Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lanl.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!linus!philabs!cmcl2!lanl!jlg From: jlg@lanl.ARPA Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Libertarian drivel. Message-ID: <21292@lanl.ARPA> Date: Fri, 8-Feb-85 17:16:34 EST Article-I.D.: lanl.21292 Posted: Fri Feb 8 17:16:34 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 12-Feb-85 04:41:49 EST Sender: newsreader@lanl.ARPA Distribution: net Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory Lines: 124 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.