orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (06/01/85)
> > Nobody suggests that it > is a crime to *pay* taxes--What is suggested is that it is morally > reprehensible to *collect* them by force and by fraud. > --JoSH #1)Are taxes collected by *fraud*? I fail to see how - fraud implies some sort of dishonesty. For example if the government claimed it was withholding 30% of your weekly paycheck and it was actually withholding 50%. That is not the case. (Unless JoSH has some secret scandalous information he would like to tell us. If so I would think such information would quickly be divulged when everybody calculates their tax) Moreover the tax tables are no secret or somehow "fraudulent": they are available at any Public Library. Every citizen who files a return can check that they are being followed (as indeed they do!) properly. #2)Are taxes collected by *force*? Well, I know JoSH and other anti-tax fanatics may find it unbelievable but local and state governments have tax bond issues up for election all the time. Sometimes these tax referenda lose. But amazingly enough they more frequently *win*! The majority of citizens apparently believe that it is worthwhile to fund better schools, libraries, parks, roads and all the many services provided by government. That is the way democracy works. Nobody *forces* citizens to approve tax referenda - they exercise their free and democratic right to choose approval or rejection of such referenda. Once these tax referenda are approved by the democratic majority then such laws are enforced by force as are all other laws enacted in a democratic society. They are no different in their enforcement than other laws regulating speed limits, murder, rape, theft,etc. As Oliver Wendall Holmes said, "Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society" Personally I prefer civilization to the law of the jungle. tim sevener whuxl!orb
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (06/03/85)
In article <642@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: >> >> Nobody suggests that it >> is a crime to *pay* taxes--What is suggested is that it is morally >> reprehensible to *collect* them by force and by fraud. >> --JoSH > >#1)Are taxes collected by *fraud*? I fail to see how - fraud implies > some sort of dishonesty. For example if the government claimed it > was withholding 30% of your weekly paycheck and it was actually > withholding 50%. That is not the case. Sevener has slipped a gear as usual: someone who is being defrauded generally knows how much he is paying; the lies and deception regard what he is getting for it. Sevener provides a handy example: > The majority of citizens apparently believe that it is worthwhile to > fund better schools, libraries, parks, roads and all the many services > provided by government. That is the way democracy works. ... >As Oliver Wendall Holmes said, "Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized >society" >Personally I prefer civilization to the law of the jungle. > Nobody *forces* citizens to approve tax referenda - Nobody was talking about referenda. Sevener is apparently unable to realize that someone can vote against a tax law, or not vote at all because all candidates for a given representational spot favor the tax, and still be forced to pay at gunpoint. > tim sevener whuxl!orb --JoSH
nyssa@abnji.UUCP (nyssa of traken) (06/05/85)
>#2)Are taxes collected by *force*? Well, I know JoSH and other anti-tax > fanatics may find it unbelievable but local and state governments > have tax bond issues up for election all the time. Sometimes these > tax referenda lose. But amazingly enough they more frequently *win*! > The majority of citizens apparently believe that it is worthwhile to > fund better schools, libraries, parks, roads and all the many services > provided by government. That is the way democracy works. > Nobody *forces* citizens to approve tax referenda - they exercise their > free and democratic right to choose approval or rejection of > such referenda. > Once these tax referenda are approved by the democratic majority then > such laws are enforced by force as are all other laws enacted in a > democratic society. From what I have read, and correct me if I am wrong, the people who are anti-tax beleive that those who want to pay for better schools/ parks/etc. are free to pay for them, but those that don't want them shouldn't be obliged to pay for them. If so, what is to prevent them (or their descendants) from using the park/library in the future if they wish to? -- James C Armstrong, Jnr. ihnp4!abnji!nyssa The Boss gave me one of these, ten seconds, he said. Let's see if it works...
brian@digi-g.UUCP (Merlyn Leroy) (06/09/85)
>Nobody was talking about referenda. Sevener is apparently unable to >realize that someone can vote against a tax law, or not vote at >all because all candidates for a given representational spot >favor the tax, and still be forced to pay at gunpoint. > >--JoSH C'mon, JoSH, this is called "Democracy". Can you say that? I knew you couldn't. Reagan didn't carry Minnesota, but does that mean we can (or should) form our own government? You vote against tax 'X', tax 'X' passes, now you bitch about it. I really feel sorry for you. Go live in a cave, why don'cha. Merlyn Leroy "JoSH for Dictator of the World!" (The only thing that will make him happy)
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (06/12/85)
> >#2)Are taxes collected by *force*? Well, I know JoSH and other anti-tax > > fanatics may find it unbelievable but local and state governments > > have tax bond issues up for election all the time. Sometimes these > > tax referenda lose. But amazingly enough they more frequently *win*! > > The majority of citizens apparently believe that it is worthwhile to > > fund better schools, libraries, parks, roads and all the many services > > provided by government. That is the way democracy works. > > Nobody *forces* citizens to approve tax referenda - they exercise their > > free and democratic right to choose approval or rejection of > > such referenda. > > Once these tax referenda are approved by the democratic majority then > > such laws are enforced by force as are all other laws enacted in a > > democratic society. > > From what I have read, and correct me if I am wrong, the people who > are anti-tax beleive that those who want to pay for better schools/ > parks/etc. are free to pay for them, but those that don't want them > shouldn't be obliged to pay for them. If so, what is to prevent > them (or their descendants) from using the park/library in the future > if they wish to? > -- > James C Armstrong, Jnr. ihnp4!abnji!nyssa > There are a great many nature preserves, private campgrounds and the like now available on a members only basis --- for many pleasant, but non-essential facilities like parks, it can be done. Libraries are even simpler, since the mechanism is already in place --- library cards to check out books could just as easily be a card for admission as well. Most of the public libraries I have used, and all the university libraries I have used already have an arrangement for people outside of the geographic limits or outside of the university community to obtain a library card for money. There's no reason not to expand this more generally. (Privatizing libraries would also end the continual arguing about whether a book should be allowed or not. Lest you think that this issue is entirely conservatives keeping smut out of libraries, let me mention that San Franciso Public Library removed some of Rudyard Kipling's books for being "racist" at the request of the well organized leftists.) When I ran for Santa Monica City Council (*very* unsuccessfully) several years ago, I did a little digging through the city budget. I found that less than 50% of the city's residents used the library, according to the library's own figures. (No, I don't mean they had library cards, I mean *used* the library.) Yet everyone in the city, and everyone who shopped in Santa Monica, was paying taxes to support it. Why should everyone be forced to pay for a non-essential (though pleasant) service that only a minority use?
lkk@teddy.UUCP (06/12/85)
In article <227@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP writes: > >There are a great many nature preserves, private campgrounds and the >like now available on a members only basis --- for many pleasant, but >non-essential facilities like parks, it can be done. Libraries are >even simpler, since the mechanism is already in place --- library >cards to check out books could just as easily be a card for admission >as well. Most of the public libraries I have used, and all the university >libraries I have used already have an arrangement for people outside >of the geographic limits or outside of the university community to >obtain a library card for money. There's no reason not to expand >this more generally. (Privatizing libraries would also end the continual >arguing about whether a book should be allowed or not. Lest you think >that this issue is entirely conservatives keeping smut out of libraries, >let me mention that San Franciso Public Library removed some of >Rudyard Kipling's books for being "racist" at the request of the >well organized leftists.) > >When I ran for Santa Monica City Council (*very* unsuccessfully) several >years ago, I did a little digging through the city budget. I found that >less than 50% of the city's residents used the library, according to the >library's own figures. (No, I don't mean they had library cards, I mean >*used* the library.) Yet everyone in the city, and everyone who shopped >in Santa Monica, was paying taxes to support it. Why should everyone be >forced to pay for a non-essential (though pleasant) service that only >a minority use? The people who actually go to the library and take out the books are not the only ones to benefit from its existence. A well educated populace benefits all by making for a richer civilization. Same is true for parks. Having these available provides a vital outlet for urban dwellers in our society. Even if you don't use any parks, your neighbors probably do, thus making for happier neighbors, and a nicer society in general. -- larry kolodney A Friend of the Devil (USENET) ...decvax!genrad!teddy!lkk (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (06/13/85)
>/* lkk@teddy.UUCP / 11:41 am Jun 12, 1985 */ >The people who actually go to the library and take out the books are >not the only ones to benefit from its existence. A well educated populace >benefits all by making for a richer civilization. By how much? This type of reasoning justifies every expenditure.
lkk@teddy.UUCP (06/14/85)
In article <1340192@acf4.UUCP> mms1646@acf4.UUCP writes: >>/* lkk@teddy.UUCP / 11:41 am Jun 12, 1985 */ > >>The people who actually go to the library and take out the books are >>not the only ones to benefit from its existence. A well educated populace >>benefits all by making for a richer civilization. > >By how much? This type of reasoning justifies every expenditure. This doesn't justify EVERY expenditure. It just shows that there ARE reasons to expend PUBLIC monies where postitive externalities are involved. How much to spend, and on what, is still up for debate, but the libertarian position allows none. -- Sport Death, Larry Kolodney (USENET) ...decvax!genrad!teddy!lkk (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (06/15/85)
The question is, are the benefits received by some, indirectly, greater than or equal to the cost to them? I don't believe you can demonstrate that they are. If not, then your original argument is invalid. Mike Sykora
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (06/17/85)
> In article <227@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP writes: > > > >When I ran for Santa Monica City Council (*very* unsuccessfully) several > >years ago, I did a little digging through the city budget. I found that > >less than 50% of the city's residents used the library, according to the > >library's own figures. (No, I don't mean they had library cards, I mean > >*used* the library.) Yet everyone in the city, and everyone who shopped > >in Santa Monica, was paying taxes to support it. Why should everyone be > >forced to pay for a non-essential (though pleasant) service that only > >a minority use? > > The people who actually go to the library and take out the books are > not the only ones to benefit from its existence. A well educated populace > benefits all by making for a richer civilization. > > Same is true for parks. Having these available provides a vital > outlet for urban dwellers in our society. Even if you don't use > any parks, your neighbors probably do, thus making for happier neighbors, > and a nicer society in general. > > -- > larry kolodney > What a fascinating concept! Why doesn't the government provide prostitutes free of charge? Fast cars for everyone at taxpayer expense? All restaurants, free? It sure would make everyone a lot happier, wouldn't it? In fact, the cost of any good or service should be borne by the person who most directly benefits from it, lest we bankrupt our government trying to satisfy every want. Without paying a price, people use and abuse all of the facilities that are offered, without limit.
lkk@teddy.UUCP (06/19/85)
In article <250@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >> In article <227@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP writes: >> > >> >When I ran for Santa Monica City Council (*very* unsuccessfully) several >> >years ago, I did a little digging through the city budget. I found that >> >less than 50% of the city's residents used the library, according to the >> >library's own figures. (No, I don't mean they had library cards, I mean >> >*used* the library.) Yet everyone in the city, and everyone who shopped >> >in Santa Monica, was paying taxes to support it. Why should everyone be >> >forced to pay for a non-essential (though pleasant) service that only >> >a minority use? >> >> The people who actually go to the library and take out the books are >> not the only ones to benefit from its existence. A well educated populace >> benefits all by making for a richer civilization. >> >> Same is true for parks. Having these available provides a vital >> outlet for urban dwellers in our society. Even if you don't use >> any parks, your neighbors probably do, thus making for happier neighbors, >> and a nicer society in general. >> >> -- >> larry kolodney >> >What a fascinating concept! Why doesn't the government provide prostitutes >free of charge? Fast cars for everyone at taxpayer expense? All >restaurants, free? It sure would make everyone a lot happier, wouldn't >it? In fact, the cost of any good or service should be borne by the >person who most directly benefits from it, lest we bankrupt our government >trying to satisfy every want. Without paying a price, people use and >abuse all of the facilities that are offered, without limit. I guest that's why libararies and parks are such a tremendous drain on our society. -- Sport Death, Larry Kolodney (USENET) ...decvax!genrad!teddy!lkk (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (06/20/85)
>/* lkk@teddy.UUCP / 1:20 pm Jun 19, 1985 */ >>What a fascinating concept! Why doesn't the government provide prostitutes >>free of charge? Fast cars for everyone at taxpayer expense? All >>restaurants, free? It sure would make everyone a lot happier, wouldn't >>it? In fact, the cost of any good or service should be borne by the >>person who most directly benefits from it, lest we bankrupt our government >>trying to satisfy every want. Without paying a price, people use and >>abuse all of the facilities that are offered, without limit. >I guest that's why libararies and parks are such a tremendous >drain on our society. >Larry Kolodney Are you suggesting that libraries and parks are more beneficial to society than are prostitutes, cars, restaurants? If so, please provide some evidence to back up this claim, as not all of us find it obvious.
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (06/25/85)
> In article <250@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > >> In article <227@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP writes: > >> > > >> >When I ran for Santa Monica City Council (*very* unsuccessfully) several > >> >years ago, I did a little digging through the city budget. I found that > >> >less than 50% of the city's residents used the library, according to the > >> >library's own figures. (No, I don't mean they had library cards, I mean > >> >*used* the library.) Yet everyone in the city, and everyone who shopped > >> >in Santa Monica, was paying taxes to support it. Why should everyone be > >> >forced to pay for a non-essential (though pleasant) service that only > >> >a minority use? > >> > >> The people who actually go to the library and take out the books are > >> not the only ones to benefit from its existence. A well educated populace > >> benefits all by making for a richer civilization. > >> > >> Same is true for parks. Having these available provides a vital > >> outlet for urban dwellers in our society. Even if you don't use > >> any parks, your neighbors probably do, thus making for happier neighbors, > >> and a nicer society in general. > >> > >> -- > >> larry kolodney > >> > >What a fascinating concept! Why doesn't the government provide prostitutes > >free of charge? Fast cars for everyone at taxpayer expense? All > >restaurants, free? It sure would make everyone a lot happier, wouldn't > >it? In fact, the cost of any good or service should be borne by the > >person who most directly benefits from it, lest we bankrupt our government > >trying to satisfy every want. Without paying a price, people use and > >abuse all of the facilities that are offered, without limit. > > > I guest that's why libararies and parks are such a tremendous > drain on our society. > > Sport Death, > Larry Kolodney To quote the late Sen. Everett Dirksen, "A billion here, a billion there, after a while, it adds up to real money."