Here is my attempt to derive a political system from "the right to life", using only market concepts and voluntary cooperation.

This is our current system in action in 2007:
........................................(billions).............(%)
national defense...............$552.................19%
education.........................$91...................3%
health...............................$266.................9%
medicare...........................$375................13%
income security.................$365................13%
social security....................$596................21%
veterans benefits...............$72..................3%
environment......................$31..................1%
transportation....................$72..................3%
community development....$54.................2%
international affairs.............$29.................1%
general science...................$23.................1%
agriculture......................... $25.................1%
admistration of justice.........$41................ 1%
general government............$18.................1%
interest...............................$226...............8%
total....................................$2836

If we use pre-occupation levels, we spent $275 billion on national defense. This places the cost of a government functioning only to ensure "the right to life" at 275+41+18=$334 billion. If we are generous and keep in education, transportation, and the environment that adds an extra 91+31+72=$194.

The national income as reported for 2007 was about $14,000 billion dollars. To finance a government whose annual budget is $334 billion, 300 million people would have to donate $1,113 each or 2.38%, on average. If you take the median income in 2007 of $50,233, this represents a 2.22% all-inclusive tax rate. For the poorest, who make only $12,000 a year, this represents 9.26%―higher, but roughly half the level of taxation they currently endure.

In 2007, the census reported the bottom 20% of Americans made $19,178 or less, while the top 20% made over $100,000, and the top 6.78% held over 1/3 of the national income―or around $4.66 trillion dollars. If only the top 80% paid taxes, their fair share would rise to $1,390―and the poorest 40 million Americans would get a free ride. If only the top 6.78% paid taxes, they would only have to donate 6.9%--an amount almost equal to our current sales tax alone. Despite shouldering the entire financial burden of the country, the income of the top 6.78% would rise by over 40% current levels.

However, if the only moral system of taxation in a free society is a voluntary one, why would anyone be motivated to pay taxes? The answer comes from property rights. Property is secured by the police, national defense, fire department, and the legal system. Police can be dispatched to prevent or stop acts of vandalism, burglaries, riots, and violent crime. The army provides a defense against invasion from foreign entities, and the resulting occupation and looting. The fire department suppresses destructive property fires triggered by arson, carelessness, or natural causes. And the legal system prosecutes violations of individual/property rights.

The successful entrepreneur, who has amassed great wealth, has a lot to lose from the violations of these rights. A working family struggling to make ends meet, however, has much less capital to lose. Thus, the wealthiest individuals will have a large incentive to voluntarily subject themselves to taxation―for the selfish reason of securing their wealth. The lower and middle class will be motivated as well, but to a lesser extent―one that, as for the wealthy individual, is proportional to the sum of their assets. To some degree, the wealthy will rely on private security in safeguarding their assets, but even the wealthiest individual cannot finance a private security force capable of repelling a foreign invasion by a modern army, nor could they maintain their high standard of living while surrounded in anarchy―where the lack of a public police force and legal consequence would present little resistance for those willing to violate the rights of others. In this way, the wealthy minority will voluntarily fund the basic roles of government, while the majority benefit at little to no cost.

So what about social services such as education, transportation, healthcare, and unemployment insurance? There are many ways to achieve these on the free market―either through private businesses or non-profit organizations. The implementation and management of a privately funded business and a publicly funded state program are really quite similar―both are funded by large groups of people (shareholders or voters), and both have concentrated leadership which is democratically elected (CE0/board or president/congress). The difference arises when business is bad: a private organization which does not provide a service in demand, or provides it inefficiently will go bankrupt, while a state program which does the same will likely result in increased taxation or national debt. If the government is forbidden from forced taxation―all differences between the two vanish. Thus, it is possible to have a privately funded non-profit organization which provides education, transportation, healthcare, or unemployment insurance―regardless of whether its leadership is elected through the state. And by making financial information public, the organization can ensure a healthy supply of donations―if the service it provides is in demand.

Let's apply the same analysis to a public service: say, education. Most Americans believe in providing an education for all those who desire to pursue it. However, the top tier of society is already donating 6.9% of their income in taxes, and may not find any additional benefit in educating the poor―after all they have the police and army which is what they really need to protect their property. The lower 80% of America is different―they are not yet wealthy, so they can see the benefit of a public education which can be used to generate wealth-- the bottom 20% even more so―although they cannot afford to donate much. We are thus left with 60% of America, or the 180 million Americans that make up the middle class. If every member of the class donates a mere $1000 a year towards education, or 2% of their median $50,233 income (of which they are paying no taxes so far), together they could pool about $180 billion―twice the $91 billion spent on education in our current system.

Now enter the teachers. Teachers can't teach without students, so in the selfish interest of providing themselves with an income, a group of teachers may form a non-profit organization called the United Teachers For America, whose goal is to provide a quality education free of charge. Their annual budget is $91 billion―but we have already shown that by donating a mere 2% of their income, middle-class America alone could provide up to $180 billion. Since they are operating on donations, which may vary from year to year, the UTFA may decide to maintain a surplus―in order to sustain operations for several years with below-average donations. This same strategy has been successfully adopted by private companies who keep cash on hand to protect against a downturn. Then, by making their financial information public, the leadership can solicit extra donations during below-average years--analogous to the spike in donations local blood drives receive after a crisis. The UTFA, competing in the free market, receive income (in this case donations) based on the quality of service they provide. This creates a strong motivation to provide efficient, high quality education―not only to sustain operations, but also to provide competitive wages for the teachers they employ. Likewise, there will also be a thriving private sector, which through competitive action in the free market, will offer a multitude of degree and tuition options--at a much lower cost than exists today. Similar arguments can be made for any number of public services such as transportation, healthcare, unemployment insurance, etc.

The departure from forced taxation alone will impact the lowest-income families in the following ways: income will increase 15-23%, prices of goods and services will decrease up to 8%, housing costs will decrease by up to 5%, heating/fuel costs will decrease by up to 12.5%--resulting in an effective increase in wages by ~20-35%. When one compounds the action of a free market, where income has also increased by up to 40%, and harmful regulations are lifted―the effective increase in wages could be as high as 60-75%. Low-income families will be free of taxation, have increased wages, and not only have access to cheaper goods and services, but access to goods and services that were previously unavailable.

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:


'Rights' and laws are guaranteed by a group of individuals, otherwise they're just ideas in one person's head. Even the right to life! Genocide, slavery, ritual human sacrifice,... even disparity in healthcare based on your wealth... these are all community decisions that place limits on the comparative 'right to life' of individuals.

So, by my thinking, individual rights are always subordinate to the community that chooses to guarantee or not guarantee specific individual rights. By extension the modified free market capitalism we have in place was a group choice, and is subordinate to any plans the group feels like putting into place in the future.

So we both agree that by definition rights must involve two people, or a "community". So a few questions to help me understand your viewpoint better
1. What process do individuals use enter into certain communities
2. Can you define the fundamental "community right" which is analogous to the fundamental "individual right" that I provided. So far I have inferred this to be "that everyone must do what is in the interest of the majority" but I am not sure if that is correct.

There are different markets that a group can choose to operate under, including the polar opposite of a 'free market', where leaders make all trade and barter decision for the community. Now, the point I'm making is that we have a modified form of the free market concept precisely because communities, especially enormous ones, in guaranteeing rights and laws will always run into situations where guaranteeing those rights and laws requires not only doling out punishment but developing and encouraging activities in the community's interest. That last sentence may again be a point where you disagree, which is fine, but recognize I'm referring to problems that not only effect the individual, but the group of individuals forming the community... health, education, defense, etc..


It sounds that like me, you do not want the polar opposite of what I am providing--i.e. dictatorship. Rather, you want a sort of "compromise" aka something in the middle.
3. What services or benefits are available in a mixed system that are not available in a free market?
4. If a dictatorship is bad, why would moving in the opposite direction be undesirable?


I'm not sure I follow you; my interpretation of what you disliked in the first place was Bill Clinton wanting to spend our community money to selectively subsidize some private companies but not others, and develop laws that would make it harder for some companies to operate. So now I'm lost as to where you didn't like the original clip.

I do not agree that one person (even the government) has the right to initiate force on another, and I believe Bill Clinton, as he proposed it in the video, would be initiating force on another. He is funding his incentives from the taxpayer--that is, he is removing their choice to on whether to fund solar energy. Here is an example: A worker has a family of three and can barely make ends meet. His entire livelihood depends on his job at a local oil rig. It would be bad enough that he will eventually lose his job when the oil rig shuts down in competition from a solar manufacturer--but to make matters worse the government is going to force him to invest, in effect, to increasing the likelihood of him losing his job.

Its fine that many people would like to invest in the solar industry, and its fine that the solar industry, through the the market, drives other companies out of business- However, I cannot endorse forcing people to invest in an industry that they would otherwise not invest in.

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
Aha! You feel that the role of government is solely to protect the individual, while I feel that the purpose is not even individuals first, it is the community first. Its a huge philosophical difference, and I can see now why we disagree so strongly about what Bill was talking about.

Precisely. I derive my entire philosophy from "the right to life" (defined in my bio)--be it my stance on free market economics or my stance on a limited government and voluntary taxation. So at its core, that is the fundamental difference between our viewpoints.

A problem facing a community naturally requires a community's choice (investing collected funds into updating national power grids), while a problem facing an individual requires an individual's choice (changing from Duke-Cinergy to Green Mountain Energy).

So given that statement, I can see why you are placing an emphasis on the community--but how does that mesh with individual rights in cases where the community at large is not involved? Or is this bypassed by the notion that rights must always be an agreement between two men (and thus always form a community, in effect)?

You give the role of delivering justice to the group of individuals,... a strict individualist would argue that laws would naturally be a byproduct of a free market.
I am a strict individualist, but I derive it the other way around--I view the free market as being a byproduct of individual rights. That is, each person's individual right to choose to buy and sell goods, and thus enter into voluntary cooperation and trade with others is what forms for basis of the free market. Likewise, laws are derived from the principle of individual rights which forbids the initiation of physical force on others (theft, fraud, assault, murder, vandalism).

You concede your point here, as you recognize that individual human beings will make choices that contradict what other individuals may otherwise prefer happen and see how a group of individuals can sort out these problems without waiting for the problem to become economically problematic to the individuals causing a ruckus. You go so far as to say that the group of individuals restricting the amount of smog a power plant can put out to 'dirty your shirt' (which I read as "poison your lungs and environment") is compatible with a free market economy! BUT, for whatever reason that is as far as you're willing to recognize that we are a group of a few hundred million people with a shared problem that should be solved with shared solutions.

You are correct in your interpretation of the phrase "dirty your shirt". If you look at pollution from the perspective of individual rights, you see that one group is initiating force on another--that is, they are imposing costs (lung cancer, dirty shirts, etc.) which both parties did not agree to. Now, normally when one person initiates force on another they would take it to court, but it is almost impossible to determine just who is affected and to what extent by a company emitting pollution 10, 100, or even 1000 miles away. Nor is to practical to have millions of people filing civil suits for impossible-to-determine sums against each polluter. For this reason, it becomes necessary for the government to impose the costs directly when and where they are emitted--hence my suggestion of an effluent tax. However, as with the cases above the basis for this is in an individual's "right to life."


Again, my take-home-point here was that a free market economy is how a group of individuals chooses to engage in trade;

I agree with you there

its not the United Free Market of America, we are more than our goods and services, we are more than our laws, we are more than our individuals, we are a community of individuals who agree to be governed by very specific rules and regulations, agreed upon locally by vote or by representatives of sub-communities, and more broadly by general rules set forth a few hundred years ago by some rather spectacular community representatives.

I think I agree here, but I am a little confused. In the system I envision there would still be congress, a president, and a judicial system. There would still be a national defense, fire fighters, police force, and legal system. Fraud, theft, rape, murder, vandalism, and assault would all be illegal and strictly enforced. However, the distinction I make is that the government has no right to initiate the use of force--only to respond to the initiation of the use of force (e.g. arresting a burglar). I agree there is a role for government, and even a role for government in the market--but I firmly believe that no human, government official or otherwise, has the right to initiate force against another human.

Have you read all three? I've never read Atlas Shrugged. I am sure it is good, but I'm just not a huge fan of fiction.

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
btw, I'd take "Atlas Shrugged" to the proverbial desert island well before "For The New Intellectual" or "The Virtue of Selfishness" ... so that is another point that, when thought too much about, may speak to the contention between us on the individual vs. community debate.

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
In reply to this comment by imstellar28:
americans don't need government run healthcare, energy, education assistance, or job training--we need freedom. with freedom, we will have all this and more.

The mortgage crisis is a direct result of deregulation of that industry; it has crippled our economy. And because the government now won't let these businesses fail we're now bailing out companies that had all the freedom they asked for.

The reality is that businesses are successful when they make money for their shareholders. There is no incentive for private health companies to provide preventative medicine, or provide healthcare to poor people or people who are already sick or injured; its much more lucrative to outwit a person who is hospitalized by not paying everything in the agreement unless called-out on it. There is no incentive for energy companies to do anything more than what is legally required in order to provide power for those who can pay, and no sane reason for them to discourage excess use of power. ...

I was about to continue, but you get where I'm going with this. Money allows choices, like where and how well you live, eat, shop, ... Right now money also impacts how well your kids can be educated (and how much they can then earn) and how good your healthcare can be (and how healthy you are again impacts your financial status). I fail to see the increase in freedom to be had by letting the market leave good people uneducated and sick, unless 'freedom' to you is anarchy.

1. The mortgage crisis was caused by irresponsible individuals who signed contracts they could not fulfill, and was made worse by our current inflationary monetary policy. Nobody made the people who make $30,000 a year take out a $300,0000 loan. The banks involved should go out of business, or suffer huge financial losses--that is the risk they take in the free market.

2. If there is a demand for preventative medicine in the free market, you can bet there will be someone willing to make a profit off supplying it. For example, it is true that a heart surgeon profits when someone has a heart attack, but that doesn't stop another business profiting off preventing heart attacks--in direction completion with the surgeon. This competition in the free market would eventually lead to lower prices for heart surgery. One problem with our healthcare system is that prices are artificially high as a result of government regulation.

3. The free market rewards hard work and ingeunity, and punishes laziness and poor decision making. What is a better recipe for production and creation of wealth? It is these two things, and these two things alone that can create a better standard of living not just for the wealthy, but for an entire society.