Defend Taxation

[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 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?

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.

[myrkul]

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.

[Explodicle]

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.

[myrkul]

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 its physical inseperability from improvements, the two 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.

By definition, if you are failing to convince me, you are not "winning". The market is a better aggregator of individual utility than is voting, because it gives each person their desired outcome, instead of forcing up to 49.9999 percent of the population to go with the herd. The market is the best allocator of resources because those who most value them will get them. Market solutions always beat state solutions, hands down.

You're not winning, you're just running out of excuses.


Next!

[myrkul]

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.

United effort doesn't have to be backed by force. https://twitter.com/#!/search/?q=%23fundNASA&src=hash

[Dalkore]

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.

What we are talking about here is a broken system.   I agree, our system completely out of whack in almost every way, what I don't advocate this form of government, I don't see courts upholding these right with some central authority, what ever it may be.   


Dalkore

[TheButterZone]

The "central authority" does not create fundamental human rights, at best it only enumerates them (and proceeds to violate them with practical impunity). Without the backing of nuclear weapons and all lesser destructive military force options, and ability to control the supply of currency that our government currently has, judges can honor and enforce human rights and contracts, or be found to be illegitimate tyrants, and suffer the consequences.