I'm really not sure about free-will.... but for the time-being I'm prepared to assume that we have some kind of choice, based on (infinitely emergent?) rationality...
The problem is that our means of thinking rationally, our language, is social, so I'm not sure what form a purely individual thought could take. Presumably the most individual thoughts we have are the least rational... but then, the instincts which drive these decisions would, on the level of the individual, be deterministic.
So, if you rely on individuals, you must rely not on them making rational decisions, but on the fact that their instincts will lead to an ordered society. In this sense, the totalitarian society, based on ideas, is actually more of a product of free will.

"For my part, I can imagine a society without violence, and I think we'll probably get there one day, but libertarianism, like egalitarianism, is a revolt against nature.

The difference is that one is moral and the other isn't. And while a renunciation of violence can be the natural result of a very unnatural prosperity, equality must always be forced, and can't be fully achieved even in a dystopian society of clones collectively reared. Someone must run the show."

Great comment.
My personal feeling is that wars are not mostly fought for wealth and that therefore prosperity will not lead to an end to war - quite the opposite. There is a danger that it is not prosperity which has reduced violence - but that mass society was necessary for prosperity, prosperity resulted in strength and that therefore the mass society won. If mass society is no longer necessary for prosperity - if we can replace unseen and unknown workers with machines - there is no reason why a society which regards these others as enemies cannot prosper.
The answer is of course, not to base society on production, but instead on love.

"And yes, as the debt was contracted for freely, it should be repaid."

Have you read Rothbard on this point?

http://mises.org/daily/1423

Government debt is fundamentally different from private debt. The former is by no means contracted freely. I did not consent to any of 'my share' of the national debt, any more than I consent to the current tax system. At every opportunity I have voted against expansion of borrowing. My one year old daughter hasn't even had that chance.

Government debt is the only kind that passes from father to child. Collective contracts, unless unanimous, are invalid.

Government borrowing is actually far more immoral than taxation. It confiscates wealth by stealth. Borrowing renders honest debate about the size of government impossible. It kicks the can down the road, and creates the illusion that we can painlessly live beyond our means.

The deficit should be eliminated, but the debt should never be repaid. We should balance the budget, then repudiate.

"Now now. Mark is not a troll."

Perhaps that was too harsh. I've not been following his comments as long as you have.

"he only wants - like the Greens - to steal enough to fund a basic income".

There are plenty of other sinister aspects to Green philosophy, as I understand it, but the crucial question here is what counts as 'basic'.

"We may know from Soviet experience that the damage to productivity would soon drag all but the apparatchiks down to that level, but he doesn't plan that."

I accept that a basic 'citizens income', 'negative income tax', or whatever could actually be less damaging and costly than the system we have at the moment, and preserve a fair bit of inequality, provided the rate is set low enough.

My main problem with it is that it cements the notion that people have the right to live at the expense of others, rather than trading value for value.

"He can't imagine a society without [violence] and I find that rather sad."

For my part, I can imagine a society without violence, and I think we'll probably get there one day, but libertarianism, like egalitarianism, is a revolt against nature.

The difference is that one is moral and the other isn't. And while a renunciation of violence can be the natural result of a very unnatural prosperity, equality must always be forced, and can't be fully achieved even in a dystopian society of clones collectively reared. Someone must run the show.

"levy an additional two temporary taxes"

What's the old saying about temporary taxes? ;-)

"The second (not payable by taxpayers aged 18 or less at the date of its introduction) should fund repayment of the National Debt built up over decades by corrupt, dishonest, statist politicians buying votes."

Why punish those who are 19, 20, 21?

Even those who are 30 bear less of the blame than those who are in their 60s and 70s.

Far better to simply repudiate the national debt.

As a matter of transition, even I would support basic welfare provision (hostels, soup kitchens, acute medical care to basic standards) partly for those who had been accustomed to dependence, and partly for pensioners who'd foolishly (perhaps unwittingly) invested only in tax slaves. But lets not reward the slave owners this time around.

Eh?
Do we need traffic lights?
Why on earth do we have them if they aren't necessary?

I support a tax on cars or gasoline, because they produce nasty gas and I think the environment could do with less of this. At the same time, the space opened up by fewer cars could be used for public transport.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BM4SHl3guPs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFOo3e0nxSI

Yes, it IS a perfect analogy!
If we were to suggest that some central body should dictate exactly where every person should go, it would be mad - for the sake of people's happiness they must be free to go where they choose.
But at the same time we need traffic lights and some planning to make sure they can get anywhere at all...

This is correct. I am only comparing different systems of taxation based on their coherence, rationality and believability, all other things considered. I do not support any system of taxation.

Saying that "Taxation is an evil to be minimised" is a bit like saying that "traffic lights are an evil to be minimised" - no, they are something which we need exactly the correct amount of... not too many or too few.
Come to think of it... what is your opinion of traffic lights?

..." fund repayment of the National Debt"

What do you make of this?
"History tells the tale. The federal government has achieved fiscal balance (even surpluses) in just seven periods since 1776, bringing in enough revenue to cover all of its spending during 1817-21, 1823-36, 1852-57, 1867-73, 1880-93, 1920-30 and 1998-2001. We have also experienced six depressions. They began in 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893 and 1929."
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-kelton-fiscal-cliff-economy-20121221,0,2129176.story

I hope that the plan for former politicians is a joke!

I think it is perfectly reasonable to discuss which systems of taxation are respectively better or worse while also disagreeing with all taxation on principle. I can see the merit of systems of taxation which are rational and somewhat liberal; for example that based upon taxation of externalities or unearned rent, compared to other types of taxation. This does not mean that I think such ideas are not objectionable. All taxation is objectionable.

Fair enough.
Firstly, I don't think we need to tax to generate revenue - we need to tax to reduce economic activity. With that in mind, probably -- sales tax -- flat income tax --- land tax... ?

Mark -"You almost certainly don't hate taxation to the same degree you hate hunger or physical torture or being constrained to one space."

Tomsmith - "I certainly do"

Were you just messing around with that one?

I don't know enough about the details of either your or Tom's beliefs on tax to say which is more objectionable to me. I would guess that yours might be more objectionable because you don't seem to care about process, whereas Tom does.

From what I have read, Tom probably supports the spending of public money on things that are public goods. This is a rational and convincing argument where the benefits of tax and spend supposedly accrue to all in society via better provision of some things than the market can provide (although I do not subscribe to it myself). I don't know what kind of taxation Tom supports. I suppose it is likely to be low and flat.

From what I have read of your posts it seems you support a flat citizens income of some kind which I agree is better than spending on particular groups or projects if this is the only action that government takes. If there is still spending on particular groups and projects in addition to CI then I think the benefit would decrease proportionally. In terms of raising funds a logical and convincing way to fund CI would be a land value tax collecting unearned rent, based upon the historical injustice in land ownership. From what you have written so far I imagine you wouldn't care how it was funded and might prefer to fund it in a way that would punish currently successful people which would have all of the same problems as the current tax collection model.

In conclusion my impression is that I probably agree more Tom's natural dislike of government spending and his resulting desire to limit the scope of what government can do than I agree with your seemingly unlimited desire to punish successful people. However I agree with you that there are large historical and ongoing injustices in the current system and as a political radical I do seek to correct these. I don't know if I agree with you about how to correct them and I am fairly sure I disagree with you about the role and scope of government in doing so.

Some are, some aren't

I was "forced" to lie for money today.
If that in't being crushed, I don't know what is.

I disagree.

Hmmmm... I think the idea that performing work is an absolute necessity in order to be considred a decent human (unless you are powerful) is a far greater threat to our freedom than anything else... especially greater than a few thousand lazy men going fishing.
For example... the question, "why should some be forced to work for the rest" could very well be asked by a welfare scrounger to Ian Duncan Smith - or the other big wigs who spend their time however they please.
Frankly... we have allready decided as a society that we will support those who won't work. We don't expect those who don't work to starve, we don't punish the stealing of food with death.
As a libertarian, I believe we should establish the system which requires the least government intervention - a citizens income.
As you identify, the question is how far this support should extend.
As a lazy man, I believe quite far - you are free to disagree

"Let's also imagine that all of the work done by everyone is almost entirely due to inherited knowledge, social structures, existing machines and not our own "hard work"."

Knowledge cannot be owned, evolved social structures are voluntary and therefore mutually beneficial, non voluntary (forced) social structures favour certain groups and so are invalid, existing machines and other capital are inherited in an entirely voluntary way and are therefore owned by their inheritors.

Mark, It is - and more so - if you are putting together a letter to the bank manager or a CV, especially if the person receiving them can actually spell. Creativity is not so good in accountants or MPs filling out their expenses.

Oh write, so if you were a book publisher employing some one to be an editer or a skool employing sumwon to be a teecher and there CV was riddled with speling mistayks, it woodent matter?