Taxes

[Gary Brenner]

Sophia wrote:

You have been given the answer to this question already.

One can’t avoid corruption in any system but one can limit its reach and consequences by limiting the governing body only to functions which are essential and nothing beyond that.

The consequences of this potential bias in a free society in which the role of a government is limited only to the protection of rights with a strict adherance to rational code of ethics and objective law (it is a bit of redundancy to say that as one implies the other) would be very small. It would be the lowest possible.

I think all contributors to this thread agree on the value of limiting the power of the government in objective and specific ways.

The disagreement appears to be over what effect a large donor might have -- even on a strictly limited government. For example, if X’s donation of $1 billion to the state’s court system results in a 30% salary increase for all judges, can we dismiss out of hand the possibility that Judge Y might look favorably on X’s case when it is presented before him?

This question should not be interpreted as an objection to financing of government by donations. It is simply to illustrate that such financing may carry certain costs with it.

[RationalBiker]

If the donation were targeted toward building luxurious new judges’ chambers, is there no potential for bias in cases involving the donor?

That was not my question.

I beg to differ.

Additionally;

I realize that in an Objectivist society no corrupt official would ever be elected or appointed to power because citizens would never allow themselves to be ruled by people who permitted personal advantage to influence policy.

This sarcastic gem follows David's admission that "a potential bias" exists following any sort of donation. The answers you received were quite consistent. Each recognize the possibility of corruption and each recognize that a rational government would have laws to address this making the concern no more greater for a laisse-faire government than any other system.

[~Sophia~]

The disagreement appears to be over what effect a large donor might have -- even on a strictly limited government. For example, if X’s donation of $1 billion to the state’s court system results in a 30% salary increase for all judges, can we dismiss out of hand the possibility that Judge Y might look favorably on X’s case when it is presented before him?

Since you have already assumed that both the person X and the judge Y are corrupt what is stopping person X from paying off judge Y directly and behind the scenes - in any system including the one under the discussion? So having a system of funding the government through donations becomes irrelevant in such case.

Judge's salaries amount to a small fraction of the whole government's budget (also true when assuming proper government) - in comparison to, for example, the amount of money spend on maintaining a strong military. So, judge's salaries accross the board would never be this dependent on one person's large donation to the system.

If you talking here about this person X being a significant contributor to the system overall (not so much it being tied to judge's salaries) and thus being looked upon favorably by all judges - this scenario is very highly unlikely as it assumes the corruption of an entire judicial system - not just one corrupted judge. If that was the case, the problem of having such people running the government would have been much bigger than the problem of one person having so much influence over the governing body. Also, the very wealthy person X would have to be continuously violating rights of others in order to cash in on his "investment" and make use of his influence as he would not need the service of the courts for any other activity.

Also, I forgot to mention that the integrity of the system would have been protected (much more than it is now) by the objectivity of law which would leave judges very little room for favorable treatment of individual cases (a lot less room than they have it now).

Edited April 28, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[fletch]

Not only that, but a person with a billion dollars to 'donate' would have a far greater interest in seeing that the judicial system was not corrupt.

[~Sophia~]

If you talking here about this person X being a significant contributor to the system overall (not so much it being tied to judge's salaries) and thus being looked upon favorably by all judges - this scenario is very highly unlikely as it assumes the corruption of an entire judicial system - not just one corrupted judge.

I also would like to add that currently the US government spends close to 450 billion dollars on defence and another 35 billion dollars on homeland security. I can't imagine one person parting with an amount of money that would be significant on such a scale (even if you assume less spending) and doing so consistently. One billion dollars is a small change.

[KendallJ]

I think there is a simpler answer to Gary's objection about bias and corruption due to large voluntary contributions.

It's bunk. It's a strawman. It's crap.

Corruption usually exists when there is the possiblity to directly or nearly directly enrich the party being corrupted. The solution is to separate a. the donating entity from b. the collections agency from c. appropriations entity. Separation of powers should effectively remove most cases of corruption of the kind mentioned, except for those who specifically go out of their way to plot a circumvention of the system, but we call that conspiracy to defraud.

Trying to get political pull using such a method is sort of like walking up to a judge and saying "Hey judge, I know your son is a Boy Scout, if you swing this case my way, I'll make a very large donation the United Way who I know supports the Boy Scouts of America. Who knows if the money will actually benefit your son directly, since I don't control UW policy, or BSA policy, but I'd bet he'd be able to get a new tent or something." Not really as motivating as a bribe I think.

So if the executive collects and the legislative appropriates (decides what to do with the money) how exactly do I assure that my judge is enriched? I'd be better off with a plain ole bribe.

You'd be better off to try to argue that politicians would solicit contributions in exchange for favors, like we oh so don't have that going on now. Again, I'd much rather be interested in solicting contributions to my campaign fund which I control directly, instead of the general government fund which I then have to get a syndicate together to misuse.

[Miles White]

That's what it means for a thread to be Brennerized. Your question is a variant of Brenner's "question". Nothing stops governments, or anyone, from being irrational. Period. That's the way it is when you're dealing with volitional beings. I refer you to the notions of objective law and purpose of government.

I don't mean to sound like a downer because I really do like objectivism, it is my favorite branch of libertarian philosophy (no affiliation to the party). However, be that as it may I am still puzzled by the free rider problem purposed by a system of funding such as private donations. If people received protection from the government wether you pay or not you might find yourself in a situation were to many people are leeching off the system and not donating anything to the government. If governments did require that people only receive protection if they donate, then that would bring about the problem of how to check wich person to protect. Or in other words think of a senerio, a guys being mugged by a robber, the cop comes up "excuse me do you donate to your local county council?" Victum "no?" Officer "Ok then sorry to disturb you mr. robber, you can continue". Not only that, but if sombody didn't want to donate to the government and new that he would not be protected by a government then he's really saying that he wants to be coerced and might as well just be taxed, and all the other people who do want to be protected by a government will just donate money to it any way. To me it seems like requireing people to donate for service from government is inevitably flaud and if it is optional to pay you still have the free rider problem.

[Dorian]

I absolutely believe government needs to exist to protect its citizens from themselves and other countries.

When it comes to socialist programs like welfare, social security, medicare I think there is absolutely no reason I should not be able to opt out. If I was a politician I would start by attacking here.

I would never start by pushing legislation that would only tax the rich or anyone above $300,000.

I don't believe it is fair to expect only voluntary taxes can support the government and expect it to have necessary authority, especially if people think they can still get services and not pay.

I love the idea of voluntary taxation on specific services of government if people who refuse are denied those services. If I choose to accept the services of the government I am taxed, if I choose not to tax I choose to deny those services. If I choose to petition the government by withholding taxes I also choose to deny its services. No money no service.

I can imagine this working with police enforcement, if I pay I get security, if not, I don't. But how do you deal with someone who calls in an emergency but does not pay for security? The only solution I can think of this is forcing people to pay for security based on where they live as an contract to the neighborhood and having a vote for how much they must pay. Like an HOA. If they choose to live in an area without security they don't pay. This security in paid areas covers all situations, almost like insurance. The only factor which decides if the area gets service or not is if the area pays. The level of service could depend on how much the area pays.

I can't think of a reasonable solution for protection from outside countries without forced taxation.

I can't think of a reasonable solution to pay for national legislators and supreme court judges without forced taxation.

That's not to say I believe a solution does not exist, but it does look like the cake and eat it too case.

Edited April 28, 2007 by Dorian

[Inspector]

The rule of law is something that is in the interest of all people. While the people who don't pay for it may seem like "free riders," it's kind of a moot point. Whether or not any given person pays, it is in the interest of the people who do pay to have objective law exist.

[Alessa36]

This may be slightly off subject but first I agree with Jmegan that things like vechicle registration and the like could be eliminated. On this same subject, I recently bought a used jeep in a private exchange but had to pay taxes when I registered it at DMV. The money I used to purchase the car was taxed when i received my salary. The seller has to report this exchange as income and pay taxes. I would start the tax reduction in instances like this.

[DavidOdden]

I don't mean to sound like a downer because I really do like objectivism, it is my favorite branch of libertarian philosophy (no affiliation to the party).

FYI, Objectivism isn't any kind of libertarianism. Proponency of laissez faire capitalism is commno to Objectivism, conservatism, some versions of liberalist, and libertarianism. A point of intersection does not make a branch.

However, be that as it may I am still puzzled by the free rider problem purposed by a system of funding such as private donations.

You shouldn't be, because it isn't a problem. What makes it a "problem"?

How about the insurance problem? What if some people don't want to get medical insurance, and they get sick? Or the grocery problem: what if people run out of food and don't want to go to the store to get more food? These "problems" are based on the presumption that men are irrational and need to be looked after. If the majority of men are so irrational that they do not see how buying food, getting health insurance, or contributing to the protections of their rights is something that they should do, then the level of irrationality is so high that you can be certain that health insurance will be provided by the state, groceries will be delivered by social workers, and all of man's wants and needs will rain down like manna from heaven, and nobody will need to work (did you catch the clever contradiction w.r.t. social workers?). Or not, as the case may be.

Start with the assumption that you're living in society where the majority of people are rational. Then the occasional slacker is not a problem.

[Miles White]

FYI, Objectivism isn't any kind of libertarianism. Proponency of laissez faire capitalism is commno to Objectivism, conservatism, some versions of liberalist, and libertarianism. A point of intersection does not make a branch.You shouldn't be, because it isn't a problem. What makes it a "problem"?

Ok I can see how a government can be privatly funded now, but I want to know what the difference is between a voluntarily funded government and anarcho-capitalism. They both support police and courts to be voluntarily funded, it's just that the minarchist version supports arbitration as a private monopoly and anarcho-capitalists support arbitration to be more small buisness oriented. However they are both fundementally the same philosophy. To me it seems that taxes and government are so closley woven together it's impossible to seperate the two, and anybody who supports voluntarily funded government is really an anarcho-capitalist wether they know it or not.

Edited April 28, 2007 by Miles White

[DavidOdden]

it's just that the minarchist version supports arbitration as a private monopoly and anarcho-capitalists support arbitration to be more small buisness oriented.

A public, universal monopoly. In contrast, there is no monopoly under anarchism, and no well-defined set of laws. The uniqueness of law property under minarchy is really dispositive, IMO.

[LucentBrave]

Pardon me for being a little lazy, but I didn't go through all of the posts. Didn't Ms. Rand mention something in one of her works towards the effect of a government lottery. I believe that I read that that contribution would be the most beneficial towards the government.

As far as our government goes. I could be stating the same that has been stated, but, Objectivism does not call for liberalism, or anarchy.

Capitalism has rights and laws that need to be protected in order to succeed. Yes we would have the most freedom, but those freedoms would have to be protected, and the protection would have to be funded by some way, shape, or form.

I also believe that the way those aspects of the government would be funded would be up to the people, however it would never be in a way forceful such as taxes.

Now as far as how they would be funded: that is the question at hand.

[Miles White]

Say, what if governments were funded off nothing but fines? They would be non-coercive and would eliminate the free rider problem in a system of just voluntary donations. James Madison once said that "If men were angels, government would not be necessary", so it makes sense to have the criminals fund government for us because if society had no more criminals then there would basically be no need for government anymore. However I personally don't expect to have any utopian revolution any time soon, I understand that society will always have it's fair share of evil people ergo government will always have a source of income.

[Miles White]

Never mind scratch the last idea, how about if government were to be funded off of user fees? People who call the police or get sued and use a court would have to pay a fee to the government for using their service. This would eliminate the free rider problem and would be allot more efficient then just private donations or government lottery.