Robot Tax - Now

Like what specifically?

Social values arise out of economic activity. Without economic activity, our social values would be limited to little more than grunts and stick throwing, with maybe the only distinguishing features being the size of the sticks determined by their intended purpose and the grunts associated with the throws. The only economic theory worth learning (Austrian) is just an explanation of how those values arise out of economic activity. It follows therefore that economic activity cannot be planned or enhanced by economic theory in an attempt to make the outcomes of economic activity any more valuable than what they would naturally be if individuals were just left to meet their needs and desires voluntarily, without the coercive efforts of others. Any economic theory that attempts to explain anything beyond that just keeps economists, central bankers and politicians in a job.

You've misunderstood. You said that being unemployed or being employed in a shit job at a low wage wasn't a binary choice. It is to the employer who has to weigh up the cost of labour v the increased productivity when deciding to hire extra staff or not. The higher the wages, the more value an employee has to create. Sometimes it's just not worth the expense to employ someone.

 

I see you edited it.

Wipe your chin, you're dribbling shit.

 

We've been down this path in this thread and in other threads inumerable times.

I'd suggest you read this: https://mises.org/library/economics-taxation

150 years ago! And even today most people believe that taxation is vital in improving a nation's economic condition. Well, I guess most people believed for centuries that the Earth was flat so an abstract thing like taxing people does not make them more prosperous is going to take longer to sink in.

 

Ok. By my "regime" I'm referring to an anarcho-capitalist style of community. But the same principles could apply to a minarchist style of political organisation and even our own overly regulated system.

Are Corporations entities with rights under your regime? Yes they are. Corporations are just a group of individuals acting as aggregate holders of assets, as distinct from individual holders of assets. Therefore as property owners they deserve the same protection under the law in ensuring that their assets are free from those who would seek to unjustly appropriate theim for their own profit as that protection available to individuals. They deserve no more nor less.

Undoubtedly some corporate owners and their employees would behave in a manner that could be termed psychopathic. It would probably make it easier for me if you could give an example or two of psychopathic corporate behaviour. But essentially, it's a basic human trait that we expend as little effort as possible in order to achieve our needs. If it's easier to act in a predatory manner to achieve a goal, or to lobby the State for protection rather than compete against other producers on the free and open market, then naturally some are attracted to such a strategy. It's an even greater concern if such individuals or organisations have the support of the State in thieving directly from people. Hence the importance of competition and consumer choice and laws that uphold property rights as absolute.

Which brings me to my next question: what do you define as stealing without fair recompense? Can you provide some examples?

We haven't come to an agreement that they are in fact malign economic entities, so I don't accept that as justification for taxing corporations any more than individuals. They are just an aggregate of private property holders having risen to such a large market presence predominantly because they have best met the needs of consumers and therefore profited at either the financial expense of their competitors or have bought them out.

There's also the matter that taxes in Hoppe's words: lead[s) to a reduction in the formation of wealth embodied in such property and to a lowering of the general standard of living.

https://mises.org/library/economics-taxation

I'm looking forward to your answers and any other points you'd like to discuss.

 

Thanks Julie, when I get home tonight I'll sit down and try and come up with an answer to each of those examples.

 

@Julie, also the stealing without fair recompense reference.

 

This will suffice for now.

http://www.wordnik.com/words/psychopath

I'm happy for the purpose of this exercise to anthropmorphise corporations.

So you're premises are that all corporations engage in Union carbide style safety shortcuts and practices that are beyond the safe operating limits of equipment, that all corporations knowingly produce and sell products containing deadly substances in the same way as James Hardie and that all corporations offer inadequate compensation packages to victims and that they do so without remorse or empathy? Clearly this premise is incorrect. The fact that individuals in those corporations made policy decisions that resulted in disasters that could have been prevented and that they attempted to either cover up, assign blame elsewhere or minimise the expense of such disasters to the companies is amoral, but it is not indicative that all corporations engage in such behaviour. Furthermore, such behaviour is not just confined to corporate boardrooms.

You're fracking reference is too broad. I'll leave it aside.

These refer to the conflict over the allocation and utilisation of natural resources. In the first two examples the right to utilise the natural resources were allocated to corporations for the benefit of the two corporations and electricity consumers, at the expense of other users. The fact that some users were favoured at the expense of others is not symptomatic of any flaw in corporate behaviour or presence, but a flaw in the system of private property rights. Similar scenarios have occurred when governments have awarded custody of swathes of land to indigenous people or set aside areas for conservation or preservation effectively preventing alternative uses of the natural environment by non-indigenous people or those who have non-preservation minded activities in mind.

And again, your plastic litter and fracking references are too broad, but i imagine that they have a similar theme ie conflicting use of the natural resource which results in some benefitting at the expense of others.

I'll look at taxes next time.