The state is not compatiable with a truely free society - period. You cannot copy and paste your way out of that.
Actually, the was an article I wrote for a column calle onlineopinion - google moi and it comes up.
Sorry, there are several issues here.
First, you have failed to show me how it is not a part of a free society (I have shown you using Hayekian theory how it is - both in its social and economic impacts). Indeed, you have still failed to provide an . All you have made are assertions.
Second, if it is not inclusive in a “free” society, then perhaps, we have different conceptions of what constitutes free.
Third, you fall into the Marxist deontology fallacy - looking at intentions, but not meeting outcomes.
Finally, I find the juxtaposition of the words “free” and “society” ironic coming from a market anarchist - you have no game plan on how to reduce government and convince the general public that we need less government, not more. Of course, with your arguments, or there lack off, you will never convince the general public to support libertarian doctrine, because market failures, which are really “land market failures” give capitalism and laizze faire a bad name. That is the missing puzzle to a free society - the stuff beneath our feet.
I’m sorry. I don’t understand how facts, recent facts have cannot have been refuted when no one has examined them, allows you to conclude that my views have been “refuted”. Refuted? By whom and where. Name names.
Most Austrian economists agree with me (as we saw above) and, of course, I am a windbag and a bore - I am actually making you economists think about the real world. Shock horror. You make people fear. I make people hope. You make people doubt. I make people think. I rather be the person that makes people think and hope, rather than fear and doubt.
Again, I noticed all of you did not answer my challenge to clarify your position, clarify what “constitutes a free society” and explain yourself with an - because as one reader going through these posts said to me, “looks like you got them”. Do me a favour and never become either an academic or a debator.
Also “the state” implies a federal government rather than local government - you don’t show how local government destroys a free society - because as I pointed out stateless Somalia ain’t free at the moment. The fact there is no state also means there are no education vouchers…aww. Also, it was revealed that Sweden, not Somalia, or Hong Kong, has the most fluid social mobility, which I found amusing.
If your “libertarian” model has A) a national defence, which must clearly be a militia given there is no state, I was wondering who would pay to ensure trained soliders and that we have adequate equipment from an impending aggressor? and B) with a “private police force” then, I was wondering how you would prevent corruption and which law will we be obeying - our “private” one or what?
See, no wonder anarcho-capitalism is not getting anywhere politically - your views are almost laughable.
Btw I’m curious - how old is everyone here? I’m 16.
Also, I just thought I would add in a few more facts. The housing market in Pittsburugh is VERY stable despite a national subprime mortgage crisis (prices due to LVT went up only 6% over the last 10 years and home ownership is in the 90% or more). In the Great Depression, land values only went up by 7% over the 20s. Indeed, Pittsburgh has added jobs in 2008 even as the national economy is in a significant jobs recession. In 2007, Pittsburgh was named “America’s Most Livable City” by Places Rated Almanac.The LVT also is used to make the city aesthetic and liveable, and fund roads and basic infrastructure: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/Pittsburgh_dawn_city_pano.jpg or http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/Carnegie_Museum_of_Natural_History_01.JPG ). It also have the lowest levels of crime - that ladies and gentlemen is what I call a free society (at least thus far in history, along with Hong Kong).
Alas, you are anti-employment, anti-free competitive market, pro-huge mortgages and pro-monopoly.
"Second, if it is not inclusive in a “free” society, then perhaps, we have different conceptions of what constitutes free.
Third, you fall into the Marxist deontology fallacy - looking at intentions, but not meeting outcomes."
It is simple really. Before you start your argument with an anarcho-capitalist, ask yourself - does my plan involve establishment of a state? If your answer is yes, than the outcome does not matter.
“Finally, I find the juxtaposition of the words “free” and “society” ironic coming from a market anarchist - you have no game plan on how to reduce government and convince the general public that we need less government, not more.”
Many of us disagree on how to implement this. I will admit we don’t have an exact path that everyone agrees on to getting there, but in the short term we have to rely on education. If enough people want anarchy, they’ll get it.
“Of course, with your arguments, or there lack off, you will never convince the general public to support libertarian doctrine, because market failures, which are really “land market failures” give capitalism and laizze faire a bad name. That is the missing puzzle to a free society - the stuff beneath our feet.”
Really? I dont buy the Georgian premise, but from your previous posts youve mentioned support for the following:
~Education vouchers (so I guess we have state schools still)
~Socialist roads
Not to mention you sounded like you thought gun control was A-OK. This society you’re talking about doesnt sound very free. Frankly, the ‘LVT’ is just as nutty as the FairTax.
“I’m sorry. I don’t understand how facts, recent facts have cannot have been refuted when no one has examined them, allows you to conclude that my views have been “refuted”. Refuted? By whom and where. Name names.”
Murray Rothbard. http://mises.org/rothbard/georgism.pdf And if that doesnt do it, there are plenty more.
“Again, I noticed all of you did not answer my challenge to clarify your position, clarify what “constitutes a free society” and explain yourself with an - because as one reader going through these posts said to me, “looks like you got them”. Do me a favour and never become either an academic or a debator”
What constitutes a free society? All you have to do to read the ancap answer to that is take a quick gander through the archives. To summarize, the ideal libertarian free society would be without ANY state, and thus a complete and total free market. Not to mention the rule of law via private courts, and where the NAP is respected. No, sorry Georgy, you didnt ‘get’ us.
“Also “the state” implies a federal government rather than local government - you don’t show how local government destroys a free society - because as I pointed out stateless Somalia ain’t free at the moment. The fact there is no state also means there are no education vouchers…aww. Also, it was revealed that Sweden, not Somalia, or Hong Kong, has the most fluid social mobility, which I found amusing.”
No, ‘the state’ is any goverment. Some here believe in ‘volentary’ government that you can seceed from at any time, but I dont even agree with those. And ‘releaved’ by who? UNESCO? The CIA Worldfact book? I reject your state statistics.
"If your “libertarian” model has A) a national defence, which must clearly be a militia given there is no state, I was wondering who would pay to ensure trained soliders and that we have adequate equipment from an impending aggressor? and B) with a “private police force” then, I was wondering how you would prevent corruption and which law will we be obeying - our “private” one or what? "
First off, in an ancap society, there is no such concept as ‘national’ as there are no nations. A) Some people like the idea of militias, other will choose private defence agencies. Miltias would train on their own dime, PDAs would be paid via their customers. B) A corrupt PDA wouldnt last in the market very long. It wouldnt be my job to ‘prevent’ anything. Private law will be enforced through private courts..have you ever bothered to read any kind of anarcho-capitalist material?
“Btw I’m curious - how old is everyone here? I’m 16.”
- Dont’ worry, you’ll outgrow Georgism eventually.
Yawn, you are right - you cannot reason with a person who does not have self-referential premises. Also, I addressed all of Rothbard’s arguments above - they were weak empirically. As for the point: “a corrupt PDA wouldnt last in the market very long” - that was said about free banking, and how do you explain the 1890 Melbourne Land Boom? I did read David Friedman, but kept laughing at the suggestion of having a “private law system” - if laws conflict between two people I find them difficult to resolve. I am also not convinced that corruption would be solved - after all, it wasn’t in free banking. Indeed, it seems to me your are simply renaming government “private” this private that - but not addressing the cause problems and issues.
Nope, all your arguments fall into Hume’s is/ought fallacy. Ought to be like this, but does not mean it is. You cannot derive an is proposition from an ought proposition - ie. “government is bad” we must therefore not have government.
Also, I proved you cannot have a genuine free and efficient market without addressing the land question: you can already create another institution, public or private, that must address it.
As such, your views are all normative goals, not realities. So when you say “I am an anarcho-capitalist, I do no care about outcomes” - this is like speaking to a Marxist. “It’s my intentions that matter” they say, “not the outcomes”. You are not interested in reality and as such the anarcho-capitalist movement will have grave problems being taken seriously. Your statements are not wrong. They are simply meaningless to the broader populance.
Good luck with your crusade. You’ll need it. Although I do think its a cultural thing - Australians’ are not cycnical toward their government - we have never had any major abuses in the 20th century in the way America have by their government. Yes, we have a monarchy, and no we don’t have a bill of rights, yet we have the highest freedom index in the world: http://www.prosperity.com/ranking.aspx
(btw, gun rights here are a state issue - although I think Port Arthur was hardly advancing the anarcho-capitalist cause).
Anyways, if this issue were put before the people, I am sure my views would prevail - after all, I have an .
TL;DR
33, and yes, you will outgrow Georgism, or live a wretched life as a lunatic.
Let’s hope for your sake, it is the former not the latter.
Your initial premise, that there must be a state is where you went wrong.
Your second premise, that a tax is necessary is like praying to Satan at the Vatican. Austrians do not advocate taxes, at all. We’re not interested in finding creative ways to tax, or to tax better. Morally, we reject taxation for what it is. Theft. Even in a Georgist system, it is still theft.
The third place you went wrong, and it’s probably due to lack of experience, is trying to bury your opponents in arguments. A wiser approach is to pick one or two points, and challenge the premise of the person you are arguing with. Posting long tracts, or in rapid sucession will only turn people off, and you won’t achieve anything for your efforts.
Why don’t you demonstrate, in a paragraph and no more, why where the source of the land’s value stems from matters to its ownership? Moreover, what does it have to do with anarcho-capitalism where all defence of land is privately paid for, meaning absentee ownership is uneconomic?
I do not know the specifics of the Australian situation and I am not going to take your word for it. If you think the case is significant, submit it to the likes of Roger Garrison or Bob Murphy. Please spare us of the “you’re extremists!!!” claptrap, because we’ve heard this weak, mealy-mouthed nonsense before. Your fear of your fellowman does nothing to justify the imposition of a leviathan on the rest of us.
Then. You. Are. A. Socialist. Get over it and admit it already. And please do not mire me in more of this “I’m trying to save capitalism!” crap that originates from the likes of Bush. You’re not, if you think law and order should be socialized. As if law imposed by a monopoly by the point of a gun is somehow intrinsically more efficient and just than contractual law.
Let me re-phrase. In a stateless society there are no taxes.
Firstly, it has been human nature to establish state-like structures at a local level. The Aboriginals even did it. The Maoris did it. Europeans did it. What I envisage is a Swiss style model where local, highly decentralised “cantons” decide policy. In short, competitive federalism.
Secondly, as far as I am concerned I will not outgrow Georgism - if I can show that all major recessions are real estate related i.e. that land is the endogenous factor which economists have missed in understanding the boom and bust cycle - then its irrelevant - your economic system would share the same limitations as the status quo or even Marxism. We tried a “free banking” system here and it ended in disaster as per usual.
Third, Georgists would say rents are theft - as after all, rent is, by definition, a surplus of YOUR labour. Y - R = W + I It is through your co-operation, whether in the public sector or the private sector, the land values are determined. Thus, JS Mills “unearned increment” (which may be caused by infrastructure wind falls or simpkle population growth). Above I explain how land compared to other markets do not really follow the quid pro rule. I also explain how you can separate added-value from non-owner value (we do it when we fill out our insurance paperwork).
Finally, I am not burying you, I am explaining to you how a “free” market cannot exist unless you lubricate the land market (see below).
Law, by definition, is a consensus on how individuals interact. I support our Parliamentary, direct democracy here in Australia. I suppose you think Wittgenstein is also a socialist, aye? You know, showing that a “private” language is impossible - that language is a two way medium, a social phenonma.
Socialism is the collective means of production - law is not a stage of production i.e. K, R or L. Simply calling everyone a socialist does not address the issue at hand. But for kicks, okay, “you’re a trot - you hate freedom - freedom to set up shop, freedom for genuine competition”. Yes, Jon Irenicus, freedom as long as it suits you and your monopolistic aims.
As I said above, I do regard capitalisms only flaw to be the land market - Riccardo recognised this, as did Smith, and several recent economists.
Also, private defence of land? But why would you need to defence land? It sounds like some sort of barbaric and overlord society… like…oh, that’s right…Somalia (which is currently stateless). Claptrap, it is not, reality it is. Nevertheless, explain to me, or give me a list of books to read (i.e. what do you recommend) on this system of land tenure and anarcho-capitalism in general.Anyways, if it is the case that under anarcho-capitalism land is put to its productive use, then it is fine -but I personally don’t see people I know doing that (i.e. we would hold land idle lol - yeah, hypocrite, but not pay for private defence - it is idle after all).
Also, I would like to know how your system would increase 1. private property ownership (I have shown you how Georgism home ownership is huge), 2. stop urban sprawl, 3. increase employment rates and reduce monopolies interess and 4. assist an Afro-American mother, with cancer and no healthinsurance, who cannot afford care for her disabled child with Downs’ syndrome the right medication and healthcare services.
Here, convince me why anarcho-capitalism will make a world a better place (i.e. give me a utilitarian argument, over a deontological one).
That’s not relevant.
Yeah, you might be the one in a dozen that refuses to grow up.
Georgism is irrelevant. It is anachronistic. The information age and soon the move to living on water, and in space, make Georgism moot.
A free market doesn’t feature a tax. Until you understand that by definition, a free market is without coercion, and taxes are coercive, then we’re just going to spin our wheels.
Thus, JS Mills “unearned increment” (which may be caused by infrastructure wind falls or simpkle population growth)
You know, we had this guy here a while ago. He used to talk about how nothing can be owned because we’re all made of particles and particles can’t own other particles. He also said that profits are immoral because people merely exploit the population growth curve. But don’t you see how profits derived from prudent land ownership fall into the same category as every other entrepreneurial activity? If you open the same bakery on the North Pole as well as in New York City, of course this is going to bear different results concerning your personal profit. You’ll encounter varying degrees of demand, transportation, storing and production costs and various other factors that will influence the end result.
You benefit people, you win. You don’t benefit that many people by opening a bakery on the North Pole. You benefit them by anticipating population growth and “infrastructure wind falls” (i.e., an expected increase in popularity of a certain region?) and doing your business accordingly. Where’s the problem?
Firstly, it has been human nature to establish state-like structures at a local level.
It has also been quite common to own slaves over the centuries. We’re not talking about what people tend to do, but what is right from an ethical point of view.
What I envisage is a Swiss style model where local, highly decentralised “cantons” decide policy. In short, competitive federalism.
And why can’t we have a lot of homeowners’ associations do that instead of creating a separate class of bureaucrats and warriors that will end up ruling instead of protecting?
your economic system would share the same limitations as the status quo or even Marxism.
At least we don’t advocate the abolition of private property for the sake of, well, “economic fairness”? Talk about limitations; who’s going to limit those who administer the land taxing?
My dear Sir, even in a localised state society, you don’t need taxes - land tax is not a tax, but a rent. It is an inelastic good - land cannot be produced.
It might shock you anarcho-capitalists to find that, in fact, LVT makes the land market more efficient than anything else. As I showed earlier, record home ownership everywhere LVT has been introduced, record levels of propserity, record low levels of crime, high levels of employment - if stronger families, lower mortgage debt, no malinvestments and pretexts for government intervention- means I am a socialist, then yes I am a socialist. And I intend to go on and on.
I still notice every anarcho-capitalist here has NOT give me a GAME PLAN on how to convince the general public why their system is any better. Indeed, I made a point I think calls for consideration:
"…In 2006 the OFT (Office of Fair Trade) called the competition commission to conduct an inquiry into the dominance of the big 4 supermarket chains. Evidence had surfaced that the land banks held by Tesco and Asada could be a constrain to competition. John Fingleton said that his “primary concern related to the land banks as barriers to entry into the retail sector”. Supermarkets steadily increased their share of the market at the expense of 39 000 independent retailers. The corner shops were constantly shrinking – the OFT found that:
-
750 sites were acquired by one of the big 4 retailers and had been either vacant or leased out such that it prevented the buyer using the land for retailing food;
-
The big 4 had purchased, or had options to purchase, 468 strategically located sites across the country which “could be used to strict entry by potential competitors”.
-
some sites were held vacant for up to 8 YEARS, adding to urban sprawl and therefore the cost of infrastructure funding – depriving investment and employment opportunities in the towns which actually needed them, adding to the need for welfare programs.
This could reduce many, if not all, “market failures” (predatory pricing, poor wage rates, monopoly). The “market failure” doctrine is damaging to public welfare, as it legitimates, for the general public, the panoply of government interventions – regulation, subsidies and taxes – when the remedy is very simple: LVT…"
My question is how do you address these percieved failures of the “market” (i.e. the properganda that markets fail) but in fact it is not market failure but land policy failure?
Neither can water. Or Air. Or Gold. So?
We don’t make utilitarian arguments. The market finds the acceptable efficiencies through competition. Not through arbitrary systems to confront scarcity.
Ok, but you will eventually get banned here, so I would tone down the socialism a bit. Fruitful debate is good, trolling is bad.
Why do we have to give you our gameplan? You’re our competition, and we’re cleaning your clock in the ideological battle. Look around. Georgists have nothing going for them. Libertarianism and Austrian economics just ran a very successful Presidential bid, organized thousands of people around the world, and is booming. The Mises Institute is more successful than other ideological enterprises because it UNDERSTANDS and embraces CAPITALISM without state subsidy.
So while you have thousands of words worth of plans, and intentions and ideas, good luck getting anyone to give you $10 to make it happen.
For a guy who preaches so much utilitarianism, surely you can recognize and acknowledge the validity of results.
Policy fails period. Only the market can succeed, if it is left unhindered. You’re just proposing a different policy. Austrians understand that every intervention into the market, creates a crisis. There is not “ultimate answer” for all of mankind, and all attempts to homogenize the market and behaviour that way, always fails spectacularly.
Of course, as a socialist, I fully expect you to try to plan for billions of humans and fall into believing that what you have figured out, can account for all of their needs, wants, circumstances and resources equitably and fairly, with no victims. Socialism after all, is the art of willful delusion.
“That is irrelevant”
No it is not relevant - as it goes against your arguments. It is relevant, it is just you don’t want it to be relevant because it doesn’t suit your facts.
“Yeah, you might be the one in a dozen that refuses to grow up.”
No, you are the one that has not grown up - but have taken a sip from the bitter up of ignorance. I advise you read these two articles:
http://www.foldvary.net/works/geoaus.html
http://www.foldvary.net/works/cycle.html
“Georgism is irrelevant. It is anachronistic. The information age and soon the move to living on water, and in space, make Georgism moot.”
On the contrary, this means - one- Georgism is more necessary than EVER - when we get onto Mars or any other planet - we shouldn’t monopolize land in the hands of a few landowners -two- if we started civilisation again we wouldn’t go down the Marxist path or the savages path - but have co-operative individualism -three- ensure that we do not have in space and “on water” - urban sprawl, idle land etc and -finally- in an information age, LVT cannot be evaded in a digital age - roads and (yes, we know you don’t believe in a state, but you have to take things in their policy constraints i.e. contemporary socio-political climate - you can’t just abolish government tomorrow, as you haven’t got the support for it - Georgism, however, can be a medium to achieving a “stateless” society - after all, with a single tax you just need to remove 1 tax, not 300).
“A free market doesn’t feature a tax. Until you understand that by definition, a free market is without coercion, and taxes are coercive, then we’re just going to spin our wheels.”
It ia also co-ercion to squeeze out company PROFITS and that of small business due to rising rents without quid pro rule applying (like we saw in London), to squeeze out people’s incomes due to higher mortgages, or making them travel 5 hours to work due to urban sprawl (like in Japan), or making them unemployed (like in Liverpool) - i.e. idle land, equals idle labour. What about that type of co-ercion aye: transfer payments from capital and labour to rent? What about that. We are simply entering from one form of domination to another. ps LVT is not a tax, but a rent.
It has also been quite common to own slaves over the centuries. We’re not talking about what people tend to do, but what is right from an ethical point of view.
~ Yes, but “local government” predated slavery - moreover, I was thinking of Switzerland, you know, the worlds most stable and second oldest democracy.
And why can’t we have a lot of homeowners’ associations do that instead of creating a separate class of bureaucrats and warriors that will end up ruling instead of protecting?
~ Because the effect is the same - it is still a local government, but with another name slapped onto it.
At least we don’t advocate the abolition of private property for the sake of, well, “economic fairness”? Talk about limitations; who’s going to limit those who administer the land taxing?
~Private agencies like they do here and abolish private ownership? Let me remind you: In fact, Henry George, stressed that this was NOT necessary: possessory rights under the status quo via title deeds need not be disturbed. Thus, he says very clearly and lucidly in Poverty and Progress:
“I do NOT propose either to purchase or to confiscate private property in land. The first would be unjust; the second needless. Let the individuals who now hold it still retain if they wanted to, possession of what they are placed to call their land and use it however they want to use it”.
He goes on to say he supports local governments over a federal government.
The highlighted segment clearly promotes decentralisation, not centralisation.
- We also saw in a previous post how LVT defended property rights against the state (i.e. McClelland v R) where the Crown said the land was theirs, when, in fact, the fact the individual was paying LVT meant it was clearly his; LVT also resolves land right disputes as we saw in the McCormick case – “well who was paying the LVT?” the judge asked. No system can guarantee land rights and private property, practically like this, in the same way as Georgism can.
Homeownership, in America, is the largest in Pittsburgh, where they employ LVT. Thus, physically, increasing private property tenure. Again, this can only occur under a Georgist system.
Your views are dismissed when it comes to reality.
So what? That does not mean a stateless society could not exist.
I really do not give a shit what you envision. The title of this thread is, “What forms of taxation is promoted by the Austrian school?” If you want to talk about what you think is the best social structure for society, then you need to start your own thread.