Which is why there are these complex things called trade agreements.
Yes. It is much less of an evil for governments to require their funds via taking money directly rather than them "earning" through monopolies.
I didn't say they had to be monopolies. I'm just trying to establish that you think governments have to engage in taxation to generate the necessary revenue to provide national security.
The fact of the matter is that not every state has the same tax rate, and a government does have the discretion to tax different economic activities at different levels. For example, if you have lots of dirt cheap electricity, it's probably less onerous to the society to tax that instead of taxing something that's already rare and expensive. The fact that each country will have a differing profile with respect to which industries are in favourable positions versus unfavourable positions means that any sane and well-meaning government would actually adjust its taxation regimen to account for these disparities. It then becomes incumbent upon governments trading with foreign countries to be sensitive to these disparities.
The EU is an example of trying to simply things too much to the point where the simplifications become more complex than the things they are trying to simplify.
Well, once you agree to a common market unified by a common set of rules, you need to have an authority to determine which rules are the correct ones. The EU borg was inevitable the moment that you had a combination of common market regulations as well as trans-national European corporations who didn't want to have to defer to national governments in order to justify their conduct.
And that is why you have trade deals that take into account those things.
They don't need to be universal because the deals are only going to be between two countries. What they will rather do is find that universality approximately through the market. Which is the best you can ever do.
The market is not interested in creating an equilibrium between two disparate states. It is interested in maximising the disparity in order to capitalise upon the situation. It is in the interests of nation-states to pre-empt this insofar as such preemption serves the national interest, where the national interest is defined as the sum of interests of the individuals residing within that nation.
So? The hardcore libertarians are also against borders which puts me at odds with that as well.
The libertarian side would also advocate for something like solar power that does not require the government to get involved. This is delusional when you start looking at the mathematics of electricity distribution.
Right, but this is my exact point. You argue for the same sort of market-based solution that the libertarians do, and I just don't see it happening. The fact that government has to set taxation rates means that the government must interfere with the market to some degree, because taxation definitely affects what sort of businesses remain profitable.
Sign up with Google
