2004 Presidential Campaign /Other Libertarian News

Discussion
1

Hi Carol,

On his website, Russo states he supports a National Sales Tax.

Isn't it a little early in the election season for him to start
moving toward the center? (-;

Best, Michael

<ba-liberty@yahoogroups.com>
News

** Hopefully, SF people will find this of relevance!! Feel free to
distribute this message to local groups, friends, etc.**
++++++
LP PREZ NOMINATION SHAKING OUT TO RUSSO V. NOLAN
     The good news for all you libertarians for peace
(http://www.libertarians4peace.net) is that all our leading

Presidential

Candidates -- MICHAEL BADNARIK http://badnarik.com -- GARY NOLAN
http://www.garynolan.com -- AARON RUSSO

http://russoforpresident.com --

are promoting hard core non-interventionist platforms.
     As it becomes clear that Russo and Nolan have the most

supporters,

the campaign is coming down to two big issues: 1) will it hurt the

party

if Russo actively promotes "enforcing immigrations laws," including

in

national television commercials ("until welfare is eliminated," as

he

tells libertarians in person, or "to keep out terrorists," as he

tells

everyone else on his web site) and 2) fundraising questions: can

Russo

raise all the money he claims he can, putting 50% into national
television advertising and $250,000 into ballot access -- and does

Nolan

refuse to commit to putting 50% of his contributions into national
television advertising because his staff wants to loot the till to

pay

fat salaries or because it's just sensible budgeting, given the
difficulty of third party fundraising during an ongoing recession.

(If

you want to check either candidate's fundraising or spending, just

go to

search section of Welcome to the US Petabox-Hotels in Lido di Jesolo buchen and type in

their

name to get those evil mandatory government reports.)
     Bottom line: Nolan is seen as the safe and dependable, if not
earthshakingly charismatic candidate. Russo is more exciting, may

get a

lot more media, but is more unpredictable and potentially

embarrassing.

Time will tell if the candidates improve their presentations enough

to

satisfy any detractors. Meanwhile see my detailed comments, as

wells as

notes on one Russo event at
http://carolmoore.net/libertarianparty/russo-v-nolan.html Buy Nolan
official campaign buttons at http://topicalbuttons.com. (I'll sell

the

other candidate's buttons when available, if cost effective,

providing

they do not promote issues against our principles.)
     Register for convention now http://www.lpconvention.org/

LP PLATFORM REFORMATTING PROJECT That's what the 2004 Convention

called

for and that's what's happening right now. For full details of

what's

happening and how to stay in the loop go to
http://www.carolmoore.net/libertarianparty/2004platform.html

I-LOVE-LIBERTARIANS SALE EXTENDED TO TAX DAY Yes, this sale will

last

until April 15th. Get in there fast and get those $1.00 and $1.25

(5

button minimum) libertarian and peace buttons, before they sell out.
http://www.radicalbuttons.com/ilovelibertarians.html

SPEAKING OF TAX DAY - if you hate war and government violence, and

work

off the books, job to job, etc. and want to know what to tell the

IRS if

they show up at your door, check out the national war tax resisters

page

http://www.nwtrcc.org

PRO-CHOICE LIBERTARIANS STICKERS, BUTTONS, POSTERS
Probably my most popular libertarian button in sheer number of sales

is

PRO-CHOICE ON EVERYTHING vote Libertarian. At the 2002 Convention

the

Women's Rights plank containing the party's position opposing state
prohibition of abortion came with in perhaps a dozen votes of being
struck from the platform. This year pro-choicers want to distribute
stickers, buttons and posters reminding us all that the LP Is

Pro-Choice

on Everything. See some examples at the bottom of
http://www.pro-choicelibertarians.net and contribute money or buy
buttons for the effort. Sign up for our low volume list
Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos

* IS WORLD NUCLEAR WAR INEVITABLE? Another pressing question for

the

age. Check out the text, various scenarios leading to world nuclear
war, grizzly photos from nuke war movies, survival tips.
Page not found - CarolMoore.Net See the nuclear war targets in

YOUR

state: KI4U Nuke Prep Expertise & Solutions! Potassium Iodide pills, RADSticker, NukAlert, MRE's & KI iodine anti-radiation pill tablets For daily

updates

on our progress towards Armageddon visit http://www.antiwar.com

* Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos now has

over

100 members and low volume email offerings of jobs, tips,
entrepreneurial ideas and offerings. Check it out.

* SECESSION is still the Libertarian Strategy that Cuts the Gordian

Knot

- IMHO. So check out Page not found - CarolMoore.Net for

details;

and see http://secession.net; and see Jason Sorens of the Free State
Project's Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos

* Check out my Libertyforall.net article, if you haven't yet, "IS
APPLYING LIBERTARIAN PRINCIPLES TO ISRAEL ANTI-SEMITIC?"
http://carolmoore.net/libertarianparty/principlesandisrael.html

* WANT 3-5 emails a month announcing my new web pages, articles,

media

appearances, etc., most of which I don't announce as widely as

these?

2

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Michael R. Edelstein"
<dredelstein@t...> wrote:

Hi Carol,

On his website, Russo states he supports a National Sales Tax.

Isn't it a little early in the election season for him to start
moving toward the center? (-;

Best, Michael

** I went to his site for first time in 4-5 days and he seems to have
taken do ALL mention of his positions, except against the draft! He
doesn't have the list of various positions, including enforcing
immigration laws. He does have an "educate yourself" section that
lists various articles. Where did you see sales tax??
CM

From: "Carol Moore in DC" <news@c...>
To: "LPSF-Discuss" <lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com>; "Ba-liberty"
<ba-liberty@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 3:55 PM
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] 2004 Presidential Campaign /Other

Libertarian

3

Update on below...when I went back to the page later it was back to
it's normal text. Also, I found that Russo does endorse a national
sales tax in his "quotes section" which was on front page in past
(found it in cache). "It is time to end the income tax, and install a
small national sales tax to provide for a smaller government."

But I don't know if Russo still shows those quotes on the page.
Perhaps many remember the big brouhaha when Harry Browne said he was
for it in 1996? Maybe no one cares any more how many principles and
freedoms our candidates trample on.

CM
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "carolsotheraddress" <news@c...>
wrote:

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Michael R. Edelstein"
<dredelstein@t...> wrote:
> Hi Carol,
>
> On his website, Russo states he supports a National Sales Tax.
>
> Isn't it a little early in the election season for him to start
> moving toward the center? (-;
>
> Best, Michael

** I went to his site for first time in 4-5 days and he seems to

have

taken do ALL mention of his positions, except against the draft!

He

4

I don't see the problem here. AFAICS, taxes are not incompatible with a minimal government. Or does being a Libertarian require one to be an Anarchist? If so, perhaps the party should change it's name.

-- Steve

5

Steve,

  You don't have to be an anarchist to believe, as I do, that non-aggression should be the rule for government and that taxation should be voluntary. Which necessary government activities do you believe that people would not fund voluntarily if the state stopped taking the money from them by force?

Yours in liberty,
            <<< Starchild >>>

6

  You don't have to be an anarchist to believe, as I do, that
non-aggression should be the rule for government and that taxation
should be voluntary.

Ok, but the question is not what an anarchist must believe, but what a "libertarian" must believe. Mike suggests that anyone who supports any form of taxes is not a libertarian. The case in point is Russo with a national sales tax - which, it was mentioned, Harry Brown also supported. Does this make both of them non-libertarians?

Which necessary government activities do you
believe that people would not fund voluntarily if the state stopped
taking the money from them by force?

As someone who created donation based software and (on the same item) moved to requiring payment for use, I can tell you that people do not pay for things unless they, individually, have to in order to use them.

-- Steve

7

Steve,

  If Michael Edelstein says anyone who supports any form of taxes is not a libertarian, I disagree. I still considered Harry Browne a libertarian when he supported a sales tax. While believing in coercive taxation is not very libertarian, a person could hold such a view and still have a lot of other beliefs that *are* very libertarian, making him more libertarian on the whole than anything else. When a person seems closer to libertarianism than to any other significant political philosophy, it's reasonable to call him a libertarian, imho. But I also believe it's legitimate to say, for example, that Michael Edelstein is *more* libertarian than Aaron Russo, just as one could say that FDR was *more* statist than JFK.

  It sounds like you're suggesting that you never got any donations for your software. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say you did receive some donations, just not enough to want to continue offering your product on such a basis? In your case, I presume that there was no effective mechanism to exert social pressure on people who used your software without paying for it. In the case of a voluntarily funded government, there could and probably would be. Also, I think most people would be much more concerned with keeping such a government in business and able to provide services than with doing the same for a computer programmer in your position. Most people see government as so important that they support taking money from people by force in order to fund it. Do you know anyone who feels this way about your software, or any software for that matter?

  Comparing donations to a limited government with donations in the software business would seem to be a case of apples and oranges. I believe that a limited government would be much more successful at attracting donations than you were -- at least as long as it exercised its responsibilities halfway competently -- but still not get as many donations as its officials would prefer. Doesn't that sound like a pretty good balance? Officials could even be required to make up budget shortfalls out of their own salaries when donations fall short. That would tend to keep budgets in check and put some real "service" into the concept of "public service." That left-wing bumper sticker about how it will be a great day when the schools have all the money they want and the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to raise money for buying a bomber is half right, after all...

  I remember Michael once telling me that the most libertarian solution may not always be the best solution. I think we generally agree there's a good amount of overlap between the set of libertarian solutions and the set of best solutions. But what's best is endlessly disputed, while there's a certain amount of agreement on what's libertarian. So it kind of makes sense for the Libertarian Party to avoid some of the quagmire of the debate over what's best by simply advocating libertarian solutions.

Yours in liberty,
            <<< Starchild >>>

8

It sounds like you're suggesting that you never got any donations for
your software. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say you did receive some
donations, just not enough to want to continue offering your product on
such a basis?

Yes, I would never be able to support myself (and therefore continue developing) my software from donations. Yet people *do* find it valuable since I can now support myself comfortably after moving to a must-pay-in-order-to-use model.

Here is my theory of payment - people only pay for things that they have to pay for, in order to use. You might cite charity as a counter example. But if you take the cynical point of view (that I do) that what people are paying for with charity is not feeding the poor (etc), but the self satisfaction associated with it, then it's clear that they can only get the use of that self satisfaction by paying.

This works well if you're asking for money to feed hungry children. But I don't believe people get so much satisfaction from knowing that they helped pay for more mundane services. For example, knowing that a musical artists is compensated isn't very satisfying, as is demonstrated by the popularity of online music "sharing".

If you really believe such system would work, then it sounds you might have a lot in common with the neo-communists advocating so-called "gift" societies. If donations work for government, why shouldn't they work for everything?

In your case, I presume that there was no effective
mechanism to exert social pressure on people who used your software
without paying for it. In the case of a voluntarily funded government,
there could and probably would be.

How's that? If you made the records of voluntary taxes public? How would that apply pressure unless income was forced/coerced to be of public record also?

Also, I think most people would be
much more concerned with keeping such a government in business and able
to provide services than with doing the same for a computer programmer
in your position. Most people see government as so important that they
support taking money from people by force in order to fund it. Do you
know anyone who feels this way about your software, or any software for
that matter?

Yup. AFAIK, Richard Stallman, the head of the GNU foundation (the GNU license is what most open source software is licensed under, including Linux), is a communist/socialist and, of course, prefers this model when it comes to software. He is quite influential an his sentiments are not unique.

I remember Michael once telling me that the most libertarian solution
may not always be the best solution. I think we generally agree there's
a good amount of overlap between the set of libertarian solutions and
the set of best solutions. But what's best is endlessly disputed, while
there's a certain amount of agreement on what's libertarian. So it kind
of makes sense for the Libertarian Party to avoid some of the quagmire
of the debate over what's best by simply advocating libertarian
solutions.

As a "moral" libertarians, I'd like to know how you or Michael defines "best" in a way that it is not the most libertarian. If "best" is the most moral, and your libertarianism is based on your moral ideals, then how can the most libertarian not be the most moral and therefore the "best"?

Cheers,
-- Steve

9

It sounds like you're suggesting that you never got any donations for
your software. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say you did receive some
donations, just not enough to want to continue offering your product on
such a basis?

Yes, I would never be able to support myself (and therefore continue
developing) my software from donations. Yet people *do* find it
valuable since I can now support myself comfortably after moving to a
must-pay-in-order-to-use model.

  So some people did pay even when it was voluntary, just not enough people to make you feel it was worth your while to provide the product on that basis?

Here is my theory of payment - people only pay for things that they
have to pay for, in order to use. You might cite charity as a counter
example. But if you take the cynical point of view (that I do) that
what people are paying for with charity is not feeding the poor (etc),
but the self satisfaction associated with it, then it's clear that they
can only get the use of that self satisfaction by paying.

This works well if you're asking for money to feed hungry children. But
I don't believe people get so much satisfaction from knowing that they
helped pay for more mundane services. For example, knowing that a
musical artists is compensated isn't very satisfying, as is
demonstrated by the popularity of online music "sharing".

  Another way of putting this is that people pay when they feel they ought to pay. If you feel you ought to pay and don't pay, you're likely to feel badly. But if you don't feel you ought to pay, then you can not pay and still feel okay. So paying only increases satisfaction when one feels one ought to pay. If paying increased satisfaction when did NOT feel one ought to pay, the world would be a rather different place.

If you really believe such system would work, then it sounds you might
have a lot in common with the neo-communists advocating so-called
"gift" societies. If donations work for government, why shouldn't they
work for everything?

  I don't think it would work for everything, but I am fascinated by the notion of a gift society. This is part of the appeal of Burning Man.

In your case, I presume that there was no effective
mechanism to exert social pressure on people who used your software
without paying for it. In the case of a voluntarily funded government,
there could and probably would be.

How's that? If you made the records of voluntary taxes public? How
would that apply pressure unless income was forced/coerced to be of
public record also?

  I am assuming that voluntary contributions to a limited government would be public. In such a system there would likely be strong peer pressure for people to "pay their fair share." It wouldn't be necessary to know the exact amount of everyone's income for such pressure to work. Usually people in a community have some idea of how well off other people in the community are, just by observing their lifestyles. Of course you wouldn't entirely get rid of free riders, and I haven't suggested that it would be possible or even necessarily desirable to do so.

Also, I think most people would be
much more concerned with keeping such a government in business and able
to provide services than with doing the same for a computer programmer
in your position. Most people see government as so important that they
support taking money from people by force in order to fund it. Do you
know anyone who feels this way about your software, or any software for
that matter?

Yup. AFAIK, Richard Stallman, the head of the GNU foundation (the GNU
license is what most open source software is licensed under, including
Linux), is a communist/socialist and, of course, prefers this model
when it comes to software. He is quite influential an his sentiments
are not unique.

  Does Richard Stallman think government should take money from people by force to fund software development, whether or not those people want to use the software being funded? That's what we're talking about with government taxes. Even if this is the case, I think only a tiny percentage of the public would agree with him, whereas a substantial majority of the public currently supports funding government via coercive taxation. That's why I think voluntary funding of government would work, where such an approach would not necessarily work as a means of funding software development or other goods or services.

I remember Michael once telling me that the most libertarian solution
may not always be the best solution. I think we generally agree there's
a good amount of overlap between the set of libertarian solutions and
the set of best solutions. But what's best is endlessly disputed, while
there's a certain amount of agreement on what's libertarian. So it kind
of makes sense for the Libertarian Party to avoid some of the quagmire
of the debate over what's best by simply advocating libertarian
solutions.

As a "moral" libertarians, I'd like to know how you or Michael defines
"best" in a way that it is not the most libertarian. If "best" is the
most moral, and your libertarianism is based on your moral ideals, then
how can the most libertarian not be the most moral and therefore the
"best"?

Cheers,
-- Steve

  As I recall, Michael and I discussed a scenario similar to this: Someone falls off a 10th floor balcony. As he passes the 9th floor, he manages to arrest his fall by catching hold of a protruding flagpole. However the owner of the flagpole is a rather callous individual who greatly resents intrusion. "Get your hands off my flagpole!" he demands. Obviously if the person lets go, he would likely fall to his death. But under libertarian property rights theory, the flagpole owner has a perfect right to make the demand and to see it legally enforced. The best solution in this case, assuming the person who fell wants to continue living, would be for him to refuse the demand, and perhaps even to further trespass onto the flagpole owner's property in order to escape his life-threatening predicament. So the best solution is not always the most libertarian solution.

Yours in liberty,
            <<< Starchild >>>

10

  So some people did pay even when it was voluntary, just not enough
people to make you feel it was worth your while to provide the product
on that basis?

It had nothing to do with feelings. It had to do with the price of food and housing. I can't live on $100/year but I can live well enough on 1000x as much that I can continue working on my software instead of having to find a job (writing non-donation software!). And that is about the difference in my income levels from the donation to paid software transition.

Somehow, there were about 10K/year people that were not willing to donate $10 for something which they were willing to pay $10 to use. Any theory of donation-based services has to explain this discrepancy and provide a workable solution to it.

Another way of putting this is that people pay when they feel they
ought to pay. If you feel you ought to pay and don't pay, you're likely
to feel badly.
But if you don't feel you ought to pay, then you can not
pay and still feel okay. So paying only increases satisfaction when one
feels one ought to pay. If paying increased satisfaction when did NOT
feel one ought to pay, the world would be a rather different place.

If you add that people generally do not feel particularly inclined to pay for things without significant emotional gain attached to them, then I would agree. My point is that there is no significant emotional gain in donations for mundane things such as national defense or a court system. Are these things good to have? Of course. Are they things that people will take every opportunity to avoid paying for themselves? Absolutely.

I am assuming that voluntary contributions to a limited government
would be public. In such a system there would likely be strong peer
pressure for people to "pay their fair share."

In my experience, I can find no good support for that prediction. Everyone I have ever known shows a strong interest to pay the least and get the most. In a very fundamental way, markets are based on this. Most people *brag* about how clever they are at avoiding taxes. You might say that this is only because the government has a bad rep or is coercing people to pay. But this is equally true of products and services in markets. People brag about getting stuff for free or at such a discount that the seller loses money - even if they like the seller. Apple fanatics love to take advantage of sell-at-a-loss deals on Macs.

... a substantial
majority of the public currently supports funding government via
coercive taxation. That's why I think voluntary funding of government
would work, where such an approach would not necessarily work as a
means of funding software development or other goods or services.

You are assuming what you are being asked to demonstrate. You're saying that people would donate because they support taxes. I think the reason people support taxes is because they know that not enough people would donate.

  As I recall, Michael and I discussed a scenario similar to this:
Someone falls off a 10th floor balcony. As he passes the 9th floor, he
manages to arrest his fall by catching hold of a protruding flagpole.
However the owner of the flagpole is a rather callous individual who
greatly resents intrusion. "Get your hands off my flagpole!" he
demands. Obviously if the person lets go, he would likely fall to his
death. But under libertarian property rights theory, the flagpole owner
has a perfect right to make the demand and to see it legally enforced.
The best solution in this case, assuming the person who fell wants to
continue living, would be for him to refuse the demand, and perhaps
even to further trespass onto the flagpole owner's property in order to
escape his life-threatening predicament. So the best solution is not
always the most libertarian solution.

Ah, but what makes that solution better?

Are you suggesting that the net happiness of the individuals has something to do with the "goodness" evaluation of the options?

-- Steve

11

Dear Steve;

The article is from the NY Times and addresses voluntary
contributions of tax dollars.

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

You Are What You Tax

April 14, 2004
By CHARLES MURRAY

Take a break as you fill out your 1040 form, and play this
game: suppose you could choose which government entities
your tax dollars support - and in what proportion. Since
it's a thought experiment, let's assume that local and
state government functions are part of the list. What
percentages will you assign to which departments, agencies
and programs?

Some people will split their taxes between the local police
and national defense and leave it at that. Some will assign
it all to the Environmental Protection Agency. Taxpayers
from red states will choose differently from taxpayers from
blue states. But polling data tells us enough about the
government services people value to permit reasonably
confident predictions about the national results.

Police, fire, water and sewage, courts and prisons and
national defense will get far more money than they would
ever have the nerve to request. The allocations for
national parks, environmental protection, air-traffic
control and highways will probably be many times their
current budgets. But my first point (match my prediction
against your own choices) is that almost all the choices
will be for tangible services. Most of them will be for
services that fall under the classic understanding of a
"public good" - something that individuals cannot easily
provide on their own and that is shared by all (police
protection, clean air).

My second point is that allowing taxpayers to name where
their tax dollars go would put large segments of local,
state and federal government out of business. To see what I
mean, go to the Web and bring up the organizational chart
of any government department. Some of the boxes will catch
your eye as something you might like to support (mine
safety, the national archives) but there will be plenty of
other boxes about working groups, directorates for planning
or administration or diversity, offices of compliance
exemption or regulatory development, all of which sound
like a ton of bureaucracy for an ounce of output. Might you
use your tax dollars to support a mine inspector or an
archive curator? Quite possibly. Will you line up to
support any of the boxes that sound like gobbledygook?
Unlikely. Much of the apparatus of government does nothing
that ordinary people, making sensible judgments, would
willingly pay government to do.

Now what if taxpayers skip over the boxes that appear to be
useless because they do not understand their necessity?
Let's expand the thought experiment. Say that those ignored
boxes can advertise - but that the advertisements must meet
the same standards of truthfulness as the advertisements
for, say, antacids.

What a delicious prospect: a government office having to
explain itself in order to persuade taxpayers to support
its existence. The elements within the government that can
make a persuasive case will do fine. Americans are not
stingy or shortsighted. We will still have plenty of mine
inspectors and curators. But who will voluntarily pay for
the layers of bureaucratic barnacles that make up so much
of the organization charts? Who will pay for the billions
in subsidies that are doled out to agricultural, corporate
and nonprofit special interests? Who will pay for the
enormous pork-barrel projects?

The cliché that 9/11 taught Americans to appreciate the
importance of government contains a nugget of truth. It
made us remember how crucial the core public services
really are. Perhaps this recognition will inform our future
choices - prompting us to support the government we need,
and helping us finally put an end to the government that
serves no purpose but its own.

Charles Murray, a scholar at the American Enterprise
Institute, is the author, most recently, of "Human
Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and
Sciences."

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Steve Dekorte <steve@d...>
wrote:

> So some people did pay even when it was voluntary, just not

enough

> people to make you feel it was worth your while to provide the

product

> on that basis?

It had nothing to do with feelings. It had to do with the price of

food

and housing. I can't live on $100/year but I can live well enough

on

1000x as much that I can continue working on my software instead

of

having to find a job (writing non-donation software!). And that is
about the difference in my income levels from the donation to paid
software transition.

Somehow, there were about 10K/year people that were not willing to
donate $10 for something which they were willing to pay $10 to

use. Any

theory of donation-based services has to explain this discrepancy

and

provide a workable solution to it.

> Another way of putting this is that people pay when they feel

they

> ought to pay. If you feel you ought to pay and don't pay, you're

likely

> to feel badly.
> But if you don't feel you ought to pay, then you can not
> pay and still feel okay. So paying only increases satisfaction

when one

> feels one ought to pay. If paying increased satisfaction when

did NOT

> feel one ought to pay, the world would be a rather different

place.

If you add that people generally do not feel particularly inclined

to

pay for things without significant emotional gain attached to

them,

then I would agree. My point is that there is no significant

emotional

gain in donations for mundane things such as national defense or a
court system. Are these things good to have? Of course. Are they

things

that people will take every opportunity to avoid paying for

themselves?

Absolutely.

> I am assuming that voluntary contributions to a limited

government

> would be public. In such a system there would likely be strong

peer

> pressure for people to "pay their fair share."

In my experience, I can find no good support for that prediction.
Everyone I have ever known shows a strong interest to pay the

least and

get the most. In a very fundamental way, markets are based on

this.

Most people *brag* about how clever they are at avoiding taxes.

You

might say that this is only because the government has a bad rep

or is

coercing people to pay. But this is equally true of products and
services in markets. People brag about getting stuff for free or

at

such a discount that the seller loses money - even if they like

the

seller. Apple fanatics love to take advantage of sell-at-a-loss

deals

on Macs.

> ... a substantial
> majority of the public currently supports funding government via
> coercive taxation. That's why I think voluntary funding of

government

> would work, where such an approach would not necessarily work as

a

> means of funding software development or other goods or services.

You are assuming what you are being asked to demonstrate. You're

saying

that people would donate because they support taxes. I think the

reason

people support taxes is because they know that not enough people

would

donate.

> As I recall, Michael and I discussed a scenario similar to

this:

> Someone falls off a 10th floor balcony. As he passes the 9th

floor, he

> manages to arrest his fall by catching hold of a protruding

flagpole.

> However the owner of the flagpole is a rather callous individual

who

> greatly resents intrusion. "Get your hands off my flagpole!" he
> demands. Obviously if the person lets go, he would likely fall

to his

> death. But under libertarian property rights theory, the

flagpole owner

> has a perfect right to make the demand and to see it legally

enforced.

> The best solution in this case, assuming the person who fell

wants to

> continue living, would be for him to refuse the demand, and

perhaps

> even to further trespass onto the flagpole owner's property in

order to

> escape his life-threatening predicament. So the best solution is

not

12

  So some people did pay even when it was voluntary, just not enough
people to make you feel it was worth your while to provide the product
on that basis?

It had nothing to do with feelings. It had to do with the price of food
and housing. I can't live on $100/year but I can live well enough on
1000x as much that I can continue working on my software instead of
having to find a job (writing non-donation software!). And that is
about the difference in my income levels from the donation to paid
software transition.

Somehow, there were about 10K/year people that were not willing to
donate $10 for something which they were willing to pay $10 to use. Any
theory of donation-based services has to explain this discrepancy and
provide a workable solution to it.

  Feel free (or "think free," if you prefer) to substitute the word "calculate" for "feel" in my question above. Anyway, if you're making $100,000 a year, I hope that means I'll be getting a generous campaign contribution! 8)

Another way of putting this is that people pay when they feel they
ought to pay. If you feel you ought to pay and don't pay, you're likely
to feel badly.
But if you don't feel you ought to pay, then you can not
pay and still feel okay. So paying only increases satisfaction when one
feels one ought to pay. If paying increased satisfaction when did NOT
feel one ought to pay, the world would be a rather different place.

If you add that people generally do not feel particularly inclined to
pay for things without significant emotional gain attached to them,
then I would agree. My point is that there is no significant emotional
gain in donations for mundane things such as national defense or a
court system. Are these things good to have? Of course. Are they things
that people will take every opportunity to avoid paying for themselves?
Absolutely.

  I disagree, but I can see there's no point arguing about it with you. Say you were right. Who wouldn't like to have an autographed photo of the president, or a nice certificate thanking them for contributing to the national defense? No reason a voluntarily-funded government couldn't offer such things to contributors. Government already does sell naming rights to stadiums and that sort of thing.

I am assuming that voluntary contributions to a limited government
would be public. In such a system there would likely be strong peer
pressure for people to "pay their fair share."

In my experience, I can find no good support for that prediction.
Everyone I have ever known shows a strong interest to pay the least and
get the most. In a very fundamental way, markets are based on this.
Most people *brag* about how clever they are at avoiding taxes. You
might say that this is only because the government has a bad rep or is
coercing people to pay. But this is equally true of products and
services in markets. People brag about getting stuff for free or at
such a discount that the seller loses money - even if they like the
seller. Apple fanatics love to take advantage of sell-at-a-loss deals
on Macs.

  At Burning Man, people brag about the cool things they provide to others at no charge. Rave promoters often talk up the free parties they throw.

... a substantial
majority of the public currently supports funding government via
coercive taxation. That's why I think voluntary funding of government
would work, where such an approach would not necessarily work as a
means of funding software development or other goods or services.

You are assuming what you are being asked to demonstrate. You're saying
that people would donate because they support taxes. I think the reason
people support taxes is because they know that not enough people would
donate.

  Correction; they *think* not enough people would donate. However this perception is contradicted by the fact that people often say that they themselves would donate, it's all those evil or irresponsible others out there who would not.

  As I recall, Michael and I discussed a scenario similar to this:
Someone falls off a 10th floor balcony. As he passes the 9th floor, he
manages to arrest his fall by catching hold of a protruding flagpole.
However the owner of the flagpole is a rather callous individual who
greatly resents intrusion. "Get your hands off my flagpole!" he
demands. Obviously if the person lets go, he would likely fall to his
death. But under libertarian property rights theory, the flagpole owner
has a perfect right to make the demand and to see it legally enforced.
The best solution in this case, assuming the person who fell wants to
continue living, would be for him to refuse the demand, and perhaps
even to further trespass onto the flagpole owner's property in order to
escape his life-threatening predicament. So the best solution is not
always the most libertarian solution.

Ah, but what makes that solution better?

  Common sense.

Are you suggesting that the net happiness of the individuals has
something to do with the "goodness" evaluation of the options?

  I don't know.

Yours in liberty,
          <<< Starchild >>>

13

Yes, but what common sense rule is being applied?

The rule that happiness is the basis of morality would be consistent with your judgment. But this would make you a utilitarian, which you reject.

-- Steve

14

Steve,

  OK... the common sense rule that places a fairly high value on avoiding unnecessary or undesired death. I don't really care *why* the guy in the example wants to live; it's enough for me that he does.

Yours in liberty,
            <<< Starchild >>>

15

So you're (basically) seeking to optimize his happiness?

-- Steve

16

According to you, I'm trying to maximize my own happiness. 8)

          <<< Starchild >>>

17

I'm not sure I'll have any to spare after I make all my donations to government services that I see as underfunded. :wink:

-- Steve

18

So in your opinion, would the most "libertarian" people be anarchists? If so, would it not be more appropriate call the Libertarian Party the Anarchist Party so people know what they are signing up for?

-- Steve