[net.politics.theory] All hail the status quo!

cliff@unmvax.UUCP (02/07/85)

> > The libertarian points out that taxation is theft in order to make
> > the point that something that is wrong for one person to do,
> > is wrong for a group to do.
> 
> It's not wrong for a person to take money from himself.  Why would it be
> wrong for a group to take money from itself?  That's how taxes work out for
> a democracy anyway.

Think hard friend, if you are alone on a subway, and two people enter it, you
are now a group.  If those two vote that you should give them all your money,
then would it be wrong for a group to take money from itself?  That's how taxes
work out for a democracy anyway.

Since this is net.politics.theory, it might be useful if when people are talking
about specific systems (i.e. the United States), they refrain from parroting
the first grade lesssons of this land is a democracy.  Please step up to at
least the eigth grade (I think that is where I learned it...) realization that
the U.S. is a republic.  There are significant differences, and taxation is
certainly one.

> > [...]  Robin Hood was an outlaw, remember;
> > the duly constituted Sheriff of Nottingham and the King (John)
> > wanted to kill him in the worst way.
> 
> Not at all.  They wanted to hang him.  That's not the worst way to kill
> someone.
"to kill in the worst way" is an idiom, meaning they wanted very much to
kill him.

> > In our own society, as in mediaeval England and ancient Israel,
> > it is the government which is rich and the people who are poor.
> 
> You haven't been reading about the deficit, have you?
Read about the Federal Reserve system and you will find out that, deficit
or not, the government always has as much money as it wants.  Of course it
is necessary to maintain the deficit, because if the fed was to crank out
sufficient paper money to cover the deficit our economy would go to pieces.
In effect, the deficit makes the poor poorer and the rich poorer, but it still
doesn't change that the governent is rich and the people are poor.

> > Any land I might come to own will be paid for by the fruits of
> > my labor.  I therefore find your distinction between land and
> > other kinds of property to be nugatory.
> 
> At some point in the past someone came out to your land, pounded some
> stakes in the ground, and said 'this is my land'.  His ownership of the
> land didn't come from any 'fruits of labor', he just claimed the land.
> The reason he could get away with this behaviour (and later sell the
> land, burn it, leave it to his heirs, build on it, etc.) is that the
> legal system and the government allowed him to.

Actually, the fruits of someone's labor allowed someone to claim it.
You have to reach the land to claim it.  Reaching unclaimed land (which
is NOT what the colonists did since there was already a group of people
using the land) is very much labor.  The best source of unclaimed land
now is not on this earth, and you can bet your toenails that when someone
claims it, there will have been quite a bit of labor going into that claim.

> This is the same legal
> system that your property taxes help to support.

Not usually the case.  Property taxes are local taxes.  If you own a portion
of land and your surrounding neighbors decide to incorporate, then you can
find yourself paying taxes to a government that was formed *after* you owned
the land.

> Without it, you have
> no rights to you land at all (or, at least, no rights unless you can
> defend them with strength at arms).
> 
> > Statement of belief: Manipulation of the economy via manipulation
> > of taxation is improper.
> 
> Fine.  But in what way is legitimate tax, that helps to support your right
> to own land, to be considered 'manipulation'.

Basically you are saying that in order to own land there must be a tax.
Then you are saying that the tax is legitimate because it helpss to support
your right to own land.  You never come out and explain which tax is supporting
what.  It obviously isn't property tax or income tax (property tax is a local
tax, income tax is a fairly recent addition to the U.S.)...


> > [...] I believe that our National Parks should be in private
> > hands, but that would be hard to do if the homesteading laws allowed someone
> > to claim the grand canyon.
> 
> I disagree.  The basis of my disagreement is not human nature or mistrust,
> but direct observation:  National Parks are, in general, much more fun to
> visit than privately held land, in general.  This is assuming that the
> private land holder allows me on his property at all.  I'm willing to part
> with a few tax dollars and some mineral wealth to maintain these places.

Nice of you to part with tax dollars rather than user fees.  It is very kind
of you to take tax revenue generated in cities by people who do not have the
transportation to get out and enjoy the national parks to pay for your outing.
There are many private wildlife concerns.  Many of them are committed to having
the government own the land, so it is not surprissing that you do not see land
of theirs that is a joy to visit...they give their money to lawyers.  There is
at least one group that is opposed to the government ownership of land, I
believe they are called "The Nature Conservancy."  They buy land and resell
it with clauses that require preservation of various natural aspects of the
land.

> Fortunately, enough others in this democracy feel the same.

R-e-p-u-b-l-i-c...  When you are talking about the national government of the
U.S. you are talking about a Rebublic.  There are a few states that have
democracy at the lowest (local) level, but for the most part the U.S.
government is a republic.  Just what is the difference?  Let me answer your
next statement and it may be obvious.

> If you disagree,
> you can always vote for your view - James Watt appeared to be on your side.

Here you are absolutely 100% wrong.  There is no voting for view for any
national concern (although the petition for a constitutional convention iss
closer than the general representativeness).  You can not push a button and
vote for lower taxes, you can not cast a ballot for government control of
parks, the best you can do is cast a vote for a representative and a senator
to look out for your interests.  There is a big difference.  If you were to
assume that all issues were two-sided (rarely the case) and there were only
25 isssues of importance, it would require over 33 million candidates just
so each one could represent one combination of various views.

> J. Giles

What people who rally around the democracy in the u.s. are really saying is
that they are well off and are happy that things worked out the way they did.
It is nice to sit back in your comfy chair making the dollars a computer
professsional earns, knowing that you don't have to worry about constant
police harassment, planing your next trip to Yosemite, knowing that you will
be able to get away from it all and have the tab picked up by the taxpayers,
most of whom will never set foot in Yosemite.  Who cares if we are number
three in the world for prison population per capita?  Who cares if someone
might get a bug in their ear to round up many young Americans and ship them
over to a foreign country to drop burning chemicals on little children--
most of our boys will come back alive and fairly psychologically stable.

I have much more influence over the companies that produce my food or the
devices of my leisure activities than I do of the government though my
vote.  All this hogwash about "if you don't like it you can vote against
it because this is a democracy" is just a slightly less obvious way of saying
"HEY!  *I* am well off!  I don't give two sh*ts in h*ll for the people
 who are shafted by the government each and every day."

						--Cliff

mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (02/09/85)

In article <647@unmvax.UUCP> cliff@unmvax.UUCP writes:
> > It's not wrong for a person to take money from himself.  Why would it be
> > wrong for a group to take money from itself?  That's how taxes work out for
> > a democracy anyway.
> 
> Think hard friend, if you are alone on a subway, and two people enter it, you
> are now a group.  If those two vote that you should give them all your money,
> then would it be wrong for a group to take money from itself?  That's how
> taxes work out for a democracy anyway.

Your analogy breaks down rather rapidly.  In practice, in the US, the groups
do not form and break up so frivolously.  For the most part, groups are stable
and the taxation is predictable.  And if you don't like one group, you can
relocate rather freely.  There is at least one US state without income tax
(Alaska), and I believe there are several nations with no taxes as well.

> Actually, the fruits of someone's labor allowed someone to claim it.
> You have to reach the land to claim it.  Reaching unclaimed land (which
> is NOT what the colonists did since there was already a group of people
> using the land) is very much labor.  The best source of unclaimed land
> now is not on this earth, and you can bet your toenails that when someone
> claims it, there will have been quite a bit of labor going into that claim.

My, it all sounds so equitable.  Until you consider that it's only the FIRST
one to perform that labor who can benefit.  "I'm sorry, you were born into
the wrong historical time-frame to perform this labor to claim land, so
you are denied access to the primary means of production.  Because we all
own it already.  Nyah nyah."  Perhaps if infinite resources were available
at the same rate....  For someone concerned with what's right and wrong,
you seem to want to overlook a fundamental injustice that is addressed by
the current system of redistribution, but ignored by libertarians.

> What people who rally around the democracy in the u.s. are really saying is
> that they are well off and are happy that things worked out the way they did.

And why shouldn't they?  Why should they think that they'd be
better off and happier under your system?  They already are the best off in
the world: perhaps you should perform an experiment somewhere where there is
less to lose?  It would be so much more convincing there.  Or does your small
group want to inflict its ideas on the rest of us?  I don't think you'd want
to do it: sounds inconsistant.
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh

cliff@unmvax.UUCP (02/09/85)

> In article <647@unmvax.UUCP> cliff@unmvax.UUCP writes:
>>> It's not wrong for a person to take money from himself.  Why would it be
>>> wrong for a group to take money from itself?  That's how taxes work out for
>>> a democracy anyway.
>> 
>> Think hard friend, if you are alone on a subway, and two people enter it, you
>> are now a group.  If those two vote that you should give them all your money,
>> then would it be wrong for a group to take money from itself?  That's how
>> taxes work out for a democracy anyway.
> 
> Your analogy breaks down rather rapidly.  In practice, in the US, the groups
> do not form and break up so frivolously.  For the most part, groups are stable
> and the taxation is predictable.  And if you don't like one group, you can
> relocate rather freely.  There is at least one US state without income tax
> (Alaska), and I believe there are several nations with no taxes as well.

My original comment was addressing J. Gile's claim that:

"It's not wrong for a person to take money from himself.  Why would it be
 wrong for a group to take money from itself?  That's how taxes work out for
 a democracy anyway."

My analogy holds up well to the original claim.  The original claim said
nothing of the frivolity of the duration of groups, nor the predictability of
the taking through force.

So it becomes legitimate if you ride the subway every day for a large portion
of your life and quite predictably the same two people enter it every day
and then force you to give them your money?

>> Actually, the fruits of someone's labor allowed someone to claim it.
>> You have to reach the land to claim it.  Reaching unclaimed land (which
>> is NOT what the colonists did since there was already a group of people
>> using the land) is very much labor.  The best source of unclaimed land
>> now is not on this earth, and you can bet your toenails that when someone
>> claims it, there will have been quite a bit of labor going into that claim.
> 
> My, it all sounds so equitable.  Until you consider that it's only the FIRST
> one to perform that labor who can benefit.  "I'm sorry, you were born into
> the wrong historical time-frame to perform this labor to claim land, so
> you are denied access to the primary means of production.  Because we all
> own it already.  Nyah nyah."  Perhaps if infinite resources were available
> at the same rate....

I was adressing J. Giles claim that
  "At some point in the past someone came out to your land, pounded some
   stakes in the ground, and said 'this is my land'.  His ownership of the
  land didn't come from any 'fruits of labor', he just claimed the land."
I was pointing out that what he said was quite wrong.  I didn't say that it
was equitable, but the primary means of production is the human body/mind,
not a piece of land.

> For someone concerned with what's right and wrong,
> you seem to want to overlook a fundamental injustice that is addressed by
> the current system of redistribution, but ignored by libertarians.

Thank you for phrasing your statement this way.  I may *seem* to be ignoring
a fundamental injustice, but at least you don't pull the "you are a libertarian,
you hate all of humanity--you are mean and nasty" stuff that we seem to take
from all sides.  I sincerely thank you for your realization that at least some
libertarians are concerned with "what's right and wrong."

I would not remove taxes immediately, even if I had the chance.  I would
eliminate almost all the subsidizes the middle class enjoy and pare back
significant amounts of regulation of various industries, while legalizing
all victimless crimes.  I would keep a safety net for the transitory period
between our current government and libertaria, although this safety net
would not encourage (even indirectly) a life of poverty.  Libertarians
frequently don't get a chance to explain the differences between the ideal,
and the steps that they would take to reach them.  Maybe I will try to get
a posting out addressing *my* views of the steps from here to Libertaria.

>> What people who rally around the democracy in the u.s. are really saying is
>> that they are well off and are happy that things worked out the way they did.
> 
> And why shouldn't they?  Why should they think that they'd be
> better off and happier under your system?

Why shouldn't they?  Because we are not a democracy.  The people have much
less ability to influence our countries policies than we would have in a
true democracy.  Some people even like to pretend that not only are we in a
democracy, but that our being such a government (which we aren't) somehow
justifies all the actions of our government.  I admit it; at this time I prefer
to be a U.S. citizen than not.  I just don't kid myself into believing that the
reason we have National Parks is because we are a "democracy."  I don't even
kid myself into believing we are a democracy.

> They already are the best off in
> the world: perhaps you should perform an experiment somewhere where there is
> less to lose?

I hear you!  I think it would be an excellent idea.  I would like to see some
politically minded people have paper plans for a better government that can be
delivered into the hands of whomever overthrows some despot in another country.
Right now it seems that the works of Marx and Engels enjoy too much
experimentation without producing a sufficiently better country.  I am all
changing peoples minds by example rather than force.  I intend to be very
active in whatever local I settle on (after finishing my degrees), maybe I
will move back to New Hampshire where the local government is a democracy.
(If you ever get a chance to go to a town meeting back there, don't wait
 for another chance...democracy in action is a great spectator sport).
BTW, New Hampshire has no broad based tax (including no income tax).

> It would be so much more convincing there.  Or does your small
> group want to inflict its ideas on the rest of us?  I don't think you'd want
> to do it: sounds inconsistant.

You are right.  I don't want to "inflict" my ideas on anyone, however as long
as I am a citizen, you can bet I will vote to at least try to steer our
country to the side of liberty.

> -- 
> 
> Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh

	--Cliff [Matthews]
	{purdue, cmcl2, ihnp4}!lanl!unmvax!cliff
	{csu-cs, pur-ee, convex, gatech, ucbvax}!unmvax!cliff
	4744 Trumbull S.E. - Albuquerque  NM  87108 - (505) 265-9143

mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (02/12/85)

In article <658@unmvax.UUCP> cliff@unmvax.UUCP writes:
> > In article <647@unmvax.UUCP> cliff@unmvax.UUCP writes:
> >>> It's not wrong for a person to take money from himself.  Why would it be
> >>> wrong for a group to take money from itself?  That's how taxes work out
> >>> for a democracy anyway.
> >> 
> >> Think hard friend, if you are alone on a subway, and two people enter it,
> >> you are now a group.  If those two vote that you should give them all
> >> your money, then would it be wrong for a group to take money from itself?
> >> That's how taxes work out for a democracy anyway.
> > 
> > Your analogy breaks down rather rapidly.  In practice, in the US, the groups
> > do not form and break up so frivolously...  groups are [relatively] stable
> > and the taxation is predictable.  And if you don't like one group, you can
> > relocate rather freely.  There is at least one US state without income tax
> > (Alaska), and I believe there are several nations with no taxes as well.
> 
> My original comment was addressing J. Gile's claim that:
> 
> "It's not wrong for a person to take money from himself.  Why would it be
>  wrong for a group to take money from itself?  That's how taxes work out for
>  a democracy anyway."
> 
> My analogy holds up well to the original claim.  The original claim said
> nothing of the frivolity of the duration of groups, nor the predictability of
> the taking through force.

Ah, my mistake.  You are correct here in pointing out a fallacy of
decomposition (what may be true for a group may not be true for any
particular member of the group.)  Thus, it may be right for the group to
take money from itself, but wrong for it to take money from any particular
member.

> So it becomes legitimate if you ride the subway every day for a large portion
> of your life and quite predictably the same two people enter it every day
> and then force you to give them your money?

Here we have a conflict between the group and an individual member.  You
have selected an example where the group's interest is unappealing.  It is
just as simple to pick a counterexample where the individual's interest is
unappealing.  Imagine a landowner who has a really good well.  A drought
comes, and the other's livestock is all dying because their wells dried up
and the landowner (for reasons just as unscrupulous as those of the thieves)
refuses to sell any of his abundant water.  Here, most people would support
the group's taking the water.

> >> Actually, the fruits of someone's labor allowed someone to claim it.
> >> You have to reach the land to claim it.  Reaching unclaimed land (which
> >> is NOT what the colonists did since there was already a group of people
> >> using the land) is very much labor.  The best source of unclaimed land
> >> now is not on this earth, and you can bet your toenails that when someone
> >> claims it, there will have been quite a bit of labor going into that claim.
> > 
> > My, it all sounds so equitable.  Until you consider that it's only the FIRST
> > one to perform that labor who can benefit.  "I'm sorry, you were born into
> > the wrong historical time-frame to perform this labor to claim land, so
> > you are denied access to the primary means of production.  Because we all
> > own it already.  Nyah nyah."  Perhaps if infinite resources were available
> > at the same rate....
> 
> I was adressing J. Giles claim that
>   "At some point in the past someone came out to your land, pounded some
>    stakes in the ground, and said 'this is my land'.  His ownership of the
>   land didn't come from any 'fruits of labor', he just claimed the land."
> I was pointing out that what he said was quite wrong.  I didn't say that it
> was equitable, but the primary means of production is the human body/mind,
> not a piece of land.

The bare fact is that access to capital (in the form of land, resources,
money, education, etc.) is an extremely important requirement for production.
While bodies/minds are essential, they are seldom enough.  Otherwise, India
would be extremely rich.  Thus, there is inequity involved in private
ownership of resources when that excludes others from some sort of reasonable
access.  (In other words, I advocate a compromise between private ownership
and communism.)

> > For someone concerned with what's right and wrong,
> > you seem to want to overlook a fundamental injustice that is addressed by
> > the current system of redistribution, but ignored by libertarians.
> 
> Thank you for phrasing your statement this way.  I may *seem* to be ignoring
> a fundamental injustice, but at least you don't pull the "you are a libertarian,
> you hate all of humanity--you are mean and nasty" stuff that we seem to take
> from all sides.  I sincerely thank you for your realization that at least some
> libertarians are concerned with "what's right and wrong."

You're welcome.  I've met very few people who think of themselves as scourges
of humanity, so I try to be charitable and not provoke flaming.  Sometimes
I goof though.  (Sorry about my previous note's crack about dictionaries.)

> >> What people who rally around the democracy in the u.s. are really saying is
> >> that they are well off and are happy that things worked out the way they did.
> > And why shouldn't they?  Why should they think that they'd be
> > better off and happier under your system?
> 
> Why shouldn't they?  Because we are not a democracy.  The people have much
> less ability to influence our countries policies than we would have in a
> true democracy.  Some people even like to pretend that not only are we in a
> democracy, but that our being such a government (which we aren't) somehow
> justifies all the actions of our government.  I admit it; at this time I prefer
> to be a U.S. citizen than not.  I just don't kid myself into believing that the
> reason we have National Parks is because we are a "democracy."  I don't even
> kid myself into believing we are a democracy.

For "why shouldn't they", see the following paragraph.  I don't see why an
individual would have more effect in a direct democracy than our present
system.  Please explain that separately.

> > They already are the best off in
> > the world: perhaps you should perform an experiment somewhere where there is
> > less to lose?
> 
> I hear you!  I think it would be an excellent idea.  I would like to see some
> politically minded people have paper plans for a better government that can be
> delivered into the hands of whomever overthrows some despot in another country.
> Right now it seems that the works of Marx and Engels enjoy too much
> experimentation without producing a sufficiently better country.  I am all
> changing peoples minds by example rather than force.  I intend to be very
> active in whatever local I settle on (after finishing my degrees), maybe I
> will move back to New Hampshire where the local government is a democracy.
> (If you ever get a chance to go to a town meeting back there, don't wait
>  for another chance...democracy in action is a great spectator sport).
> BTW, New Hampshire has no broad based tax (including no income tax).
> 
> > It would be so much more convincing there.  Or does your small
> > group want to inflict its ideas on the rest of us?  I don't think you'd want
> > to do it: sounds inconsistant.
> 
> You are right.  I don't want to "inflict" my ideas on anyone, however as long
> as I am a citizen, you can bet I will vote to at least try to steer our
> country to the side of liberty.

I can agree with you above.  I think experimentation is a good idea, so long
as all the eggs aren't in one basket.  Perhaps you missed a good chance to try
your ideas in Grenada?  After all, why should Ronnie be allowed to inflict his
tired right-wing ideas there when an interesting experiment could be conducted
instead.  Perhaps a libertarian peace corps could organize a party there,
and eventually win elected control of the island.
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh

jlg@lanl.ARPA (02/14/85)

endum on any subject if the proper number of petition signatures are
filed).  The US is a democratic republic (which means that the people
select their representative - in ancient republics the representatives
were chosen by appointment and only from elite classes).  The US probably
represents, in practical terms, the closest thing to a real democracy which
would be workable for over 200 million people.

The thing that most people refer to as a REAL democracy is theoretically
impossible.  There are a number of criterion that people universally agree
that a democracy must meet.  If all these criterion are assumed in a
hypothetical government, contradictions arise.  For example, majority rule:
suppose there are three choices (or more) in an issue.  No single choice
has the support of a majority of the people.  Furthermore, none of the
choices are clearly superior (in support) if each two choices are compared
pairwise (choice 1 beats choice 2, choice 2 beats choice 3, and choice 3
beats choice 1).  This scenario is not just a funny theoretical oddity, it
really happens in elections.  That's why candidates for an election
sometimes win without having a majority of the vote in their districts.
There are other funny things about REAL democracies, see the article
in Scientific American a few years back for more.

The people who insist on using the word 'democracy' in reference to
something that can't be achieved are denying the use of the word in the
real world.  I will continue to use it as a contraction of 'democratic
republic' except when ambiguity can arise (like in comparison with some
other form of democracy or republic).  I don't think anyone really missed
the meaning that I was trying to convey in my original article.  Some
people just want something to argue about.

J. Giles

(NOT J. Gile's)