[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: How to solve the tax problem w/o anarchy or force (fwd)
Forwarded message:
> Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 16:35:16 -0500
> From: Michael Hohensee <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: How to solve the tax problem w/o anarchy or force (fwd)
> No, the intent *is* to make the system better and more equitable. It's
> just that we don't favor the socialist definition of "equitable".
Taxation doesn't imply socialism, socialism is the state ownership of
property. In case you didn't know it, Russians didn't pay taxes because they
dind't have to. The Chinese still don't pay taxes (except for businesses
that are licensed by the state).
> We support voluntary systems, not coercive ones.
The US is a voluntary system, you can always leave.
> Except that it's personal improvement for *everyone* (except for tyrants
> and other politicans, but we didn't like them much anyway).
And those who are stolen from, killed in petty disputes, wronged in business
deals gone bad with no legal recourse and no hope of future legal
ramifications for the perps, starve to death because some asshole who values
a dollar more than a human life won't give somebody a meal, those who
can't start businesses because the existing markets have locked up the
necessary resources, etc.
> Our proposals do not leave things up to chance any more than the current
> system does. In fact, it can be argued that our system leaves less up
> to chance than yours does. Lets do a comparative analysis.
It leave a lot up to chance, the chance of making a profit in the market
with no regulations or other mechanism to stop abuse or other wrongs.
The implication is that the vast majority of participants won't be the one
making the profit and will as a consequence suffer because of it.
> 1: Social Ill exists.
> 2: Social Ill is identified by someone.
> 3: That someone makes a lot of noise, and lobbies the state to supply
> money to finance the correction of the Social Ill. This is done by
> convincing a majority of voters in some election or other, which may not
> take place for at least a year, that this Social Ill is very important
> --more important than all the other Social Ills.
No, it simply says that the current society has recognized a need,
determined that it can be addressed and chooses to do so.
> 4: Someone who wants the Social Ill corrected gets into power, and
> proceeds to try to correct the Social Ill with a huge rumbling
> centralized governmental machine. This often excacerbates the Social
> Ill, rather than correcting it.
Well actualy the huge rumbling centralized government is a result of the
economic impact of business on government, not the folks who want to address
social ills. The vast majority (well over half of each tax dollar) goes to
military or military related issues, not social ills.
This is a strawman.
> The net result: The Social Ill is not likely to be corrected until the
> next election, and will be paid for by taking more money away from
> everyone else (since the state gets its money from taxpayers, and cannot
> create value out of thin air). Even worse, the person lobbying for the
> correction of the Social Ill may not get into power, since he may have
> lost the election to someone who used lots of money to make him look
> bad. Thus, the Social Ill may not get corrected for some time, if ever.
> Under a truly free system:
>
> 1: Social Ill exists.
And in spades.
> 2: Social Ill is identified by someone.
> 3: That someone makes a lot of noise, alerting everyone else to the
> existance of this Social Ill. Those who agree with the first someone
> will contribute time, money, and resources to correcting this Social
> Ill.
And what if that noise is contrary to the interest of a the business that is
perpetrating it. Since there are no protections of speech and press under
your system what keeps somebody from simply shooting the loud-mouthed
trouble maker? Historicaly there is plenty of evidence for this sort of
behaviour in un-regulated markets. Why would a business allow such a
vociferous display?
> 4: Social Ill is dealt with in the most effective manner possible, since
> people will be free to try to correct it in any number of ways, and will
> of course prefer to contribute their money to an effort that has the
> best effect.
The most effective manner is to never have it happen in the first place.
While it's clear it isn't possible to legislate individual behaviour past a
grossly crude point it is possible to put breaks on the sorts of laws that a
given government can pass and enforce. At least with a bill of rights we
have a guide that we can use to measure extant and future legislation
against.
This can occur now under the present system, why doesn't it happen more?
There is absolutely no regulations that would prevent such activity; hell
the currrent system will even allow you to be exempt from taxes and give you
loans, will yours? But to address the point, given that there are no courts,
laws, etc. How does one go about addressing the social ill? Buy the company
out?
How realistic is it to expect the human slave to have the resources to buy
themselves out? Not very damn likely.
> This is an improvement upon today's system.
Only if you believe your smarter and faster on the draw than everyone who is
alive and will be alive during your life. Ain't gonna happen, there is
always a bigger fish, and they're hungry.
We no longer need to have
> the majority of voters approval to start correcting the Social Ill. All
No, you simply need to have the majority of social participants (I don't
think we should call them citizens) involved first person. The time drain
alone of that is enough to guarantee that nothing will be done.
> of the Social Ill. This makes the most sense, since we obviously don't
> need to draw on *everyone'* resources to correct every Social Ill. (of
> course, some rare Social Ills will be that large, but the larger the
> Social Ill, the more people wil recognize it as such.)
They will? Historicaly the majority of social ills have been recognized as
such by a minority and were corrected by a political mechanism that
recognizes things like civil liberties and limits on government purvue a
priori.
> Better yet, frivilous problems (i.e. those invented for the advancement
> of some politician's career, or out of sheer stupidity) will not have
> large amounts of resources wasted upon them.
And what makes you think that under your system a silver tongued devil won't
be able to garner the same sorts of support? People are social animals and
will follow the leader they believe will get them to where they need to be.
Whether that is government or a marketing puke is irrelevant.
> So, is it now clear to you why your above statement was somewhat
> premature?
It is clear to me that you neither understand human psychology, politics,
economics (macro or micro), or what freedom means.
____________________________________________________________________
Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want
the right answers.
Scully (X-Files)
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate
Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ [email protected]
www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087
-====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
--------------------------------------------------------------------