[ebaysucks]

Please consider public choice theory.

Government won't lower taxes on the middle class if they find a way to tax the rich. They'd just increase taxes on the rich and keep on taxing the middle class as before.

Tax levels are just a product of a) how much there is to take and b) how tax inelastic the subject is.

[stinkytaco]

Public choice theory assumes that Ikea will act in a way that benefits it as an organization (and its shareholders) and fuck the rest of you. Public choice theory essentially states that everyone is a self interested actor, the difference is that I have some control over those actors if they are elected officials, and none if they are a private company. Can I vote with my wallet? Sure, but be honest with me here, how much power does that actually give you? If a chemical company is dumping waste how do I stop doing business with everyone who does business with that company?

We can't, we don't have the information or the power. Instead we elect officials that do have the information and give them the power. This applies to all situations in which I simply don't have the perspective to make the decision, including taxes. Do I think the tax system is screwed up? Sure. Do I think that eliminating it will fix the problem? Nope, but hopefully I can elect people who will fix the problem.

I don't get how people want to put more power in the hands of private organizations instead of one they at least ostensibly control.

[ebaysucks]

Government is an industry with extremely high barriers to entry (want to start a country? Win a war first) and customer lock in (don't like this country? have to leave your entire life behind).

In other words, your argument is that a monopoly in a certain service, given the power to force customers into what it wants at the price it wants, will care more about you than a private entrepreneur just because they have to keep elections once every 4 years...

The reality is that elections are just forward actions of future loot, where politicians buy votes by promising goodies to certain people at the expense of others. Laws that benefit a special interest in a huge way but cost every tax payer a dollar or 2 always pass. Democracy is divide and conquer on steroids.

You also give an example of a negative externality. That's what courts are for. All the law principles that help solve externalities efficiently (habeus corpus, compensating the victim instead of the state) were the result of free competition in common law merchant courts. Again, if the government cares so much about you, why is the murderer of your family member now doing cheap labor in prison for the state rather than for you to compensate the loss?

You know, I wish life were as easy as just coming alltogether, wishing for a better life and giving a TED talk about it. It just isn't. You need to stop looking at intentions and start looking at incentives.

[stinkytaco]

There's so much wrong with this argument I can't even think where to start. Democracy is not perfect because it's made up of people, but a system that gives people control is the best system. The democratic government in the US gives, among other things, critical access to information and regulation of self interested actors. It's the checks and balances that are important. Elected and non-elected officials, civil servants and private actors. Even if I bought your argument that the government is just some self interested autonomous agent (which I do not), we still have control, and most important information about it. That information gives us power.

A private entity does not answer to the public, not truly if there is no information. If they act in way that is unethical or undesirable, they simply hide it from the public. With no reliable information flow (forget for a moment the Internet would not exist in your governmentless world), there is no way of controlling these entities. It sounds peculiarly like feudalism.

No. The system is not perfect, but it is a system we control. It's a system that enables information exchange, money, regulation and the equitable standard of living that has ever existed in the history of the world. Not too bad.

[anamax]

> Nope, but hopefully I can elect people who will fix the problem.

How is that working out for you? Or rather, when has it worked?

[stinkytaco]

Considering the state of the US versus most of the world, my standard of living and my freedom to make these comments, pretty fucking good.