Exploring Liberty: The Machinery of Freedom (with David Friedman) - Libertarianism.org
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 чер 2024
- David Friedman is an economist, political philosopher, and the author of many books including The Machinery of Freedom, wherein he lays the groundwork for a society based exclusively on voluntary transactions. In this Exploring Liberty lecture, Friedman discusses the main premises of The Machinery of Freedom and offers a few additional conclusions he has reached in the years after the first edition of the book was published in 1973.
An .mp3 version of this lecture is available here: bit.ly/w3Rr8r
Related podcast episodes and articles are available here: www.libertarianism.org/media/...
Produced by Evan Banks.
The man who can say "I was wrong" is really saying "I am wiser now than I was before". Thanks for the assist.
I practically came when I saw this in my subscription box. David Friedman is my favourite economist by a long way. He is an unrecognised genius in my view.
No - It's objective - regardless of your view. Unrecognized and Genius. Perfect description.
I wholeheartedly agree. I just finished Machinery of Freedom and it's excellent!
What a mind. PhD in physics, but teaches Law and Economics at university instead. Fascinating and talented libertarian theorist! 🖤💛🐍
That is a nice point, but Mr. Friedman puts up a case is his book, The Machinery of Freedom, that better explains why national defense is a tough case: nuclear bombarding. If a nation neighboor to a stateless society sends a nuclear missile towards it, it doesn't matter which borders it crosses, once it does, the damage is too high for many people in that particular region. That's why collective defense is a public good. Whoever pays for it is paying for a great deal of other people.
David Friedman is truly a great intellectual. Just like his father the late Milton Friedman. Glad to see him further develop the ideas his had laid forth.
Yes, but you must also factor in a few more things:
1. In a society like this, there would be MANY more wealthy people, as it would be much easier to obtain since you will no longer have to deal with the most destructive force to wealth that has ever existed: rulers and governments.
2. People would still be just as charitable as they are now. With more wealth access, more people would be capable of taking care of those who are truly in need.
We would be better off.
It's not about how HARD you work but how much it is VALUED by other people.
love this guy
I second that thought…
Awesome Video Thank you!
I'm humbled by your candor, friend, as it's rare to hear people speak in such a manner on the internet. Thank you for responding so respectfully. I hope that I wasn't coming off as contentious.
I was mulling this over earlier and you are correct. Well said; I cede you the point.
lol yea dude gets ya thinking
Regarding healthcare systems, my wife is a physician and could write you an entire book about how the idiotic tax and regulatory structures destroy the price system and cause the predictable rise in healthcare costs that we've seen. Free market economists have in fact been predicting these things for decades. But I don't have anywhere near the time or the inclination to do that. If you honestly want to understand where I'm coming from please read Economic in One Lesson by Hazlitt.
National defense can be provided for by military defense clause on mortgages, loans, financing contracts. Any decent financier will want to protect the value of their assets and collateral. Therefore they will require military insurance as a condition for their loans. While true that some people who pay cash or have no assets will be free riders, that will be a small minority of people.
What national defense in the first place, if there are no nation states?
@@whatsthebigfukindeal youre assuming there arent any when you shouldn't
@@whatsthebigfukindeal Well you could also call it Free Private City defense.
Just doesn't have the same ring to it.
@@wurzel9671 call it what you want
how would you pay for it?
@@robinsss read the parent comment and then the comment I replied to
Lol
So good.
This is brilliant, David is a chip off the old block, smarter than his father in my view. After taking into account for the advances in Blockchain Technology, Sea steading etc... This will work
less known than the father though
However hard is the case for collective defense, although certainly not lost, there's also an answer by Stefan Moylneux arguing that there is strong incentive not to attack a stateless society. There is no way for a State of easily knowing in advance how strong are the defense systems of a stateless society. That is a fundamentally decentralized society, and thus is very hard to tell whether they have nuclear apparatus, how many they have, and where it is located. Counter-attack is unpredictable
I've read Friedman and watched the PBS series, his hypotheses on human nature and economics have been dismissed by many in the field. Economics is a soft science decided into two apposing hypothesis, Total free markets or democratic markets. Guess which one has never been tested? Guess which one fails when ever testing is attempted?
Taking the radio program idea and using it for national defense you make a spectacle of militias with NAS car and monster truck like shows as groups compete against each other for prizes in nonlethal combat that can translate to real world war scenarios. With sponsors and advertising.
You know the answer to that. I don't have anywhere near enough room to respond in this format. But if you are interested in understanding our take on such things, I'd start with the tragedy of the commons, which we both know you won't do, drone.
No PvP!? SWG was great, I think it probably had the best simulated economy of any game yet. Valuable resources discovered on a new planet, player cities spring up, cities positioned closest to transport links compete for traders, who pay to have their shops in the centres. The best organised towns get the most visitors and collect the most taxes, get the best facilities. Item quality varies and good artisans and traders get reputation. Really exciting game.
27:25 Wikipedia, the best voluntary public good model I've ever seen.
git hub, arduino, open source coding in general, open source design platforms, fkng youtube tutorials
I think this is a very strong philosophy. He concedes to some level that his his ideas do not equally apply to national defense, but I think the problem is not in his theory, but rather, the question. Nation defense is border protection. Nations are the product of government, there is no need to defend them or even mind them without government to in the first place. You don't have to explain how to defend that State in a stateless system. A private rights agency can represent those anywhere.
@maxwellnolan Agencies could easily be made affordable a couple of ways- first, you and your neighbors could all chip in (a community could offer a protection agency as a benefit of paying dues, alongside other things like road repair) and also your insurance company would be apt to hire one or at least subsidize the cost in order to protect themselves from having to payout in the event of a health injury or death in the case of life insurance.
It is a "public good" in the sense that it is a good open for public consumption, and for the purposes of a free rider problem discussion. It is a good, anyone can partake, there is no restricted access.
Conflict resolution is hampered by two forces; the inability of a each side to see the other's point of view and the instinct to get even. If those irrational forces can be eliminated, conflicts would be resolved through reason. That role is performed now by government because it is thought by both sides to be large enough to be dispassionate. A society-wide meme must be adopted that dismisses the assumption that private agencies would inherit the above two irrational forces from their clients.
It's a really nice voice to listen to. This video would be even better if you could provide us with a transcription.
He plays World of Warcraft.
Are there any videos with him playing the game?
@janc71 "And since when is food property?"
Do you even understand the concept of property? It's the exclusive right to a certain object. When you eat an apple, you implicitely make such a claim, because noene else can eat/use it after you've eaten it. Eating an apple IS appropriating the apple, whether you like it or not. And since nobody's complainign that you eat the apple, people apparently acknowledge that is IS your rightfull property.
When the outcome of every judicial decision dictates which of two parties benefits financially isn't it painstakingly obvious that bribery and corruption will be rife?
No because its not compulsory and the courts dependent on reputation so the incentives make that nearly impossible unlike our current system where thats pretyy much normal behavior of the courts
I must say these automatic captions (that I was aware of) are very accurate for this video but I cannot download them as I could if the captions were added by LibertarianismDotOrg.
When was this video created?
I agree.
Can you suggest any fictional accounts of societies based on the ideas Dr. Friedman presents in this talk?
Read Robert Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"
No, contextually speaking, a public good is one that is socially owned. Wikipedia isn't. At any point the owners could shut down the site and take it away from the public without any legal recourse.
The lack of restrictions are allowed by the owners. It is them using their property in the manner in which they see fit.
I have two gates in my backyard, one in the front and one in the back. If I was to ALLOW people to pass through it as they pleased, it does not cease to be my private property.
I support so many of David's ideas, and I would love to live under such a system, but how would we get this into action in the USA or any other country?
I recommend looking up the word agorism. I dont think well get to this point using any other method.
david isn't an anarchist he says he is but in his book of machinery of freedom he doesn't show how a society would work with no government, he is like oh we should have subcities where mayors rule over 100,000 people and he talks about taxes.
@@voluntarism335 he is but he isn't dogmatic in his positions he's mostly a utilitarian and argues he can be wrong. Machinery is about an anarchist legal system so ya of course it doesn't get into everything
@@joshualocicero6799 why would he put statist solutions into his book if he is supposedly an ancap?
@@joshualocicero6799 how is having a subcity mayor ruling over 100,000 people imposing taxes at any rate they like anarchist?
I would like to see this type of society as a social experiment before I say more. And as always there needs to be a control group.
Yes, that would be interesting
The reason we don't have private defense agencies and this sensible anarchist society is that that wars between them can be fought and won by attacking a few in leadership. If you are a leader who doesn't remove weak leadership you are the weak leadership and you will be removed. Merit is secondary to politics in today's world. Pseudo-anonymity can change that.
Advertising is not necessarily a "negative good" with "negative value." Think of the Super bowl where millions of people view the game , JUST to see the new and sometimes amazing Advertisements. I think this happens more often than many people think. My son often complains when I switch the TV or radio channels when there is a commercial on.
security, courts, and national security can be provided better by private companies
***** but that's what we got now, can i get it for less :)
Bang! dead rich man and his army of lawyers run for the hills. That is what happens when you leave your opponent no peaceful options and you do not negotiate.
+Barskor Why wouldn't the rich man be able to hire an army of security personnel as well as or instead of the lawyers?
Lucrative to who, exactly? The government? It's private businesses that ultimately find it lucrative.
War is not a lucrative thing. Have you ever heard of the broken window fallacy? That applies directly.
While at first people will get advantages via wealth, it will ultimately depend on your real value.
While you have arms, legs, a brain you are worth something to someone.
Even as a 120 year old sick guy you are still worthy of medical study vs thrown on a scrap heap.
This system sounds interesting but it takes more than one man to brainstorm on this topic in order to conclude if this way is the right way to live with these rules without potential loop-holes that provide unnecessary consequences.
Better a dream world than the nightmare we live in today...Besides,if you had asked your average person a few hundred years ago about whether democracy is possible or whether the abolition of slavery is possible they would have thought you were nuts and living in a dream world. Maybe anarchy is no more unrealistic than were those reforms.
Both are Libertarian Gods in their own right (which is an ironic term to itself)
work = have a successful outcome. I don't regard the current centralization of government power to work either. I don't know if such a society would work, and I only make a complete judgement after knowing the results. My "gut" feeling is that a stateless society would not work.
Obviously the issue is far too complicated for either side to convince the other in the limited space of a UA-cam comment. If you could recommend any specific books that provide the strongest arguments for your ideas toward classical liberals or libertarians, please reply; I am actually genuinely interested in counter-arguments. For example, to learn a simple approach to the classical-liberal philosphy, I would recommend Milton Friedman's "Capitalism and Freedom" or "Free to Choose."
Really? I've always gotten good service from State Farm insurance. Maybe you should shop around. I'd shop around for another government, but alas, Washington has a monopoly over most of the continent.
just as you buy health insurance, you would buy insurance with your particular agency. because free market - the price would have to be affordable for large amount of people (because agencies obviously want to make as much profit as possible) thus it would be much more cheaper than now. today, you are forced to buy it with the state. in anarchist society, the choice would ultimately law on your shoulders. ergo - nobody would force you to buy anything.
Why would they lose their customers? Wouldn't people that WANTED to bribe the judge be more likely to chose them? I see it the other way around: Government is benign until the greed of business corrupts it.
In one sense this is true but it still needs to be explained. Friedman's approach to market anarchism is gradualist in nature and there is no reason to assume that market anarchy will take over the entire world at once and so stateless societies would have to deal with the possibility of dealing with external states. Do the people in the area of the Carolina's ignore someone invading the area of Georgia or do they help ward off potential invasion of their own geographic region at a later time?
Did all those books you read teach you about "externalities?" The existance of externalities is to economics what genetics is to Biology.
You can't have a functional free market economy if there are elements within it that are destroying other markets. Kind of like the Godzilla of all externalities, global warming.
More efficient by what measure?
This is described in the interview. To paraphrase, an economy is efficient when every good that has more value to the buyer than it costs the seller is produced. Presumably, ‘more efficient’ means closer to this ideal.
At first the idea seemed silly, but now it sounds like a pretty solid alternative. Although I don't believe in a complete anarchism, I believe a basic income should be implemented to allow everyone to participate in the market, with a minimum intervention by a government. That would imply tax, of course, but just a minimum, clear, concise and transparent tax with that sole purpose. Because how would the people without money have their basic rights ensured?
Zequez Ezequiel Schwartzman I disagree with you completely, I think a basic income is a terrible idea: if money is given to all people equally, 1. Companies could simply raise prices 2. The currency would be worth less.
Anon Ymous How is that? A GBI would imply some form of taxation, thus dead weight loss economically, but it would have no direct bearing on the value of the currency.
M Stob 1. Companies could simply raise prices 2. the money has to be stolen by force and given to other people.
Zequez, how about we start by getting rid of "government land" and letting people homestead what is not actually owned by someone. Right now, many people have no way to get land, build a home, grow food, hunt and fish, etc. without government control. Let able-bodied people have a chance to be self-sufficient. Let families and communities help the elderly and the sick. Then see who still cannot have their basic needs met. I would not be in favour of any type of communist-leaning solution such as you suggest.
Unless you factor in administrative costs fraud and incompetence and then it is a drain rather than a zero sum event.
So while a primary complaint against statism is that people don't like being forced to pay taxes to support welfare, education, and other public services, you think they will do it willingly? If society as a whole willingly paid for programs, then taxes wouldn't have to be levied to meet demand in the first place, people would just automatically donate more money to their local school districts, family services, local job rehabilitation centers, etc.
It's not that they can't, they just don't.
I agree, since I usually think of the two drug dealers fighting over the same corner for business. It would still be interesting to run a social experiment to prove or disprove of a stateless society. Do I think it would work? Nope.
Wikipedia is privately owned. It's not a public good, but private property that is being used to benefit the public.
What do you do to punish a neighbor who rapes his daughter? His rights protection agency won't punish him, yours won't, and if you punish him, you have to deal with his agency.
Rape is a violation of the NAP so I'm not sure why in your hypothesis the protection agency wouldn't pick up the case
@janc71 "These are basic necessities that in a better world would not have to be bought."
You are living in a fantasyland (at least you'd wish). Food doesn't magically appear out of nothing. It costs time and energy to plant/grow/harvest/prepare it. That fact alone already shows that there's no such thing as a free lunch. It costs time/labor/energy. Buying something with money is indirect labor, and could be seen as 'transfering energy/labor'.
But if you can create abundance, be my guest.
What about private defense agencies and insurance companies providing defense?
Do you have anymore essay or book recommendations?
Is there a problem with my speakers, or does this man not articulate full sentences properly? Almost all of his sentences start out at a rather loud volume and end in a barely audible mumble.
I KNOW What You Mean but that's just hmmm...
This man is the reason we cannot judge a man's intelligence by the layout of his website.
This video is amazing, but the single page of crammed text... it hurts my eyes.
Why would they go to war?
I would argue that Rothbard imposes his moral beliefs to his world view on others who may disagree making in some sense authoritarian. I think Friedman offers the best form of anarcho-capitalism that allows choice. His anarcho-capitalism is the only form that is really is anarchy
Okay, so in this anarcho-capitalist future, my security/rights agency, and the security/rights agency of the defendant/accused, agree to a third party arbitration in advance. How is this fundamentally than a gov't? I mean at some point you will be delegating authority to someone who will act without your direct approval, or may act in a way direct against what you perceive to be your rights. Isn't that exactly what libertarians object to in a gov't?
It is different because you are choosing from the options created in the market. That means that different disputes may be handled by different arbitrators based on the preference of the individuals party to the contract. These arbitrators come and go based on their performance and price. With government, there is no market as everyone is forced to pay taxes to support it whether they like the performance or not, so long as some majority keeps candidates in office. If you don't pay your taxes, armed men will come to your door to kidnap you, or worse, kill you if you feel like you have a right to defend yourself from their violation of your liberty. With the arbitration agency, you can, at will (or according to contract terms), change your manner of defense and arbitration agency and do not have to depend on the views of others to make decisions which you agree with.
So, it is completely different.
Wouldn't that just descend into tribalism? I mean if we are shopping around for cars or appliances, that's one thing. But for security matters we would gravitate to the choices in the market that would best represent our rights (even if we are wrong) which means these would quickly devolve into tribal identities that would function as gov'ts. If an arbitration goes against me, I'll go to one that I know will go my way most of the time. Just like any consumer would. That's not a new system. That's an old system. The oldest on earth in fact.
Maybe in a technological future where I can affordably defend myself from all incursions on my rights (personal forcefield, whatever) then we could have an anarcho-capitalist system. Until then, I think a minarchist state is still preferable.
Travis Clark First, the implementation of anarcho-capitalism is assuming that people have come to the realization that government is the problem. In that case, people would not look for government-like structures to solve their problems. The reason why people do and have looked toward government is because of an indoctrination bias resulting from our societies arising from tribal and patriarchal societies to begin with. IOW, we have always been in a constant state of childhood in a sense, seeking a parental figure to place our fears on. Government fills this role today.
So if society were to enter an anarcho-capitalist society without coming to that realization, then absolutely we could fall back into government, or parts of our society could.
The other factor is that there may be multiple defense agencies in the same region. Its not like there is going to be some defined border where everyone within that border uses the same defense agency. I mean, that may happen occasionally.
Ultimately, cost and price will dictate how these agencies function. It won't be as simple to say, "I want an agency that will kill whoever robs me." An agency that goes to that extent will likely take on too much risk and go out of business.
There is a video series called "Law Without Government", it may answer some of these questions for you.
I can see that you didn't even watch the first few minutes.
The Punisher could make this way easier.
I'm always happy to pay for the things I choose to use. Almost every public service I've seen wouldn't stand a chance of getting my money in a free society, they're too inept and inefficient. You could have said "welcome to the 19th century" or whatever to a slave. Just because society works a particular way doesn't make it smart or moral. The current system is neither.
are you serious dude? did you just say the economy would be worse without the stimulus? money printing can never help only harm.. unless you're one of the multi billionaires that gets the money first..
Yea, but what about global economics?
We would, if you put down the gun. Until you are willing to give us the same respect we give you, to not stick your nose in our affairs at gunpoint, you will not get or deserve an ounce of respect. This conversation is over until you are willing to (1) put the gun down like a civilized person and (2) genuinely try to understand why we seek a free society.
so they act first on the crisis which is easier to light.
a threat of violence from the thief rather than the thief's security agency
@maxwellnolan Chiping in with what? How can you chip in if you don't own anything(if everything is public property)? This is what I don't get from anarcho-socialism. In order to simply enjoy a meal, you need to, at some point, claim an amount of food as your own private property.
Anarcho-socialism can't be against private property. They just want to arbitrarily limit what someone should be allowed to own, even when everything a person gathers is due to hard work and voluntary exchange.
How do you protect the rights of minors in an Anarcho-Capitalist society?
what do you mean by that? Right now minors have very few rights compared to those who have reached the magic 18 and 21 number in USA.
I know. Don't get me wrong. I am an Anarchy leaning Minarchist. But, I still have some doubts about complete Anarchy. For example, a dad sexually abusing his 13 year old daughter. How does she get out of this situation in Anarchy?
From birth, every person has the basic natural rights of life, property, and specifically, individual sovereignty. Children aren't property, as ones own body is their own property. The regional law may differ, but the father in the hypothetical scenario would be infringing on his daughters individual sovereignty and would face the ramifications of the regional law of that region.
+Barskor You think the girl's father won't have hired a defence contractor of his own to protect him against such intrusions of his privacy?
I am assuming you would desire such a society in the believe that the free market produces (usually) the best outcomes. However, since capitalism tends to growing inequality (The decrease in inequality after WW2 was almost entirely due to redistribution, and this remains this way to this day) and since inequality, after a certain degree is reached, just completely setting aside the(from a utilitarian perspective) inefficient distribution, involves a slower growing economy, how does one believe this could actually be true, esspecially without a risk-absorbing institution like the government?
Oh golly i am so sorry to hurt your feelings. You are right, you know what is best for everybody and since you do; you mind as well implement it by force...btw i don't advocate for an immediate end to these government agencies and programs(even though they couldn't prevent "thousands of products made with his eggs" in the first place. My free market solution is for self reliant individuals who would not support marketing publications that have been known to lie in the past
miltons son smashing it up son booo ya
Why would anybody need to be convinced of a blatantly obvious fact? The fact being that rich people will just buy the law, team up with other rich people to buy the entire law and then do whatever they want in any way. Just think of it, it's a no brainer. It's already happening around you.
@maxwellnolan ".Some of the richest people in the world work the least..."
Oh, you people... Trying to disprove an anarchic society with example from the current one. In a truely free market without barrier to entry and special favors from the government, it would be more difficult to become rich without hard work and enginuity.
(cont)
Agreed! And I like your ingenuous spelling of ingenuity :-)
@@adrianbartholomew3785 Yeah, my English still isn't perfect (I do try!). 😀
Since the economy, language, and other human traits evolve in a non-directed way, how can this economist so clearly state how an economy using rights enforcement agencies would develop sans government. This non-economist can easily see people collectively choosing violence to settle disputes and differences of resources.
I don't understand what you mean exactly.
Gary Livesey By analogy, evolution happens in a non-directed way, that is, without being steered at a consciously chosen end. If one understands the forces and mechanisms, one can make better educated guesses as to where it's going in any given situation. One could, I'm making up an example, perhaps guess how frogs vs. storks would develop in a more water-rich environment than what actually exists at place X.
Likewise, if one understands the forces and mechanisms which shape how we humans organize our behavior, one can make more educated guesses at how we will behave, especially in cases of conflict. Naturally, any prediction is speculative and nothing is certain in history, but the rational actor paradigm and economic thought has, I think, a _reasonable_ if imperfect track record.
Ok and what determines the verdict? Who has the right incentives when jail time is determined?
ohedd There is no jail time, and the 'right incentive' is decided by the private judge. As you have a number of private judges, the ones with the 'bet incentives' will be the ones who get the most customers. And the beautiful thing about this one is that if you disgree with this notion, it's fine because you can just go and contract with another judge anyway or at least request your right defender agency too.
SO sad that 99,99% of people stop thinking before the 30 seconds.
I don't get it... it sounds like everything will depend on how much money you have
No thats the current system where these services are monopolized a competitive market is consumer driven not money driven
Has he pushed it to the point of national defense?
Also how is having a monopoly on food inspection with the FDA better than private competing publication companies who could shine light on their competition taking bribes, corruption etc..
Do you not find it ironic that people such as yourself who want all civic projects handed over to non-accountable private capital don't stop and think that this might be a bad idea?
That perhaps having one person own the main bridge in town might slow progress rather than help it?
Welcome to the 21 century. Where every major city is a marvel of civic projects, research universities, roads, justice systems and police. Feel free to enjoy it for free, Oh,wait, no it's not free. If you want to stay you have to help pay.
I suggest Uganda if you want to live in a free society with no taxes. Good luck. I'm sure the good and services will be crazy cheap there.
What this is describing in essence is simply replacing our current justice and legal departments with insurance companies. All crime or breach of rights would be settled by organizations that offer to their customers reparations in the event of harm. The thought is horrifying to me on multiple levels, not the least of which because I live in the US, where insurance companies are by and large the most unethical and shady businesses in the country, and profit handsomely by being so.
@TheMawification "Socialism" is an incredibly vague term and has been that way for over a century. Individualist anarchists such as Benjamin Tucker, Proudhon, Josiah Warren closer views to David Friedman that to anarcho-communists, yet they all still referred to themselves as a "socialists".
/watch?v=Q3uCQ-0xpnM
i can call my self a pretty butterfly, but that doesn't make me pretty nor a butterfly, so the problem there is not the term
Well, the opposite doesn't really coincide with freedom now would it? That nothing you do depends on your wealth... but that's not really the topic of this talk.
The important thing here is that in a free society you could not buy yourself judicial freedoms that no one else has like we see in today's society.
Guilty Pre-Chance
I can't speak for how much he purely believes these ideas. Friedman's ideas seem to be more of a thought experiment of a how a free society might function with no government, if you push free market ideas to the absolute extreme. Whether or not it might actually look like this is anyone's best guess. I personally don't buy into all of it, but I can appreciate an alternative point of view that asks me to challenge conventional wisdom. At the very least, a free society is worth dreaming about.
Canadian Health care system is more efficient (by 5 times) than the American health care system. Which makes up 20% of the GDP. That's just one example. You argument is invalid.
Criminal drug dealers exist because Prohibition creates and protects them. Without the state, would *all* commerce be monopolized by thugs? (Are there enough thugs?) You might look up the "lex mercatoria".
So if you pay a fine that's hefty enough you can have people executed for stealing a candy bar?
The most artificial artificial..Free Markets must exist with society..The machine can't stand chance.
North Korea is a religious dictatorship, A kingdom. If you can't tell the difference there is a problem.
Governmental systems allow for not-for-profit and transparency. If you actually think for a minute about your civic duties you would see this.
how would poor people afford the agency?
In a society without taxes the soi-disant/putative poor person wouldst have up to that 7/10 of their icome government couldst ,--at times,-- get away with taxing. Imagine a world where you receive 40,000 USD a year for a job or got paid 40,000 for. [See: Laffer Curve]
Yeah so people with more money will just have free reign to inflict ANY horrible deed on anyone they arbitrarily feel like. Great system, if you have money