Defend Taxation

[Explodicle]

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.

[myrkul]

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.

[Explodicle]

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.

[myrkul]

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.

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.

[BadBear]

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.

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.

And how are you going to know what the increased yields from research will be? You don't.

[myrkul]

And how are you going to know what the increased yields from research will be? You don't.

Not precisely, no. But if I am forced to pay for shitty research, I'm going to be pissed off. If I choose to pay for research that fails to pay off, I made a bad investment. It happens.

[BadBear]

Right, but the point is

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.

There's no way to quantify what research is worth beforehand, because this isn't a video game where you can choose to tech up to level two crops and increase yields by 20%.

[myrkul]

Right, but the point is

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.

There's no way to quantify what research is worth beforehand, because this isn't a video game where you can choose to tech up to level two crops and increase yields by 20%.

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).

[Explodicle]

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.

[BadBear]

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.

[Explodicle]

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.

[BadBear]

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.

Sure I'm being extreme, but so is saying "Taxation is theft". Sure it's true if it's his belief system, but taxes are just a side effect of government. That's the root of the problem, so arguing one of the consequences is kind of moot, since it's inevitably going to turn into another ancap thread (already did). Or even degrees of taxation, what should be taxed, and what they should pay for since taxes are more or less a given. Like the old saying, death and taxes.

[FirstAscent]

Right, but the point is

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.

There's no way to quantify what research is worth beforehand, because this isn't a video game where you can choose to tech up to level two crops and increase yields by 20%.

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).

It has been demonstrated that tax funded research tackles issues that smaller risk averse individuals, organizations, businesses and corporations will not engage in. Think NASA, DARPA, etc. We now have private business models doing research to engage in space travel (still with government help), and they are about fifty (yes, fifty) years behind in ability and achievement, and even so, they're only there because of what was done fifty years ago.

More to the point, you're demonstrating right now, as the hypothetical tomato farmer your unwillingness to commit to research because you are risk averse. Consider your position:

1. Your research might or might not result in a 10 or 20 percent increase in yield. There's no way that will pay for the research.
2. Of course, you could sell your findings to your competitors, and then they'll have the same competitive advantage as you. That is a possibility.
3. Your competitors may just observe your methods, steal some tomatoes from you, and then you're kind of screwed.
4. If you don't share your information, and your competitors can't figure it out, then society definitely doesn't benefit.

The big things (the important things) require unified effort. The environment is one of those.

[Dalkore]

Bottom-line is if you have no government then the only recourse you have to enforce contract and individual right is force.  A strong majority of people would rather have a large body like government enforcing rights and agreements than direct application of force.   What you are advocating is survival of the fittest and yes it is that way in nature and in pre-civilization human history. 

BUT, this is why we decided to group up and form societies, nations and states.  We all agree to give up a little so we can have a fairer application of force across the entire body of people with the same rule-set to create justice (fair).   

People that advocate no rules or government in my opinion want to instead apply their force at their discretion and NOT be held accountable if they are deficient in an agreement.  Those are not people I want to deal with.   You need accountability and person responsibility to have markets functions and real justice.

[TheButterZone]

You can always move if you don't like the laws in the country you choose to live in.

If you're less than slightly wealthy. Expatriation tax fucks you if you're not, and try to leave the U.S.

Bottom-line is if you have no government then the only recourse you have to enforce contract and individual right is force.  A strong majority of people would rather have a large body like government enforcing rights and agreements than direct application of force.

Unfortunately government at best neglects to enforce rights and agreements, and at worst uses force to destroy rights and agreements. Government, in its Quixotic quest for human perfectibility, while almost entirely composed of sociopaths and those "just following orders", destroys any chance of human progress towards liberty.

[myrkul]

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?

You can always move if you don't like the laws in the country you choose to live in.

If you can find me a plantation country where there is no slavery taxation, I'll move in a heartbeat.

Bottom-line is if you have no government then the only recourse you have to enforce contract and individual right is force.  A strong majority of people would rather have a large body like government enforcing rights and agreements than direct application of force.   What you are advocating is survival of the fittest and yes it is that way in nature and in pre-civilization human history. 

...You didn't actually read that article, did you? Go back and read the article on Anarcho-capitalism that I linked. You may want to start with this section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism#Law_and_order_and_the_use_of_violence

[Explodicle]

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.

[myrkul]

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.

[Explodicle]

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?

[myrkul]

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?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_Islands

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?