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.
That's not true on any level, actually-- I don't think terribly many politicians or liberals view it as such, taxes are a way to benefit everybody, but I don't think any of them have used the words "wealth redistribution".
Also, for the 3rd sentence-- what's wrong with that? If it does more good for the majority of people than it harms, then what's the problem(this is what I meant that you'll probably have to retreat back to deontology)
Granted... to a point. There is a point where it will become cheaper to leave than to stay. At that point, they will move.
Nobody's suggesting getting them to that point-- it would be a self-defeating system.
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.'
Taxation isn't a harm. In the same way that other, seemingly mandatory parts of existence in western civ isn't a harm. My not being able to murder somebody isn't a harm on me-- it is a reasonable expectation to give back and to not harm.
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.
1) But a fundamental part of laissez-faire capitalism is that people act in their own rational self-interest. Donating to charities isn't in their self-interest. So either they aren't rationally self interested, destroying the possibility of AnCap, or they won't donate, and your system is viable, but you have to concede the point.
2) Agreed, but social contractualism will, time and time again, show how peoples' tax dollars go to things that they don't want. I don't want my money to bomb a 3rd world country. But by the same token, I don't support having a sustained army either, so I don't entirely see why I would ever have to defend military spending.
3) But there's no difference. If you go with option two, that people won't donate cause they're rational, then your claim surrounding alternative solvency through charities makes no sense. Alternatively, if you go with one, then people will donate to charities, but the problem of corruption and incompetence will remain-- no charity, like no government, will be perfect.
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.
Helping society comes from techonological, sociological,
intellectual, developments that people who work at McDonalds will not make or do. Alternatively, good for society and good for the individual aren't mutually exclusive-- the professor who could be working at McDonalds not only benefits himself by not working there, but also the society. And 2.50 isn't any better than 0. At the point in time wherein you have to choose between medicine, food, or housing, 2.50 isn't different from 0 in terms of actual utilitarian calculus. Both are unacceptable.
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.
There are some jobs, which, logically speaking, will benefit people more than others. The people working on clean cars, are, for example, in a better job for both themselves and society than the people working at BK.
And also, there is a clear calculus of good versus harm in most jobs. A job mining asbestos is objectively worse than an office job.
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.
See the post above yours-- if I win that AnCap = corporations, and corporations = bad shizzle(which I will, only need to look at Nigeria for that), then this debate is over. Alternatively, I don't need to prove negative impacts on your side, I just need a competitive, viable, and better alternative to AnCap.