Comments on: The Value-Added Tax Is Not the Answer

By: Bfrombigd

Bfrombigd — Sun, 02 May 2010 23:34:51 +0000

Econoclasts by Brian Domitrovic, this is the game plan that has proven time and time again to work for all of U.S. Let U.S. start to return to prosperity once again.

By: Michael A. Clem

Michael A. Clem — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 18:43:03 +0000

Merely repeating your assertions does nothing to strengthen your argument. Nor does it counter my argument. If anything, you’re supporting my argument by saying that all land was taken by force at one time or another. Admittedly, that might be a bit of a stretch, an unverified absolute, but I can agree that most land was taken by force. Somehow, you claim that legitimate property titles can be made from illegitimate acquisitions, but you forget to include how this mysterious alchemy occurs. The passage of time? No one else may have a stronger claim, but then, no one else has a weaker claim either. If no one is known to have a legitimate claim, then the only just thing to do is open up the property for homesteading. Again, Rothbard has covered this in some detail.
There is another argument that could have been made against your assertions. You assume government is a legitimate organization, and as such, can have a legitimate claim on property. But if the organization itself is illegitimate, then it can have no legitimate claims on property. If government is an organization that claims a monopoly on the use of force, and is supported by involuntary taxation, then both of those points make it an illegitimate (and unjust) organization. Thus, government can have no legitimate claim on property.

By: VHarris

VHarris — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 17:51:36 +0000

All land was taken by force at one time or another. Now in possession of the taker, his successors or assigns, we can only deem him the rightful owner because no one else has a more legitimate claim. Short of proving legitimate transfer of land back to the most recent homesteading, the next best solution is to have the strongest present claim — which the State does.

By: Michael A. Clem

Michael A. Clem — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 17:49:52 +0000

Legitimate owners properly use defensive or retaliatory force for the protection of rights. Gaining property through an initiation of force doesn’t grant them legitimate property rights, no matter how many times afterwards they only use defensive or retaliatory force.
Sorry, I would have responded directly, but there seems to be a limit to how deep the nested replies will go.

By: VHarris

VHarris — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 18:05:23 +0000

Legitimate owners properly use coercion to enforce property rights. Such use doesn’t delegitimize ownership. If I buy real property, it is on the condition that I pay taxes and abide land-use regulations. How can I then assert the ‘right’ to not pay taxes? Or acquire the ‘right’ to not abide land-use regulations? The fact is that the State ‘owns’ these rights. Simply by acquiring ‘title’ to the land, I am not able to usurp them. Show otherwise.

By: Michael A. Clem

Michael A. Clem — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 17:41:49 +0000

Coercion doesn’t make it legitimate, get it? It’s a simple counterpoint. It totally invalidates your argument about government control, without going any farther on the issue.
However, if you’re really concerned about who has a legitimate claim, Murray Rothbard has gone into some detail about the process of identifying the legitimate owner, or, if not possible, how property can be abandoned and homesteaded, so that it does have a legitimate owner.

By: VHarris

VHarris — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 17:21:38 +0000

My contention is that the State is the most legitimate owner of all property within its geographical boundaries. The State has openly claimed and enforced its ownership rights (e.g., collecting rent [taxes] and controlling use) for so long that there is no one who can now make a stronger claim. Since you seem to dispute this, please explain WHO has a stronger claim — and how it was obtained.

If Misesians are unable to identify a more legitimate land owner than the State, they ought to quit carping and cede the point.

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 01:49:00 +0000

I don’t think it’s as obvious as you say (at least to many regular folk), as the political debate always centers on taxation instead of eliminating government (except limited lip service showing how impractical it would be). The debate will always surround as you say, “the operational guide for minimal intervention” with the requirements for “minimal intervention” dictated by the state. Which means discussion of how, who, how much, and what they should tax. I think it’s refreshing to hear a view that has different philosophical underpinnings.

As for your sheriff example, I’m assuming you don’t think it’s possible for the free market to produce such services or stability. You may be right, and how do you get from point A to point B? I’m not sure myself, but from reading some of the material here I lean toward the possibility of it. I also think the specific operational details you’re looking for were not the focus of this article, but he and many others have expounded such theory and details in their other writings.

p.s. Three years ago I didn’t even know what Austrian economics was. I must say I am a novice in this area, and the extent of my knowledge has come from the study of the material on this website, “Principles of Economics” by Menger, “Human Action”, “Economics in One Lesson”, “Democracy: The God that Failed” which are all decidedly Austrian in nature.

By: Michael A. Clem

Michael A. Clem — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 18:58:00 +0000

No doubt, the coercion of the state is real enough, but as we’ve tried to make clear to you, that does not grant the state and its interests with any moral legitimacy.

By: Michael A. Clem

Michael A. Clem — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 18:56:02 +0000

Sorry–this argument makes no sense. The state and its “politician-managers” are guided more strongly by politics and personal interests, not economics and the interests of its “citizens”. Thus they have little rational incentive for maximizing economic value.

By: Michael A. Clem

Michael A. Clem — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 18:49:25 +0000

No, no, no! They have to force the rest of us to pay taxes, too, otherwise people might “benefit” from government regulation and control for free! Government: the ultimate negative externality.

By: billwald

billwald — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 18:25:28 +0000

The BIG problem with the VAT or any system based on consumption taxes is that 90% of the people in 80% or so of the net asset curve spend 90% of their annual increase to stay alive every year and the top 5% would not know how to spend 10% of their annual increase if they at it. Thus, without a severe inheritance tax, the economic and political power of the top 5% will increase almost exponentially.

By: billwald

billwald — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 18:15:46 +0000

” . . . and yet totally escape the blame, which can easily be loaded on business, unions, or the consumer . . . .”

Then it would make it easier for Libertarians to continue to blame the unions.

By: Peter Surda

Peter Surda — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 13:10:49 +0000

However, in the same, he also writes

There is no social collective conceivable which is not operative in the actions of some individuals.

and

A collective whole is a particular aspect of the actions of various individuals and as such a real thing determining the course of events.

I would like to add that as a corollary, there can be no “collective” which is not an aspect of the features of individuals. “The state” or “the society” cannot have needs, interests or own anything which is not at the same time an aspect of the needs, interests or ownership of some of the individuals it comprises of.

By: Guard

Guard — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 08:52:23 +0000

Yes, it is in fact mumbo jumbo. The ancients from the beginning of civilization recognized the state as, to a large extent an independent spiritual entity that co-opted the will of human beings to its service. The state is now and has always been a “god”. The reason why politics and religion are taboo subjects for discussion is that politics IS religion, with irrational belief systems held on faith just like any religious system.
Modern sociologists have recognized that the state acts like a living thing, but refuse to face the obvious: that it IS a living thing.
Until humans realize there is a second set of players on this earth, the spiritual realm, we will get nowhere.

By: P.M.Lawrence

P.M.Lawrence — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 08:21:33 +0000

I had a full and complete answer for you, but this site won’t post it (probably because I gave links). If you want, contact me at pml540114 at gmail dot com and I will email it to you.

By: P.M.Lawrence

P.M.Lawrence — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 08:01:10 +0000

That problem with people retiring just as a GST/VAT comes in was why the Australian government that did it provided some extra benefits for that group as part of the transition – but only after pressure, and they still handled the transition badly. Of course, by now those benefits have washed out but not all those people have died and those now retiring still didn’t get a good pattern of pre-implementation saving/post-implementation returns, just more time to brace themselves.

By: VHarris

VHarris — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 05:30:57 +0000

For discussion purposes, I’ll accept Lew Rockwell’s proposition that the State is little more than a ‘band of thieves writ large.’

Is it your contention that, for this gang, there is no measure of a benefit? That it cannot ‘own’ anything? That it cannot have its interests maximized? That it has no one with whom you can speak?

You might be confusing human organization with legal fiction.

Try not paying taxes. It’s a sure way to experience how the ‘real’ organization, with genuine ownership of that property, ‘feels’ about nonpayment.

By: VHarris

VHarris — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 05:07:52 +0000

There is nothing ‘artificial’ about the hold the State has on property. The State is the de facto landlord of all property within its geographical boundaries. Nor is the State going to eliminate itself.

Because we presently insist on maintaining the pretense of ‘deed holder’ as owner, the way politicians maximize their interests is by buying votes through use of frequently counterproductive zoning.

As perpetual landlord, the State might, for example, ‘rent’ out its property to those who can pay the most by putting it to the most productive use (just as would any rational landowner). If the State systematically auctioned off ‘term-occupation-and-use permits,’ property would generally be put to more productive use.

If politicians individually benefit as their ‘tenants’ benefit, onerous time, place, and manor regulations will gradually drop away.

Surely Austrian economists understand the benefit that accrues to an entire economic system when in-fact owners of real property (I assert it is the State and its Politician-Managers) are able to benefit directly from the price-based letting of property.

By: Allen Weingarten

Allen Weingarten — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 03:08:23 +0000

Franklin, guess who wrote “It is uncontested that in the sphere of human action social entities have real existence. Nobody ventures to deny that nations, states, municipalities, parties, religious communities, are real factors determining the course of human events”

It was Ludwig von Mises, in ‘Human Action’ p. 42.