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.
Here. Right here is the root of our disagreement. Tax is harmful. It's been economically proven that an increased tax harms the industry it taxes, and an income tax hurts the economy by taking money out of people's pockets. If you don't think taxation is a harm, I can give you a PO box to send all of your 'Extra' cash to, or, better yet, buy bitcoins and send them to the address at the bottom of this post. You clearly have more money than you know what to do with, and I can use it better.
This is a caricature of what I'm saying-- taxes within reason aren't just non-harmful they are also necessary for the public interest. Your argument would assume several things, as an extention of this:
1) Charity harms yourself
2) Giving excess material goods/finances is also a harm
3) Taxing $1 means you will tax somebody into oblivion(Nobody's proposing that)
4) For the industry it taxes, I'd be much more in favor of slashing the subsidies that we give to big oil, for example. That being said, under your seemingly contradictory logic, we have a contradiction, yet again-- subsidies help industries by being profitable. But subsidies can only be paid for by taxes. What do?
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.
1. You seem to have skipped the last half of the point I made. People donate
now to charity. Not because some governemt put a gun to their head and said 'Do it!', but because it makes them feel good. this wouldn't change.
It totally would. I'd argue that the reason they give money in the 1st place is because of western style liberalism, and the society that they grew up in which prizes helping other people-- if your argument about redistribution of wealth is to be believed, then people are giving money primarily due to the government's example of wealth-redistribution. Give it a few generations, and under your system, that impulse to donate will be gone.
2. You are arguing my point. Thank you.
We're in agreement, and it wasn't your point exclusively-- you'd assumed I was in favor of military spending. I'm not.
3. People will donate to a cause which espouses values that they want to see spread. When a charity has a scandal, some portion (up to and including 100%) of those people will stop donating to that charity, instead picking one they do prefer. When a Government agency has a corruption scandal, you can not choose to stop supporting that agency, without risking life, liberty, or property. (stop paying taxes, and they'll come and shoot you or put you in a cage)
But once again, to say that all charities will always be corruption and poor management free is a pipe-dream. They will all be infected by it eventually, and as new ones come up, similar to new government agencies, there will be less incompetence and corruption, but it is a matter of time in both systems for it to fail.
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.
Agreed. A Job at McDonalds is not as socially beneficial than, say... an Astrophysicist. Thankfully, the Market has already made that calculation for you, and that is why a job at McDonalds will earn you less money than one as an Astrophysicist. More dangerous or 'undesirable' jobs will earn you more money. This is known as 'Hazard pay'
That is literally nonsense. A coal miner's median income is $59,495, and it is well documented how bad their health can be. Capitalists don't care if they harm employees, because there is a shortage of jobs-- the employers can be selective about their hirings.
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.
Firstly, AnCap != Corporations. In fact, AnCaps are
against corporations. Corporations fictional people made up by the State. See my other debate regarding that.
Secondly, I've yet to see you present such an alternative. Feel free. If it is, in fact, better, I'll switch in a heartbeat.
See the debate going on up above. I don't think they have any definitional basis on which to challenge me.
Also, my alternative is utilitarian anarchism, based on Levinasian ethics.