orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (02/01/85)
> > > >Just how *is* taxation a restriction of one's freedom any different than > >paying for bread in the grocery store? > > Really, Tim. We've explained it before, but I'll try again: > buying bread at the grocery store is an act of voluntary exchange. > I value the bread more than my dollar, the grocery store values my > dollar more than the bread, and we trade. No one can coerce either > party into parting with what we own; we trade because we want to > and have a natural right to. Far from being a restriction of freedom, > buying bread is an affirmation of it. Once again, I will point out that this is *only* true *if* I have some property to exchange. *If* I have some property *then* I am free to exchange it. Meanwhile the biological demands for food mean that I am not really free to obtain some sort of food. It is a necessity for my continued life. Once again we can point out the restrictions on freedom implied by private property in the most extreme case: i.e. where one person or group owns all property or all means of production at least. JoSH suggested the person buying bread had a choice: raise his own vegetable garden. But what if the person owns no land? (Many people in this country are in exactly that position) This choice is taken from him. Moreover, what if the person has no money? Then he can't get bread anywhere. One can talk as much as you like about being *free* to exchange but this doesn't mean anything unless one owns something to exchange. Someone with a monopoly of property will have a monopoly of power just as absolute as any "government". > >Certainly there is some diminution of freedom in being excuded from the use of >a piece of bread unless a fee is paid. > > No. Consider: > 1) A necessary and sufficient condition for the dimunition of freedom > by an action is for a person to have less freedom after the action than > before. > > 2) Assume initially, before I go into the store to by the bread, that I > have X amount of freedom. > > 3) Two (legal) possibilities exist: I can buy the bread, or I can walk > out. > 3a) Suppose I walk out. I still have the same amount of freedom, > X, that I had when I walked in. > 3b) Suppose I purchase the bread. I'm down a dollar and up a > loaf of bread (a situation I obviously approve of), but I still > have X "units" of freedom. By the very same reasoning, suppose I have X amount of freedom before voting to approve a municipal bond and consequent increase in taxation. Now I join a majority of other citizens in approving a municipal bond which will go to provide an education to all children in the community. After joining this majority I will find myself with less money to spend: BUT I still have the same freedom I had before approving this referendum to work for its repeal, AND to vote for its repeal. How has my freedom been diminished? The *only* way in which my freedom has been diminished is economic. Exactly the way in which buying bread has done nothing to diminish my freedom to exchange but *HAS* diminished how much money I have available to exchange. A further point: at the very least most Libertarians will concede that there must be *some* role for government. For law enforcement, arbitration, etc., even if *no* other services are provided. These things are *absolutely necessary* for an orderly society. Without these things your *freedom of exchange* will devolve into a total war of power for no agency will exist to protect anyone's rights to life, liberty, happiness, or your precious and so-sacred right to property. (notice the latter was *never* mentioned in the Declaration of Independence??) How is this to be paid for? What is wrong with a tax levied upon citizens to provide the means with which they can live and the conditions under which even "free markets" can exist? Whether particular taxes are justified or not, the government's right to tax to provide the very minimum in services is a precondition of government and orderly society. I would go so far as to call it a precondition of democracy itself: for without it there would be absolutely no check upon the powerful taking whatever they want. > > (By the way, I won't trade my TV for the grocery store's bread, but I > would trade it for the contents of the cash register at the end of the > day. Am I diminishing their freedom by excluding them from my TV > unless they empty their cash register?) MY REPLY: YES tim sevener whuxl!orb
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (02/02/85)
> > and have a natural right to. Far from being a restriction of freedom, > > buying bread is an affirmation of it. > > Once again, I will point out that this is *only* true *if* I have some > property to exchange. *If* I have some property *then* I am free to > exchange it. Everyone has *some* property: their labor. Most of us exchange our labor or the products of our labor for symbols called 'dollars' which we then exchange for the labor or the products of the labor of others. > Once again we can point out the restrictions on > freedom implied by private property in the most extreme case: i.e. where > one person or group owns all property or all means of production at least. How can this happen? When you say 'property', do you mean just land or do you mean the much more common type of property (and much more valuable) products of the labor of individuals or groups of individuals? I'll assume that you mean the second kind, since the amount of land a person needs to own can typically be purchased for a few months of their labor. So how does one person (or group) get to own all property or all means of production? Sure, it would be a bad situation, but it's obviously a meta-stable situation, so how do you suppose it could happen IN A FREE MARKET? > happiness, or your precious and so-sacred right to property. (notice > the latter was *never* mentioned in the Declaration of Independence??) Notice that the country's going to hell in a handbasket? > > (By the way, I won't trade my TV for the grocery store's bread, but I > > would trade it for the contents of the cash register at the end of the > > day. Am I diminishing their freedom by excluding them from my TV > > unless they empty their cash register?) > MY REPLY: YES > tim sevener whuxl!orb Sevener's notion of 'freedom' seems to be rather different from common usage. With his definition, it seems as though nobody is free unless nobody has anything. Or unless everybody has everything. And then if you produce something, they're not free any more until you give whatever you produced to everybody. Is a person free if they cannot keep the product of their labor, but must give it to the community? According to sevener, they are diminishing everyone's freedom until they give away the products of their labor. As a favor, would everyone use the word 'S-freedom' when they are talking about the concept which Sevener means by 'freedom' in order to avoid confusing those of us who like the traditional meaning of the word? -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "And I don't want to die. I'd rather ride on my motorcy- cle." Arlo Guthrie
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (02/03/85)
> Sevener's notion of 'freedom' seems to be rather different from common >usage. With his definition, it seems as though nobody is free unless nobody >has anything. Or unless everybody has everything. And then if you produce >something, they're not free any more until you give whatever you produced to >everybody. Is a person free if they cannot keep the product of their labor, >but must give it to the community? According to sevener, they are diminishing >everyone's freedom until they give away the products of their labor. > As a favor, would everyone use the word 'S-freedom' when they are talking >about the concept which Sevener means by 'freedom' in order to avoid confusing >those of us who like the traditional meaning of the word? >-- >Jeff Sonntag I didn't read Severner the way Sonntag did. To my eye, Severner was ridiculing the ridiculous libertarian notion of "freedom", which DOES depart dramatically from the everyday notion. How about using L-freedom to refer to the libertarian concept, to avoid confusing those of us (including Sevener, I think) who like the traditional meaning of the word? The problem in arguing with extremists is that a moderate position is labelled extreme. This being the case, who can assert which side of the argument is in fact extreme? -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt
mwm@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA (02/03/85)
["Why should a blockhead get one in ten?"] In article <462@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: >my continued life. Once again we can point out the restrictions on >freedom implied by private property in the most extreme case: i.e. where >one person or group owns all property or all means of production at least. Sorry, but your extreme case can't happen in a libertarian society. You see, in a libertarian society, *you always own your own body.* This is a means of production. Your extreme case can only happen in statist societies, most probably in the leftist ones where the production of a person is subjugated to "the good of the state." >JoSH suggested the person buying bread had a choice: raise his own >vegetable garden. But what if the person owns no land? (Many people in >this country are in exactly that position) This choice is taken from him. >Moreover, what if the person has no money? Then he can't get bread >anywhere. No? Never hear of bartering work for goods? Or maybe you think it's beneath someones dignity to have to do labor to earn their bread. >By the very same reasoning, suppose I have X amount of freedom before >voting to approve a municipal bond and consequent increase in taxation. >Now I join a majority of other citizens in approving a municipal bond >which will go to provide an education to all children in the community. >After joining this majority I will find myself with less money to spend: >BUT I still have the same freedom I had before approving this referendum >to work for its repeal, AND to vote for its repeal. >How has my freedom been diminished? The *only* way in which my freedom >has been diminished is economic. Exactly the way in which buying bread >has done nothing to diminish my freedom to exchange but *HAS* diminished >how much money I have available to exchange. Yup, your freedom hasn't been diminished. Up to a point, everything you are doing is fine with libertarians. The point we part company is when the majority gets out their hired guns, and goes to collect the tax from the minority who don't want to spend their money that way. *Their* freedom has been reduced - they no longer have that money to spend. BTW, Tim, how big does your majority have to be before it stops being "theft" and starts being "taxation"? Everybody will agree that a majority of two taking money from a single person on a street is theft. The statists seem to think that two million taking money from one million in an organized manner isn't theft. Where's the line of decision? >A further point: at the very least most Libertarians will concede that >there must be *some* role for government. [list of services deleted] >How is this to be paid for? How about letting the government compete for funds in the free market, just like everyone else, with the profits going for the services the government must provide. Note that this is competition, not a monopoly, so the government can't afford the waste normally associated with government actions. Also note that asking for contributions from individuals (begging, if you will) is a perfectly valid way to get funds. >What is wrong with a tax levied upon >citizens to provide the means with which they can live and the conditions >under which even "free markets" can exist? Because pointing a gun at someone and forcing them to give you money is theft. Organizing this activity just lets it reach more people, and institutionalizing it just makes it hard to get rid of. >I would go so far as to call it a precondition of democracy itself: for without >it there would be absolutely no check upon the powerful taking whatever they >want. So why hasn't our democracy prevented this from happening? Or maybe you forgot your ravings about the ever-increasing power of the american business community? >no agency will exist to protect anyone's rights to life, liberty, >happiness, or your precious and so-sacred right to property. (notice >the latter was *never* mentioned in the Declaration of Independence??) Tell you what: let's admit that no rights exist that weren't in the Declaration of Independence, the original Constitution, or the Bill of Rights. Let's also turn off all government agencies that are providing a "right" that isn't in that set. We didn't get rid of the DoD, and we didn't get rid of the Post Offal. The *entire* welfare system is gone - seems that they forgot to mention "eating, breathing, and a roof over your head" as "rights." Your oh-so-precious public education system is gone, the banking monopoly held by the US government is gone. Hmm, I'm not sure, but all that seems to be left is the DoD (in a much stripped form), the PO, State, the DoI, the OMB, part of the Fed, the FCC, and of course the Judicial and Executive branches. >> (By the way, I won't trade my TV for the grocery store's bread, but I >> would trade it for the contents of the cash register at the end of the >> day. Am I diminishing their freedom by excluding them from my TV >> unless they empty their cash register?) > MY REPLY: YES Tim - I don't own a TV set, as I've never thought one was worth the expense. If you own one, would you please cease diminishing my freedom by mailing it to me? Come to think of it, I don't own a car, either, so if you have one of those, why don't you put your tv in it, and hire a driver to deliver them to me in Oakland. I promise I'll send them back in a year, unless you've bought another in that time. <mike