BioTube wrote:A lot of the limits people like to talk about aren't necessary if you take away all the favors corporations get(like limited liability - turns out people are lot less conservative when it's not their asses on the line).
This is an angle which I see a lot of libertarians bring up, and I like, but I don't think anyone has taken the idea really quite far enough. We need to do more than just get rid of the glaringly obvious government-corporate collusion; even in a classically "free" market, it's all too easy for those with wealth to dominate those without it. I have in recent years become in favor of certain changes not only to the law, but to the (theoretical) foundation of the law -- contracts, which are all at their heart a signing-away of one's rights
-- which simultaneously limit what powers government can acquire over their citizens, in a very libertarian fashion, and
what kinds of powers private parties can acquire over each other, particularly in the areas of rent and interest, which are the mechanisms by which concentrations in wealth are amplified and the market becomes unequal and thus unfree.
The hard part of working such a system, or really any libertarian theory taken to its logical extreme, is that all taxes are shown to be illegitimate; yet without a referee in the market, there's nobody to stop the biggest players from cheating at the expense of everyone else. What's really needed is an alternative to taxes for funding at least a minarchist government-like organization, and that's the big problem I've been thinking about lately. The angle I'm taking is something like a non-profit organization which provides subsidies for privately-supplied government-like functions on a sliding scale basis (similar to progressive "taxation", except in reverse, giving more to the poor rather than taking more from the rich), while simultaneously investing heavily in the private companies whose services it helps subsidize (as well as in other long-term, stable ventures, like mutual funds; charitable donations of course; and "charitable" loans, ala bonds).
It would take a lot capital to get such a venture up and running and self-sufficient; but then, it also takes quite a lot to build a classical state from scratch out of anarchy. Much more sensible would be to take the existing state apparatus and gradually transition it to something like this: spinning off service departments into private companies and offering subsidies on their services in compensation to the people whose taxes were paying for those services, while turning the corporate welfare budget into a corporate investment budget and gradually building up a profitable portfolio of government investments in private enterprises, which can gradually substitute for tax income. In the end, the government has broad investments throughout the economy and an internal revenue stream from those investments proportional to general economic activity, almost like it was taxing income... and it's using the profits from those investments to subsidize essential services for the poor, progressively. And yet nobody was ever forced to pay a dime by law. Some people would call such broad government investment in (i.e. partial ownership of) private enterprise "socialist"... and yet, by doing so, we may eliminate taxes.
So tell me quick, which side of what spectrum am I on?