patrick.net

It may be cruel, merciless, and "unfair" but calling it failed is a case of bad word choice IMO.

Information technology (not telecommunication) is one of the least regulated industries yet in the last 20 years we have been seeing a lot of

1. large, established companies being unseated
2. small, garage-type start-ups becoming giants (e.g. Google)

On the other hand, telecommunication is heavily regulated. See what LARGE corporations are still running the show!

Have faith in Nature. Things take care of themselves.

but communism generally results in corruption and dispair and a collapse in the economy

That is a myth. Corruption ensured in communism mostly because of the big government it required to manage and regulate.

Remember, corruption is a symptom of over-regulation. Or more accurately, it is a product of:

1. under-paid government officials
2. over-powerful public employees
3. lack of public oversight

You don’t consider the aristocracy having their heads cut off in guillotines to be a failure?

No. Human history is full of disturbances. The French Revolution or 1917 are just some examples. We always revert to our natural tendencies.

We could fix this country by turning the clock back to 1946 but unfortunately that’s not going to happen.

We could fix this country by turning the clock back to 1912 but unfortunately that’s not going to happen.

Free markets don’t respond to moral arguments. You are now arguing FOR regulation.

I was simply illustrating the moral paradox in case someone makes a moral argument. ;-)

I believe in 100% economic freedom for everybody and a strongly regressive system of taxation (e.g. poll tax) that encourages production.

America is now THE superpower after Ronald Reagan destroyed the Evil Empire. Enough said.

It was not a superpower in 1912 because there was no such thing.

Albert Einstein enabled the existence of superpowers.

Great Depression was an adjustment, not an end. The Panic of 1837 was arguably worse, but Andrew Jackson adhered to the laissez faire principles and the country emerged from the depression in a few short years.

Andrew Jackson allowed things to go their own ways and things improved by themselves.

FDR wanted his way forever if he could. But thank God.

I think the real point of debate here is taxation. Some tax is necessary, but any tax necessarily takes away some freedom.

Peter P says

I believe in 100% economic freedom for everybody and a strongly regressive system of taxation (e.g. poll tax) that encourages production.

A poll tax prevents the poorest from keeping the fruit of their own labor, discouraging them the most.

A land-value tax would allow everyone to keep what they make. No one created land. All productive labor would be tax-free.

A land-value tax would have prevented both the Russian and French revolutions, IMHO.

Land-value tax is an interesting concept. It is indeed much more fair than progressive taxation (which is progressive only for wage-earners anyway). I do not oppose this idea.

Patrick may want to have a new thread about land-tax again.

Poll tax discourages the poor only if it is unaffordable. So long as it is practical to earn disposable income above and beyond the fixed amount of taxation, everyone should be adequately incentivized.

It is noteworthy that under ANY system of taxation the poorest will not have disposable income (beyond necessities of living) at all. On the other hand, under any system the equilibrium labor _price_ will allow the even the poorest productive workers to live productively.

It is hard to fathom a fixed or regressive system of taxation with the current level of public spending. But that spending can be replaced with a user-fee system. I think many middle class families would not object to paying $10K per child per year for education if they pay 4% instead of 40% of their income in tax.

Example of a user-fee road system:

* Every vehicle contains a tracking device or GPS receiver/transmitter.
* If the vehicle stops, it gets charged for parking
* If the vehicle moves, it gets charged for using the roads

The fee schedule is determined based on supply and demand. Each segment of roadway can charge different prices based on weekly electronic auction results. Motorists can buy blocks of units for present and/or future use.

This system will be superior to gasoline tax because it also ensures that resource allocation is optimized. For example, more heavily utilized highways will become more expensive, incentivizing motorists to use less congested routes.

I am not making a value judgment here but this system will _naturally_ lead to better public transportation infrastructure (which can finally compete with automobiles). And it will be more "green". :-)

BTW, I heard that Hong Kong has a land-value tax, and because of this, they can have very low income taxes and high prosperity. But I also heard that it's a very political issue there, with the Hong Kong gov't preventing public land from development because that would increase the land supply and lower tax revenue in the short run.

Re highways, it already is more "expensive" to use the congested ones, if you count your time as a cost. Yet people often do not make the rational decision to use cheaper and more timely public transit (like Caltrain) because they prefer their iron bubble, where they do not have to interact with fellow citizens.