Some economists suggest a better measure: establish a coercive currency and print it as they like to pay for public goods. Just put a gun to people's face when they don't want fiat currency and then print all you want. Very practical solution.
USD is "legal tender" which is direct coercion (you must accept USD as payment for a debt).
Indirect coercion is multitudes of currency controls, capital controls, taxation, banking licenses etc. All the laws and regulations backed by well-oiled guns of SWAT teams that prevent people from easily trading and saving in whatever currency they want.
I see, so a coercive currency is just fiat currency (or just currency) with an appended modifier. This modifier itself is then qualified with 'indirect' because the regulations enabling the use of these currencies is backed by government force which, although rarely utilised in the context of the commercial transaction, is ever-present. In relation to this indirect coercion these economists are (directly? or indirectly?) forcing people to spend money through monetary policy.
Ok, my bad. The currency itself can hardly be called "coercive". Coercion is done by people to people. When I was talking about economic policies, I meant this recipe:
1. Establish a government-issued currency that it can print when it wants.
2. Make people use this currency by creating barriers to other currencies and forcing people to accept it as payment for debts.
3. Print money according to some made up theory on what's better for society and give this money to whoever needs it it more (according to a theory at hand).
This is the weird libertarian view of "coerciveness" where having to participate in a society with other people is a gross imposition but being fireable instantly at the whim of your employer is not coercive.
I'm aware of the strange views of Libertarians, but I'd never heard a currency itself marked as coercive! I agree: It's a strange view of coercion where getting fired and ending up on the street provided you're fired by a private employer is less a coercive act than having to pay a percentage of your income for social benefit, or, worse yet it seems, having to use a 'coercive currency'.
Protection from being fired comes with a cost. Less people are willing to open companies and easily hire people to do job if they are afraid that they wouldn't be able to fire inefficient workers. All "unemployment" is government creation due to either "free" stuff like unemployment benefits or to regulations that prohibit some employers from hiring you.
Are you suggesting that in a society without a government there would be no unemployment? (To clarify, unemployment is the opposite of employment. Unemployment is 'not working'.)
On your first point, it's not whether or not it comes with a cost that is the relevant question. The relevant question is: If it does come with a cost, does the cost justify the benefits and/or are we willing to pay the cost?
Unemployment will always be voluntary. I'm not employed on Sundays, Saturdays and during vacations absolutely voluntarily. I'm employed 16 hours in a row some days absolutely voluntarily. Unemployment is involuntary when there are people who are willing to pay for some work and people who are willing to earn that for that work, but they can't meet together because: 1) wage is below government-approved limit or 2) this type of job is forbidden, or 3) employer cannot fire the person when the job is done or 4) it's damn too expensive to even start filing all papers to hire someone.
So there's no room in this case where and individual would be unable to find work? Somehow, everyone will have a skill-set and the personal capability (even quadriplegic people?) at any given time to find work on demand and to change their work on demand as well.
What is your definition of voluntary, by the way? Is a person taking a job they don't want to do, but have to in order to feed themselves, a voluntary decision?
I think what oleganza is trying to say here is that while unemployment may indeed exist under any system, what we have to understand is that by creating laws and regulations to fight it, we really are doing it at someone else's expense.
For instance, if an automobile factory produces cars and people don't really need so many cars, then this factory fires workers. If it's impossible or difficult to fire them, then this means the cost goes on to consumers and prices of cars go up.
The reason unemployment exists is not because there's not enough jobs. There are plenty of job positions that can't be filled because there are no people willing and/or skillful enough to fill them. The reason unemployment exists in the wild (with no regulation) is because the market needs to readjust itself to produce something people want in the quantities people want. When government interferes into this process, it only delays this adjustment.
Right, and I guess what I'm saying is that it's fine to do so at someone else's expense. But that's the moral argument and it's a simple one, I don't see government force as illegitimate and therefore I'm fine with taxation, regardless of who is being taxed. If you believe it is illegitimate, that's ultimately your problem and you live in a reality where most people do not agree with you. That's fine, we can disagree and move on.
But the problem comes in when unsubstantiated statements come into this. I don't see any evidence presented at all that what you go on to say in your last paragraph is true.
"The reason unemployment exists is not because there's not enough jobs." I'm sorry, but my country's unemployment rate is 22%[1], and we have no welfare state worth mentioning. The minimum wage is under $1/h, and there are no restrictions on hiring nor on firing. We've had this same rate of unemployment for decades with constant economic liberalization. Now, I suppose under oleganza's view, we can still blame the very fact that government (anywhere) exists on this problem, but at a certain point you cannot blame the government anymore.
As for why unemployment exists in the US... Please factor in illegal employment created by government criminalizing drugs and other things (prostitution or gambling, for instance). Factor in minimum wage, which allows some people to earn more at the expense of those who are not employed at all. Factor in military men coming back from wars not being able to find jobs, because government used them and threw away. Factor in people who are not able to start certain businesses because it's expensive to obtain licences. So it's not just restrictions on firing people. It's so much more.
The market is a system constantly re-evaluating itself to reach equilibrium. It's a very weak view of the market which takes away from it the ability to take into account government 'interference'. Indeed, most governments don't interfere too often, prostitution and gambling have been illegal for decades in the US (legal where I live, however). I don't need to factor these things in, because the market has already factored them in. What government interference implies is a sort of Old-Testament God, who constantly interferes with its subjects. Governments try their best to interfere very little, they make sure inflation stays low-ish, they don't suddenly change economic policy except in crises. Government "interference" (the better word you might use is 'existence', since this is what I think you mean) is an ever-present fact of the market and the market has always taken it into account.
I just pointed out a number of sources of unemployment originating from government interference and you just replied with "but government interference always existed, therefore it cannot be a reason for unemployment". That's not an argument.
Did I say that? I didn't realize I made such a categorical statement! I thought I said that the market already takes the government into account, not that the government cannot be a reason for unemployment. The government certainly could be a reason for unemployment, but that doesn't mean it is always the reason for unemployment, nor does it mean that proper regulation necessarily leads to lowered employment.
How about "But that's the moral argument and it's a simple one, I don't see government force as illegitimate and therefore I'm fine with taxation, regardless of who is being taxed"?
Basically, you are okay if people who disagree with your opinion can be beaten and their money confiscated. This does not say anything good of you as a fellow human being.
Yeah, but such a statement requires no actual evidence. I can tell you I'm okay with it, because that's a fact about myself. The fact that your view is incompatible just shows that I don't consider all opinions morally valid, some are wrong. Just as to you it might appear that I am not 'good', it might appear to me that you're not 'good' if you refuse to pay taxes. It's a coincidence that my view is backed-up by society, but such is life. A libertarian might say to a person born blind, deaf and dumb who is unable to work: 'tough luck', I can say to a libertarian born in a society that forces them to support those less fortunate with taxes: 'tough luck.' I personally see nothing immoral about this.
There's a larger implication, actually. You think it's moral to use force against people who disagree with you. It doesn't matter what the question is, the idea is that you are prepared to initiate the use of force, while libertarians are fundamentally opposed to that.
I just think it's important to take our fellow human beings not as objects to be taxed, but as individuals to be convinced. If you think helping some group of people is a good idea - convince me, don't just steal from me. If you steal, this doesn't make you a single bit more moral.
I don't see this 'larger implication'. Where is this objective moral scale I can look at? The one that'll tell me that I'm more moral than you, or you're more moral than me? I don't claim I'm more moral than you, I do claim we have differing morality. My morals tell me that it is okay to 'initiate force' in certain circumstances, the fact that your morals tell you the opposite has no bearings on me nor on any objective scale of morals you could point to. You've taken a principle and put it on some sort of pedestal which allows you to point to it and say: if you violate that, you're immoral. I can do the same with any given principle and neither of us comes out on top morally, nor will we ever. The unfortunate thing about your principle is that it is weak from a force perspective: in order for you to stay true to your morals, you cannot initiate force, in order for me to stay true to my morals, I can do so and I can enable the government to do so as well.
Very good. But you cannot claim the majority of people actually share your morals, because you also initiate force against them. If people weren't afraid of your force, my guess is most of them wouldn't be willing to pay taxes. It's like if you were a crusader occupying a muslim village and converting everyone living in it to christians by force. Does it make them christian? Technically yes. In reality, unlikely.
On a legal conception (my field), people don't pay taxes because they are forced to do so by force, people pay taxes for a wide variety of reasons: fear of consequences, habit, actual willingness to pay taxes, social cohesion, internalization of process. Paying taxes makes sense for businesses, and various other organisations on an economic level. Paying taxes in Australia (where I am), for example, gets you a wide variety of benefits that most people appreciate, and most of them don't feel forced to do so. Maybe at some baseline level they are 'forced' to do so, but it is done voluntarily. Just as you would say that a person taking a job because otherwise they will starve is a voluntary act, so can paying taxes be voluntary despite the background threat of prison.
Same with religion, maybe those initial people will not be Christians, but maybe their grandchildren will be if the occupation continues. The Ottomans, for example, converted people to Islam through tax incentives and education.
A test case for you:
In Canada (and Australia), for example, 89% of the land is in direct ownership by the Crown, the other 11% is rented by the Crown to individuals in the form of land tenure. Legally, the Queen is not allowed to permanently sell any land, as they are subject to the old rules of English family law, where descendants are to be entitled to inherit the land. The Queen, through the Government of Canada which represents her, is the owner of the entire country. Does she not have the right to charge whatever rent rates (taxes) she would like? And are not people paying these taxes voluntarily as long as they live on this rented land?
> people don't pay taxes because they are forced to do so by force, people pay taxes for a wide variety of reasons
Easy to test. Ask people if they would keep paying taxes if they weren't afraid of IRS (or equivalent). My experience: the answer is NO with most.
> A test case for you
The question is where this legitimacy of owning a land by the Queen comes from. The royal family simply declared certain territories their own, then used government forces (sponsored by taxation) to enforce this. So I'd argue it's the people who paid taxes who own the land, not the Queen. What you have, though, is a perverted situation in which people pay taxes to have their land taken away from them and then leased back. That's insane.
Is that the correct test, though? Ask the guy if he would take the job if he wasn't starving: He'll say 'No'. So in a system where he has no recourse to some safety net, he's not acting voluntarily in any case where the alternative is a type of negative consequence which he'd like to mitigate. I'd rather not be doing law, for example, I'd rather be reading on the beach, but the alternative could be living on social assistance (which is a definitely a thing to fear for me), still I wouldn't say that I'm involuntarily doing my job.
Maybe you should ask, instead: "Why do you pay taxes?" And allow the respondents to give you a wider set of reasons. Maybe some will say it is out of fear of the IRS, but some people might not say that, or say something different. It's still a 'test' of the matter, but it's a less leading test and it's the sort of test that follows from what I've said.
Sorry, the Queen test case was just for fun. Wanted to see what you'd say. Yeah, the Queen cannot legitimately own anything by that conception, since it is all ultimately tainted by a long historical process of beating out competitors on the British Isles.
No, I disagree that we should be asking "Why do you pay taxes?" because this is an open ended question which leaves a lot of room for speculation and asks for an opinion, not an action. Action is what matters. People might convince themselves it's actually a good idea to pay taxes if it's inevitable anyway. But if you ask them "Would you pay it?" then it's a question about an action - yes I would, or no I wouldn't. I don't see why would a person lie.
Yeah, asking why you do something is as much a question about an action as asking whether you'd do it. You're not asking "Would you pay it?" you're asking: "Would you pay it if condition x were false?" You're taking it out of reality, where condition x is true. I agree, you could ask: "Would you pay it?" but the response from the person to that question would be useless without the necessary conditional you've put in it. However, as soon as you put in the conditional about a state of affairs, the person is not analysing their action as it is, but is instead analsying their action according to a state of affairs that may exist. It's as much a mental trick as it is in a case where people convince themselves it's a good idea if it's inevitable.
That goes back to what I said before, which you ignored, if you were to ask me: "Would you still work if you were a millionaire?" I might say: "No." That's true, but it's not true for any useful purpose, because I'm not a millionaire. If you ask me: "Why do you work?" I might say: "Because I like making money." In fact, the latter case is a more truthful statement than the previous case, because I don't actually know what Millionaire-Me might do whereas I do know what Non-millionaire Me would do (work). In any event, the previous question doesn't tell you whether or not I consider the fact I work voluntary, in fact, it doesn't tell you very much anything at all. I personally do consider the fact I work voluntary, but you'd have to ask the latter question to find that fact out. If you just had the previous question and left it, you might as well assume I believe that I work involuntarily.
In the end, you ARE asking for an opinion, the way you propose is a less honest way to do so considering what the inquiry at hand is. Remember, I said that people might have multiple reasons why they pay taxes. This is a sociological fact. Even one person might have multiple reasons why they pay taxes.
If you asked me your question:
"Would you pay taxes if you weren't forced to?" I'd say: "Yes." That's all you get.
My question:
"Why do you pay taxes?" "Fear of jail if I don't, because they pay for roads, social services, because I believe they are a legitimate exercise of function of government."
I'm not lying, no reason to, I pay taxes for multiple reasons and so do most people, and these preferences themselves may be ordered, maybe on my scale of preferences the fear of jail is in-fact less than the fear of potentially unmaintained roads if I have a nice car, for example.
Actually, an idea: Presumably we can synthesise the inquiry, ask "Why" and then ask "Would you still do it", or do it in reverse order. Then, ask people what their preference scales are, etc, etc. You'll find out more information about the reasons people pay taxes, you'll also find that what I said before is true: people pay taxes for multiple reasons.
If people weren't afraid an IRS agent could come and take away their possessions and if they refused to cooperate a policeman could come and handcuff them, we would see whom most people would agree with. It's like saying "but my wife agrees with me that beating women is okay" all the while knowing you would beat her even more if she disagrees.
It's very good that you ask this question. There was always and always will be scarcity in the world. Everyone wants more than it's available right now. To avoid poverty we need ways to save, build capital and insure ourselves against rainy days. This won't eliminate poverty, but nor rape and murder will help removing it.
The only way to know how to rationally use resources is to do so without acts of violence. Then we can talk about how to make sure that most people have something useful to do and have enough money to feed themselves.
Say, I would like to be an astronaut. I'm thus unemployed because no one will voluntarily take me to an orbit just because I want that. Is it bad for society? Well, who knows? But I sure can find million other jobs to work at until we hit real resource limits and 100 trillion head count on this planet.
Talking about cost. We can only evaluate things when we are free from coercion to run experiments and measure the results independently. If there is a huge federal government monopoly on economic policy, there's no way we can find out if it's efficient or good enough. The only way to find out - remove the government coercion and then see how each family decides on their own: on which money to use, where to invest, what medicine to take etc.
I didn't say we have to evaluate the cost in any sort of vacuum of political power, the tools are here and the tools are perfectly capable of taking into account government. In fact, the tools necessitate a governmental economic policy at this point. Government measurements often are independent measurements insofar as they are measurements done by an entity that has more neutral stake in the economic function of a nation than any constituent citizen, company or body corporate. Who is the neutral arbiter in a society without government? Added: Who else can require corporations/individuals to release correct/non-fraudulent financial data, and who else can hold them to account if they don't do so?
In an experiment you not only measure, you also conduct an experiment. And in an economy every decision affects everyone to varying degree. Especially government's because only violent actors can reach those who would otherwise not be reachable. E.g. when I sell you my service, it does not greatly affect anyone except you. But when I start doing my service for you as a government agency, I suddenly affect everyone because I have to tax everyone and do that I have to create ten more agencies including IRS, police, SWAT etc.
Comments
But who will build the roads? We need someone to force people to do stuff in public's interest.
Where we're going we don't need roads http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flge_rw6RG0
That's the best answer.
Require real money for things related to those services? Such as buying gasoline?
Some economists suggest a better measure: establish a coercive currency and print it as they like to pay for public goods. Just put a gun to people's face when they don't want fiat currency and then print all you want. Very practical solution.
What is a coercive currency and which economists suggest it?
USD is "legal tender" which is direct coercion (you must accept USD as payment for a debt).
Indirect coercion is multitudes of currency controls, capital controls, taxation, banking licenses etc. All the laws and regulations backed by well-oiled guns of SWAT teams that prevent people from easily trading and saving in whatever currency they want.
Starting with Keynes and finishing with Krugman, Bernanke and Appelbaum who suggest forcing people to spend more by printing more money and increasing inflation. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/27/business/economy/in-fed-an...
I see, so a coercive currency is just fiat currency (or just currency) with an appended modifier. This modifier itself is then qualified with 'indirect' because the regulations enabling the use of these currencies is backed by government force which, although rarely utilised in the context of the commercial transaction, is ever-present. In relation to this indirect coercion these economists are (directly? or indirectly?) forcing people to spend money through monetary policy.
Is that about right in standard parlance?
Ok, my bad. The currency itself can hardly be called "coercive". Coercion is done by people to people. When I was talking about economic policies, I meant this recipe:
1. Establish a government-issued currency that it can print when it wants.
2. Make people use this currency by creating barriers to other currencies and forcing people to accept it as payment for debts.
3. Print money according to some made up theory on what's better for society and give this money to whoever needs it it more (according to a theory at hand).
This is the weird libertarian view of "coerciveness" where having to participate in a society with other people is a gross imposition but being fireable instantly at the whim of your employer is not coercive.
I'm aware of the strange views of Libertarians, but I'd never heard a currency itself marked as coercive! I agree: It's a strange view of coercion where getting fired and ending up on the street provided you're fired by a private employer is less a coercive act than having to pay a percentage of your income for social benefit, or, worse yet it seems, having to use a 'coercive currency'.
Protection from being fired comes with a cost. Less people are willing to open companies and easily hire people to do job if they are afraid that they wouldn't be able to fire inefficient workers. All "unemployment" is government creation due to either "free" stuff like unemployment benefits or to regulations that prohibit some employers from hiring you.
Are you suggesting that in a society without a government there would be no unemployment? (To clarify, unemployment is the opposite of employment. Unemployment is 'not working'.)
On your first point, it's not whether or not it comes with a cost that is the relevant question. The relevant question is: If it does come with a cost, does the cost justify the benefits and/or are we willing to pay the cost?
Unemployment will always be voluntary. I'm not employed on Sundays, Saturdays and during vacations absolutely voluntarily. I'm employed 16 hours in a row some days absolutely voluntarily. Unemployment is involuntary when there are people who are willing to pay for some work and people who are willing to earn that for that work, but they can't meet together because: 1) wage is below government-approved limit or 2) this type of job is forbidden, or 3) employer cannot fire the person when the job is done or 4) it's damn too expensive to even start filing all papers to hire someone.
So there's no room in this case where and individual would be unable to find work? Somehow, everyone will have a skill-set and the personal capability (even quadriplegic people?) at any given time to find work on demand and to change their work on demand as well.
What is your definition of voluntary, by the way? Is a person taking a job they don't want to do, but have to in order to feed themselves, a voluntary decision?
I think what oleganza is trying to say here is that while unemployment may indeed exist under any system, what we have to understand is that by creating laws and regulations to fight it, we really are doing it at someone else's expense.
For instance, if an automobile factory produces cars and people don't really need so many cars, then this factory fires workers. If it's impossible or difficult to fire them, then this means the cost goes on to consumers and prices of cars go up.
The reason unemployment exists is not because there's not enough jobs. There are plenty of job positions that can't be filled because there are no people willing and/or skillful enough to fill them. The reason unemployment exists in the wild (with no regulation) is because the market needs to readjust itself to produce something people want in the quantities people want. When government interferes into this process, it only delays this adjustment.
Right, and I guess what I'm saying is that it's fine to do so at someone else's expense. But that's the moral argument and it's a simple one, I don't see government force as illegitimate and therefore I'm fine with taxation, regardless of who is being taxed. If you believe it is illegitimate, that's ultimately your problem and you live in a reality where most people do not agree with you. That's fine, we can disagree and move on.
But the problem comes in when unsubstantiated statements come into this. I don't see any evidence presented at all that what you go on to say in your last paragraph is true.
"The reason unemployment exists is not because there's not enough jobs." I'm sorry, but my country's unemployment rate is 22%[1], and we have no welfare state worth mentioning. The minimum wage is under $1/h, and there are no restrictions on hiring nor on firing. We've had this same rate of unemployment for decades with constant economic liberalization. Now, I suppose under oleganza's view, we can still blame the very fact that government (anywhere) exists on this problem, but at a certain point you cannot blame the government anymore.
[1]http://webrzs.stat.gov.rs/WebSite/Public/ReportResultView.as...
As for why unemployment exists in the US... Please factor in illegal employment created by government criminalizing drugs and other things (prostitution or gambling, for instance). Factor in minimum wage, which allows some people to earn more at the expense of those who are not employed at all. Factor in military men coming back from wars not being able to find jobs, because government used them and threw away. Factor in people who are not able to start certain businesses because it's expensive to obtain licences. So it's not just restrictions on firing people. It's so much more.
The market is a system constantly re-evaluating itself to reach equilibrium. It's a very weak view of the market which takes away from it the ability to take into account government 'interference'. Indeed, most governments don't interfere too often, prostitution and gambling have been illegal for decades in the US (legal where I live, however). I don't need to factor these things in, because the market has already factored them in. What government interference implies is a sort of Old-Testament God, who constantly interferes with its subjects. Governments try their best to interfere very little, they make sure inflation stays low-ish, they don't suddenly change economic policy except in crises. Government "interference" (the better word you might use is 'existence', since this is what I think you mean) is an ever-present fact of the market and the market has always taken it into account.
I just pointed out a number of sources of unemployment originating from government interference and you just replied with "but government interference always existed, therefore it cannot be a reason for unemployment". That's not an argument.
Did I say that? I didn't realize I made such a categorical statement! I thought I said that the market already takes the government into account, not that the government cannot be a reason for unemployment. The government certainly could be a reason for unemployment, but that doesn't mean it is always the reason for unemployment, nor does it mean that proper regulation necessarily leads to lowered employment.
"unsubstantiated statements" you say?
How about "But that's the moral argument and it's a simple one, I don't see government force as illegitimate and therefore I'm fine with taxation, regardless of who is being taxed"?
Basically, you are okay if people who disagree with your opinion can be beaten and their money confiscated. This does not say anything good of you as a fellow human being.
Yeah, but such a statement requires no actual evidence. I can tell you I'm okay with it, because that's a fact about myself. The fact that your view is incompatible just shows that I don't consider all opinions morally valid, some are wrong. Just as to you it might appear that I am not 'good', it might appear to me that you're not 'good' if you refuse to pay taxes. It's a coincidence that my view is backed-up by society, but such is life. A libertarian might say to a person born blind, deaf and dumb who is unable to work: 'tough luck', I can say to a libertarian born in a society that forces them to support those less fortunate with taxes: 'tough luck.' I personally see nothing immoral about this.
There's a larger implication, actually. You think it's moral to use force against people who disagree with you. It doesn't matter what the question is, the idea is that you are prepared to initiate the use of force, while libertarians are fundamentally opposed to that.
I just think it's important to take our fellow human beings not as objects to be taxed, but as individuals to be convinced. If you think helping some group of people is a good idea - convince me, don't just steal from me. If you steal, this doesn't make you a single bit more moral.
I don't see this 'larger implication'. Where is this objective moral scale I can look at? The one that'll tell me that I'm more moral than you, or you're more moral than me? I don't claim I'm more moral than you, I do claim we have differing morality. My morals tell me that it is okay to 'initiate force' in certain circumstances, the fact that your morals tell you the opposite has no bearings on me nor on any objective scale of morals you could point to. You've taken a principle and put it on some sort of pedestal which allows you to point to it and say: if you violate that, you're immoral. I can do the same with any given principle and neither of us comes out on top morally, nor will we ever. The unfortunate thing about your principle is that it is weak from a force perspective: in order for you to stay true to your morals, you cannot initiate force, in order for me to stay true to my morals, I can do so and I can enable the government to do so as well.
Very good. But you cannot claim the majority of people actually share your morals, because you also initiate force against them. If people weren't afraid of your force, my guess is most of them wouldn't be willing to pay taxes. It's like if you were a crusader occupying a muslim village and converting everyone living in it to christians by force. Does it make them christian? Technically yes. In reality, unlikely.
On a legal conception (my field), people don't pay taxes because they are forced to do so by force, people pay taxes for a wide variety of reasons: fear of consequences, habit, actual willingness to pay taxes, social cohesion, internalization of process. Paying taxes makes sense for businesses, and various other organisations on an economic level. Paying taxes in Australia (where I am), for example, gets you a wide variety of benefits that most people appreciate, and most of them don't feel forced to do so. Maybe at some baseline level they are 'forced' to do so, but it is done voluntarily. Just as you would say that a person taking a job because otherwise they will starve is a voluntary act, so can paying taxes be voluntary despite the background threat of prison.
Same with religion, maybe those initial people will not be Christians, but maybe their grandchildren will be if the occupation continues. The Ottomans, for example, converted people to Islam through tax incentives and education.
A test case for you:
In Canada (and Australia), for example, 89% of the land is in direct ownership by the Crown, the other 11% is rented by the Crown to individuals in the form of land tenure. Legally, the Queen is not allowed to permanently sell any land, as they are subject to the old rules of English family law, where descendants are to be entitled to inherit the land. The Queen, through the Government of Canada which represents her, is the owner of the entire country. Does she not have the right to charge whatever rent rates (taxes) she would like? And are not people paying these taxes voluntarily as long as they live on this rented land?
> people don't pay taxes because they are forced to do so by force, people pay taxes for a wide variety of reasons
Easy to test. Ask people if they would keep paying taxes if they weren't afraid of IRS (or equivalent). My experience: the answer is NO with most.
> A test case for you
The question is where this legitimacy of owning a land by the Queen comes from. The royal family simply declared certain territories their own, then used government forces (sponsored by taxation) to enforce this. So I'd argue it's the people who paid taxes who own the land, not the Queen. What you have, though, is a perverted situation in which people pay taxes to have their land taken away from them and then leased back. That's insane.
Is that the correct test, though? Ask the guy if he would take the job if he wasn't starving: He'll say 'No'. So in a system where he has no recourse to some safety net, he's not acting voluntarily in any case where the alternative is a type of negative consequence which he'd like to mitigate. I'd rather not be doing law, for example, I'd rather be reading on the beach, but the alternative could be living on social assistance (which is a definitely a thing to fear for me), still I wouldn't say that I'm involuntarily doing my job.
Maybe you should ask, instead: "Why do you pay taxes?" And allow the respondents to give you a wider set of reasons. Maybe some will say it is out of fear of the IRS, but some people might not say that, or say something different. It's still a 'test' of the matter, but it's a less leading test and it's the sort of test that follows from what I've said.
Sorry, the Queen test case was just for fun. Wanted to see what you'd say. Yeah, the Queen cannot legitimately own anything by that conception, since it is all ultimately tainted by a long historical process of beating out competitors on the British Isles.
No, I disagree that we should be asking "Why do you pay taxes?" because this is an open ended question which leaves a lot of room for speculation and asks for an opinion, not an action. Action is what matters. People might convince themselves it's actually a good idea to pay taxes if it's inevitable anyway. But if you ask them "Would you pay it?" then it's a question about an action - yes I would, or no I wouldn't. I don't see why would a person lie.
Yeah, asking why you do something is as much a question about an action as asking whether you'd do it. You're not asking "Would you pay it?" you're asking: "Would you pay it if condition x were false?" You're taking it out of reality, where condition x is true. I agree, you could ask: "Would you pay it?" but the response from the person to that question would be useless without the necessary conditional you've put in it. However, as soon as you put in the conditional about a state of affairs, the person is not analysing their action as it is, but is instead analsying their action according to a state of affairs that may exist. It's as much a mental trick as it is in a case where people convince themselves it's a good idea if it's inevitable.
That goes back to what I said before, which you ignored, if you were to ask me: "Would you still work if you were a millionaire?" I might say: "No." That's true, but it's not true for any useful purpose, because I'm not a millionaire. If you ask me: "Why do you work?" I might say: "Because I like making money." In fact, the latter case is a more truthful statement than the previous case, because I don't actually know what Millionaire-Me might do whereas I do know what Non-millionaire Me would do (work). In any event, the previous question doesn't tell you whether or not I consider the fact I work voluntary, in fact, it doesn't tell you very much anything at all. I personally do consider the fact I work voluntary, but you'd have to ask the latter question to find that fact out. If you just had the previous question and left it, you might as well assume I believe that I work involuntarily.
In the end, you ARE asking for an opinion, the way you propose is a less honest way to do so considering what the inquiry at hand is. Remember, I said that people might have multiple reasons why they pay taxes. This is a sociological fact. Even one person might have multiple reasons why they pay taxes.
If you asked me your question:
"Would you pay taxes if you weren't forced to?" I'd say: "Yes." That's all you get.
My question:
"Why do you pay taxes?" "Fear of jail if I don't, because they pay for roads, social services, because I believe they are a legitimate exercise of function of government."
I'm not lying, no reason to, I pay taxes for multiple reasons and so do most people, and these preferences themselves may be ordered, maybe on my scale of preferences the fear of jail is in-fact less than the fear of potentially unmaintained roads if I have a nice car, for example.
Actually, an idea: Presumably we can synthesise the inquiry, ask "Why" and then ask "Would you still do it", or do it in reverse order. Then, ask people what their preference scales are, etc, etc. You'll find out more information about the reasons people pay taxes, you'll also find that what I said before is true: people pay taxes for multiple reasons.
If people weren't afraid an IRS agent could come and take away their possessions and if they refused to cooperate a policeman could come and handcuff them, we would see whom most people would agree with. It's like saying "but my wife agrees with me that beating women is okay" all the while knowing you would beat her even more if she disagrees.
It's very good that you ask this question. There was always and always will be scarcity in the world. Everyone wants more than it's available right now. To avoid poverty we need ways to save, build capital and insure ourselves against rainy days. This won't eliminate poverty, but nor rape and murder will help removing it.
The only way to know how to rationally use resources is to do so without acts of violence. Then we can talk about how to make sure that most people have something useful to do and have enough money to feed themselves.
Say, I would like to be an astronaut. I'm thus unemployed because no one will voluntarily take me to an orbit just because I want that. Is it bad for society? Well, who knows? But I sure can find million other jobs to work at until we hit real resource limits and 100 trillion head count on this planet.
Talking about cost. We can only evaluate things when we are free from coercion to run experiments and measure the results independently. If there is a huge federal government monopoly on economic policy, there's no way we can find out if it's efficient or good enough. The only way to find out - remove the government coercion and then see how each family decides on their own: on which money to use, where to invest, what medicine to take etc.
I didn't say we have to evaluate the cost in any sort of vacuum of political power, the tools are here and the tools are perfectly capable of taking into account government. In fact, the tools necessitate a governmental economic policy at this point. Government measurements often are independent measurements insofar as they are measurements done by an entity that has more neutral stake in the economic function of a nation than any constituent citizen, company or body corporate. Who is the neutral arbiter in a society without government? Added: Who else can require corporations/individuals to release correct/non-fraudulent financial data, and who else can hold them to account if they don't do so?
In an experiment you not only measure, you also conduct an experiment. And in an economy every decision affects everyone to varying degree. Especially government's because only violent actors can reach those who would otherwise not be reachable. E.g. when I sell you my service, it does not greatly affect anyone except you. But when I start doing my service for you as a government agency, I suddenly affect everyone because I have to tax everyone and do that I have to create ten more agencies including IRS, police, SWAT etc.
"Who else can require corporations/individuals to release correct/non-fraudulent financial data"
People will figure this out. And if they don't, who is to come with a gun and tell them how to live?
In many cases it's not even needed. Who needs to know how much do you earn? Only those who confiscate from you.
Then where/how/why does this 'evaluation' you speak of happen?