In our society, the people in common have asserted ownership over the economy as a whole.
We exercise our ownership through a set of representative governments (state and federal), exercising our individual contribution through the vote.
We charge specific costs for participating in the economy that we own, income taxes among them. No person is compelled to pay income taxes; you merely need not work, and you won’t be liable. I have never seen a libertarial theorist deny that starvation through failure to work is a legitimate choice.
Since everyone who works does so by choice, we have universal consent to the costs of using that which we own, the economy.
Once we have collected the costs of participating in the economy, we are free to spend them, again through the agency of our governments, on whatever we please.
Therefore the United States operates according to true libertarian princples. Q.E.D.
He’s the sort to stand on a hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing wet copper armor, shouting ‘All Gods are Bastards!’
I think a Libertarian would object to the fact that he cannot create his own market, his own currency, and trade with his own rules (for example, no income tax) among others who feel as he does.
If you say that tax is the price one pays to enter the market in America, that is fine. But how can the government legitimately corner the market on markets?
What are you talking about? Libertarian is free to set up his society. All he has to do is find some land that no other society has claimed already. What’s so hard about that?
Well, my point was that taxes are consonant with libertarial philosophy.
The rest, I more or less agree with. But in my conversations with libertarians, they complain about taxes and regulations much more than they complain about oppression of the non-violent.
I a forced to pay taxes, or I am forced not to work.
The whole libertarian thing is that I get to do whatever I want. The only time I can’t do what I want is when my actions conflict with another person’s. Then, only consenual action is allowed. Nobody is allowed to force another person to do anything.
A person has the right to work, and keep all their earnings.
If I own something, you are either obligated to pay me for its use, or you are obligated not to use it.
If I hold a monopoly over something necessary to life, libertarian theory says, tough titty, pay or starve.
What you are asking is to use an economy and society developed over two centuries without paying for its use: You want to coerce the free usage of the economy from its rightful owners, the American people.
You can’t just declare the right to participate in the economy free; otherwise I’m just as free to declare your house is free and insist that you cannot evict me from it without my consent.
No cigar, Single Dad. My employer and I have a contractual agreement into which we have both entered freely. Either of us is also free to terminate that agreement unilaterally. Such is not the case with conficatory taxation.
I’m speechless. I can’t believe you actually think that. Under your system, every American is born a slave. At the very least an indentured servant. They can do nothing to sustain their lives without giving up part of their propert to the government. Actually this is the way it is, you just phrase it so it is obvious. So I guess I am not as shocked as much by the thougt as much as I am by the blatant acceptance of the theory.
By the people, for the people…
Do those words ring a bell?
How about this, take your part of the economy and go sell it. Take your part of the economy and go live off it. It doesn’t exist. You only own the part of the economy that you create.
You make the mistake of assuming that the economy exists in spite of individual action, not in because of it. Did you ever wonder why the country with the most freedom is the richest country in the world?
You got me so riled up with that post that I had to go grab my Ayn Rand. I needed some quotes to help convey the theory, so I went to the top
These quotes are typed. Any typos are mine:
This is the wrong (old) way to look at things (in libertarianism):
These quotes came from Ayn Rand’s essay “What is Capitalism?”
You have a contractual agreement with the government: The Federal and State Constitutions, and the body of law.
You chose to work, thus you consented to the body of law governing the obligation of taxes. Therefore, if you fail to pay, you are victimizing the citizens and residents of the United States by using their economy just as you would victimize me if you reprinted my writing for economic gain with compensating me.
It is not ‘contractual’. Contract law requires not only ‘willing parties’ but also ‘consideration’. The income tax is imposed on the producers of this country without their consent. They receive nothing in return for the billions squandered on social programs designed by leftists to promote dependency.
The ‘body of law’ you so glibly refer to is in fact regulation, not law. We have allowedEnabling regulation by government agencies to abrogate law.
The citizens and residents of the United State you refer to are indeed victims-of an oppressive few whose real purpose is to create as much dependency as possible in order to ensure their powerbase.
Ah! Finally I get someone intelligent to debate with!
I claim no such thing. To a limited extent, you are perfectly free to sustain your life without obligation to the government: You can buy a some land in Montana, grow your own food and live as free as you please.
More practically, you can earn minimum wage, and you would only be liable for about $841 (1) (about 3.5 week’s work) in federal income taxes and (in Colorado) about $259 (2) (1.5 week’s work) in state taxes. If you live frugally you will pay a negligible amount of sales taxes.
Overall this seems fair even for only police, fire, and national defense: the traditional libertarian governmental functions.
You will also pay a certain amount of social security taxes, but although structured oddly, social security exists because you have a positive obligation to provide for yourself in your old age.
Overall, you do have the right to economic freedom. Not a terrific life, but neither libertarianism nor constitutional democracy promises you a wonderful life without cost.
You can’t just assert my premise is false, you have to actually refute it.
I assert that by participating in the economy which is owned by the people, you at that point give consent to pay what we ask.
When I hand you the hamburger from the restaurant, you at that point consent to pay my asking price. It makes no difference that you must eat to live.
Also please define ‘consideration’.
What we do with the money is is in once sense irrelevant to the discussion. You may object to the exorbitant salaries paid to the executives at General Foods, Proctor & Gamble, etc., but if you wish to eat, you have to pay them.
It’s relevant to the discussion that you are one of the people, you have a vote and thus you can exercise some control of the commonality.
Let me repeat myself:
[ul][li]The people own the economy.[/li][li]Just like any other owner, we charge for its use.[/li][li]When you participate in the economy, you imply consent to our method and amount of payment[/li][li]The fact that we have a monopoly over its use is irrelevant in libertarian theory itself: If we are clever enough to obtain a monopoly, we may use it as we will.[/ul][/li]
Therefore according to libertarian theory itself: participation in the economy is voluntary, and since the people own the economy, the collection of taxation (over and above certain supported minima) is therefore justified in that theory.
He’s the sort to stand on a hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing wet copper armor, shouting ‘All Gods are Bastards!’
