Quote from: myrkul on June 15, 2011, 09:47:57 PM

Quote from: EnterpriseE1701E on June 15, 2011, 08:41:57 PM

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?

Yes, charity harms yourself. People still do it, because they value the good feeling they get from dropping the dollar (quarter, whatever) into the bucket, more than they do the money itself, or, by extension, anything they could have bought with that money. In economic terms, it is an experiential purchase, similar to going to a movie or riding a thrill ride. Same goes for giving away excess goods.

But wait, refer back to

Quote

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.

It is a dilemma, a double-bind in the best sense. I think you chose the option that people aren't rational agents, and thus will donate.

I'm ok with that decision on your part. What I'd like you to do is explain how a non-rational agents(one who does things to harm themselves economically, like donate to charity(a good feeding doesn't outweigh harming yourself through donations)) could function within lassez-faire capitalism. If I understand the premises of this system, the invisible hand of capitalism only really works if people are rationally self-interested. But as the charity example demonstrates, that isn't the case.

Quote

I'm not saying that a $1 tax is equal to taxing someone (or some business) into oblivion. I'm saying both are harm. A pinch and a gunshot are not equal, either. They're both harmful, though.

Oh, I expected you to say as much. But the problem with taking small tax = small harm is a principle in ethics which is significance-- the action under consideration has to be significant(and philosophers disagree on what it means), but most agree that a pinch or $1 tax isn't significant. For that reason, the ethical question of $1 taxation shouldn't be considered.

But to contest another point. If somebody has $100 million in the bank, do you honestly think that taxing them $1 million harms them that much? If I had $100 dollars, the $1 would be a pinch, and proportionately so to the millionaire-- 1 million isn't that much to him/her. What I'd like you to address is the possibility that a flat percentage tax(of total net-value, or income) as an ethical tax.

Quote

Quote from: EnterpriseE1701E on June 15, 2011, 08:41:57 PM

Quote

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.

See my point above re: experiential purchase. Note that most charitable agencies today are run by churches. For all the harms done by the church in the past, today's churches are mostly benign, A fact I would attribute to competition. Since I don't see those going away anytime soon (now that they've figured out killing each other isn't the way to solve disputes, at least for the most part), I see no reason why the enjoyment of donating would fade.

But my point concerning non-rational agents applies here too-- I'm willing to concede that they'd donate in the AnCap system, but the logical outcome of what them donating money means in an AnCap system is far more damning for the possibility of capitalistic regulation by the market.

Quote

Quote from: EnterpriseE1701E on June 15, 2011, 08:41:57 PM

Quote

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.

Also, to say that all charities will be corrupt and poorly managed is nihilism. A sewer-pipe dream, if you will. I feel that more charities will be corruption free, well-managed, or both than will be neither, at any given time.

Well, I admit it is pessimistic, but the simple fact of the matter is that as time goes along, similar to government agencies, the chances of corruption or stupidity occurring goes up-- the longer around it is, the more likely something will go wrong.

Quote

Quote from: EnterpriseE1701E on June 15, 2011, 08:41:57 PM

Quote

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.

A McDonalds employee's median income is $15,000, and I'm being generous. I'd say 4x as much pay per year is pretty good, considering the worst danger you're likely to see at Mccy-dee's is a burn on your hand (on day shift anyway - there's a reason the Night shift gets paid more...)

True on these points-- but to put it in computer terms, let's say the median income of a mcdonalds employee is equivalent to a 1st generation Sony Vaio, in today's times. Having 4 of those doesn't adequately compensate anybody... being king of a shitpile is awful, but being king of a shitpile 4 times as large as a mcdonald's employee isn't much comfort to the man who will likely die of lung related illnesses.

And this isn't even getting into the fact that 15,000 is pathetic. I challenge you to find a place, food, utilities, and the very basics for anywhere with a mcdonalds for that much. It is a pipe dream to pay them that little and expect them to survive. I expect the coal miner's job isn't that much better either.

And I know what you'll say, that the company isn't under an obligation to pay him anything more, but once again, looking at harm to the company versus benefit to the employee, the proportions are completely off- a slight increase in pay would be less than thousandths of a percentile, but could make several percentile differences to him/her.

Quote

You also fall into the trap of assuming there would be a shortage of jobs. In a thriving economy, it's actually the opposite. A shortage of workers
will allow those workers to be selective of what jobs they take.

I don't know if even having a health economy -> shortage of workers. I don't know the unemployment stats for other countries, so I really can't comment. I'd just be surprised if there was ever a situation wherein there was a shortage of workers, as the population is growing at quite a rate...

Quote

Quote from: EnterpriseE1701E on June 15, 2011, 08:41:57 PM

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.

I've seen that debate, and no offense, but you're not making any good points. I'll leave that debate to them.

It comes down to definitions. W/e-- should they actually argue this well, I suspect I'll resort to marxist analyses of production, and prove cap = bad that way. /sigh. I was hoping it wouldn't come down to that.