Thought Experiment: Tax Free Society

[denison]

Ok, I've been mulling this over in my mind. First of all everyone is welcome to contribute to this thread. Second of all I'm not an economist, so a lot of people here will know more about this subject than me.

When I talk about tax free society, I mean completely:

-No income tax
-No sales tax
-No capital gains tax
-No property tax
-No inheritance tax etc....

The thinks that would drive this society:
-Philanthropy
-Charity/Charitable organization(instead of welfare/free social services)
-Capitalism/ Free trade/ Maximize competition

A society like this would have to have a small limited government. The government would not be an employer or collect taxes(no IRS) from people. If the people wanted new roads, better schools, better parks etc... they would get together raise the money, get the job done themselves. Firstly I think a society like this would have to be fully privatized. Private police(see article below), private healthcare, private schools, private prisons etc....

Benefits of Privatization:
- Private police - higher salary, no immunity like government police
- Private healthcare - less rationing, better services
- Private schools - higher test scores than public school
- Private prisons - could use criminals as labor force to pay off their debt

In fact I think the only tax should be a "criminal tax". So really, any law abiding citizen would be living in a completely tax free society. People who commit misdemeanors could be taxed at 1-10% for 1 - 5 yrs for punishment, or whatever rate you want to use. Harsher criminals(but not murders, rapist, pedos) could work on a prison labor force to work off their debt directly as punishment.

Criminals work off debt for Private Police:
http://scottsafetyshop.com/blog/2007/08/15/i-suggest-private-police/

Private Police - How it would work
http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/polin/polin017.pdf (explains how poor people would be covered too)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_police

http://scottsafetyshop.com/blog/2008/03/12/private-police-to-stop-and-catch-violent-criminals/

Private Prisons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prison

Free free to add how you think a society like this would work or wouldn't. It's just a thought experiment.

[Mini-Me]

Hi, welcome to the boards! I think the anarcho-capitalists here have found a new friend. :D

We've definitely had a lot of discussions and flame wars on this very subject, and it's generally called the minarchy vs. anarchy debate...so don't take it personally if people end up avoiding this thread like the plague out of exhaustion. Personally, I'm very open to this idea, but you'll definitely find some people here who will disagree...and others who will accept no substitute. ;)

I don't have the time to get into an involved discussion at the moment, but I just wanted to pull a hit and run and say welcome!

[ChaosControl]

Did you just post this the other day on another forum as I just saw that there too.
And like I said there, I fully support a tax free society.

[Bucjason]

Why don't we aim for more realistic goals, like eliminating the income tax for the fair tax ?? :cool:

The only problem with your theory, IMO, is that not everyone would assume equal responsonsibility for the services in that society. If you have a group of dead-beats that refuse to contribute ANY money, then it means the rest of us have to all pay MORE if we want a road to drive on.

Or suppose you live in a crime infested area, and want to start a fund raiser to hire more police . Do you think your criminal neighbors are going to contribute to that fund? Hell no.

[tremendoustie]

Welcome denison! :)

I agree completetly, although I think for pay services might be the norm in some places, when charity for whatever reason doesn't work.


Why don't we aim for more realistic goals, like eliminating the income tax for the fair tax ?? :cool:

The only problem with your theory, IMO, is that not everyone would assume equal responsonsibility for the services in that society. If you have a group of dead-beats that refuse to contribute ANY money, then it means the rest of us have to all pay MORE if we want a road to drive on.

Or suppose you live in a crime infested area, and want to start a fund raiser to hire more police . Do you think your criminal neighbors are going to contribute to that fund? Hell no.

As I say, easy solution where charity isn't working: Pay roads -- could be by toll, advertising, subscription, etc., and subscription security service. So, if you think Police Department A is doing a great job for a good price, subscribe to them, or if you don't subscribe to PD B. Or, if you have a Deagle, security fence, and a guard dog, subscribe to no one and defend yourself. :cool:

[pahs1994]

Just my 2 cents. A "criminal tax" could become an incentive for cops or judges to charge inocent people just to get tax money. I can see higher up people putting pressure on them to do this in order to get the tax revenue. Kind of like the same effect as cops settin traps and pulling over people and dropping huge fines for very minor traffic violations just to fill a quota.

[mediahasyou]

Welcome to Market Anarchism. You are right my friend. Every single government service can be provided by businesses and will be provided better (as we all know).

Here's a great book that outline's how the tax-free market anarchism would work: http://www.mississaugatherapy.com/FDR_Books/FDR_5_Practical_Anarchy.pdf

Enjoy. :)

[max]

This would DEFINITELY work!

I would give every American worker the option to have a percentage of his income zapped out of his check each week....voluntary contributions...
the state should have Jerry Lewis type telethons to raise money as well as lotteries

[FSP-Rebel]

Why don't we aim for more realistic goals, like eliminating the income tax for the fair tax ?? :cool:

The only problem with your theory, IMO, is that not everyone would assume equal responsonsibility for the services in that society. If you have a group of dead-beats that refuse to contribute ANY money, then it means the rest of us have to all pay MORE if we want a road to drive on.

Or suppose you live in a crime infested area, and want to start a fund raiser to hire more police . Do you think your criminal neighbors are going to contribute to that fund? Hell no.
I don't favor ending the income tax to just institute a fair tax - which isn't even smart in a depressionary time like now. The fair tax would cripple the economy like no other, plus it isn't even a sure thing that the income tax would be repealed, thus we could have both - just knowing how trustworthy the pushers of the fair tax are, think Huckabee.

The second point you make about not everyone doing their part is moot, cause private communities would be based on private contracts that are able to be hashed out in arbitration. If you didn't like the rules of one community, then you could choose from many others or just move out in the middle of nowhere and do your own thing. People could pay for roads by subscription fees (think magazines) or by advertising or by people taking care of the road directly in front of their property.

Regarding crime, it only happens where there's massive amounts of gun control that keeps the law-abiding at a disadvantage to said criminals. Again, you don't move into a crime-ridden neighborhood if you care about safety. An armed society is a polite society. W/o a war on drugs, you'd have very little crime across the board.

[tremendoustie]

Oh, yeah, I should say I also disagree with criminals paying for the police. Criminals should be forced to pay compensation to the victim, or work to pay the victim if they don't have money. The people who recieve the police services should pay the police.

Criminals paying police I think lends itself to police abuse, and it's not fundamentally just either -- the criminal harmed the victim, not the police. Plus, I think having to work to pay a victim is far more likely to lead to rehabilitation than just being locked up and idle for a period of time with other criminals. Of course, those who continue to be a danger to others will need to be in some kind of secure environment.

[Vessol]

As I always respond to these. Works in a smaller setting, but not in a large 300 million people big setting.

-Fin

[IPSecure]

Walter Burien (CAFR1.com) has a solution

How to end ALL Taxation: TaxRetirement.com (http://taxretirement.com/)

[heavenlyboy34]

welcome to the boards-aka the looney bin-OP. I like your free-thinking style already! Looking forward to getting to know ya. ~HB34~

[Endgame]

I was wondering if it would be possible for a very small and frugal government to be funded mainly by interest income from a large reserve of cash. But wouldn't that make the government a bank of sorts?

[tremendoustie]

As I always respond to these. Works in a smaller setting, but not in a large 300 million people big setting.

-Fin

Right, voluntary interactions, and violence only in self defense, works until we hit a few million people, and then the only way to get along is to start extorting money from each other :rolleyes:.

And the second amendment no longer applies because we don't use muskets ...

[denison]

Hi, welcome to the boards! I think the anarcho-capitalists here have found a new friend. :D

We've definitely had a lot of discussions and flame wars on this very subject, and it's generally called the minarchy vs. anarchy debate...so don't take it personally if people end up avoiding this thread like the plague out of exhaustion. Personally, I'm very open to this idea, but you'll definitely find some people here who will disagree...and others who will accept no substitute. ;)

I don't have the time to get into an involved discussion at the moment, but I just wanted to pull a hit and run and say welcome!

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=minarchy&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=ronpaulforums.com&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images :eek:

Wow, you're right. I did a seach and seems to have come up alot. Haha. Now I have to spend all day and night reading all those old thread. :D Anyways, thank you for the warm welcome. This forum should be fun.

[denison]

Just my 2 cents. A "criminal tax" could become an incentive for cops or judges to charge inocent people just to get tax money. I can see higher up people putting pressure on them to do this in order to get the tax revenue. Kind of like the same effect as cops settin traps and pulling over people and dropping huge fines for very minor traffic violations just to fill a quota.

You're right, I can see that easily being abused. Hmm. I don't know. The small limited government has to be funded some how. :o I'll have to think about that.

[denison]

Welcome to Market Anarchism. You are right my friend. Every single government service can be provided by businesses and will be provided better (as we all know).

Here's a great book that outline's how the tax-free market anarchism would work: http://www.mississaugatherapy.com/FDR_Books/FDR_5_Practical_Anarchy.pdf

Enjoy. :)

Thanks, this makes for interesting read. I never new there was so much information on this subject. I'm gonna be busy all week reading stuff. :cool:

[denison]

Oh, yeah, I should say I also disagree with criminals paying for the police. Criminals should be forced to pay compensation to the victim, or work to pay the victim if they don't have money. The people who recieve the police services should pay the police.

Criminals paying police I think lends itself to police abuse, and it's not fundamentally just either -- the criminal harmed the victim, not the police. Plus, I think having to work to pay a victim is far more likely to lead to rehabilitation than just being locked up and idle for a period of time with other criminals. Of course, those who continue to be a danger to others will need to be in some kind of secure environment.


Your right. That's actually what I mean. The criminals pay the poor victims, who use that money to fund the private police.

[heavenlyboy34]

Thanks, this makes for interesting read. I never new there was so much information on this subject. I'm gonna be busy all week reading stuff. :cool:

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of market anarchism. :cool::)

[tremendoustie]

Regarding roads, here's an interesting quote from Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859), a french historian who visited and studied early America:

"If it is a question of taking a road past his property, [a man] sees at once that this small public matter has a bearing on his greatest private interests, and there is no need to point out to him the close connection between his private profit and the general interest. . . . Local liberties, then, which induce a great number of citizens to value the affection of their kindred and neighbors, bring men constantly into contact, despite the instincts which separate them, and force them to help one another. . . . The free institutions of the United States and the political rights enjoyed there provide a thousand continual reminders to every citizen that he lives in society. . . . Having no particular reason to hate others, since he is neither their slave nor their master, the American’s heart easily inclines toward benevolence. At first it is of necessity that men attend to the public interest, afterward by choice. What had been calculation becomes instinct. By dint of working for the good of his fellow citizens, he in the end acquires a habit and taste for serving them. . . . I maintain that there is only one effective remedy against the evils which equality may cause, and that is political liberty. (pp. 511-13, Lawrence/Mayer edition)

Oh, how far we have fallen ...

We used to have private road businesses and turnpikes too -- in fact, as a percentage of GDP, the amount invested in these roads from 1790 to 1830 was greater than the total amount invested by all levels of government in the interstate highway system between 1956 and 1995. They produced more than 40,000 miles of roads!

[powerofreason]

Speaking of private roads Walter Block recently came out with a new book that demolishes all arguments for public roads.

[Elwar]

Don't forget the idea of a nationwide lottery to pay for our military (in addition to the millions of gun owners ready to defend the homeland).

[jmdrake]

We have private prisons and they are an abomination. The problem is that these private corporations lobby for more laws to put more people in prison so that they can make more money. It's not simply an issue of the poor being "covered". These prisoners already work to pay off so called "debts". It's like having Chinese slave labor in your back yard. Another type of "illegal" workforce.

Also any type of police force must, by definition, work by "force". Let's say if we have this private police force and my private police force is bigger than yours and I say that you stole my land when you really didn't. Who arbitrates? I can see volunteer fire departments.

The reason we need a constitution is to protect us from government abuse. Simply privatizing the abuse doesn't make it go away.

Regards,

John M. Drake


Ok, I've been mulling this over in my mind. First of all everyone is welcome to contribute to this thread. Second of all I'm not an economist, so a lot of people here will know more about this subject than me.

When I talk about tax free society, I mean completely:

-No income tax
-No sales tax
-No capital gains tax
-No property tax
-No inheritance tax etc....

The thinks that would drive this society:
-Philanthropy
-Charity/Charitable organization(instead of welfare/free social services)
-Capitalism/ Free trade/ Maximize competition

A society like this would have to have a small limited government. The government would not be an employer or collect taxes(no IRS) from people. If the people wanted new roads, better schools, better parks etc... they would get together raise the money, get the job done themselves. Firstly I think a society like this would have to be fully privatized. Private police(see article below), private healthcare, private schools, private prisons etc....

Benefits of Privatization:
- Private police - higher salary, no immunity like government police
- Private healthcare - less rationing, better services
- Private schools - higher test scores than public school
- Private prisons - could use criminals as labor force to pay off their debt

In fact I think the only tax should be a "criminal tax". So really, any law abiding citizen would be living in a completely tax free society. People who commit misdemeanors could be taxed at 1-10% for 1 - 5 yrs for punishment, or whatever rate you want to use. Harsher criminals(but not murders, rapist, pedos) could work on a prison labor force to work off their debt directly as punishment.

Criminals work off debt for Private Police:
http://scottsafetyshop.com/blog/2007/08/15/i-suggest-private-police/

Private Police - How it would work
http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/polin/polin017.pdf (explains how poor people would be covered too)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_police

http://scottsafetyshop.com/blog/2008/03/12/private-police-to-stop-and-catch-violent-criminals/

Private Prisons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prison

Free free to add how you think a society like this would work or wouldn't. It's just a thought experiment.

[tremendoustie]

We have private prisons and they are an abomination. The problem is that these private corporations lobby for more laws to put more people in prison so that they can make more money. It's not simply an issue of the poor being "covered". These prisoners already work to pay off so called "debts". It's like having Chinese slave labor in your back yard. Another type of "illegal" workforce.


That's government putting those people there. You're arguing against corporatism, not freedom. And, any work any convict does should go the victim, not to the prison or the state.



Also any type of police force must, by definition, work by "force". Let's say if we have this private police force and my private police force is bigger than yours and I say that you stole my land when you really didn't. Who arbitrates? I can see volunteer fire departments.


Wars are expensive and dangerous, so private defense agencies will certainly designate courts of arbitration to settle disputes between them.



The reason we need a constitution is to protect us from government abuse. Simply privatizing the abuse doesn't make it go away.


How's that constitutional protection thing going for ya'? It seems like all the power hungry looters you fear have just joined government instead -- but since it's a monopoly, peaceful people have nowhere else to turn.

It also legitimizes theft -- so many who would never go down the street and steal from their neighbor, or join a violent gang, which is what those "violent" agencies you fear really would be, have no problem passing oppressive laws and stealing from their neighbors through government.

You have to start from principles, and work from there. If extorting money is immoral, and protecting liberty and property is your goal, you can't create an agency to do so which extorts money and violates liberty and property rights. It's self contradictory, and you create a ready made tool for all the power hungry people you fear, who will inevitably gravitate to government itself. And a piece of paper will not stop them.

[powerofreason]

oops wrong thread

[Bucjason]

I don't favor ending the income tax to just institute a fair tax - which isn't even smart in a depressionary time like now. The fair tax would cripple the economy like no other, plus it isn't even a sure thing that the income tax would be repealed, thus we could have both - just knowing how trustworthy the pushers of the fair tax are, think Huckabee.

The second point you make about not everyone doing their part is moot, cause private communities would be based on private contracts that are able to be hashed out in arbitration. If you didn't like the rules of one community, then you could choose from many others or just move out in the middle of nowhere and do your own thing. People could pay for roads by subscription fees (think magazines) or by advertising or by people taking care of the road directly in front of their property.

Regarding crime, it only happens where there's massive amounts of gun control that keeps the law-abiding at a disadvantage to said criminals. Again, you don't move into a crime-ridden neighborhood if you care about safety. An armed society is a polite society. W/o a war on drugs, you'd have very little crime across the board.


hmmmmm, good points . Good point someone else made about Lotteries also. You can always generate money voluntarily with Lottos. People love to gamble.

I suppose it COULD work , but it will never realistically happen. That's why my goal for the time being is to just eliminate the federal income tax, which is unconstitutional , IMO.

[jmdrake]

That's government putting those people there. You're arguing against corporatism, not freedom. And, any work any convict does should go the victim, not to the prison or the state.


LOL. And explain how you have "private prisons" without corporatism? You sound like one of those Obamanaughts who say his healthcare plan is not "socialized medicine". What happens when the convict was convicted of a crime against the state? And how do you expect private corporations to get into the prison business if they don't reap at least some of the profits of the entire enterprise? You say the work should go to the victim. How do you plan to enforce that? When said victim shows up to mega prisons incorporated and asks for his/her cut and the corporation says "Latter for you" then what? Also the only reason why companies use prison labor is because they can get it cheaper than honest labor. Is that a good thing?



Wars are expensive and dangerous, so private defense agencies will certainly designate courts of arbitration to settle disputes between them.


Wars are expensive and dangerous...and yet we fight them all of the time. Human nature flies in the face of your reasoning.



How's that constitutional protection thing going for ya'? It seems like all the power hungry looters you fear have just joined government instead -- but since it's a monopoly, peaceful people have nowhere else to turn.


So far so good. The problem isn't the constitution. The problem is the degree we've abandoned the constitution. The answer is not more private tyranny in the name of "reform".



It also legitimizes theft -- so many who would never go down the street and steal from their neighbor, or join a violent gang, which is what those "violent" agencies you fear really would be, have no problem passing oppressive laws and stealing from their neighbors through government.


:rolleyes: And so the answer is to institutionalize theft? And you missed my earlier point. Private prisons have exacerbated the problem of more oppressive laws! The problem of oppressive laws does not go away by privatizing tyranny. After all, the people put in private prisons have to be put their for a reason (breaking some law).



You have to start from principles, and work from there. If extorting money is immoral, and protecting liberty and property is your goal, you can't create an agency to do so which extorts money and violates liberty and property rights. It's self contradictory, and you create a ready made tool for all the power hungry people you fear, who will inevitably gravitate to government itself. And a piece of paper will not stop them.

I never said it would. A piece of paper gives you a framework to go from. And that's the problem with your whole argument. You argue absent any kind of framework. So you can define your utopia any way your mind wishes and ignore the reality of what's already been happen with regards to private prisons and private armies (Blackwater?). I want to reign in government to within it's proper role. I don't want to replace one tyranny with another. We have too many laws and too much prison time for too many victimless crimes. Rolling this back should be the focus. Not rolling everything over to privatization.

[South Park Fan]

The Market for Liberty (http://book.freekeene.com) has a good chapter about private places where criminals could work off their debts to their victims.

[jmdrake]

The Market for Liberty (http://book.freekeene.com) has a good chapter about private places where criminals could work off their debts to their victims.

That's nice. And when said criminal says "I never committed that crime and I'm not doing squat" then what? Who makes the final decision to force someone to work against his will? A private judicial corporation?

The problem with the whole "free market" prison thing is simple. Most free market transactions are between people who WANT to make the transaction! I trade you my wheat for your eggs. Everybody is happy. In the case of the justice system there is a third party that likely will NOT be happy with the outcome. I accuse you of stealing my wheat, I provide evidence, you say you were framed, somebody has to make the final decision and in the end we all have to live with that decision. I don't want that decision made simply by who has the most money to pay for justice. Sure, our justice system is already bent towards money, so let's just make it official? :rolleyes:

There are a lot of areas of government we can do without. And the "corrections" system is certainly too big. But so far the proposals I've seen for privatization would make things worse IMO. Privatize social security (I likely won't get any anyway). Keep medicine private and privatize indigent care. (I'd be happy to "chip-in" for that.) While I'm wary of toll roads (trans Texas corridor MUST be stopped), I could live in a society that was 100% toll roads since I don't HAVE to drive anywhere. (Very difficult, but not impossible). But I would NOT want to live in a society where some private judge can give some orders to some private police to put me in a private prison to work off a debt to a private victim that I don't think I owe. And yes I'm talking "worst case scenario" here, but if we're talking about replacing an existing system with a new one we have to look at the worst case of what could happen.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[tremendoustie]

LOL. And explain how you have "private prisons" without corporatism?


Encyclopedia Brittanica:
"[Corporatism is] the theory and practice of organizing society into “corporations” subordinate to the state."

Corporatism, by definition, implies a highly powerful state.

And, by the way, I do not support prison except for those who continue to be a danger to others.



You sound like one of those Obamanaughts who say his healthcare plan is not "socialized medicine". What happens when the convict was convicted of a crime against the state?


What state?



And how do you expect private corporations to get into the prison business if they don't reap at least some of the profits of the entire enterprise?


Where there are vicious people who continue to be a violent threat to others, they will be forced to work in a secure environment, with benefits going to the victim. Cost for maintenance and operation of said environment will be paid for by the protection agency, which is in turn funded by subscriptions from individuals.




You say the work should go to the victim. How do you plan to enforce that?


The victims, being the customers of the protection agencies, will demand it. A protection agency which does not provide compensation to victims will not long remain in business.



When said victim shows up to mega prisons incorporated and asks for his/her cut and the corporation says "Latter for you" then what?


Then they, and everyone else, stop subscribing to the associated protection service, and they go out of business.



Also the only reason why companies use prison labor is because they can get it cheaper than honest labor. Is that a good thing?


No. All labor of convicts should go to victims.



Wars are expensive and dangerous...and yet we fight them all of the time. Human nature flies in the face of your reasoning.


Wars are only funded because normal people like you and I, who do not support them, are forced to pay for them.

If individuals were able to choose to pull funding, as they would be were there competing protection agencies, the Iraq war would have ended long ago. Few wars would ever get off the ground funding-wise, except for defense against invasion.



So far so good. The problem isn't the constitution. The problem is the degree we've abandoned the constitution. The answer is not more private tyranny in the name of "reform".


I don't support private tyranny. I support the non-aggression principle. I will oppose anyone who violates it, public or private. You're making excuses for violations of it.

In reality, the only thing that holds any government accountable is the people themselves. Organizations which are not monopolies are more readily accountable, because people can vote with their feet and wallets. The very same force that restrains the government from total tyranny now, would restrain protection agencies: the people.



:rolleyes: And so the answer is to institutionalize theft?


No, I oppose all theft. You're the one defending institutionalized theft: taxes.



And you missed my earlier point. Private prisons have exacerbated the problem of more oppressive laws! The problem of oppressive laws does not go away by privatizing tyranny. After all, the people put in private prisons have to be put their for a reason (breaking some law).


I oppose all laws against victimless crimes.



I never said it would. A piece of paper gives you a framework to go from. And that's the problem with your whole argument. You argue absent any kind of framework.


The framework is the non-aggression principle. Call that my constitution if you like.



So you can define your utopia any way your mind wishes ...


I just oppose aggressive violence, I'm not saying we're ever going to have a world completely free of it.

Do you oppose all murder? I hope so. Does that make you Utopian? No.



... and ignore the reality of what's already been happen with regards to private prisons and private armies (Blackwater?).


You do realize that all your examples are funded by and in bed with government? Can't you at least come up with a decent example like Al Capone? Oh wait, he only stayed afloat because of prohibition ... whoops.



I want to reign in government to within it's proper role. I don't want to replace one tyranny with another.


Nor do I. I will fight against private tyranny as strongly as public tyranny.

What exactly is the governments "proper role" praytell? Does it involve extorting money from peaceful people by threatening violence? How about the enforcement of a monopoly?



We have too many laws and too much prison time for too many victimless crimes. Rolling this back should be the focus. Not rolling everything over to privatization.


Absolutely I agree. You seem to think I want to roll over current government functions to private entities. I don't. I just want the government to stop behaving immorally, and I realize that ultimately, this will mean they will have to allow people to choose to get their protection elsewhere, if they want. Taxes are also themselves immoral. I don't want to roll over the immorality, I want to end it.

If you can formulate a "government" which does not itself violate the non-aggression principle, I will support it.

[South Park Fan]

That's nice. And when said criminal says "I never committed that crime and I'm not doing squat" then what? Who makes the final decision to force someone to work against his will? A private judicial corporation?

He could disobey the judge's order, but at the expense of his reputation, and many shops wouldn't want a convict near their establishment for fear of losing business. Alternatively, if the judge's order was widely recognizes as unfair, the suspect would not face this economic boycott and the judge would lose business.

Compare this to our socialized judicial system, where a judge/jury could just as easily make a bad verdict, but rather than losing business, we all must still go to that judge to settle disputes. Additionally, the suspect would be rotting in prison for an extended amount of time.


The problem with the whole "free market" prison thing is simple. Most free market transactions are between people who WANT to make the transaction! I trade you my wheat for your eggs. Everybody is happy. In the case of the justice system there is a third party that likely will NOT be happy with the outcome. I accuse you of stealing my wheat, I provide evidence, you say you were framed, somebody has to make the final decision and in the end we all have to live with that decision. I don't want that decision made simply by who has the most money to pay for justice. Sure, our justice system is already bent towards money, so let's just make it official? :rolleyes:

The difference is that, while a bad judge would be ostracized in a free market, society must live with a bad judge for several decades in the current system. IN a free society, prior to a contract being made, the two parties may specify which court they would settle their disputes in and promise to abide by their decision.


There are a lot of areas of government we can do without. And the "corrections" system is certainly too big. But so far the proposals I've seen for privatization would make things worse IMO. Privatize social security (I likely won't get any anyway). Keep medicine private and privatize indigent care. (I'd be happy to "chip-in" for that.) While I'm wary of toll roads (trans Texas corridor MUST be stopped), I could live in a society that was 100% toll roads since I don't HAVE to drive anywhere. (Very difficult, but not impossible). But I would NOT want to live in a society where some private judge can give some orders to some private police to put me in a private prison to work off a debt to a private victim that I don't think I owe. And yes I'm talking "worst case scenario" here, but if we're talking about replacing an existing system with a new one we have to look at the worst case of what could happen.

With roads, you already pay a high toll before you use them, in the form of taxes. Having competition in roads would force prices down and quality up, and since road usage would directly correlate with price paid, there would be less traffic than today.

I don't see why you would prefer a society where some government judge can give some orders to some government police to put you in a government prison to rot away while the victim you don't think you owe goes uncompensated by anyone. And I can guarentee that this scenario is more common than your scenario would be.

Regards,

John M. Drake[/QUOTE]

[powerofreason]

That's nice. And when said criminal says "I never committed that crime and I'm not doing squat" then what? Who makes the final decision to force someone to work against his will? A private judicial corporation?

The problem with the whole "free market" prison thing is simple. Most free market transactions are between people who WANT to make the transaction! I trade you my wheat for your eggs. Everybody is happy. In the case of the justice system there is a third party that likely will NOT be happy with the outcome. I accuse you of stealing my wheat, I provide evidence, you say you were framed, somebody has to make the final decision and in the end we all have to live with that decision. I don't want that decision made simply by who has the most money to pay for justice. Sure, our justice system is already bent towards money, so let's just make it official? :rolleyes:

There are a lot of areas of government we can do without. And the "corrections" system is certainly too big. But so far the proposals I've seen for privatization would make things worse IMO. Privatize social security (I likely won't get any anyway). Keep medicine private and privatize indigent care. (I'd be happy to "chip-in" for that.) While I'm wary of toll roads (trans Texas corridor MUST be stopped), I could live in a society that was 100% toll roads since I don't HAVE to drive anywhere. (Very difficult, but not impossible). But I would NOT want to live in a society where some private judge can give some orders to some private police to put me in a private prison to work off a debt to a private victim that I don't think I owe. And yes I'm talking "worst case scenario" here, but if we're talking about replacing an existing system with a new one we have to look at the worst case of what could happen.

Regards,

John M. Drake

Aggression is wrong always.

Game over, thanks for playing.

[Objectivist]

..........

[LibForestPaul]

This was attempted in the 60's. The hippies failed. Smoking pot, fucking, and letting someone else work is too attractive to the human species. Move on.

[powerofreason]

Recommended books to learn more about market anarchist/anarcho-capitalist theory. Most or all are available for free in pdf format.

Chaos Theory
For A New Liberty
The Ethics of Liberty
The Market For Liberty
The Boundaries of Order
The Left, the Right, and the State
Democracy: The God That Failed

Those are the best ones off the top of my head.

[powerofreason]

This was attempted in the 60's. The hippies failed. Smoking pot, fucking, and letting someone else work is too attractive to the human species. Move on.

Somebodys a conservative.... :rolleyes:

[tremendoustie]

This was attempted in the 60's. The hippies failed. Smoking pot, fucking, and letting someone else work is too attractive to the human species. Move on.

That's why we talk about individual responsibility, and business, not just cooperative efforts and charities. Trust me, voluntaryism =/= hippieism, not even close.

I do believe in supporting oneself through hard work. I don't believe in theft, or monopolies.

It's socialism that enables laziness and irresponsibility, not freedom.

[TRIGRHAPPY]

Ok, I've been mulling this over in my mind. First of all everyone is welcome to contribute to this thread. Second of all I'm not an economist, so a lot of people here will know more about this subject than me.

When I talk about tax free society, I mean completely:

-No income tax
-No sales tax
-No capital gains tax
-No property tax
-No inheritance tax etc....

The thinks that would drive this society:
-Philanthropy
-Charity/Charitable organization(instead of welfare/free social services)
-Capitalism/ Free trade/ Maximize competition

A society like this would have to have a small limited government. The government would not be an employer or collect taxes(no IRS) from people. If the people wanted new roads, better schools, better parks etc... they would get together raise the money, get the job done themselves. Firstly I think a society like this would have to be fully privatized. Private police(see article below), private healthcare, private schools, private prisons etc....

Benefits of Privatization:
- Private police - higher salary, no immunity like government police
- Private healthcare - less rationing, better services
- Private schools - higher test scores than public school
- Private prisons - could use criminals as labor force to pay off their debt

In fact I think the only tax should be a "criminal tax". So really, any law abiding citizen would be living in a completely tax free society. People who commit misdemeanors could be taxed at 1-10% for 1 - 5 yrs for punishment, or whatever rate you want to use. Harsher criminals(but not murders, rapist, pedos) could work on a prison labor force to work off their debt directly as punishment.

Criminals work off debt for Private Police:
http://scottsafetyshop.com/blog/2007/08/15/i-suggest-private-police/

Private Police - How it would work
http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/polin/polin017.pdf (explains how poor people would be covered too)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_police

http://scottsafetyshop.com/blog/2008/03/12/private-police-to-stop-and-catch-violent-criminals/

Private Prisons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prison

Free free to add how you think a society like this would work or wouldn't. It's just a thought experiment.

This is even more utopian than socialism. Just as impossible in practice too.

I think the only way to have a "tax-free" society is one where energy is completely controlled by government.....and nothing else.

By that i mean a gigantic algae farming operation to harvest the oils for biodiesel. We could harvest enough algae to make biodiesel to completely free us from fossil fuels within a couple of years. The government could build the farms with taxpayer money. The farms are pretty much just very large, shallow pools of water. Relatively inexpensive to build and maintain, easy to harvest..... The price to make a gallon of biodiesel is about $1. The government could sell biodiesel at a fixed price of $2.50 and use the $1.50 per gallon to pay for the expenses of government.

No taxes would allow businesses and jobs to flourish. Cheap fuel would have the same affect. Also, the money would be staying inside the U.S. instead of going to enemies overseas. Biodiesel burns very clean and is carbon neutral. Diesel engines are about 40% more efficient than gasoline as well.

I believe this is the best route to take if you honestly want no taxes and a small but well funded government. The problem would be keeping the government from using its control of energy to control the states and the people.....but that should be relatively easily accomplished with an amendment to the constitution saying that it cannot do so.

[tremendoustie]

I think the only way to have a "tax-free" society is one where energy is completely controlled by government.....and nothing else.

Did he say we needed a government? And, uh, tell me again why you have this desperate need for there to be one giant monopoly that controls everything?



The government could build the farms with taxpayer money.


Freedom fail.


The problem would be keeping the government from using its control of energy to control the states and the people.....but that should be relatively easily accomplished with an amendment to the constitution saying that it cannot do so.

LMAO, I think this may be the funniest thing I've seen all year. :eek:

I can see it now: deep in the caverns of the white house, a wannabe dictator pours over military maps, on his last official day in office. "AHA!" He says to himself, with a satisfied chuckle. "Now that we have taxed the population into poverty and purchased our massive energy complex, no one can stop us! We control the energy of the continent, and with it, the military! All will bow on bended knee, as I reshape humanity for my purposes -- footstools and lampshades and factory slaves to build me giant yachts! "

"Herr Direktor, Herr Direktor", an intern bumbles in. "We have just made a horrible discovery! One of the amendments to the constitution prohibits you taking over the country and enslaving everyone! It even has a picture of your mug with an arrow pointing to it which says, 'This man is not allowed to become a tyrant.'"

The president sinks slowly to his seat, face in hands. "I suppose all plans are off then. Politicians can never disobey the constitution. It has magical ink you know. I guess I'll just join habitat for humanity after all."

:rolleyes:

[Raineee]

An anarcho-capitalist society would be a disaster. There's a reason we have governments, even if they are highly flawed.

[South Park Fan]

An anarcho-capitalist society would be a disaster. There's a reason we have governments, even if they are highly flawed.

Wow, you've convinced me. :rolleyes:

[Raineee]

Wow, you've convinced me. :rolleyes:

All of this anarcho-capitalist stuff is just so very, very, Utopian. None of you are admitting any flaws in it.

It reminds me of the socialists. Everyone will be equal, great quality of life, justice and happiness for all, blah blah. It doesn't work.

[tremendoustie]

All of this anarcho-capitalist stuff is just so very, very, Utopian. None of you are admitting any flaws in it.


Do you oppose murder of innocents? All murder of innocents? Does that make you Utopian? Of course not. You work to reduce murder as much as possible, you never support it, but you realize it will probably always exist to some degree.

Replace murder with aggressive violence, and that's my stance. Things will never be perfect, but that does not mean I am going to accept and support immorality and injustice.

I am willing to consider any means of social organization which does not violate the non aggression principle. No such means is problem free, some have more problems than others. None has as so great a problem as coercive government, though, which does not even have the possibility of being moral.



It reminds me of the socialists. Everyone will be equal, great quality of life, justice and happiness for all, blah blah. It doesn't work.

Who said it will be perfect? I'm just opposing the immorality I see, and right now, most of it is coming from government. I would oppose a private tyrant as well.

And you might try a little more education, and a little less ignorant assertion.

[South Park Fan]

All of this anarcho-capitalist stuff is just so very, very, Utopian. None of you are admitting any flaws in it.

It reminds me of the socialists. Everyone will be equal, great quality of life, justice and happiness for all, blah blah. It doesn't work.

Of course anarcho-capitalism has flaws. However, it has fewer flaws than minarchism, and is more consistant with natural rights. Could you please prove why anarcho-capitalism doesn't work better than other ideologies, and not provide straw men to beat?

[newbitech]

All of this anarcho-capitalist stuff is just so very, very, Utopian. None of you are admitting any flaws in it.

It reminds me of the socialists. Everyone will be equal, great quality of life, justice and happiness for all, blah blah. It doesn't work.


The comments of these anarchy types are not reflective of the broader Liberty Movement.

[South Park Fan]

The comments of these anarchy types are not reflective of the broader Liberty Movement.

Aren't we part of the Liberty Movement?

[powerofreason]

Aren't we part of the Liberty Movement?

Soon to be the larger part of it. Certainly the future of it, in any case. :)

[denison]

update:

I was thinking of ways a taxless society would work. More importantly how roads, parks, and defense would be funded in a small limited government scenario where the government doesn't collect any taxes. If the government ran 10% of the country's businesses and used the profit to fund the essentials of the country. The government would have an incentive to provide good service, because it would raise there profit, therefore expand their budget.

[heavenlyboy34]

That's nice. And when said criminal says "I never committed that crime and I'm not doing squat" then what? Who makes the final decision to force someone to work against his will? A private judicial corporation?

The problem with the whole "free market" prison thing is simple. Most free market transactions are between people who WANT to make the transaction! I trade you my wheat for your eggs. Everybody is happy. In the case of the justice system there is a third party that likely will NOT be happy with the outcome. I accuse you of stealing my wheat, I provide evidence, you say you were framed, somebody has to make the final decision and in the end we all have to live with that decision. I don't want that decision made simply by who has the most money to pay for justice. Sure, our justice system is already bent towards money, so let's just make it official? :rolleyes:

There are a lot of areas of government we can do without. And the "corrections" system is certainly too big. But so far the proposals I've seen for privatization would make things worse IMO. Privatize social security (I likely won't get any anyway). Keep medicine private and privatize indigent care. (I'd be happy to "chip-in" for that.) While I'm wary of toll roads (trans Texas corridor MUST be stopped), I could live in a society that was 100% toll roads since I don't HAVE to drive anywhere. (Very difficult, but not impossible). But I would NOT want to live in a society where some private judge can give some orders to some private police to put me in a private prison to work off a debt to a private victim that I don't think I owe. And yes I'm talking "worst case scenario" here, but if we're talking about replacing an existing system with a new one we have to look at the worst case of what could happen.

Regards,

John M. Drake

But you already do! And it's even more unjust than the private system because the State has THE FINAL SAY. :p:mad: