A Taxless Society and Government Run Businesses

[denison]

earlier related thread:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=202101

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.I think it could work 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.

[denison]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124277530070436823.html


3) Governments use other people's money. Corporations play with their own money. They are wealth-creating machines in which various people (investors, managers and labor) come together under a defined set of rules in hopes of creating more wealth collectively than they can create separately.

This is an article about why government run businesses don't work. I Think the main reason is, because they don't run off of profit. They run off of other people's money. If they government ran off of profit it would be more effect and could deliver good service.

[MGreen]

They can only become more efficient, deliver a better service and earn a profit if they are subjected to competition. You want this government to provide roads, parks and defense; if they allow competition in these fields, is it really government? If they monopolize these fields, is their monopoly price not a tax and do they not lose incentive to "deliver a good service"?

Furthermore, why 10% of businesses? Where did that (high, for a supposed minarchy) number come from?

[denison]

They can only become more efficient, deliver a better service and earn a profit if they are subjected to competition. You want this government to provide roads, parks and defense; if they allow competition in these fields, is it really government? If they monopolize these fields, is their monopoly price not a tax and do they not lose incentive to "deliver a good service"?

Furthermore, why 10% of businesses? Where did that (high, for a supposed minarchy) number come from?

The businesses would be run,overseen, and owned by government officials with business credentials, so it would be a government run business.There can be competition with other companies, nothing prevents that. If they develop into a legitimate monopoly that's not a problem, as long as they don't force anyone to buy from them.


Are not all monopolies harmful?
Being a single seller, by itself, is not good, nor evil -- it depends on how one obtained that single-seller status. Did one obtain a monopoly by economic competition in the marketplace, or did one obtain it by political pull, i.e., lobbying? If such status is gained by competition in the free-market then the "monopoly" -- the successful business -- is good. If such status is gained by using the government, or Mafia, to force one's competition out of business, then the monopoly is evil. As all political intervention (initiation of force) in the marketplace is outlawed under capitalism, a harmful monopoly under capitalism is impossible. If one considers a monopoly by definition as intrinsically evil, then only "businesses" that obtain their market share by having their competition outlawed (as the U.S. Post Office does) can be called a monopoly.

http://www.capitalism.org/faq/monopolies.htm


10% is just a number off the top of my head, you can adjust it to any number needed. I just assumed 10%, maybe it's 2% or 5%.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[mport1]

Why hold on to government at all? Just get rid of it completely, problem solved.

[tremendoustie]

The businesses would be run,overseen, and owned by government officials with business credentials, so it would be a government run business.There can be competition with other companies, nothing prevents that. If they develop into a legitimate monopoly that's not a problem, as long as they don't force anyone to buy from them.


http://www.capitalism.org/faq/monopolies.htm (http://www.capitalism.org/faq/monopolies.htm)


10% is just a number off the top of my head, you can adjust it to any number needed. I just assumed 10%, maybe it's 2% or 5%.

As a voluntaryist, I agree on all this, and like this plan :). I am curious though, in what way would this "government" be different than a business in the first place? If it interacts with people on a voluntary basis, and does no forcibly extract money from people or prohibit competition, why do you call it a government?

[denison]

As a voluntaryist, I agree on all this, and like this plan :). I am curious though, in what way would this "government" be different than a business in the first place? If it interacts with people on a voluntary basis, and does no forcibly extract money from people or prohibit competition, why do you call it a government?

Well to me government doesn't always equal force or something bad. I call them government because they use there funds to do what governments traditionally do. Take care of roads, parks and defense. I guess you could call them anything you want. :confused:

[denison]

Why hold on to government at all? Just get rid of it completely, problem solved.

I'm one of the few here who consider government a necessary evil. ;)

[RevolutionSD]

earlier related thread:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=202101

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.I think it could work 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.

Why not just get rid of government entirely then? What gives government bureaucrats ANY ability to "run a business"?

[MGreen]

So you're an anarcho-capitalist/market anarchist/what-have-you, then, denison?

[denison]

Why not just get rid of government entirely then? What gives government bureaucrats ANY ability to "run a business"?

They would have to have business credentials, a business degree, or a history of running a successful business, before they could take a position in government.

I call them government because they'll use their profits to solely fund roads, parks, and defense. A regular business wouldn't do that. These government run businesses would use their profits to do what a government would traditionally do in a small limited government scenario.

[denison]

So you're an anarcho-capitalist/market anarchist/what-have-you, then, denison?

I'm not sure. I guess that is what it's called. And here I am thinking I'm being original.

[TonySutton]

Where would these companies get their start up capital?

[denison]

Where would these companies get their start up capital?

That's the main chink in the armour. I don't know. Maybe some libertarian businessmen can get together and establish a trust fund for the project. Using real money, not paper. Allowing others to add donations for a new government system after the dollar collapses. Who knows.

[tremendoustie]

They would have to have business credentials, a business degree, or a history of running a successful business, before they could take a position in government.

I call them government because they'll use their profits to solely fund roads, parks, and defense. A regular business wouldn't do that. These government run businesses would use their profits to do what a government would traditionally do in a small limited government scenario.

Of course, others would be able to provide these services at a lower rate, because they are not using the profits to fund roads, parks, and defense.

It could still work, however, because people might be willing to choose the more expensive product, because it funds these other services. What you're describing is really a non-profit semi-charity.

I support this idea, but it's also possible that instead of funding this kind of charity, people would decide to pay for roads, defense, and parks directly -- subscribing to local defense agencies, road services etc. Would you support this approach also? More importantly -- and since you seem to be a principled person, I think the answer will be no -- would you prevent this by force?

I think a hybrid approach is also possible. Perhaps some roads, for example, would be funded by the kinds of semi-charities you describe, and others would be subscriber based, or toll based, or funded by advertising, etc.

I would not call what you're describing "government", but if you want to describe it that way, it's fine with me, and I absolutely support it. Assuming that the organization you describe does a decent job, I certainly would choose to patronize them, even if they were somewhat more expensive. If they helped the poor to an extent that would be appealing to me also.

[Icymudpuppy]

Technically, cities and towns are not governments, but corporations. When you talk about your city being founded, it is usually the date it was incorporated. All residents become shareholders "voters" and get to vote on the board of directors "City Council", and the CEO "mayor". It is a non-profit corporation which is exempt from federal and state tax and is supposed to use its profits to fund services like road building and stadium production.

I suggest everyone play SIMCITY to see how this concept is supposed to work.

[tremendoustie]

Technically, cities and towns are not governments, but corporations. When you talk about your city being founded, it is usually the date it was incorporated. All residents become shareholders "voters" and get to vote on the board of directors "City Council", and the CEO "mayor". It is a non-profit corporation which is exempt from federal and state tax and is supposed to use its profits to fund services like road building and stadium production.

I suggest everyone play SIMCITY to see how this concept is supposed to work.

That's not at all the same, because the cities and towns force people to pay them. They do not legitimately own the land, yet they effectively force homeowners to pay rent to them anyway. They may be called "corporations", but they are not at all legitimate businesses, any more than the mob is a legitimate business.

This model differs from a free society -- or denison's suggestion (which is a free society) -- which respect property rights and do not include the use of money extortion.

[Icymudpuppy]

That's not at all the same, because the cities and towns force people to pay them. They do not legitimately own the land, yet they effectively force homeowners to pay rent to them anyway. They may be called "corporations", but they are not at all legitimate businesses, any more than the mob is a legitimate business.

This model differs from a free society -- or denison's suggestion (which is a free society) -- which respect property rights and do not include the use of money extortion.

Did they force you to live there? You can always move outside city limits. Now, I don't think that a city should be able to annex private property outside it's limits without the owners permission, but if it buys private property to expand that limit, and then sells that property back to a private entity to become part of their geographical corporation, then that is legitimate. No different than a homeowners association, really, except that it includes businesses too.

As for me, I would never live in a homeowners association, or inside city limits, thereby exercising my right to live without city taxes.

[tremendoustie]

Did they force you to live there? You can always move outside city limits. Now, I don't think that a city should be able to annex private property outside it's limits without the owners permission, but if it buys private property to expand that limit, and then sells that property back to a private entity to become part of their geographical corporation, then that is legitimate. No different than a homeowners association, really, except that it includes businesses too.

As for me, I would never live in a homeowners association, or inside city limits, thereby exercising my right to live without city taxes.

The cities are not formed by the agreement of every property holder within its borders, but by the majority (if that) of residents. The majority of residents of an area has no more right to start extorting money from others by threatening to confiscate their property than I and one of my neighbors on the street have a right to start sending bills to a second neighbor, and threatening to take his house away.

[Icymudpuppy]

You're still talking about annexation. I'm not. Annexation of private property I agree is illegal. However, I'm talking about a city corporation purchasing land and selling the use of that land to voluntary participant residents. Recently the town where I went to grammar school purchased a farm that was just outside it's limits. It then owned that land, increased the city limits to include that land, and is now selling that property with incentive to small factories to establish an industrial park. I think that is perfectly legitimate. The purchase was made from funds received from voluntary residents to purchase land that was voluntarily sold, and was sold back to industrial interests at low cost but the requirement to participate in city programs, including taxes, to encourage development to encourage jobs and more revenue for city parks and other improvements to living standards.

I also live just outside the city limits near the new industrial park. I am not part of the city, but they let me vote on some things including the industrial park directorship, and also the city's school board. They have offered to annex me and the rest of my neighbors into the city and if we accept the increase in taxes they will install sewer, water, and sidewalks on our street, but we will have to participate in their taxes. So far, no-one on my street has accepted the annexation, but two senior citizen residents have traded their well and septic for city sewer and water with the associated costs and benefits. They have not yet attempted to force us on anything. I think this is legitimate use of city corporations. I am content to live here for a while, but when I sell, I will probably sell to the city and allow them to sell it back to another resident because since I am near a school, sidewalks would be a really good thing for the kids to walk on. If I sell to the city, the improvements will be made, and the next resident will voluntarily opt into becoming a resident of the city.

[denison]

Of course, others would be able to provide these services at a lower rate, because they are not using the profits to fund roads, parks, and defense.

It could still work, however, because people might be willing to choose the more expensive product, because it funds these other services. What you're describing is really a non-profit semi-charity.

I support this idea, but it's also possible that instead of funding this kind of charity, people would decide to pay for roads, defense, and parks directly -- subscribing to local defense agencies, road services etc. Would you support this approach also? More importantly -- and since you seem to be a principled person, I think the answer will be no -- would you prevent this by force?

I think a hybrid approach is also possible. Perhaps some roads, for example, would be funded by the kinds of semi-charities you describe, and others would be subscriber based, or toll based, or funded by advertising, etc.

I would not call what you're describing "government", but if you want to describe it that way, it's fine with me, and I absolutely support it. Assuming that the organization you describe does a decent job, I certainly would choose to patronize them, even if they were somewhat more expensive. If they helped the poor to an extent that would be appealing to me also.

Thank for adding to the idea. I agree with the hybrid approach. People would be free to choice between the two.

When I say defense I mean national defense, having an army. Civilian police forces/security forces can be privatized.

Helping the poor gets into that whole welfare/government freebies problem. Charities and communities will be responsible for that.

[tremendoustie]

Thank for adding to the idea. I agree with the hybrid approach. People would be free to choice between the two.


Cool :)



When I say defense I mean national defense, having an army. Civilian police forces/security forces can be privatized.


I'm not sure a standing army is necessary. The founders certainly opposed it. I think if we were faced with some sort of large scale invasion threat, all the local militias would join together to repel it -- just like we saw people travelling from all around the country to help with Katrina.



Helping the poor gets into that whole welfare/government freebies problem. Charities and communities will be responsible for that.

The reason I oppose government welfare is that people are forced to fund it. I can't say, "wow, you government people are doing a horrible job, I'm going to fund this other charity that helps the poor". Since your organization is voluntary, I have no moral problem with it helping the poor, and for me at least, it would be an extra selling point.

Actually, how about a collection of these business/charity hybrids, to fund different programs? You could support programs that fund a standing army, if you belive it's necessary, and I could choose to support those that fund roads, parks, charities, etc? That way, if someone has a problem with standing armies, or some other aspect, but wants to support other efforts, there's an option for them.

[denison]

Cool :)



I'm not sure a standing army is necessary. The founders certainly opposed it. I think if we were faced with some sort of large scale invasion threat, all the local militias would join together to repel it -- just like we saw people travelling from all around the country to help with Katrina.



The reason I oppose government welfare is that people are forced to fund it. I can't say, "wow, you government people are doing a horrible job, I'm going to fund this other charity that helps the poor". Since your organization is voluntary, I have no moral problem with it helping the poor, and for me at least, it would be an extra selling point.

Actually, how about a collection of these business/charity hybrids, to fund different programs? You could support programs that fund a standing army, if you belive it's necessary, and I could choose to support those that fund roads, parks, charities, etc? That way, if someone has a problem with standing armies, or some other aspect, but wants to support other efforts, there's an option for them.

Thanks for the suggestions. :)

You're right I guess it wouldn't be government welfare, just charity. Whatever is left over after taking care of roads and parks can go to the poor. The money could be used to fund private police security for poor neighborhoods etc...

It'd be hard for me to imagine a modern country without a military. But the militia idea is a solid substitute.

[mczerone]

So I guess you'd envision "citizen shareholders" then? Then we have the problems of apportionment, entitlement, agency, voting theory, administration, and ownership of the physical resources.

I do think that there are some ideas in this "everyone's owner" scenario, but the basic problems of monopoly government still exist: what gets funded, who decides, and how does a citizen revoke his consent?

This seems like an awfully contorted transitional phase between 'gov't' and 'anarchy', when if there are benefits of either system it seems to be better to just pick one or the other, lest "middle of the road policy lead[] to socialism."

[tremendoustie]

So I guess you'd envision "citizen shareholders" then? Then we have the problems of apportionment, entitlement, agency, voting theory, administration, and ownership of the physical resources.

I do think that there are some ideas in this "everyone's owner" scenario, but the basic problems of monopoly government still exist: what gets funded, who decides, and how does a citizen revoke his consent?

This seems like an awfully contorted transitional phase between 'gov't' and 'anarchy', when if there are benefits of either system it seems to be better to just pick one or the other, lest "middle of the road policy lead[] to socialism."

His suggestion is not "half way in between", it is completely voluntary. I don't think there are complications -- if the business/charity does good work, and provides services people need, it will be supported. If it does not, it will not be supported.

A citizen can easily revoke consent simply by not purchasing from the organization(s), or otherwise witholding funding.

[tremendoustie]

You're still talking about annexation. I'm not. Annexation of private property I agree is illegal. However, I'm talking about a city corporation purchasing land and selling the use of that land to voluntary participant residents. Recently the town where I went to grammar school purchased a farm that was just outside it's limits. It then owned that land, increased the city limits to include that land, and is now selling that property with incentive to small factories to establish an industrial park. I think that is perfectly legitimate. The purchase was made from funds received from voluntary residents to purchase land that was voluntarily sold, and was sold back to industrial interests at low cost but the requirement to participate in city programs, including taxes, to encourage development to encourage jobs and more revenue for city parks and other improvements to living standards.

I also live just outside the city limits near the new industrial park. I am not part of the city, but they let me vote on some things including the industrial park directorship, and also the city's school board. They have offered to annex me and the rest of my neighbors into the city and if we accept the increase in taxes they will install sewer, water, and sidewalks on our street, but we will have to participate in their taxes. So far, no-one on my street has accepted the annexation, but two senior citizen residents have traded their well and septic for city sewer and water with the associated costs and benefits. They have not yet attempted to force us on anything. I think this is legitimate use of city corporations. I am content to live here for a while, but when I sell, I will probably sell to the city and allow them to sell it back to another resident because since I am near a school, sidewalks would be a really good thing for the kids to walk on. If I sell to the city, the improvements will be made, and the next resident will voluntarily opt into becoming a resident of the city.

What you neglect to recognize is the this "city corporation" was not originally organized in the way you describe, but by forcible annexation of residents in a particular area. No city is formed by a group of property owners getting together and forming an agreement which affects their land only. People are always coerced into it.

What's more, only live people can own property. You cannot mandate, for example, that your land will remain uninhabited for all eternity. Once you die, the property is owned by someone else, and that person has the right to determine how it will be used. No one has a right to dictate that their land will be under the control of a city corporation for all eternity. They must pass all property rights to live person(s), at which point said person(s) will have the right to choose how they will exercise said rights.

If city corporations operated only on a contractual basis with willing property owners, to provide services in exchange for fees, and allowed property owners to opt-out, I would have no objection to it.

[denison]

So I guess you'd envision "citizen shareholders" then?

No.

See tremendoustie post for elaboration. :)

[Icymudpuppy]

What you neglect to recognize is the this "city corporation" was not originally organized in the way you describe, but by forcible annexation of residents in a particular area. No city is formed by a group of property owners getting together and forming an agreement which affects their land only. People are always coerced into it.

What's more, only live people can own property. You cannot mandate, for example, that your land will remain uninhabited for all eternity. Once you die, the property is owned by someone else, and that person has the right to determine how it will be used. No one has a right to dictate that their land will be under the control of a city corporation for all eternity. They must pass all property rights to live person(s), at which point said person(s) will have the right to choose how they will exercise said rights.

If city corporations operated only on a contractual basis with willing property owners, to provide services in exchange for fees, and allowed property owners to opt-out, I would have no objection to it.

You must be from the east coast.

Here in the west during the "wild west days" many cities were incorporated by just one person who made a claim on a large section of unowned land, built a "Claims" office, and sold the land in their already incorporated city to newcomers. That's how my town was started in the first place by a former slave named George Washington.

[MGreen]

I call them government because they'll use their profits to solely fund roads, parks, and defense. A regular business wouldn't do that. These government run businesses would use their profits to do what a government would traditionally do in a small limited government scenario.
To borrow from Walter Block, what do you say to Disney World? Your run-of-the-mill shopping malls? Colleges and universities? (I often see Stanford cited in this respect) They all have roads and transportation, security and often greenery.

It makes no sense to say, "a regular business wouldn't [build roads, parks or provide defense]." Sure, Hasbro's not likely to start building roads or parks. But Roads 'n' Stuff, Greenery Inc. and Pinkerton Defense may be created to provide these goods and services. To label them as government entities because they are involved in industries currently thought of as government-related greatly confuses the issue. Frankly, it makes the word 'government' meaningless, just as the word 'conservative' is meaningless without exact context.

These are all economic goods, and are no different from pizzas or pencils. So long as people demand them, entrepreneurs will be motivated to supply them for a profit.

[tremendoustie]

You must be from the east coast.

Here in the west during the "wild west days" many cities were incorporated by just one person who made a claim on a large section of unowned land, built a "Claims" office, and sold the land in their already incorporated city to newcomers. That's how my town was started in the first place by a former slave named George Washington.

I still question the legitimacy of those claims, unless the land truly was homesteaded over time by the claimant. Furthermore, my second objection still stands, even if we supposed that a person truly homesteaded and worked the land, rather than just "claiming" it, they have no right to force their vision of an incorporated municipality on landowners today. If a landowner wishes to opt out of government, they have every right to do so. The dead have no claims on land rights, or contracts.

I am from the east coast, however, you are right about that ;).

[Icymudpuppy]

I still question the legitimacy of those claims, unless the land truly was homesteaded over time by the claimant. Furthermore, my second objection still stands, even if we supposed that a person truly homesteaded and worked the land, rather than just "claiming" it, they have no right to force their vision of an incorporated municipality on landowners today. If a landowner wishes to opt out of government, they have every right to do so. The dead have no claims on land rights, or contracts.

I am from the east coast, however, you are right about that ;).

Your second supposition doesn't stand because no-one was forced to live in that incorporated area except maybe children born there, and they were free to move out of it whenever they left their parent's support. As for the land owners, since the land was originally owned by the city, and part of the sale of that land is conditional upon contractually remaining a part of the city, then the municipality can hold them to it. Same as if I sold you my house for your own use provided that my family retains the water and mineral rights until such time as my family wants to sell those water and mineral rights to either the owner of the house, or to a third party. That dead man may not have claims on land rights, but his family and corporation do.

The founder of Ford Motor Company is dead. Does the Ford Motor Corporation no longer have claim to the original factory sits on because that factory is no longer owned by an individual?

[denison]

To borrow from Walter Block, what do you say to Disney World? Your run-of-the-mill shopping malls? Colleges and universities? (I often see Stanford cited in this respect) They all have roads and transportation, security and often greenery.

It makes no sense to say, "a regular business wouldn't [build roads, parks or provide defense]." Sure, Hasbro's not likely to start building roads or parks. But Roads 'n' Stuff, Greenery Inc. and Pinkerton Defense may be created to provide these goods and services. To label them as government entities because they are involved in industries currently thought of as government-related greatly confuses the issue. Frankly, it makes the word 'government' meaningless, just as the word 'conservative' is meaningless without exact context.

These are all economic goods, and are no different from pizzas or pencils. So long as people demand them, entrepreneurs will be motivated to supply them for a profit.

What about national security, do you expect private industry to take care of that? Or do you believe there shouldn't be a military?

[pcosmar]

What about national security, do you expect private industry to take care of that? Or do you believe there shouldn't be a military?

I would expect the Militia to take care of it. As The Founders have said , A free and armed people can defend themselves.

[denison]

edit

[denison]

I would expect the Militia to take care of it. As The Founders have said , A free and armed people can defend themselves.

Would a country that tries to invade us with a professional army and tanks have it pretty easy?

If we have no military then then who will have the tanks, nukes, and missles? I don't thing an average citizens with a few glocks can stop a tank.

[tremendoustie]

Your second supposition doesn't stand because no-one was forced to live in that incorporated area except maybe children born there, and they were free to move out of it whenever they left their parent's support. As for the land owners, since the land was originally owned by the city, and part of the sale of that land is conditional upon contractually remaining a part of the city, then the municipality can hold them to it. Same as if I sold you my house for your own use provided that my family retains the water and mineral rights until such time as my family wants to sell those water and mineral rights to either the owner of the house, or to a third party. That dead man may not have claims on land rights, but his family and corporation do.

The founder of Ford Motor Company is dead. Does the Ford Motor Corporation no longer have claim to the original factory sits on because that factory is no longer owned by an individual?

Corporate person hood is collectivist B.S. Only people can own things. If a person for some bizarre reason wants to give, in his will, a particular individual or individuals the right to bill any resident of his land a certain amount per year, he can. Each individual can then sell that right, or the subsequent owner of the land may buy it from them, to recover full property rights. What an owner of land cannot do is decree that that land will be subject to the whim of the majority of residents in a particular area for all eternity, any more than he can decree that the land will for all eternity be ruled each year by whoever wins the annual dog show, or whoever wins the hotdog eating contest -- or for that matter, that it will forever only be controlled by people who will not allow it to be used in any way, or a vote among only those who support the construction of shocking pink structures.

Once the owner dies, he loses all rights to the land, and a particular named individual or individuals must own all rights to it.

What's more, the first and equally important objection still stands, especially in most parts of the country: Towns were not founded by the agreement of all property owners in an area, but by the decree of rulers set up by kings, governors, or other politicians, or by majorities, against the will of minorities. Furthermore, most "property owners" at that time did not obtain land by legitimate means -- by free trade of legitimately obtained goods or true homesteading -- but by decree of said kings, governors, or governments, or as "rewards" for doing their will.

[MGreen]

What about national security, do you expect private industry to take care of that? Or do you believe there shouldn't be a military?
Obviously, I don't think there should be a standing army, with or without government. If you're on this forum, you likely already agree with that.

There's a lot to discuss when it comes to "national" defense in an anarcho-capitalist society, because one can counter with an infinite number of particulars when creating a scenario in which a free society would have to defend itself from an invading state (we live next to a jealous country! this state is ruled by a madman that doesn't care about our natural resources!). Rothbard deals with a lot of these issues in this chapter (http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp#p215) (scroll down to "National Defense"). For instance, why would a country invade a society that cannot pose a threat and will cost a lot to conquer? There's a lot of trouble in trying to control a people that do not believe in the authority of a state.

Put simply, defense against an aggressive state would be a service, like defense against an aggressive neighbor. If people in a free America believe Canada is going to try to annex them, demand for 'war insurance' will increase, and agencies will start amassing war goods.

[cheapseats]

They can only become more efficient, deliver a better service and earn a profit if they are subjected to competition.

Not true. Being subjected to termination of employment is also highly motivational. As is bona fide threat of prosecution for fiduciary malfeasance . . . and losing that world-class pension. 'Course sleazy politicians and lifer bureaucrats know that being American means never having to suffer the consequences.

In modern times, happily there is also TORTURE as a means of effecting optimum performance.

[Epic]

The businesses would be run,overseen, and owned by government officials with business credentials, so it would be a government run business.There can be competition with other companies, nothing prevents that. If they develop into a legitimate monopoly that's not a problem, as long as they don't force anyone to buy from them.


You are describing a voluntary society/anarchy - an organization that doesn't use force to enforce a monopoly in whatever it does is not a coercive government.

[Objectivist]

The first thing that comes to mind when reading this idea is, Amtrak and the USPS.... both bankrupt companies.

[denison]

The first thing that comes to mind when reading this idea is, Amtrak and the USPS.... both bankrupt companies.

Plenty of private companies go bankrupt. Plenty of governments too. Just start over.

Either way if they go bankrupt you establish new government, or a new group of government run business.

[denison]

You are describing a voluntary society/anarchy - an organization that doesn't use force to enforce a monopoly in whatever it does is not a coercive government.

I don't consider all kinds of government to be coercive.

[Icymudpuppy]

Plenty of private companies go bankrupt. Plenty of governments too. Just start over.

Either way if they go bankrupt you establish new government, or a new group of government run business.

The problem is that when the government business goes bankrupt, instead of starting over, they start demanding tax money to keep operating at a loss.

At least federal government does.

Postal Service, AMTRAK, and Forest Service all operate on this way even though all were founded on the assumption that they would be self sustaining.

The post office was supposed to sell stamps and deliver mail to pay for itself.

Amtrak was supposed to sell tickets and provide transportation to pay for itself.

The Forest Service was supposed to sell lumber and other forest products and provide sustainable forest management to pay for itself.

All failed.

Now, I am in favor of local practices because the government of local entities (Less than 10,000) is very respondent to its residents and it is easy for people to avoid it. Big Cities like New York are not good.

Recently, in a small town near me, the city ordinances were so strict, and the police so overbearing that the voters ran the entire city leadership out in the last election. The new mayor fired the police chief and half the officers, fired the city manager, and sold off a ton of public holdings that were a waste of local money.

It has worked out well, and that town is now sporting many new businesses, and several new housing developments.

[RevolutionSD]

Government doesn't work, period. Get rid of it and problem solved.

[andrewh817]

If they government ran off of profit it would be more effect and could deliver good service.

Wow, there's no way I could pass up sigging this

[andrewh817]

I don't consider all kinds of government to be coercive.

Again, learn the definition of a word before you use it.

Here's a good one: "An organization which claims the right to initiate force against those in a geographical area."

But I'd still like an example........ just for laughs.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

earlier related thread:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=202101

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.I think it could work 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.

Wait, this makes zero sense...Why even have a Government/State? Why not let the market work, and have competitive fields and contracts for defense, courts, police, etc.? Roads, parks, etc. are all very easily handled and especially handled much better in the market. If anything you are just arguing for a Stateless society, in that case read up on some Rothbard and Block. :D