bring back debtors prison
GENERAL WELFARE
As a thought experiment: there should be a re-institution of debtors prison. People who default on debts to the public, could be thrown into jail with the rest of free society responsible for the expense. If the cost was fairly distributed among free society, i.e. a flat rate, then through the elective process, it could be determined what the appropriate debtors prison rate would be (penalties, taxes, number of prisoners.) That way productive society can move along reforming socialised welfare programs, that could be eliminated and replaced where applicable, by a more individualized system. A way to pay for fire department protection of property would be billing the people who use actual fire department services to fund the entire fire department. For most (risk averse) people this would involve buying an insurance policy that would cover fire department costs. This would more accurately and efficiently assign costs where benefits are received, providing better feedback loops for people to adjust their behavior. Police, health care, retirement, could all be handled this way. In all instances insurance/savings would not be mandatory but one could be thrown into jail for not paying for incurred benefits (theft from the rest of society.) A lot of people could potentially be thrown into jail - but this can be mitigated by the fact that 'enlightened' society would not want to see some 85 year old grandmother thrown into jail for not paying the fire department for getting her cat out of a tree, and the cost of too many in jail would be expensive for productive society to pay for. So people in need (not people in want), whom society deems as worthy, should receive a stipend/voucher to pay insurance/annuity costs for governments former economic redistribution benefits, the rate to be determined by economic and social trade-offs. One way or another, modern liberal democracy demands that the one third of people with an income, subsidize the other two thirds without money, both voluntarily(supporting family) and by coercion(government). This method would be more benign on individuals natural rights. Debtors prison would penalize the proper people (thieves) 'in debt to society' unlike the present tax code.
4 comments:
forgive me>>>>>but this can be mitigated by the fact that 'enlightened' society would not want to see some 85 year old grandmother thrown into jail for not paying the fire department for getting her cat out of a tree:
you want us to pay for gentleness?? you want every step to be paid?!!
forgive me again
One way or another, modern liberal democracy demands that the one third of people with an income, subsidize the other two thirds without money:
i work hard,, and others share my money while not doing anything
it's not fair!
N.B i face a problem of wel understanding the strong language:)
www.aliaamahboub.blogspot.com
Ya know, that's a pretty darn stupid post.
You want to fund fire services by charging only those who actually use them; but you want to fund the punishment of debtors, not by charging their creditors, but by charging society as a whole. Isn't that a little inconsistent? And it would likely have about the same market distorting effects as (say) subsidizing bulk-rate mail at taxpayer expense.
Currently, a lot of contracts are made that are only profitable because the cost of enforcing them is externalized on the taxpayer. Treating enforcement costs as a "public good," rather than a service to be funded on the basis of assessed cost, is a subsidy to those who rely on the state most.
Incidentally, Lysander Spooner (surely a libertarian's libertarian) took a considerably different view of bankruptcy. The debt contract only entitled the lender to the borrower's assets at the time of default--not to his future labor services. A contract establishing further liability would be repugnant on its face, like any other contractual alienation of self-sovereignty. Simply put, no libertarian court will enforce a contract selling oneself into slavery.
T.S. REPLIES:
As a capitalist i'm always looking for markets to supply demand - especially replacing government intervention. The fire department is not as much as a pork laden entity, as say agriculture or natural resource extraction - but i take it as a given that government should not subsidize these activities. My real attack (although extremely poorly articulated) was on the property-value tax funding local general welfare benefits. I think it as unjust that property taxes are assessed at property value rates, instead of flat taxes, for more less equal fire/police/court protection. I was attempting to assign these costs at market rates via non-mandatory insurance policy protection, sans traditional taxes. The debtors prison idea was only meant as an enforcement mechanism to encourage people to buy insurance protection or face the consequences (and a metaphor for who the true thieves are). Never the less, i consider this a fringe idea, and would not wish to impose this policy in any way other than the current legislative process, were it is extremely unlikely to generate any popular support. The current statist existence of government is so entrenched in society at large, that i do not see any substantive change in the current "social contract" in our life times.
Post a Comment