[net.politics.theory] Libertarian drivel.

jlg@lanl.ARPA (02/09/85)

Sorry for the last.  The postnews utility bumped me off in the middle.

> > > 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.

Think harder friend.  There is a larger legal system already in existance
which precludes the scenario you mention here.  Being haphazardly thrown
together with a group larger than your own does NOT constitute the
formation of a miniature government.  The claim that it does is an implicit
support of anarchy.

> > > [...]  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.

Can't take a joke either.

> > 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.

Read more carefully about the Federal Reserve System.  You will find out that
just printing money will cause inflation which decreases the value of the
governments money just like everyone else's.  The only two ways that the
government has to raise REAL revenue is taxation and borrowing (in the form
of treasury bonds).  The national debt is a measure of the amount of money
the government presently owes to the holders of such bonds.  The government
doesn't have to pay off until the bonds come due, but in the mean time it
must pay interest on the outstanding amount (which explains why high interest
rates are a result of deficit government spending).  The national debt is a
REAL debt, the government owes this money to REAL people.  If you don't
know more about economics than your above statement indicates, you should
refrain from making economic arguments.

> > 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.

The legal system protects land holders against just such a problem.  The
land holder doesn't always win, but he usually does.  Some of the squabbles
around Corrales (you're in ABQ, you should know Corrales) have been about
this very issue.  So far the land holders have won.  Note that land holders
can enter into incorporation with his neighbors voluntarily in order
to gain the benefits of membership (like collective sewage treatment plants,
connection to centralized power, water and fuel supplies) which frequently
accompany such deals.

> 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.)...

Basically I am saying that in order to own land there must be some system
which supports your right to do so.  This system can be an orderly, but
not always equitable, legal system attached to a government with sufficient
power to back the legal system.  Or the only support for your land claims
can be yourself with a Winchester and a 44.  I prefer the former.

The mixing of several tax sources into one pot is not necessaarily legitimate.
But, the legal system is not any good without a law enforcement system to
back it up (if someone comes round to your private property and steals
everything that's not nailed down, I suppose you'd want someone to do
something about it).  Legal and law enforcement are useless services if
some foreign power decides that all this undefended land would be better
under the ownership of their citizens rather than ours.  So, a militia
seems to be required as well.  Since each of these services supports and
depends on the other (as well as more - legal system uses postal services,
then there's treasury, etc.), it makes some sense to share the revenues
between these interdependent departments.

I never claimed (as you seem to think) that the US and local tax systems
were completely equitable.  What I did claim was that even a TOTALLY
equitable legal system would still have need to levy taxes.

> 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.

Without a legal system to support that clause, some entrepreneurial
fellow will buy it making the proper promises and then renig.  This sort of
stuff has been tried before and it always results that some later owner
or heir will contest the terms of the deed and have it overturned.

> 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.

Sure you can!  There was a proposition 13 in California which directly
lowered taxes.  Similar things are possible on ANY issue!


J. Giles


Further parts of the original note were merely obscene.  I feel no obligation
to answer any of it.  If this is an example of the 'rationality' of the
Libertarian mind I think we can do without it.

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

>> 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.
> 
> Think harder friend.  There is a larger legal system already in existance
> which precludes the scenario you mention here.  Being haphazardly thrown
> together with a group larger than your own does NOT constitute the
> formation of a miniature government.  The claim that it does is an implicit
> support of anarchy.

Please explain at what point a larger group of people *does* constitute the
formation of a government (miniature or otherwise).

>>> 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.
> 
> Read more carefully about the Federal Reserve System.  You will find out that
> just printing money will cause inflation which decreases the value of the
> governments money just like everyone else's.

Yes, didn't I just say that the deficit makes the poor poorer and the rich
poorer?  Didn't I just say that if the fed were to crank out sufficient
paper money to cover the deficit that our economy would collapse (inflation
wouldn't even really have meaning... our money would be almost totally
worthless).

> The only two ways that the
> government has to raise REAL revenue is taxation and borrowing (in the form
> of treasury bonds).

If you are talking about wealth, you are right, however, the Fed could, if
it were that dumb, "print" (not always done with all the electronic money
around) up enough money to pay the national debt.  See, whenever the Fed
"prints" a dollar it is legal tender for all debts public and private.

> The national debt is a measure of the amount of money
> the government presently owes to the holders of such bonds.  The government
> doesn't have to pay off until the bonds come due, but in the mean time it
> must pay interest on the outstanding amount (which explains why high interest
> rates are a result of deficit government spending).  The national debt is a
> REAL debt, the government owes this money to REAL people.

Yes, but as long as the Fed can arbitrarily change the amount of money in
circulation, the money isn't worth a fixed amount, and the people who have
lent the money can be burned by being payed in legal U.S. tender that is
worthless.  I am not saying the government would do this, I am saying that
they *can* do this.

> If you don't
> know more about economics than your above statement indicates, you should
> refrain from making economic arguments.

Please tell me which point you didn't think I understood.  If you don't think
the Fed can "print" up as much money as they want, tell me what is legally
preventing them from doing it?  I was never suggesting paying off the national
debt by printing money, I was just stating that the government had such power.
I even said the economy would go to pieces if such a thing were done... What
*is* your beef?

You are one to talk about knowing what is what... who is it that routinely
calls our system a democracy and even tries to imply that you can vote on
any issue you desire?  Then you don't reprint my comments, calling them
obscene.  Are you trying to tell me the government isn't rich?  How many
people does the government employ?  How much land does it own?  If you don't
believe the government is rich, you are out of your tree.

> > > 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.
> 
> The legal system protects land holders against just such a problem.  The
> land holder doesn't always win, but he usually does.  Some of the squabbles
> around Corrales (you're in ABQ, you should know Corrales) have been about
> this very issue.  So far the land holders have won.  Note that land holders
> can enter into incorporation with his neighbors voluntarily in order
> to gain the benefits of membership (like collective sewage treatment plants,
> connection to centralized power, water and fuel supplies) which frequently
> accompany such deals.

It seems that once in a while at least one state has a semi-reasonable policy
for at least one issue.  Alaska legalizes marijuana...New Hampshire has no
state income tax, apparently New Mexico allows people "around Corrales" to
avoid the problems of incorporation.  Of course New Mexico does this by whim.
I do not consider New Mexico's action the standard.

>> 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.)...

> Basically I am saying that in order to own land there must be some system
> which supports your right to do so.  This system can be an orderly, but
> not always equitable, legal system attached to a government with sufficient
> power to back the legal system.  Or the only support for your land claims
> can be yourself with a Winchester and a 44.  I prefer the former.

I agree that there needs to be government, but I do not believe that the current
one provides anywhere near as much support for land claims as is needed.  There
is this little concept of eminent domain (sort of like manifest destiny)...
For this I pay taxes?
 
> The mixing of several tax sources into one pot is not necessaarily legitimate.
> But, the legal system is not any good without a law enforcement system to
> back it up (if someone comes round to your private property and steals
> everything that's not nailed down, I suppose you'd want someone to do
> something about it).  Legal and law enforcement are useless services if
> some foreign power decides that all this undefended land would be better
> under the ownership of their citizens rather than ours.  So, a militia
> seems to be required as well.  Since each of these services supports and
> depends on the other (as well as more - legal system uses postal services,
> then there's treasury, etc.), it makes some sense to share the revenues
> between these interdependent departments.

With user fees it would not make sense to share the revenues.  There needs
to be better accounting for who is costing whom how much money.

> I never claimed (as you seem to think) that the US and local tax systems
> were completely equitable.  What I did claim was that even a TOTALLY
> equitable legal system would still have need to levy taxes.

I am a fan of user fees for any service the government provides.  I don't
really think there are many that it should provide (since it is usually quite
unfair competition), but I am a libertarian.  I do believe in government.

> > 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.
> 
> Without a legal system to support that clause, some entrepreneurial
> fellow will buy it making the proper promises and then renig.  This sort of
> stuff has been tried before and it always results that some later owner
> or heir will contest the terms of the deed and have it overturned.

I am not against a legal system.  I am a libertarian, not an anarchist.

> 
> > 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.
> 
> Sure you can!  There was a proposition 13 in California which directly
> lowered taxes.  Similar things are possible on ANY issue!

Did you ever think that I might not be a California resident.  Sure, it is
possible that some issues will eventually make it to the ballot.  Most issues
never do.  Even with our ability to put some questions on the ballot we are
still a republic.  I still suggest you take some text and look
it up.  If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a horse have?  Four.
Calling a tail a leg does not make it one.  Calling out government a democracy
does not make it one.

> J. Giles
> 
> 
> Further parts of the original note were merely obscene.  I feel no obligation
> to answer any of it.  If this is an example of the 'rationality' of the
> Libertarian mind I think we can do without it.

Hey, I'm a libertarian, I don't think you are obliged to answer it.  Do as you
see fit.  For the other readers though, here is some of the text you left out
with a few more comments:

>Subject: All hail the status quo! (esp. J. Giles)

>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.

[update, the U.S. government is still a republic...J. Giles has still not
 answered yet, he has decided that since I made a claim (the U.S. government
 is rich...still hasn't been refuted) that he disagreed with that I should
 refrain from posting to the net.  So, since he obviously doesn't know the
 difference 'tween a republic and a democracy should he stay off the net?
 Of course not... the free exchange of ideas is critical to a free country]

>> 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.

[update, J. Giles has still not admitted that it takes considerable labor to
 claim unused land (esp. in this day and age when most of it is claimed).  I
 guess it is obscene to point out that his remark that "his ownership of the
 land didn't come from any 'fruits of labor'" is wrong...]

>> > [...] 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.

[more obscenity...pointing out that the land that J. Giles likes to enjoy is
 heavily subsidized by people that will never be able to enjoy it like he has.
 True, these people might prefer to spend money on food, or a college
 education, but since J. Giles wants a free ride, he should get it]

>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.

[I was pointing out why National Parks are, in general, much more fun for
 J. Giles to visit than privately held land.  I have claimed before that he
 is pro status-quo.  This is an example:  The government owns private parks
 and makes a hard group to compete with, hence private parks are fairly
 uncommon.  I prefer the National Parks...  Just as I said, status quo, no
 reason has been presented why private parks won't work in the absence of
 National Parks, instead the statement has effectively been made, they are
 there, so I want them to stay there--status quo.]

>> 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.

[J. Giles leaves out the section of my text where I show him how to spell
 republic so he can look it up...]

>> 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).

[It is interesting to see that the section is left out where I point out that
 there is no voting for view for any NATIONAL concern.  If you glance at his
 reply:

"Sure you can!  There was a proposition 13 in California which directly
lowered taxes.  Similar things are possible on ANY issue!"

it is obvious that either J. Giles deliberately forgot that I was talking about
NATIONAL concerns or doesn't know the difference.  Since he was so kind as to
cut the "obscenities" from my letter, it almost looked like I was claiming
that it is impossible to vote on anything...]

>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.

[again, no comment on the fact that our republic does not even come close to
 giving the voters the power that a true democracy would...]

> 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.

[update, we are still number three in prison population per capita.  Our
 legislators are convinced that we need stiffer victimless crimes to protect
 the country].

>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."

[Oh, I see the obscenities:  sh*t and h*ll... isn't it interesting that one
 sentence at the end of my comments should necissitate such avoidance of
 confronting my remarks?]

						--Cliff