First, government employees do not pay taxes. They are paid in taxes. You can not pay taxes when you are paid in taxes. To pay taxes, you actually have to produce something that is taxable. Let me give you an example so you can see how this dynamic works:
I am a farmer and I produce 100 ears of corn. I pay 20% of my yield in taxes. Let’s say the government is unitary (one person in the government). He gets paid 20 ears of corn. But he “pays 20% in taxes”, so he takes 4 ears of corn into his “government budget” and keeps 16 ears of corn for himself.
Question: how many ears of corn did the government employee produce?
Answer: 0. So he did not pay any taxes. Because he produced nothing. He simply allocated for himself less of what he stole from me and thereby “paid taxes” on his income.
Alright, the next part of your question was, how do “we” disincentivize the quest for power. But then you provided an example that would rely on the government policing itself. That’s not going to happen. That’s like asking “Why didn’t the regulators do their jobs?” That’s a fundamental misinterpretation of what the regulators’ jobs actually are-- to restrain competition and look the other way when illegal things happen on their watch, because they’re helping their buddy out. That’s what government does.
So, then, the question remains, what can WE do? Not, what can the government do to itself?
I believe it is a strategy that would work for either anarchy or small government. People could just tell the U.S. government that they were going to stop using FRNs and stop paying taxes until they got rid of the Fed. And once they got rid of the Fed, they could start paying again. They could do the same thing to get rid of public education, etc., etc.
Get rid of the fed and public education and then allow physical aggression to be initiated (pay taxes) again for what? Why would somebody ask somebody to come and steal their property and beat them up if necessary?
I have no idea. You would have to ask the small government advocates. But really, if people realized they have the power to make those kind of changes, I don’t think it would stop until pretty much everything was gone.
You can read about a couple of minarchist countries in history that failed. Ever hear of the ‘American Revolution’ or the ‘Taming of the Aristocracy in Britain’? Two perfect examples gone bad.
Well, it’s certainly an interesting thought. As an aside, I actually went to public school and even though it sucked I liked it a lot better than the private schools I went to. I always liked Friedman’s voucher idea. Give people more choices about which public school they’re going to go to.
Matthew, I read your article, and I agree that from a philosophical perspective, it makes sense.
However, from a historical perspective, it seems that people are going to keep looking to government to solve problems.
Therefore, I think the people who should be in power are the ones who believe in limited government but also are aware that anarcho capitalism in its purest form isn’t likely to happen anytime soon. So, I look to advance the limited government ideology, despite the fact that from a purely theoretical philosophical point of view, it may seem contradictory, inconsistent, naive, or impossible.
From a historical perspective people are going to keep doing what they used to do until they stop. and take a new approach. maybe because they have new ideas.
The history of ideas is this principle. Ideas are powerful. They necessarily effect how men act.
Perhaps you missed the point of the article; What Harry Browne was saying was that from a “philosophical” perspective you can make government (including schemes to limit government) work, while in reality, the process of passing a law/rule requires compromise and political trading. Not to mention the fact that even if you somehow manage to ram your adgenda through the machine unmolested, you still aren’t in charge of enforcement or interpretation, which means that even well intentioned ideas are doomed to fail.
This is the equivalent of justifying slaves back in their day. Making the argument that since slavery has always been we should find the best way to accommodate it rather then abolish it.
Man does progress in time. It has abolished slavery and various forms of mysticism among other things. It’s hard to see in our narrow minds as we focus on the last 100 or 200 years. Though when looking at the big picture man’s life changes over the coarse of century’s. Giving into traditionalism is just accepting status quo and defending it for it’s own sake. It does not bring anything positive or make an effort to improve problems.
Some argue this is a tenet of conservatism. Though the progressive movement are also traditionalists. They also simply repeat history and cite historical examples to justify their socialist cause. It’s only because the media and economists peripheral viewpoints are narrow and their historical reference short lived. They conveniently forget the arguments of the past, and treat historical arguments as revolutionary new ones.
Also if you read Mises’s explanation of the flaws of history as a science you will see that traditionalism is fundamentally flawed, as is the case with most mainstream ideologies as they are based from statistician’s which are easily manipulated to defend a certain point of view.
Later he further explains why history becomes a controversial science rather then a unanimously agreed science, like natural sciences.
"This is the equivalent of justifying slaves back in their day. Making the argument that since slavery has always been we should find the best way to accommodate it rather then abolish it.
Man does progress in time. It has abolished slavery and various forms of mysticism among other things. It’s hard to see in our narrow minds as we focus on the last 100 or 200 years. Though when looking at the big picture man’s life changes over the coarse of century’s. Giving into traditionalism is just accepting status quo and defending it for it’s own sake. It does not bring anything positive or make an effort to improve problems."
No, it isn’t.
I’ve never said man doesn’t progress but you’re linking anarcho-capitalism with progress which is a clever word game. I’m not defending the status quo per se as much as I’m looking for practical solutions to real problems.
Can you define “practical”? Do you believe your definition to be subjective or objective? If subjective, do you understand that a debate about “practical” solutions is not a debate but rather a voicing of conflicting and unresolveable opinions?
I shall try my best to define what I mean by practical. When I say “practical” I mean an idea or policy that I believe could actually be sold to the American public. Not just the people on the margins, but a majority. Obviously, it’s a subjective definition or usage of the word. So you might think of something different when you read the word “practical.” That being said, these opinions can be resolved through elections. Which means that if the idea sells enough, the people who represent the ideas can be elected. I understand that people on this site are very cynical when it comes to the electoral process. I can’t say I blame them. But this idea that somehow if the US falls apart as it is now that suddenly we’ll see anarcho-capitalism emerge, despite the fact that very few people have even heard of it, seems to me to not be practical or realistic.
I’m willing to bet that if the US falls apart now, we’ll just see something worse emerge.
It is an analogy to explore flaws in your point. I could reword your statement as a defense of slavery just as easily.
However, from a historical perspective, it seems that people are going to keep slavery to solve their labor problems.
I don’t know if somehow I am misunderstanding or mistating your point in some way. I don’t think I pulled it out of context. I was mearly trying to make a point that using history to defend yourself doesn’t always hold much weight. Hope you see my point on that one! Thanks for the lively discussion also dude, your grade A. <3
Sometimes I contemplate that freedom is not a practical policy to be sold to the american public at all. Indeed most right leaning “freedom fighters” don’t fight for freedom at all but some form of state fascism.
The reason for this can be understood in public choice theory’s and human action. In addition to, participants of welfare are not irrational people. They are not evil or necessarily socialist. They are doing what is most economic for them to do. And due to things like rational ignorance and a limited understanding of their surrounding they are going to protect their economic security. As well as the general public supports the safety net, socialist and fascistic programs are always more “practically” sold to the masses. Perhaps it’s a sign of our education, I don’t know.
I am not sure who believes that we’re going to get an-cap out of a US collapse. I’m not of that perspective. It could happen in select regions and areas of the country but for an-cap to emerge, an-cap ideology must precede it and that’s very lacking in much of the country. I’d agree it’s more likely “something worse” could emerge, or something marginally “better”/less interventionist. But liberty full-borne, probably not. That being said, a collapse would mean a collapse of many entitlement programs and the running into the wall of reality on their unsustainability, so that is a specific plus.
Your definition seems to rely on the resolution of an election before the title “practical” can be conferred. In other words, you’re committing the “I don’t want to try it unless it’s proven to be successful” fallacy… well, every idea hasn’t been proven successful until it’s been tried and therefore you’d never try any idea.
I don’t mean by this to say every idea is worth trying. Simply I mean that you can not say you are looking for ‘practical’ ideas to try, when your definition of ‘practical’ relies on an idea already having been tried.
Thanks for the lively discussion also dude, your grade A. <3