Erratum: Precisely so. I’m arguing that “the economy” is an ownable thing because it has utility.
Even the libertarians agree with me, because they insist on a market where coercion or fraud is restricted by a government. Since the government does indeed perform that utility, as the owners, the people are entitled by libertarian theory itself to extract whatever price they can for that service, and spend it as they choose.
He’s the sort to stand on a hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing wet copper armor, shouting ‘All Gods are Bastards!’
Taxation produces a 'robust and functioning economic system???
I did? (I note you’re no longer citing scripture after I called you on your hypocrisy, however
My quote:
Your response:
Notice you didn’t refute the alleged deceit. Must be true. And, you’re quite willing to take the product of someone’s elses labor, again without compensation. I call this criminal.
Single Dad:
Sounds like good old supply and demand to me-the basic fuel of the ‘robust economy’ you referred to above.
Single Dad, the leftist experiment with redistribution of wealth has failed everywher e it’s been tried. Get over it. Go on with your life.
“I’m arguing that “the economy” is an ownable thing because it has utility.”
The economy is not ownable from a Libertarian perspective. Could you sell it to someone?
“they insist on a market where coercion or fraud is restricted by a government.”
I think that you are right in a way, but you are phrasing the question “incorrectly”. By framing the question in terms of collective ownership, you immediately invoke the image of socialism. If you said that the government had a monopoly on fraud protection, and that the price it charged (in addition to taxation) was a relinquishment of some of the things that Libertarians regard as “rights”, then we would be framing the issue in terms of the marketplace, and Libertarians who are whining and complaining about the government infringing on their rights are morally equivalent to people whining and complaining that prices are too high.
That is in fact exactly what a libertarian would declare. It is no different a declaration than this: “people in common have asserted ownership over the economy as a whole.” Why do they get to declare that ownership?
There are two meanings of the word “free”:
Meaning one: “Free” means without force; that is, of one’s own free will. In this sense, I am free to buy that hamburger; no one is forcing me to, or not allowing me to.
Meaning two: “Free” means without price; that is, I don’t have to give up anything to do or get something. In this sense, that hamburger is not free if I have to pay for it.
If you are using the first meaning when you say someone is free not to “use” the economy which is “owned” by “the people” (I put these words in quotes because others are debating whether their use is accurate here; it really doesn’t matter to me), then you are correct - the US is libertarian after all. But libertarians would insist that use of this economy must be free by the second meaning as well, for a society to be considered libertarian. But why should “use of the economy” be free, when hamburgers need not be? Because to a libertarian, the “right to use one’s own property” is the only right there is, and the excercise of this right is, by definition, a “use of the economy”. If one must pay in order to excercise a right, then it ceases to be a right; I think non-libertarians would agree. Non-libertarians deny that “right to use one’s own property” is fundamental; that is the difference between “us” and “them”.
To say that a person could just move out, if he didn’t like the system, means that person must give up something (his property); in other words, pay a price, so not free by the second meaning. To say he could “live off his land” in Montana or even where he lives now, that would be free by the second meaning as well. But with an important disclaimer - that “freeness” is only temporary if the government (or the people) is allowed to impose a tax on his property itself.
Every industrial democracy collects taxes and spends them for the benefit of the population as a whole. A matter of degree, not principle.
Erratum:
The ability to sell is not a necessary condition of ownership. For instance, I own my own life, yet I may not sell it and thus make the buyer a slave owner. I also may legitimately purchase property under a covenant not to sell.
Collective ownership is a well-recognized principle in ordinary capitalism, mediated through the ownership of stock.
However, you are exactly correct: I am framing the taxation debate in terms of the marketplace, by claiming that the people, through the agency of their government are indeed legitimate players in that marketplace.
Rah! I couldn’t have said it better myself!
He’s the sort to stand on a hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing wet copper armor, shouting ‘All Gods are Bastards!’
techchick68: If we’re going to just throw links around, this one fully supports my position.
Note: This post is a joke. I repeat: This post is only a joke. Had it been a real post, I would have made an actual point. The wink is a good giveaway as well.
He’s the sort to stand on a hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing wet copper armor, shouting ‘All Gods are Bastards!’
This is such an inane statement (even from you)that I think you’re your just baiting me. BUT on the off chance that you’re actually serious, that you really believe such an obviously collectivist notion, give me one, just one example of the government producing anything. Not one of your platitudes about ‘investing in education’ or some such nonsense that involves yet another socialist scheme for redistribution of wealth. Give me an example wherein the government has actually produced goods or services that were marketable, and how that activity produced a robust economy.
This is a rational analogy? The government has profits?
Wrong. Private enterprise produces. Private enterprise has profits. Government only taxes and spends.
Mass transit, bridges, highways, airports, harbor facilities, etc., etc., etc.
No way could our economy flourish without them.
Possibly the best historic example in US history would be NY State, where the government built the Erie Canal and within a decade or two transformed New York from about #3 or 4 to the economic superpower of the country.
There most assuredly is. Thirty five years ago, leftist elements in the United States government began a transfer of wealth, called Lyndon Johnson’s ‘Great Society’. Since then, approximately * FIVE TRILLION DOLLARS * has been given in the form of welfare payments, food stamps, afdc, section 8 housing, etc., ad nauseum to those who refuse to become productive. It has proven to be a veritable gold mine for the power brokers of the left, because **you get more of what you subsidize **, ergo, it is a self sustaining scheme. The deceit lies in the continuing exploitation of these now dependent people by the aforementioned power brokers, in whose interest it is to keep them dependent.
Every new ploy for more transfer of wealth comes with promises to help those in need. As a result, an increasing number of people are filling the welfare rolls. Why is that?
Gee! That’s not what http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/news/stats/6097rf.htm indicates. If I read it right, it would indicate that some of the biggest increases to welfare rolls occurred under that famous leftist Richard Nixon. And starting in 1996, the welfare rolls are DECREASING. And, yes, I know that the cuts in welfare rolls are the results of conservatives in congress, not Clinton.
samclem already addressed the reduction in the welfare rolls, but it should be pointed out that a the bulk of what the current administration has done to help those in need has been directed at the working poor, by means such as increasing the Earned Income Credit.
What does this sort of thing do? It lifts the tax burden on people who are making barely enough to get by, and otherwise makes the life of the working poor more tenable. So it creates incentives to go to work.
But once they’re working, a bigger paycheck is better than a small paycheck; the Clinton-era incentives haven’t undone that. So they’ve got the normal incentives we all have to make more money, rather than less, in their job.
So the current program gives people incentives to work, then the normal logistics of living take over, giving them incentives to earn more. To me, that seems like the way it ought to work. What’s the gripe?
Enough of voting for the lesser of evils - vote Cthulhu 2000!
Oh, Peter, I so definitely agree. Having been screwed over by the California Franchise Tax Board and the IRS, I’m very unhappy with the methodology they use to compute and calculate taxes.
But that’s just an error, not a refutation of the fundamental right of the people to collect taxes through their government, which is the theme of the OP.
How about something a little less intrusive? It seems funny to me, that we have to calculate the tax we owe, and if the IRS questions any figures, we have to prove that we owe said tax. It’s inquisitorial in nature, and I don’t believe there is any way for an income tax to not be.
Well, the IRS could calculate it for us, but they’d have to raise our taxes to cover the additional cost… Personally, I prefer doing my own taxes, because it’s my money and I like to see the method used to calculate the taxes (and various options possible) rather than just be served with a bill at the end of the year. Not to mention there are personal choices you can make to reduce your tax bill, like itemizing, that the IRS can hardly do for you.
Really? I can see that we would have to provide all the material we used to figure the tax, but I thought the burden of proof was still on the IRS. If they are going to question any tax returns at all–which I think they’ll have to, to avoid fraud–they do need your tax information, so I don’t see how we can avoid that degree of inquisition.
