That could be avoided if proper care is taken to ensure that the state has no need, or better yet, no use for revenue if no one's rights are being violated.
There is a simple solution. The Government charges rent for your use of the land and resources it holds in trust for all. That was the Mediaeval, Physiocratic, Mill and Henry George solution to the problem of taxation - a tax is not a tax when it is a market tent for what you are sitting on.
That means their is no sole ownership of land? Rent as in govt owns?
Govt can than dictate terms of use of land? It might be that I have not fully comprehended Caplan’s essay, nor your thought. My apologies.
But, I presume, the end result of any govt shared ownership will become a burden on inhabitants or ‘renters’ of that land. I do think it is inevitable.
Obviously the Sovereign (aka the people or the Crown) doesn't want landholders (the correct legal term) doing things that destroy overall land values eg toxic waste dumps next to homes or farms. That is why Adam Smith compared government to the management of a great estate. One wants best use, highest productivity and best rent from the estate as a whole.
To equate landholding with "ownership" in produced things is a mistake. Creation is the basis of title to ownership and no one can claim to have made his land (as opposed to improvements).
By the way, discovery is not a justification for ownership either - or Americans would be paying rent to the heirs of Christopher Columbus or the first Indians across the Bering Strait.
Pigovianism violates a foundational principle of taxation: that tax should baldly and merely exist to fund government, not to tinker with society. Even to tinker with tragedy of the commons issues. Pigovianism gives excuse for government to use tax to punish.
There is already a government organ designed to punish: courts--which taxes fund.
Circumventing courts for any justice related matter is a bad idea, because you're handing justice issues over to bureaucrats rather than judges when you do.
Government should tax at one rate for all citizens, and citizens should use courts to address tragedy of the commons issues.
If there are currently impediments to the effectiveness of class action suits, it's legitimate for the government to fix those impediments; but not legitimate for them to bypass the courts.
Government revenues shouldn't be increased by corporate misbehavior. Governments aren't the victims of pollution; citizens are. Pigovian taxes on pollution is basically saying that government is the victim and deserves damages. (Governments LOVE IT when you think they're a victim).
Pigovian taxes on pollution also introduces the problem of the government being the middle man in a damage payment. Compensation should be ordered by a court and paid directly from the perpetrator to the victim, not be filtered through the IRS.
A lot of these issues become more clear when you analyze who the actual victims are.
Is there a moral hazard when the state depends on rights violations for its revenue?
That could be avoided if proper care is taken to ensure that the state has no need, or better yet, no use for revenue if no one's rights are being violated.
I think we've seen a malignant version of this play out in the legal/political-tainment sphere with regard to race relations the last decade or two.
There is a simple solution. The Government charges rent for your use of the land and resources it holds in trust for all. That was the Mediaeval, Physiocratic, Mill and Henry George solution to the problem of taxation - a tax is not a tax when it is a market tent for what you are sitting on.
I presume the best use of ‘rent’ on land is to then require some form of production from the land or else the holder is just accumulating losses.
“Rent for use of land”
That means their is no sole ownership of land? Rent as in govt owns?
Govt can than dictate terms of use of land? It might be that I have not fully comprehended Caplan’s essay, nor your thought. My apologies.
But, I presume, the end result of any govt shared ownership will become a burden on inhabitants or ‘renters’ of that land. I do think it is inevitable.
Obviously the Sovereign (aka the people or the Crown) doesn't want landholders (the correct legal term) doing things that destroy overall land values eg toxic waste dumps next to homes or farms. That is why Adam Smith compared government to the management of a great estate. One wants best use, highest productivity and best rent from the estate as a whole.
To equate landholding with "ownership" in produced things is a mistake. Creation is the basis of title to ownership and no one can claim to have made his land (as opposed to improvements).
By the way, discovery is not a justification for ownership either - or Americans would be paying rent to the heirs of Christopher Columbus or the first Indians across the Bering Strait.
To which, it is proper for govt to dictate best land use based on whomever has taken charge.
Ergo, it is indeed proper for govt to centrally plan, or direct production.
Best use, highest productivity according to whom?
"rent" not "tent"!
Pigovianism violates a foundational principle of taxation: that tax should baldly and merely exist to fund government, not to tinker with society. Even to tinker with tragedy of the commons issues. Pigovianism gives excuse for government to use tax to punish.
There is already a government organ designed to punish: courts--which taxes fund.
Circumventing courts for any justice related matter is a bad idea, because you're handing justice issues over to bureaucrats rather than judges when you do.
Government should tax at one rate for all citizens, and citizens should use courts to address tragedy of the commons issues.
If there are currently impediments to the effectiveness of class action suits, it's legitimate for the government to fix those impediments; but not legitimate for them to bypass the courts.
Government revenues shouldn't be increased by corporate misbehavior. Governments aren't the victims of pollution; citizens are. Pigovian taxes on pollution is basically saying that government is the victim and deserves damages. (Governments LOVE IT when you think they're a victim).
Pigovian taxes on pollution also introduces the problem of the government being the middle man in a damage payment. Compensation should be ordered by a court and paid directly from the perpetrator to the victim, not be filtered through the IRS.
A lot of these issues become more clear when you analyze who the actual victims are.
Who decides what is “excessive”?