Taxation for the sake of redistribution does not increase equality of opportunity nor maximize individual choice. The best that can be said of such taxes is that they may generate equality of result (open question), but only by making everyone worse off. Taxation for the provision of a judicial system and rule of law that protects property rights, for example, may increase equality of opportunity and individual freedom. But don't conflate the two.
He's not advocating for using taxes to solve complex social problems in the way progressives do by wealth transfer. He only advocates taxation for the purpose of administering public goods (e.g., national defense, a judiciary that intermediates contract, property, and tort disputes, etc.) which by their very nature are not amendable to private, competitive markets because the freerider problem is a nonstarter.
The whole point of taxation in a classical liberal world is purely for the administration of public goods which by their very definition have a free rider problem in that everyone benefits from them but they can't be excluded from those who don't pay. So there is little incentive to pay.
Friedman supported a negative income tax only as a means of replacing the whole set of federal welfare programs with a more efficient system. But his obvious preference would have been no income re-distribution at all in the first place. In other words, he argued for the best solution he thought to be politically feasible at the time. This is not disputed and your characterization of his position is flatly wrong.
@EDTHEWATERGUY Don’t you like how the people who want mandatory taxation wouldn’t be the ones giving voluntary contributions? It would be the same people that gave freely when it was “unnecessary”
@Shanockdotcom A flat cap tax, not a bad idea... My personal take is to do away with taxes & government provision of services entirely, leave it 100% in the hands of private, but still have something I would just call "the commons" which would be the remnants of government. It would have 'no' right to initiate force, just contract as anyone else. They would lease out the commons and pay a dividend to all citizens, who in turn would purchase legal insurance, etc..
The whole point he made in the video is that there are these things called public goods which are not amenable to private competitive markets because there is no mechanism to generate sustainable revenue due to the free-rider problem. So businesses do not get involved. In a libertarian society, public goods would not be funded and would not exist. In a classical liberal world, a flat tax would fund those public goods which is not as good as if a private competitive market would do it, but it is better than not having them at all.
@thepeff Taxes are by definition involuntarily, imposed by the State. "Voluntary taxes" are fees or charges etc. All taxes are theft. The State is the enemy of mankind.
Taxation for the sake of redistribution does not increase equality of opportunity nor maximize individual choice. The best that can be said of such taxes is that they may generate equality of result (open question), but only by making everyone worse off. Taxation for the provision of a judicial system and rule of law that protects property rights, for example, may increase equality of opportunity and individual freedom. But don't conflate the two.
Violent theft can not solve complex social problems.
He's not advocating for using taxes to solve complex social problems in the way progressives do by wealth transfer. He only advocates taxation for the purpose of administering public goods (e.g., national defense, a judiciary that intermediates contract, property, and tort disputes, etc.) which by their very nature are not amendable to private, competitive markets because the freerider problem is a nonstarter.
All taxes should be voluntary. If a voluntary tax does not generate enough revenue to sustain government, then the government is far too large.
The whole point of taxation in a classical liberal world is purely for the administration of public goods which by their very definition have a free rider problem in that everyone benefits from them but they can't be excluded from those who don't pay. So there is little incentive to pay.
You there should upload the complete interview. Kickass
Why is Richard Epstein such a beast? Ugh.... The man is a verbal cereal killer.
Violent theft cannot solve *any* social problems and is always unjust.
Thanks, I have already changed my opinion in favor of what you just said since making the remark.
I am a liberatrian nerd and God damn I understand only small parts of Richards speech
No taxes / theft.
Only voluntary contributions.
@mattrferr keep hoping
@rumco That's why I like to call my tax plan the "No Tax."
Friedman didn't consider social welfare programs wealth redistribution, at least when done in the proper way..
Friedman supported a negative income tax only as a means of replacing the whole set of federal welfare programs with a more efficient system. But his obvious preference would have been no income re-distribution at all in the first place. In other words, he argued for the best solution he thought to be politically feasible at the time. This is not disputed and your characterization of his position is flatly wrong.
@EDTHEWATERGUY Don’t you like how the people who want mandatory taxation wouldn’t be the ones giving voluntary contributions? It would be the same people that gave freely when it was “unnecessary”
@3:25 - 3:38 great statement by Pareto. @ 3:38 onward a bold and unsubstantiated and untested assertion.
@Shanockdotcom A flat cap tax, not a bad idea...
My personal take is to do away with taxes & government provision of services entirely, leave it 100% in the hands of private, but still have something I would just call "the commons" which would be the remnants of government. It would have 'no' right to initiate force, just contract as anyone else. They would lease out the commons and pay a dividend to all citizens, who in turn would purchase legal insurance, etc..
The whole point he made in the video is that there are these things called public goods which are not amenable to private competitive markets because there is no mechanism to generate sustainable revenue due to the free-rider problem. So businesses do not get involved. In a libertarian society, public goods would not be funded and would not exist. In a classical liberal world, a flat tax would fund those public goods which is not as good as if a private competitive market would do it, but it is better than not having them at all.
@thepeff Taxes are by definition involuntarily, imposed by the State. "Voluntary taxes" are fees or charges etc.
All taxes are theft. The State is the enemy of mankind.
rumco historically taxes were charged for war,anarcho capitalists are idiots