Libertarianism

[Renegade]

People who concent by inaction, still give their concent. When I was a starving student I had no problems moving around the world with little money. I could have choosen a lower cost, lower tax country but choose the more comfortable life that we have here (which includes paying taxes).

You paint a picture where I can freely move and choose to reside in any country and under any tax regime I choose. This is definitely not so. Have you every tried to emmigrate to the US? At the very minimium it would take you years. In addition your chances of being accepted by the host country are small. So I'm not clear what you mean by the statement above that you could move arround the world. Do you mean move and permanantly reside? If so I am curious to know which countries have such a liberal immigration policy and whether such a policy is applicable to everyone.

Most living in the Vancouver area only have the option of another condo. Furthermore, when the real estate market drops people are often stuck in the property they own because they owe more money than the property is worth. No matter which condo someone moves to they must concent to pay condo fees.

It is precisely one of my points that the barriers to mobility are quite high, which means simply being able to choose your tax environment is not an option for many. In addition, there is a huge variation in condo fees. I lived in a condo which provided minimal service and charged $60/month. I have friends who live in condos with pools, weight rooms, and manicured gardens and they pay several hundred a month. So while all charge fees, there is a huge variation in what they charge.

Define fair? Condo fees are accessed based on your asset value and not on you use of common properties. In other words, people with more expensive units pay more condo fees.

I would define fair different than the province, however it's the provinces definition which counts. Yes you are correct that the more expensive units pay more fees. Personally I don't consider that fair but the province does. My point is not that the provincial rules are "fair" but there is at least an overriding authority that I can appeal to.

Do you think a condo corp can pass a regulation which says no one smoke in there own condo?

Yes. Condos could claim that smoking is a fire hazzard and the smoke drifts into the hallways and other apartments.

Certainly a condo board can try and pass such a rule, but I doubt it woudl survive a challenge.

Question: Can condos ban smoking?

Answer:

A homeowners association's board of directors can restrict smoking if it applies to indoor common spaces such as hallways or recreation rooms. Outdoor spaces are a different story, say legal experts. Any restriction would probably hinge on local laws (i.e. if a city banned smoking outdoors, a homeowners association probably could restrict smoking in its outdoor spaces).

Typical covenants, codes and restrictions (CC&Rs), which govern condo associations, give the board authority to make and enforce reasonable rules for the use of common property. But that would not apply to interior spaces owned by smokers themselves.

link

Yes I know the link is based upon California law, but I believe the same principle would apply here.

Do you think a condo corp can pass a regulation which says 49% of the condo owners should pay 100% of the condo fees? With a government such taxation is certainly possible.

Gov't would never be able to do that either so it is a red herring. As mentioned, condo fees are progressive in the sense that people who have more pay more.

Well the Government certainly has the power to do so, and to a large extent they already do.

The 10% with the highest incomes paid more than one-half of federal income tax

Federal Personal Income Tax: Slicing the Pie

[Riverwind]

You paint a picture where I can freely move and choose to reside in any country and under any tax regime I choose. This is definitely not so. Have you every tried to emigrate to the US? At the very minimum it would take you years.

It is not as hard as you think for people with a university education and skills that can be transferred to many different types of jobs. The trick is finding an employer who will deal with the local bureaucracy.

I have friends who live in condos with pools, weight rooms, and manicured gardens and they pay several hundred a month. So while all charge fees, there is a huge variation in what they charge.

You can live in Quebec and get $5/day daycare and pay huge taxes or you can move to Alberta. There are choices, however, as with condos, there are no choices that allow people to pay nothing.

Certainly a condo board can try and pass such a rule, but I doubt it would survive a challenge.

I think it would depend on the jurisiction. As a general rule, any 'rights violation' that is permissible for a gov't would be permissible for a condo association.

The 10% with the highest incomes paid more than one-half of federal income tax

Federal Personal Income Tax: Slicing the Pie

You could have also made the following statements based on that same report:

36% of all income is earned by the top 10% income earners

Nearly 50% of income taxes are paid by middle income earners

High income earners pay less that 18% of their income in taxes.

By definition any system of tax based on income (even a flat tax) will result in people with more income paying more taxes. If you had a condo building that had large gap between the cheapest and most expensive condos then you would find that the more expensive units would be paying a large percentage of the fees.

[Renegade]

It is not as hard as you think for people with a university education and skills that can be transferred to many different types of jobs. The trick is finding an employer who will deal with the local bureaucracy.

Actually it is every bit as hard as I think. The fact that you need an employer to support your move is further proof that the choice is not unilateral. What about people who have no employer or who don't have an employer willing to put up with the headache, or even those people who don't have a university education? Should they be denied the choice of the tax regime because of their employment or educational circumstances?

You can live in Quebec and get $5/day daycare and pay huge taxes or you can move to Alberta. There are choices, however, as with condos, there are no choices that allow people to pay nothing.

The choice which lets you pay nothing is called freehold.

Unlike choosing a condo, I can't choose my tax regime except at enormous cost to myself. I would have to change house, change jobs, potentially change language, etc. It woudl be a different story if I could simply "designate" myself a resident of Alberta without actually having to move there.

As a general rule, any 'rights violation' that is permissible for a gov't would be permissible for a condo association.

Highly doubtful. For example if the government needed land it could expropriate it unilaterally. If the condo board dedided it needed your condo to create a new common room, do you really think it could do the same?

You could have also made the following statements based on that same report:

36% of all income is earned by the top 10% income earners

Nearly 50% of income taxes are paid by middle income earners

High income earners pay less that 18% of their income in taxes.

By definition any system of tax based on income (even a flat tax) will result in people with more income paying more taxes. If you had a condo building that had large gap between the cheapest and most expensive condos then you would find that the more expensive units would be paying a large percentage of the fees.

Yes I could have made those statemetns which would also prove the point that the government can and does radically shift the cost unequally as I claimed. You claimed that the government "would never be able to do that". Now that I have demonstrated that they can and do so, you are left justifying why they do so.

You keep falling back to an argument that the system is progressive. So what if it is progressive? What entity dictated that progressive is right and evey other mechanism of cost distribution is wrong?

[Pliny]

I would like to make comment regarding a point that was brought up by someone earlier in the thread. I could search it but being lazy will attempt to just recap it.

The poster brought up the difficulty of organizing people in a community or society and how difficult a thing that was to accomplish.

I would say that in the context of today's individual, who leaves responsibility to the State or "someone else"

to get something done, does make it a tough row to hoe.

In the absence of the nanny state where importances for the community or society are determined it is essential that co-operation occurs. In the absence of cooperation the accomplishment of nothing is the result. If the nanny state isn't taking responsibility the society will have to accomplish their needs and wants themselves. It is in everyones' interest to be community minded and co-operative. The individual would have a completely different mindset and outlook toward the community than those in a welfare nanny state.

The nanny state kills the sense of community. Certainly, some people in the community attempt to organize things for the community and as the poster suggests it is like pulling teeth to get participation today. We hardly get to know our neighbours let alone attempt to organize events or create a society.

[August1991]

I would like to make comment regarding a point that was brought up by someone earlier in the thread. I could search it but being lazy will attempt to just recap it.

The poster brought up the difficulty of organizing people in a community or society and how difficult a thing that was to accomplish.

Pliny, it is quite easy to organize co-operation. Think of the thousands of people who had to co-operate so that you and I could have this discussion. We both have computers with myriad parts, all requiring design, manufacture and assembly. Then there's the Internet itself, cables, routers and service providers to maintain the softawre and hardware. Most of these people don't know each other, and many of them are of different religions or no religion at all. No doubt there were some racists and gays involved. Yet, they all co-operated and worked together.

Why? Because of the price mechanism and free markets.

Where we as a society run into a problem is when markets don't exist, or the price mechanism doesn't work. Then, in general, we have a mess and curiously, some people look at the mess and blame the capitalist system!

For such cases when the price mechanism doesn't work and doesn't lead to co-operation, we fall back on the age-old traditional institutions of family, friendship and "government". These institutions sometimes foster co-operation.

If the nanny state isn't taking responsibility the society will have to accomplish their needs and wants themselves. It is in everyones' interest to be community minded and co-operative. The individual would have a completely different mindset and outlook toward the community than those in a welfare nanny state.

Here, I tend to disagree. It is not in each individual's interests to be community-minded and co-operative. Rather, it's in each individual's interest to let other people co-operate and do the work and then show up and mooch. Families have their own way of dealing with moochers: it's called nagging.

[Pliny]

Pliny, it is quite easy to organize co-operation. Think of the thousands of people who had to co-operate so that you and I could have this discussion. We both have computers with myriad parts, all requiring design, manufacture and assembly. Then there's the Internet itself, cables, routers and service providers to maintain the softawre and hardware. Most of these people don't know each other, and many of them are of different religions or no religion at all. No doubt there were some racists and gays involved. Yet, they all co-operated and worked together.

Why? Because of the price mechanism and free markets.

Where we as a society run into a problem is when markets don't exist, or the price mechanism doesn't work. Then, in general, we have a mess and curiously, some people look at the mess and blame the capitalist system!

For such cases when the price mechanism doesn't work and doesn't lead to co-operation, we fall back on the age-old traditional institutions of family, friendship and "government". These sometimes foster co-operation.

If the nanny state isn't taking responsibility the society will have to accomplish their needs and wants themselves. It is in everyones' interest to be community minded and co-operative. The individual would have a completely different mindset and outlook toward the community than those in a welfare nanny state.

Here, I tend to disagree. It is not in each individual's interests to be community-minded and co-operative. Rather, it's in each individual's to let other people co-operate and do the work and then show up and mooch. Families have their own way of dealing with moochers: it's called nagging.

I agree Free markets and the price mechanism are what bring about this co-operation. The market provides us with what we cannot easily provide for ourselves and is very efficient by nature.

When would a price mechanism not work? The market of course doen't exist in totalitarian states nor is there a price mechanism.

As regards an individuals interest if he is in business I would think if he wishes to prosper that he would wish all but his competition to prosper in order for them to provide the market for his products or services.

[Charles Anthony]

I agree Free markets and the price mechanism are what bring about this co-operation. The market provides us with what we cannot easily provide for ourselves and is very efficient by nature.

No. Markets are the manifestation of co-operation.

Technically, the price mechanism never works. The finest definition of "market" is impossibly restrictive. There is no perfect competition and there is no perfect price mechanism.

As regards an individuals interest if he is in business I would think if he wishes to prosper that he would wish all but his competition to prosper in order for them to provide the market for his products or services.

Not exactly. The finest definition of "competition" is also exceedingly restrictive.

Two gas stations in the same city may be labelled as competitors. However, each one holds a monopoly on their own side of the street or part of town.

Two cola producers may be labelled as competitors. However, one of them does all of the advertizing. The other benefits from the continued business of the first.

If you are willing to split hairs fine enough, we can also add the dimension of changes over time.

Libertarianism doesn't make any sense.

I agree.

I think it was discussed here : Libertarianism

I agree.

It does make sense, since it supports the idea that people deserve the right to live their lives however they want, economically and socially, and the government should not interfere.

How can the government NOT interfere and still exist?

The reason why most libertarians set out 'protection from force or fraud' as the only legitimate role of government: As "an agency which has a monopoly on the legal use of force" we need to determine what is the right thing for that power to be used for.

What underlying principle leads to the choice of a security/law/defense/punishment/justice system as being the only legitimate role of government? I could look to the free market to provide those services.

All government activities de facto redistribute wealth. Therefore, should we not say that the ONLY legitimate sympathetic role of government is to redistribute wealth?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

If you are willing to split hairs fine enough, ...What underlying principle leads to the choice of a security/law/defense/punishment/justice system as being the only legitimate role of government? I could look to the free market to provide those services.

Without gov't, there would be no term such as 'legal', nor 'legitimate'....the free market would be offering mobsters. Hugo thought that that was the govt's job.

All government activities de facto redistribute wealth. Therefore, should we not say that the ONLY legitimate sympathetic role of government is to redistribute wealth?

They actually protect your wealth from said mobsters, for a fee...

Two gas stations in the same city may be labelled as competitors

Let's call one "Auntie Myrtle's Gas Station and Bible Emporium", and the other "Johnny Two-Fingers' Gas Station, Porn and Liquor Outlet." We'll say, for the sake of fantasy, that both are equally profitable. One night, Auntie Myrtle offers to meet with Johnny Two-fingers to discuss selling her business to him. They complete the deal, and at the cemetary where they met, she beats him to death with a fifteen inch black rubber cock. Some hired goons private police force helps her render the corpse into fish food, and she forges the paperwork to make it look like it was Johnny Two-fingers that sold his business to her.

The next day, she tells the employees at "Johnny Two-fingers' Gas Station, Porn and Liquor Outlet" that she is their new boss, the cheques will be good as always, so get back to work...(I should note that Auntie Myrtle hired the toothless Mongolian hooker, formerly in Johnny's employ that she always had a soft spot for, as her new personal secretary).

With no gov't or laws, who would, and more importantly, to whom, would anyone complain?

[Charles Anthony]

Dear Flea,

Without gov't, there would be no term such as 'legal', nor 'legitimate'....

There would also be no need for such terms.

There would also be no need for terms such as "official bilingualism" nor "cronyizm" nor "deputy prime minister" nor "campaign donations" nor "British North American Act" nor "equalization payments" nor "fiscal imbalance" ...

the free market would be offering mobsters. Hugo thought that that was the govt's job.

It is more than their job. It is their Devil-bestowed right.

They actually protect your wealth from said mobsters, for a fee...

...by becoming mobsters too and operating a protection racket.

With no gov't or laws, who would, and more importantly, to whom, would anyone complain?

["Complain" certainly is the operative word -- you must live in a monopoly-enforced legal jurisdiction that provides very little choice!]

As you have constructed this limited and implausible scenario, the first people to complain would be Auntie Myrtle's private security company who now have one less customer. I dare say that they would do more than complain. Your example is beyond ridiculous. Why would Auntie Myrtle go to a cemetery to do a shady deal without back-up protection?

Here is a scenario for you: Charles Anthony, of sound mind (just for the sake of argument) and of his own free-will, runs in the middle of the freeway and gets run over by a passing vehicle. With both government and laws, why would anyone complain?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

the first people to complain would be Auntie Myrtle's private security company who now have one less customer. I dare say that they would do more than complain.

You are right, my scenario was quite limited, as I was pressed for time. However, there was never any indication that Auntie Myrtle's hired goons private security company ever worked for Johnny Two-fingers, so they would really only be short one potential customer. Auntie Myrtle was also shrewd enough to hire private security men who hadn't the brains to figure out that their customer base might get shorter in the long run.

Your example is beyond ridiculous. Why would Auntie Myrtle go to a cemetery to do a shady deal without back-up protection?

Again, pressed for time as I was, I neglected to mention that she was also packing a very sharp piece of unripened mango and a wooden spoon, just in case.

Here is a scenario for you: Charles Anthony, of sound mind (just for the sake of argument) and of his own free-will, runs in the middle of the freeway and gets run over by a passing vehicle. With both government and laws, why would anyone complain?

Well, who is going to pay for getting you hosed off of the grill, and any damage to the vehicle and any subsequent vehicles that this may have caused damage to? (And further, who will remove your carcass to prevent further accidents?) Even with fully private insurance (along with gov't and laws), liability must be assessed. Someone has to go to the scene to say, "Evidence suggests that some dimwit jumped out on the highway in front of moving vehicle. Therefore, the driver was not at fault and should be able to collect on his insurance claim."

[Charles Anthony]

Dear FleaBag,

Well, who is going to pay for getting you hosed off of the grill, and any

I was contemplating adding a caveat to avoid such an obvious spin. The gist, as you clearly noticed, of my reply to Aunt Myrtle's naive business transaction was that Aunt Myrtle was naive. She should have seen it coming.

I hoped that my personal freeway example would be interpreted with a similar focus. I do not know how much more specific I should have been after indicating my assumed sound mind and free will. Should I have also indicated that I was running into on-coming traffic as my corporeal self as opposite to my ethereal self?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

The gist, as you clearly noticed, of my reply to Aunt Myrtle's naive business transaction was that Aunt Myrtle was naive. She should have seen it coming.

I am not sure if you misread the story or if am am missing something...it was Auntie Myrtle that beat Johnny Two-fingers to death and fraudulently aquired his business.

hoped that my personal freeway example would be interpreted with a similar focus. I do not know how much more specific I should have been after indicating my assumed sound mind and free will.

You will have to be more specific. Are you saying that the victim (Johnny Two-fingers and the driver with the new Charles Anthony hood ornament) in each case also holds liability because everyone in each case had free will? Or are you saying that libertarianism also excludes the notion of liability and tort?

[Charles Anthony]

Dear Flea,

Forgive me. I forgot the most obvious of your complainers: the owners of the cemetery and its security service. All of the other complainers are secondary but here it is for the record:

I am not sure if you misread the story or if am am missing something...it was Auntie Myrtle that beat Johnny Two-fingers to death and fraudulently aquired his business.

Indeed, I misread the script. I imagined Johnny was beating Myrtle -- my mistake. Just switch the names in my answer. Johnny should have seen it coming in the same way as I should expect a fatal collision after running in front of a fast-moving vehicle.

You will have to be more specific. Are you saying that the victim (Johnny Two-fingers and the driver with the new Charles Anthony hood ornament) in each case also holds liability because everyone in each case had free will?

No. I am saying the victims should have seen it coming. My caveat of free-will was to ensure that my freeway analogy was interpreted correctly. [i do not have patience for false-coersion counter-arguments.] Johnny does not deserve his fate whereas I deserve mine.

Or are you saying that libertarianism also excludes the notion of liability and tort?

We use those terms under state-imposed law. Anarchy (I prefer that term) deals with them as it would any other (criminal or civil) law. Individuals hire the security guards goons of their choice -- much like what rich people do today. The market clears because violence is mutually counter-productive.

Even if the market did not clear, I would still advocate its righteousness over coersion.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

forgot the most obvious of your complainers: the owners of the cemetery and its security service. All of the other complainers are secondary but here it is for the record:

I would think that whomever was heir to Johnny Two-fingers business assets would be the primary complainer. Were there no damage to the cemetery, and no witnesses, the cemetery has lost nothing. (The 'no witnesses' bit refers to potential loss of reputation).

The market clears because violence is mutually counter-productive.

Only when one fails to wield it effectively over another. It is tremendously productive if you win.

I would still advocate its righteousness over coersion.

I suppose my point is that there is no escape from coersion. State coersion has shown it can be the most brutal, no doubt, but it potentially can be less pervasively coersive than under anarchy. True, there would be no 'state coersion' per se, but that role would instantly be taken up by the individual, likely in spades.

[Charles Anthony]

Dear LoneFlea,

I would think that whomever was heir to Johnny Two-fingers business assets would be the primary complainer. Were there no damage to the cemetery, and no witnesses, the cemetery has lost nothing. (The 'no witnesses' bit refers to potential loss of reputation).

Congratulations! You are solving the problem. I am sure Hugo would be proud.

You prefer to look at things in terms of inevitable control instead of morals. Fine. Let us take it there for now and try to examine it in that perspective.

[Figleaf]

Let us take it there for now and try to examine it in that perspective.

Hey CA, what's with this habit of yours of flitting from thread to thread. Can't you just carry on a discussion where it happens? Jumping from a specific topic to a general one with hundreds of accumulated ancient-history posts makes it very difficult to follow the discussion.

[Charles Anthony]

Hey CA, what's with this habit of yours of flitting from thread to thread.

Discussed here:

Reviving old threads -- what is proper netiquette?

[Figleaf]

Hey CA, what's with this habit of yours of flitting from thread to thread.

Discussed here:

Reviving old threads -- what is proper netiquette?

Well, that was ... interesting. Personally, I think of the board as being about interactive discussion, not an archive of accumulated opinion. So, I'm with Betsy ... let the old threads die and deal with today.

By the way, what is with all of your anti-Bush threads?

Did you read them? You'll note that they each deal with different policies.