[O]ne's taxes is the price one pays for these services, and I find it difficult to conjure a justification for additional obligations for these services [my emphasis].

Additional obligations beyond taxation? I think the question at issue was merely that of taxing people to provide these services.

Opportunity is not a cause; effort is.

Charitably, I assume that what you mean is that opportunity will not be worth anything unless those who have the opportunity put in the effort; opportunity is not a direct cause. Which is true, but I have a strong suspicion that the opportunity to attend university with no tuition fees which was available in New Zealand for a few brief decades probably was a cause behind the proliferation of doctors and dentists and the like among the various cousins of my decidedly working-class mother. Just saying.

Wealth is dynamically created by people, and taxation takes that away after it's created–the more that is created, the more is taken.

You make it sound like the wealth is disappearing as soon as it's been given as tax :-)

[T]here is no guarantee that the taxed will ever personally gain from that prosperity of others.

There is no guarantee, no. There might be considerable probability, given the potential to reduce crime and to increase the overall wealth by allowing capable people the opportunity to use their talents. But I confess it -- for me, the good of society as a whole is reason enough.

The great insight of capitalism is that wealth, unlike matter and energy, is not a constant but can be created. Ironically, it is libertarians who have forgotten this, implicitly assuming that the amount of wealth in society is fixed and that taxation is a zero-sum game, that one person must lose for another to prosper.

Well, you're right that wealth is not a zero-sum game. It can certainly be created where none existed before. I usually see this misunderstanding applied by the Left, however, in their misguided effort to claim that rich people have too big a piece of the pie; that is, that the gap between the rich and poor is too big, and that the rich own a disproportionate amount of wealth.

However, how is taxation not a zero-sum game? Or is that even a valid question to ask? I understand that social and civil services have some effect of equalizing opportunity, but the taxation that funds those services is only an indirect cause of the wealth that is potentially created by those who prosper because of better opportunity. Opportunity is not a cause; effort is. And ultimately, you're reversing the issue. Taxation is a not a zero-sum game, but that's not even a valid question here. Wealth is dynamically created by people, and taxation takes that away after it's created--the more that is created, the more is taken. And while it probably does have a widespread impact in bettering the conditions by which others can prosper, there is no guarantee that the taxed will ever personally gain from that prosperity of others, and I fail to see how it's anyone's right to take one person's property for his own good or for anyone else's.

[Libertarianism's] central ethic is "every man for himself", while I believe the superior ethic is "we're all in this together".

"Every man for himself" is more like neo-conservative thinking, and it's a perversion of libertarianism. Libertarianism realizes that non-coercive self-interest benefits all parties involved. It's only when another party (like a corrupt or otherwise coercive industry) demands sacrifice of the other party does it go wrong, and that's not libertarianism.

As for this argument that rich people are rich because of society's aid, you are absolutely correct, but you are wrong about the reason. Capitalism, like it or not, is a system that enables producers and consumers to trade for no other reason than self-interest, without sacrificing or coercing either party. While a free society is certainly necessary for people to morally earn wealth, no one is sacrificed in the act of free trade. Your debt is paid, totally and completely, when the transaction is completed. No one agreed to additional compensation.

This is a separate argument from the issue of social and civil services, though, which the government provides through taxation to equalize opportunity. I am not a fan of utilitarian ethics, but these do actually help to equalize opportunity for the poor and disenfranchised; however, again, one's taxes is the price one pays for these services, and I find it difficult to conjure a justification for additional obligations for these services.

Do you think there should be cases where state aid is cut off to people who clearly, evidently have no intention of bettering them selves? For example, could unemployment benefit be suspended if a person declines say, three, perfectly good job offers?

Yes, absolutely. Those people are trying to free-ride at society's expense just like a wealthy individual who refuses to contribute to the common good. It's the duty of every member of society to participate. As I said in Part II:

Certainly we should not indefinitely support people who refuse to work, and the emphasis should be on helping recipients return to the workforce as soon as possible.

A typical example is the claim of right to appropriate property without compensation. Consider that if Curious has appropriated a piece of property, he has not contracted with or received agreement from me to appropriate the property. Very likely, he has not done so with any of you reading this post. We are no longer free to do with the property what we would have, had Curious not infringed on our rights, by appropriating the property without freely entered agreement on our part. Curious must therefore compensate for his rights infringement. A method to accomplish this is taxation - in this case property taxation. The tax can be distributed to fund entities such as schools, especially since kids will be born into rights infringement due to Curious's property appropriation. Curious can compensate the kids by helping to fund their education. We can build on the tax issue, making a case for tax rate based on scarcity, and even common (government trustee) of land that is significantly scarce, such as national parks.

How is it that some abuse the rights of other's by appropriating things without agreement, and then complain when required to provide compensation? It is interesting how some would decry the government and it's coercive power, but ironically would employ that coercive power if you set foot on "their" land. In this regard, the quote from Curious is telling:

"And I have already said that I have no problem with taxes that maintain a government that protects my rights."

I disagree. I want a government that protects all of our rights. A libertarian rights argument is actually a very powerful protection - if the rights of all parties are acknowledge. I think a lot of the abusive/immoral scenarios that are ascribed to libertarianism are actually the result of acknowledging the rights of certain parties at the expense of others.

But prison is nothing but cost, whereas as I showed earlier, people who have access to education and job training are actually a net bonus to society in the long run.

I agree with your post and all of your arguments, but strictly speaking, we should want prison to provide education and job training too. The primary goal of the prison system should be, as far as possible, to reform criminals into hard working, law abiding citizens.

We as a society should provide for the basic, fundamental needs of everyone, and whatever additional, non-essential luxuries a person desires, they should be left to earn by their own effort.

In most cases I agree, but it is undeniable that some people who live off benefits are quite simply lazy. They don't want to work, they just want to live off the state. They're ok with not having a life of luxury, as long as they don't have to work for they're bare essentials. I'm not stereotyping, I've met people like this, and they're pretty shameless. One person I spoke to found it actually amusing that I was funding the state while the state was funding him - he found the irony a lot more pleasing than I did!

Do you think there should be cases where state aid is cut off to people who clearly, evidently have no intention of bettering them selves? For example, could unemployment benefit be suspended if a person declines say, three, perfectly good job offers?

I disagree strongly with allowing monopolies because only a competitive market is likely to be efficient. Monopolies, especially those that establish, or stand protected behind, strong barriers to industry-penetration are likely to become as inefficient as government. There will be no incentive to innovate without healthy competition. Technically, providing a less than optimal product and an inflated price is not fraud. You could say that if I don't like it I don't have to purchase the product, but like a home country, some products are better to have mediocre, than not at all. But, I'd rather have a free-market optimum.

@Ebon:

Nuclear fusion was not developed for profit.

Have we started harnessing fusion power already? I thought they didn't net any power.

I do not believe, however, that people who lose out in the competitive lottery should be left to starve to death in the street as a lesson for others.

Are you really completely convinced that individual charity cannot be equal to the task of caring for those who fall on hard times? I don't think it's as hopeless as you make it sound without government. In fact, it may be the attitude that it's the government's responsibility that contributes to an artificially depressed sense of duty. If each of us knew that we were our neighbor's and community's only hope, then maybe we'd all be more likely to adopt the attitude that "we're all in this together."

The invention of the Internet was not a for-profit venture.

The internet was developed by the military and only the commercial interests turned it into what it is today. But, I have little doubt that business would have caught on to the idea of networking computers.
Much technology has come from the military and NASA, but at what cost? Scietific developments by government are probably hit and miss from a cost-benefit perspective. There is also the opportunity cost of foregone ventures that may have been even better but government crowding-out precluded industry solutions.
I brought up highways as an example of good government action, but, maybe something better than encouraging gas guzzling trucks to criss-cross the country would have developed in the absence of "Free" accessible highways.
Even our war of on terror is government's ham-fisted attempt to meet our energy needs...uh, er...and to spread democracy - funny I'm not crazy about the way we're doing that here and now we're trying to export it.

Because it is the antithesis of freedom. So long as I am forced to live according to what others deem right regardless of whether or not I am causing harm, I live under tyranny.

Only if you define "freedom" as "the ability to do whatever I want at any time with no consequences". This is a warped and stunted definition. I argued in Part II that maximum freedom is actually achieved by a society that helps all its members to achieve their desires, an argument you have yet to address.

The first two examples have victims. Who are the victims of the third?

The victim of free-riding is society in general, rather than any single person. Your appeal to freedom sounds noble, but in practice, what it would produce is a destructive tragedy-of-the-commons spiral where increasing numbers of people stop contributing because others have done the same. You say helping others is a moral obligation, but in your ideal world, how would you answer someone who demands to know why he should take up the slack for others who have selfishly opted out?

Also, you are not forcing people to stop harmful behaviors. You are forcing others to perform what you believe are good behaviors.

I advocate requiring people to repay the debt they owe to society for the services and opportunities it has provided them.

But you want to take that money and give it directly to others. Not place it at the disposal of all of us like with a road or the police.

As I have shown, using taxation to fund social programs like health care and education provides indirect but undeniable benefits to all members of that society. This is another argument you have not addressed.

How is this any different than blackmail? "Give me what I want or I will turn to crime." And yet you still want to reward these people. Amazing!

I don't know what your ideal libertarian world would be like, but if you expect that people who have no legitimate opportunities are going to quietly sit there and starve to death rather than cause trouble, you're likely to be disappointed.

If people are trapped in a system that gives them no real opportunity for advancement, then yes, many of them will turn to crime. This is not a problem that can be wished away, regardless of what economic system one favors. Something has to be done to encourage people to be productive members of society: we can either commit to educating and helping them now, or we'll end up having to incarcerate them later. Either way, society pays. But prison is nothing but cost, whereas as I showed earlier, people who have access to education and job training are actually a net bonus to society in the long run. Providing access to public education and other such goods is therefore the rational position.

...the truth is that non-profit ventures are never as successful as their for-profit conterparts.

This sweeping assertion, as usual, is presented devoid of evidence. The invention of the Internet was not a for-profit venture. Nuclear fusion was not developed for profit. The structure and encoding of DNA was not unraveled with an eye to the commercial applications, nor was the development of space travel. On the contrary - as all four of these examples show - many of the most successful scientific ventures were originally brought about as public projects, with the commercial applications following only later. This is inevitably so: the commercial applications of a radically new technology are rarely visible far in advance, and most corporations will not fund research for which there is not a clear profit motive.

Great. But this still doesn't explain why I am giving money to the poor. What value have they given me that I now owe them?

You owe that value to society in general, which includes the poor. Have you never heard of the concept of transferring a debt?

You want to reward those who give the least to society.

This is a perfect example of what you're not seeing. The reason that the poor contribute little to society is because they lack the opportunities that they would need to use their ability to the fullest (which is the subject of this post). Your view would be a self-fulfilling prophecy: start with people trapped in poverty, lacking opportunities and resources; refuse to give them any of the assistance that would enable them to escape that condition and make meaningful contributions to society; and then justify that refusal by claiming they contribute nothing. It's perfectly circular logic.

Many of the poor in this country are there by the failure of their own efforts, and yet you make no distinction among them. You want a safety net for everyone regardless of how many times someone decided to jump into it.

As I said, I believe that people's wealth and social status can and should be determined by their talent and dedication. I do not believe, however, that people who lose out in the competitive lottery should be left to starve to death in the street as a lesson for others. We as a society should provide for the basic, fundamental needs of everyone, and whatever additional, non-essential luxuries a person desires, they should be left to earn by their own effort. Again, this is another indirect way in which the social safety net benefits society: it encourages people to take risks and to innovate. There's strong incentive not to take any chances if you risk losing everything, even your life, if your venture doesn't work out.

I think that these are excellent questions, and I won't pretend to have all the answers, but I will take a crack at them.

1)How do we provide public education so that we can have a literate and competitive work force? The benefits have already been discussed by others. If private schools, how do we ensure that private schools aren't mere indoctrination centers?

The same way that parents provide all the necessities for their children. It is the job of parents, not government or society, to provide for children. Education is an integral part of a child's development and is a task in which parents should be heavily involved. We don't expect society to get kids their allergy shots if they need them. Why do we expect society to ensure that our children are educated? My son attends a private, christian (gasp!) school. He does so because of the far higher standards at his school. He receives some religious indoctrination, but I do what I can to counteract it. The most important thing is that he is educationally prepared for his future. Private groups can provide accredidation for schools, so that parents can make the best decisions. The myth that government run schools must exist is just that...a myth.

2)How do we construct public works like dams and the national highway system that contributed to the national economy and from which many companies derive advantage?

As I've said, I have no trouble paying taxes for things that we all have equal access to, like roads. Dams are tougher because we have the question as to who gets the power from them. If we all pay into the contruction of the dam, then we should all be able to receive the benefits from it. That dam should not be just turned over to a company to run and own.

3)How will we ever internalize negative externalities like pollution by transferring the cost of pollution back to the factories that produce it? Or, do we? Public goods are subject to the free rider problem.

You are right, this is a major problem. Pollution that causes direct harm to individuals, like toxic waste, or crosses property lines should be a punishable offense. We as a society must decide the cost of pumping gases into our shared atmosphere. A company that doesn't do this owes us nothing. But one that does should foot the bill for cleaning it up. By including the true cost of using fossil fuels, alternative energy would suddenly become more viable.

4)How do we regulate the market without creating federal agencies (bureaucracies) to break up monopolies, ensure good investor information, etc.? These are crucial to free-market capitalism that I know Libertarians value, as do I.

Many monopolies are created by the government, not stopped by it. Look at the rail tycoons created by the government during the 19th century. So long as a company doesn't commit fraud, then there should be no limit to its size or how much of the market it has. The government has a duty to protect its citizens from fraud, which should help ensure good investor information. Many people have a problem with modern monopolies like Microsoft, but so long as people think that they have the best software and Microsoft doesn't lie or steal, the government shouldn't do anything to them.

It seems like some large scale projects require a strong central authority to coordinate and direct the use of resources. If we vote on these things, then we are back to "mob rule."

Companies have a vested interest in providing a quality product at a fair price. If they don't, then someone else will and will drive the first company out of the market. Government is the ultimate monopoly, truly answerable to no one. It is inefficient and slow. If it were a business, it would have gone out of business decades ago. Government is a necessary evil, and we should use it sparingly.

This partially negates my earlier statement about "non-parents having no interest in schools." But all such tradeoffs needs to be supported with strong evidence. I think our economic modeling needs to improve dramatically so we can study such relationships in agonizing detail and tweak spending and taxation toward their socially optimal levels.