Why are people scared of taxes?

[sturle]

No, it will be vastly cheaper if privatised. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem. Also, business are accountable, because I can take my money elsewhere if I don't like their services. The government monopolises its services.

The Economic calculation problem only applies where there is a market which can be free.

Can you explain then why The USA, which has the most privatised health system of all developed nations of world, pays more per capita for it's health services than any other country?  That is only counting public spending, not private insurances.  The USA are far from the top quality wise.  Number 38 in the world on life expectancy, which is lower than even Cuba.

The private sector will organize itself to maximise profit.  This is not automatically the most cost effective way.

There are several factors, the chief amongst which is that health insurance is heavily regulated, creating high barriers to entry and suppressing competition. Employer provided healthcare also tends to lead to people not examining the actual cost of their healthcare leading to higher prices. Employer provided insurance arose, of course, from government wage control legislation.

This may explain why health insurance is more expensive for average people (because the companies can't deny insurance to e.g. obese people or smokers), but it does not explain why the U.S. government pays more per capita than any other government for a health system which is less effective than in most other countries.  The insurance comes in addition to what the government spends, just to underline the problems.  Private health insurance wouldn't be necessary if the USA copied the standard European like health system, and you would get a more effective system for less tax money.

[1714520091]

1714520091

[1714520091]

1714520091

[1714520091]

1714520091

[myrkul]

If I mug you, and then promise to buy you a stereo with some of the money, is that moral?

Why do you care?  You are an anarchist, so I guess you think it is anyone's right to mug you?  You don't want any laws against it.

That makes three people who have responded to this question, and not one of them have actually answered it. Dear god, that's sad.

I care because you claim taxation is moral. I am attempting to determine what aspect of taxation makes it moral, and differentiates it from simple theft. So far, we've ruled out majority consensus (voting), so I'm now looking into whether it's the fact that some of the money comes back to the person you're taking it from.

If you think that as an anarchist I think that it is anyone's right to mug a person, you are sorely mistaken. You must not even understand the core principle that informs AnCap: the Non-aggression principle. That is the law against it.

So, want to take a swing at it? Yes or no, is it moral to mug someone if you promise to purchase something for them with the money?

[sturle]

Not every market can be an effective free market.

Cool. Let's start with you list absolutely anything you can think of that you feel cannot be a free market and that the government absolutely must be involved in and then let's get the government out of everything else. Then we can talk again.

The list would be far to long, and some areas need less regulation than other areas.  E.g. power lines.  Every house need power, but it would be very inefficient and even dangerous if every house had lines from six different companies.

In my country it is solved by having a free market for electric power, an exchange where the power companies buy and sell power.  As a private person, I can buy from any power company I want to, and change any time I want to.  Currently I pay spot price for power (available any time from the exchange I linked to) + a fixed monthly fee of 35 cents.  The company that owns the lines to my house have to deliver that power to me.  And the fee they can take to deliver the power I bought is strictly regulated.  This is a very effective system, combining free market for what it is possible to make a free market for, and a strictly regulated market where a natural monopoly exists and is the most effective organization.

[sturle]

If I mug you, and then promise to buy you a stereo with some of the money, is that moral?

Why do you care?  You are an anarchist, so I guess you think it is anyone's right to mug you?  You don't want any laws against it.

That makes three people who have responded to this question, and not one of them have actually answered it. Dear god, that's sad.

It wasn't rhetoric?  Of course it isn't moral.  It is against the law, and just as immoral as e.g. not paying tax.  If you think it is moral, and it is important to you, you should move to a property (country) where mugging is allowed.

[Richy_T]

We've already ruled out majority consensus as legitimizing theft. I'm isolating each factor to see which one it is that makes it moral.

True enough. I guess it's just been so long since you asked the question and no one has answered it that I just forgot.

[myrkul]

If I mug you, and then promise to buy you a stereo with some of the money, is that moral?

Why do you care?  You are an anarchist, so I guess you think it is anyone's right to mug you?  You don't want any laws against it.

That makes three people who have responded to this question, and not one of them have actually answered it. Dear god, that's sad.

It wasn't rhetoric?  Of course it isn't moral. If you think it is moral, and it is important to you, you should move to a property (country) where mugging is allowed.

You're making assumptions about what I think is moral or not, but thank you for your answer. So far we've ruled out majority consensus and returning some of the stolen money as tangible benefits. Maybe it's the costumes?

If I put on a costume, for example, this one, or one like it, does that make it OK for me to steal from people?

[myrkul]

We've already ruled out majority consensus as legitimizing theft. I'm isolating each factor to see which one it is that makes it moral.

True enough. I guess it's just been so long since you asked the question and no one has answered it that I just forgot.

It's all good. In case you were wondering, you're not one of the three people I was referring to. I knew you were just poking fun at it.

[sturle]

It wasn't rhetoric?  Of course it isn't moral. If you think it is moral, and it is important to you, you should move to a property (country) where mugging is allowed.

If I put on a costume, for example, this one, or one like it, does that make it OK for me to steal from people?

No, it is still illegal.  Breaking the law is not OK and not moral.

[myrkul]

It wasn't rhetoric?  Of course it isn't moral. If you think it is moral, and it is important to you, you should move to a property (country) where mugging is allowed.

If I put on a costume, for example, this one, or one like it, does that make it OK for me to steal from people?

No, it is still illegal.  Breaking the law is not OK and not moral.

OK, Which brings us to the next point.

We've ruled out voting, costumes, and benefits. You seem hung up on the law. So, if we were to make slavery legal, would that make it moral?

[asdf]

No, it will be vastly cheaper if privatised. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem. Also, business are accountable, because I can take my money elsewhere if I don't like their services. The government monopolises its services.

The Economic calculation problem only applies where there is a market which can be free.

Can you explain then why The USA, which has the most privatised health system of all developed nations of world, pays more per capita for it's health services than any other country?  That is only counting public spending, not private insurances.  The USA are far from the top quality wise.  Number 38 in the world on life expectancy, which is lower than even Cuba.

The private sector will organize itself to maximise profit.  This is not automatically the most cost effective way.

There are several factors, the chief amongst which is that health insurance is heavily regulated, creating high barriers to entry and suppressing competition. Employer provided healthcare also tends to lead to people not examining the actual cost of their healthcare leading to higher prices. Employer provided insurance arose, of course, from government wage control legislation.

Also, legislation forces liability on doctors leading to high malpractice insurance costs.

All the problems with high healthcare costs and low quality are a direct or indirect consequence of state interference. If only we had a free market, health care would not even be a topic of discussion because it would be cheap and abundant.

Maximising profit is an extremely cost effective way to serve the market, because a business only profits from serving it's customers most effectively. Except when the state interferes with force.

[sturle]

It wasn't rhetoric?  Of course it isn't moral. If you think it is moral, and it is important to you, you should move to a property (country) where mugging is allowed.

If I put on a costume, for example, this one, or one like it, does that make it OK for me to steal from people?

No, it is still illegal.  Breaking the law is not OK and not moral.

OK, Which brings us to the next point.

We've ruled out voting, costumes, and benefits. You seem hung up on the law. So, if we were to make slavery legal, would that make it moral?

This is so hypothetical it hurts.  Slavery is forbidden by so many international treaties, it would be impossible to make it legal in a legal way.

A lot of things are legal and still not moral.  Being unfaithful isn't illegal (i.e. legal), but IMHO it is immoral.  If it was legal to hold slaves, I could still choose not to hold slaves.  I would obey the law and stay on safe moral ground.

Are you the kind of commie who equal tax with oppression and slavery?

The State oppresses and the law cheats.
Tax bleeds the unfortunate.

[sturle]

Maximising profit is an extremely cost effective way to serve the market, because a business only profits from serving it's customers most effectively. Except when the state interferes with force.

In an unregulated health market, if you were about to die and needed immediate treatment, and a doctor saved you, the closest doctor and hospital would own you for the rest of your life.  The power of a natural monopoly.  You are not in a position to haggle over the price.

[myrkul]

A lot of things are legal and still not moral.  

Not a direct answer, but good enough for my purposes. You've stated that legality does not confer morality, which is all the answer I need.

We've now ruled out legality, voting, costumes, and benefits. Is it perhaps simply the names? If I call myself the government, and call it a tax when I steal from you, does that make it moral?

[Kontakt]

A lot of things are legal and still not moral.  

Not a direct answer, but good enough for my purposes. You've stated that legality does not confer morality, which is all the answer I need.

We've now ruled out legality, voting, costumes, and benefits. Is it perhaps simply the names? If I call myself the government, and call it a tax when I steal from you, does that make it moral?

You can go with the old standard e.g.; it is moral because god is on my side,
or you can go with the newer moral; It benefits more people with some personal sacrifice.

[asdf]

Maximising profit is an extremely cost effective way to serve the market, because a business only profits from serving it's customers most effectively. Except when the state interferes with force.

In an unregulated health market, if you were about to die and needed immediate treatment, and a doctor saved you, the closest doctor and hospital would own you for the rest of your life.  The power of a natural monopoly.  You are not in a position to haggle over the price.

Lots of assumptions here.

Why do I have to go to the local doctor? There are obviously competitors (okay "immediate" care, but this is such a corner case).

Why is healthcare expensive? we already discussed the fact that the state drives up the costs in the first place.

Why can't charities/family help out? Without paying tribute to our government overlords, we will have plenty of wealth left over to help the needy.

Why is the doctor a total asshole who will demand life servitude for saving someones life? Before the government stepped in with it's regulation and licences and general market distortions, doctors did pro-bono work all the time. Now it's too much of a liability.

[myrkul]

A lot of things are legal and still not moral.  

Not a direct answer, but good enough for my purposes. You've stated that legality does not confer morality, which is all the answer I need.

We've now ruled out legality, voting, costumes, and benefits. Is it perhaps simply the names? If I call myself the government, and call it a tax when I steal from you, does that make it moral?

You can go with the old standard e.g.; it is moral because god is on my side,
or you can go with the newer moral; It benefits more people with some personal sacrifice.

We've already ruled out benefiting people with stolen money making it moral. You yourself told me that wasn't moral. Are you changing your answer? As to God, we'll get to that. Here, we're simply talking about the names. Does calling my gang a government and my stealing your money a tax make what I do moral?

[Richy_T]

It wasn't rhetoric?  Of course it isn't moral. If you think it is moral, and it is important to you, you should move to a property (country) where mugging is allowed.

If I put on a costume, for example, this one, or one like it, does that make it OK for me to steal from people?

No, it is still illegal.  Breaking the law is not OK and not moral.

OK, Which brings us to the next point.

We've ruled out voting, costumes, and benefits. You seem hung up on the law. So, if we were to make slavery legal, would that make it moral?

What if they made morality illegal?

[asdf]

This may explain why health insurance is more expensive for average people (because the companies can't deny insurance to e.g. obese people or smokers), but it does not explain why the U.S. government pays more per capita than any other government for a health system which is less effective than in most other countries.  The insurance comes in addition to what the government spends, just to underline the problems.  Private health insurance wouldn't be necessary if the USA copied the standard European like health system, and you would get a more effective system for less tax money.

The system is expensive because the government is funding it. Give people subsidised goods and services and they'll use more of it. Remove people from the real cost and you get a miss-allocation of resources. It's "free", but it's really expensive. Not to mention the general inefficiency of government beurocracy.

The standard European like health system would not be necessary if we simply allowed a free market in all things health.

[myrkul]

What if they made morality illegal?

All too often, they do.

[Kontakt]

What if they made morality illegal?

All too often, they do.

There's a difference between moral and right.