I refer readers first to the previous post about thinking about the world in different ways. Firstly Patently says that there has been plenty of change under Labour, just not the right change. I agree, but what I was really getting at (badly explained, perhaps) was that people don’t consider new ideas, rather they just try to apply the old ideas in sneaky ways.
Anyway it is obvious, from people’s reactions to the Telly Tax thread, that as a society we have been indoctrinated with the idea that there is compulsory taxation or there are no “public” services. Even the usually brilliant Patently falls into the “won’t somebody think of the children?” argument that if you don’t like taxes you don’t like schools. I have to disagree. I don’t like taxation. I don’t like the compulsion. I don’t like the way I am no longer in control of the way in which money – which I earn – is spent. But I also want young people of every background to enjoy a good education. How can I square that circle? Many will say “it is not possible! you just want to eat babies and put single mothers into slavery!”. Wrong.
As a nation we seem to have rather forgotten about giving freely. In the olden days, people were encouraged to give as much as they could afford to those who didn’t have much. Christianity teaches its followers to give, give and give some more. Islam even goes so far as to suggest how much Muslims should give away every year. I wonder if Christ would be shocked at how much is taken in taxes?
I can vouch for myself only (obviously) but if I paid less in tax I would give more to good causes. As it is I give very little cash to charity. This is partly because I don’t feel I have much spare and partly because I am never sure whether a particular charity is beholden to its larger donors, particularly if the state is involved. I do, however, give up a large amount (34 hours last month) of my own spare time for voluntary work. Why? Because I feel like I should, and because I hope that if I get it right the world will be a tiny bit nicer for everyone. And I will be perfectly honest: it makes me feel a little better about myself, too.
So please don’t say that, because I am against compulsory taxation, I am against world peace and fluffy bunnies and all the nice things which socialism promises. I just think that rather than being forced to do good, it would be better if most of us did it because we actually wanted to. Effectively the state has nationalised morality.
Some will say that volunteerism would never work, because people are fundamentally selfish. I have a stronger faith in most people’s ability to do good. If some people don’t want to contribute to society, then so be it. I think more people would be more generous than others would give credit for. The idea that some kind of ideal system can be created with just enough tinkering with rates, margins, credits and allowances is quite frankly a lot of nonsense. This is especially true given that the wealthy tend to spend a lot of their money on accountants and lawyers to avoid the taxes that the state would like them to pay. It rather makes a mockery of the idea of “social justice”.
In other words, instead of robbing the rich and giving to the poor, the state should back away and let people decide how much of their own money to give away. Instead of making the funding of “good causes” a necessary evil, let’s make it a virtuous, wholesome experience. If people started being pro-active about the “causes” they funded, we might even get some better accountability and control over our public services.
Agreed on all counts. There. You didn’t expect me to say that did you?! Ha HA!
Will blog more later!
[...] Behind Blue Eyes » Blog Archive » Robin Hood Nation [...]
I suspect that, initially, there would be enough people willing to pay in order to maintain the (genuinely) essential public services. I also supect, though, that there would be plenty who would opt out entirely, and that this would lead many payers to have second thoughts.
The problem, as I see it, is that public spending is currently so indiscriminate and profligate that the moral case for taxation – and compulsory taxation – is being eroded. So many of us now see our taxes being spent in ways that we do not approve of, and on things that we do not want or need, that the result is a questioning of all things that taxes are spent on.
Patently: What in your view are the essential and desirable services that could not be and likely would not be provided more effectively by the free, voluntary actions of free people? For the sake of argument let’s leave externally facing defence (Armies) out of the question for now.
(sorry about dropping out of the earlier thread – gotta work to pay the man’s taxes)
I’m going to go ahead and shamelessly self-promote and say I just wrote a post on the essential public services (whilst quoting extensively from Monty Python).
Stu, you said in the first comment that you agreed, but your blog post makes quite the opposite point.
I am not saying there should be anarchy. I am saying that the actual payment for “public” services should be voluntary. So if I want to pay for the police I can do (and would do) if I want to pay for the fire brigade I can do (and would do) and if I don’t want to pay for Patently’s childrens’ television nobody is going to come knocking on my door. If I don’t want to pay benefits which encourage poor women to have children they cannot look after then I have the option not to. I reckon that the main public services which you say should be compulsorily funded would be covered quite easily by voluntary donations.
David, I was going to refer you to Stu’s post, but he beat me to it.
I agree with that, Blue Eyes – with (as
We’re getting caught between two related subjects. I agree with you that voluntary payments make an interesting solution to the problem of funding public services. My post was outlining where I think the government is useful, regardless of how it is funded.
I also made an exception in that I think there’s a clear conflict of interests in the administration of law, order, and justice. In that, the level of your ‘voluntary’ contribution to the police could easily end up affecting the manner in which the law treats you. The simplest and safest way by far to deal with this is to have each person contribute according to their means – ie. compulsory taxation.
Have you considered free market commercial and personal arbitration services as a model for provision of all legal services. Such services already exist and in fact are widespread. I can see no reason that they should not become more widespread, eventually displacing many, most or even all such services provide by the state.
>> Such services already exist and in fact are widespread
Yes, not only are they are a valuable part of the system, they are the seed from which the Court system grew. Perhaps we could both encourage these new shoots, and also prune back the now-overgrown older bush?
I think we should probably drop the hedge metaphor, at the very least…
“and also prune back the now-overgrown older bush?” That, young man, is just sexist.
“I also made an exception in that I think there’s a clear conflict of interests in the administration of law, order, and justice. In that, the level of your ‘voluntary’ contribution to the police could easily end up affecting the manner in which the law treats you”.
You ignore the effects of competition and other economic principles. Not to mention that there’s nothing volutary about your contribution – there’s nothing voluntary about paying for your car, dinner, or your house is there?
If a private defence agency was that “bent” I doubt it could form working links with other (competing) private defence agencies and may even come into competition with them with them and be forced out of business – as any dishonest merchant might. Such loss of business may be caused by loss of reputation or loss of monies or by loss of essential personnel by some means.
Further if such a bent PDA (private defence agency) was very bent such that they interfered with, mistreat or harassed citizens – perhaps even their clients – then those citizens would be free to call another competing defence agency to defend them – such defence would most likely take the form of litigation(*) or arbitration, but would of course be backed by the threat of the use of force.
Today if your cops demand a bribe, taser your dad and ignore burglars – who are ya gonna call?
Most likely competing agencies would even seek out bad practises – such as discrimination against women – in other agencies and run advertising campaigns of this sort: “Are you a woman stuck under a Sharia code – Call 911 New Free Marine Corps Today! (The biggest nukes, the most honest cops!)”
(*) Such litigation taking place within legal systems provided on the open market and within judicial and administrative systems likewise provided.
Bunty – makes a nice change to be referred to as “young man”. Funny how you dislike these epithets right up until the moment people stop using them…
Oh …. and with many meanings of “bush” to choose from, the sexism is entirely the product of your own interpretation
)
Under what law do these PDAs work? From whence does their authority derive? How is abuse of the system by a much more horrible version of price fixing prohibited? What about the agrncy which sees an open market in the ‘pay us to protect you by rounding up those darkies who steal your jobs and threaten your families’ trade? What’s to prevent one agency from becoming dominate through merger, aquisutions and ‘hostile takeovers’? At that point, where one agency begins to dominate and holds a monopoly on security, what is it that distinguishes them from a tyrannical government – apart from the lack of democratic accountability of course…
I don’t see your plan being satisfactory in it’s current form…
I don’t see your plan being satisfactory in it’s current form…
Expect a 6am knock on the door from “Libertarian Bloggers ‘R’ Us plc”, then
)
Stu, the police do not make the law. Parliament makes the law. Police do not make the courts either. Let’s say that in David’s world Delta Security Force Limited start abusing their powers and turn to corruption, then someone would bring an action against them in court. This happens all the time already, with police officers accused of all sorts of horrible things in civil courts, the whole Met was taken to court recently (a famous case!). Just because – hypothetically – the police force isn’t a public organ doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be accountable to the law in the same way that British Gas is accountable as a private company.
Bunty, I assume you are joking? What is sexist about a bush? Males and females have them! Also, isn’t “sexism” the stereotyping of the particular sexes? How is saying “bush” stereotyping anyone? It’s like saying that the word “black” is racist!
Blue Eyes I know that – but if DavidNcl had meant that he would have said it. He said he would rely on competition to prevent corruption. He’s said he doesn’t believe in central authority, and that implies no law above his private militia agencies (PMAs) beyond what marketing and advertising demands.
Your point, Blue Eyes, is exactly what I was getting at. You need to have a centralised legislature and parliament to maintain law and order – and that cannot be reconciled with pure libertarianism as DavidNcl is describing it. My disagreement with you is that I still think it’s unnacceptably open to corruption if there’s a conflict of interests over where the money is coming from, where you reckon it would be okay.
Many points, little time:
“Under what law do these PDAs work?”
Whichever legal systems are successful in the market.
“From whence does their authority derive?”
All authority derives from the incremental demonstration and acquisition of it over time.
BMW is an authority on car manufacture, and a group af wild eyed code cutters on a mailing list are an authority on operating systems design. MIT is an authority in the education of engineers. The authoritative nature of the positions of these organisations has been repeatedly demonstrated in the market.
Does North Korea’s or Iran’s legal or the former Soviet Union system have any real authority – they may have power, but that springs from elsewhere (and Mao was wrong).
What about legitimacy? Well, that springs from demonstrable moral action over time in a social context.
” How is abuse of the system by a much more horrible version of price fixing prohibited?”
Price fixing cannot sustainably occur in free markets. It requires state intervention, just as with monopoly.
“What about the agency which sees an open market in the ‘pay us to protect you by rounding up those darkies who steal your jobs and threaten your families’ trade?
The “darkies” can hire anyone they like. I would imagine that many PDA’s would rush forward to be associated – pro-bono – with such a noble cause. I would go and fight for free, wouldn’t you?
(Perhaps I should point out that I’m also talking about a society like 1900′s England with no state controls on and widespread personal ownership of weapons).
“What’s to prevent one agency from becoming dominate through merger, acquisitions and ‘hostile takeovers’? At that point, where one agency begins to dominate and holds a monopoly on security, what is it that distinguishes them from a tyrannical government – apart from the lack of democratic accountability of course”
The idea of a sustainable monopoly or cartel without the connivance of states is a fiction propagated by state intellectuals. Look into the railroad “cartels” in the US – they were had to be FORCED into cartels by the state.
For additional marks give more than three arguments why monopolies are impossible to sustain in any field with the actions of states.
“I don’t see your plan being satisfactory in it’s current form…”
Take a hard look around you. Do you think what you see is in any sense satisfactory?
As a technical note what I’m advocating is actually known as market anarchy and is one of several forms of libertarianism.
I’m doing so largely to get people to think outside of the box rather than because I think we should do it a week Friday.
Frankly if anyone wants to head for the 5% state of 1880 I’d be happy to call them comrade.
Most people concede too much too early to the state – and in fact that’s why our original nightwatchman state of around 1860 became the welfare state 1960 and will become the fascist state of 2060.
Stu: ” but if DavidNcl had meant that he would have said it. ”
Me: “such defence would most likely take the form of litigation(*) or arbitration”
The issue here is the concentration of power.
Davidncl is concerned that too much power vests in the State, and wants to disperse that power to private organisations. In his ideal competititive environment, that could work. With power so widely dispersed, all would have access to the same kind of power as others, and we could actually see a genuinely free, equal and egalitarian world.
Stu is worried that the power, once released from its current shackles, could be gathered up and re-concentrated in a form which was free of democratic oversight – thereby moving from a bad situation (i.e. now) to a worse one.
So, where do we stand on the two questions that are hidden in this debate:
(a) If Davidncl’s vision oculd be made to work, would we support it?
(b) Could it be made to work in a way that prevented abuse and its effects?
My answers?
(a) Yes, quite definitely
(b) Very unsure, at present.
Stu – sorry I misunderstood what you meant. I didn’t realise that David meant a total dissolution of the state-legal system. I don’t support that. I agree there could be forum shopping and enforcement shopping (although I tend to prefer one court system and one police force per area with plenty of oversight), but I am not sure that reducing the country to hundreds of tiny fiefdoms would bring much comfort. The legal system could be reformed to be much more effective and efficient.
I think we should try running the things which seem to be better suited to state control (legal system, defence, police) once the rest has been set free. Once the state only has to concentrate on a few things I think it would do it better. At the moment the state involves itself if what type of lightbulbs I use – which is absurd.
Blue Eyes: “I didn’t realise that David meant a total dissolution of the state-legal system. I don’t support that”.
Firstly note that I would seek to return to the minimal watchman state of the 1860′s, then encourage growth of private provision (by gradually removing legal constraints) and the accompanying gradual reduction in the role of the state as alternative institutions emerged. If, after a century all that remained of the state was a council of a dozen wise old men who acted as advisers to the private agencies from time to time, I would consider my job done.
We where actually at that point once (the minimal state) but we took the wrong fork in the rode.
But to pick up on a point you make: “I agree there could be forum shopping and enforcement shopping (although I tend to prefer one court system and one police force per area with plenty of oversight”
Why do you support geographic monopolies in courts and police and not, one presumes, in food supply or educational provision?
Note that I’m suggesting geographically overlapping provision of police and legal service – not fiefdom’s of any sort – much in the way insurance provision or the AA and RAC operate.
One way to convince yourself that what I’m babbling is in any sense viable or sensible would be to learn a bit about liberty in England as it once existed. Could I recommend Dr Sean Gabb’s How English Liberty Was Created by Accident and Custom – and Then Destroyed by Liberals. What I’m proposing (and it’s not my idea actually – it’s a whole tradition of political thought) is a very small step beyond what once existed.
“Once the state only has to concentrate on a few things I think it would do it better”
That’s not true. What actually happened is that it concentrated on growing larger.
Let me also point out that I’m not seeking to be a Utopian – I don’t believe in utopia in any case – I’m trying to show that case can be made for free market provision of everything and to deny the legitimacy and the efficiency of the state in everything including involving itself in what type of light bulbs I use as a matter of both principle and pragmatism.
Why do you support geographic monopolies in courts and police
Because to be perfectly honest I haven’t spent much time tniking about it. I haven’t read any political philosophy, I just wrote the post as a bit of a thought experiment.
Wouldn’t be the first time I said something random. Sometimes sense comes out, sometimes…
Once again some good wide ranging discussion recently.
[...] argument that if you don’t like taxes you don’t like schools. I have to disagree. I don’t like taxation. I don’t like the compulsion. I don’t like the way I am no longer in control of the way in which money – which I …Page 2 [...]