Cafe Hayek - Latest Comments in The Essence of a Masonomist

Re: The Essence of a Masonomist

Colin Keesee — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 22:01:33 -0000

Thank you to GMU's Department of Economics. George Mason is really becoming the intellectual flagship for those who study and believe in the Austrian School of Thought.

I am a senior economics major at California State University, Northridge. The economics department is a small island of free market advocacy in a sea of statism. Despite being 3,000 miles apart, the ideas and words that come from GMU's professors, especially their blogs, give us all assistance in waging the war of ideas on a very leftist Campus, in a very leftist city.

Cafe Hayek has taught me many things and even when an entry concerns a concept of economics that I already know, I at least can see a more a lucid and concise way of explaining that concept to the general public.

Keep up the good work. Sadly, Milton Friedman, one of free market Economics' greatest advocates, has passed on and other greats like Thomas Sowell and George Stigler are now very old. It is good to know that people like Professors Roberts and Boudreaux and others will be around to continue waging this never ending war of ideas for decades to come.

Re: The Essence of a Masonomist

Gil — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 18:50:19 -0000

Or if you're talking retirement most people nearing retirement prefer to argue "I've worked hard all my life and paid my taxes therefore I feel entitled to my retirement". As opposed to "I haven't worked a real day in my life and want the true hard-working people to fund my retirement".

Re: The Essence of a Masonomist

Gil — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 18:31:18 -0000

Or, brotio, perhaps to put it another way Libertarians apparently use very little of public infrastructure and services that they feel they're paying taxes and getting next to nothing in return hence their despise of taxes. Actually reading everyday newspapers and watching news programs most people, on the other hand, pay taxes yet actually expect the government to provide them with the services they prefer. Hence people lobby and make noise as to how they want their tax money spent.

Re: The Essence of a Masonomist

Simon Clark — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 17:02:11 -0000

"Seriously, the standard Libertarian rant here follows the government's a thug and taxes are theft, yet some here seem to call themselves Minarchist? If I were Libertarian who had no love of government I'd have to be consistent and be an Anarcho-Libertarian. Either government has a legitimate place or it doesn't. Saying there's a place for a sorta government risks getting uncomfortably ideologically sandwiched between non-Libertarians and Anarcho-Libertarians."

No inconsistency at all. I don't love having my teeth pulled, but I do need my teeth pulled. That does not, however, mean I need all my teeth pulled.

Equally, I may not love government, but I do want one. That does not, however, mean I want a big, intrusive government - I want a small, limited government.

"Why should some one who doesn't own a car and rides the trains have to pay for your highways? Why should some one who doesn't patent anything have to pay for the patent office?"

They shouldn't. That's why only people who drive on the roads pay road tax (I believe in the USA this is called car tax, vehicle license fee, or registration fee) and tolls.

Since the government already owns the road it's legitimate for it to charge those who use it, though I'd prefer if we had a prviate road network.

Re: The Essence of a Masonomist

OnlyShawn — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 14:00:34 -0000

"I just don't have the time to police comments and enforce good behavior, especially since some posts were generating more than 100 comments. And I don't want to host a party in which a small vitriolic minority consistently tries to ruin the event for everyone else. So I decided to turn the comments feature off."

Greg Mankiw, on why he shut down his comments.

I hope that doesn't happen here.

Re: The Essence of a Masonomist

Lance Jonn Romanoff — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 12:52:09 -0000

"Lance, my solution would take care of the issue of people paying for transportation of goods precisely because the price paid for gas taxes would get included in the price of the goods shipped."

I agree. I have no strong opinion on user fees v. other taxation to pay for infrastructure. User fees do tend to be a somewhat more elegant solution and do still offer an indirect mechanism of taxation for indirect users of highways. I find many of the arguments about the method of taxation are less relevant than the more important argument about the level of taxation overall regardless of the method. But that's a discussion for another time.

Re: The Essence of a Masonomist

brotio — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 12:23:00 -0000

Dr. Camplin,

Thanks for your analysis on user fees. It's very insightful and logical.

Muirgeo seems to be both opposed and in favor of taxation to build roads (a true John Kerry fan). I do know he's opposed to taxpayer-funded roads if they're anywhere near a Wal-Mart, so I'll assume that he's just opposed to taxpayer-funded highways.

I wonder if that opposition also applies to taxpayer-funded mass transit? I get the feeling Muirgeo uses publicly-subsidized mass transit and has no problem with non-riders footing 80% of the bill.

Re: The Essence of a Masonomist

brotio — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 12:07:35 -0000

Gil,

Would you please find for me an instance where I claimed only "poor lovable righties pay all the taxes and sneaky dastardly lefties collect all the public services"?

I don't care what your political affiliation is. If you are a net taxpayer, you are being forced to fund someone else's retirement to your own detriment. You come across as a net tax receiver who is happy as hell to take that retirement at someone else's detriment. You may think it noble, I think it's theft.

Muirgeo,

I live in the United States, which is a republic, not a democracy. You claim that your quest to force me to pay for your retirement places you in brotherhood with Patriots like John Adams and James Mason, but obviously you haven't read much of their writings on the subject or you'd know that our Founders had no respect for democracy and no desire to try it again(especially Adams). At least Gil appears consistent in his disdain for anyone who would value their own retirement above his, even if that man is Thomas Jefferson.

Also, don't ask questions of me until you start answering questions posed to you (you know which ones ... quack, quack, quack...) because I will not answer even simple questions posed by you until you play by the same rules you want us to play by. However, I will continue to point out your inconsistencies every time I get the chance:

"In fact, like... our federal highways ...government is often stunningly successful"

versus

"Why should some one who doesn't own a car and rides the trains have to pay for your highways?"

Both of those are from Muirgeo

I do thank Mr. Romanoff for answering so brilliantly, though. :)

Re: The Essence of a Masonomist

Dr. Troy Camplin — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 11:43:23 -0000

Raja, who cares if you buy gas for a generator? So you contributed a little extra to road maintenence. Nobody has to slap on any extra regulations for that or to counteract it. If you want to be a stickler about not paying for that 1 inch of road, we can have a form you can fill out and send in for a refund of the user's fee. My guess is that few if any would care enough to get reimbursed so little.

Lance, my solution would take care of the issue of people paying for transportation of goods precisely because the price paid for gas taxes would get included in the price of the goods shipped.

Either way, a user fee is a way to solve the problem of eliminating taxes per se while taking care of public needs that are at best difficult to solve using pure free markets -- which I'm always in favor of when it is an actual option (which it is almost all the time).

Re: The Essence of a Masonomist

Lance Jonn Romanoff — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 07:55:39 -0000

"Why should some one who doesn't own a car and rides the trains have to pay for your highways?"

Do these people also consume no products that are transported via the highway? Do they not require the defense of the nation that the was the express purpose of building the Interstate Highway System?

"It's very consistent with the thinking of a small self-centered brain that is incapable of thinking of the bigger picture of how society and democracy works"

Obnoxious statements like the above make me wish the owners of this blog had a more vigorous attitude regarding banning contrarian parasites who substitute invective for argument.

Re: The Essence of a Masonomist

raja r — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 07:04:50 -0000

Roads are easy -- a gas tax that is and can only be used to fund roads. This would make it a users fee.

This is similar to the levy on 'Music CDs' (as opposed to Data CD - an entirely artificial distinction) to pay for copyright infringement.

What if I want to buy gas to run a generator? Or for my lab?

This will invariably lead to :

a - govt mandated artificial classification of fuel that everyone must agree with.

b - more govt intrusion and monitoring to ensure fuel is used for the 'correct' purpose.

The burden of collecting the revenue should be on the service provider - they should not make assumptions that make it easier for them to collect, but infringe on the rights of others.

A movie theater has its own methods to ensure everyone pays to watch the movie. They do not go around levying a tax on popcorn.

Re: The Essence of a Masonomist

Dr. Troy Camplin — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 06:31:14 -0000

Roads are easy -- a gas tax that is and can only be used to fund roads. This would make it a users fee.

Re: The Essence of a Masonomist

Lee Kelly — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 06:00:50 -0000

Gil & muirgeo,

There is no theft where there is no property, and unfortunately property rights do not enforce themselves, since there are always people, like yourselves, who wish to appropriate the property of others for their own end.

Now, it would be preferable if government could be funded by voluntary contribution, but it is not unlibertarian to propose involuntary taxation to provide a minimal government, without which there would be no liberty at all.

There are even instances where libertarians may reluctantly suggest government intervention, such as for addressing externalities caused by pollution, or maybe to set up a basic infrastructure, etc.

These issues are generally addressed with the proviso that the use of government coercion is reluctant, and an alternative solution to these problems, more compatible with liberty, is always be preferred.

Regards,

Lee

Re: The Essence of a Masonomist

muirgeo — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 05:31:55 -0000

When government taxes me to build roads so that you and I can both drive to Wal-Mart, that is a valid use of government because I also receive value for my tax dollar. Why is that considered inconsistent?

Posted by: brotio

Brotio,

Why should some one who doesn't own a car and rides the trains have to pay for your highways? Why should some one who doesn't patent anything have to pay for the patent office?

But indeed there is nothing inconsistent with your statement. It's very consistent with the thinking of a small self-centered brain that is incapable of thinking of the bigger picture of how society and democracy works. I think some ones mamma should'a worked a little more on sharing way back when.

Re: The Essence of a Masonomist

Russ Nelson — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 05:01:00 -0000

Responding to muirgeo is like shooting fish in a barrel, but it's so much fun I can't resist. No, patent law is not a success. I have had a published invention stolen from me through a combination of incomptent patent examiners and court rulings which have destroyed the notion of obviousness and prrior art. These days, the only way to keep somebody from patenting an idea out from under you is to patent it first.

Re: The Essence of a Masonomist

Gil — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 00:32:56 -0000

Nope, brotio, still haven't got it yet. Especially as your argument implies poor lovable righties pay all the taxes and sneaky dastardly lefties collect all the public services. (Yep, thick as a brick! 8|)

Re: The Essence of a Masonomist

brotio — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 23:21:17 -0000

Oh, and Muirgeo,

Notice that when you asked Mr. Boudreaux a question that he answered it directly and succinctly? Care to try that yourself?

... quack, quack, quack...

Re: The Essence of a Masonomist

brotio — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 23:17:01 -0000

Gil, to repeat a post I made on another thread; When government taxes me to pay for your health care or retirement, that is theft and thuggery. When government taxes me to build roads so that you and I can both drive to Wal-Mart, that is a valid use of government because I also receive value for my tax dollar. Why is that considered inconsistent? We libertarians may argue that a privately financed road might be more efficient, but that doesn't mean that a government-financed road is immoral, only inefficient. Theft is immoral, so (in addition to being inefficient) making me pay for your health or retirement is immoral because I receive no value. See the difference?

Re: The Essence of a Masonomist

brotio — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 22:57:23 -0000

"In fact, like patent law, contract protection, our federal highways, our national parks, our corporate charters...government is often stunningly successful" - Muirgeo

I thought government-funded roads were eeevil because they pass in front of Wal-Marts?

Re: The Essence of a Masonomist

Mr. Econotarian — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 19:34:08 -0000

Markets fail. Government, as evidenced by the election of George Bush, can fail even worse.

OK, that was the cheap shot, but an economic-minded argument would state that government may be more efficient than market-based schemes for a limited number of things that have high transaction costs - a parallel to Coase's reasoning for the existence of the firm rather than all of us being independent contractors.

Roads are very difficult to build because they involve the purchase of a large number of plots from a large number of owners, and the difficulty in purchasing from any of those owners could kill the project. Thus eminent domain.

Basic research is another issue that could be appropriate for government financing because it is typically difficult to see the economic value that could come from it. It is like the ultimate in venture captial, huge risk with exceedingly rare yet spectacular returns.

Subsidizing medicine for rich retirees, well, that is probably best not done by government.

The things government is needed for may change over time with technology. For example, in a paper-money world, private money had proven challenges in the 1800's. In a world of digital authenticated money going over computer networks, private money becomes more attractive. Wireless toll collection makes it easier to turn a profit on private high-speed roads (although they are still tough to build without eminent domain).

Re: The Essence of a Masonomist

Gil — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 19:10:07 -0000

Seriously, the standard Libertarian rant here follows the government's a thug and taxes are theft, yet some here seem to call themselves Minarchist? If I were Libertarian who had no love of government I'd have to be consistent and be an Anarcho-Libertarian. Either government has a legitimate place or it doesn't. Saying there's a place for a sorta government risks getting uncomfortably ideologically sandwiched between non-Libertarians and Anarcho-Libertarians.

Re: The Essence of a Masonomist

Sam Grove — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 18:37:14 -0000

There's nothing particularly magical about government-funded research.

Oh, but there is. Government just waves its magic want and, voila, there is all the money anyone needs to do most anything. Those magic wands used to be sharp pieces of metal on the ends of stick, but nowadays, they are made of mostly metal and contain projectiles propelled by reactive chemical charges.

Re: The Essence of a Masonomist

Chris, the original — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 17:11:26 -0000

muirgeo --

The fact that government can be, and has been, successful at various projects is really a red herring. The question isn't whether government is successful; it's whether as a general matter, the world is better with government intervention than without.

Your example refers to a specific technology. Do you know that this technology would not have happened outside of government? Perhaps, even, the advancement of this technology foreclosed other technologies which would have been better.

Note that I am not a Masonomist, because I think that Masonomics fails to consider the "bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" maxim. For some things, we want the government solution because we can get it now. Don's position on antitrust comes to mind -- sure, a monopolist may eventually be conquered by a smaller entrepreneurial rival, but I'd prefer to stop the monopoly now.

Re: The Essence of a Masonomist

Chris O'Leary — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 16:05:31 -0000

"If you work at a computer, play video games, or listen to music on an iPod, you've benefited directly from the efforts of the winners of the 2007 Nobel Prize in Physics. Albert Fert of France's national research agency, CNRS, in Orsay, France, and Peter Grünberg of the Jülich Research Center in Germany independently discovered an effect known as giant magnetoresistance (GMR) that fueled a dramatic increase in the capacity of computer hard drives.....I'd hardly call this a government failure. In fact, like patent law, contract protection, our federal highways, our national parks, our corporate charters...government is often stunningly successful. The sooner we realize that markets and governments and society are interdependent and that the way we do set them up, no matter how imperfect, can optimize the results far better then leaving the results to the fates."

The counterpoint to this is the Japanese computer industry. It is pretty much run by the government and has virtually stagnated at the high end. The only significant innovation is occurring at the low end (e.g. consumer products and game systems) which is free of government interference.

Also, in terms of GMR and other discoveries, there's no reason why that couldn't or wouldn't have been discovered by private sector researchers. There's nothing particularly magical about government-funded research.

Re: The Essence of a Masonomist

Lee Kelly — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 16:02:38 -0000

All of this makes me more and more interested in going to GMU.

I think there are many who contribute here who would share that interest. George Mason University seems like a very interesting place to be at the moment. I have never been, and do not expect, that I will ever go to university, but would certainly be interested in going to George Mason.

I hope you get the oppurtunity.