6. “Is There an ‘Anomalous’ Section of the Laffer Curve?”
Abstract: When an economy is at the upper part of the Laffer curve, a reduction in tax rates will, somewhat paradoxically, lead to a rise in the amount of money, both relatively and absolutely, the taxpayer will retain, but, also, to an increase in government revenues collected. The former result is a welcome one, from the libertarian perspective, not so the latter. Does this example exhibit a slight anomaly for the free enterprise philosophy (a rare case when a reduction in statism does not lead, unambiguously, to benefits), or does it furnish a true conundrum. The present paper argues that both are true.
![[RSS Feed]](http://libertarianpapers.org/wp-content/themes/journalist/images/rss.gif "Subscribe to the Libertarian Papers Site Feed")
![[iTunes]](http://libertarianpapers.org/wp-content/themes/journalist/images/itunes.png "Subscribe to the Libertarian Papers Podcast with iTunes")
![[CC Attribution 3.0]](http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by/3.0/us/80x15.png)
After reading this very entertaining essay I can only conclude, as a libertarian, that we must immediately Tax dissent. There has to be an optimal position on the Laffer Curve that would tell us how to maximize dissent through taxation.
Walter
Thanks for your interesting article. Jessie Ventura is making a similar argument for a draft in Afghanistan. i.e: that a draft would lead to the end of the war. I wonder if he would accept the punishment for his advocacy?
I’m hardly a schooled philosopher, but I think Dr. Block’s article highlights what I think is a possible practical axiom of libertarianism, that for it to be a truly practical basis for a society, it’s other axioms (e.g., NAP) must be accepted by at least a majority, if not unanimously.
A group of people (e.g., a socialist community) could always band together to defeat or destroy an individual, and individual libertarians (those accepting the NAP) would be precluded from responding in kind against the socialist community unless their own property or liberty was attacked. In this way, a socialist community could easily take over a libertarian community, one individual at a time.
Consequently, I think that in the same way a criminal within a libertarian community surrenders his right to liberty upon committing a crime, individuals outside of a libertarian community do not necessarily enjoy the rights and priviledges of those within a libertarian community.
There is a typographical error at the top of page eight which, if not properly recognized, reduces the meaning of a statement to incoherency. The sentence reads, “In my opinion, B may [render A unconscious], but is then obligated to pay off B for the harm, rights violation, he has committed on him.” Clearly, Block means to say that B must pay off A. This is obviously not a major problem, but it is an editorial error that could easily confuse readers. It should be corrected in future publications (or updated if that is possible in online journals such as this).
That discrepancy aside, I found that the paper raised some very important points about the application of the NAP. It certainly opens the door to a great deal of future inquiry into how the NAP is best applied and what exceptions to it can justifiable be made.