For my Libertarian friends - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784

Posted: September 29 2010 at 08:39

Negoba wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

JJLehto wrote:

I know Rob but if all (or just about) of your available income (after bills and all) goes to consumption...wouldn't that be, basically, an income tax.

I know of course it is not an income tax, but isn't that what would basically happen for them?
And yes they could buy yachts and Ferrari's..but they can also not. They can also choose to live frugally.
Thus pay less taxes.

No, for the reasons I described before- that 1) income tax is an invasion of privacy, 2) income tax requires buttloads of paperwork (that many people don't have the time or know how to file, so they must hire someone), and 3) the IRS costs buttloads of money to run. Income tax is giving the government an interest free loan (if you get a refund); with a consumption tax, you pay exactly what you owe every time.

#1 is just silly rhetoric. All taxation is an invasion of your personal freedom. Get over it.

#2 and #3 are valid.

In Minnesota, there was no sales tax on food and clothing (at least 5-10 years ago). Some kind of exception like this would be necessary for a consumption tax to work. At a flat rate, the phenomenon JJ describes is a real problem. Even if you're frugal, there is a marginal cost for basic necessities that will of course be a larger proportion of your income the lower your income is.

He said privacy, not freedom.

Why should he get over it?

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Negoba

Prog Reviewer

Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210

Posted: September 29 2010 at 09:02

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Yes it is simplistic. So are Newtonian Mechanics. That's not a criticism. If the store didn't exist, anything you took from it would not have been there for you to take. I'm not so sure what's hard to understand about that.

Making some physical goods simply "there to take" in a communal way is the way we evolved. No stores needed. It's still the norm within smaller social structures (families, small businesses, etc)

You're contradicting yourself. First you talk about "free to take" as the mere ability to take from the store. However, the government doesn't stop you from having that ability. When I say free to do an act, I'm not talking of mere physical ability. You know that.

I'm not sure what the contradiction is. Of course I can take whatever I want. 3 things hinder me. 1) My own internal choice, whether moral, cultural, or whatever. 2.) Legal consequences 3.) Extralegal consequences like the storeowner getting out a gun.

Part of my objection with the libertarian platform is the condemnation of the government when the protection of property rights depends so firmly in the government.

You've actually never explained it once, because you can't. Any legal authority to use force is the government's or granted by the government.

The government allows bars to use bouncers. The government allows sports like boxing and football. Force and violence are allowed in those situations as determined by the business owner. Locally, they are the government. Power and its misuse are exercised at least as often by private entities as "the government."

They are the basis of our society. And you're correct I treat them as sacrosanct. You have your own axiom set. I find yours immoral and unworkable. You dislike mine.

I've demonstrated an equally valid alternative moral point of view. You can like that or dislike it. Property rights are not the basis of society. That's a construct of your upbringing (mine too, being born in the U.S.)

I don't see how an exaltation of property rights breaks down the libertarian system.

I didn't say it broke down the libertarian system, I said it promotes crime, and prevents our society from being the best it can be.

Negoba

Prog Reviewer

Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210

Posted: September 29 2010 at 09:10

Epignosis wrote:

Income tax requires me to disclose how much money I made, from whom, my medical expenses, if I bought a house, how much I lost gambling, etc. Consumption tax requires none of that. I didn't say "invasion of personal freedom," I said "invasion of privacy." Don't get snippy with me when you don't even read what I say.

I also said food wouldn't be taxed, but I guess you didn't read that either.

For Equality as well, privacy is a personal freedom. Another ephemeral phantasm that is so nebulous that the Supreme Court used in the early 70's to write the most convoluted stupid legislation...no I'm not liberal down the board.

I did read what you said. I was agreeing with you after the first statement.

You seemed to be still arguing the issue of marginal cost for basic needs vs income with JJ.

Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784

Posted: September 29 2010 at 09:17

Negoba wrote:

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Making some physical goods simply "there to take" in a communal way is the way we evolved. No stores needed. It's still the norm within smaller social structures (families, small businesses, etc)

Ok? You said any social institution resitricts freedom. Replace store with family or any social institution. Me having a family doesn't restrict your freedom.

I agree. You said government stops from being able to take whatever you want. It does not do that. You just admitted that. That's the contradiction.

Part of my objection with the libertarian platform is the condemnation of the government when the protection of property rights depends so firmly in the government.

It does not. Anarcho-Capitalism works on a system of private courts to enforce contracts. Government doesn't exist. Minimal Government Libertarians require basic functions of government, but demand incredibly strict restraints such as having no power to tax.

I need food to live, but I can still criticize an overcooked steak. An institution being needed does not preclude the ability to do wrong.

You've actually never explained it once, because you can't. Any legal authority to use force is the government's or granted by the government.

Private entities don't have legal authority to use force. If you punch me, I take you to court. If you steal from me, I take you to court. If the government steals from me, Oh well. If the government assassinates me, oh well it has the legal authority to do so.

They are the basis of our society. And you're correct I treat them as sacrosanct. You have your own axiom set. I find yours immoral and unworkable. You dislike mine.

I said "our society". They are the basis of American society. That's my point.

You've provided a moral point of view. I've really provided a legal system. I agree with you mostly on morals I would think, but you want morality legislated while I do not.

I don't see how an exaltation of property rights breaks down the libertarian system.

I didn't say it broke down the libertarian system, I said it promotes crime, and prevents our society from being the best it can be.

Yes you did:

Negoba wrote:

IMO, the libertarian position breaks down with its choice not to put the same scrutiny on the social convention of property rights that it does on other ideas

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784

Posted: September 29 2010 at 09:18

Negoba wrote:

I did read what you said. I was agreeing with you after the first statement.

You seemed to be still arguing the issue of marginal cost for basic needs vs income with JJ.

What legislation are you referring to?

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

ExittheLemming View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11420

Posted: September 29 2010 at 09:28

I've asked this same question several time and in several different formats but to date only Thellama has actually given me a response: (he merely stated that he didn't agree with me that 'everyone' owns them)

Who owns natural resources?

Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784

Posted: September 29 2010 at 09:30

What natural resources?

If there's oil on land I've purchased than I own them.

In general though I would say nobody owns them. I take a Lockian view on that.

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Negoba

Prog Reviewer

Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210

Posted: September 29 2010 at 09:31

Roe v. Wade. I shouldn't have opened that can of worms. But it will forever leave a taint on the right to privacy for me.

Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784

Posted: September 29 2010 at 09:35

I agree it was a terrible decision.

I think private property rights lead us to the exact opposite conclusion.

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Negoba

Prog Reviewer

Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210

Posted: September 29 2010 at 09:59

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Ok? You said any social institution resitricts freedom. Replace store with family or any social institution. Me having a family doesn't restrict your freedom.

Well I'm not part of that social structure unless we're in the same "tribe" where food is take what you need, then you having a family most definitely restricts my freedom. Your family will have more access to food than me as a single would.

I agree. You said government stops from being able to take whatever you want. It does not do that. You just admitted that. That's the contradiction.

This is a subtle point and maybe it's a bigger deal than I think. In an absolute sense I can always do whatever I want. The only thing any social structure does is provide consequences on certain choices. When I'm discussing free anarchy as the base state, I guess there's some circularity. Contradiction? I guess at that point it's semantics.

How do these private courts differ from current civil courts? Is there any set of consequences from crime other than personal / vigilante justice? In #2, how does the small government perform even its basic functions without tax? Public works require pooled resources. If a road is being built, where does the money come from?

I need food to live, but I can still criticize an overcooked steak. An institution being needed does not preclude the ability to do wrong.

This is actually a point I've been thinking all along (or perhaps its reverse). Inefficiency in government or even corruption in government doesn't necessarily mean we don't need government.

Anyone can take anyone to court, including the state. And win. (I can give examples if you doubt me on this.)

I said "our society". They are the basis of American society. That's my point.

You've provided a moral point of view. I've really provided a legal system. I agree with you mostly on morals I would think, but you want morality legislated while I do not.

I actually don't know what I want for sure. I would like a system with certain characteristics, and I'm not sure the best way to create those.

Yes you did:

Negoba wrote:

IMO, the libertarian position breaks down with its choice not to put the same scrutiny on the social convention of property rights that it does on other ideas

By "position" I mean the set of ideas, which is slightly different than system (a functioning governmental model). It's again semantics at that point, but again my opinion is that the distinctions separating government from other power holding institutions is blurry at best. But we disagree on that, we've established that.

Negoba

Prog Reviewer

Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210

Posted: September 29 2010 at 10:02

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

I agree it was a terrible decision.

I think private property rights lead us to the exact opposite conclusion.

How so? (Curious where the private property rights come in)

Trademark

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009

Posted: September 29 2010 at 11:51

The unborn, apparently are the mother's "Property" and under a Libertarian Proper-topia she would be free to do whatever she wanted with it as a simple matter of property rights.

The T

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493

Posted: September 29 2010 at 12:17

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

What natural resources?

If there's oil on land I've purchased than I own them.

In general though I would say nobody owns them. I take a Lockian view on that.

Just a question: how did you get to own the land? You purchased it... how did the seller get to acquire it? And if we go further back, how did the first owner acquire it? How has this been here in the US?

Padraic

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169

Posted: September 29 2010 at 12:23

The T wrote:

And if we go further back, how did the first owner acquire it?

They simply took it from people who thought it was impossible to "own" land.

At the beginning of English settlements, it quickly became apparent that the "New World" had a seemingly infinite supply of land, so much so that the King would grant tens of thousands of acres to noblemen as gifts, etc.

Trademark

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009

Posted: September 29 2010 at 12:25

^ ^In "Proper-topia" none of that Matters T, because there is no right and wrong, only profit and loss. In the free market system it doesn't matter how I got it, all that matters is making sure that I have it and you don't.

Edited by Trademark - September 29 2010 at 12:25

Negoba

Prog Reviewer

Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210

Posted: September 29 2010 at 12:38

Trademark wrote:

The unborn, apparently are the mother's "Property" and under a Libertarian Proper-topia she would be free to do whatever she wanted with it as a simple matter of property rights.

He said "Opposite conclusion."

Have you read anything about the decision. There's a lot of double speak and evasion of the issue.

Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784

Posted: September 29 2010 at 12:51

Negoba wrote:

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

I agree it was a terrible decision.

I think private property rights lead us to the exact opposite conclusion.

How so? (Curious where the private property rights come in)

To be short, the case hinges on the supposed fact that the fetus is intruding upon the woman's body. However, the sexual act obviously has the consequence of pregnancy. This then to me constitutes a de facto invitation for the fetus to enter the woman's body.

Once there the woman still has a right to expell it, but there are limitations to the expulsion power. For example, if you own an airplane and invite me to come aboard, you may not kick me off of the plane while it is in flight. There was implicit in your invitation the understanding that it was not an invitation to a death wish. Since the fetus' fate is death from a mother's expulsion, abortion, then as above she does not have the right to remove the fetus.

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784

Posted: September 29 2010 at 12:52

Nope.

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784

Posted: September 29 2010 at 12:58

Negoba wrote:

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Ok? You said any social institution resitricts freedom. Replace store with family or any social institution. Me having a family doesn't restrict your freedom.

What? I have a family. We grow food on our land. That's not restricting your freedom. We're producing the food. It would not have otherwise been there.

I agree. You said government stops from being able to take whatever you want. It does not do that. You just admitted that. That's the contradiction.

I think it comes down to you seem to think you're able to do anything there are no consequences for, while I hold that some things are wrong regardless of consequences.

1) Look it up. I'm no expert on the Anarcho-Conception.

2) Roads would be private. All public works would be made private excluding the police and courts. Their money would come from voluntary donation.

I need food to live, but I can still criticize an overcooked steak. An institution being needed does not preclude the ability to do wrong.

This is actually a point I've been thinking all along (or perhaps its reverse). Inefficiency in government or even corruption in government doesn't necessarily mean we don't need government.

That's true. But since nearly every function of government can be done more efficiently by private firms, then it follows that we don't need government.

Anyone can take anyone to court, including the state. And win. (I can give examples if you doubt me on this.)

There are laws against theft and aggression. No private firm can break them. You can be prosecuted for doing so. The government can not. You can take the government to court, but it writes the laws and allows itself power of aggression. I don't see what you can possible argue. It's fact.

I said "our society". They are the basis of American society. That's my point.

You've provided a moral point of view. I've really provided a legal system. I agree with you mostly on morals I would think, but you want morality legislated while I do not.

I actually don't know what I want for sure. I would like a system with certain characteristics, and I'm not sure the best way to create those.

Fair enough.

Yes you did:

Negoba wrote:

IMO, the libertarian position breaks down with its choice not to put the same scrutiny on the social convention of property rights that it does on other ideas

You should speak more colloquially and we probably won't have these semantical problems with the difference between libertarian position and libertarian system.

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784

Posted: September 29 2010 at 13:00

The T wrote:

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

What natural resources?

If there's oil on land I've purchased than I own them.

In general though I would say nobody owns them. I take a Lockian view on that.

John Locke wrote:

]Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet every man has a "property" in his own "person." This nobody has any right to but himself. The "labour" of his body and the "work" of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that Nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property.

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "