Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › The "Freeloader Problem" with Voluntary Taxation
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) The "Freeloader Problem" with Voluntary Taxation (Read 1075 times)
SicklersDink
Ex Member


Re: The "Freeloader Problem" with Voluntary Taxation
Reply #10 - Jun 28th, 2018 at 8:18pm
Print Post  
Voluntary taxation??

Whaaaattttt?

Dohhhhhhhh!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SicklersDink
Ex Member


Re: The "Freeloader Problem" with Voluntary Taxation
Reply #11 - Jun 28th, 2018 at 8:25pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Jun 28th, 2018 at 5:16pm:
Right, like Venezuela or modern China or the current U.S. government.

That's exactly where all this "progressive" theory and "progressive" radical action has gotten us.

America was designed to prevent that sort of thing.

"Progressives" copulated  it up and are (as usual) trying to blame liberty.

But, anyway, good government is about protections of life and liberty and property with no discrimination under equally applied laws.


Burnsred is talking about yours and his own country boss. Apparently the 'progressives' are responsible in your country too.

Personally, I would suggest that you tell him that the US doesn't even have a progressive left. It's got an extreme right, a far right, and a right.

Fascism is rightist boss. Ask burnsred!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Snarky Sack
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 3536
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: The "Freeloader Problem" with Voluntary Taxation
Reply #12 - Jun 28th, 2018 at 10:33pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Jun 28th, 2018 at 5:16pm:
America was designed to prevent that sort of thing.


But, anyway, good government is about protections of life and liberty and property with no discrimination under equally applied laws.




Right.  It was designed to do that.  But it did not. Never. 

I see where you're going with this.  "Let's just enforce the constitution and every thing will be free."  But it didn't work.

Because there was no equality in the application of laws.  African-Americans were never equal under our laws.  For nearly two centuries, African-Americans were discriminated against by the federal governments and various state governments under the constitutional system of fairness.  Then African-Americans found themselves enjoying more so-called "rights" than non African-Americans because of Affirmative Action programs and mentality that permeates our government. 

But the important thing is that there was no magic period in which all of us were equal before them evil libruls ruined it.  What you have to realize is that there was actually overlap in those two condition:  blacks being discriminated against and blacks being discriminated for.  We've had affirmative action since at least the '80s.  Yet, in 2001, zero Black New York firefighters died in the twin towers.  Why?  Because the government of the city of New York hired so few Black firefighters that the probability of an Eskimo lesbian being at ground zero was higher than the probability of a black man or woman being there.  You think that's a coinkidink? 

Look at it this way.  Suppose the Founders had written a constitution that simply said, "Government of the United States must be good."  Would that have led to good government?  Of course not.  But neither did the U.S.  Constitution.  It didn't work.  Time to get over our reverence for that piece of parchment and come up with something that will work.

  

"Taxes are morally justified theft" - Jeff
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 7490
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: The "Freeloader Problem" with Voluntary Taxation
Reply #13 - Jun 29th, 2018 at 12:39am
Print Post  
Snarky Sack wrote on Jun 28th, 2018 at 5:00pm:
Yes, that happens, but much more so under forced taxation than for organizations that seek voluntary payment and donations.  Churches, the Red Cross, The United Way and countless smaller local charities, who use no force whatsover operate off of voluntary donations.  They often thrive and prosper and pay six and nearly seven-figure salaries to their executives. 

Goodwill Industries and many smaller thrift store organizations have an absolutely brilliant method of obtaining merchandise.  They ask people to avoid throwing out unwanted items and to bring them directly to the stores instead.  They sell those items to people who voluntarily pay for them, often because they cannot easily afford new items.  They provide jobs for people who are difficult to employ and also use the money for other projects that help the poor. 

Absurdly, some "watchdog" groups have criticized the six figure salaries of the executives who perform these services using not a penny of forced money. 

The one thing Goodwill should be criticized for is lobbying to ban donation boxes by smaller thrift store organizations.  I fault the system that allows such foolishness.  Take away the state's power to regulate something that so obviously needs no regulation and that won't happen.


I think Goodwill should be allowed to lobby for whatever it likes. Lobbying is just advocacy, and covered by free speech.

Snarky Sack wrote on Jun 28th, 2018 at 5:00pm:
That is charity work, which we have been told since the New Deal, government is better at than ordinary people.

I hope I don't have to tell you how much better the free market is at ensuring that people are not able to freeload.


When funds can be collected at the point of service, yes.

When they can't the power of government force is often necessary to make sure everyone pays for something everyone uses.

I actually think your toll road idea is good. But sometimes the government does do better than the free market. The Post Office versus FedEx, for example. While UPS is consistently rated higher than the Post Office, FedEx is almost always rated worse, and everyone I know who had had an interaction with them, has had a negative interaction.

The trouble is that FedEx wins on the free market because it uses clever tactics to dupe the consumer (funneling a disproportionate amount of funds to advertising) or making deals with companies like NewEgg to ship all their stuff. Then, to get the good NewEgg products, you have to deal with FedEx, and by the time your Two Day Shipping you paid extra for arrives seven business days late (actually happened to me) the only way to get a refund is to return the product. They don't refund just the shipping if it's late.

If it was just FedEx versus UPS, FedEx would have long ago muscled UPS out of business because they prefer clever tactics to good service. After they had cornered the market, they could then charge whatever they wanted, and if you don't like it, make your own delivery company. I hope you've got a spaceship!



The fact that the Post Office is guaranteed to exist and guaranteed not to try any of these tactics means FedEx can't pull that crap.

Does government do everything better? No.

Does government do some things better? Yes.

Does this mean government should be allowed to do the things it does better? No. The free market should handle all of it.

Snarky Sack wrote on Jun 28th, 2018 at 5:00pm:
Government is about nothing more than advantage seeking.  The ability of some to gain advantage over others through government is about nothing more than government's willingness to use force to help them gain that advantage.


From my perspective, all they do is make life more fair.

Instead of having every sleazy businessman sexually harassing his secretaries and/or underlings, and hoping the free market generates one that doesn't, and hoping he succeeds, we just don't allow it.

In pure capitalism, every business becomes monkey business: A day-and-night struggle for dominance wherein about 10% of the effort on any given day is devoted to actual work. You said yourself that the right answer is to do lunch and curry favour with the boss. The wrong answer is to work harder.

I am forced by the NAP to vote against the kind of regulations that limit this chimp behaviour, but I thank the government that they exist, every day. We'd live in a world of pure shit if they didn't.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 33527
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: The "Freeloader Problem" with Voluntary Taxation
Reply #14 - Jun 29th, 2018 at 7:07am
Print Post  
Quote:
Burnsred is talking about yours and his own country boss. Apparently the 'progressives' are responsible in your country too.


So true. Ever since "progressives" turned the commerce and general welfare clauses of the Constitution into general powers and started misusing the 16th Amendment to create a progressive income tax that they illegally apply to wages and salaries we've had progressive government in America. And it's created a long and ever increasing list of serious problems.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 33527
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: The "Freeloader Problem" with Voluntary Taxation
Reply #15 - Jun 29th, 2018 at 7:09am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Jun 29th, 2018 at 12:39am:
Does government do everything better? No.

Does government do some things better? Yes.

Does this mean government should be allowed to do the things it does better? No. The free market should handle all of it.


A free market for Armies! What a bad idea.

A free market for police! What a bad idea.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Snarky Sack
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 3536
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: The "Freeloader Problem" with Voluntary Taxation
Reply #16 - Jun 29th, 2018 at 10:31am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Jun 29th, 2018 at 12:39am:
I think Goodwill should be allowed to lobby for whatever it likes. Lobbying is just advocacy, and covered by free speech.


Yes, Goodwill should be allowed to lobby for government to run competitors out of business.   Under a future system of libertarianism, that would be a waste of time for them.  Because the lawmakers would say, "We have neither the desire,  nor the ability to prevent you from lobbying us for that and of course we are happy to take your campaign contributions.  But we also have neither the desire nor the ability to pass laws against your competition for your benefit.  Wow!  Do you want us to be like the U.S. in 2018?"


Quote:
When funds can be collected at the point of service, yes.

When they can't the power of government force is often necessary to make sure everyone pays for something everyone uses.


When will that part about making sure everyone pays for it start?  Because under the current system of government forced taxation, almost half of us not only don't pay for roads, schools, fire and police, national defense, etc., but also don't pay the whole bill for the food they eat, the clothes they wear and the homes they live in.  Not even the cell phones they use for their Uber accounts.  Many pay nothing whatsoever and live a comfortable lifestyle on the backs of others.

What enables those freeloaders is the fact that government forces us to pay their way.  Since, under a future system of libertarianism, government will provide far fewer services under libertarianism, there will be far less freeloading opportunities.


Quote:
I actually think your toll road idea is good. But sometimes the government does do better than the free market. The Post Office versus FedEx, for example. While UPS is consistently rated higher than the Post Office, FedEx is almost always rated worse, and everyone I know who had had an interaction with them, has had a negative interaction.


As a former UPS driver and then Supervisor, I can tell you the reason:  UPSers are as gung-ho as Navy Seals or pro-abortion feminists.  They talk about nearly nothing but brown packages and how to get them to customers faster and more efficiently.  The management of UPS is almost entirely college dropouts who worked as part time warehousers to pay for college and truck drivers who learned to tie a tie.  They realized they could make more at UPS management than almost anywhere else.  They are driven to make the company succeed and they know that they could not make close to their salaries elsewhere.

Sorry for that rant . . .


Quote:
The trouble is that FedEx wins on the free market because it uses clever tactics to dupe the consumer (funneling a disproportionate amount of funds to advertising) or making deals with companies like NewEgg to ship all their stuff. Then, to get the good NewEgg products, you have to deal with FedEx, and by the time your Two Day Shipping you paid extra for arrives seven business days late (actually happened to me) the only way to get a refund is to return the product. They don't refund just the shipping if it's late.

If it was just FedEx versus UPS, FedEx would have long ago muscled UPS out of business because they prefer clever tactics to good service. After they had cornered the market, they could then charge whatever they wanted, and if you don't like it, make your own delivery company. I hope you've got a spaceship!

http://theinfosphere.org/images/thumb/f/f1/Planet_Express_Ship.jpg/225px-Planet_...

The fact that the Post Office is guaranteed to exist and guaranteed not to try any of these tactics means FedEx can't pull that crap.


I doubt that seriously about FedEx muscling UPS.  .  UPS has long awaited the end of the Post Office's monopoly on first class mail.  When that happens, all chains will break loose and all gates will fly open.

Does government do everything better? No.

Does government do some things better? Yes.

Does this mean government should be allowed to do the things it does better? No. The free market should handle all of it.


From my perspective, all they do is make life more fair.

Instead of having every sleazy businessman sexually harassing his secretaries and/or underlings, and hoping the free market generates one that doesn't, and hoping he succeeds, we just don't allow it.

In pure capitalism, every business becomes monkey business: A day-and-night struggle for dominance wherein about 10% of the effort on any given day is devoted to actual work. You said yourself that the right answer is to do lunch and curry favour with the boss. The wrong answer is to work harder.

I am forced by the NAP to vote against the kind of regulations that limit this chimp behaviour, but I thank the government that they exist, every day. We'd live in a world of pure shit if they didn't. [/quote]

The bolded part is exactly correct.  Once we accept the morality of the NAP, we can't just make exceptions because we think the outcome would be better if we allow the government to be "a little bit aggressive."  It would be like a person whose religion preaches abstinence saying, "Well, yes, but you should have seen the ass on that woman!"

Libertarianism doesn't mean no government.  It means government that doesn't point guns at its own citizens to demand money.
  

"Taxes are morally justified theft" - Jeff
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SicklersDink
Ex Member


Re: The "Freeloader Problem" with Voluntary Taxation
Reply #17 - Jun 29th, 2018 at 1:43pm
Print Post  
The only real meat in your long rambling post:

The Opposition wrote on Jun 29th, 2018 at 12:39am:
Does government do everything better? No.

Does government do some things better? Yes.

Does this mean government should be allowed to do the things it does better? No. The free market should handle all of it.


Too bad burnsred screwed up his quotes on that, but whatever?

Yes, government does some things better. More things than you name and more things than government is permitted to do better.

But you can't, or won't, explain why government shouldn't. It's no more than some imagined principle that government must not be allowed to do it better than the public sector.

Burnsred is raising that exact issue, even though he goes on at great length to cloud it with his window dressing.

He has the same doubts you have but he's pretending to not be able to express those doubts.

I'm going to take credit for that progress with both of you. You can ignore that or try to tell me why I shouldn't.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 33527
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: The "Freeloader Problem" with Voluntary Taxation
Reply #18 - Jun 29th, 2018 at 4:27pm
Print Post  
Quote:
Yes, government does some things better. More things than you name and more things than government is permitted to do better.
What do you think is preventing current governments from doing things better?

The people that pay for it all want them to do a crappy inefficient job?

No, it's the power and structure of government.

You can't allow an unlimited government to rule through bureaucracies. Bad effects always ensue.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 7490
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: The "Freeloader Problem" with Voluntary Taxation
Reply #19 - Jun 30th, 2018 at 1:55am
Print Post  
Snarky Sack wrote on Jun 29th, 2018 at 10:31am:
Yes, Goodwill should be allowed to lobby for government to run competitors out of business.   Under a future system of libertarianism, that would be a waste of time for them.  Because the lawmakers would say, "We have neither the desire,  nor the ability to prevent you from lobbying us for that and of course we are happy to take your campaign contributions.  But we also have neither the desire nor the ability to pass laws against your competition for your benefit.  Wow!  Do you want us to be like the U.S. in 2018?"


And then Goodwill will say, "If you can't help us out, you're not getting any money."
The lawmakers will respond, "Damn. It's shit that we don't have the power to help out our friend Goodwill, who gives us so much."
And then they will pass some new laws that give them that power. Whatever mechanism you set up that tells them they can't do that will either be disregarded or dismantled.

Snarky Sack wrote on Jun 29th, 2018 at 10:31am:
When will that part about making sure everyone pays for it start?  Because under the current system of government forced taxation, almost half of us not only don't pay for roads, schools, fire and police, national defense, etc., but also don't pay the whole bill for the food they eat, the clothes they wear and the homes they live in.  Not even the cell phones they use for their Uber accounts.  Many pay nothing whatsoever and live a comfortable lifestyle on the backs of others.

What enables those freeloaders is the fact that government forces us to pay their way.  Since, under a future system of libertarianism, government will provide far fewer services under libertarianism, there will be far less freeloading opportunities.


Again, I'm comparing ideal to ideal. If you want to compare defunct to defunct, we can do that. The government does have the power to force everyone to pay for the things everyone uses. They choose not to. The free market can't solve the freeloader problem. The government can. In practice, neither will.

The idea that one will do it better than the other in practice is the fundamental libertarian linchpin - the idea that even though the ideal never works out, and libertarianism's ideal is less preferable and less fair, somehow, when put into practice, it'll just work better.

Snarky Sack wrote on Jun 29th, 2018 at 10:31am:
When will that part about making sure everyone pays for it start?  Because under the current system of government forced taxation, almost half of us not only don't pay for roads, schools, fire and police, national defense, etc., but also don't pay the whole bill for the food they eat, the clothes they wear and the homes they live in.  Not even the cell phones they use for their Uber accounts.  Many pay nothing whatsoever and live a comfortable lifestyle on the backs of others.


And that's wrong on the face of it. But let's talk about who these people are and who it is that's really getting the benefit.

When we're talking about roads, where are the no-payers going? To work - at businesses that use their labour to make a profit. The labourer sustains and usually doesn't live comfortably. If there weren't roads, the labourer would lose nothing. He might die, but he's worthless anyway, right? It's the business that loses out, because now they have to pay for the roads that get their employees to work without government help. They lose profit. The worker wasn't making any.

Snarky Sack wrote on Jun 29th, 2018 at 10:31am:
Once we accept the morality of the NAP, we can't just make exceptions because we think the outcome would be better if we allow the government to be "a little bit aggressive."  It would be like a person whose religion preaches abstinence saying, "Well, yes, but you should have seen the ass on that woman!"


The sad thing is that Christianity does this. The ideal is abstinence but they don't follow that because they know it doesn't work.

Snarky Sack wrote on Jun 29th, 2018 at 10:31am:
Libertarianism doesn't mean no government.  It means government that doesn't point guns at its own citizens to demand money.


That's no government.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › The "Freeloader Problem" with Voluntary Taxation
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy