

L.P.D.: Libertarian Police Department - subdane
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/l-p-d-libertarian-police-department

======
tzs
Getting evidence would be a challenge if policing were done entirely by
private firms with no State granting them special authority over ordinary
citizens.

For instance, you suspect that I stole something of yours and have it in my
house. You hire a private police force to investigate. If they knock on my
door and asked me to let them come in and look around, I'll laugh at them and
close the door.

If they threaten to use force, the different private police force whose
services I subscribe to will use force to stop your private police force.

Some advocates of entirely private law enforcement/justice systems I've
discussed this with tell me that this won't be a problem because my neighbors
will see that I'm not letting your private police force in, and that will
tarnish my reputation. Reputation will be very important in a government free
society, they say, and so I will not risk that unless I'm guilty.

I don't buy that...I think it is far more likely that most of my neighbors
would be thinking I'm doing exactly what they would do if some jerk accused
them of stealing and wanted them to let some private police force come in--
worse, a private police force that has been hired by their accuser and so has
a strong incentive to please him. They want him to give them a good review, so
more people will hire them.

Some have told me that your private police force could get a search warrant
from a private court. That just pushes the problem back one level, for unless
there is some State forcing me to recognize the authority of your private
court, I will no more recognize your court than I recognize your police force.

Every way I've thought of, or heard anyone propose, to make this actually
works ends up in effect recreating a State under a different name.

~~~
ElectronCharge
Libertarians recognize the necessity of a state. They simply want it to be as
minimalistic and non-invasive as possible.

One baby step that could be taken in the US would be to abolish the IRS and
income tax, and use a consumption tax in its place. Imagine life without the
annual ritual of Form 1040, and revealing every detail of your financial life.
I don't believe every American should have to be an accountant, or turn their
private data over to the government.

~~~
tptacek
That's a weird reply, since the parent commenter wasn't talking about tax
policy. Also: I'm not sure how a gigantic tax increase on the bottom 95% of
all earners is a "libertarian" concept.

~~~
ElectronCharge
The main part of the reply was disagreeing with the idea that libertarians
don't want a "state". The IRS comment was just pointing out one constructive
move towards a smaller, better government.

The "tax increase" you mention is not an increase, read up on the Fair Tax.
The prebate is designed to eliminate the potentially regressive nature of the
tax. The benefits would vastly outweigh the downside.

~~~
tptacek
_This_ FairTax?

[http://www.factcheck.org/2007/05/unspinning-the-
fairtax/](http://www.factcheck.org/2007/05/unspinning-the-fairtax/)

 _Even if Kotlikoff is correct that a 31.2 percent rate is revenue-neutral,
there remains some reason to doubt that the rate actually would be that low.
The FairTax proposal assumes a 100 percent tax base on consumption. By way of
contrast, most states that have sales taxes have roughly a 50 percent tax
base. With the FairTax’s 100 percent base, consumers would pay taxes on a
great many things that may not intuitively seem like consumption. The list
would include:_

 _Purchases of new homes_

 _Rent_

 _Interest on credit cards, mortgages and car loans_

 _Doctor bills_

 _Utilities_

 _Gasoline (30 percent in addition to current taxes, which would not be
repealed)_

 _Legal fees_

Wow.

~~~
ElectronCharge
So? There would be no federal income tax. Further, there would be no corporate
income tax, so in general prices will fall and wages will rise. Money invested
or saved would not be taxed, lowering the overall rate. Finally, the prebate
makes up the difference for low-income folk.

From the article you linked: "Moreover, even FairTax critics like Gale agree
that consumption taxes increase the size of the economy. Many studies show
that long-term incomes would rise under a consumption-based tax system.
Optimistic accounts show a 10 percent rise in income over time, but even the
more cautious studies show gains of 5 percent to 7 percent. Because the
FairTax will grow the economy, workers will eventually see increases in their
income."

There are difficulties in implementing the Fair Tax (income tax must once
again be made unconstitutional) but overall it's an extremely good idea.
Imagine the gains just from the recovered productivity of everyone employed at
the IRS, the myriad tax accountants, and individuals relieved from dealing
with the entire mess. The billions spent on the IRS every year would also be
used for something better.

~~~
tptacek
Did you read the article? The conclusion is that anyone making between 20,000
and 200,000 would see their share of the federal tax burden rise, and those
making over 200,000 would see it fall. The paragraph you're quoting from is in
a section that could have been titled "Fuck It, It's A Regressive Tax But It's
Still Good".

You wrote: _The "tax increase" you mention is not an increase, read up on the
Fair Tax. The prebate is designed to eliminate the potentially regressive
nature of the tax._ You were incorrect. You cannot now move the goalposts.

~~~
ElectronCharge
'The paragraph you're quoting from is in a section that could have been titled
"Fuck It, It's A Regressive Tax But It's Still Good".'

(Sorry it's been so long since I replied last, I hope you notice this.)

That's exactly right, 'regressive' is not necessarily bad. The top 10% of
earners right now pay something around 70% of all income tax:
[http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-
inco...](http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-
data). Is that 'fair'? What is the 'correct' number? Food for thought.

At any rate, the reason the Fair Tax's 'regression' isn't bad, is the
estimated increase in tax burden for the middle class is around 2-3%. HOWEVER,
the estimated wage benefits of the Fair Tax total 5-10%. So, even though the
middle class is paying a higher share than now, its net income would go up
2-8%. That's a win, plus the entire IRS and income tax apparatus is gone -
another huge win.

Given the political abuses the IRS has facilitated lately, it needs to go. We
don't need an American Gestapo.

~~~
dragonwriter
Anyone that talks about how much the top x% of earners pay of federal income
tax in isolation -- especially without talking about their share of income,
but not only then -- is either ignorant or dishonest. The federal income tax
isn't the only federal tax on income, or even the most burdensome for most
workers (federal payroll taxes are.)

And it doesn't eliminate the need for a tax collection and enforcement
apparatus, as all other existing consumption taxes demonstrate, so saying it
eliminates the need for that is inaccurate.

~~~
ElectronCharge
It eliminates the need for the IRS. Verification of consumption tax collection
is enormously easier, and there would no longer be all the loopholes, or the
~75,000 page(!) tax code. Most importantly, those _paying_ the taxes would no
longer be under any tax-related government scrutiny.

Fourth Amendment, anyone? :-)

