Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site unmvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!unmvax!cliff From: cliff@unmvax.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: All hail the status quo! (esp. J. Giles) Message-ID: <658@unmvax.UUCP> Date: Sat, 9-Feb-85 15:08:27 EST Article-I.D.: unmvax.658 Posted: Sat Feb 9 15:08:27 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 12-Feb-85 05:00:00 EST References: <21183@lanl.ARPA> <647@unmvax.UUCP> <345@cybvax0.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: Univ. of New Mexico, Albuquerque Lines: 119 > 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