Buying your government

[Devils_Advocate]

Now, to start off, I'm not saying the question below in any way serves as an excuse for taxes. But my mom brought this up: In a laissez faire society where the government survives off of donations, wouldn't it be easy for a large donater to say something like "I donated your entire salary last year, I really want you to get me off the hook on this"? Doesn't that make a huge pathway for corruption?

What kind of a solution is there to this?

[kanjmai]

All I can say is that if this nation were principled enough to have a total laissez-faire society free of compulsory taxation, corruption such as that would not exist. The corrupt politicians in your scenario would find it more practical to have compulsory taxation.

This is why a philosophical revolution is paramount to the long-term survival of a free society.

EDIT:

Consider this. The premise of the scenario (a laissez-faire society) contradicts the argument being used. It is a laissez-faire society... Well, if the government is granting favors to the highest bidder, then it is NOT a laissez-faire society.

Edited August 26, 2008 by kanjmai

[Rearden_Steel]

I would assume that most of the Government would receive its revenue from the drawing up and enforcing contracts rather then direct donations. They could also run lotteries and other fund raising ventures. Remember, up until the 20th century their was no federal or state income tax and the government raised its funds mostly through tariffs.

(There is a thread from a while back that talks about how a government could function without taxes.)

If there was donations in such a society I imagine that they would be in the form of donating money specific items such a new squad cars for the police department ect.. I wouldn’t imagine that politicians would receive their income directly from donations. Keep in mind also that this very scenario happens today anyways. This being an election year your mom should realize that the Politian’s do not run using their own money (in most cases) rather they get from privite donnations that back them. There are also thousands of lobbyist in Washington that try this very tactic.

So in short, its been done before, it could be done better today, and the problem obviously already exist anyways.

Now go chide your mother for being naïve about the current state of politics….Just kidding!!

Edited August 26, 2008 by Rearden_Steel

[DavidOdden]

wouldn't it be easy for a large donater to say something like "I donated your entire salary last year, I really want you to get me off the hook on this"?

This possibility exists in any kind of free society, either from donors to political campaigns or large tax-payers. It also exists as a possibility for any person who has substantial power of influence, a man who either can influence party officials deciding who to support, or for a media personality who can influence the populace into voting for or against a candidate.

The solution is to have a society governed by laws.

[softwareNerd]

This possibility exists in any kind of free society, ...

Exactly! Further, if one looks at some of the more socialist countries, corruption is higher than in the U.S..

Any society will have its share of corruption. One needs to figure out the detailed laws to lessen corruption and to punish it. In a laissez-faire society, a corrupt government official can try being lenient to a criminal. In a mixed-economy, he can do that and so much more: there are myriad ways of legally taking from Peter to give to corrupt Paul.

In the U.S. today, there's a segment of "businessmen" who owe their money to government influence. These men do not hold up banks or murder people, and it is doubtful that they would start doing so in a laissez-faire economy, bribing government officials to let them off. The most important means to choke of corruption is to choke off the favors it can buy. In a laissez-faire economy, there is a very small set of things that a government official can actually help with.

Still, laws (and procedures) designed to curtail corruption would be needed, and I don't think it is a huge problem to design them.

P.S.: Voluntary funding of government is not one of the first steps to moving toward laissez-faire. It is something that has to be designed, and while there are many ideas about various options, I do not think it is possible to come up with a good design in this arena unless one experiments with some of the plausible options and sees which ones work and which ones don't.

Edited August 26, 2008 by softwareNerd

[D'kian]

Now, to start off, I'm not saying the question below in any way serves as an excuse for taxes. But my mom brought this up: In a laissez faire society where the government survives off of donations, wouldn't it be easy for a large donater to say something like "I donated your entire salary last year, I really want you to get me off the hook on this"? Doesn't that make a huge pathway for corruption?

What kind of a solution is there to this?

Well, for one thing such a society would have a government of very limited powers. for another thing, such a society would not make successfull business a crime, nor put so many obstacles in the way of business that businessmen need break the law to make a profit. In other words, you'd see a lto less of the kind of "white-collar crime" that is usually associated with big business.

Therefore in your example the big donor would have to commit a real crime, something like rape, murder, kidnapping, theft or fraud. Could the authorities exhonerate him in return for his money? Sure. Corruption can exist anywhere. But I ask you to imagine what the reaction would be from the general population and other authorities.

Even if the big donor is by then untouchable in a legal sense (he might be depending on several factors), those who did him favors would not be. They would be prosecuted and/or impeached by state or federal authorities.

And consider such a society would be familiar with the concept of the sanction of the victim.

[gags]

In a laissez-faire economy, there is a very small set of things that a government official can actually help with.

This is a very important point. When government involvement in the economy is strictly limited, the opportunities for corruption are few and far between. Not only do we need the separation of church and state, we also need a separation between economics and state.

[O.K. Stone]

Therefore in your example the big donor would have to commit a real crime, something like rape, murder, kidnapping, theft or fraud. Could the authorities exhonerate him in return for his money? Sure. Corruption can exist anywhere. But I ask you to imagine what the reaction would be from the general population and other authorities.

Even if the big donor is by then untouchable in a legal sense (he might be depending on several factors), those who did him favors would not be. They would be prosecuted and/or impeached by state or federal authorities.

And consider such a society would be familiar with the concept of the sanction of the victim.

-bold mine-

I think that a more accurate statement would be that they would be liable for prosecution and/or impeachment. Anyway, rational people would not tolerate this and they would show this in the electoral process, if no other official means were available to them.