Relevant to the thread, not to my interests. One poor person has the same value as a rich person, in terms of ethical calculus. The decision, then, should be, does taxing e'rebody benefit more people than it harms, or does it maximize the good?
Taxation has, as it's stated goal, to help the poor, via welfare and other social programs. 'Wealth redistribution'. What they end up doing is robbing Peter, pocketing some, and then giving back to Peter, after he jumps through some hoops. Granted, they also rob Paul, but we're suggesting not taking from Peter in the first place.
Granted... to a point. There is a point where it will become cheaper to leave than to stay. At that point, they will move.
Public charity (ie, welfare) is inefficient, and often corrupt.
Right, that's indisputable, but those are solvency limitations, not solvency deficits or negation-- in other words, good can still be affected by these programs, even if they are mismanaged.
Agreed, but harm is still being done to pay for these programs. The question we ask is, "Is the harm outweighed by the good?" And the answer we come up with, time and again, is 'No.'
1.People are still people, and will still give out of the goodness of their own heart. I don't fetishize greed, and I'm as AnCap as they come. People will still give to charity because it makes them feel good about themselves. You underestimate the power of self-esteem.
2. People will give to those charities which pursue the agendas they themselves support. Contrast this to enforced 'donation' to an organization whose major pass-time seems to be bombing brown people, and I think you'll see my point.
3. But people aren't
forced to donate to that charity. When a scandal like that comes out, people will switch charities.
With a better economy, there are more jobs.
Job growth does expand. But that's not really relevant, b/c we should be looking at good jobs(any idiot can work at McDonalds', but those aren't the ones that will bring somebody out of poverty, or do actual good for society.
Go into a McDonalds at 6:30 PM and tell me that more people behind the counter wouldn't 'help society' Also, as I've stated before, even $2.50 an hour is better than $0.00 an hour.
With lower (or no) minimum wage, there are more jobs.
I disagree with this-- just because a company can hire more doesn't mean they would. Rather, it would mean they would pocket the money they could spend on raising wages-- unless there is a necessity for more workers, I would doubt they'd hire more.
Also, even if your claim is nominally true(that is, if it does make more jobs), these aren't desirable jobs that begin to affect any sort of good for the position holder, or for society.
Who are you to say which jobs are 'desirable'? Who are you to say which jobs 'benefit society' or more importantly, which ones benefit the job holder? Let the person seeking employment make that decision for him or herself, thank you.
Getting back to the utilitarian calculus, and if libertarianism maximizes utility, I'd have to say no-- even if it causes the least harm(not what we're looking at, in abstraction(we need to look at the good it causes minus the bad it causes, and use that as a method to judge the systems)), I highly doubt it is the system that creates the greatest good. I think there are other systems to work towards that, even while potentially causing more harm, still winds out on top via all the good it produces.
If you can point to me some harm that libertarianism/AnCap directly causes, and it outweighs the harm which I can point to that Government directly causes, I will concede the point.