It is true that rights are different to “I want”, but they come indirectly from human wish lists.
I do not understand what would be the purpose of taxing the right to enjoy other people’s private property. Could you please elaborate?
To leave this properly, libertarianism is objective, not subjective. There is no “my way of looking at libertarianism”. I believe in the absolute right to own property, and the non-aggression principle. By definition, Marxists do not believe in non-aggression. Statists do not believe in non-aggression. Both ideologies rely on violence. Just because a supporter is not a jack boot police state agent, doesn’t mean that their support and enthusiasm for such ideologies is removed from the violence caused by forcing duties onto others.
Flea markets are just another niche in the market place, as are thrift stores, pawn shops, and garage sales. If people want quality control standards, the market can and does provide those, too. Otherwise, people should be free to choose the level of risk that they are comfortable with.
One problem with government regulation is that they face the calculation problem–they can never know if they are providing too much or too little consumer protection. Another problem, of course, is that by providing any government regulation at all, they are removing a level of freedom to the consumers to choose the level of risk they are comfortable with. Allowing “grey markets” or otherwise skirting of the laws may give consumers more options, but still may have unintended consequences that wouldn’t occur in a truly free market.
So, if I understand what you’re trying to say, flea markets are not necessarily more “free market” than shopping malls, and I would be careful about making conclusions about free markets based upon flea markets. “Flea Market capitalism” may not be what you think it is.
[:P]
YES THEY ARE.
Yeah, for example the desire to be treated as a human being and not a mere animal or object…
E.g. taxing for education. The argument, or so it runs, is that it provides a net benefit to society, so “free riders” must be coerced into paying for this unsolicited “benefit”. Well, if that is so, I also want compensation for unsolicited benefits I provide, e.g. by wearing a cologne.
-Jon
It’s not guaranteed for new items in the stores either.
At least you can actually see the merchandise. On eBay you can’t do even that… and yet eBay is not going out of business any time soon 
You just have to practice In stores, you typically can’t do it at all.
Me too! I’m all for voluntary donations. Unfortunately, the government forgets to ask you whether you like to part with your money or not. Or what you’d actually like it to be spent on. Typically, they just take it away, spend more than they have, tax population with inflation to pay off the national debt, etc. Why don’t you write to your congressmen/senators to remind them that you and others are so willing to pay taxes that they don’t have to steal your money and send you to prison if you don’t pay because just this month you’d want to spend your hard earned money on, say, improving your living conditions?
He’s simply just trying to say is that what makes you feel that a government has the right to take money from someone and use it for “services” if the person does not want those services? Why should they be forced by the threat of prison for not accepting this service?
If taxes were voluntary- making the government much more like a charity organization that receives money for its operations through donations- then it would be a completely different story. But as it stands now- if you don’t pay you go to jail.
The way government operates- also makes sure that the services they are trying to provide will be very costly and inefficient- wheras private actors of those same services can provide them at a much lower cost with much better results.
The free-market is truly how people can help their fellow countrymen- since that is the only way to become successful in a free-market. The government will promise to help- as they’ve been promising for as long as anyone can remember- but instead what we get is war, poverty, and the loss of people’s right’s to choose how they want to live their life- and what they spend with the money they worked hard to earn.
People not willing to pay taxes (this is the people who should pay taxes, not those of lower income levels) should be forced to or they should forfeit someting valuable to them (i.e. government programs).
Also about flea markets, they smell really bad for some reason. ;_;.
@ Natalie: If I buy an item as “new” and it is not, I will bring it back to the shop and demand what I paid for.
I do not like haggling. But my friend does often. I work in a shop and I find it very annoying when people try to haggle. ^^ It works in some shops but not others.
I don’t think taxes should be voluntary because only people who care would pay and we all know that no one really cares for others. The point of the government I think is to make things more egalitarian for all people. It doesn’t matter if you don’t want to part with your money because it’s for the greater good. Sure, a lot of government is corrupt and spends money poorly, but at the same time… I’d rather have the service from a party that isn’t entirely interested in profit alone.
I don’t have congressmen/senators. Well senators, yes, but that’s a different House of Parliament which is by appointment and not by election. I could write my MP or MPP but it wouldn’t be very helpful. They are not “stealing” my money (I don’t pay income tax because I’m … well not very wealthy [hurra for free market society? ^^]) nor the money of those who pay tax. We are paying them for a service, which is the governance and administration of the country. I can’t really think of a way to improve my living conditions with the pittance that I earn. It’s not going to get rid of the drug dealers any time soon.
I don’t think the government is nearly as restrictive as everyone seems to be saying. Paying sales tax on items (13% in my province) does not discourage me from buying things. I’d rather people lose choice than be able to do horrible things to other people. War and poverty are not just caused by the state. -_-
Why should they be robbed just because they are of a higher income level?
Well this is one of the main arguments for government- is that no one cares about anybody and that the government somehow does. But there are things as private charity- more money would go to private charity as well if less was taken by the government through taxes. Its been shown time and time again that when the government tries to take an egalitarian approach- the only result is that all people are now poor. There are plenty of charities you can donate to if you feel that people don’t care about each other- and you can begin to persuade people on your own that they should help out and donate. Or start your own charity if you feel the ones right now aren’t good enough. Promoting a robin-hood like theft has only made sure that there is equal poverty for all.
You also talk about “profit” as if its a bad thing- there’s plenty of reading to do on the Mises website on why this view doesn’t make much sense.
Its not a service if you are FORCED into the service. I can choose to have an auto-repairman provide me service or not- but it is completely different if the same repairman takes $200 from me every month and demands that I tune my vehicle on a constant basis or end up in prison. If you wanna get rid of those drug dealers- then legalizing drugs would go along way.
War is caused by the state. Goverments control military that go to war with other militaries. If you’re going to make an assertion like that- you should explain your rationale. Paying sales tax lowers your standard of living. You rather people lose their freedom than do horrible things to other people? You don’t think that people losing their freedom is a horrible thing? If you think humanity is naturally evil- then why do you trust government to be naturally good when its run by people? People who have guns and the threat of jail if you don’t follow their commands.
A lot of my family still live in Pakistan- and I think that is one of the biggest examples of how government provides absolutely no help to any citizen in that country- and is only a burden. The police there will constantly demand people walking around or driving in their cars to give them 1000 rupees or face imprisonment for no good reason whatsoever. Its main body of government is content with the bombing of its own people. The government fails to provide service after service- but continues to demand more and more from the people.
Pakistani’s work hard and stay alive without any government assistance- but their opportunies and standards of living are constantly eroded by government interference in their lives.
It really bothers me when you say something like “War is not caused by states”- when it definitely is. In all of Pakistan’s short history- all the pain the civilian population endured has been because of the state.
There’s also the Friendlies, a more substantial form of private charity…
FWIW, Canada is not a free market society. It’s a hampered market economy, at best. Funnily enough it ranks as economically freer than the US IIRC, but that’s a meaningless measure, given the US’s own regulatory burdens and spending.
-Jon
People of lower income levels don’t pay taxes. They consume taxes.
Feel free to stop my FICA contributions effective immediately and mail me a check for what I’ve paid in. I won’t even charge interest. Also, I’ll gladly forego anything from the Departments of Labor, Agriculture, Education, HHS, HUD and Energy. I’m paying fuel taxes for highways and sales taxes for the roads. I figure that’s about 2/3 of my income taxes already so I’ll take that discount and, what the heck, I’ll be happy to stop there.
In other words, you are a parasite on the productive efforts of others. Does that strike you as fair?
That’s just great. So up there in Canada if somebody works out and gets fit and better looking, you could maybe have a government bureaucrat slash his or her face or chop off a limb. Maybe they could pay a special “fitness” tax to compensate for the fact that everybody else prefers to be a lazy slob.
Intellectuals, that might be a bit harder. Maybe you could have a cop whack them over the head so they get a brain injury every time they have an original thought.
Obviously, no income tax means no “free” government programs. If I could opt out of Social Security, I’d do it right away, because I know I can invest it much better than the government. Same goes for public education: I don’t have kids, why should I pay for someone elses’? On the other hand, I wouldn’t mind contributing to some kind of education fund for the poor families.
Really? You never helped anyone in your life? No one ever helped you for free? Parents, friends, significant others?
The point of the government I think is to make things more egalitarian for all people.
How’s is this egalitarian if a bunch of people forces their decisions on others and steal their money at gunpoint?
Why can’t you, I or anyone else determine what’s good for us? If the government decides to take away all your possessions and send you to Gulag for “greater good” will you accept it too?
Why can’t it offer public services as a non profit based on voluntary contribution then? If it offers things for our own benefit, why are we (productive citizens) are forced to pay instead? (I know why, but that’s another question)
.
I guess it explains it then. It’s harder to believe in a benevolent government when you see half of your paycheck taken away and spent on things you don’t approve of.
Also, just because you don’t pay taxes it doesn’t mean that you’re not hurt by taxation of wealthier people. The more money people loses, the less they have on spending or saving, the worse condition economy is in, the less jobs are created, the harder upward movement is for those like you. Also, there’re subtler forms of taxation, such as inflation, created by printing too much paper money (something that most government just love to do). With small wages it’s harder to save and keep up with inflation.
a little off topic, but this reminds me of a short story by Vonnegut called Harrison Bergeron. It’s about an egalitarian society where smart people have buzzers implanted in their brains that buzz to keep them from having thoughts, athletic people have weights tied to them to slow them down, etc. Great stuff.
@auctionguy10: Because if they somehow lose this income they’d want to be looked after too. If the government is private charity then why change it to “private charity”?? Charity alone causes far too many disparities.
I think profit as a motivation is not bad entirely but I think if it’s the only motiviation it can be detrimental to other humans.
Auto service has nothing to do with government service. Different things entirely.
Legalising drugs isn’t going to get rid of the dealers, believe me. There may be more repercussions such as violent turf wars for the market. I don’t want to get caught in that.
How is there war then, when the state has failed if it is caused solely by states?
My standard of living is just fine thank you.
Freedom is overrated. People are sheeplike enough that it wouldn’t matter.
Government is a group, not one person. There is a body of literature on the advantages of groups versus single people.
Police demanding 1000 ruppees: It’s not government, it’s people. Personal corruption.
Again I say.. if there were no state, would there be no violence? I doubt it.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here- can you be more elaborate? Every government on the face of the earth has failed to create an egalitarian utopia- and has failed to eliminate poverty while contributing more to poverty than any other actor.
If you mean profit at the expense of others- this can only happen if the profit is earned through fraud or other illegit means. Otherwise- profit benefits both parties involved in the VOLUNTARY transaction.
It doesn’t matter if the government service is retirement benefits- health care- or personal security. The fact remains- its one thing to choose a service- and another to be forced into a service by threat of imprisonment.
There are violent turf wars right NOW- the reason there are violent turf wars is because the drugs are illegal. That’s why their prices are so high and they earn gang members so much money. If they were legalized- no person has any reason to buy drugs from a dealer when they could either grow their own or simply walk to a local store and purchase from a legit vendor. I live in Jamaica, Queens(NYC) and I see enough of violent gang acts- they’re never going to end unless these drugs are legalized and their prices allowed to crash. You know of when the United States enacted prohibition of alcohol? Huge criminal empires such as Al Capone’s arose from that- and they quickly went away once alcohol was legalized again. The same thing would happen now to the violent gangs that get their funding from drug money. Suddenly they’ll have to turn to more basic means of earning income for their gang- like extortion- which is much harder to do than selling drugs.
Obviously the war happened because of the apparatus of the state and the people trying to pick up the pieces and the money after the state fails. Examples such as Somalia are also very poor since other nations are constantly interfering in their affairs- neighboring african countries and especially the United States.
That wasn’t supposed to be a jab at you- but that’s just a fact. Anyone who has to pay 13% sales tax on the items they purchase is having their standard of living eroded. Just because you’re ok with people taking money from you doesn’t change the fact that you would’ve had more money if there was no sales tax.
Freedom is overrated? I’m sure you would rather be able to choose what you would like to do during the day(such as going online and posting in a forum) than being in prison, right? Have you ever been jailed or known anyone who has? I know they appreciated freedom more than anything else in the world right after being released even if they were held for just 1 day.
I already understand that there’s an advantage of cooperation with others. That is why people trade with one another- that is why people join together in creating business. Unfortunately- this group advantage for the government is a detriment- since it gives them the advantage to imprison, steal, or kill whoever they wish and a single perosn has little hope to stop it.
Of course its people- that’s the entire point. Putting people into a position of power where they can imprison you for whatever reason they want is the problem. That is the power that government holds. The reason people are forced to give the police 1000 rupees if they demand so- is because the police have the power to imprison them if they wish. They are part of the government which has granted them this power.
And if there is a state would there be no violence? Again, of course not. Doesn’t seem like any sort of defense to having a state.
In your case, it is true. But there are people without your qualifications who will not invest that well, thus providing an argument for government Social Security.
To tell you the truth, I am not making any conclusions. That is precisely why I opened this post, to hear what others have to say. Somehow I noticed the contradiction you are pointing out and wanted other people to elaborate on “flea market capitalism” that is still not clear to me.
Actually Jon, there is indirect economic compensation for wearing a cologne: social popularity, you being hired into a private or public job against a better qualified applicant who wears no cologne, your being awarded a contract for the same reason…