to choose to import and export or not, and could likely avoid this tax altogether without too much difficulty. A minimal 1% tax on all goods imported or exported (with a preference on taxing imports) would provide ample resources to fund the necessities of a national federal level government.

2. Land and natural resources tax - Those who have not thought this through may disagree with me. But even Jefferson (google "jefferson usufruct") recognized the utility of requiring payment from those of us who hold access to marketable natural resources (land, water rights, mineral deposits, timber, etc...) as a means of providing a balancing force to counter the natural inherent tendency in a society for some families to acquire and horde these resources, or also to deincentivize individuals from destroying the land. A fair tax levied only on the value of the land itself (say anything over 40 acres) and the natural resources it provides, or on the despoiling of natural resources, not only incentivizes good stewardship, but it also gives incentive for unused land to be returned to the market, increasing access to land by nonlanded people.

To avoid this tax, people simply would not purchase large parcels of land or resource rights.

Consider this a 'use tax' on an excessive share of the one true unavoidable commons that exists in any society (land and natural resources).

3. Corporate Income taxes - So long as corporations enjoy liability limitation as an incentive to pool capital, they ALWAYS will be creating damage to society that they can externalize to others. it is only fair to create a countervailing disincentive that will benefit society at large. Since availing ones self of the corporate business entity is voluntary, I see no intrusion of personal liberty to require corporations to pay income taxes. If one does not wish to pay corporate income tax, he must simply take full responsibility for the liabilities he incurs in the course of his business.

4. Sales Tax - While it would certainly be harder to do than the above examples, a universal, minimally invasive, sales tax on all goods provides a revenue stream, while also allowing people to withhold their support of the government. Say, for example, the government decides to go off on some foreign intervention that is not supported by the people. Well, all they have to do is retreat to their homesteads and avoid engaging in the marketplace for a while. Soon the government will cease receiving funding, and will have to stop their expenditures or soon go bankrupt. this concept applies to the tarrif equally.




Other taxes such as the personal income tax are abominations and too intrusive upon individual liberty to be contemplated.

[Matt Collins]

I live in a rural area, volunteer fire department. I pay a couple bucks extra on my electric bill for the fire department. I could choose not to, but then if they did have to come out I'd get a bill. It's basically insurance.Why not just have everyone who wants fire protection simply pay in a voluntary fee to the fire department? Your insurance rates would be lower which would be an incentive to do so.

[Matt Collins]

I am absolutely against property tax and personal income tax. Inherited assets cannot always be objectively differentiated from personal income tax, so unless a non-privacy-invading way could be found for collecting on inheritance, I'm absolutely against that one as well.
Inheritance and capital gains tax are just as, if not more, insidious than the income and property tax.


The income and inheritance taxes are designed whether on purpse or not to limit upward class mobility. That's right, these two taxes keep the middle class from moving into the wealthy category. If my parents parents had left them a few hundred thousand dollars, and then when my parents pass if they leave me a few hundred thousand plus what they inherited, and then I build my own wealth and then leave that to my kids (assuming I ever get an opportunity to mate ha ha), my kids would probably be millionaires and have an enitrely different world of options available to them throughout life. It's called changing the family tree. The inherentence tax and the capital gains tax stop this process.

The Kennedy and Bush families are prime examples. Their long ago ancestors were not wealthy. Both of which just a couple of generations ago were able to amass wealth and then pass that onto their kids. Look at the opportunities members of both families have had because of it.

[Matt Collins]

If we must be taxed, I think it makes sense to have a universal border tax for both imports and exports. Say a .05% tax on goods imported and exported across the border. It would apply equally to all products from all countries, and would be rather slight, so as to not interefere in any meaningful way with the markets. Also, this border tax would essentially be charging for a service, since the goods are either entering or exiting from the law enforcement jurisdiction of the government levying the tax. As someone paying this fee, I would either be preemptively or retroactively paying for the services of law and order granted to me within the border of the country.Exactly. And securing the borders is one of the jobs of the federal government (common defense) it makes sense to largely fund the federal government through this method. And it also encourages domestic sale / production of goods.

[Mini-Me]

Inheritance and capital gains tax are just as, if not more, insidious than the income and property tax.


The income and inheritance taxes are designed whether on purpse or not to limit upward class mobility. That's right, these two taxes keep the middle class from moving into the wealthy category. If my parents parents had left them a few hundred thousand dollars, and then when my parents pass if they leave me a few hundred thousand plus what they inherited, and then I build my own wealth and then leave that to my kids (assuming I ever get an opportunity to mate ha ha), my kids would probably be millionaires and have an enitrely different world of options available to them throughout life. It's called changing the family tree. The inherentence tax and the capital gains tax stop this process.

The Kennedy and Bush families are prime examples. Their long ago ancestors were not wealthy. Both of which just a couple of generations ago were able to amass wealth and then pass that onto their kids. Look at the opportunities members of both families have had because of it.

This is another good point. I guess when I was thinking of inheritance taxes being less egregious violations compared to some other taxes (assuming they can be differentiated from income and collected without privacy invasions, which they can't), I was thinking more along the lines of the Hilton fortune than middle class inheritance. In any case, you're correct here.

Anyway, I forgot to mention capital gains - that's another one I'm firmly against no matter what.

[Truth Warrior]

What is the ideal method of THEFT for libertarians? That is the corrected question.<IMHO>

ANSWER: The Non Aggression Principle.

[Mini-Me]

As a libertarian, I oppose all forms of taxation. I don't understand how a libertarian can support any taxation.



I love going into all the different ways of answering the question "but how do you pay for things without taxes?", but that's already been done (http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/rutoc.html).

Hey, can you point me to where Ruwart addresses funding high-tech defensive weaponry and such, assuming she does? It's always seemed to me that without some minimal level of taxation to fund the armed forces, we'd be sitting ducks. Sure, militias can prevent ground invasions, but only expensive technology can protect us from airstrikes, high-tech weaponry, etc. I know a lot of people would certainly willingly donate to a voluntary defense fund, but because skimping in this particular department is such an existential threat (unlike pretty much anything else), it's one of very few areas where I feel it's "better to be safe than sorry" and better to violate property rights on a small scale than allow for a potential totalitarian takeover by a hypothetical Nazi Germany type of enemy. That said, I'm open to persuasion on this if the argument is convincing enough.

I can see how user fees would pay for police work and fire departments. Fire departments at the very least could be easily privatized, and police station could feasibly work much as hospitals do now: They'd handle emergencies without hesitation, and then they'd discuss payment and costs afterwards. If people can't afford it, then it should be put on their tab. In any case, this is a complete non-issue at the federal level anyway.

However, there ARE several areas where I feel user fees may not suffice:
One is roads - highways, in particular. On one hand, under a private road system, the businesses along a road would almost certainly be the actual owners of that road, and they'd have financial incentives to maintain the roads themselves and not explicitly charge people for using them (because that would drive away customers). I see this as a very feasible alternative to our current system. On the other hand, I think that highways are an exception here. Unless I'm mistaken, I think they'd be owned by companies that specifically deal in the business of roads, and they'd require payment from travelers. Here's an excerpt from an old post of mine where I discussed some of these problems (I had some misconceptions at the time I wrote the post, but I still stand by this part of it):

Aside from that, though, there's another problem: I also wonder how much more inefficient and congested toll roads would be. After all, if you have to go through a toll booth bottleneck on every single road, your trip time is probably going to at least double as you're getting nickeled and dimed. On the other hand, if roads were paid for on a subscription basis, the only feasible scenario I can think of is one where a camera scans every license plate (which inherently requires people to possess license plates :(), and anyone who passes through without a subscription gets served up with a subpoena and sued for trespassing. Clearly, that's not exactly desirable either, since it raises some obvious privacy concerns. ;) (Note: Obviously, owners of private property have every right to monitor you on their property. However, I can totally see the road companies using their information to collude with law enforcement...in contrast, with tax-funded public highways, a small, limited government could be denied the authority to monitor traffic, since they don't actually need to in order to fund the roads. This is merely an argument of practical consequences, but I think it's worth considering.) You can't just have a pass hanging from your rear-view mirror, because you'd need one for [every such] road you might travel on - and actually, it seems that toll booths are probably inevitable, considering you won't be buying subscriptions for roads you travel infrequently (then again, it would be a moot point if everything in a large area was owned by a single monopoly - but that would completely undermine any practical arguments about competition). As a side note, roadside advertising wouldn't likely cover the costs either (you could litter every road with a hundred advertisements, but then it would look horrendous and they wouldn't fetch a high price anyway, since people are unlikely to notice one out of a hundred).

So, in other words: If we were to privatize [all] roads, I think the overall inefficiency of facilitating payment would be such a time drain and a hassle that its impact on the economy and our lives would be much greater than the impact from public roads paid for by taxes.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm somewhat leery of the idea of private highways.

Another potential issue here is prisons. Now, I certainly see the merits of requiring convicted criminals to either pay for their own costs or be productive in prison, so that they carry their weight and aren't leeching off of society as a whole. However, some very good safeguards must be in place to prevent prison systems (or even just guards or wardens) from making profits off of this. Otherwise, prisons would essentially be profitable sources of slave labor, and that would provide ALL of the wrong incentives to prison wardens, prison owners, and the legal system as a whole. Such a practice would corrupt the legal system by incentivizing the conviction of as many people as possible of as many trivial crimes as possible and sentencing them to prison for disproportionately long amounts of time. Unless such issues can be adequately addressed, prisons must be paid for via tax dollars. That said, I DO support a legal system that's focused on compensation for victims anyway. In other words, after sentencing, the victims of convicted criminals should be able to bargain with those criminals for suitable victim compensation if they so choose, in return for the convict not having to be incarcerated in the first place.

Anyway, the final area I can think of where I feel user fees may not suffice is in the court system. Yes, plaintiffs in civil suits can pay the court up front, and the loser of the case can be ultimately made to pay all costs (or owe the money). However, there are two scenarios that I consider user fees insufficient to handle:
If a person with no family or friends is murdered, who is going to take up that person's case and press charges, if not a designated state prosecutor paid via taxes? Now, it's quite possible that charitable private organizations could fund such prosecution, but hypothetically speaking, what do you think should happen if they can't?
If a poor person with no family or friends is charged with a crime, how is that person to pay for his or her defense, if not with a public defender paid via taxes? It's similarly quite possible that charitable private organizations could fund such defense attorneys, but hypothetically speaking, what do you think should happen if they can't?
You said above that you don't understand how a libertarian can support any taxation whatsoever. I'll explain my reasoning, based on the above example dealing with poor victims and defendants: Now, everyone has rights and the obligation to respect other people's rights. I understand that from a rights-based perspective, nobody truly has the obligation to protect other people's rights. Every person is technically well within their rights to just say, "It's not my problem." However, if we permit the rights of the most helpless people to be infringed without recourse, what does that say about our values and how important we really consider the practical exercise of our natural rights? Scenarios like these are why I support minimal taxation which should only be used by government to protect people's rights to life, liberty, and property (though I'm contradicting myself in the case of public highways, which protect none of those). I do see the inherent contradiction in legitimizing even small violations of property rights through low taxation levels (say, tariffs or sales tax for instance). Still, I feel that maximizing the degree to which everyone's rights are respected and protected as a whole takes precedence over simply not wanting to legitimize any violation of property rights.

[johnrocks]

I personally would love all this to be tied in as for Federal taxes ar concerned. Abolish the 16th AND 17th Amendment and each state pay their apportioned share of taxes to the Federal government. You would then see the most statist individuals turn into tight wads:p

[slothman]

Another potential issue here is prisons. Now, I
certainly see the merits of requiring convicted
criminals to either pay for their own costs or be
productive in prison, so that they carry their weight
and aren't leeching off of society as a
whole.

In other words, after sentencing, the victims
of convicted criminals
should be able to bargain with those criminals
for suitable victim compensation if they so choose, in
return for the convict not having to be incarcerated
in the first place.

I am against forced work in prisons.
It sounds like slavery.

For the second quote what if Bill gates kills someone.
Does he have to pay 10 billion dollars to the family of
the victim?
Spending a few thousand like a poor person like me would
mean he could kill galore and not lose much money, relatively.




The income and inheritance taxes are designed whether on purpse or not to limit upward class mobility. That's right, these
two taxes keep the middle class from moving into the wealthy category. If my parents parents had left them a few hundred
thousand dollars, and then when my parents pass if they leave me a few hundred thousand plus what they inherited, and then I
build my own wealth and then leave that to my kids (assuming I ever get an opportunity to mate ha ha), my kids would
probably be millionaires and have an enitrely different world of options available to them throughout life. It's called changing
the family tree.

I am for inheritence taxs but for a much larger number.
Maybe 1 million or 5 million or whatever.
200K isn't much now-a-days.

[nickcoons]

Hey, can you point me to where Ruwart addresses funding high-tech defensive weaponry and such, assuming she does?

In Chapter 20, she goes into some detail on this. Aside from describing the practical methods of implementing such a system, there's also a bit to describe why the threat would be significantly lowered:


More importantly, non-aggression provides us with the best deterrent of all, because it stops most would-be Husseins and Hitlers from ever coming to power.

Historically, we have felt that national defense is too important to put in the hands of ordinary, everyday people. However, if we are willing to force others- at gunpoint, if necessary - to provide time and money toward defense, don't we become the invaders? We are trying to protect our lives, liberty, and property from those who would choose differently for us. If in the process of defending ourselves, we turn on our neighbors and make their lives, liberty, and property forfeit, haven't we become what we most fear?


I can see how user fees would pay for police work and fire departments. Fire departments at the very least could be easily privatized, and police station could feasibly work much as hospitals do now: They'd handle emergencies without hesitation, and then they'd discuss payment and costs afterwards. If people can't afford it, then it should be put on their tab. In any case, this is a complete non-issue at the federal level anyway.

In the case of police, courts, and prisons, Dr. Ruwart introduces the idea of work prisons in Chapter 13. Criminals are responsible for not only restitution to the victim, but police and court costs as well as the cost of their own imprisonment. These costs are paid either from the criminal's personal savings (making crime very expensive, much more than what they would have gained had they not been caught) or through productive labor while in prison, such that their prison sentence is complete when their debt is paid, not in an arbitrary amount of time. It also incentivizes police to find the right person (wasting resources on the wrong person won't lead to a conviction and therefore police would not gain by trying to convict anyone and everyone).

This also addresses your question about how a person with no family is murdered will have the case handled. And to protect the misdeeds of wardens and prison guards, criminals can have the choice where they will serve out their sentence. Some prisons may offer better amenities but will cost more, meaning that the criminal will spend more time there working off the debt.


On the other hand, I think that highways are an exception here. Unless I'm mistaken, I think they'd be owned by companies that specifically deal in the business of roads, and they'd require payment from travelers.

I would think that most highways would be owned by transportation companies (like UPS, FedEx, and a multitude of others) for the purpose of delivering the packages that their clients ship.


Aside from that, though, there's another problem: I also wonder how much more inefficient and congested toll roads would be. After all, if you have to go through a toll booth bottleneck on every single road, your trip time is probably going to at least double as you're getting nickeled and dimed.

I wouldn't be concerned about the "nickel and dimed" aspect, as the overall cost would be less than what we're paying now. But congestion with a completely toll-based system could be an issue, if you assume that we traditional toll-booths where the drivers has to stop to make payment. I think your comment about scanning license plates for a subscription-based system could be implemented for one-time use as well. But I would modify it a little.

Instead of having a license plate, your car could contain a token of some sort that would tie in with a credit card or clearinghouse of some sort, such that when you drove by it would automatically record that. The clearinghouse, someone like Visa or Mastercard, could tie your payment method (i.e. bank account, etc) in with the provider, similar to the way you can make a payment at the point-of-sale with a credit card issued from your bank even though your bank and the merchant have never met. If you weren't subscription-based, then you may be billed a fee for entry on to the road. Someone without the token might be stopped by a hired patrolman the same way I might hire a security guard to protect my business from trespassers.


Obviously, owners of private property have every right to monitor you on their property. However, I can totally see the road companies using their information to collude with law enforcement...in contrast, with tax-funded public highways, a small, limited government could be denied the authority to monitor traffic, since they don't actually need to in order to fund the roads.

Most of the arguments in this message are derived from Dr. Ruwart's work, but some of the ideas in here I've literally come up with as I write this message (like the electronic token). Given that I haven't put a lot of thought into this particular piece of the process, there are certainly flaws in it, such as the privacy issues that you mention. I wouldn't be concerned with private property owners colluding with law enforcement though. If we're taking this in the context of a free society (and it would most likely be, as roads would probably be one of the very last things to be privatized if we were moving towards libertarianism), then law enforcement would enforce the laws of a free society. That is, protecting individuals from the initiation of force and fraud by other individuals. If we have private roads in the context of today's society, then I would be very concerned about collusion with law enforcement because of the multitude of unjust laws that they work to enforce.


As a side note, roadside advertising wouldn't likely cover the costs either (you could litter every road with a hundred advertisements, but then it would look horrendous and they wouldn't fetch a high price anyway, since people are unlikely to notice one out of a hundred).

I'll start by saying that I have no idea what it costs to build and maintain a road, so any discussion on my part as to whether a given method would sufficiently fund a road is purely academic.

Road owners, if they chose to go the advertising route, would need to balance the advertisement such that their advertising customers gain the maximum ROI if they planned on sustaining those relationships. It's the same reason that a newspaper or magazine isn't filled to the max with ads.

Additionally, if the road owners were transportation companies, then they don't need to charge travelers (or advertisers, depending on their business model) the full amount to build and maintain the roads, because the companies themselves derive benefit from the roads, which would be the purpose of investing in the road being built to begin with. They would only need to charge an amount equal to what the wear and tear of the additional use would cause plus whatever profit they deemed necessary. So it's not true to say that the driver or advertiser (or all drivers and advertisers combined) need to bear the full costs of the road.


Such a practice would corrupt the legal system by incentivizing the conviction of as many people as possible of as many trivial crimes as possible and sentencing them to prison for disproportionately long amounts of time.

This is assuming that we switch to a private-prison system in our current society.


If a poor person with no family or friends is charged with a crime, how is that person to pay for his or her defense, if not with a public defender paid via taxes? It's similarly quite possible that charitable private organizations could fund such defense attorneys, but hypothetically speaking, what do you think should happen if they can't?

If someone can't provide their own defense, and no one will provide it for them, then no one should be forced to provide for them. If you make an argument that defense is a necessity, a right, that an individual's life or property can be sacrificed for the benefit of someone else, then the logical conclusion of that is socialism; because you can make all the same arguments for why the state should take care of education, health care, food, housing, etc.


You said above that you don't understand how a libertarian can support any taxation whatsoever. I'll explain my reasoning, based on the above example dealing with poor victims and defendants: Now, everyone has rights and the obligation to respect other people's rights. I understand that from a rights-based perspective, nobody truly has the obligation to protect other people's rights. Every person is technically well within their rights to just say, "It's not my problem."

Agreed.


However, if we permit the rights of the most helpless people to be infringed without recourse, what does that say about our values and how important we really consider the practical exercise of our natural rights?

How are we permitting this?

Anyone who has had their rights violated can prosecute. Since all of the costs are paid for by the convicted criminal, the financial status of the victim is irrelevant. A prosecutor, paid by the convicted criminal, wouldn't take part in a case if he didn't feel a reasonable chance of victory. Defendants are also protected by frivolous claims with a "loser pays" system.

No matter what system we use (taxpayer funded or otherwise), the only perfect one is the one that has access to perfect knowledge. If someone rapes someone else in a dark alley and is able to do so while leaving zero evidence and no witnesses to the point where the criminal cannot possibly be identified, then it doesn't matter what system we have in place. The free market system itself would not be to blame for the inability to protect either the prosecution/plaintiff or the defendant.


Still, I feel that maximizing the degree to which everyone's rights are respected and protected as a whole takes precedence over simply not wanting to legitimize any violation of property rights.

I feel that maximizing the degree to which everyone's right are respected and protected as a whole and not legitimizing any violation of property rights are interdependent. You cannot violate people's rights to ensure that their rights are not violated.

[TheEvilDetector]

...

However, there ARE several areas where I feel user fees may not suffice:
One is roads - highways, in particular. On one hand, under a private road system, the businesses along a road would almost certainly be the actual owners of that road, and they'd have financial incentives to maintain the roads themselves and not explicitly charge people for using them (because that would drive away customers). I see this as a very feasible alternative to our current system. On the other hand, I think that highways are an exception here. Unless I'm mistaken, I think they'd be owned by companies that specifically deal in the business of roads, and they'd require payment from travelers. Here's an excerpt from an old post of mine where I discussed some of these problems (I had some misconceptions at the time I wrote the post, but I still stand by this part of it):


Anonymous (Not assigned to licence plates or users) Prepaid Tags, installed inside vehicles, scanned at toll points operated by road owners.
Scanning is done automatically when the car comes close to the toll point, the car does not need to slow down.
If a car passes a toll point without paying, big red light comes on as the car exits, photograph of the car is taken with the light in the shot automatically
and if any patrol car is on duty monitoring the toll point, it will pull the car over and issue a ticket, the officer issuing the ticket, will be able to download via wireless,
the photo from the toll point digital storage and present the photo along with ticket.

Tag Rechargeable via web site or at counter where available.



Another potential issue here is prisons. Now, I certainly see the merits of requiring convicted criminals to either pay for their own costs or be productive in prison, so that they carry their weight and aren't leeching off of society as a whole. However, some very good safeguards must be in place to prevent prison systems (or even just guards or wardens) from making profits off of this. Otherwise, prisons would essentially be profitable sources of slave labor, and that would provide ALL of the wrong incentives to prison wardens, prison owners, and the legal system as a whole. Such a practice would corrupt the legal system by incentivizing the conviction of as many people as possible of as many trivial crimes as possible and sentencing them to prison for disproportionately long amounts of time. Unless such issues can be adequately addressed, prisons must be paid for via tax dollars.


Prisoner given a choice to work off the debt while in prison or be saddled with a debt at the end of the term.
Prisoner assets/estate seized depending on levels of estimated/outstanding debt (chance of certain assets being returned depending on how much debt is payed off).



However, there are two scenarios that I consider user fees insufficient to handle:
[LIST=1] If a person with no family or friends is murdered, who is going to take up that person's case and press charges, if not a designated state prosecutor paid via taxes?


Under normal circumstances, loser pays, otherwise, general court fees.

On the government website with government fees, courts would be an entry like anything else.

ie.
Police
Firefighters
Defence
Courts
Prisons
etc.

Choices of:
a) Payable per use

or

b) annually

are offered either together or separated within practical constraints (ie. what makes sense).



If a poor person with no family or friends is charged with a crime, how is that person to pay for his or her defense, if not with a public defender paid via taxes?


See above.

[Matt Collins]

I am for inheritence taxs but for a much larger number.
Maybe 1 million or 5 million or whatever. 200K isn't much now-a-days.But that money has already been taxed via income.

And taking the money from one group of people and not another (in other words punishing people for receiving a bigger insentience than their neighbor) is not only unfair but it's not equal under the law.

[nate895]

A small, universal, tariff of 2% I think is good, after we can successfully shrink the government, and we can attempt to lower it from there.

US Imports of goods and services, 2007, DEA: –2,336,873,000,000

A tariff of 2% universally should yield around: $467,374,600,000

A 250,000 men army being payed, on average, at $40,000/year would cost: $10,000,000,000

Incorporating an annual equipment budget, as well as research and development budget, the cost of the US Army shouldn't cost more than $50,000,000,000

The annual budget of the US Navy, if we maintain a Navy with 10 Aircraft Carrier Task Forces (one Supercarrier, its air wing, 2 missile cruisers, 3 missile destroyers, and two attack subs), and a submarine fleet with 40 attack subs, and 10 missile boats, with, let's assume, ~350,000 men getting payed the same as the Army, the Navy should cost around $100,000,000,000

The Air Force shouldn't cost more than $25,000,000,000

The Marine Corps shouldn't cost more than $25,000,000,000 as well

The other functions that would cost money for the Federal Government would be immigration policy enforcement, and the enforcement of the tariff and inspection of foreign goods shouldn't cost more than $25,000,000,000

The governments total net income, in today's dollars, would be $242,374,600,000. I'd like to see that money saved until we reach 2 Trillion in today's money in reserves to pay for any emergency war spending, without increasing the tax burden for at least several years. As soon as we reached that amount in reserves, we could reduce the tariff to around .8%.

That is enough to maintain a decent size Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, and to carry on with the other Constitutional functions of the United States Government.

[SevenEyedJeff]

Tariffs.

[nickcoons]

US Imports of goods and services, 2007, DEA: –2,336,873,000,000

A tariff of 2% universally should yield around: $467,374,600,000

Just to make sure I'm reading you right, is your entire post based on the claim that 2% of $2,336,873,000,000 is $467,374,600,000? If so, you're off a decimal.. it's actually $46,737,460,000.

[nickcoons]

I find it odd that there are all sorts of "libertarians" (and I put it in quotes for a reason) answering this question with different methods of how we can legitimize stealing from people and trying to justify it.


What is the ideal method of THEFT for libertarians? That is the corrected question.

Yes, that absolutely is the correct way to look at the question. The correct answer should be easier to derive from that.

[nate895]

Just to make sure I'm reading you right, is your entire post based on the claim that 2% of $2,336,873,000,000 is $467,374,600,000? If so, you're off a decimal.. it's actually $46,737,460,000.

I thought that sounded weird when I typed it into the calculator, but I must have typed in the last number wrong because I double checked it several times. I'll find another way tomorrow.

[hypnagogue]

There's only one way you can support voluntary taxation, which is an oxymoron you'll note. You have to also support the removal of a military, a police force, a judicial system, along with various infrastructures. If you're consistent about all that, then at least you're only a fool one way instead of two.

[Kludge]

See, I'm no globalist, nor a pacifist, nor for open borders...

So... Here's what I'd like to see (all other forms of taxation should be considered null if not listed -- "just" fees remain).

1) Weak universal tariffs, something along the lines of 2-3%

2) Permanent taxation on immigrants -- 20% income tax for the first year, 15% the next year, 10% the next, 5% every year after. Effect carries until death or emigration -- doesn't apply to offspring.

3) Creeping inflation -- pegged to % population growth via Constitutional amendment (preferably) or federal law. Mint is allowed to print money and deposit it right into the U.S. Treasury immediately after the Census. (so... 4% population growth = 4% expansion in monetary supply.)

4) Allow criminals convicted of any non-violent crime to pay 200% reparations to their victim (if still alive) and then an additional 250% to the U.S. Treasury. Only allow this option once per person, and allow the judge to choose whether or not to allow it (if multiple crimes committed, the judge will decide which charge [if any] to offer the option up].

5) Prisons -> Hardcore for-profit labor camps.

[torchbearer]

User taxes.

[hypnagogue]

See, I'm no globalist, nor a pacifist, nor for open borders...

So... Here's what I'd like to see (all other forms of taxation should be considered null if not listed -- "just" fees remain).

1) Weak universal tariffs, something along the lines of 2-3%

2) Permanent taxation on immigrants -- 20% income tax for the first year, 15% the next year, 10% the next, 5% every year after. Effect carries until death or emigration -- doesn't apply to offspring.

3) Creeping inflation -- pegged to % population growth via Constitutional amendment (preferably) or federal law. Mint is allowed to print money and deposit it right into the U.S. Treasury immediately after the Census. (so... 4% population growth = 4% expansion in monetary supply.)

4) Allow criminals convicted of any non-violent crime to pay 200% reparations to their victim (if still alive) and then an additional 250% to the U.S. Treasury. Only allow this option once per person, and allow the judge to choose whether or not to allow it (if multiple crimes committed, the judge will decide which charge [if any] to offer the option up].

5) Prisons -> Hardcore for-profit labor camps. Oh lord, Kludge. What a list you've made. I'll start from the top.

1) No particular objection. Tariffs must remain minimal to keep US industry internationally competitive.

2) Horrifying! Remember this?

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
What you're saying to immigrants is, "Don't come here. We don't want you. If you have to come we'll punish you for the rest of your life." Is that really how you feel? Wouldn't that further interfere with the Constitution's promise of equal representation under the law? A citizen must be a citizen in all respects, regardless of what he or she was before.

3) You're thinking right, but you've got the money supply pegged to the wrong metric. The amount of value represented in the money supply must equal the amount of value existing in the total economy. In other words, money supply should ideally fluctuate with GDP. Perhaps even removing currency when the economy in total loses value.

This is all assuming you trust the federal government with the valuation of money after this whole Federal Reserve fiasco. There may be a theoretical optimum you can shoot for, but nothing's as safe as a commodity based currency.

4) Gotta disagree here again. Justice must be equal for all. This system would punish the poor more severely than the rich, and that of course is totally unacceptable. A court must assign fines or sentences based upon the merits of the crime, and not by which is more convenient for the convicted.

5) I'll only object to the word hardcore. It's hard to say exactly what you mean by that, but it's extremely important that the incarcerated retain their dignity. To do otherwise would be unethical. I'll ask what you mean by for-profit as well? I'm assuming you mean the proceeds would go to the US Treasury, but it's better if you just confirmed one way or the other.

[Kludge]

Oh lord, Kludge. What a list you've made.

:D


2) Horrifying! Remember this?
What you're saying to immigrants is, "Don't come here. We don't want you. If you have to come we'll punish you for the rest of your life." Is that really how you feel? Wouldn't that further interfere with the Constitution's promise of equal representation under the law? A citizen must be a citizen in all respects, regardless of what he or she was before.

Well, I'd totally eliminate the immigration quota at least. Our citizens pay something like 40-50% in open taxation I believe. 5-20% is far more economic freedom than we'll ever see, isn't upfront (so there isn't as much worry about evasion because they're unable to pay), and would deter a total flood.

As for the Constitution, I simply don't believe in using it as a guide for principles, personally.

Immigrating is a choice, it's truly voluntary taxation.


3) You're thinking right, but you've got the money supply pegged to the wrong metric. The amount of value represented in the money supply must equal the amount of value existing in the total economy. In other words, money supply should ideally fluctuate with GDP. Perhaps even removing currency when the economy in total loses value.

You are correct, I wasn't entirely thoughtful.


4) Gotta disagree here again. Justice must be equal for all. This system would punish the poor more severely than the rich, and that of course is totally unacceptable. A court must assign fines or sentences based upon the merits of the crime, and not by which is more convenient for the convicted.

Hardly a more "severe" punishment. If the courts are doing their job, the monetary punishment would be over 4x worse. I believe a person's time has a value based on their human capital. If Citizen Rich is providing more for society by producing than Citizen Poor, then I see no reason why he shouldn't be given the option to return to society and continue to produce while also providing society and the victim a more-than-acceptable return on value.


5) I'll only object to the word hardcore. It's hard to say exactly what you mean by that, but it's extremely important that the incarcerated retain their dignity. To do otherwise would be unethical. I'll ask what you mean by for-profit as well? I'm assuming you mean the proceeds would go to the US Treasury, but it's better if you just confirmed one way or the other.

Run by the government, profits to the treasury. I'm unsure exactly what I mean(t) by "hardcore", but it would surely be miserable. They'd have clothes, food, water, and perhaps a noose for themselves in their room.

[hypnagogue]

Hardly a more "severe" punishment. If the courts are doing their job, the monetary punishment would be over 4x worse. I believe a person's time has a value based on their human capital. If Citizen Rich is providing more for society by producing than Citizen Poor, then I see no reason why he shouldn't be given the option to return to society and continue to produce while also providing society and the victim a more-than-acceptable return on value. If a person chose the monetary out, then it obviously was less of a punishment for them. Why else would they have chosen it?

So you don't want to use the Constitution as a moral compass. That's fine. I have my disagreements with it as well. The particular reference I was making was to it's promise of equal representation under the law. I'd like to see you try and argue against that with it's implications for the Rule of Law.

Still, I can't understand your stance on immigration. You say you don't want a flood. So limit the number of entrants and let them in at a reasonable pace. There's no reason to try and tax them away.


...it would surely be miserable. They'd have clothes, food, water, and perhaps a noose for themselves in their room.
You're sick. Prison should be hard, not torturous. Hard work is good for the soul. Misery only breaks people. People should come out of prison as better people than they went in. If not, what's the point?

[Kludge]

If a person chose the monetary out, then it obviously was less of a punishment for them. Why else would they have chosen it?

It all comes down to how valuable the person is in terms of human capital. If the person can afford it, they have made wise financial decisions in terms of investing in themselves and others. If not, the next best thing for society is to punish the person by placing them in labor camps in hopes that it will deter them from committing aggression in the future.


Still, I can't understand your stance on immigration. You say you don't want a flood. So limit the number of entrants and let them in at a reasonable pace. There's no reason to try and tax them away.

There is no reason to force them out. We ought to ensure it's all as voluntary as possible. The plan I gave is beneficial to society as a whole while also allowing as many immigrants who agree to the relatively low taxes to immigrate as possible.

It's not so much that I believe immigrants deserve more taxation as others, but a coupling of indifference toward the well-being of others and a care (do not mistake, out of my own self-interest) for the maintenance of the legal system.


You're sick. Prison should be hard, not torturous. Hard work is good for the soul. Misery only breaks people. People should come out of prison as better people than they went in. If not, what's the point?

Prison is not to rehabilitate, it is truly to punish and perhaps torture for the person's gross negligence of respect and is there to deter disrespectful and (hopefully not "or") unlawful actions. It should also serve to repay the person's debt to society.

When a person commits a crime terrible enough to demand imprisonment, it shouldn't be some symbol of loyalty to your group or something you'll forget -- it should break the person and, since apparently necessary, rule them through fear.

Of course, if a life sentence and no hope of parole, I don't doubt the person would use the supplied noose. (Do keep in mind that if I had power -- something no one should wish for -- I'd also legalize all acts which don't fall under "aggression" and self-defense)

(Perhaps I've watched too many Rand Youtube videos tonight. Blood sugar is probably low from not eating since this morning too....)

[hypnagogue]

Oi, Kludge....

I'll just leave it at that.

[Kludge]

Oi, Kludge....

I'll just leave it at that.

:D :p

For the record, I'm marking it as a win.

[Conza88]

I go the logical conclusion minarchists fail to. Government doesn't do anything right, and that includes remaining negative in its protection of what it should be doing.

Thus the correct level of taxation; none. The method; none.

Anarcho-Capitalism... :)

[Brassmouth]

i go the logical conclusion minarchists fail to. Government doesn't do anything write, and that includes remaining negative in its protection of what it should be doing.

Thus the correct level of taxation; none. The method; none.

Anarcho-capitalism... :)

qft!

[Kludge]

Government doesn't do anything write

Preserved for Kade.

[Conza88]

Preserved for Kade.

Haha, I saw the "qft" response & re-read it, and was like 'oopsie'..


http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/funny-pictures-cat-dictionary-cheezburger.jpg

[intelliot]

How about paying a tax in order to vote in elections?

[Mini-Me]

I am against forced work in prisons.
It sounds like slavery.
And therein lies my concern as well. I suppose a better alternative to both slavery and leeching off the taxpayers would be to incarcerate criminals, give them the bill for their living expenses, and give them an opportunity to do something productive while in prison to help pay that bill (as long as it's not profitable for wardens/guards/prison shareholders, etc., once again...we want nobody to have incentives to enslave people).



For the second quote what if Bill gates kills someone.
Does he have to pay 10 billion dollars to the family of
the victim?
Spending a few thousand like a poor person like me would
mean he could kill galore and not lose much money, relatively.

The main idea behind this is that the legal system should be focused as much as possible on compensation for victims, rather than punishment for crimes against "the state" or "society." It's not my original idea or anything...I got it from Rothbard (http://mises.org/rothbard/newliberty.asp#preface). I feel like criminals should first be tried by juries and then sentenced if convicted...but then afterwards, the victim should be able to decide whether to do any of the following:
Forgive them and turn the other cheek, in which case the criminal goes free.
Do nothing, and the criminal will serve their sentence
Bargain with the criminal for some kind of compensation. This is really up to the victim and the criminal: It's basically like, "Well - what's it worth to you not to have to go to prison for what you did to me?" For Bill Gates, I'm sure this sum would be substantial. For Joe Crackpipe, not so much...but in any case, the idea is to give victims the power to at least negotiate for compensation. Obviously murder is something that can't be compensated for in money alone, but at least it's something...and other crimes like theft are well-suited to victim compensation. Zacchaeus made up for his crimes this way. ;)

[Conza88]

How about paying a tax in order to vote in elections?

The way my country does it is... force people to vote (compulsory voting), and then tax the votes. For every "1" someone gets (preferential voting we have :D) that is then taxed, and given to the party that got that vote. They need to get over 5% of the vote naturally... keep out 3rd parties... :eek:

Both main parties got 18-20mil each last election here.

[Mini-Me]

Thanks for the post. :) I'll chop out everything I agree with entirely and leave the points I still have questions/concerns about:

In Chapter 20, she goes into some detail on this. Aside from describing the practical methods of implementing such a system, there's also a bit to describe why the threat would be significantly lowered:


(You then printed the quote by Dr. Ruwart).
I'll have to read Chapter 20, since the specific quote you gave didn't really address my primary concern with non-coercive methods of coming up with the defense budget: Funding high-tech defensive technology against the high-tech offensive weaponry of other nation-states.



In the case of police, courts, and prisons, Dr. Ruwart introduces the idea of work prisons in Chapter 13. Criminals are responsible for not only restitution to the victim, but police and court costs as well as the cost of their own imprisonment. These costs are paid either from the criminal's personal savings (making crime very expensive, much more than what they would have gained had they not been caught) or through productive labor while in prison, such that their prison sentence is complete when their debt is paid, not in an arbitrary amount of time. It also incentivizes police to find the right person (wasting resources on the wrong person won't lead to a conviction and therefore police would not gain by trying to convict anyone and everyone).

I have to disagree with your claim that this incentivizes police to find the right person: Rather, because their source of payment relies directly on a conviction (any conviction), it seems logical that police would be incentivized to pin the crime on whoever they can and even plant evidence. This would be especially common in cases when there's no "real" suspect in sight but when there's someone who some circumstantial evidence points to.

I see another potential problem with this as well, though I also see a potential solution. Most ordinary criminals are poor, meaning they won't necessarily have the immediate means to pay the police, the courts, the prosecutor, their defense attorney (assuming they have one...), and the prison. In the meantime, where does the money come from to pay for all of this? Lawyers and court systems might get away with subsisting on their current funds, but police officers (or rather peace officers, as they would hopefully be called again) need to pay the bills and feed their families, and they can't just wait months or years for a criminal to start paying off his debt. Who would front the money in this situation? I imagine the solution is that the court system would take out a loan to fund all these costs and then repay the bank with the criminal's money later. Is this correct?
...then again, a problem I see with this solution is that if the defendant is acquitted, the court is left holding the bag.



This also addresses your question about how a person with no family is murdered will have the case handled. And to protect the misdeeds of wardens and prison guards, criminals can have the choice where they will serve out their sentence. Some prisons may offer better amenities but will cost more, meaning that the criminal will spend more time there working off the debt.


This does help to address my question about the lonely person being murdered, but it doesn't go all the way. When the victim is still alive or has surviving family members, would they ordinarily front money for the initial investigation and/or front money to the prosecutor? If so, the lonely person who is murdered would have little chance of being vindicated, since no one will have aggressively investigated the case to provide the prosecutor information (the investigators would rather take cases where they can be paid up front), and the prosecutor would not want to spend time working on a case with no evidence and no money up front.



Most of the arguments in this message are derived from Dr. Ruwart's work, but some of the ideas in here I've literally come up with as I write this message (like the electronic token). Given that I haven't put a lot of thought into this particular piece of the process, there are certainly flaws in it, such as the privacy issues that you mention. I wouldn't be concerned with private property owners colluding with law enforcement though. If we're taking this in the context of a free society (and it would most likely be, as roads would probably be one of the very last things to be privatized if we were moving towards libertarianism), then law enforcement would enforce the laws of a free society. That is, protecting individuals from the initiation of force and fraud by other individuals. If we have private roads in the context of today's society, then I would be very concerned about collusion with law enforcement because of the multitude of unjust laws that they work to enforce.

I think I like TheEvilDetector's idea of anonymous prepaid tokens a bit better. ;) Still, point taken.



If someone can't provide their own defense, and no one will provide it for them, then no one should be forced to provide for them. If you make an argument that defense is a necessity, a right, that an individual's life or property can be sacrificed for the benefit of someone else, then the logical conclusion of that is socialism; because you can make all the same arguments for why the state should take care of education, health care, food, housing, etc.


I still struggle with the idea of whether force should be used via taxation to otherwise protect the rights of individuals...after all, I'd hate to see an innocent person convicted of a crime and forced to serve a sentence (a violation of their rights and therefore aggression, because they're innocent) simply because they didn't have money for representation and the prosecutor was "just that good." It can happen in any legal system of course, but if you don't have representation, you're pretty much screwed unless you're really damn smart yourself. As I mentioned, I recognize that from a purely principled rights-based perspective, nobody has the responsibility to protect the rights of others (just to respect them). Still, I've yet to be convinced that taking this stand in practice won't ultimately result in more rights being infringed than "legitimizing" small levels of taxation.

I do see a potential solution here, though it has a problem: As I mentioned before, there are time-sensitive problems with the "deferred payment by the criminal" solution to legal system user fees. If the solution to those problems is that the court system takes out a loan to front the money - which is later paid back by the convicted criminal (although acquittal of the defendant raises another problem) - then this same loan could be used to pay for a defense attorney up front.

In any case, taxation for the purpose of protecting rights is a very different argument from protectionist and socialist arguments, because they argue that taxation should be used for , which has nothing to do with the primary (and sole) purpose of government, protecting the rights of individuals.



How are we permitting this?
My first paragraph in the above block summarizes my feelings on this best, I think.



Anyone who has had their rights violated can prosecute. Since all of the costs are paid for by the convicted criminal, the financial status of the victim is irrelevant. A prosecutor, paid by the convicted criminal, wouldn't take part in a case if he didn't feel a reasonable chance of victory. Defendants are also protected by frivolous claims with a "loser pays" system.


When the defendant is indeed guilty, everyone will be paid by the now-convicted criminal...but as I mentioned above, that raises time-sensitive concerns. When the defendant is acquitted, who pays? The victim? This may be suitable in certain cases, such as rape, where the question centers around whether a crime actually occurred at all. However, it doesn't apply to other cases where the victim was assuredly victimized, and if nobody is ever convicted, the police, courts, prosecutor, etc. all just did a whole lot of work on behalf of the victim but without any compensation. (This is no problem of course in civil cases.)



No matter what system we use (taxpayer funded or otherwise), the only perfect one is the one that has access to perfect knowledge. If someone rapes someone else in a dark alley and is able to do so while leaving zero evidence and no witnesses to the point where the criminal cannot possibly be identified, then it doesn't matter what system we have in place. The free market system itself would not be to blame for the inability to protect either the prosecution/plaintiff or the defendant.


Unless there's a way of a loan fronting money or something similar (which brings its own problems), this system actually could be blamed for inability to protect an innocent [but poor] defendant from a slick prosecutor and a team of police with planted evidence. Similarly, depending on certain circumstances (whether prosecutors/police/investigators/etc. are ordinarily fronted money by victims to ensure the case is handled), it could possibly also be blamed for an inability to protect a poor victim, as well.



I feel that maximizing the degree to which everyone's right are respected and protected as a whole [i]and not legitimizing any violation of property rights are interdependent. You cannot violate people's rights to ensure that their rights are not violated.

I'm not entirely sure I agree, for the reason I mentioned above:

Still, I've yet to be convinced that taking this stand in practice won't ultimately result in more rights being infringed than "legitimizing" small levels of taxation.
I'll give a very simple but extreme example to illustrate my point:
If we do not allow the use of any coercive force whatsoever, we must also openly permit private individuals to possess weapons of immense destructive power, such as nuclear weapons. The problem here is obvious: If some old crackpot is going out of his way to obtain a nuclear weapon and spend his life savings on it (to say the least), the odds are high that he's crazy enough to use it. There will always be a few random suicidal people who just want to take out as many other people with them as possible (e.g. Columbine). This is a matter of drawing subjective lines on a continuum based on value judgments, but the unacceptable risk of some crazy guy being an existential threat to an entire city is obviously very different in degree (if not in principle) to the acceptable risk of some crazy guy killing his family with a kitchen knife or ordinary firearm, which is offset by all the legitimate uses of kitchen knives and firearms.

If we allow people to possess nuclear weapons without taking any preemptive action, that may be respecting one crazy bastard's rights to liberty and property to an unjustifiable extreme. After all, if he sets it off and kills a million people in an instant (depriving them of their right to life), could you seriously say that the practical exercise of people's rights benefited over depriving him of his "right" to possess a nuclear weapon?

I'm not going to shy away from the fact that this is a slippery slope, since the only easily-articulated thing that separates nuclear weapons from kitchen knives is a matter of subjective scale, not principle. Still, I think it's food for thought, and it might make you question whether it's such a terrible idea to legitimize minor infringement of rights to ensure the greater overall protection of rights.

[Mini-Me]

Anonymous (Not assigned to licence plates or users) Prepaid Tags, installed inside vehicles, scanned at toll points operated by road owners.
Scanning is done automatically when the car comes close to the toll point, the car does not need to slow down.
If a car passes a toll point without paying, big red light comes on as the car exits, photograph of the car is taken with the light in the shot automatically
and if any patrol car is on duty monitoring the toll point, it will pull the car over and issue a ticket, the officer issuing the ticket, will be able to download via wireless,
the photo from the toll point digital storage and present the photo along with ticket.

Tag Rechargeable via web site or at counter where available.


This is workable. :)



Prisoner given a choice to work off the debt while in prison or be saddled with a debt at the end of the term.
Prisoner assets/estate seized depending on levels of estimated/outstanding debt (chance of certain assets being returned depending on how much debt is payed off).


Similarly workable.



Under normal circumstances, loser pays, otherwise, general court fees.

On the government website with government fees, courts would be an entry like anything else.

ie.
Police
Firefighters
Defence
Courts
Prisons
etc.

Choices of:
a) Payable per use

or

b) annually

are offered either together or separated within practical constraints (ie. what makes sense).



See above.

There are still some potential problems, though. I won't reiterate here, but I listed my concerns in my reply above to NickCoons.

[Truth Warrior]

Taxes

An involuntary fee levied on corporations or individuals that is enforced by a level of government in order to finance government activities.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/taxes

Main Entry: theft
Function: noun
Etymology: Old English thiefth
: LARCENY (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/larceny); broadly : a criminal taking of the property or services of another without consent
NOTE: Theft commonly encompasses by statute a variety of forms of stealing formerly treated as distinct crimes.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theft

extortion
noun1. an exorbitant charge 2. unjust exaction (as by the misuse of authority); "the extortion by dishonest officials of fees for performing their sworn duty" 3. the felonious act of extorting money (as by threats of violence)

Extortion
Ex*tor"tion\, n. [F. extorsion.]

1. The act of extorting; the act or practice of wresting anything from a person by force, by threats, or by any undue exercise of power; undue exaction; overcharge.

2. (Law) The offense committed by an officer who corruptly claims and takes, as his fee, money, or other thing of value, that is not due, or more than is due, or before it is due. --Abbott.

3. That which is extorted or exacted by force.

Syn: Oppression; rapacity; exaction; overcharge.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/extortion

"It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly American criminal class except Congress" -- Mark Twain, 1894

[FindLiberty]

Libertarians should get paid for "turning in" tyrants and bureaucrats, by the pound.

[Truth Warrior]

Libertarians should get paid for "turning in" tyrants and bureaucrats, by the pound. Turned in to who? :confused:

Other tyrants would just pardon them and maybe even give them a raise in pay and a medal for their outstanding "public service" to "society". :p :rolleyes:

[FindLiberty]

Originally Posted by FindLiberty
Libertarians should get paid for "turning in" tyrants and bureaucrats, by the pound.

Turned in to who?
Turned in to who? :confused:

Other tyrants would just pardon them and maybe even give them a raise in pay and a medal for their outstanding "public service" to "society". :p :rolleyes:[

Meat rendering plants! I was just kidding (by the pound), it would be on a per-head basis - dead or alive of course.

A serious funding solution would be tricky to craft so that the cancer would not grow back. Maybe an automatic 100 year reset/clear cycle and constitutional re-boot.

[RCA]

Taxes that don't interfere with private property are fine with me. That basically eliminates 90% of all taxes in one swoop.

[The_Orlonater]

Maybe a 3-5% flat tax.


Everything else is a community thing.

[mediahasyou]

voluntary/

[JosephTheLibertarian]

my ideal taxation: nothing

[Mini-Me]

Taxes that don't interfere with private property are fine with me. That basically eliminates 90% of all taxes in one swoop.

All taxes interfere with private property to some degree. Property taxes, inheritance taxes, and income taxes are more obvious here, but capital gains, sales taxes, VAT's, tariffs, and excise taxes still interfere with private property because the government forces people selling items to give them a cut of the proceeds that rightfully belong to the sellers (or buyers, depending on your perspective).

[nickcoons]

It should also serve to repay the person's debt to society.

Criminals don't owe debts to society; they owe debts to their victims.

[nickcoons]

I have to disagree with your claim that this incentivizes police to find the right person: Rather, because their source of payment relies directly on a conviction (any conviction), it seems logical that police would be incentivized to pin the crime on whoever they can and even plant evidence. This would be especially common in cases when there's no "real" suspect in sight but when there's someone who some circumstantial evidence points to.

Why would police and prosecutors go through the effort of fabricating criminals by going through the elaborate scheme of planting evidence, training "witnesses", etc, when they can instead focus their efforts on actual criminals that wouldn't require nearly the effort? "Oh what a tangled web we weave...", and all that.


I see another potential problem with this as well, though I also see a potential solution. Most ordinary criminals are poor, meaning they won't necessarily have the immediate means to pay the police, the courts, the prosecutor, their defense attorney (assuming they have one...), and the prison. In the meantime, where does the money come from to pay for all of this?

You mentioned a loan as a possible solution, and that could certainly work.

Let's assume for a moment that the police, prosecutors, courts, and prisons are all non-governmental; which would probably make them businesses. Most businesses start up incurring large costs, such as decking out a retail store full of inventory, building out offices, hiring staff that they must pay before sufficient revenue starts rolling in, etc. Some businesses go many years before they make it out of the red but they ultimately do. Where do they get the money to do this? From wherever they can; whether it be from loans, gifts, investments, or the personal savings of those starting the company.


Lawyers and court systems might get away with subsisting on their current funds, but police officers (or rather peace officers, as they would hopefully be called again) need to pay the bills and feed their families, and they can't just wait months or years for a criminal to start paying off his debt. Who would front the money in this situation?

Police officers would probably be employees with regular salaries of a company that was paid by the criminal's efforts, not independent contractors that would all have to wait until the criminal became productive before they saw any return.


...then again, a problem I see with this solution is that if the defendant is acquitted, the court is left holding the bag.

I see this as another protective measure against police and prosecutors trying to fabricate criminals. In a society of non-aggression, one cannot force a court to hear a case, and courts probably wouldn't use resources hearing cases that they didn't feel had a decent chance of conviction.


This does help to address my question about the lonely person being murdered, but it doesn't go all the way. When the victim is still alive or has surviving family members, would they ordinarily front money for the initial investigation and/or front money to the prosecutor?

This would be up to the prosecution and the courts.

In the free market, there are all sorts of business marketing tools in order to gain customers. Appliance stores offer "90 days same as cash", auto dealers offer "0% financing for 72 months", etc. Those wishing to drum up additional business may offer up deals to attract a market like those that can't front the costs by offering to finance it for them, and of course ultimately take it out of the criminal if a conviction is acquired. They may provide a guarantee that goes something like this, "if we don't win, we don't get paid." This motivates them to provide a thorough investigation. Even in the unfree market that we have today, similar offers by law firms are quite common.


I think I like TheEvilDetector's idea of anonymous prepaid tokens a bit better. ;) Still, point taken.

So do I.


I still struggle with the idea of whether force should be used via taxation to otherwise protect the rights of individuals...after all, I'd hate to see an innocent person convicted of a crime and forced to serve a sentence (a violation of their rights and therefore aggression, because they're innocent) simply because they didn't have money for representation and the prosecutor was "just that good." It can happen in any legal system of course, but if you don't have representation, you're pretty much screwed unless you're really damn smart yourself.

It's important to look at the whole picture here. Today, a legal representative in court is someone who went to college for eight years, graduated from law school, passed the state bar, and charges in excess of $200/hour. In a free society, a legal representative is anyone you damn well please, and the increased supply would cause the cost to slide significantly :). Given that increased supply and decreased pricing would cause an increase inaccessibility, the very small remaining number of people that could still not afford legal representation would probably be helped by people like you that "hate to see an innocent person convicted of a crime and forced to serve a sentence simply because they didn't have money for representation".


In any case, taxation for the purpose of protecting rights is a very different argument from protectionist and socialist arguments, because they argue that taxation should be used for [insert arbitrary "noble cause"], which has nothing to do with the primary (and sole) purpose of government, protecting the rights of individuals.

But then you have to make the claim that the rights of one person are more important than the rights of another; that person A can be sacrificed for the benefit of person B because the guaranteed infringement on person A's rights is less than the potential infringement on person B's rights. "I'm going to steal from you to protect you from others stealing from you."


Unless there's a way of a loan fronting money or something similar (which brings its own problems), this system actually could be blamed for inability to protect an innocent defendant from a slick prosecutor and a team of police with planted evidence.

Incentives for this exist now; they're usually political instead of financial. "Look everyone, no need to worry, we caught the guy, thanks to the leadership of Mayor X."


If we do not allow the use of any coercive force [B]whatsoever, we must also openly permit private individuals to possess weapons of immense destructive power, such as nuclear weapons. The problem here is obvious: If some old crackpot is going out of his way to obtain a nuclear weapon and spend his life savings on it (to say the least), the odds are high that he's crazy enough to use it.

One of the arguments used against gun control is that it doesn't work; licensing, registration, and outright prohibition don't keep guns out of the hands of criminals. We see that the same was true of alcohol during prohibition, and is true of drugs today. Prohibiting an item has little if any affect on keeping it out of circulation. I see no reason why the same doesn't apply to nuclear weapons. Sure, the average person doesn't own nuclear weapons, and there are currently laws against it. Likewise, I have a magic rock sitting on my desk that is said to repel tigers, and there has never been a tiger in my house as long as that rock has been there. Obviously, we know that correlation does not equal causation. But all of this to say that I don't think we don't see people with nuclear weapons in their basements simply because there's a law saying they can't.

If you were to say that this amount of force is justifiable, that the ends justify the means, what exactly are the means? How do you insure that no one is secretly harboring a nuclear weapon that they plan to detonate and take out themselves and a million others? Just having a law against it won't prevent your hypothetical old crank from doing it. To make absolutely certain that you're protecting people from the abuses of this potential, you'd have to have cameras on every street corner monitoring activities to make sure someone isn't smuggling any items used to build such a weapon, and you'd have to question any suspicious behavior. You'd probably also have to search people's homes regularly if anything looked out of the ordinary. In the end, how much would government need to infringe on the rights of individuals in order to prevent a potential, and could it be argued that this infringement was worth it?

It's certainly a difficult question, and in order to provide you with a better answer I wish I had done more research on it up to this point. Here's what Dr. Ruwart has to say about it, though I'm not sure I find her answer entirely satisfying either (and this would be a first):

http://www.theadvocates.org/ruwart/questions_maint.php?Category=9&id=193

[Mini-Me]

Why would police and prosecutors go through the effort of fabricating criminals by going through the elaborate scheme of planting evidence, training "witnesses", etc, when they can instead focus their efforts on actual criminals that wouldn't require nearly the effort? "Oh what a tangled web we weave...", and all that.

Well, that depends on the rules we're playing by:
If police, investigators, and prosecutors have the option to just ignore complex cases or put little effort into an investigation and close them quickly, they have every incentive to do so. If only the easy cases are ever prosecuted with vigor, that's hardly fair to victims of more complex crimes.
If police, investigators, and prosecutors do not have the option to just ignore complex cases: Consider the fact that corruption of justice, fraudulent investigations, witness training, and planting of evidence already happens in our current system, where the police have little financial incentive for ensuring a conviction. It's not some fantastical or implausible idea even in today's world. If we make their pay dependent upon a conviction, and greater pay dependent on more convictions and quicker convictions, it naturally follows that they'd have a huge financial incentive to ensure convictions in any way possible. If their pay is dependent on convictions and they don't have the option to ignore complex cases, they're much more liable to just find an easy fall guy and move onto their next easy case rather than "waste" precious time and pay on a proper investigation.

Under a free society, all crimes are real crimes with real victims. Because of that, I cannot support a system in which the victims of crimes can go entirely ignored by the legal system. At the same time, especially if complex crimes are not permitted to be merely ignored, I cannot support a system in which the pay of police and investigators is dependent on a conviction, because it's just begging for corruption and the violation of innocent people's freedom. The way I see it, a legal system that either ignores victims or favors false convictions would ultimately result in much greater and more unacceptable rights violations than a system in which we legitimize the government robbing people for a very slight amount of money to fund fair trials for all crimes (and I'm obviously not speaking of something like a property tax, but rather, something like a tariff at the federal level or a low sales tax or something to that effect at the state/local level).

Still, I do think there are some better ways this could be done in a user fees-oriented setting. For instance, since victims are the ones that want crimes to be investigated, they could simply front the costs to ensure investigation, and convicted criminals would then just have to pay them back if there's a conviction. This would ensure the police and investigators get paid no matter the verdict. However, there are still two problems, one of which is solvable:
If the victim fronts the money but no conviction is made, the victim of a crime has now also lost money trying to pursue justice and restitution. This problem can be alleviated through people buying "victim's insurance," however.
If the victim has no insurance or money to front an investigation, we run once again into the problem of certain cases being entirely ignored, no matter how horrendous the crime against the victim was. After all, since the norm would be "victims front the money," it's less likely that anyone would take up their case if they know their only chance for payment was a conviction.
As far as I can tell, the second problem cannot really be guaranteed to be solvable without taxation (however minimal). In practice, it's probably solvable through private charities...but without guarantees, that's a pretty tough sell.



You mentioned a loan as a possible solution, and that could certainly work.

Let's assume for a moment that the police, prosecutors, courts, and prisons are all non-governmental; which would probably make them businesses. Most businesses start up incurring large costs, such as decking out a retail store full of inventory, building out offices, hiring staff that they must pay before sufficient revenue starts rolling in, etc. Some businesses go many years before they make it out of the red but they ultimately do. Where do they get the money to do this? From wherever they can; whether it be from loans, gifts, investments, or the personal savings of those starting the company.

I mostly understand the rationale behind making courts private, at least for civil matters. The loser (whoever it is) would always pay for court costs.

In many ways, private courts work for criminal matters as well. The trial occurs in the victim's court, an appeal may be heard in the defendant's court, and a binding "best of three" tiebreaker would occur in some other mutually agreed-upon court. However, there are still two hitches for criminal trials:
Because they're private, the courts will have the right to ignore important cases that are potentially less likely to find convictions in favor of cash cows. That said, I suppose that if there are no other cases in the system, they'd take the less "favorable" ones for lack of anything better to do. However, that opens up the next can of worms:
A convicted criminal would pay court costs...but who pays in case the defendant is acquitted? If the money must come out of the court company's pocket when the defendant is acquitted, the courts will be biased toward convictions all across the board. Competition wouldn't really fix this, because every single court would be prone to the same bias. It helps that juries have the final decision, but biased judges can certainly have an impact.

To allow for fair trials, there must be a way to pay the court when a defendant is acquitted in a criminal trial. Fair courts will generally require a payment in either case, since they'll otherwise be biased toward conviction. In a free market, private courts could operate however they want, though (meaning unfair and biased courts will exist). The victim would most likely choose the most unfair and biased court possible for obvious reasons and because it avoids up-front payments. If a conviction is heard, the convicted defendant can appeal to another court which requires an up-front payment...but as it's a free market, the defendant must be the one to front the costs. If the defendant has the money, that's no problem. Otherwise, we'll have a system in which the first trial often occurs in a biased court, appeals are frequent, and poor defendants get screwed because their case is first heard in a biased court and they don't have money for an appeal. Again, there may be private charities set up to pay for poor defendants' court costs...but there are no guarantees.

If we step away from free market courts for a moment, the system becomes a bit more manageable but still not perfect:
Under a non-free-market court system based on user fees, the only courts permitted (government courts) could require up-front payments. This would work very well and prevent bias, although it also runs into the problem of either poor victims relying on charities or poor defendants relying on charities, depending on who is made to front the money.



Police officers would probably be employees with regular salaries of a company that was paid by the criminal's efforts, not independent contractors that would all have to wait until the criminal became productive before they saw any return.

In the case of private police agencies, this is a valid point. However, if payment of the company depends on conviction, employees (police and investigators) would still be on a lot of pressure from on high to guarantee convictions.



I see this as another protective measure against police and prosecutors trying to fabricate criminals. In a society of non-aggression, one cannot force a court to hear a case, and courts probably wouldn't use resources hearing cases that they didn't feel had a decent chance of conviction.

You may see this is an upside since it somewhat mitigates the gigantic threat of fabrication in a system where only convictions pay...but I see it as a downside to having private courts in the first place: If a court cannot be forced to hear a case and their pay is dependent on conviction, then many important cases will be ignored in favor of the cash cows. If they take "unfavorable" cases for lack of anything better to do, they'll then be biased toward conviction. If they're paid up front, both of these problems are kind of solved. Victims will choose courts with no up-front fees (which will be biased toward convictions), and on their appeal, defendants will choose courts with up-front fees. As mentioned above, this means poor defendants are at the mercy of charities to receive their second trial (and possibly their only fair one). With no guarantees, it's a tough sell.



This would be up to the prosecution and the courts.

In the free market, there are all sorts of business marketing tools in order to gain customers. Appliance stores offer "90 days same as cash", auto dealers offer "0% financing for 72 months", etc. Those wishing to drum up additional business may offer up deals to attract a market like those that can't front the costs by offering to finance it for them, and of course ultimately take it out of the criminal if a conviction is acquired. They may provide a guarantee that goes something like this, "if we don't win, we don't get paid." This motivates them to provide a thorough investigation. Even in the unfree market that we have today, similar offers by law firms are quite common.


It motivates them to provide a thorough investigation...or just to ensure convictions through any means possible, moral or immoral, honest or dishonest. I think you're misinterpreting the incentives involved here.



It's important to look at the whole picture here. Today, a legal representative in court is someone who went to college for eight years, graduated from law school, passed the state bar, and charges in excess of $200/hour. In a free society, a legal representative is anyone you damn well please, and the increased supply would cause the cost to slide significantly :). Given that increased supply and decreased pricing would cause an increase inaccessibility, the very small remaining number of people that could still not afford legal representation would probably be helped by people like you that "hate to see an innocent person convicted of a crime and forced to serve a sentence simply because they didn't have money for representation".


In terms of legal representation, you do make one damn good point on how much cheaper it would be. I can't argue here, and I concede the point about legal representation entirely...the fact that only those with a title of "nobility" or "honor" may serve as legal representation in our system is completely disgusting.



But then you have to make the claim that the rights of one person are more important than the rights of another; that person A can be sacrificed for the benefit of person B because the guaranteed infringement on person A's rights is less than the potential infringement on person B's rights. "I'm going to steal from you to protect you from others stealing from you."


This is still very different from socialism because of two principles:
First, as mentioned in my other post, taxation for socialistic purposes violates the property rights of people for reasons entirely unrelated to protecting other people's rights.
Secondly, taxation for socialistic purposes does indeed involve the problem you mention above about deciding who should be sacrificed for the good of the collective. That's because protectionism, socialism, and Communism decide a priori that different "groups" of people will have their rights violated to varying degrees to provide unequal benefits to other "groups."

Granted, your analysis above is roughly correct, but it's lacking a measure of scale, and it's also leaving out the fact that person A and person B are not determined a priori. I'm vaguely recalling a passage from Frederic Bastiat's "The Law" here, where he points out a similar difference between legalized plunder and the "legitimate" functions of government requiring taxation...but anyway, so long as the tax burden is spread over everyone equally (and the particular tax does not enslave people to the state like income/property taxes) - for the sole purpose of protecting everyone's rights equally - it does not involve any a priori decision about wealth transfer or whose rights are "more important." The only decision made is that it's more important to reasonably ensure life, liberty, and 99% of property for everyone equally than it is to keep all property violations illegitimate, when such a decision would permit the rights of some to be trampled entirely and even result in the user-fees-funded-government unknowingly committing much worse aggression against a few, stripping them altogether of both liberty and property.

An important point here is that if you completely denounce all taxation, you're essentially legitimizing a system that is much more likely to strip more innocent people of all liberty entirely.
Therefore, "I'm going to steal from you to protect you from others stealing from you," just doesn't tell the whole story.
Rather, it's, "I'm going to steal a tiny bit from you to help ensure I won't unwittingly steal everything from you including your freedom when you're wrongly convicted. Also, it'll help protect you from others violating your rights in a similarly large way, and if that does happen, you're guaranteed a recourse."

Once again, this just comes down to my preference for maximizing the overall degree to which each person's natural rights are respected, rather than condemning any and all violations of rights but ironically allowing them to occur to a much greater degree as a consequence.



Incentives for this exist now; they're usually political instead of financial. "Look everyone, no need to worry, we caught the guy, thanks to the leadership of Mayor X."

Since I was talking about defendants being falsely convicted, I think you might have misread my comment there. ;) Anyway, it doesn't matter, since I've already said anything I might want to...



One of the arguments used against gun control is that it doesn't work; licensing, registration, and outright prohibition don't keep guns out of the hands of criminals. We see that the same was true of alcohol during prohibition, and is true of drugs today. Prohibiting an item has little if any affect on keeping it out of circulation. I see no reason why the same doesn't apply to nuclear weapons. Sure, the average person doesn't own nuclear weapons, and there are currently laws against it. Likewise, I have a magic rock sitting on my desk that is said to repel tigers, and there has never been a tiger in my house as long as that rock has been there. Obviously, we know that correlation does not equal causation. But all of this to say that I don't think we don't see people with nuclear weapons in their basements simply because there's a law saying they can't.

You're completely misunderstanding the direction of my argument here. I'm not saying banning nukes would keep crazies from trying to obtain them. By definition, crazies who want to blow up everyone aren't going to follow the law anyway. ;) What I AM saying is that if you happen to know your neighbor is setting up a nuke to blow up a whole city, you should be able to call in "the law," and they should be allowed to take proactive action other than just sit there and pray he doesn't decide to set it off.

After all, if someone's attempting to acquire a nuke, I imagine it wouldn't be all that easy to hide. Someone is liable to know about it. Considering some nutcase who has acquired a nuke is extremely likely to use it, is the government justified in breaking into his house and removing it from his possession before he blows up the city, or must we take an absolutely uncompromising stand on property rights in any and all circumstances and seriously wait until he activates it and it's too late?



If you were to say that this amount of force is justifiable, that the ends justify the means, what exactly are the means? How do you insure that no one is secretly harboring a nuclear weapon that they plan to detonate and take out themselves and a million others? Just having a law against it won't prevent your hypothetical old crank from doing it. To make absolutely certain that you're protecting people from the abuses of this potential, you'd have to have cameras on every street corner monitoring activities to make sure someone isn't smuggling any items used to build such a weapon, and you'd have to question any suspicious behavior. You'd probably also have to search people's homes regularly if anything looked out of the ordinary. In the end, how much would government need to infringe on the rights of individuals in order to prevent a potential, and could it be argued that this infringement was worth it?

It's certainly a difficult question, and in order to provide you with a better answer I wish I had done more research on it up to this point. Here's what Dr. Ruwart has to say about it, though I'm not sure I find her answer entirely satisfying either (and this would be a first):

http://www.theadvocates.org/ruwart/questions_maint.php?Category=9&id=193
There are no guarantees, and I never once said anything about going to extreme measures to make absolutely sure bad things can never happen. Big Brother policies completely trample ALL privacy rights and personal liberty for an almost negligible increase in the protection of life. I'm not talking about legitimizing any of this.

Instead, I'm just talking about a much more straightforward scenario: You already know your neighbor has a nuke (or is building it and almost done, or is receiving it tomorrow via UPS, etc.): Would you frown upon anyone for violating his property rights by "relieving" him of his nuke and safely disposing of it?

Similarly, in the unlikely case that nukes became cheap: Would you say that it should be perfectly legal for anyone and their mother to set up nuclear missile launchers on their rooftops?

My underlying point here is basically this: If we are to maximize the overall degree to which everyone's rights are respected, we must make some very small concessions of principle. These concessions are never justified for any arbitrary purpose other than maximizing the degree to which people's rights are respected (such as various socialist "good causes"), and these concessions should never be large enough to really noticeably impact any person's life. I would never suggest, for example, that one innocent person's life should be sacrificed against their will, no matter how many other people it would save, since the right to life is just too absolute to legitimize violating. It's too high of a price for any one person to be made to pay. Compromising on principle is always a slippery slope...but so long as property rights violations are small enough to be essentially negligible in practice, I would say they can be justified if they will protect against more serious rights violations that would drastically trample all over some people's rights.

You don't have to agree, of course. The main reason I made these posts was just to shed some light on how/why a self-described libertarian could ever possibly support any taxation whatsoever. I suppose the real answer is that I'm not in fact 100% libertarian, but I'm still pretty close...probably about 90% libertarian and 10% classical liberal. The truth is, most of the population considers Ron Paul an extreme libertarian. Compared to Ron Paul, I myself am pretty extreme in my libertarianism. If you believe the only libertarians in existence are those who are unflinchingly pure in their ideology, I suppose that's fine...but then what better term can you offer for how I should categorize my views? ;)

[RCA]

All taxes interfere with private property to some degree. Property taxes, inheritance taxes, and income taxes are more obvious here, but capital gains, sales taxes, VAT's, tariffs, and excise taxes still interfere with private property because the government forces people selling items to give them a cut of the proceeds that rightfully belong to the sellers (or buyers, depending on your perspective).

That's why I said 90%. I don't have a comprehensive list of all types taxes on hand to determine if I disagree with 100% of them.

[nickcoons]

To allow for fair trials, there must be a way to pay the court when a defendant is acquitted in a criminal trial.

With the work-prison system, the plan was basically this: That a prisoner would be assigned a debt which would cover his restitution, court and police costs, as well as his own incarceration. In other words, let's say that his debt was $5,000, and his incarceration costs (food, clothing, shelter) were $20/day. And let's say that while incarcerated he was able to produce $100/day. This would mean that $20/day would go towards his incarceration expenses and $80/day towards his debt, such that he'd be released in approximately 63 days.

You say that for trials to be fair, courts and prosecution must be paid whether or not a conviction is reached in order to not bias these institutions towards convictions (though I'm not sure if I agree since this decision rests with juries). But let's say that you're right, and guaranteed payment of courts is required. Instead of incarcerated individuals incurring daily costs of $20, perhaps they incur daily costs of $30, some of which is paid to fund the guaranteed court payments.

The numbers are all bogus in the example; they're just to illustrate the point. They can be anything you'd like. Either way, this now provides courts with guaranteed payments separate from convictions.


This is still very different from socialism because of two principles:
First, as mentioned in my other post, taxation for socialistic purposes violates the property rights of people for reasons entirely unrelated to protecting other people's rights.

I get that, but this is simply a question of changing the ends and justifying the same means.


Granted, your analysis above is roughly correct, but it's lacking a measure of scale, and it's also leaving out the fact that person A and person B are not determined a priori. I'm vaguely recalling a passage from Frederic Bastiat's "The Law" here, where he points out a similar difference between legalized plunder and the "legitimate" functions of government requiring taxation...but anyway, so long as the tax burden is spread over everyone equally (and the particular tax does not enslave people to the state like income/property taxes) - for the sole purpose of protecting everyone's rights equally - it does not involve any a priori decision about wealth transfer or whose rights are "more important."

Would you then say that Social Security was a valid program if it were funded by a tax other than an income or property tax? It meets your other criteria, which is that it does not claim to put the rights of any person above anyone else. Theoretically, everyone pays in, and everyone gets to collect, no?

I like your "victim's insurance" idea. Since being a victim is a rare occurrence, premiums for such a service would be extremely low. If someone did not carry this type of insurance, it would most certainly be out of choice and not inability to pay. To say that an option for protection exists with such great ease, and that someone has opted to neglect protection, and so we therefore must incur a tax on everyone to cover these people; I think that would be a tough sell.


An important point here is that if you completely denounce all taxation, you're essentially legitimizing a system that is much more likely to strip more innocent people of all liberty entirely.

I think we might ultimately end up having to agree to disagree on that point.


Once again, this just comes down to my preference for maximizing the overall degree to which each person's natural rights are respected, rather than condemning any and all violations of rights but ironically allowing them to occur to a much greater degree as a consequence.

I too wish to maximize liberty. The notion that we can't, on a message board, hypothesize an entirely free society from start to finish that promotes liberty to a greater degree than the existence of a state would therefore conclude that it can't be done.. that seems a little arrogant. Wouldn't you agree?


What I AM saying is that if you happen to know your neighbor is setting up a nuke to blow up a whole city, you should be able to call in "the law," and they should be allowed to take proactive action other than just sit there and pray he doesn't decide to set it off.

Ahh.. well then, if I happen to know that my neighbor is pointing a gun at me with the intent to pull the trigger, do I have to wait for him to actually pull the trigger before I can retaliate? No, I don't think so.

Let's make this more similar to your example. If my neighbor is sitting in his living room pointing a gun at me through the window with the intent to pull the trigger, and the only way I can stop him and save my life is by going over there, entering his house, and taking away his gun, would I be justified in doing that? Yes, I think so. I think that the threat of force justifies a retaliation of force, and this would not be an infringement on his property rights.


If you believe the only libertarians in existence are those who are unflinchingly pure in their ideology, I suppose that's fine...but then what better term can you offer for how I should categorize my views? ;)

I didn't mean to imply that. There are far more libertarians that prefer "low taxes" instead of "no taxes". As I understand it, a libertarian is one who bases their stands on principles. If one takes those principles to their logical conclusion, then taxes can't be accepted. If taxes are accepted, even to a very small degree, then principles have been compromised.

Most libertarians that I know are new; they didn't start out that way and haven't been for very long. They mostly start out promoting the same ideas that someone like Bob Barr would promote. As they think about the principles and what they mean, they start to realize the contradictions one by one until they either justify them away ("we must tax at least some in order to handle X") or discard them and stand on the principle.

I don't claim to have all the answers, as you can infer from our discussion. What I do claim is that the free market is always better than government at providing solutions, even if I haven't yet personally formulated what those solutions are. Solutions in the free market normally take the form of business models. Imagine the burden you are placing on someone in asking them to invent a business model to provide every solution that people need in the absence of government force, and then claiming that it can't be done because this person wasn't able to demonstrate such a business model.

As a business person myself, I feel that I'm more adept than most at taking on this task. But there are no doubt hundreds of thousands if not millions of others that are more capable than I am to come up with ways to contemplate ways that the free market can provide solutions to each of these problems. As they've been tackling this more successfully than government for centuries, I trust that they would continue to fill the market's needs when they arose, even if I can't answer "how" at the moment.

[werdd]

Id like to see a voluntary tax system. You get your tax return, mandatory is funding the military and the USPS.

Then you can check off any of the voluntary bullshit you feel like paying for.

The two roles of goverment are to protect your personal liberties, and deliver the mail.

And that is all.

[nickcoons]

The two roles of goverment are to protect your personal liberties, and deliver the mail.

And that is all.

Why is it their job to deliver the mail?

[nate895]

Why is it their job to deliver the mail?

The economics of first-class mail make it impossible for it to be affordable. If we had private first-class mail, we'd have postage at around $2.

[werdd]

Why is it their job to deliver the mail?

I don't believe it is a necessity, but the constitution allows for a national postal service to be regulated and maintained on a central level.

So constitutionally speaking,

the goverment has the right to

Defend your personal liberties, which includes a strong national defense, justifiably taxable IMO.

Deliver your mail, as an option.

[Mini-Me]

With the work-prison system, the plan was basically this: That a prisoner would be assigned a debt which would cover his restitution, court and police costs, as well as his own incarceration. In other words, let's say that his debt was $5,000, and his incarceration costs (food, clothing, shelter) were $20/day. And let's say that while incarcerated he was able to produce $100/day. This would mean that $20/day would go towards his incarceration expenses and $80/day towards his debt, such that he'd be released in approximately 63 days.

You say that for trials to be fair, courts and prosecution must be paid whether or not a conviction is reached in order to not bias these institutions towards convictions (though I'm not sure if I agree since this decision rests with juries). But let's say that you're right, and guaranteed payment of courts is required. Instead of incarcerated individuals incurring daily costs of $20, perhaps they incur daily costs of $30, some of which is paid to fund the guaranteed court payments.

The numbers are all bogus in the example; they're just to illustrate the point. They can be anything you'd like. Either way, this now provides courts with guaranteed payments separate from convictions.


While this is kind of taking advantage of prisoners by increasing their penalty beyond that strictly warranted by their crime...I suppose it works out, since it's better than taxation of the innocent. Point taken.



I get that, but this is simply a question of changing the ends and justifying the same means.

This is true...although I'd say that the purpose is choosing ends (protecting lots of rights) that compensate for the means (violating rights minimally). For instance, let's pretend - although I DO know that this isn't necessarily true - that under Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism, there would be mayhem, and everybody would be killing each other, eating their babies, and stealing their cars to run over children with. ;) This is a ridiculous scenario, but hypothetically speaking, let's run with it. If legitimizing minimal taxation could be proven to alleviate these problems and result in much fewer violent rights violations, would you grudgingly consent to such taxation? I'm obviously talking about preventing rights violations on a much smaller scale, and eventually there's certainly a point where the evil of the means overshadows the good of the ends. Personally, I agree with you that such a point comes very quickly - but I don't necessarily have a strict zero tolerance policy, so long as the limits are clear.

I'm not a person that says the ends always justify the means. It always depends on what the ends are and what the means are. Sometimes the ends do justify the means - for instance, eating a cookie from my pantry can very easily justify the means of walking down there to get it, so long as it tastes good and the walk isn't too unbearable. This is a very simple scenario of course which violates nobody's rights, but my point is that by itself, the phrase "the ends justify the means" is only Machiavellian under contexts in which someone believes an end justifies practically any means, no matter how destructive.



Would you then say that Social Security was a valid program if it were funded by a tax other than an income or property tax? It meets your other criteria, which is that it does not claim to put the rights of any person above anyone else. Theoretically, everyone pays in, and everyone gets to collect, no?

Social Security may follow my second rule, but it doesn't meet my first rule (which I admit wasn't worded in a way I could call a rule, but I digress), because it violates the property rights of people for reasons entirely unrelated to protecting people's rights.



I like your "victim's insurance" idea. Since being a victim is a rare occurrence, premiums for such a service would be extremely low. If someone did not carry this type of insurance, it would most certainly be out of choice and not inability to pay. To say that an option for protection exists with such great ease, and that someone has opted to neglect protection, and so we therefore must incur a tax on everyone to cover these people; I think that would be a tough sell.

It may be a tough sell here - but I imagine people in the general population would lynch us immediately if they heard we were even having a discussion about whether taxation for this purpose is necessary. ;) My main concern is that, while people are only legitimately obligated to respect each other's rights, not to protect them, extending this concept to law would open up a "hole of apathy" (whether small or large) in which nobody really cares when someone else's rights are being violated. If that were to happen, the concept of rights would become more academic than functional.

Ultimately though, I do kind of "secretly" agree with you on a lot of this...but this should certainly be one of the last bits of tax-funded spending that anyone moves to abolish. The way I see it, the first step is to get a stable minarchist government in place with much lower taxation than today (and collected in less enslaving manners), and then after things start moving much more smoothly and everyone's lives improve, that would be the time to start talking about dismantling the final percent of taxes or so, along with the spending they finance.

I think a lot of my objections are due to the fact that we're still living under a very large leviathan government. Considering just how much better a small government with minimal taxation would be, I guess I think to myself, "Life would be so good that almost nobody would even bother complaining about the remaining 1% tariff and 1% local sales tax. Would it really be the best idea to experiment with eliminating them entirely? After all, the potential advantages might be outweighed by foreseen and unforeseen disadvantages, and if the disadvantages win out, that could spark a reactionary movement back to full-fledged tyranny."

That said, without yet reading Mary Ruwart's argument, I still worry about the country being able to defend itself against high-tech weaponry without tax-or-tariff-funded military technology...and obviously, the user fees framework doesn't exactly work the best there.



I think we might ultimately end up having to agree to disagree on that point.

Perhaps...



I too wish to maximize liberty. The notion that we can't, on a message board, hypothesize an entirely free society from start to finish that promotes liberty to a greater degree than the existence of a state would therefore conclude that it can't be done.. that seems a little arrogant. Wouldn't you agree?
I'm not saying that we can't daydream. I'm just saying that there are valid hypothetical arguments on both sides, and at least for now, I generally tend to prefer the "devil I know." ;)



Ahh.. well then, if I happen to know that my neighbor is pointing a gun at me with the intent to pull the trigger, do I have to wait for him to actually pull the trigger before I can retaliate? No, I don't think so.

Let's make this more similar to your example. If my neighbor is sitting in his living room pointing a gun at me through the window with the intent to pull the trigger, and the only way I can stop him and save my life is by going over there, entering his house, and taking away his gun, would I be justified in doing that? Yes, I think so. I think that the threat of force justifies a retaliation of force, and this would not be an infringement on his property rights.

Now that you've restated things under more coherent terms, I think my main point was that people have so many legitimate reasons to have ordinary firearms that it would be absurd to consider the mere ownership of them to be the threat of force...but if your neighbor has a nuke, his possession or attempted possession of such a weapon would constitute a threat all by itself (since seriously, what else is he going to use it for? ;)). The main problem, of course, is identifying when a threat is being made and intervening is not a violation of property rights...which seems to be an inherently subjective decision. Unfortunately, the only rules we can make are arbitrary and along the lines of "I'll know it when I see it." I think by bringing up this scenario, I was asking whether you felt it's valid to even try making these calls. Since you do, well...I don't think we disagree here. :)



I didn't mean to imply that. There are far more libertarians that prefer "low taxes" instead of "no taxes". As I understand it, a libertarian is one who bases their stands on principles. If one takes those principles to their logical conclusion, then taxes can't be accepted. If taxes are accepted, even to a very small degree, then principles have been compromised.

Most libertarians that I know are new; they didn't start out that way and haven't been for very long. They mostly start out promoting the same ideas that someone like Bob Barr would promote. As they think about the principles and what they mean, they start to realize the contradictions one by one until they either justify them away ("we must tax at least some in order to handle X") or discard them and stand on the principle.
You're right on this. I'm relatively new, and I'm still weighing in on a few questions at the more extreme end of ideological purity. I'll take libertarian principles to their logical conclusion, but at the more anarchic end of things, my mind goes into such unknown territory that I tend to backtrack a bit and justify some small concessions in order to avoid opening Pandora's Box. I approach all systems with a "Murphy's Law" kind of approach. ;) For instance, I perused through For a New Liberty by Rothbard a few months back and read some of his arguments for anarcho-capitalism, and I had many objections based on corner cases he didn't address in the passages I read. Most of these notes revolve around the difficulties private agencies would have fairly keeping order without becoming thuggish themselves against the unprotected and without becoming another state unto themselves (especially considering "not all states are created equal," and a Constitutional republic is a much better compromise than anarchy turned into totalitarianism). Browsing through some of the notes I wrote, I still agree with most of them. They're wayyyyy too long and detailed to copy/paste here, though. Besides, I'm not sure if you're an anarcho-capitalist anyway or just a libertarian who believes all government should be funded through user fees.



I don't claim to have all the answers, as you can infer from our discussion. What I do claim is that the free market is always better than government at providing solutions, even if I haven't yet personally formulated what those solutions are. Solutions in the free market normally take the form of business models. Imagine the burden you are placing on someone in asking them to invent a business model to provide every solution that people need in the absence of government force, and then claiming that it can't be done because this person wasn't able to demonstrate such a business model.

As a business person myself, I feel that I'm more adept than most at taking on this task. But there are no doubt hundreds of thousands if not millions of others that are more capable than I am to come up with ways to contemplate ways that the free market can provide solutions to each of these problems. As they've been tackling this more successfully than government for centuries, I trust that they would continue to fill the market's needs when they arose, even if I can't answer "how" at the moment.

I wouldn't claim that "it can't be done" just because one person can't come up with a business model on command. However, I'm certainly willing to raise the issues that such a system must adequately address, and I would also say it shouldn't be done until someone comes up with a business model that seems workable. This is the inherent problem with advocating "new and scary" ideas that are entirely different from what everyone is used to: As their advocate, you have the burden of proof, no matter how great that burden is.

[Mini-Me]

I don't believe it is a necessity, but the constitution allows for a national postal service to be regulated and maintained on a central level.

So constitutionally speaking,

the goverment has the right to

Defend your personal liberties, which includes a strong national defense, justifiably taxable IMO.

Deliver your mail, as an option.

I'd amend this by saying that Constitutionally speaking, the government has the authority or the power to, but...government doesn't have rights. It's a matter of semantics, though. ;)

Personally, I've heard tons of people in real life - non-libertarians, that is - complaining about the USPS and wishing for private competition in first class mail for a long time. It certainly couldn't hurt to at least ALLOW it for now, and if it works out (which it might even in competition with the subsidized USPS), then go ahead and abolish the USPS. I highly doubt letters would actually cost $2 apiece to mail (except to rural areas maybe), and if they did, well...so be it. If that's the real cost of mail delivery, you're already paying that and more through taxes anyway (because government is inefficient and their lack of profit motive gives them a tendency to create unnecessary and overpaid jobs). On top of that, mail delivery is neither a right nor a matter of life and death. I see no reason why I should be paying for Bubba and Jimbob to be sending each other secret love letters. Instead, mail should be paid for in the same way as any other service in the economy.

[Mini-Me]

Criminals don't owe debts to society; they owe debts to their victims.

I just noticed this, and it's a succinct point that deserves to be repeated.

[Kludge]

I just noticed this, and it's a succinct point that deserves to be repeated.

Who pays for the court system? The prison system? Violating a just law of society is to forfeit all rights granted by society. If nothing else, the prisoner should be grateful to be given an opportunity to be saved from an emotional and potentially homicidal victim -- though that is only if the victim is still alive. Is the prisoner debt-free when he kills a man because he has no one to repay? -- is he to be kept free and judged by God, the only entity (if you so believe) who would be able to judge him on such a matter?

[Mini-Me]

Who pays for the court system? The prison system? Violating a just law of society is to forfeit all rights granted by society. If nothing else, the prisoner should be grateful to be given an opportunity to be saved from an emotional and potentially homicidal victim -- though that is only if the victim is still alive. Is the prisoner debt-free when he kills a man because he has no one to repay? -- is he to be kept free and judged by God, the only entity (if you so believe) who would be able to judge him on such a matter?

First of all, I disagree that rights are "granted" by society. Instead, I consider rights to be inherent to our human dignity. They can either be acknowledged by society or not, but that doesn't affect the truth of their existence (in other words, I believe that universal truth exists, but its exact parameters are not necessarily known for sure). Still, I agree that you forfeit them when you trespass against another...though not entirely. You forfeit them with respect to your victim and in exact proportion to your crime itself. Today's court system is indeed designed around the idea that criminals owe a debt to "society" rather than to their victim, but that's one of the reasons why our criminal justice system is so screwed up in the first place. The court system meant to determine actual guilt (so that victims do not just go violate some other innocent person's rights), but after the proportion of the sentence is determined by the court, the criminal truly owes that sentence to his/her victim, not to "society." A murderer in particular owes the greatest debt of all to their victim...one which I imagine is rightfully transferred to the victim's closest loved one for the purposes of exacting justice, since nothing can be done to bring a murder victim back. Funding aside, I'd consider a proper justice system to be one in which a jury determines guilt, a jury and/or judge determines a sentence, and it's finally up to the victim (or next of kin, assuming they're not the murderer) to determine whether to:
Forgive the criminal's debt to them
Make them serve their sentence
Bargain with them for some kind of restitution in exchange for a reduced or eliminated prison sentence. You know, like, "Your debt to me for assault and battery is three years in prison. I have some physical and emotional scars. Just how much is it worth to you to not stew in prison?" Obviously no murder can be entirely made up for with money or anything else, but many other crimes work very well with this model.

However, you are correct about this: If taxpayers do continue to pay for the court system and prison system (a subject of my debate with NickCoons, in fact), you're right...criminals would also owe us as well.

[TheEvilDetector]

This is workable. :)



Similarly workable.



There are still some potential problems, though. I won't reiterate here, but I listed my concerns in my reply above to NickCoons.

I notice there is a lot of discussion about the intricacies of an alternative funding model for the justice system as far as courts and prisons go.

(Note: I think police funding is clear, opt to pay annual flat fee or pay surcharge when called upon. Surcharge is high,enough to raise an equivalent amount based
on statistical distribution of annuals versus per incident payers. For example $120/year (per head in household including kids) or $2500 per incident where an actual
crime took place (cost attributed to the victim who does not pay annual fee and payment could be structured like a debt, with a low repayment over a sufficiently
long period of time to make it easier). In a city of 100,000 where every citizen pays an annual fee (hypothetically), that amounts to $12,000,000 which is enough to keep 240 police at $50,000/year (which I think is a good salary) at the citizen to cop ratio of 416 to 1 (equivalent to LA). Of course in real life, you would also have equipment and other costs, so the annual fee would probably be closer to $200/year per person, but that is still quite a small sum I believe for a core governmental function ie. family of 4 would have to pay $800/year (of course they could choose to pay this in instalments eg. $30.77 fortnightly).)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Police_Department at the staffing section "Further points of comparison include Chicago, which has a ratio of one officer per 216 citizens and Philadelphia, whose officer per citizen ratio is 1 to 219.[54] By contrast, the Los Angeles Police Department protects its city with only one officer for every 426 residents.")

Check out my proposal:

When a court case commences:

Both the prosecution and the defence either:

1. Deposit 100% of the estimated court fees (with any difference adjusted after verdict)
OR
2. Have a debt obligation imposed for the same amount and payable out like a loan repayment over a term comfortable to the party entering into such an agreement.

Court Fees of course relate to:

a. Court Staff
b. Prosecution
c. Public Defenders

Whoever wins, gets their money back or debt obligation reversed as the case may be.

The court gets reimbursed either way, there is no pressure then to convict or not to convict.

No one other than a designated court officer who does not participate during the actual trial, knows the mechanism elected by each side.

This also makes sure, that police who are trying to help the victims do not bring in suspects who have little chance of being convicted, since a failure to convict will bring a financial burden on the victim. Thus costs and frivolous litigation are kept in check through this mechanism.

So let's take a practical example:

Hit and Run case.

Based on past court cases, court fees estimated to be approximately $40,000.

(Note:Of course, the prosecution and defence could shop around different courts for a good deal (based on cost and track record etc).
All courts have jurisdiction, which one is used is a matter for prosecution and defence to decide (defence must make a choice, it cannot simply
stall the process). If dead locked, designated state official makes a choice on their behalf. The official gets paid regardless of court or verdict, thus there is no bias in that regard.)

Prosecution (on behalf of victims) submits a debt arrangement over 10 years.

Defence (rich guy) deposits $40,000.

Court case proceeds, rich guy convicted. Court is paid with the deposited money, the prosecution gets the debt arrangement cancelled.

Rich guy sits in jail.

In Jail during his term, he is advised his debt to prison will be $20,000 over 2 years. He can work it off or he can assume a debt. He takes a debt. He doesn't work during prison, when he gets out he makes repayments. If he chose to work it off, he would just have a certain amount of debt repaid. But it is his choice at all times, just like in the court.

If the Rich guy was proclaimed innocent, then the victim's family would pay out the court fees.

If the victim is deceased and had noone to pay for his costs then money would come out of
victim's estate.

After all, assuming the jury gets it right most of the time, it is a fair arrangement, why should an innocent man pay for the court fees?
Why should the whole community pay either?

PS. Failure to pay according to court debt arrangements, results in a request for the full sum immediately. If that doesn't happen then imprisonment,
where release occurs when the debt is paid off, meaning that the prisoner must work or be able to obtain funds to pay the debt.

Lawful excuse not to pay would be serious disability, illness or death. In such cases, debt is recoverable through the assets of the person.

If the person left the country for the purpose of avoiding paying court debt would result in an arrest warrant being issued in case the person returns.

So here then is an example government collection web page:

Household @ Unit 2, 1-3 Citizen St, Goodtown
Residing Citizen Count x 4

--

NATIONAL PROTECTION SERVICE ACCOUNTS:
Defence Forces FIXED: ANNUAL RATE:$4000 (National Set Fee $1000 per person per year) PAYMENT:STRUCTURED $100x40

NATIONAL MAIL SERVICE ACCOUNTS:
Postal Service OPTION: PER USE:$0.10xArticle Category(1-10)

LOCAL PROTECTION SERVICE ACCOUNTS:
Police Service OPTION: ANNUAL RATE:$800 (Local Set Fee $200 per person per year) PAYMENT:ONCE OFF
Fire Service OPTION: INCIDENT RATE:$1200 (Incident Fee $300 per person) PAYMENT:ON INCIDENT

LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE ACCOUNTS:
Water Infrastructure FIXED: ANNUAL RATE:$100 (Local Set Fee $25 per person per year) PAYMENT:ONCE OFF
Sewage Infrastructure FIXED: ANNUAL RATE:$100 (Local Set Fee $25 per person per year) PAYMENT:ONCE OFF

LOCAL VOLUNTARY ONGOING CHARITABLE FUNDS:

Homeless Shelter Fund OPTION: ACCEPTED AMOUNT:$20 PAYMENT:ONCE OFF THIS YEAR RAISED SO FAR: $204,000 LAST YEAR RAISED: $1,002,304 SURPLUS: $503,394
Isolated Elderly Home Care OPTION: DECLINED THIS YEAR RAISED SO FAR: $1,623,045 LAST YEAR RAISED: $5,302,304 SURPLUS: $23,400
Isolated Elderly Medical Care OPTION: DECLINED THIS YEAR RAISED SO FAR: $643,004 LAST YEAR RAISED: $3,002,304 SURPLUS: $45,320

LOCAL VOLUNTARY PROJECT FUND RAISING:

Local Park Project OPTION:ACCEPTED AMOUNT:$30 PAYMENT: ONCE OFF AMOUNT OUTSTANDING: $800,340 (Click here for specifications)
City Beautification Project: OPTION: DECLINED AMOUNT:$0 AMOUNT OUTSTANDING: $99,200 (Click here for specifications)
City Hall Fountain Project: OPTION ACCEPTED AMOUNT:$15 PAYMENT: ONCE OFF OUTSTANDING: $5,600 (Click here for specifications)

REVENUE ADMINISTRATION ACCOUNT:
Revenue Administration FIXED: ANNUAL RATE $0.04 (Set Fee $0.01 per person per year) PAYMENT:ONCE OFF
--

a. Prisons, Roads, Courts pay for themselves through user fees.
b. Hospitals (and ambulances), Schools, Garbage Collection, Gas and Electricity are private (regulated by government only to prevent fraud and monopolistic abuses)
c. Water and Sewage cannot be private for practical reasons (just imagine frantic competion for water and sewage pipes in the ground LOL).
d. Congress, President, State Congress, Local Government Council Members should NOT have salaries.
Public Service is a sacrifice for the community and should be approached as such.

Libertarianism FTW.

This is how I see an honest constitutional government funding itself.

No Taxes, No Tariffs, Never Have To Reveal Your Income or Finances.

PS. If local project funding goals not met in set time frame, the moneys are refunded or put towards another account at the discretion of the paying citizen.

[nickcoons]

I don't believe it is a necessity, but the constitution allows for a national postal service to be regulated and maintained on a central level.

So constitutionally speaking,

the goverment has the right to

Defend your personal liberties, which includes a strong national defense, justifiably taxable IMO.

Deliver your mail, as an option.

You identified the government as having two jobs; protect our liberties and deliver our mail. I know that the postal service is specified in the Constitution, but so are many other things that you didn't mention. I was just curious as to why you felt strongly about mail service versus the various other responsibilities the Constitution bestows on the federal government.

[nickcoons]

The economics of first-class mail make it impossible for it to be affordable. If we had private first-class mail, we'd have postage at around $2.

So is your claim that, because government can do it for about 40 cents and the private section must charge at least $2, government is more efficient than the private sector?

[nickcoons]

Ultimately though, I do kind of "secretly" agree with you on a lot of this...but this should certainly be one of the last bits of tax-funded spending that anyone moves to abolish. The way I see it, the first step is to get a stable minarchist government in place with much lower taxation than today (and collected in less enslaving manners), and then after things start moving much more smoothly and everyone's lives improve, that would be the time to start talking about dismantling the final percent of taxes or so, along with the spending they finance.

I agree with you on the incrementalist approach. The issues laid out on my campaign website will attest to that.


Now that you've restated things under more coherent terms, I think my main point was that people have so many legitimate reasons to have ordinary firearms that it would be absurd to consider the mere ownership of them to be the threat of force...but if your neighbor has a nuke, his possession or attempted possession of such a weapon would constitute a threat all by itself (since seriously, what else is he going to use it for? ;)).

I believe the vast majority of nuclear devices are used for power generation, not weapons. If I ever had my hands on a nuclear weapon (and felt safe handling it), I'd modify it to provide power to my house, my car, etc, and cancel my utility account.. and perhaps even sell off excess power to my neighbors for less than the local utility company. But maybe that's just me :D.


For instance, let's pretend - although I DO know that this isn't necessarily true - that under Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism, there would be mayhem, and everybody would be killing each other, eating their babies, and stealing their cars to run over children with. This is a ridiculous scenario, but hypothetically speaking, let's run with it. If legitimizing minimal taxation could be proven to alleviate these problems and result in much fewer violent rights violations, would you grudgingly consent to such taxation?

I think this is a catch-22 though. If the psychology of people were such that this was society's existence, then I don't think the implementation of such a system would be successful. As it is today, most people are good in that they (on an individual basis) generally respect the rights of others. In spite of that, we have countless government-sponsored atrocities. Imagine that in general most people were not good in the scenario that you outline. Just as today, those that wish for power work to rise to the top and achieve it, I think it would happen much more quickly and brutally if the initiation of force was legitimized in your scenario.

[werdd]

You identified the government as having two jobs; protect our liberties and deliver our mail. I know that the postal service is specified in the Constitution, but so are many other things that you didn't mention. I was just curious as to why you felt strongly about mail service versus the various other responsibilities the Constitution bestows on the federal government.

I do beleive the mail system is bloated as it is right now, with all of the junk mail it is no doubt costing us an excessive amount of cash.

In the future i see the junk mail being phased out, as it will be more economically feasable to just send a digital email out. I beleive the USPS should be used only for critical business document's, payroll, and etc.

But you still need an institution to deliver first class mail at a reasonable rate. And while i am for competition, no one can compete with an institution that has the constitutional right to exist on tax payer dollars.

They could create a private institution like the fed, but i beleive that form of quasi goverment privatization is almost always worse than just nationalizing it. That's one of the main problems with the fed, its an outright goverment institution, but since it is legally privatized, there is no required oversight.

And im not advocating nationalizing the fed ;)

[Contumacious]

i see alot of talk from people around here about how they are against direct taxes, and even some who are against any form of taxation whatsoever.What, in your mind is the best way to go about funding a constitutionally sized government? Taxing the Free Market? the government needs at least some money to function right?

Lotteries.

[Feenix566]

I like the idea of having taxes that directly relate to the service being provided. So, for instance, ports should charge docking fees and use the money to fund the Navy. Borders should charge crossing fees, and use that money to fund the Army. (That solution makes sense when the Army is defending US soil, not nation-builidng abroad) The states can charge a gas tax and use that to fund roads. The fire departments should sell fire insurance, and whenever they put out a fire in a house that's uninsured, they should send the people a bill. The city water and sewer departments send you a bill for how much you use. The EPA should be funded by billing companies depending on how much pollution they make. etcetera etcetera...

Incidentally, while we're on the subject of fire protection, there is such a thing as private fire protection. With some particularily expensive homeowners insurance plans in high-risk areas, the insurance company actually has its own fire company that goes to the houses.

[nickcoons]

But you still need an institution to deliver first class mail at a reasonable rate. And while i am for competition, no one can compete with an institution that has the constitutional right to exist on tax payer dollars.

There are probably quite a few people that would prefer to use a competitor for first class mail if it were offered as an option, but it may cost more (though that remains to be seen). Likewise, there are many that would like to send their kids to private schools, but the fact that public education is free sways quite a few people. This is not to say that public education is affordable, because it's really not as cheap as it appears. It's subsidized by tax dollars. In the end, it costs more than private education. Unfortunately, you cannot opt-out of paying public education taxes simply by sending your children to private school.

Similarly, the USPS seems unbelievably cheap because the cost of postage is only a part of the cost. If subsidies were removed and the USPS was forced to survive on its own generated revenues, we'd see the true cost of government mail. It wouldn't be more expensive, it would just appear that way because of the new-found transparency in the system. Given that, there's no reason we couldn't have competition in mailing and provide the service for less than the USPS.