First, it is becoming increasingly clear that you have a wholly collectivist mindset. I offer your quote as evidence:
We ‘the people’ do not collectively ‘own the economy’. Ownership is an individual right. The ‘economy’ is comprised of property owned by individuals, who may do what they wish with it. The private ownership of property is, after all, what makes the economy. If it were ‘owned by the people’, there would be no ‘economy’ for the state to lay claim to. I offer the former USSR and its state owned ‘economy’ as evidence.
Not a logical analogy for your conclusions.
I also have the options of 1)not purchasing your hamburger, 2)purchasing a hamburger down the street, 3)going home to the refrigerator, etc. In other words, I have other choices. (You like ‘freedom of choice’, right?)
‘Consideration’ is a required element of a contract. It means ‘something for something’. You get something for something you give- as opposed to extortionary taxation.
Not hardly. Leftists take the money under the guise of helping the underprivileged, whose condition was largely created by the leftists.
There you go again! Procter and Gamble does hold hold the threat of criminal prosecution over me in order to induce me to purchase their food. As I pointed out above, I have other options.
You used the word ‘contractual’ Words mean things. There are legal requirements, components necessary in order for a contract to exist. You can’t just call something something that it is not, and expect to maintain credibility. (which, by the way, is the primary problem for the left).
SingleDad, the economy exists solely by individual transactions, and no one owns it, or at least no one should. The basicaly only things that we should have to pay taxes for is esentially basic protection from others in non-consentual transactions (theft, violations of contract law) or from foreign countries.
Under your definition of a libertarian society, why is not the USSR a libertarian society? You cannot leave, but you can object to communism and be shot by your government, so hey, the USSR is totally free! Not precisely.
You know, doing what is right is easy. The problem is knowing what is right.
This is the finest example of doublespeak I have ever seen used on The Straight Dope. Then you actually make it even better:
You see, you are either free or you are not free. Even you admit that you will have to pay taxes under your limited perfect system. What about the money you had to earn to buy the property and the supplies to live there?
Once again you force a person to choose to give up something. They either have to choose to live a life of poverty, or they have to give up a % of property to the state.
Is a positive obligation an obligation to society? Once again you are taking away a person’s freedom to fail. Once you start down this road, the arguement is how much freedom needs to be sacrificed to the state for security.
No such POSITVE obligations exist in a free country.
But they do promise me the freedom to pursue one. They also promise me the right to maintain my own property.
This is like asserting that because a person is breathing American air, kept free for 200 years, they give consent pay what we ask.
Oh boy…
I don’t want to throw labels around, but maybe you would feel better under a socialist government. The people do not own the economy. Individuals own the economy.
When a person works, they are not USING the economy, they are CREATING it.
Actually, participation in the economy is a right gaurunteed us under the Constitution and is a natural process of being a human being.
False premise.
To understand the other side, I suggest reading a little Ayn Rand. She spells it out clearer than I ever could. But you fall into the classic bad guy role in her stories. I feel like I am argueing with a charachter out of one of her books.
Why, just because you say so? Entities that aren’t individuals have no right to own things? That’s silly.
Again, a piece of BS. Just because Ayn Rand says so, doesn’t make it so, unless you regard Ayn Rand with the same lack of critical appraisal as fundamentalist regard the Bible.
Our planet contains resources and produces goods and services of enormous value, as I said on the Reason #5472 thread. Who do the fish in the sea belong to? The water in an undergound aquifer that is under several countries? Who do the grizzlies belong to? Who holds the title deed on the oxygen in the atmosphere, the ozone layer, the sea currents, the climate? When you pee onto the ground, and sometime later, that water is in a nearby stream, perfectly drinkable, who produced that?
Some of these goods and services can be duplicated by man, but at great cost; they can be damaged or destroyed in order to create ‘wealth’ as defined by numbers in bank accounts and stock portfolios, but those measures of wealth are pitifully incomplete. But what Rand said makes sense only if you buy the notion that wealth isn’t wealth until it’s reflected in numbers on a balance sheet.
The workings of the natural world are a commons, whether we like it or not, and one whose workings we’re dependent on. Its condition is deteriorating, largely due to the fact that private property and the action of the market return measurable gains, in monetary terms, to those who damage the planet, but the ecological damage isn’t a lot of damage to the owner, but a little bit of damage to us all.
Enough of voting for the lesser of evils - vote Cthulhu 2000!
I consider myself Libertarian and I have no objection to a federal tax. There is a need for a full time Federal Government, and that requires a certain ammount of funds, of course I object to the size. The main problem with federal taxes is structure. I abhor inheritance tax. If my parents want to leave their life’s gains, on which they already paid yearly income tax, the IRS should get no piece of that pie. Also I feel an income tax is a bad system. Charging people on how much they produce is an incentive to produce less. A national sales tax, based then on what we consume, would encourage us to produce more and consume less. That’s sound economics.
Hey Erratum, I actually see it as removing an existing social engineering practice. The current tax system takes more from those who produce more, and in part distributes it to those who produce less. A consumer based tax would lessen that to a certain extent, as well as giving people a little more control on how much tax they pay. Want to pay fewer taxes, buy a cheaper car, grow your own food, live without a new TV.
Jack, you can rationalize it all you want, but your statement implied that you wanted the tax structure to encourage a particular kind of activity (presumably saving rather than consuming). Using the tax code to encourage a particular kind of behavior is one of the things that Libertarians particularly hate (as far as I have been able to discern).
“I actually see it as removing an existing social engineering practice”
So are you using the “two wrongs make a right” line of thought? Personally, I hate consumption taxes. I, however, don’t have a “philosophical opposition” to them. If you want to be a Libertarian, and maintain the “high horse” anti-tax rhetoric, then it should be out of bounds for you to want a tax structure that coerces people into saving rather than consuming.
“Want to pay fewer taxes, buy a cheaper car, grow your own food, live without a new TV.”
Freedom seemed particularly incensed at the notion that he could avoid paying taxes by making less income. Why is your system of avoidance of tax liability via certain government sanctioned activities any less reprehensible (from a Libertarian perspective, of course)?
I don’t consider the population of the USA to be an entity.
Our planet produces goods and services? That is news to me. Yes it is true that animals (fish etc…) grow naturally, but they really are consumable until someone catches them and sells them. Our planet produces resources. The owner of the property own the resources contained on their property.
Is this question addressed to me? If it is could you please be a little more specific, I am not sure what you want answered. What system of tax avoidance has been advocated?
No. To Jack. I thought it would be clear from context. Feel free to answer it if you want.
Jack’s system is a consumption tax, and one of the reasons he supports it is that you can avoid paying taxes (if you want to) by simply “not buying things”. Similarly, you can avoid paying tax under an income tax by “not making income”. You objected to the second one (as I assume any Libertarian would). Is the first similarly objectionable?
Although I haven’t read all the posts, you are very wrong in your OP.
The US is not a Libertarian society, in a Libertarian society there is no government coercion as in; taxes, gun control, public education, drug enforcement aka drug war etc.
I thought that any society is Libertarian as long as all members are volunteers. Well guess what? We are. Essentially all of the land in the United States was at one point “owned” by a government. The same is true in Europe. Native Americans, the Inuit and maybe the Hawaiians can complain, but every single other person in the United States acquired his or her property from a government or from an owner who acquired it from a government.
The fact that the property has changed hands several times or several dozen times does not change the fact that, for example, all the land in Maryland was once owned and governed by Lord Baltimore or that all the land in the Louisiana Purchase was once owned by the Unites States of America.
Why is so unreasonable to posit that the first non-governmental owners voluntarily purchased that land with the implicit contract that they agree to obey the laws of the seller and that obligation is passed on to each subsequent owner. Certainly no reasonable person buying land in a country from a government would think that a obligation to voluntarily but permanently surrender some rights to the selling government is not part of the deal.
And within the boundaries of those restrictions (submission to the laws), each and every person in the United States is free to sell what assets she or he has and move out. Volunteers.
You don’t want to pay taxes, you are free to leave this country and find one where they do not levey taxes. Or start a tax-free utopia of your own. Good luck.
Here, I agree with you. People must be free to fuck up their minds and bodies in the manner of their own choosing (“pursuit of happiness,” even when that pursuit is deluded). They must also be free not to do so.
[/quote] All the restictive environmental laws
[/quote]
Which were enacted for a reason: To preserve the land, water and air and all the life upon it and within it. including ourselves. Sometimes, sacrifices must be made for the benefit of others, including the person making the sacrifice. (I agree, however, that sometimes, some sacrifices have been unfair. But the theory behind environmental laws is sound. They should be written and enforced more fairly.) No property owner must be allowed to damage the property in question so severely that no future owner will be able to use it. (No one lives forever.) Also, air and water pollution never stays where it is created. It invades and damages neighboring properties as well. It’s cheaper to prevent pollution than it is to clean it up.
See above.
If the government truly is “…of the people, by the people and for the people,” then WE own that land. You’re free to use that land so long as you don’t fuck it up so badly no one who comes after you can use it.
Who says we have the right to unreasonably discriminate? I hope you don’t think an employer has the right to decide to pay a woman less than a man simply because she’s a woman. You may argue that she can go to another employer who will pay her what she deserves, but what if there are none? What if they follow one another and agree to hold salaries down? Or even to not hire women at all? Remember all the businesses which used to put out signs reading “Irish Need Not Apply”? It could have just as easily read “Women Need Not Apply” and, at the time, the government could do nothing about it. And I would not be surprised that Equal Rights Laws are partially responsible for today’s booming economy. The more people there are who can find work, the better the economy is. Forbidding unreasonable discrimination is GOOD for the economy. It helps ALL of us.
I’m starting to come around to Glitch’s POV: You can own a gun if you can prove you can handle one safely.
I suppose one can find a parallel between that and drug laws. Here, I will agree with you. But suppose he government passed a law requiring gun ownership? But we’ve been over that before, haven’t we?
What’s wrong with helping people past a temporary bout of unemployment? You say, “What about charities?” Not everyone - not enough - donates to charity. “Taxes take away people’s incentive to give to charity.” In my opinion, not enough people would give to charity even if there were no taxes. Too many people just don’t care what happens to others and they foolishly believe that they will never need charity. Until it’s too late.
Are you tallking about government subisides to gigantic corporations who don’t really need them? I’ll agree with you there. If you mean subsidies to farmers to help them compete in the world markets and make a living, I disagree. If it wasn’t for government subisidies to farmers, I think we’d now be importing even more food than we already are.
The only consideration one should have to government health care is whether or not it actually does what it’s supposed to do: Treat everyone in a competent and timely manner. If it violates someone’s political philosophy, I could not care less. Are you saying that if you were ill, you would refuse government-run health care on priniciple? If so, we’ll be sure to put that on your headstone. (Actually, I admire people who refuse things on principle. I just wish you had different principles.)
IN CASE YOU WERE WONDERING: My political principle is simply this: Use whatever works best, whatever benefits the most people while causing the least harm to others, including those who will be here long after I’m gone. (There is no political principle yet devised that would harm no one.) If I think a conservative priniciple works best, I’ll support it, hence my call to legalize street drugs. But if I think public health care will save more lives than private health care, then that is what we should use.
Manny - nice slamdunk on the ‘volunteers’ question.
“We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” So, are you saying you consider the Constitution invalid? That’s a sincere question; in various political debates, I appreciate knowing whether the debate assumes the American constitutional framework or not.
That wasn’t the only entity that isn’t an individual that I had in mind, btw; there are certainly other non-individual entities that are generally considered to own things.
And the difference between a ‘good’ and a ‘resource’ is? And I’ve already provided one example of a service that the planet provides.
A lot of resources, as already noted, aren’t nailed down to a particular set of metes and bounds. For instance, the ozone layer, which provides us with a valuable service, btw, can’t be said to be in anyone’s property.
IIRC, techchick, under your version of libertarianism, the government provides certain basic services, such as defense, police, and the courts. How does it pay for them?
Enough of voting for the lesser of evils - vote Cthulhu 2000!
Sorry, but I get tired of rewriting the same thing over and over and over again in the threads that are started about Libertarianism, so to make my job easier rather than state things that have already been said I will quote them
Granted in a pure Libertarian society there would be none what-so-ever (taxes.)
Whew! Quite a response! I’m going to try to answer everyone’s objections, so this post might get long.
CalifBoomer
[quote]
Ownership is an individual right.
[quote]
As RTFirefly points out, Distributed ownership is a well-defined and accepted form of ownership (stock), as is the appointment by the owners of a body to exercise and administer that ownership (management).
You get a robust and functioning economic system. That is your consideration.
Unless you can sucessfully dispute the ownership issue, once the money has been collected, it is the people’s to spend as they will. In the same manner, you cannot dispute my charitable contributions from the profits of my business.
Of course, you do have a vote, and you can vote for a representative that will spend (or not spend) the money as you will.
General Foods, Proctor & Gamble, Del Monte, etc. form an oligarchal cartel. Together they have a virtual monopoly (accepted by libertarian theory). Whatever they as a group decide you should pay for food, you pay. The fact that you would starve without food does not abridge their right to demand what they will.
Calif, given that you claim you’re a Creationist, I wouldn’t put too fine a point on “calling something something that it is not” and “maintaining credibility.” 'Nuff said.
threemae
Please at least refute my points. If you wish to assert the opposite, start your own thread. And don’t start with the USSR straw man. Life’s too short.
Freedom
The limitation is physical, which is not my fault: There is only so much land in Montana.
Life is tough. Also not my fault. If I owned all the food, by good libertarian principle, I would not even allow you a life of poverty, I’d just let you starve. But hey, I’m a real hard-ass.
This is actually a valid point. Social security taxes are not in accordance with libertarian theory. However you have to be a total heartless compassionateless person to allow the elderly and crippled to starve. Oh wait, heartless libertarian is a redundancy!
Constitutional democracy does not forbid you to pursue a good life. I don’t know about you, but I’m living quite comfortably, thank you.
That’s a good point. Who does own the air. If nobody’s claimed it, I call dibs!
Hey, I was a communist for about a year, and a radical pacificist for more than a decade. You think you can insult me by calling me a socialist? :rolleyes:
When I write, I am both using and creating knowlege (no comments from the peanut gallery, please). These are not mutually exclusive alternatives.
I’ll let the real philosophers argue with Ayn Rand.
RTFirefly
Thanks for the support! Nice to know I’m not the only non-libertarian on the board.
Given Calif’s views on creationism, you might not be far wrong.
Freedom again
On what grounds? Is AT&T an entity? Is the Libertarian party an entity?
If you’re going to just assert the opposite of a proposition, at least start your own thread. This is a discussion board commited to rational analysis.
techchick68
Of course not. I took a little rhetorical license in the topic and OP.
My assertion is that taxes (which is the main point that libertarians whine about) are justified by the basic premises of libertarianism. Either that or the basic premises of libertarianism are contradictory.
Indeed. The fact that you might have a difficult time finding a country to take you in in no way abridges the fact that you absolutely have the right to leave.
jab1
Thanks for your support. Word of advice: You’ll never get anywhere arguing with a libertarian that social programs are good. They are disagreeing at a more fundamental level, that good or not, they shouldn’t “be forced” to pay for them.
RTFirefly
Libertarians don’t dispute the right of the government to collect taxes for basic services. The point that I make is that their basic philosophy permits the collection of any taxes, answerable only to the majority of voters, as payment for use of the economy.
So far no one has provided an interesting refutation to my assertion that the people own the economy. Freedom and Calif have made half-assed stabs at it. Come on libertarians! You can do better!
He’s the sort to stand on a hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing wet copper armor, shouting ‘All Gods are Bastards!’
They deny that an economy is something that can be owned, since to them, ownership implies property, and property implies physical “stuff” (I’m not clear on how they normally feel about intellectual property). “The economy” is not “stuff”, therefore it cannot be owned. One might be able to argue that the government provides a service, which is the enabling of the economy, but a Libertarian would argue that a market arises from individuals wishing to trade, and that the only thing a government could do would be to inhibit a market, so a Libertarian would deny that free trade between individuals and a free market is a service of government (they’d probably say that it is a natural right). Therefore, a Libertarian would say that “the economy” is neither a good nor a service, and therefore they are not financially responsible to any agent (specifically the government) to participate in the economy.
One could argue, however, that any state which had no bars to emigration operated under “true libertarian principles”. In order to get out of the contract that the citizen has with the state, he or she merely needs to leave. It may not be a very pleasant option, but neither is doing without the product of a monopolist if that product happens to be very desirable, and Libertarians have no problems at all with monopolists.
(Actually, I admire people who refuse things on principle. I just wish you had different principles.)