cliff@unmvax.UUCP (10/11/84)
Our news feed has been very unreliable, so I have missed most (if there were any) comments on my letter. Luckily, someone reproduced some of Waynes letter in a followup, so I can reply: >> It's the rule of the majority, and there's nothing you can do about that. I accept neither of the two points made. The 16th amendment was ratified by a Congress consisting of *appointed* Senators and elected Representatives. The extra indirection in choosing Senators (appointed by the elected state legislature) prevented the average voter from having much say about who would be appointed, much less which way the senator would vote on key issues. But then again, the average citizen wasn't allowed to vote (at least more than 50% weren't; I don't really believe in an *average* citizen). I find it very hard to call the ratification of article XVI majority rule. In addition to the denial of voting rights to the majority of citizens and all the extra levels of indirection (one for Representatives and two for Senators) involved in voting on the bill, the amendment wasn't ratified by six states. Majority? I am willing to bet that the percentage of American citizens that took 30 minutes out of their week to watch Laverne and Shirley* on a regular basis is greater than the percentage of American citizens that wanted income tax in 1913. *When it was a prime time show. I haven't followed the ratings in a while. Of course there are things I can do about it. Right now I am willing to settle for campaigning and voting for David Bergland, the Libertarian (third largest political party in the U.S.) candidate for President and other libertarian candidates for other positions. I may do more in the future, such as running for an elective office and/or deliberately not paying income taxes. >> >> Now, aside from these vague ideas, there are many details that can be debated. >> How much money should be spent on social programs, how much should government >> regulate the economy, etc... But first you have to agree that it is basically >> ok for the government to collect taxes and spend them for these things. >> >> Wayne I don't think there is any reason that I (or anyone else) has to agree that it is basically ok for the government to collect taxes before debating how much money can be spent on social programs or how much the government should regulate the economy. Being against income tax does not necesarrily imply adversion to social security. For the record 'though: I am opposed to social security and most of the regulation of the economy (I would be amenable to going back on the gold standard). --Cliff [Matthews] {lbl-csam, purdue, cmcl2}!lanl-a!unm-cvax!unmvax!cliff {csu-cs, pur-ee, convex, gatech, ucbvax}!unmvax!cliff 4744 Trumbull S.E. - Albuquerque NM 87108 - (505) 265-9143
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (10/13/84)
> The extra indirection in choosing Senators (appointed by the elected state > legislature) prevented the average voter from having much say about who would > be appointed, much less which way the senator would vote on key issues. But > then again, the average citizen wasn't allowed to vote (at least more than 50% > weren't; I don't really believe in an *average* citizen). Well, at least now the average citizen is allowed to vote -- not that many do... The fact that the US is a republic, and not a direct democracy, is not that important. The power has its basis in the will of the majority. Having representatives is just a means of making sure that the people who make the day-to-day decisions will take the time to think about what they're doing. (Think what would happen if the Usenet were the governing body of the United States...) > Majority? I am > willing to bet that the percentage of American citizens that took 30 minutes > out of their week to watch Laverne and Shirley* on a regular basis is greater > than the percentage of American citizens that wanted income tax in 1913. If the majority of voters reall didn't want income tax, why didn't they immediately elect congressmen who were pledged to repeal it? > Of course there are things I can do about it. Right now I am willing > to settle for campaigning and voting for David Bergland, the Libertarian > (third largest political party in the U.S.) candidate for President and other > libertarian candidates for other positions. I may do more in the future, > such as running for an elective office and/or deliberately not paying income > taxes. I think there is a basic point that needs to be made here -- we need to have a government that has certain powers (to tax the people, to raise an army, etc). In a situation where there is no government, or a weak one, there is a vacuum of power, and you need only look at Lebanon, El Salvador, etc to see what happens when nobody has a predominance of power. You get a situation where everybody is struggling to get power over everybody else, and the one who wins will be the strongest, nastiest, and most oppressive. One of the points of having a government is to make sure that there is enough power concentrated in one body that other groups who want to gain power over people will be prevented from succeeding. Of course, it is important to make sure that the government isn't capable of using its power in ways that are too oppressive, and the best way to do this is to base the power of the government in the will of the people. Now, if you deny the government's power to collect taxes from you, you are denying the importance of this function of government. If a government cannot tax the people to carry out its functions, it loses all of its power. Before you can justify not paying taxes, you should try to first argue that we could get along without any form of government, and I don't think you will have much success. Wayne
roy@eisx.UUCP (Steve Rojak) (10/17/84)
Having dispensed with amateur strategy, lets give the income tax a go. I am willing to assert that, if you could ask 230M people and get a response, you would find that the income tax is very popular. Seriously. Its the only way to make sure everybody else pays his fair share. Me? Hell, I'm getting screwed, but all we need is a little tax reform, cut out some of these damned loopholes... And so it goes. John Q Public, [and his cousins in all the other countries] are always looking at their betters when a subject like this comes up. They think about how much those above them are going to pay for their entitle- ments, and forget how many are worse off than they and will get the benefits of all their hard-earned dollars. When is the last time somebody mentioned income tax and welfare (or social security) at the same time. Another biggie at election time is Corporate Taxes. Some politicians start up about taxing the Corporations, and the crowd swoons. Look, folks, you can't tax corporations in real terms, because, since corporations only don't die when the brain stops (no comments please) but when cash out exceeds cash in, they pass the taxes on: 1) They cut it out of payroll. And not out of the CEO's salary either, don't kid yourself. 2) They show less net operating profit, and pay less dividends. But nobody wants to piss the stockholders off, because then you can't raise capital. Penn Central was losing a million $ a day in 70 and paid a dividend. You can pull the wool over the shareholders' eyes, but don't get them mad. 3) Small businesses just go and get a bigger small business loan. And now the government has the hot potato back again. 4) Or, if you're really unimaginitive, raise prices. Now the consumers are paying for your taxes. So the guy who wanted the corporations taxed ends up paying the tax after all. The point is that its so easy to fool so many people so much of the time when it comes to money. So if you're offering the argument that the income tax is supported by majority rule, maybe thats not an argument for the income tax, but against majority rule? Steve Rojak, South Plainfield NJ
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (10/17/84)
==================
I think there is a basic point that needs to be made here -- we need to have
a government that has certain powers (to tax the people, to raise an army,
etc). In a situation where there is no government, or a weak
one, there is a vacuum of power, and you need only look at Lebanon, El
Salvador, etc to see what happens when nobody has a predominance of power.
You get a situation where everybody is struggling to get power over everybody
else, and the one who wins will be the strongest, nastiest, and most
oppressive. One of the points of having a government is to make sure
that there is enough power concentrated in one body that other groups who
want to gain power over people will be prevented from succeeding.
==================
A point that needs no further support, but it is so important and rarely
mentioned that it seemed worthwhile reporting it. It is, in fact, one
of the main public rationales for the existence of the Canadian Armed
Forces ... if we didn't occupy our North militarily, the US would occupy
the vacuum, and then we would have no Canada. They wouldn't do it from
a wish to take over Canada, but to see that the Russians didn't occupy
the area. No-one would be willing to believe that everyone could be
trusted to leave the area alone, because it is so sensitive in this
era of ICBMs.
(Of course, there are lots of other reasons for having a Canadian
Armed Forces, but that's one of them.)
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmtlmaher@uokvax.UUCP (10/19/84)
/***** uokvax:net.politics / ucbcad!faustus / 7:30 pm Oct 16, 1984 */ Now, if you deny the government's power to collect taxes from you, you are denying the importance of this function of government. If a government cannot tax the people to carry out its functions, it loses all of its power. Before you can justify not paying taxes, you should try to first argue that we could get along without any form of government, and I don't think you will have much success. Wayne /* ---------- */ In that case, Wayne, however did the U.S. Government survive in the 130 years or so *before* it had a personal income tax!?! So there's no need to argue that government is unnecessary before you can argue that income tax is unnecessary - we *know* you can have government without income tax. Arguing that tax collection is a function of government sounds pretty odd to me - taking your money is a function of a robber, but I've never seen that used as an argument that robbers are good things. Carl ..!ctvax!uokvax!lmaher (looks like uokvax got back on the net just in time!)
mwm@ea.UUCP (10/21/84)
/***** ea:net.politics / ucbcad!faustus / 7:30 pm Oct 16, 1984 */ (Think what would happen if the Usenet were the governing body of the United States...) /* ---------- */ Ok, I did. I would guess that *absolutely nothing* would get done. Sounds like a major improvement to me. :-) <mike
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (10/23/84)
================
/***** uokvax:net.politics / ucbcad!faustus / 7:30 pm Oct 16, 1984 */
Now, if you deny the government's power to collect taxes from you, you
are denying the importance of this function of government. If a government
cannot tax the people to carry out its functions, it loses all of its
power. Before you can justify not paying taxes, you should try to first
argue that we could get along without any form of government, and I don't
think you will have much success.
Wayne
/* ---------- */
In that case, Wayne, however did the U.S. Government survive in
the 130 years or so *before* it had a personal income tax!?!
================
He never said "personal income tax". If I remember my US history, one
of the first things President Washington had to do was quash a rebellion
over payment of taxes on Corn Liquor or some such. The US has, like
all other social groups, NEVER got along without taxes.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmtfaustus@ucbcad.UUCP (10/28/84)
>> Now, if you deny the government's power to collect taxes from you, you >> are denying the importance of this function of government. If a government >> cannot tax the people to carry out its functions, it loses all of its >> power. Before you can justify not paying taxes, you should try to first >> argue that we could get along without any form of government, and I don't >> think you will have much success. >> >> Wayne > > In that case, Wayne, however did the U.S. Government survive in > the 130 years or so *before* it had a personal income tax!?! It made money through other taxes. Are you going to claim that it is ok to tax property, but not income? I'd be interested in seeing the reasoning behind this. But the fact is that government has come to be responsible for a great deal more now than it was in the 1920's, and whether or not we should have income tax depends upon whether you can show that we would be better off without these things. > Arguing that tax collection is a function of government sounds > pretty odd to me - taking your money is a function of a robber, > but I've never seen that used as an argument that robbers are > good things. You people sound like a broken record sometimes. Can't you think of any more interesting analogies to make than "Government taxation is theft"? If you define theft as "taking money from people without their consent", then the argument will have to become, "Is government theft a good thing?", or, "Are we better off having government stealing our money?" I think so, but using this sort of language is sort of misleading. (You can call taxation theft, but I will use the term "paranoid anti-social spoiled children" to refer to libertarians.) The whole problem, though, is that libertarians think that individual liberty is the highest good, and I think that a better society is the highest good. (Although certainly not in the manner of Ellsworth Toohey.) You can take your pick -- all I want to argue is that if you accept that society is more important than absolute liberty for the individual, the sort of government I am advocating is the best. Wayne
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (10/30/84)
===================== > Arguing that tax collection is a function of government sounds > pretty odd to me - taking your money is a function of a robber, > but I've never seen that used as an argument that robbers are > good things. You people sound like a broken record sometimes. Can't you think of any more interesting analogies to make than "Government taxation is theft"? If you define theft as "taking money from people without their consent", then the argument will have to become, "Is government theft a good thing?", or, "Are we better off having government stealing our money?" I think so, but using this sort of language is sort of misleading. (You can call taxation theft, but I will use the term "paranoid anti-social spoiled children" to refer to libertarians.) ===================== This interchange strikes a chord from history (both mine, and public history). In writing my B.A.Sc. essay I cam across a very interesting paper by S. Bagno "The Communication Theory and Economics" IRE Convention Record, 1955. He identified money transfer with a complex network of information channels, which leads to a large number of interesting economic predictions that don't seem to be obtainable in more orthodox ways. Be that as it may; in the course of this article (which I can't find, so I'm relying on memory) he identified one NECESSARY function of government as the redistribution of wealth from rich to poor. In the Dark Ages and perhaps the Middle Ages, there were no governments to perform this function, and their place was in fact taken by robbers and robber bands. If there is any truth to this approach to economics, SOMEONE has to function as a robber, if the economy is to continue in a stable fashion. The argument is complex, and may be wrong, but it is interesting to contemplate, nevertheless. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt
jerry@oliveb.UUCP (Jerry Aguirre) (10/31/84)
Some receint articles on this network is the first that I have ever heard
that the USA once existed without the personal income tax. Talk about
selective education!
Any student of history care to expound on how the federal government used
funded?
Jerry Aguirre
{hplabs|fortune|idi|ihnp4|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix}!oliveb!jerrymwm@ea.UUCP (11/03/84)
/***** ea:net.politics / ucbcad!faustus / 4:00 pm Oct 30, 1984 */ The whole problem, though, is that libertarians think that individual liberty is the highest good, and I think that a better society is the highest good. (Although certainly not in the manner of Ellsworth Toohey.) You can take your pick -- all I want to argue is that if you accept that society is more important than absolute liberty for the individual, the sort of government I am advocating is the best. Wayne /* ---------- */ I don't think that individual liberty is the highest good, I think that "a better society" is the highest good. Of course, my definition of "a better society" and yours is probably different. I feel that restricting liberty is generally (but not always) bad; bad enough that it offsets many goods that can come from it. Maybe we should decide what "a better society" is, then we can worry about whether taxation helps or hinders that goal? Better yet, we can even consider whether there are better ways to finance government than through taxation (I think the answer is yes, and even have some suggestions). <mike
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (11/07/84)
> > The whole problem, though, is that libertarians think that individual > > liberty is the highest good, and I think that a better society is the > > highest good. (Although certainly not in the manner of Ellsworth Toohey.) > > You can take your pick -- all I want to argue is that if you accept that > > society is more important than absolute liberty for the individual, the > > sort of government I am advocating is the best. > > Wayne > > I don't think that individual liberty is the highest good, I think that "a > better society" is the highest good. Of course, my definition of "a better > society" and yours is probably different. I feel that restricting liberty > is generally (but not always) bad; bad enough that it offsets many goods > that can come from it. > > Maybe we should decide what "a better society" is, then we can worry about > whether taxation helps or hinders that goal? Better yet, we can even > consider whether there are better ways to finance government than through > taxation (I think the answer is yes, and even have some suggestions). > > <mike Well, let me try to make the issue clearer. I believe that the best society is one where the following things will be maximized (or some combination of them will be maximized, where they conflict): Personal freedom Freedom from misery (poverty, crime, etc) Scientific progress Overall prosperity Cultural variety and richness (and other things...) I don't think that any one of these can be raised to the level of an absolute goal. If we make personal freedom the only goal, then others (most notably freedom from misery) will suffer. On the other hand, if we try to run a state on a centralized communist-like system, then security becomes the highest goal, but personal freedom becomes scarce. Some changes that I think should be made in our political system to make it closer to the sort of system where these things are maximized are: Abolition of victimless crimes Massive tax reform (flat rate taxes not exceeding 25%, etc) Deregulation of many regulated industries Denationalization of things like the postal system Rationalization of the legal system to provide more benefits for the victims Some things that Libertarians want done away with that I think should stay are: Police and fire protection Consumer protection regulation Some sort of "safety net" type of welfare system Support for the sciences and the arts Taxes As for taxation, if you have any ideas on how else to get money, I'd like to hear them. I think that the income tax is the most fair method for the government to raise money, but if you can think of something else that would work I'd be all for it. Wayne