Thanks to Ali Massoud for his contribution to discerning how a "fair" society funds commonwealth activities, to the extent we have them. Of course, my view is that while it's an interesting thought experiment as to what our long term "utopia" might look like, these are questions that history suggests are never really at play in a practical sense. That is, history tends to push social orders toward the middle, as I've explained here.

Still, at any given point in history, social order tends to be somewhat off balance. By my way of thinking, the State has gotten far too large, and remains far too preferential to elites at the expense of the masses, and, ultimately, the individual.

Yes, as Ali says, taxes are the State's lifeblood, most of the time. However, I'm curious as to his take on the Alaska model. In effect, there are no "taxes" in Alaska. Instead, each citizen receives a per capita dividend from the oil commonwealth, minus the State taking its cut for operating expenses.

Is that "redistribution"? I'd say No. It IS egalitarian, in the context of a rights-protecting function for the State. There IS an element of acknowledging a kind of commonwealth (natural resources) that all citizens have an EQUAL claim to. After that, markets are allowed to be markets, and individuals allowed to rise or fall as they so choose.

So, yes, user fees have appeal. But the question is, to what extent should any tax system recognize everyone's claim on the commonwealth? Are deductions in effect proxies that recognize our equal claim on the commonwealth?

More and more, I say they are. But I'd like to hear Ali's take.

-Robert Capozzi