Well, for sure, the welfare idea has been tried before. It's not immediately obvious to me (as it appears to you) that social safety nets are necessarily bad. However, this is clearly a very different issue, so let's not discuss it here. If you wanna start a new thread, we can have a meaningful conversation about the pros and cons of "welfare" there.
I never made a value judgment on social safety nets, rather, one on the 'Welfare State' which is government redistribution under coercion, which is a very different kettle-of-fish.
As to the positives, if you happen to live in the West, you, as well as your forebears, have enjoyed a lot of benefits that have all translated to a pretty unprecedented rise in the quality of life (as measured by pretty much any indicator).
Certainly that is true. What was the causative agent for that? It was of course capitalism. Capitalism functions most efficiently with a free market money.
So stuff like education, public health (which equates to life expectancy), public order etc which we all take for granted. Do you think all these would be possible in the West without governments and their power to tax?
Definitely. Government is simply not required.
Now as to your final point... As I have said a number of times, I completely agree that the full-on gold standard may impose a degree of discipline and prevent abuses. However, my question wasn't about the advantages of the gold standard, but rather the cost of these advantages. Or do you think they come for free?
I haven't had time to peruse the entire thread, so if you have previously elucidated these 'costs' earlier in the thread, I have not yet read them: you will have to specify which costs in particular you are referring to.
Finally, let me point out that the argument yet again hinges on the ignorance and stupidity of the "average man-in-the-street" who is unable to recognize inflation as a tax.
First off, I didn't refer to the average man in the street as ignorant/stupid. What I actually said was: "Inflation is a taxation, but one that is hidden and less obvious to the average man-in-the-street,"
Inflation created by money & credit expansion doesn't flow proportionally to all prices. The prices that concern our average chap, may, or may not, show proportionally the extent of the inflation.
This is exactly how the idea of a paternalistic government arises.
You may see 'paternalism', that is not how I would describe government, or more accurately, 'The State'.
Surely if you start with the idea that your average man on the street is stupid and naive,
Which I don't.
taxation for the sake of lofty "social goals" imposed by the government makes a lot of sense.
Taxation never makes sense. Taxation alters time preferences, raising them higher, thus directly lowers production. Production is the driver of material wealth, thus in a material context, we are all becoming less wealthy as taxation rises. This of course impacts the actual revenues government can directly expropriate through taxation.
jog on
duc
