The "State" Represents itself as the Shirking Partner in the form of Tax

‘A tax levied on corporate profit reduces the care and effort owners put into its operation, since part of the return that would have been received by owners will go to the state. Defacto, private owners of the corporation are saddled with a shirking partner, the state, which takes part of the revenue and provides none of the effort to improve the firm’s return. Consequently the greater is the corporate tax rate, the greater the incentive for corporate owners and management to pursue the “quiet life”.’ - Harold Demsetz’s, From Economic Man to Economic System, Chapter 10, pages 141 -159, The Public Corporation: Its Ownership and Control.
 
In essence, the state represents itself as the shirking partner in the form of tax. Since firms are merely a collection of households, both the firm and accompanying households are saddled with shirking partner which takes part of the revenue and provides none of the effort.
 
Its worth considering Demsetz's proposition before one deliberates what the shirking partner does with the revenue taken. That is, decouple the two propositions of state through tax acting as a shirking partner -from- what the shirking partner ultimately does with the revenue taken.
 
Tax certainly is a disincentive. However, "disincentive" is rather abstract until you place the face upon disincentive as the shirking partner. That the disincentive in fact is the shirking partner providing zero effort yet taking revenue. If one was saddled with a shirking partner other than state, would one continue with such a partner?
 
The second item is what does the shirking partner, that provided zero effort yet took revenue, do with such revenue? What if the shirking partner took the revenue and created more disincentives in the form of regulation (another form of tax). Not necessary regulation associated with the minimal state, rather regulation associated with the ever expanding state. What if the shirking partner paid its subordinates high wages? What if the shirking partner took the revenue and enriched itself and its subordinates in the form of benefit plans and retirement plans? What if the shirking partner redistributed the revenue to those that suffer no tax (no shirking partner)?
 
Its no wonder James and Jane Goodfellow have such a low opinion of "state". What opinion other than a negative opinion could one possibly have regarding a shirking partner providing no effort yet taking revenue, then taking such revenue to create more tax, enrich itself, and redistribute "efforts"?

Elitists

In political discourse you will see a reference to “elitists”. Generally the term elitists is used to designate the few somehow, someway enlighten individuals of the political, intellectual, or academic
classes who’s particular vision of society is somehow, some way more enlightened than the vision of others.

Some award the political term of “elitist” to Karl Rove. (1) However, Rove by no means was the first to refer to the label elitist. Milton Friedman referred to an “elite class” when discussing the emergence of the modern welfare state in his classic 1979 book Free to Choose. (2) Whereas
others argue the elitist label is merely anti-intellectual.  That is, people use the term in the positive
or negative. (3)

Is there a better definition, less political /more empirical, more thoroughly researched definition of “elitist”? Yes there is such an animal. Its most likely related to Thomas Sowell’s definition of
“special knowledge” as it appears in Sowell’s books A Conflict of Visions and Intellectuals and Society.

The term “special knowledge” as used by Sowell appears related to F.A. Hayek’s discussion of central planning and the inability of any one individual to have enough information to organize economic activity and associated outcomes.

F.A. Hayek’s discussion of decentralized knowledge trumping centralized knowledge is nicely summed up by Harold Demsetz as follows:

“…the historically important central puzzle of economics was to explain how independently acting people in an unplanned decentralized, private ownership economic system allocate their resources and, in particular, to explain how it is that the uses they seem to make of resources seem to be
well coordinated”.(4)

What is “special knowledge”?

An expert might be categorized as someone who is perceived to have acquired the most knowledge in one particular field of study such as geology or mathematics. Moreover, other participants within a particular field of study consider a particular person as an expert in the field of study. “Special knowledge” is when one leaves his/her particular field of expertise and acquires a self-designated position as an intellectual.

The self-designated and self-appointed intellectual designation is an attempt to transfer particular expert knowledge from an unrelated field to another field and instantaneously acquire “special knowledge” in a completely unrelated or mildly related field of study.

Special knowledge, the self-appointed intellectual, and political-economy?

Most notably, as pointed out by Rove, Friedman, and Sowell, the self-appointed intellectual , the elite as it were, want to comment and shape opinion specifically in the field of political-economy. For example, Paul Krugman trying to transfer his expertise in trade economics to political-economy commentary on society as a whole. Bill Gates trying to transfer his expertise in the field of computers to political-economy commentary on society as a whole. Barack Obama trying to transfer his expertise as a community organizer to political-economy commentary on society as a whole.

The once expert in a particular field, now a self-appointed intellectual in an unrelated field, has somehow, someway acquired “special knowledge” in the unrelated field. That is, the expert knowledge in a particular field becomes “special knowledge” in an unrelated field. Hence
“special knowledge” is merely notional propositions of the way things ought to be of a particular self-appointed intellectual with the premise being that an expert in one field is surely an expert in an additional field, that being most notably the political-economy.

Elites as the self-appointed intellectual?

Hence the definition of “elitist” as merely anti-intellectual misses the mark. It’s not that an elitist is anti-intellectual; it’s that an elitist is a self-appointed intellectual making political-economy
commentary on society as a whole through use of special knowledge which is in fact no knowledge. That is to say, we have a group of people, self-appointed people that have no expert knowledge in the field of political-economy, making notional statements which are in fact statements of “the way things ought to be”. That is, an elitist is a non-expert, making notional comments and putting forth
the notional propositions as fact, when the actual case is the notional propositions are merely their particular non-expert view of the way things ought to be and hence painting the world in one’s own self-image or self-vision.

(1)http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1031684/elites_elitists_and_rove_politics.html?cat=9

(2) Free to Choose, 1979, Milton Friedman, chapter four,
page 98

(3) http://www.newsandsentinel.com/page/mboard.detail/fNav/71/What-does-the-term--elitist--rea---.html

(4) From Economic Man to Economic System, Harold Demsetz.