KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (09/03/86)
From: ~joe testa~ <TESTA-J%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
I think that the success of the restoration of the Statue [of
Liberty] was mainly due to the hoopla and media attention given to
the project.
Isn't more media attention given to the courts and to national
defense?
It was made to be *exciting*, an *event* that one "had" to
participate in.
Aren't the courts and defense and police work more exciting? Look
at how many TV shows and books are courtroom dramas, murder mysteries,
war stories, police shows, etc. Count the column inches given to
these subjects in your newspaper. And check on how many people
volunteered to fight in WWII or even in the relatively unpopular
Vietnam war.
Compared to these, the attention given to the Statue of Liberty, and
to other major recipients of voluntary donations such as United Way,
Live Aid, etc, is miniscule.
If a court has to rely on voluntary contributions, then might it
not feel compelled to make popular but unjust decisions?
Well, the "donations" are in a sense voluntary now. You think the
courts are NOT swayed by politics? You think their opinions do NOT
pretty closely match those of the general population?
Clearly, in order to get a libertarian system started, most of the
population must be in favor of it, anyway. For the courts to be
biased in a libertarian direction - if that even makes any sense - is
not a bad thing. In fact, whether you realize it or not, it is the
lack of just such a "bias" that you complain of the possibility of.
Isn't such a lack already far more prevelant in today's courts?
I suppose that is my basic problem with libertarianism -- i don't
share your confidence that people will volunteer funds to support
vital government functions.
Well, if a "vital government function" attracts few donations, then
perhaps people don't find it all that vital after all.
And convincing people to contribute drains resources. A similar
situation exists with the health-care industry today. In Ohio, we
are flooded with commercials on TV showing us pictures of
helicopters flying around particular hospitals. This is a waste
of money; it doesn't cure a single disease; if they spent their
time and money on health care, perhaps the cost wouldn't be so
high.
Well, this is the classic dilemma of advertising. Doesn't
advertising a product increase its cost? After all, the consumers
are then paying the cost of the advertising as well as the cost of
manufacture, distribution, and packaging.
The answer is no, not really. To the extent that advertising
increases purchases (or donations) it causes the unit cost to go
DOWN.
The same would go for a judicial system, only much worse. I want
judges to be honest arbiters, not concerned with slick advertising
techniques and public opinion polls.
Of course. A lot more people will be willing to donate to pay for
honest arbiters than for "slick" media types.
Please note that the crime rate would be FAR less under a
libertarian system, for reasons I gave in a previous message. So the
justice system would cost FAR less than it does now, even if it became
no more efficient, which it would. And the justice system consumes
only a small percent of tax revenues. Since everyone would become
wealthier by AT LEAST the amount of their taxes if those taxes were
repealed, they would be able to donate even more than the present day
costs of courts and national defense and still come out WAY ahead of
the game.
> Opponents of libertarian philosophy often bring up stories in
>which the population does not consist of rational adults, but of
>children, feebleminded people, criminals, insane people, or
>people in a sinking lifeboat. Do we really want a system which
>treats everyone as if they were like that? Is that the most
>realistic view of the people of this country?
No, but SOME people ARE like that! Would the libertarian system
ensure their protection?
The libertarian system does not ensure anyone's PROTECTION. It
is not like a monolithic government. What it ensures is everyone's
RIGHTS. There is no way to ENSURE both.
Individuals who are concerned about such people will be free to
donate to the appropriate cause. More free to do so than they are
now, in fact, since now MOST of their DISCRETIONARY income is taken
away as taxes and cannot be donated to ANYTHING.
The top tax rate next year may be "only" 28% if the tax bill passes,
but please note that:
1) This is the federal income tax only. There are two other income
taxes where I live (state income tax and social security tax) and
for lower income people these together often exceed the federal
income tax. In some areas there is a third or even a fourth income
tax.
2) The 28% is the top ABSOLUTE rate. The top MARGINAL rate is
greater.
3) You also pay sales tax, property tax, inheritance tax, phone tax,
electric power tax, and various excise taxes on numerous products.
3) Your employer has to pay an "employer contribution" of 7.35% of
your before-tax salary to social security. This is in ADDITION to
the social security deduction you see on your paycheck. He also
pays for mandatory unemployment insurance.
4) Your employer has to pay corporate income taxes, property taxes,
taxes on phone service and electric service, taxes and licensing
fees on company vehicles, etc, etc. These are passed on to
employees, stockholders, and customers: THERE ISN'T ANYONE ELSE.
5) Your landlord has to pay income tax and property tax. These are
mostly passed on to you.
6) The stores where you shop have to pay corporate income tax,
property tax, taxes on phone and electric service, taxes and
licensing fees on company vehicles, etc, etc. These are largely
passed on to you.
7) Most people have fixed expenses they have to pay out of their
paycheck. These may include rent or mortgage payments, groceries,
car payments, tuition loan repayments, phone service, gas service,
water, transportation, and electric power. The remaining income is
called discretionary income. All discretionary purchases, all
donations, and all savings, come from this remainder. So do taxes!
Calculated on discretionary income, tax rates are typically on the
order of 80 to 90 percent or more! THIS shows how much wealthier
people would be if taxes went away. Is it all that incredible that
people would be willing to make voluntary donations out of this
windfall?
...Keith
-------