Yes there is.
Physically harmful, but not subjectively. Praxeology.
Society doesn’t have a right to my good health.
This is where you run into the calculation problem.
So you get to choose who gets hurt, and have naturally chosen the people with no public support. Good job mr. mob rule.
Get rid of the legal privileges.
free from coercion.
Zero is the minimum. But don’t try to hide your inconsistency behind labels.
You say that adults are people and should be able to use drugs, yet you support taxing those “drugs” to the extent that you would possibly disincentivize people from using them. You actually don’t want them to use drugs. Instead of letting people figure this out themselves you imply the State should intervene on some case of morallity. Many things can be harmful for individuals. Life is full of risk factors. Instead of letting people make voluntary exchanges for various goods you would rather tax them for their personal choices (you might as well tax the people directly for their hazardous choices).
What if “drugs” were actually banned or the markets for those products ceased to exist due to over taxation, where would the funding come from?
People are still free to figure it out for themselves. Here’s their choice: Do I want drugs enough to pay x+10-20% (my guess would be yes)? So I don’t know what you’re talking about. This statement only makes sense if I wanted to legally ban the usage/sale of drugs.
Drugs are different. How many people kill, murder, and steal for cheeseburgers? The specific goods I’ve singled out are designed to be addictive, destructive, and affect the lives of those who choose not use consume them. This isn’t arbitrary, and it’s the best way to generate revenue without disturbing the economy. The point is that my position is entirely consistent with laissez-faire.
Yet, they’re not free enough to not be taxed for their choices. Regardless of what it is they should not be taxed because of it.
I never came across anyone who’s killed or stolen from anyone to pay for “drugs” (which is apparently covering alcohol and tobacco - but I can recall a group of people getting rowdy over a tea tax…) You talk about not disturbing the economy, but you’re not taking into account that the tobacco and alcohol businesses are very large and provide a lot of work. You’re not just trying to skim money off a small business you’re trying to tax an entire industry that a lot of people enjoy the products of.
You’re fortunate.
Also, I would like to add, and this isn’t a response to you Bert, that Rothbardians 100% oppose taxing drugs, which destroys the lives of millions, but find it entirely appropriate to completely regulate free banking. Talk about inconsistency.
If you want to get more detailed, under the usage of the word “drugs”, what drugs specifically would be taxed and would all be at the same rate or would it vary due to sales? If tobacco and alcohol is taxed, would you break it down into chewing tobacco, cigarettes, and cigars, and the same categories with alcohol, or just one tax for all of tobacco (and alcohol)?
Would other drugs be legalized for sale and taxed such as marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine, mushrooms, crystal meth, heroin, etc?
Also, you have to take in consideration if people decide not to pay the tax, a black market for these products (tobacco/alcohol) will rise (as if there isn’t one already for the mentioned drugs).
I went over all of this already.
Esuric I am wondering if you’ve had a chance to read Block’s Defending the Undefendable and what your take is on Chapter II, Medical.
You’ve not addressed a single one of your inconsistencies. Not only that, you have buried yourself even deeper in the hole that you have dug for yourself as soon as you started to respond.
So on who’s behalf is the government operating?
So what is it? A good is either scarce and is therefore economic by definition, or it is not scarce, and it is a free gift of nature.
Because charity means forced transferred of wealth, as oppose to the voluntary servitude of the needy? According to who’s perversive code of ethics?
Because you are confused. You think charity is not an economic good. By your our own words: " in fact, charity isn’t even an economic good,"
So we’ve established according to you, that it is a free good, and therefore no need to calculate. I now see your logic.
**
**
Which is the most devastating self-indicting truth about why what you are proposing (social welfare) is totally fallacious. Pure socialist nonsense.
**
**
Right, because there is no such objective criterion that can measure such a thing. The concept is fallacious. so what in the world are you trying to do here?
**
**
For the 3rd time. you haven’t answered the question:
How does a small subsidy avoid the problems of a bigger subsidy? How do you avoid the first from becoming the latter?
Taking refuge behind an arbitrary definition will gain you what exactly in this debate? Except perhaps, to show that even Obama could qualify as a Laissez-faire advocate.
You know nothing about who I am, what I know, and what and whom I am familiar with. Rothbard seems to be a defensive reactionary response initiated here by many youngsters here who find themselves in unpleasant and unfamiliar territory when they discover that they have not yet learned anything. Are you one of them?
We all have a lot to learn but I am not going to pursue this childish route with you.
For there to be a market there needs to be buyers and suppliers–charity may lack actors on the supply side, that is, those willing to give stuff away. It has unique characteristics. And, as I said about 20 times by now, if people are that generous, then wonderful. The revenue will be entirely devoted to defense/police/legal systems.
(emphasis is mine) What? is this a serious response? You’re like the socialist who chooses to define capitalism as “wage slavery.” This kind of confusion is not conducive for any kind of serious conversation.
Maybe I’m confused. But do you support fractional reserve banking, or do you believe it should be banned?
I’m sorry, but you have failed to show how my beliefs are inconsistent with laissez-faire. You conflate laissez-faire with anarchy, obfuscate terminology, and create false dichotomies.
You’re so enlightened, how wonderful for you.
Your lack of understanding of how charity and non-profit organizations operate within a market doesn’t somehow prove that they are not part of the market. Nothing can operate outside the market. Not even government.
And you my friend have a lot more studying to do. In your desperate attempt to defend the undefendable You have either explicitly or implicitly claimed the following:
Charity is not an economic good.
Government should act on behalf of itself if the market doesn’t (if people aren’t generous enough). This means that according to you, totalitarian government is compatible with laissez-faire. You found yourself in this situation because you were unwilling to admit that you are combating what you think is market failure.
It is inappropriate to apply the calculation argument because social welfare cannot be measured. Yet, somehow it is clear to you that government welfare outweighs the costs.
These are all things that you said numerous times. I have addressed them and you evaded and danced around. I’m tired of dancing.
Thank you for this barren conversation. It seems that I=Laissez-faire=Obama=Socialism. Taxing drugs (and nothing else) is statism, but completely regulating banking is anarchy! Good job, you really are that enlightened.
its just a difference between ‘often/mostly laissez faire’ and ‘always/completely laissez-faire’
I disagree. Your economic reasoning in this debate was at the level of any random socialist picked out of a hat.
Most of your other posts in other threads show absolutely no resemblance to this display.
I was referring to the definition you provided. Beyond “minimum level of interference” is certainly not what every Obama type dictator claims he’s advocating for.
Well of course. When one agrees with your position, he’s enlightened, but if one fails to see how 100% regulation of the banking system is anarchy, or if one fails to see how all government is a priori evil and totally unnecessary, then he’s just another ignorant statist fool. I get it, thanks.
The real definition. I can see how this is problematic for those who only think in black and white. Obama, somehow, can be seen as “believing that government should intervene as little as possible in the direction of economic affairs.” Obama, then, is an advocate of laissez faire, which makes him a statist, and a Marxist. Maybe you’re on to something–and he’s going to regulate the banking system, just like you “anarchists” want. At the same time Obama is an anarcho capitalist, Marxist, and an advocate of laissez faire.
Hey, look back at your posts. You said unbelievable things like "charity isn’t an economic good. " among other things.
straw man and irrelevant topic.
Particularly the part about where he talks about doctors who are addicted to very pharmaceutical drugs but they continue to operate normally because the drugs are easily accessible. The point is that it’s not necessarily true that druggies/alcoholics are always the degeneracy of society.
People die on the streets regardless of drugs. You are presenting this naive outlook that you can prevent death from happening.
Well if you want to tax something simply because of moral outrage, what is stopping others from taxing pornography? The internet even?
And people aren’t allowed to become homeless? Are we to wipe away all consequences we dislike?
Over 30,000 people die in automobile accidents a year in the USA. Let’s outlaw automobiles.