Commentary From the Sidelines of history
Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:
Nice summary, Herb. What I don't understand is why Liberarians get below 3% votes in US congress. By the US founding principles, you would think that the distribution of votes would be something like 80% Libertarian, 15% Republican, and 5% Democrats. Can someone explain it to me?
Eugene.
A libertarian would say the government exists to benefit the people as inidividuals, people do not exist to benefit the government.
Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage - to move in the opposite direction. - Ernst F. Schumacher
A libertarian would say the government exists to benefit the people as inidividuals, people do not exist to benefit the government.
Originally posted by Michael Morris:
but with the caveat that the government has the right to protect the weak and itself from those who would do it in.
Commentary From the Sidelines of history
Commentary From the Sidelines of history
Originally posted by Michael Morris:
You didn't include the extremist libertarian, the anarchist in your discussion.
Originally posted by Chris Treglio:
I think you'd have a hard time scaring up anybody who thought the opposite was true, from any party on the right, left or center.
The distinctions only arise when you get into what specific "good" the gov't is obligated to provide us.
Originally posted by Chris Treglio:
If you're really steamed about the fact that the wealthy in the US have to fork over so much in taxes, ask yourself "What are the chances somebody would be able to amass such wealth without a strong, safe, civil society in the first place?"
It's much easier to become wealthy in a weak, unsafe, uncivilized society. You can rob banks, steal money from your neighbors, practice insider trading, build factories with no regard to environmental laws, create monopolies, hire and exploit children, etc.
I'm steamed that the middle class in the US have to fork over so much in taxes. When you speak of "wealthy", what you are often actually talking about is dual-income middle class families. It is not wealth they have amassed, rather a fair standard of income through hard work and sacrafice.
Originally posted by herb slocomb:
Hmmm, when was the last time there were mass demonstrations for people who had their land forcibly taken from them for the "greater good" (substitute other collectivist terms as you see fit)??
I'm talking about "eminent domain" proceedings where the government will force you out of your house and off your land to make way for the new turnpike or new airport or whatever else the government deems necessary.
Piscis Babelis est parvus, flavus, et hiridicus, et est probabiliter insolitissima raritas in toto mundo.
Originally posted by Chris Treglio:
Nothing's free -- not safety from theives, not safety from foreign aggressors, not roads and schools, nothing. We as individuals sacrifice a little to get a lot. Most notably we sacrifice money by taxation, but sometimes we sacrifice our lives in combat or law enforcement, or our real estate through emminent domain. We sacrifice the right to stroll around outside buck naked, we sacrifice the right to urinate in the river, we sacrifice the right to solve our interpersonal quarrels with fistfights, etc. But what we get in return is the assurance that our neighbors aren't all going to be strolling around buck naked either. It's a sacrifice I, for one, am willing to make.
It's always a shame when one individual feels that he or she had to give more than he got back, but remember: one man's "discriminatory progressive taxation" is another man's "give according to your ability."
If you're really steamed about the fact that the wealthy in the US have to fork over so much in taxes, ask yourself "What are the chances somebody would be able to amass such wealth without a strong, safe, civil society in the first place?"
Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:
Chris Treglio: If you're really steamed about the fact that the wealthy in the US have to fork over so much in taxes, ask yourself "What are the chances somebody would be able to amass such wealth without a strong, safe, civil society in the first place?"
Wrong argument. It's much easier to become wealthy in a weak, unsafe, uncivilized society. You can rob banks, steal money from your neighbors, practice insider trading, build factories with no regard to environmental laws, create monopolies, hire and exploit children, etc. This is essentially what happened in Russia after the collapse of the communism, -- the "new Russians" accumulated an enormous wealth.
Back to US, I think the wealthy should be taxed at a lower rate as a "thank you" from the US government for creating jobs, driving the economy, and paying for the US government itself.
Eugene.
[ April 13, 2003: Message edited by: Eugene Kononov ]
Originally posted by Joel McNary:
Seems a local city government wants to condemn and take via eminant domain a farm (which I believe was an actual working farm, as opposed to just a large chunk of land) so the city could put in a golf course/recreation center to help revitalize the city.
...
Not sure what it was intended to prove, but an example nonetheless.
I don't really understand your personal phobia of mass "buck nakedness"
Originally posted by Chris Treglio:
... but ultimately you and I know that obeying laws and paying taxes and risking getting drafted or having our stuff seized by emminent domain is worth the benefit of membership in society. If you didn't believe it was worth it, you wouldn't choose to remain a member of the society.
Originally posted by Chris Treglio:
...But while the US government certainly doesn't manage its cash perfectly, it's way ahead of whoever's in second place. The proof is in the pudding.
You have a bad analogy here. Eminent Domain doesn't give the government the right to simply take your property away. It gives the government the right to give you fair market value for your property. Without eminent domain there would be no highways for example.Originally posted by herb slocomb:
What if society benefits by killing off a certain percentage of elderly people, would you support that also? What principle do you use to justify some collectivist actions and not others? I think there is some inconsistency here.
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Originally posted by herb slocomb:
Agreed. The US is best. But what has made it best is that it empahsizes the individual over the collective more than any other society in the history of the world and the way to make it better and more moral is to apply those 'libertarian' (used in a broad sense, not an endorsement of the political party) principles consistently.
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
You have a bad analogy here. Eminent Domain doesn't give the government the right to simply take your property away. It gives the government the right to give you fair market value for your property.
Without eminent domain there would be no highways for example.
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
There is obviously a balancing act here. A society that fully emphasized the individual wouldn't be a society, it would be an anarchy.
Originally posted by Richard Hawkes:
I believe those of us that are successful have a duty to pay proportionally more for the privilege of having been able to become successful, and to 'compensate' those - that for whatever reason - are left to flip the burgers.
I think a society without an intrusive (but democratic) state would be a less pleasant place to live overall, even if sometimes collective values override our so-called individual 'rights'.
Originally posted by herb slocomb:
Please give some specific examples of anarchy resulting from a government that merely protects the rights of its citizens.
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Taxes are evil. They hurt. Taxes are perhaps a necessary evil (Well, let's just assume this for the sake of argument), but ultimately it's legitimised theft.Originally posted by Jason Menard:
A flat percentage income tax across the board for all taxpayers would facilitate "each according to their abilities" in a fair manner.
Peter den Haan | peterdenhaan.com | quantum computing specialist, Objectivity Ltd
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Originally posted by herb slocomb:
I wonder , does the government actually go through the hassle of an eminent domain proceeding against every single property owner when building a highway? That seems dubious to me. I believe they simply buy the property generally. (maybe the owners know if they don't sell they will be "eminent domained"???).
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
How can society protect the rights of individuals if the rights of individuals trumps the rights of the state? How can the state, for example, arrest me for a crime since that would be denying me my individual rights (my right to be free) from society's right to be free of crime? Obviuosly, any state that isn't an anarchy is going to take away some rights from some individuals in order to protect the rights of others.
Originally posted by herb slocomb:
The criminal, by acts, has asserted that he does not recognize the rights of others, and by implication even his own rights since he has no posssible claim of superior rights. The criminal therefore has relinquished his claims to his rights - the justice system therefore does not deprive him of his rights he has previously forfeited or relinquished his rights.
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Highways can't just be built anywhere. They need to go from point A to point B if someone owns property in-between and they won't sell then the state needs to take the property by eminent domain.
Finding people who want to sell but they don't have adjacent lots doesn't help.
There's a good example of what happens when the state doesn't invoke eminent domain.(HS : URL omitted.)That big turn in that red road (Northern State Parkway) is there because the state didn't invoke eminent domain to take property. (The reason was because the property was owned by a bunch of rich people with political power.) The more northerly turn is one of the most dangerous 1/2 miles in the NY parkway system. The southern turn has been reworked several times to make it safer at a very high cost to the state.
[ April 14, 2003: Message edited by: Thomas Paul ]
Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:
I must admit, your argument for progressive taxation sounds persuasive. But let me use your "fair spreading of evil" concept in the other situation. Suppose the neccessary evil is taking health from the citizens. Would you consider it fair for the government to suck more blood and inject more cancerous cells to the citizens who are in a better physical shape (they excercise, watch their diet, avoid smoking), but do just a little bit of damage to the "to be dead at 40" (they eat junk food, use drugs, spend all their money on alcohol)?
Don't you see that with the "progressive evil" you are punishing the success?
Eugene.
Don't get me started about those stupid light bulbs. |