abolish income tax? How does government have revenue?

[jdavidb]

@debtus

If a thief was stopped from stealing other people’s wealth, what would you recommend he do to receive income?

The reformed thief must produce real value in the form of goods or services and participate in voluntary exchange with other individuals.

“Let him who steals steal no longer; but rather let him labor, performing with his own hands what is good, in order that he may have something to share with him who has need.” Ephesians 4:28, Christian Bible

[Manny_Mars]

There is a reason the founding Fathers did not impliment or condone the idea of a federal income tax. The answer is in the constitution! As Dr. PAul states many times, it simply asserts the fact that

1. Gov. owns you and gives you the privillage of return on your labor.

2. It is destructive to a free market.

[DD5]

@Marcus

I believe that a consumption tax (which is already implemented) provides the solution to your question. In the top 23 percent tax bracket, the federal Income tax on citizens takes away about 18 percent of their paychecks, this is simply unacceptable.

Under a consumption tax, 18 percent is already taken to pay for the non-sense programs we see today, I say replace them with nothing and use the consumption tax to pay for a domestic army.

All taxes are income taxes. There is no such thing (in the long run) as taxing consumption per se. The two schemes may affect different individuals in different ways, but they both economically target incomes. The consumption tax is therefore less honest.

[Conza]

@mmakinson

Where does the goverment get the revenue to pay the president, servicement, and judges? What would the country look like under this system? Any links to book or articles on the subject would also be welcome.

Regards,

Matt

G’day Matt! Well done on arriving to Austrian Economics and having such an open mind. [:)]

These may be of some help.

For a New Liberty by Murray N. Rothbard (pdf) (text) (audiobook)

Market for Liberty by Linda and Morris Tannehil (pdf) (audiobook)

Myth of National Defense by Hans-Hermann Hoppe (pdf)

The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman (pdf)

[Panpiper]

I am not a libertarian anarchist. I find the idea of the total abolition of all government to be a quaint intellectual exercise destined to go nowhere. The only utility of the argument in my opinion, is to frighten away people who might otherwise take interest in Austrian economics. And I myself have never been able to see how the total privatization of law and security would not turn into armed gangs enforcing their street corners and demanding protection money (witness the warlords of Somalia).

As to the initial question of how government can generate the revenue necessary to finance it’s limited mandate, I see decentralization of authority as the prime solution. Let each state, each county and municipality approach the problem in it’s own way and ‘compete’ for the habitation of citizens. If one municipality chooses to charge a maintenance fee to cover the services provided by it, roads, fire and police protection, garbage pickup, etc. and another simply leaves it up to private companies to figure out, it will not take long for people to vote with their feet as to which one is doing the better job.

For the central government, provision for a national defense could be covered quite nicely by granting to government a legal monopoly on the retail sale of recreational drugs such as alcohol and nicotine. Indeed, I expect that such a monopoly would generate sufficient revenue to maintain the US superpower status, as well as cover the costs of a federal police force and legal system.

[Juan]

For the central government, provision for a national defense could be covered quite nicely by granting to government a legal monopoly on the retail sale of recreational drugs such as alcohol and nicotine.

Thanks Peter. I think your enlightened views on social engineering will be thoroughly appreciated.

[liberty_student]

@Peter Cohen

I find the idea of the total abolition of all government to be a quaint intellectual exercise destined to go nowhere.

So the abolition of institutional violence is quaint?

@Peter Cohen

The only utility of the argument in my opinion, is to frighten away people who might otherwise take interest in Austrian economics.

Intellectual and moral honesty are others.

@Peter Cohen

And I myself have never been able to see how the total privatization of law and security would not turn into armed gangs enforcing their street corners and demanding protection money (witness the warlords of Somalia).

Is that a failure of the concept, or a failure of your understanding?

@Peter Cohen

As to the initial question of how government can generate the revenue necessary to finance it’s limited mandate, I see decentralization of authority as the prime solution. Let each state, each county and municipality approach the problem in it’s own way and ‘compete’ for the habitation of citizens. If one municipality chooses to charge a maintenance fee to cover the services provided by it, roads, fire and police protection, garbage pickup, etc. and another simply leaves it up to private companies to figure out, it will not take long for people to vote with their feet as to which one is doing the better job.

Government lacks the incentives to compete for citizens because it has a legal monopoly. Federalism is quaint.

@Peter Cohen

For the central government, provision for a national defense could be covered quite nicely by granting to government a legal monopoly on the retail sale of recreational drugs such as alcohol and nicotine. Indeed, I expect that such a monopoly would generate sufficient revenue to maintain the US superpower status, as well as cover the costs of a federal police force and legal system.

Why would anyone want to maintain the US superpower status that creates violence and destruction all over the world?

And don’t tax my vices. That’s ridiculous. You might as well tax ice cream, or condoms, or television. The only problems with alcohol and drugs are that you have attached a social stigma to them, not that there is anything inherently wrong with an individual choosing to use them.

Nice to see you join the debate Peter. But you’re going to get serious challenges if you are going to promote minarchism over quaint anarchism. I speak from experience because I came here as a minarchist 14 months ago. The Somali warlords on this forum will wear you down.

[DD5]

@Peter Cohen

And I myself have never been able to see how the total privatization of law and security would not turn into armed gangs enforcing their street corners and demanding protection money (witness the warlords of Somalia).

So when you only have ONE armed gang, it is a legitimate government?

@Peter Cohen

As to the initial question of how government can generate the revenue necessary to finance it’s limited mandate, I see decentralization of authority as the prime solution. Let each state, each county and municipality approach the problem in it’s own way and ‘compete’ for the habitation of citizens.

Or really? How about just passing a law that says that once you leave your state you still have to pay taxes to it (or the difference between the home/original state and your new state). Sounds familiar? It’s a US law! Go live in your tax heaven outside the USA and see if you can come back here for a visit without getting prosecuted for tax evasion? Oh, and you can’t just cancel your citizenship for this purpose. There goes your competition theory among coerced governments.

@Peter Cohen

For the central government, provision for a national defense could be covered quite nicely by granting to government a legal monopoly on the retail sale of recreational drugs such as alcohol and nicotine.

What provision? granted by whom? and who or what liberterian Gods will enforce them? if there is “a quaint intellectual exercise destined to go nowhere”, I believe it must, at minimum, also apply to the small or limited government idea.

[Le_Master]

@Peter Cohen

And I myself have never been able to see how the total privatization of law and security would not turn into armed gangs enforcing their street corners and demanding protection money (witness the warlords of Somalia).

I don’t see how that’d be possible if those streets and street corners were private property. The owners wouldn’t allow armed nincompoops to wander their property lest they lose business.

[hashem]

@mmakinson

It seems the general consensus among the authors here is that goverment should generate some revenue for national defense (albiet smaller), police, firefighters, and general support of functions that provide for the protection of private property.

If you are reading from authors that claim to be libertarian and yet claim that government is EVER necessary or legitimate, then they are thoroughly confused or lying through their teeth. In this case I recommend Murray Rothbard, particularly: http://mises.org/books/newliberty.pdf and mises.org/rothbard/ethics.pdf.

[Solomon]

@Peter Cohen

And I myself have never been able to see how the total privatization of law and security would not turn into armed gangs enforcing their street corners and demanding protection money

It’s really very simple. Whereas the state has a herd of tax cattle from which it can appropriate the resources needed for security (or “security”) production and so will lose nothing (except prestige occasionally) in so doing, private security producers have only finite resources (viz. their own property) and so must exchange a loss for any gain they hope to achieve in their performance; moreover, any such individual is subject to legal expenses whenever he damages another’s property (compare with public law enforcement or military incursions). Essentially, PDAs will not thuggishly go around attacking people for the singular reason that it is in their own self-interest to refrain from doing so.

[mmakinson]

Conza88,

I appreciate the links, but for some reason they are unavailabe. Anyone know why? Says, “not authorized to view this page”

Matt

[Panpiper]

Wow. That will teach me to not make a post and then not go back to the thread for several days. I am revealing my newbieness to this forum by my not anticipating such an upheaval from my one post. I may do a rewrite of this post and stick it in my blog, as it would appear a good idea to state my position for the record.

While I am a newbie to this forum, I am not a newbie to Austrian economics. I was converted thirty years ago, clued in by Ayn Rand, then through formal studies in Economics, greatly accentuated by reading some of the classic Austrian texts of that time. In short order I found myself involved in Libertarian politics. And shortly thereafter I was gently eased out of the Libertarian politics of my area, because I am not an anarchist. I am a pragmatist.

It is interesting to note that the one election I was involved in, I was one out of ten Libertarian candidates. I was the only candidate who got enough votes to actually get mention on the day of the election, gaining enough votes to place third in my riding, beating eight other candidates. I suspect that a primary reason for that is that I do not espouse the utter abolition of all government, and the other candidates did. I was nowhere near as frightening to the electorate as the other candidates.

My minarchism is motivated as much by practical expediency as anything else. What is the point of our discussions here? Is it to engage in a ‘quaint’ intelectual debate amongst ourselves, as an exercise in mutual mental masturbation? Or do we actually desire to accomplish something, to bring about an evolution in our society that allows for greater freedom? If this is simply an intellectual exercise, I would bow to the superior argument of the anarchists (and quietly recuse myself, as I have better things to do). If however we wish to actually accomplish something, I would suggest that the anarchists get out of the way.

A transition from the current statism to an anarcho-capitalist society is simply impossible. You could scream your message loudly from every street corner from here to eternity and achieve absolutely nothing. 99% of the people will utterly reject everything you say for the simple reason that they fear the idea of anarchy, and the louder you scream, the more fearful they likely would be. However a transition from the current statism to a minarchist ‘Libertarian’ government, contrained by a constitution to the classic provision of a legal system, police and military, limited to protecting the people from force and fraud, that IS possible. That society is a practical goal, one we might even achieve within the lifetimes of some of the posters here.

And here I would offer the olive branch to the anarchists. Once the people are living in such a minarchist society and they see that extremely minimal government has not led to the destruction of society, the transition from there to a wholly anarcho-capitalist society will not be seen with the same degree of fear as it is now. The evolution of society into one utterly devoid of coercive government would actually then be possible.

[liberty_student]

@Peter Cohen

What is the point of our discussions here? Is it to engage in a ‘quaint’ intelectual debate amongst ourselves, as an exercise in mutual mental masturbation? Or do we actually desire to accomplish something, to bring about an evolution in our society that allows for greater freedom?

There is no more common act of mental masturbation than the pursuit of political means to solve problems of too much politik.

@Peter Cohen

If this is simply an intellectual exercise, I would bow to the superior argument of the anarchists (and quietly recuse myself, as I have better things to do). If however we wish to actually accomplish something, I would suggest that the anarchists get out of the way.

It’s not an intellectual exercise, nor a corrupt one. Non-voting, anarchist or anarch-sypathetic individuals have been leading the charge. The people who compromise, the pragmatists like the LP and Cato have accomplished nothing but to reinforce the state.

To the first question I quoted, we’re here to advance the scholarship of liberty in the Austrian tradition and all that entails. Including Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism and Hoppean rejection of democracy as a false paradigm.

@Peter Cohen

A transition from the current statism to an anarcho-capitalist society is simply impossible.

No one is saying it will all come at once, but few of us will equivocate on what liberty is and what it is not.

@Peter Cohen

You could scream your message loudly from every street corner from here to eternity and achieve absolutely nothing. 99% of the people will utterly reject everything you say for the simple reason that they fear the idea of anarchy, and the louder you scream, the more fearful they likely would be.

I don’t recall fear being a tactic anyone here discusses. Nor screaming.

@Peter Cohen

However a transition from the current statism to a minarchist ‘Libertarian’ government, contrained by a constitution to the classic provision of a legal system, police and military, limited to protecting the people from force and fraud, that IS possible.

You can’t protect people from force and fraud by making it institutional. Government by definition is coercive, and politics is based upon the redistribution of property, which means it logically cannot protect property.

@Peter Cohen

And here I would offer the olive branch to the anarchists. Once the people are living in such a minarchist society and they see that extremely minimal government has not led to the destruction of society, the transition from there to a wholly anarcho-capitalist society will not be seen with the same degree of fear as it is now. The evolution of society into one utterly devoid of coercive government would actually then be possible.

Gradualism never works. Radicalism pulls the center.

Satisfy yourself with weakened bonds and you will still spend a lifetime in chains.

[MatthewF]

@Peter Cohen

A transition from the current statism to an anarcho-capitalist society is simply impossible. You could scream your message loudly from every street corner from here to eternity and achieve absolutely nothing. 99% of the people will utterly reject everything you say for the simple reason that they fear the idea of anarchy, and the louder you scream, the more fearful they likely would be.

That leads me to a new thread…

[Panpiper]

@liberty student

…we’re here to advance the scholarship of liberty in the Austrian tradition and all that entails. Including Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism and Hoppean rejection of democracy as a false paradigm.

Ok, that is a perfectly legitimate raison d’etre for these forums. I shall for the most part then remain silent, as I am much more interested in moving the hearts and minds of Joe Bloe public towards a more serious consideration of the economics of freedom. And my own experience has me utterly convinced that the trick to that is teaching people the basic principles of Austrian economics, not Objectivist philosophy or whatever other brands one puts to anarchy.

@liberty student

I don’t recall fear being a tactic anyone here discusses. Nor screaming.

I apologize for my lack of clarity. I did not mean to imply that anyone here would use fear as a ‘tactic’. I meant to suggest that fear is an impediment to people listening your message. As for screaming, I meant that as a metaphor only for speaking often and writing prolifically, not to imply that anyone’s voices or arguments are shrill.

@liberty student

Gradualism never works. Radicalism pulls the center.

Certainly radicalism pulls the center and energizes the movement. It is absolutely necessary and I would not suggest that anyone here is wrong. I would however disagree that gradualism does not have it’s place. Ron Paul is a gradualist. Would you suggest that he has not had a beneficial effect upon the cause of liberty? There are far more people listening to your voice now due to the gradualist voice of Ron Paul.

[hayekianxyz]

@Peter Cohen

Ron Paul is a gradualist

That’s a joke, right?

[Panpiper]

@GilesStratton

@Peter Cohen

Ron Paul is a gradualist

That’s a joke, right?

Er,… no. Perhaps I aught to define what I mean when I say gradualist.

I understand gradualism to mean making progress toward total freedom in steps rather than in one grand leap. Ron Paul has spoken many times of how America would have to be weaned off the welfare state, that his policies would involve decentralizing the authority of government and reducing it’s scope and taxation. That is not an all or nothing position, that is a gradual diminution of government power.

[MatthewF]

Peter

Have you read this post https://forum.freecapitalists.org/t/the-day-after/5991 ?

I am interested in what your answer would be.

[hayekianxyz]

Mr Paul ran for president on a platform of abolishing the Fed, the warfare state, the welfare state and eventually the income tax. I don’t think you have any idea how many special interest groups he pissed off, otherwise you wouldn’t be doubting that he is radical.

In fact, there’s a good reason that RP was successful and Barr wasn’t.