A Serries of Statist Clarifications

[LovePrevails]

Here are some popular objections to Stef's arguments that are sometimes overlooked onm the show. It might take an hour but I think responses would make a great show and listeners could pass the arguments on to their socialist friend who may make these objections.

We might have some fun with it on the thread as well.

1) Persons on the left hold that the society we have created is unjust because it is not designed to meet people’s needs but demand, that is, the demand of those who can afford to pay for it, in other words the world’s poorest people will never get what they need, even though it can be provided to them, because they are incapable of creating the demand that can incentivise it.

To exemplify, the village TotesStarvingHereStef in Africa want a well with clean water more than Mr. Maxamillion Buxdude wants another Ferrari – they cost the same since the dollar goes far in TotesStarving – but the cash goes on the Ferrari because the African village is subsistent, they can’t create the demand for what they need.

Most people would be quite happy to use the hand of the state of Maxamillion to pay for this well. Do you think this would be achieved in Agoristopia by social pressure on Maxamillion rather than taxation?

2) You often say “Would you help the poor? So would I too, so it would get done.” But this seems like a straw man because it completely misses the point of the argument for taxation which is a) everyone should pay their share otherwise it is unfair - that's why it is mandatory, and 2) rich people should pay more than poor people. You and I don’t have the same disposable income as Maxamillion Buxdude, so if lots of us are paying but he and his buddies Ivor Welltheo, Aristo Crat, and Topiv Tehchain aren’t it would be so useful. I don’t think this argument should be made without addressing these two objections because it is so transparent that these are the responses that will be received.

2b) Quote from a progressive: “I don't support tax on income, I support a progressive tax on land and wealth. In this country (UK) 6000 people own 69% of the land and they don't have to contribute anything to society at all. Creating Wealth? I’d be surprised if these elites have hardly lifted a finger in their life.” This policy would create a buyers’ market for land as elites tried to shift it to reduce their tax burden, people who wanted to could get their own land and become self-sufficient, and start communities along like-minds. Since people who had “just enough” land would pay little or nothing in tax, the tax burden would fall on those hoarding.

2b) You talk about allowing individuals to make choices, but those choices are limited to circumstances of birth, for example my parents could afford the choice to get me health insurance whereas my friend argues his could not.

3) From a leftish perspective the market is not good at apportioning wealth rationally. For example, your show has stopped thousands of people from hitting their children and helped lots of people improve their ability to reason, argue, and favour evidence over bias. Still it gets significantly less funding than the latest mind rot on the shitbox. In Socilaist Utopia Land, leaders could look assess what is working and put resources into it, and could do so very effectively because they would have A LOT of resources to allocate. Naturally the system in place is corrupt, but this isn’t the system socialists support, they want a life-enriching version. Wouldn’t you rather Delilah Diamonds forgot the Gucci bag that costs $6000 and got one for 500 bucks instead so that good causes like FDR could expand their projects. It would so transparently be better for society that 6000$ for stopping child abuse is better than 6000$ for a Gucci bag that most people would support this.

3b) The BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) produces far higher quality and more original programs than competing commercial stations because it is run by people with discerning tastes rather than people who are mainly concerned with market share. Sorry about the pro-state news coverage on there, but the comedy is great!

4a) Tangential point – you make the argument that state departments are not incentivised to solve problems because if they do they are out of the job. A progressive idea is to solve this problem by not creating state departments to solve problems, but having a system of rewards apportioned each year to organisations that are already solving problems. So instead of creating a department to wage a war on drugs, you allocate some money as incentive to organisations treating addicts and apportion it according to whichever charities or businesses have modalities which produced excellent results in a period. If they want more rewards they have to keep delivering the goods. When the private and third sector are done solving the problem they can use their capacities to solve other ones.

4b) Why shouldn’t a Nationalised Health Service make private healthcare cheaper and better since they have to compete with a free service?

5a) You say that welfare disincentives seeking to contribute meaningfully to society, but it’s the current welfare system that creates a poverty trap where someone might get less for working more. It does make people dependent on the state, but there are rational alternatives which do not disincentive work such as a basic income. It could replace all benefits, pensions, tax allowances and social security payments. Every man, woman and child (through their parent or guardian to replace child benefit) is entitled to a certain sum, not huge, but enough to ensure they don’t go hungry. People with adequate incomes would receive this as a tax deduction instead of a welfare payment, and people in between would receive a mixture of both. This would remove the argument that people on welfare are parasites because everyone would be getting the same treatment. In any circumstances if you worked more you would be earning more not less, so it would remove the poverty trap as well. While the system would still yield problems and abusers, these still exist under the present system it would be a huge step in the right direction alleviating the current problems. Imagine what this would do to alleviate the stress and suffering in our society, if people knew even if they lost their job there was a safety net which encouraged them to get back on their feet. Stress is a huge killer. It would encourage entrepreneurialism because it would be there for self-employed people, it would also help people take time to retrain, recognise the value of voluntary work which goes unpaid, as well as stay at home parents who work very hard!

5b) Do you have to be so anti-welfare? Can’t we focus on ending the wars and stopping the government from buying nuclear weapons, and look at the banking bail-outs and all the corporate welfare and public subsidies for the rich, and once we get rid of those abhorrences which both the left and libertarians agree upon, then maybe we can talk about slashing poor granny’s pension.

5c) Also why are people on welfare considered parasites by libertarians but not people who make millions through rent, usury, share dividends and property speculation. They are just piggybacking on other peoples productivity and hard work.

6a) You say people respond to incentives. Great. We should tax junk food and use the cash to subsidise goji berries, turmeric, cayenne pepper, garlic, ginger, blueberries and hemp milk.

 

6b) What's wrong with policies like taxing motorists to pay for free public transport, this seems sensible, it's good for the environment as less people will drive around and buy cars, it worked to eliminate  congestion when tried in the Belgian city of Hasser. It's egalitarian. etc. Not just "it's funded by force" argument, we don't care about that if it's very practical, what is economically wrong with it?

7a) Won’t there be a lot of people who can’t afford to pay for DROs, not just a few.

7b) So far it sounds as though the system you are advocating will entail people choosing whether they can afford either police and fire service, home and property insurance, healthcare insurance, or education for their children, and rarely all of those. All these different insurances! Lots of people won't be able to afford all of them.

7c) If that is the case that may be satisfactory to you but it is very unlikely to win round persons on the left or even the centre. That's why people demand you make a positive case rather than just saying “yeah but it doesn’t use force.” They’re like, so? I’d rather a bit of force, and a bit less anomy thanks.

8) One of the solutions you have suggested to stop pollution is to pay people not to open a factory beside The River Clean, it seems obscene to pay people for doing nothing. Won’t more and more people try to move in just to get the bribes if this is how the problem is handled?

9) In one community they have a scenic street and someone comes and develops a block of apartments beside it, it ruins the whole ambiance, and everyone in the community is sad. In a statist system the community goes to the local council and insist that planning permission is denied to the developer. How can the community be represented in Anarchytopia?

10a) An argument you make which dates back to John Locke is when you mix your labour with the land it becomes your land, but every time you mention this argument you should address the counter argument, which is that when you pour a jar of Ragu into the sea you don’t own that part of the sea. You lose your Ragu. (Don't try this with your marbles.)

10b) In third world countries corporations buy up vast swathes of land they don’t plant to keep the populace indentured and working at whatever terms they dictate since they cannot provide for themselves. For socialist-anarchists if a person owns a lot of land and employs peasants to farm it, say in a third world country where they are very poor, the force is exerted by the landlord to maintain his property. In Anarchocapitalia would the peasants just tell the landlord "bogoff, we plant this land not you, we don't acknowledge your right to the property" and take it in common.

 

10c) Allegedly, this example to show that force is not black and white, taxes and laws are not necessarily the only way, so can rent be force, no animal needs to pay rent to live. If someone owns far more than their fair share people just don't acknowledge their property rights to own... their local community park, or the road on their street… or maybe some workers decide to socialise their workplace because the owner who is very ill mannered and abusive, they offer him a job… anarchists on the left argue is actually freedom in action.

 

10d) On the point of workers socialising their work place, this would be subject to “market forces” of a kind – if it typically worked well and produced good results for society then it would become more prevalent. If it was a total disaster it would stop happening.

 

11) Is it not true that under capitalism the faster we take stuff, make stuff and throw it away the bigger the economic boom? It’s all about throughput.

12) You say we have Self-ownership because we have a body. But we don’t have a body, we are a body. That argument is a scope shift, you are missing hidden premises.