You may be right but you cannot know you are right.

The tragedy if the commons is an argument that works against you.

But you are working on faith here. You want to believe that it will work. Like the 'withering of the state' was meant to happen, but there was nothing to prove that it would.

And you rely on human nature. The same human nature that makes selffish lazy ungreatful losers vote for a system that gives them money for not having to work for it.

That is human nature. It is not all human nature, but it is a large part of it.

Frick. I work too long.

Why can we not know until one is tried? I think we can know. We know because human nature is seen in action on a daily basis and people are seen to voluntarily pay for all manner of goods and services. We can also know, with certainty, that all manner of things that haven't been tried yet , can be funded on a voluntary basis. Why? Because they are desirable. If government is not desired, then of course it will never be voluntarily funded. If it is desired, then it's quite reasonable to expect that it can, and would, be voluntarily funded.

We cannot know if a state can be funded by voluntary means until one is tried. And even then, if one was tried, we may know it works today, but will it work tomorrow?

If I am right, (and I am not certain of that) then a state funded by voluntary means would fail. A failed state. I will not mention any failed state unless I get slapped about again for my preference for bacon.

But you should concede that there is a possibility that a state cannot be funded by voluntary means, however unlikely you consider that. And if that happens, how does the minimalist state fund itself?

I vote for taxes. If you adhere to your no compulsion ever argument, the state will fail and be replaced by something else.

You refer to the twentieth centaury. The Weimar republic failed precisely because it could not fund itself.

Your certainly that the state can be funded without compulsion lacks any empirical underpinning. It is like the Christians’ certainly in the divinity of some dead carpenter. ... I believe that it will not be enough

Belief against belief, on your own terms then?

You are wrong. I am certain of this, indeed, know it because I would pay the fee to be free, freely. Who here wouldn't?

And again, we all who have sense pay our insurances, why wouldn't we pay the fee to be free? Every insurance premium paid, that's my evidence. What's your evidence of chaos?

The entire underpinning of your philosophy rests on this point. Your certainly that the state can be funded without compulsion lacks any empirical underpinning. It is like the Christians’ certainly in the divinity of some dead carpenter.

You assume that the state can be funded by non-compulsion revenues, but you have no way of knowing that. I believe that it will not be enough, and I also have no way of knowing that.

It has been more than twenty years since I read Ayn Rand. Thus my nervousness in entering into a debate on these matters as I have been away from these debates for so long.

I was much more certain back then.

What if voluntary revenue was insufficient to run the minimalist state? What do you do then?

Red herring. It would be enough to run the minimalist State. Of course it would, as it would have the money of free men to ensure it: freedom itself would be resting on it. You've allowed the cynicism of the Nanny State, the likes of the Chris Trotters' of this world, to defeat your view of man.

on the other hand, what happens the minute you allow the State to initiate force, as you would leave it room for?

Answer: the history of the 20th century. It was not good, Damien.

Again, have you read any Ayn Rand?

The original question is why do I think that the state has the right to use compulsion to raise revenue. If it is possible to fund the state from non-compulsion based revenue then I favour that. It is only if such other revenues are going to be insufficient (which I believe they would be) that the state would need to use compulsion.

And, let’s drill down on this. What if non-compulsion revenue was not sufficient? Your argument is based on a belief, i use that damned word again, that the state can be funded from revenue raised from non compulsion.

But what if, goode forbid, you were wrong. What if voluntary revenue was insufficient to run the minimalist state? What do you do then?

But where do you constantly get this 'chaos' from? Why don't you believe in the spontaneous order of free markets? Where does your chaos originate from? What proof to you have for it?

By choosing imperfection, you're simply excusing the police state, and foisting it on us all. What gives you the moral right to do that?

Yes, I understand the tyranny of the majority. I use it every time I use a "compromise of creditors".

if the choice is between chaos and an imperfect society, I choose imperfection.

Bad richard: you are bad only in comparison to goode richard. I will answer your question tomorrow. If I can. These are deep questions to ask a liquidator. You will get a better answer (and more affection) from your cat.

and the government did not have the consent of the governed

You do understand the concept of the tyranny of the majority, Damien?

I don't think you do? Not from that comment.

I don't want to live in a democracy: what's your reaction to that?

I read your post, Damien, and I asked a simple question. Just why that makes me bad I do not know. Yes, you've said that you have a belief, but on top of that you've also said that government has a right. I think it's important to get to the heart of that statement.

The Goode Richard: If the move was unsuccessful and the government did not have the consent of the governed and the country was plunged into chaos and destruction, then how, exactly, does that help? We would have been better off with a flawed but functioning society.

The bad Richard: Read my post. honestly. how hard is that?

Damien, you say that a government has the right to impose obligations on you. From where do they get this right?

I am not saying that the state should not be funded by means other than compulsory taxes, but if these means were to prove unsuccessful the state has a right to revert to compulsion

If such means were to prove unsuccessful ... it would be a sure sign that the state did not, in fact, have the consent of the governed.

I agree with Mark. The state doesn't have the right to initiate force. Ever.

What, Linz, puts forward is essentially the free-rider problem and the argument that socialists commonly use to justify force. It's unfair, they say, for someone to benefit from something they haven't paid for. The argument is that they need to pay their "fair share", which is where government comes in, to fairly redistribute the wealth. I see that as mean-spiritedness, and it's one of the reasons I love capitalism. It's the opposite of mean-spiritedness. It doesn't matter to the capitalist that people who haven't paid for the lighthouse benefited from that lighthouse, or who haven't paid for trucks, benefited from those trucks, and on and on. Benefiting from something you haven't paid for, whether directly, or indirectly, isn't a violation of rights. In a Libertarian society there would no such thing as an "equal share". Corporate sponsorship, such as a picture of Ronald Mc Donald on the side of every police car, or baton, would mean that some pay more than others. I think this is natural, and good. I don't think it means a free lunch though. There are many government services that could be charged for and not dished out as of right, which to me means pay as you go, just as people ordinarily do when they go down to the corner store to pick up a six pack. Seems eminently civilised to me.

I agree that if the state was to retreat from most areas of economic life private firms would rush in and that would be preferable to what the state does now, but that does not address the compulsion issue.

Declaring that the state has no right to use compulsion, ever, is you stating your belief. What I challenge you to is justify this.

Why does the state never have the right to use compulsion and do you really believe this?

Do you believe that state has the right to imprison someone convicted of a crime?

(thanks for welcoming me to the libertarian family, though, but looking around I’m pretty sure we may share the same mother but given the differences I suspect mummy was a bit of a rooter.)

As for the lottery, you did not. So my point stands, a state run lottery in a competitive market would cover its cost of capital, no surplus for the state.

Where did I say the state would have a monopoly over the lottery?

My real rationale was in the 'insurance' argument. Why would you pay insurance now, and yet not for the basic functions of state?

There's no need for this compulsion. The state doesn't have the right to initiate force. Ever.

Mark,

I am not saying that the state should not be funded by means other than compulsory taxes, but if these means were to prove unsuccessful the state has a right to revert to compulsion, which was the question posed to me.

It would of course be preferable if the state could fund its activities through things like a lottery but of course that assumes that running a lottery was a state monopoly. A state run lottery that needed to cover the overheads of the state is not going to be able to compete with one without such a burden. As soon as you make a state lottery a monopoly, you have let the compulsion germ into the lab.

Richard, yep: Fortunately I found that pesky k!

Cutting straight to your last sentence:

If you want my actual preference, I would abolish every organ of the state except the police, courts, army and maybe the land transfer office and pay for the lot with a poll tax of maybe $500 per person a year. Two billion is more than enough, but this is a politicial view, not a philosophical one.

A little aside first: you can't do politics without philosophy, so this post of your's was very philosophical.

Outside of that, in all but one point in this sentence, you are a Libertarian (classical liberal). Welcome. You see you don't need all the gladiator stuff: we're the peaceful ones, unlike the current Big Brother State.The only thing you've got to 'get over' is to lose that compulsive poll tax. Some thoughts for you:

Why go the compulsory route when there are so many ways to finance these basic, legitimate functions of state via voluntary means; for example, a state lottery?

Can I suggest you've not thought of this because you still have just one little gremlin that characterises the Left: cynicism about human nature. After all, you pay your insurance without a gun at your head, so why wouldn't you pay for these functions of appropriately limited government voluntarily?

Obviously you are worried about free loaders, however, it's the welfare state that creates free loaders, not capitalism, which rests on individual responsibility and trading value for value.

Have you read any Ayn Rand?

a poll tax of maybe $500k per person a year.

I, for one, would struggle to pay that! But seriously ... that was well argued.

I feel like a naked man facing gladiators. My lack of armour is going to be the death of me but since you asked and did so in a funny way I feel I need to walk into the arena and get what is coming to me.

Not at all. In the battle of ideas, you're armed and dangerous. Oh dear. In a funny way I feel I need to quote Michael Moeller ...

You are going to get what's coming to you.

Watch this space.

I’ve been called to account. Did not see this earlier. I feel like a naked man facing gladiators. My lack of armour is going to be the death of me but since you asked and did so in a funny way I feel I need to walk into the arena and get what is coming to me.

Two reasons.

One: It is my belief (a key word here) that there are things that only a state can do. Courts, police, armed forces, and according to Mr Perigo who eviscerated me earlier for my ignorance, Libertarians do not believe in anarchy, so a state must exist. The state needs resources. All the ideas I have seen for funding a libertarian state are, it is my belief, nonsense. You cannot pay for the army by voluntary contributions; I believe that the system would fail.

Even if there was a means of raising revenue that was benign, (say a resources tax on un-owned resources) let’s assume that no such opportunity exists. How do you fund a state?

If you think that fairies will fund the state, then excellent. Read no further. If you believe (that damn subjective word again) that a state based on voluntary contributions, sale of pixie dust, charging victims or insurance companies (magical things that never fail and run by elves for the benefit of humanity) for the provision of criminal services will fail within weeks then you need to address a hard question: how to fund the state?

Here comes the cup of cold sick. If you want, even a minimalist state, you need to tax. Again, I believe this. I do not know it. I am not saying it is right, I am not saying it is wrong. I am saying that it is what I believe. Like I believe the sun is hot, snow is cold, and cows eat grass. Based on what I have seen, heard, and what my brain interprets from these things that exist, this is the view I have formed. Funding a state from voluntary contributions or selling radio frequencies or lotteries or any of the other nonsense ideas I have read over the years, is a deeply flawed idea.

I see an either/or point here. No tax leads to chaos. Tax leads elsewhere, and I prefer elsewhere.

Again, I believe this. I do not know it. It is my best guess as to what would happen.

The only way to adequately fund a state is with a form of compulsion driven tax. My preference is a poll tax.

This, it must be said, is an efficiency argument. It is not an argument based on principle. I do not have a view on the morality of eating fruit, but I know if I do not I will die. So I eat fruit. The principle is secondary to survival.

Two: I accept that in a democracy my fellow citizens can impose obligations on me that infringe on my rights. This extends to more than taxation. It extends to fluoride in the water, vaccines for children and the rule we must drive on the left side of the road or face fines and imprisonment if we do not.

I may or may not agree with the individual rules but I accept that an elected government has a right to impose these obligations on me. The great unwashed has decided that people who work for a living should be forced to give money to some members who do not. I think this is a stupid rule, it is unfair and immoral, but I accept that the state has the right to do this. It is unfair and immoral that a man cheats on his wife, but he has a right to do so.

The second reason is akin to a religious belief or a preference for romance over thriller movies, for sorbet over ice cream. It is an innate belief not really open to being changed by the application of sweet reason.

The second reason is merely an extension of the first but different in a fundamental way. The first is based on what I believe is necessary for society to avoid chaos. The second is that it is acceptable for this to happen, not merely a necessity, and it is much harder for me to defend.

Once you accept, at any level, that the state has a need to use force against its citizens, where do you draw a line? When does this need become a right? Is it right that the state puts people in prison for theft? If yes, then you accept the principle of compulsion. All that is left is arguing over what the state should be doing and what is should not be doing.

There is a huge difference between using force to detain someone who has committed a crime and using force to take someone’s money to use for social welfare but the underlying thinking is the same, there is a legitimacy in the states' use of compulsion.

You may think that the state only has a right to use compulsion for things that you think it needs, like the army, and not for things that you believe (that word again) it does not, like welfare.

Some people, however, believe that a social welfare net is needed to preserve a nation. If you are reading this you almost certainly disagree, but if their premise is correct, that we do need a social welfare net to avoid economic and social collapse, then using compulsion for social welfare is as valid as using it to create an army to keep out an enemy attack.

In truth, mostly we are arguing about resource allocation and not principle.

A little unsatisfying I suspect, and shows me up as a journeyman dilettante that I truly am. I’m sure I could word it better and shorter no doubt. But there you have it.

And…
If you want my actual preference, I would abolish every organ of the state except the police, courts, army and maybe the land transfer office and pay for the lot with a poll tax of maybe $500 per person a year. Two billion is more than enough, but this is a politicial view, not a philosophical one.

Here's an argument ...

... and it's a half-decent one. (By half-decent, I mean it's not immediately obvious what's wrong with it.)

Let's take Rand's advice and check your premises.

since government exists to protect rights ...

That's not quite right, though, is it? Government does not exist to protect unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, since those rights, being unalienable, require no protection. Perhaps one should say, instead, that Government exists to uphold rights. Or, perhaps one should say that Government exists to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness themselves.

Well ... I hope you're not counting on me to shoot it down.

Here's an argument I put directly to Peikoff once, on our way to dinner: that since government exists to protect rights (and since, according to Objectivism, only government can do that), in withholding a contribution to government while expecting it to protect one's rights, one is violating the rights of others.

Of course, the argument was not original to me, and I assumed Peikoff would readily be able to shoot it down. His response: "Ask Peter Schwartz."

Somehow that didn't cut the mustard.

your blank canvas is irresistible. At least, it would be to me if I had a case.

Thanks. I don't have a case either. I don't think the government has a right to raise taxes by compulsion.

I know. I expect he's digging out his brush and paints this very minute, because your blank canvas is irresistible. At least, it would be to me if I had a case.

Damien said

I do think the government has a right to raise taxes by compulsion

I'd like to know why he thinks so.

Is it snowing?