[Levi.Rodney]

Mike,
Although I agree that taxation is theft and I appreciate the relevant quote from Bastiat, I’m not so certain we can apply those principles universally. Do you believe it is practical for us to live in a society with 0% taxes?
It is in my mind possible that some public works such as aqueducts or city walls may not have been constructed if not for some measure of forced cooperation. In many ways my skepticism might be applied more universally. If people did not unite under a single banner and lived entirely alone with small families are we certain they would be willing to invest their resources in large scale project, or if they would unite to resist an external threat? How well would they fare against a trained standing army? If the USA today had zero taxes, zero standing military, etc… Wouldn’t it just be conquered by a more powerful united superpower? I have to wonder to what extent we are willing to recognize the practicality of our ideology.
If I could change the government I would certainly downsize, reduce spending, and thereby reduce taxes.
Essentially, I find myself guilty of considering some parts of the state “a necessary evil” (that doesn’t necessarily have to be evil).
I absolutely hate to call libertarianism a utopian philosophy, but perhaps some of the ideals are a bit too idealistic for our generation. It just seems that what we should be able to do and what we have to do are completely disparate.

[Levi.Rodney]

Dr. Jewell,
I am having a hard time wrapping my head around the idea of a private government.
Your point about assumed taxation seems to hit the target. I understand that some kings may have spent their resources only on personal comforts rather than commissioning art projects, and that may affect the way they were historically regarded. Perhaps some of the later revolutions wouldn’t have taken place the way they did if the ruling class considered public quality of life as a priority.

[Levi.Rodney]

Dr. Herbener,

I am new to Liberty Classroom, and my understanding is very limited but there are parts of inflation I can’t conceptualize. For instance, years ago my brother asked me how the monetary system knows how much money is in circulation.
My guess at the time was that it is because 95% of US dollars are digital and the currency loses value almost automatically as the supply increases. Now I’m beginning to think it is more of a domino effect from creators to last users. However, it is difficult to imagine an illegal counterfeiter spending fake currency and some form of currency consciousness recognizing quantity changes in a meaningful way.

In response to the above:
If the purchasing power of a given money is the same everywhere it trades how do we differentiate if the cost is an increase in a single product or a loss of currency value?
For instance, I understand the cost of living in Hawaii is quite high and because of shipping costs every commodity is more expensive. Although the dollar has equal value compared to other currencies, it has less value compared to all or most of the products on the market in that region.

Please forgive my lack of economics lingo.

[Author]

Posts