Land (economics)In this context land refers to the area, not the dirt. It does matter if other people are getting it for free, because then less public goods would be produced than is optimal. YOU brought up EFFICIENCY, not mere functionality. Regardless, labor justifies the ownership. You cannot separate the improvements from the land and take them with you, making them part of that land. You cannot own a field without owning the land. And who decides what is optimal? What if a farmer is fine with 4 more tomatoes due to the research, and prefers to use the funding that would have netted him two additional tomatoes on funding wheat research for his other plot? Or on a Kindle so he has something to do in the middle of winter? Or on the space program? True, forcing every tomato farmer to fund research on tomato farming would (probably) produce greater results in tomato farming, but will also necessarily de-fund other projects, which may produce more desirable results in another field. Both of those are practical concerns, not ethical or efficiency concerns. Despite their physical inseperability, land and improvements can be assessed independently from one another. And we decide what spending is optimal by measuring and aggregating individual utility - bum bum bummmm..... Voting. [crowd shieks in horror] First it was ethics, then efficiency, now you're doubting the practicality of a tax-funded state. I'm getting a little tired of winning at each category and moving on to the next, so I will leave it to others to continue failing to convince you for a while.  |
|
|
|
Let's say spending on his own crops nets an increased yield of 3 tomatoes, and that research would result in an increased yield of 2 tomatoes for everyone. It would then be in everyone's best interest to spend on their own crops. But if the research would yield 5 more tomatoes for everyone, it's now in everyone's best interest to fund the research, and it would get funded.
(Bolded above) Those are the projects that taxes ought to fund. So, you're advocating stealing 3 tomatoes from everyone, and in return, giving research that will increase yield by 2? How is that any better than stealing 10 tomatoes from everyone, and giving everyone back 9? If you're going to start calling it "stealing" again, then we can go back to the ethics side of the debate. I still maintain that labor, not first dibs, is what justifies ownership. Now then, I was under the impression that you were saying EACH 3 tomato individual contribution grants EVERYONE an additional 2 tomatoes. This is how externalities work, maybe someone else can explain it better. Sure, labor justifies ownership. That's the basis of homesteading. I put my labor into the land, so it's mine. You didn't, so it's not yours. Now, if every 3 tomatoes in produces two more tomatoes out for everyone, It's easy to see that he only needs to get one other person to contribute for them both to benefit (give three tomatoes, totaling 6, get 4 each, totaling 8 ), and it should be clear that each additional contributor after the second only increases the profit. No rational actor is going to pass that up. You can put your labor into structures on the land, or improve the natural capital of the land, but your labor doesn't create the land itself. Why wouldn't I pass up collaborating when I can free ride on the two of you collaborating? Do you acknowledge the existence of the free rider problem, or the volunteer's dilemma?  You could free ride (and I don't deny that that might be a problem for public goods, but there are ways of making them profitable without resorting to violence) and get 4 more tomatoes next crop, or I could contribute 3, and get 6. Honestly, though, once the study is profitable for those who fund it, does it matter if the others get it free? In this context land refers to the area, not the dirt. It does matter if other people are getting it for free, because then less public goods would be produced than is optimal. YOU brought up EFFICIENCY, not mere functionality. |
|
|
|
Let's say spending on his own crops nets an increased yield of 3 tomatoes, and that research would result in an increased yield of 2 tomatoes for everyone. It would then be in everyone's best interest to spend on their own crops. But if the research would yield 5 more tomatoes for everyone, it's now in everyone's best interest to fund the research, and it would get funded.
(Bolded above) Those are the projects that taxes ought to fund. So, you're advocating stealing 3 tomatoes from everyone, and in return, giving research that will increase yield by 2? How is that any better than stealing 10 tomatoes from everyone, and giving everyone back 9? If you're going to start calling it "stealing" again, then we can go back to the ethics side of the debate. I still maintain that labor, not first dibs, is what justifies ownership. Now then, I was under the impression that you were saying EACH 3 tomato individual contribution grants EVERYONE an additional 2 tomatoes. This is how externalities work, maybe someone else can explain it better. Sure, labor justifies ownership. That's the basis of homesteading. I put my labor into the land, so it's mine. You didn't, so it's not yours. Now, if every 3 tomatoes in produces two more tomatoes out for everyone, It's easy to see that he only needs to get one other person to contribute for them both to benefit (give three tomatoes, totaling 6, get 4 each, totaling  , and it should be clear that each additional contributor after the second only increases the profit. No rational actor is going to pass that up. You can put your labor into structures on the land, or improve the natural capital of the land, but your labor doesn't create the land itself. Why wouldn't I pass up collaborating when I can free ride on the two of you collaborating? Do you acknowledge the existence of the free rider problem, or the volunteer's dilemma? |
|
|
|
Let's say spending on his own crops nets an increased yield of 3 tomatoes, and that research would result in an increased yield of 2 tomatoes for everyone. It would then be in everyone's best interest to spend on their own crops. But if the research would yield 5 more tomatoes for everyone, it's now in everyone's best interest to fund the research, and it would get funded.
(Bolded above) Those are the projects that taxes ought to fund. So, you're advocating stealing 3 tomatoes from everyone, and in return, giving research that will increase yield by 2? How is that any better than stealing 10 tomatoes from everyone, and giving everyone back 9? If you're going to start calling it "stealing" again, then we can go back to the ethics side of the debate. I still maintain that labor, not first dibs, is what justifies ownership. Now then, I was under the impression that you were saying EACH 3 tomato individual contribution grants EVERYONE an additional 2 tomatoes. This is how externalities work, maybe someone else can explain it better. |
|
|
|
No, the point is, tax-funded research is a gamble that I don't have a say in. It's one thing if I gamble with my money. it's another thing entirely if you're gambling with my money (that you took from me by force).
You can always move if you don't like the laws in the country you choose to live in. I'm kinda arguing against myself here, but sometimes that's not a realistic option. Particularly for Myrkul, since an AnCap alternative is not yet available. There are initial moving costs, employment opportunity costs, and travel costs for visiting family too. |
|
|
|
For counterexample, the tomato state could sell some tomatoes and spend the proceeds on public tomato farming research, thus increasing the total tomato supply even more.
It could. That funding could just as easily (and more efficiently) have come directly from the farmers themselves, however. If you give a rational tomato farmer the choice between A. Spending on his own crops (which helps him a lot) B. Spending it on tomato research (which helps him little) He will choose A, even though B helps the average tomato farmer more. It's a prisoner'svolunteer's dilemma. If each person spends on his own crops, then, would not all the farmers be better off by a lot, rather than the little the research would produce? Your example doesn't make much sense. If the end result is that the research would help more than spending on his own crops, any rational farmer would fund the research. If the end result is the research would help less than spending on his own crops, no rational farmer would. Let's say spending on his own crops nets an increased yield of 3 tomatoes, and that research would result in an increased yield of 2 tomatoes for everyone. It would then be in everyone's best interest to spend on their own crops. But if the research would yield 5 more tomatoes for everyone, it's now in everyone's best interest to fund the research, and it would get funded. (Bolded above) Those are the projects that taxes ought to fund. Everyone has more tomatoes by taxing and funding research instead of leaving everyone their own tomatoes. I was incorrect to call it a prisoner's dilemma, it's really a volunteer's dilemma ( see payoff matrix). So in a free market we still get some public good spending when the personal benefit is great, but not all public goods are like that so we'd have less than is optimal. |
|
|
|
For counterexample, the tomato state could sell some tomatoes and spend the proceeds on public tomato farming research, thus increasing the total tomato supply even more.
It could. That funding could just as easily (and more efficiently) have come directly from the farmers themselves, however. If you give a rational tomato farmer the choice between A. Spending on his own crops (which helps him a lot) B. Spending it on tomato research (which helps him little) He will choose A, even though B helps the average tomato farmer more. It's a prisoner's dilemma. |
|
|
|
Scale this however you want, it comes back to the same fact: paying everyone else for the use of your property is, at best, a shuffling of resources with no net effect, and at worst, a waste of some percentage to whatever administration oversees that shuffling. I would further argue that land taxes enhance the efficiency of a society. First of all, land taxes don't cause a significant deadweight loss. Then the state can then spend those funds on positive externalities, which are more efficient than basic income. This is less ethically justifiable than simple restitution since it's paternalistic, but we have moved on to efficiency after all. Net effect = externalities - tax revenue - admin overhead It can be positive and promotes growth. How can you argue that, when I just gave an example that shows it's false? Land taxes are only efficient when compared to the current system. Present a counterexample to the tomato farmers. Your example shows the inefficiency of simple restitution, assuming no negative externalities caused by poverty. For counterexample, the tomato state could sell some tomatoes and spend the proceeds on public tomato farming research, thus increasing the total tomato supply even more. |
|
|
|
Scale this however you want, it comes back to the same fact: paying everyone else for the use of your property is, at best, a shuffling of resources with no net effect, and at worst, a waste of some percentage to whatever administration oversees that shuffling. I would further argue that land taxes enhance the efficiency of a society. First of all, land taxes don't cause a significant deadweight loss. Then the state can then spend those funds on positive externalities, which are more efficient than basic income. This is less ethically justifiable than simple restitution since it's paternalistic, but we have moved on to efficiency after all. Net effect = externalities - tax revenue - admin overhead It can be positive and promotes growth. |
|
|
|
So basically, it's unethical for me to kill any animal without giving everyone in the world an infinite sum of money and paying damages to the animal's family. I guess I'll just go on being unethical, then.
That's kinda why I stuck with tomatoes, since we're focused on taxes here, not animal rights. For the sake of argument I'm assuming not all whales are people. The sum to be paid would not be infinite - it would just be expensive enough to maintain equilibrium. (Not to put words in FirstAscent's mouth) IMHO cap & trade is the most efficient existing way to distribute natural resources like whales, so we would auction off whaling permits. It does however introduce the weakness of "who maintains the cap?" so there I'll admit my argument is weak compared to potential market-based alternatives. Part of the reason I like this forum is because I do think we can eventually do better, and solve these problems without a state. But until then I'm very hesitant take an existential risk. |
|
|
|
1. Thank you! You just made all my future arguments with anarchists much easier. My support of men with guns demanding restitution for the people isn't a tax, it's a court judgement! I hereby request you report for arbitration on November 4th at a voting booth near your home. 2. If every natural source of food has been privatized, taking away my ability to hunt/farm without paying a capitalist, then yes that is an injustice. I do not agree to give you full ownership of something no person has created, and was a shared resource by default. In case anyone is interested in what I'm actually saying and not Myrkul's impressive interpretation, a good summary is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism1. Wait, now you're including voting into things? That's a whole other kettle of violent fish. Let's not go there - unless you want to, but do it in another thread, this one's about taxation. You can have men with guns who demand restitution under AnCap, as well, that's called a defense agency. 2. Hunting and/or farming is work, as well. I didn't specify work for someone. I didn't even specify buy. You need to output labor in order to appropriate resources, whether those resources are land, food, or material goods. That labor may be in raw form (farming, hunting, etc), or it may be in condensed liquid form (currency). 1. Well gosh, VOTING?!?! If you're so surprised I think we should VOTE on the things I outright called a tax from the start, then maybe you shouldn't try to play semantics and act like you have no idea how taxes and governments work. I don't even know how you think there COULD be taxes without government, which in a modern context assumes voting. 2. Brilliant, if I was arguing against work, which I'm not. I'm arguing against giving away land for free to whoever gets there first and "homesteads" it. 1. Except that nothing that you've called a tax has actually been a tax, and the justification for taxation that your stated (or at least linked to) philosophy supports (and which might actually have a chance of standing up under fire), you haven't used. 2. You "homestead" the deer when you hunt it, the tomato when you harvest it, how is that any different than homesteading the land, when you till it? 1. Then let's stop wasting time. I'm proposing we vote on people with guns to go door to door demanding payment for land use, and distribute that between residents of the jursidiction. Either call that a tax and dispute it, or call it restitution and don't. Every other libertarian I've ever talked to calls this a tax. Your call. 2. The deer and tomato are natural capital. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_capitalIf you're collecting tomatoes in a public place, you should reimburse everyone else whose tomatoes you're taking. If you've paid land taxes to farm them in private, we're already getting reimbursed for the factor of production so any surplus tomatoes you can grow belong to you. Example: Plot of land will naturally yield 10 tomatoes. We allow you to privatize it. Under your wise supervision, the plot yields 100 tomatoes. We still deserve reimbursement for the 10 tomatoes we can no longer pick, but not the 90 that are a result of your labor - those are yours. |
|
|
|
1. Thank you! You just made all my future arguments with anarchists much easier. My support of men with guns demanding restitution for the people isn't a tax, it's a court judgement! I hereby request you report for arbitration on November 4th at a voting booth near your home. 2. If every natural source of food has been privatized, taking away my ability to hunt/farm without paying a capitalist, then yes that is an injustice. I do not agree to give you full ownership of something no person has created, and was a shared resource by default. In case anyone is interested in what I'm actually saying and not Myrkul's impressive interpretation, a good summary is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism1. Wait, now you're including voting into things? That's a whole other kettle of violent fish. Let's not go there - unless you want to, but do it in another thread, this one's about taxation. You can have men with guns who demand restitution under AnCap, as well, that's called a defense agency. 2. Hunting and/or farming is work, as well. I didn't specify work for someone. I didn't even specify buy. You need to output labor in order to appropriate resources, whether those resources are land, food, or material goods. That labor may be in raw form (farming, hunting, etc), or it may be in condensed liquid form (currency). 1. Well gosh, VOTING?!?! If you're so surprised I think we should VOTE on the things I outright called a tax from the start, then maybe you shouldn't try to play semantics and act like you have no idea how taxes and governments work. I don't even know how you think there COULD be taxes without government, which in a modern context assumes voting. 2. Brilliant, if I was arguing against work, which I'm not. I'm arguing against giving away land for free to whoever gets there first and "homesteads" it. |
|
|
|
1. What do you call it when the state collects these funds for the purpose of dividing it up between victims? Maybe I've been against taxes all along.  2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_present_valueIt does include all future rents, but discounted due to risk like you describe. So yeah, I have to either pay landlords or die. Telling me to just offer more is like telling you to just convince people to vote differently. 1. A court judgment? Tax is, "Money demanded by the state, to fund it's operations" (paraphrasing the definition from my earlier post) 2. No, you have to pay land owners, or be homeless. Significant difference, and still a false dichotomy. There are other ways of acquiring land than purchasing it. You can inherit it, for instance. You also have to work (in some manner) in order to eat. Is that an injustice, as well? 1. Thank you! You just made all my future arguments with anarchists much easier. My support of men with guns demanding restitution for the people isn't a tax, it's a court judgement! I hereby request you report for arbitration on November 4th at a voting booth near your home. 2. If every natural source of food has been privatized, taking away my ability to hunt/farm without paying a capitalist, then yes that is an injustice. I do not agree to give you full ownership of something no person has created, and was a shared resource by default. In case anyone is interested in what I'm actually saying and not Myrkul's impressive interpretation, a good summary is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism |
|
|
|
1. If we use a state to organize compulsory restitution, that is a tax. Drop the semantics.
2. If all land is owned, how do I get my own without paying the NPV of all its future rents?
1. No, taxes, by definition, go to the state. Restitution goes to the victim. 2. I'm not familiar with the abbreviation "NPV", but purchasing land does not include the value of all future rents. It includes the current value of that land. All you have to do is offer enough that the owner will forgo those future (potential) rents, for the immediate (definite) purchase price. 1. What do you call it when the state collects these funds for the purpose of dividing it up between victims? Maybe I've been against taxes all along. 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_present_valueIt does include all future rents, but discounted due to risk like you describe. So yeah, I have to either pay landlords or die. Telling me to just offer more is like telling you to just convince people to vote differently. |
|
|
|
Still waiting for someone to justify someone putting a gun in my face and saying "you owe me for being born here."
No one is suggesting that. That is precisely what taxation is. Bullshit. If you poison everyone's air, we're justified in demanding you reimburse everyone you hurt. That's a pollution tax, not a birth tax. You know this. I was born here on earth, but you would force me to pay rent to private landowners or die. THAT'S a lot more like a birth tax if you ask me. 1. That's restitution, not tax. 2. False dichotomy. Get your own land, pay no rent. 1. If we use a state to organize compulsory restitution, that is a tax. Drop the semantics. 2. If all land is owned, how do I get my own without paying the NPV of all its future rents? And you haven't explained how anything anyone here proposes is a birth tax. |
|
|
|
Still waiting for someone to justify someone putting a gun in my face and saying "you owe me for being born here."
No one is suggesting that. That is precisely what taxation is. Bullshit. If you poison everyone's air, we're justified in demanding you reimburse everyone you hurt. That's a pollution tax, not a birth tax. You know this. I was born here on earth, but you would force me to pay rent to private landowners or die. THAT'S a lot more like a birth tax if you ask me. |
|
|
|
|
Don't we want people with good information to contribute without needing to retain large amounts of capital?
"I know what will turn this company around!"
Buy low
Vote smart
Price goes up
Sell high
|
|
|
|
Still waiting for someone to justify someone putting a gun in my face and saying "you owe me for being born here."
No one is suggesting that. |
|
|
|
8/8 Update – The Word Grows mentions this thread. I don't see any reason to doubt the legitimacy of this project any more than other similar startups. My professional opinion* is that it's a good plan, and their site didn't scream "scam" to me. If anyone is seriously worried about fraud, they DO give out their real identities so you can verify them. * I'm a mechanical engineer with ~3 years experience designing for and maintaining 3D printers.
|
|
|
|
However, I don't buy into this "mixing labor with land makes the land mine".
Then read Hoppe's text. The one I linked to Bjork above is a good start. There's really no acceptable alternative to the homesteading principle. But, even if you don't yet accept homesteading, the question of why, for instance, the Brazilian government claim to the Amazon is valid and mine (or anybody else's claim) isn't stays open. Plus the fact that all modern states used war to establish their territories. Justifying taxation by saying that states are legitimate owners of lands they took by force is justifying theft by theft. I'm not arguing that states have any more right to claim land than you do. The entire earth belongs to the people of earth and states are not legitimate "owners". My claim is that the state can be a useful tool to reimburse the public for such widespread (and arguably practical) aggression. Democratic control over land isn't theft because privatizing it in the FIRST place was the theft. I'm curious, do the AnCaps here think that after the revolution is over, the masses will be content to watch us enjoy our Bitcoin mansions tax-free? You're going to have to pay them some kind of protection money or provide a public good, or someone working for your private security will get rich off your assassination market. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
