Some of the Wealthy Asking to Be Taxed

[Sharky]

Re: Some of the Wealthy Asking to Be Taxed

Look into anthropology. Even in remote tribes - where there is no currency or formal leader - you are still expected to do your fair share of work and to share at least some of your goods/food to keep everyone alive. If you don't, they shun you, which is a functional death sentence since no one can survive for an extended period on their own.

You want to model society on the behaviors of savages? No thanks.

I have been to Sweden - back when the bullhorn on the USA right (mostly a.m. radio hosts) was big on claiming they were socialist (before they sold off all state assets and bought a lot of mortgaged-backed securities). They seemed to be doing alright - I mean - nobody was getting tortured and everyone had food and clothes and shelter and education and health and new gizmos or whatnot.

Sweden had a very high rate of economic growth from 1870 to 1970, with per-capita GDP nearly twice the European average. Factors contributing to that growth included land reform and the abolition of medieval guilds in 1846. Business freedom was guaranteed by law in 1864. They had limited government, free trade, free enterprise and social mobility. In short, it's success was built on capitalism.

The Social Democrats came to power in 1930. They left most things alone at first, although they did raise taxes. In 1960, government spending was 31% of GDP, with tax rates roughly equal to America's at the end of the 20th century. It was only in the late 1960's that Sweden began a pronounced move toward a social welfare state. Major industries were nationalized, and taxes were raised significantly -- tax rates there now are the highest in the industrialized world, including a 25% sales tax. It's no longer necessary to hold a job to earn an income. Hard work is rewarded with higher taxes, not higher profits.

Productivity began to decline. In the 1990s, doctors worked 1600 hours/yr on average, compared to 2800 hrs/yr in the US. Out of their 7M population, about 2.7M aren't working, and live off of welfare. For 25 yrs, Sweden's growth has been slower than other industrialized countries. In the early 1990s, their economy shrank by 5%. Even their high rate of taxation is no longer enough to cover government spending. Instead, they borrow heavily. Their national debt now is nearly equal to their GDP.

The interesting comparison is not between Sweden and any other country, rather between Sweden from 1870 to 1970 and after 1970.

Sweden rose to prosperity through capitalism. The massive social welfare system of the 1960s is slowly lowering their standard of living. In addition, they are wealthy to a significant degree because they possess phones, cars, planes, lights, TVs, etc. But those products were not invented in modern Sweden, nor in any other semi-socialist state.

Why the Ayn Rand paradise will not work is readily apparent to anyone here who has a child. (she never had children)

Imagine trying to raise a child on the philosophy that everything is voluntary.
Judge, I rest my case.

So now you want a government that treats people as children? No, thanks; I reject the Nanny State.

I suggest that if paying taxes is anyone's conception of incurable brutality that they get into a bar fight. It will do wonders to remind one just what a bit of real brutality feels like. Then one could conceivably get over this idea of taxes being the worst thing that can happen.

I never said taxation was the worst thing that can happen. I would agree with the following, though: "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."

This is not to say that every tax makes sense, or that there are not times to stand up against a specific tax. But this new idea of standing up against the very concept of taxation makes no sense to me. Calling it incurable brutality truly seems hyperbolic.

I didn't call it incurable brutality, either. What I was trying to say is that I believe people like you and c1ue seem to believe that humans are brutes (savages or children in your words above) who have to be restrained by force -- supposedly for their own good, but in reality it's for your good, not theirs.

I did call taxation theft, though -- and as such, it's morally wrong. The ends do not justify the means.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Some of the Wealthy Asking to Be Taxed

You want to model society on the behaviors of savages? No thanks.

I was making the point that everyone - from modern civilization down to small groups of hunter-gatherers - requires sharing with the group. Bar none. There have been no historical examples to the contrary. Even in short bouts of anarchy, the strong men roll through. Feel free to prove me wrong.

Sweden had a very high rate of economic growth from 1870 to 1970, with per-capita GDP nearly twice the European average. Factors contributing to that growth included land reform and the abolition of medieval guilds in 1846. Business freedom was guaranteed by law in 1864. They had limited government, free trade, free enterprise and social mobility. In short, it's success was built on capitalism.

The Social Democrats came to power in 1930. They left most things alone at first, although they did raise taxes. In 1960, government spending was 31% of GDP, with tax rates roughly equal to America's at the end of the 20th century. It was only in the late 1960's that Sweden began a pronounced move toward a social welfare state. Major industries were nationalized, and taxes were raised significantly -- tax rates there now are the highest in the industrialized world, including a 25% sales tax. It's no longer necessary to hold a job to earn an income. Hard work is rewarded with higher taxes, not higher profits.

Productivity began to decline. In the 1990s, doctors worked 1600 hours/yr on average, compared to 2800 hrs/yr in the US. Out of their 7M population, about 2.7M aren't working, and live off of welfare. For 25 yrs, Sweden's growth has been slower than other industrialized countries. In the early 1990s, their economy shrank by 5%. Even their high rate of taxation is no longer enough to cover government spending. Instead, they borrow heavily. Their national debt now is nearly equal to their GDP.

The interesting comparison is not between Sweden and any other country, rather between Sweden from 1870 to 1970 and after 1970.

Sweden rose to prosperity through capitalism. The massive social welfare system of the 1960s is slowly lowering their standard of living. In addition, they are wealthy to a significant degree because they possess phones, cars, planes, lights, TVs, etc. But those products were not invented in modern Sweden, nor in any other semi-socialist state.

Here's a list of Swedish inventions. Does it surprise you that tinkerers and engineers still enjoy their work with a smaller marginal profit potential? Would there be no google if tax rates went back to the Clintonian era because they would pack it up and go home over 4%?

What about every American invention made when the top marginal tax rate was high? There were even Soviet advances in science and technology (they weren't as consumer oriented, but they were significant). This argument holds no water to me.

GDP is not the be-all and end-all of existence. We could have higher per capita GDP if we killed the bottom 50% of humanity. There is more to life than this.

Let me say it again, lest you call me a Marxist. I am happy that people who invent, market, or sell productive real things can become wealthy. I was not arguing that Sweden was perfect, merely that I was there, people seemed to be doing alright, and it was derided as socialist. I don't think that the Swedes lived a terrible existence despite what you say. I believe that they would agree. Are there any Swedes in the house?

So now you want a government that treats people as children? No, thanks; I reject the Nanny State.

I was not saying that and you know it. Do you have children, though? Interacting with and caring for children offers a unique perspective on the human existence. Anyone who has spent time doing so knows that rules are necessary.

I never said taxation was the worst thing that can happen. I would agree with the following, though: "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."

So we're in hell? Seriously, hyperbole doesn't always make for the best argument. I was not saying that taxation is made with good intention or otherwise. Simply that it has always been and will always be. Here's an aphorism for you:

"In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes."

One more question about your aphorism, though. Does it follow then that the reverse aphorism is true? Is the road to heaven paved with bad intentions?

Because that is more the argument I'm seeing here: That if you just didn't have to care at all about anyone else's well-being then the world would be a utopian paradise. I'm sorry if it just doesn't jive with the compiled evidence as set forth in the history of the human experience from the Epic of Gilgamesh to present day.

I didn't call it incurable brutality, either. What I was trying to say is that I believe people like you and c1ue seem to believe that humans are brutes (savages or children in your words above) who have to be restrained by force -- supposedly for their own good, but in reality it's for your good, not theirs.

I believe that I said taxation (later watered down to resource sharing among one's people) was necessary and had always happened throughout history with no examples to the contrary. You said that taxing was forcing people to do something and therefore immoral. You then said that I and C1ue see man as an incurable brute. I took that to mean that you see taxation as incurable brutality.

I have never argued in favor of violence throughout this conversation. Only in favor of the argument that taxation is a societal necessity. You were the one who brought the word brutal in. I presented a jocular option of a bar-fight as evidence to the contrary.

I did call taxation theft, though -- and as such, it's morally wrong. The ends do not justify the means.

Do you pay your taxes? If so, does that make you an accessory to theft, or just a victim?

[dcarrigg]

Re: Some of the Wealthy Asking to Be Taxed

One characteristic of valid rights is that they can be exercised by everyone at the same time, such as the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

This was exactly my point. Maybe we agree after all.

Tell me, then, how do you reconcile this with a family being able to carry on incredible wealth in perpetuity without sharing or being taxed at all?

How does a child born without money, trust, public education, healthcare, food-supplies during drought, or any of this manage to pursue happiness compared with the child born with all of it?

Are there not some basic requirements that children must have to bring them to adulthood in a manner in which they are capable to exercise these rights?

Should they simply be cursed by the bad luck of the draw and decisions of their parents?

This was how the nobility system formed (this really happened). Over time, wealth moves down in perpetuity, children become privileged and stop working, greater wealth amasses because interest charged always beats inflation, they acquire titles, land and powers beyond a mere citizen, they purchase and sell people, they dictate to subjects.

It allowed for no right to life, liberty or pursuit of happiness. Lest we forget, even the revered founders owned people as property. That equal opportunity - those equal rights - is all for which I am arguing. You come from a uniquely American point of view...what if it were not for Thanksgiving?


With no taxation there can be no public education - no public health - no public sanitation - no public libraries - nothing that allows for a level-playing-field from which non-wealthy children can become adults who can exercise their rights and compete in the real world.

As Aaron would point out, when you deny this to people eventually they realize it and get angry. Poor Marie Antoinette.

[Sharky]

Re: Some of the Wealthy Asking to Be Taxed

Do you have children, though? Interacting with and caring for children offers a unique perspective on the human existence. Anyone who has spent time doing so knows that rules are necessary.

Yes, I have twin 22 year old boys. I certainly understand the need for rules with young kids. I have taught my kids principles and morals to help them be happy and successful in life. However, I have no desire to apply that model to my neighbor -- morality should not be legislated. In addition, once my kids became adults, the way that I interact with them changed; I stopped making rules, for one thing.

If you want to think of this in terms of kids, consider the following. First, most parents quickly come to realize how important consistency is. I've taught my kids that theft is wrong; that it's important for them to respect the property rights of others. Then as they get older, imagine explaining that if they don't pay the government part of their earnings, they can be imprisoned. "But that's extortion!" they might say. Why is it OK for government to initiate force against us when we know it's not alright to do that to each other? You set up enough contradictory / inconsistent scenarios like that, and kids get confused. Adults, too.

Because that is more the argument I'm seeing here: That if you just didn't have to care at all about anyone else's well-being then the world would be a utopian paradise. I'm sorry if it just doesn't jive with the compiled evidence as set forth in the history of the human experience from the Epic of Gilgamesh to present day.

I never said I don't care. I have voluntarily given a lot to charity. What I object to is being forced to give, not to doing so of your own volition. In a healthy society, I think charity would be widespread. Plus, if taxes are extracted through force, is that really "caring"? "You must care more!" said the master to the slave, whip in hand.

You said that taxing was forcing people to do something and therefore immoral. You then said that I and C1ue see man as an incurable brute. I took that to mean that you see taxation as incurable brutality.

No, what I meant was that you and c1ue seem to believe that society can only sustain itself through force -- because most people are brutes who would be too stupid to do so voluntarily.

I have never argued in favor of violence throughout this conversation. Only in favor of the argument that taxation is a societal necessity. You were the one who brought the word brutal in.

So would you support taxation that was not backed by violence if it wasn't paid?

Do you pay your taxes? If so, does that make you an accessory to theft, or just a victim?

Yes, of course I pay taxes, because I'm aware of the consequences if I don't. How would that make me an accessory to theft? I have voted against them every time I've been given a choice.

[Sharky]

Re: Some of the Wealthy Asking to Be Taxed

This was exactly my point. Maybe we agree after all.

Tell me, then, how do you reconcile this with a family being able to carry on incredible wealth in perpetuity without sharing or being taxed at all?

First, on the basis of property rights. If someone earns something, it belongs to them, and a very important aspect of ownership is the right of disposal. If I can't dispose of property however I wish (without violating the rights of others), then I don't truly own it. Being able to pass your property to your heirs is simply one method of disposal.

Second, though, why do you think those people aren't "sharing"? A wealthy person doesn't keep their money stored in a mattress somewhere -- it's more likely in a bank, or acting as capital for a company, or being used in any number of other ways, many of which add value to society. I know several wealthy people who act as venture capitalists, providing funding to risky start-ups that might change the world in some important ways. Others are dedicated philanthropists.

BTW, are you aware that there are no estate taxes or gift duties in New Zealand?

How does a child born without money, trust, public education, healthcare, food-supplies during drought, or any of this manage to pursue happiness compared with the child born with all of it?

Through work and the application of their mind to the world around them. Just because you're starting with nothing doesn't mean that you can't pursue happiness. In a similar way, just because you have money doesn't mean you'll be happy.

Are there not some basic requirements that children must have to bring them to adulthood in a manner in which they are capable to exercise these rights?

Yes. They must be free to act, and be free of having force used against them.

Should they simply be cursed by the bad luck of the draw and decisions of their parents?

Some people do have bad luck. It's not my job (or government's job) to right all of the wrongs in the world. Many people with bad luck are able to get out from under it on their own. Most people under the poverty line aren't there forever. Also, two wrongs don't make a right. Stealing from me in an attempt to fix someone else's bad luck is immoral. Let's say your neighbor had a run of bad luck, then came to you with a gun and forced you to give him a bunch of money. Now you resent your neighbor (the start of class hatred), and your neighbor probably feels guilty or ashamed as well. By not allowing people to solve their own problems, government ends up robbing them of their self-esteem -- and not allowing many to learn from their mistakes.

This was how the nobility system formed (this really happened). Over time, wealth moves down in perpetuity, children become privileged and stop working, greater wealth amasses because interest charged always beats inflation, they acquire titles, land and powers beyond a mere citizen, they purchase and sell people, they dictate to subjects.

In my view, there's an important line to be drawn between acquiring property and initiating force against people. In fact, this is yet another reason to constrain government. I don't want some individual or group to be able to conspire with government to pass legislation that hurts me. But the solution is not to eliminate the would-be conspirators, it's to limit government; to remove the temptation entirely.

Also, I've known a number of wealthy kids over the years, and in my experience, if someone isn't smart enough to earn the money in the first place, they also aren't smart enough to hold onto it for very long; look at lottery winners as one example. The time span involved might be longer the more money is involved (particularly when trusts are involved), but I think the idea of wealth-in-perpetuity for a given family line is relatively unusual.

With no taxation there can be no public education - no public health - no public sanitation - no public libraries - nothing that allows for a level-playing-field from which non-wealthy children can become adults who can exercise their rights and compete in the real world.

There would be private education, along with scholarships, and charities that offered free or subsidized education. There would be private health, private sanitation, private libraries -- which could have access or provide services that were subsidized by charities. Or residents in a city could get together and decide to raise money to build something like a library -- just with voluntary donations instead of forced taxes -- and the end product would still be private; owned by the residents who contributed to it, rather than by the city and controlled by politicians. Also, just because an institution is private doesn't mean that it's automatically not accessible to the poor (or that it is accessible to the rich). What it does mean is that there should be owners, and those owners should be free to choose who uses their facilities and under what terms.

[c1ue]

Re: Some of the Wealthy Asking to Be Taxed

Perhaps the root of the issue here is the entire concept of individual rights.

...

The ability to be an armored knight is not an individual right. Rights are not wants or needs.

No, the root of the issue is that you have a set of individual rights which you and only you consider "the" set.

While some of these rights are agreed upon by the society we live in, some are not. Neither dcarrigg nor myself, nor overall society agree with your rights, yet you keep railing that these rights you consider inviolate must apply to all starting with yourself.

For you, "your" set of rights is somehow the 'most moral', 'most correct', etc etc and thus should be adhered to.

"Other" people's sets of individual rights, on the other hand, are only correct if they agree with yours.

Let me disabuse you of yet another ridiculous American notion.

There are no rights which are not a direct function of societal approval.

Rights exist because the society in which people live in agree that said rights should be preserved.

The armored knight is an excellent example, because in the feudal era it was perfectly moral and legal to physically extort (govern) an existence from peasantry. This included both the Church "Divine Right of Kings" and bureaucracy "The King is the Head of State", with the imprimature rolling downhill from there.

You continue to complain that 'your' individual rights are being violated when in reality these rights exist only in your head.

If they existed in enough other people's heads, then they might in fact actually become rights as permitted and enforced by society.

Until then, these rights you continue to champion aren't rights. They're opinions.

Attempting to assign some divine or moral ascendance to what you want is a nice try, but we have already all sorts of avenues in our present society to get your views implemented into practice.

Rights are not something that each person gets to define separately.

This is really amusing given that you think you have the right to not be taxed, and I as well as at least a majority of society believes society has the right to tax you.

Who is defining what separately?

There's no reason to believe that subscriptions, contract fees and user fees would be an unreliable source of income.

There's no reason to change the entire system for the simple purpose of allowing a few people to not pay taxes.

The ability to investigate or arrest or imprison stems from a proper government's role in the retaliation against the initiation of force.

Wrong again. Government does all sorts of preventative force, ranging from the "War on Terror", to keep records on criminals, to background checks for those buying weapons, to checking ages of people buying alcohol, to checking imports for drugs and/or assessing excise taxes, etc etc.

To say that all government force is justified simply because it is retaliatory is ludicrous.

Common sense first. Then law -- traditional common law does a pretty good job at this already. After that, it falls to the courts.

If common sense was all that was needed, we wouldn't need any court system.

Clearly it is not.

If I want to be free of force and fraud, and you don't want me to be, I am not imposing on you. You do not have the right to enslave me, regardless of what the majority thinks.

Taxation isn't slavery.

And even if you think it is, you have full option to vote with your feet.

Slavery that you can opt out of isn't slavery.

True individual rights do not conflict. One characteristic of valid rights is that they can be exercised by everyone at the same time, such as the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

This is a complete crock.

One person's pursuit of happiness might consist of a non-sound dampened Harley revving at full throttle.

One thousand other people's pursuit of happiness via peace and quiet cannot coexist.

A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)

Ayn Rand is an idiot.

If it were not for the fact that some other idiot would have written her crap, I for one would vote that Ayn Rand be recognized as a propaganda monster right up there with Goebbels.

As I've noted above and elsewhere, the corruption which the useful idiot Ayn Rand promotes is this: that somehow rights are defined exclusively by each individual, as opposed to in conjunction with society.

If an individual lived alone, then Ayn Rand's statement would be correct.

But in reality, nobody lives in complete isolation.

Living with and among other people means you cannot get everything you want.

Society is the emergent phenomenon which embodies the compromise between individuals.

Just as society condoned slavery in the past - and considered the ability to own another human being a right - so did society remove this right. The same can be said for any number of other phenomena: women's right to vote, alcohol prohibition then ending of prohibition, discrimination against minorities, etc etc.

Ayn Rand's appeal is very similar to the appeal used by Scientology: you're exceptional because you're exceptional. Circular and idiotic.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Some of the Wealthy Asking to Be Taxed

First, on the basis of property rights. If someone earns something, it belongs to them, and a very important aspect of ownership is the right of disposal. If I can't dispose of property however I wish (without violating the rights of others), then I don't truly own it. Being able to pass your property to your heirs is simply one method of disposal.

Yes, you get the right to your property, but you don't get the right to it without paying taxes or following law. Such is life.

Second, though, why do you think those people aren't "sharing"? A wealthy person doesn't keep their money stored in a mattress somewhere -- it's more likely in a bank, or acting as capital for a company, or being used in any number of other ways, many of which add value to society. I know several wealthy people who act as venture capitalists, providing funding to risky start-ups that might change the world in some important ways. Others are dedicated philanthropists.

Sure. And all of them must pay taxes that fund basic education, crime prevention, fire prevention, and governance for all. That's not a bad thing.

A pet philanthropic project or venture capital projects do not guarantee that children will have an equal opportunity to compete fairly for work, ownership and success as they become adults.

BTW, are you aware that there are no estate taxes or gift duties in New Zealand?

There are 24 countries in the world without the tax. You found one and took your American money there so as not to help your fellow countrymen. Uncle Sam would be proud.

Through work and the application of their mind to the world around them. Just because you're starting with nothing doesn't mean that you can't pursue happiness. In a similar way, just because you have money doesn't mean you'll be happy.

If the pursuit is futile, and this is obvious, then the system collapses.

Real opportunity must exist. By taking away the basics of universal services (police, fire, education, etc.) you cheapen any sort of "pursuit."

If I was to use hyperbole as liberally as you, I would say that you were making the same argument that slavery apologists make: "But really, they were happier as slaves."

Yes. They must be free to act, and be free of having force used against them.

Define act. Define force. I have no clue what this means.

Some people do have bad luck. It's not my job (or government's job) to right all of the wrongs in the world. Many people with bad luck are able to get out from under it on their own. Most people under the poverty line aren't there forever. Also, two wrongs don't make a right.

This is nothing but more aphorisms in defense of social darwinism.

Stealing from me in an attempt to fix someone else's bad luck is immoral. Let's say your neighbor had a run of bad luck, then came to you with a gun and forced you to give him a bunch of money.

Taxation is not stealing. Society provides the basic infrastructure, property protections, and market-creating policy. You then get to profit.

You don't get to use that stuff for free.

Nobody stole from you if you used the road, or the school (even if you went to private school, you get people around you know basic English now), or the military (even if nobody invaded you they were a deterrent), police (even if you never called them) or the fire dept. (even if you never called them) or any public service.

Shifting the way taxes are handled from today's methods to the stamp acts of old (transactional and contractual taxes) changes nothing. In fact, arguing for that change might be sensible if you could figure out how it would work. Regardless, it's still a tax.

Now you resent your neighbor (the start of class hatred), and your neighbor probably feels guilty or ashamed as well. By not allowing people to solve their own problems, government ends up robbing them of their self-esteem -- and not allowing many to learn from their mistakes.

I've said repeatedly that I'm no Marxist. I resent the implications above.

There has been no talk of class war or hate. I will not respond to this soundbite, partisan nonsense.

In my view, there's an important line to be drawn between acquiring property and initiating force against people.

Do you really think that extreme wealth inequality requires zero force to maintain? History disagrees.

In fact, this is yet another reason to constrain government. I don't want some individual or group to be able to conspire with government to pass legislation that hurts me.

I agree. Don't we all. But we live in societies ruled by law. You want to replace that with some lawless, Darwinian notion of 'survival of the fittest' and/or 'survival of he who inherits most.' I reject that.

But the solution is not to eliminate the would-be conspirators, it's to limit government; to remove the temptation entirely.

You can address your grievances yourself through ballot or through your representative. Thus is the mechanism in a Republic. One can argue that the process is corrupt, but the mechanism is there.

Destroying the Republic seems to me to be an extreme solution to the problem.

At times you are talking about living with no government. You say that taxation is immoral and brutal. Yet a government that takes in zero taxes, provides zero services, and throws its people to the wolves is no government at all.

But then you say there could be a modern stamp act (contract tax). So now I wonder, would this stamp act provide funds for a government? Would it be a republic in your mind?

So, if there are to be taxes, and there is to be a republic, and individuals get to vote, who gets to decide who we sell off the public infrastructure to? Do we just give most of it to the mafia a'la the fall of the Soviet Union? Or should we just entrust that those who happen to be the wealthiest today will give us a good deal on our all new universal toll roads and bridges and schools etc. etc.? Or does each person in the country get a share? How does it work in your mind?

Furthermore, why would the majority vote to pay outrageous rentier fees on private roads, unregulated private monopolies such as the power grid and water supply, and for a complete and utter lack of guaranteed education or healthcare?

Would they be happy to do this just to protect the divine right of those who inherited property?

Also, I've known a number of wealthy kids over the years, and in my experience, if someone isn't smart enough to earn the money in the first place, they also aren't smart enough to hold onto it for very long; look at lottery winners as one example. The time span involved might be longer the more money is involved (particularly when trusts are involved), but I think the idea of wealth-in-perpetuity for a given family line is relatively unusual.

Then why have monarchs and dynasties, and mogul heirs and heiresses formed throughout recorded human history? Did the inbred royals just have better genes?

In 2004 we had a presidential candidate in the US who got there because he married an African ketchup princess (Heinz Heiress). The other presidential candidate made his money because his daddy was president. That sounds like meritocracy to me, right? Neither of them have any incentive to create dynasties, right?

Paris Hilton makes her money just because she's an heiress. That's how easy it is too hold onto wealth even if you're not that smart.

I contend that it is sub-optimal to leave a society to be managed and run by those who inherit wealth rather than those who earn it on their own.

Societies function best when striving for meritocracy - not aristocracy.

There would be private education, along with scholarships, and charities that offered free or subsidized education.

You don't even want to pay taxes, why would you pay for that? You just said it's not your problem if kids are born with bad luck. Why would you give one $10,000 for a scholarship? I don't buy it. Neither does any first world country on the face of the earth.

There would be private health, private sanitation, private libraries -- which could have access or provide services that were subsidized by charities.

So what if, in an urban area, your neighbor doesn't have the money for the private sanitation? Do you have to live with the raw sewage stink from next door? Hope the charity has enough money to take care of it?

We had a natural experiment in this when we saw how well private sanitation worked when Naples had the garbage strike a couple of years back. It piled up everywhere.

Or residents in a city could get together and decide to raise money to build something like a library -- just with voluntary donations instead of forced taxes -- and the end product would still be private; owned by the residents who contributed to it, rather than by the city and controlled by politicians.

There are private libraries you know. They don't let everyone in. See the problem there?

Also, just because an institution is private doesn't mean that it's automatically not accessible to the poor (or that it is accessible to the rich). What it does mean is that there should be owners, and those owners should be free to choose who uses their facilities and under what terms.

Here's why that doesn't work - it's an example from my own heritage - and if you think taxation is force, wait until you see what 700 years of repression will get you.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Some of the Wealthy Asking to Be Taxed

Yes, I have twin 22 year old boys. I certainly understand the need for rules with young kids. I have taught my kids principles and morals to help them be happy and successful in life. However, I have no desire to apply that model to my neighbor -- morality should not be legislated.

Societies are either ruled by law or force.

That which is not legislated is dictated.

How do you think a lawless society would work?

If you assume that murder is wrong, then who gets to decide this, and how is that codified if it is not legislated or dictated?

Does the group just collectively stone whoever it chooses? Or do they pull together a philanthropic donation to run a private prison that can house whoever they choose?

The rule of law seems much better to me.

In addition, once my kids became adults, the way that I interact with them changed; I stopped making rules, for one thing.
If you want to think of this in terms of kids, consider the following. First, most parents quickly come to realize how important consistency is. I've taught my kids that theft is wrong; that it's important for them to respect the property rights of others. Then as they get older, imagine explaining that if they don't pay the government part of their earnings, they can be imprisoned. "But that's extortion!" they might say. Why is it OK for government to initiate force against us when we know it's not alright to do that to each other? You set up enough contradictory / inconsistent scenarios like that, and kids get confused. Adults, too.

You're angry about what you have to pay to the government. But you think that society would be better off if it would let you decide whether or not to give. I suspect you would not be as generous as your tax bill if left to your own devices.

You imagine that as soon as taxes were optional, thousands of wealthy benefactors would come out of the woodwork and voluntarily agree to pay to educate the population.

But you don't personally want to do it and nobody should be mad at you for that.

And even if you were contrary to the rest of the population, then why has there been a multi-billion dollar worldwide push to lower taxes on the wealthiest individuals over the last 30 years? Is it because they would really rather donate that money than pay it out in taxes? Your argument is contradictory / inconsistent in itself.

Then you want to legalize discrimination, but you imagine that doing so would lead to some sort of platonic Eudaimonia. The only problem is that we have tried the discrimination thing.

Letting 'private owners' discriminate as to who (read: what type of people) gets to use what are currently public services would be a travesty. Anyone who tried to enforce it would meet resistance. I would be among those who resist.

I never said I don't care. I have voluntarily given a lot to charity. What I object to is being forced to give, not to doing so of your own volition. In a healthy society, I think charity would be widespread. Plus, if taxes are extracted through force, is that really "caring"? "You must care more!" said the master to the slave, whip in hand.

To me this says: "I want to give less."

No, what I meant was that you and c1ue seem to believe that society can only sustain itself through force -- because most people are brutes who would be too stupid to do so voluntarily.

Do you really think that they are not too stupid?

• The banks argue for, and get, bigger and bigger bonuses, even as they lose shareholder value and the taxpayers bail them out.
  
  
• Some of the largest (not all) corporations publicly defend paying less than zero in taxes, even as unemployment is sky high.
  
  
• They buy off a court so that they can send unlimited foreign or domestic money into politics, and they tell you it's free speech.
  
  
• In the US the obvious party defends it while the insidious party pays lip service to the problem then makes it worse. And they do it right in front of your face.
  
  
• Less than half of the twenty-somethings in the first world are employed and they are dumbfounded as to why people take to the streets.

And you tell me that these are the people who would voluntarily educate poor kids?

No, my friend (and I mean the phrase).

The norm for the upper-crust of this society used to be good, hard working, productive business folks, wealthy people, and workers that really cared about their communities.

Now the new norm for the upper-crust is a bunch of kleptocrats and career moochers who are in it only for themselves. They produce nothing. They would just as soon destroy whatever nation it is that they're in if it could make them an extra buck. And they love dodging taxes.

So would you support taxation that was not backed by violence if it wasn't paid?

Are you asking if I would support tax dodgers? No. But usually the penalty is garnishment or some other monetary compensation and not prison unless whoever dodges taxes is particularly egregious. It's not necessarily violent.

If you just pay your taxes and care about your country you don't have to worry about any of that. You can even vote against taxes as you do or write to your representatives and ask them to lower the tax burden, or demonstrate etc. That is your right. (I don't think that it extends to unlimited money in politics, however).

Yes, of course I pay taxes, because I'm aware of the consequences if I don't. How would that make me an accessory to theft? I have voted against them every time I've been given a choice.

Assume you are correct.

You call taxes theft. Theft is a crime. If you are paying taxes, then logically you are either an accessory to the crime, or a victim of the crime.

[Sharky]

Re: Some of the Wealthy Asking to Be Taxed

Look, the main thing I want is to be free from having others initiate force against me. Slaves once wanted to be free, and others said it was impossible, or it had never been tried, or they could not survive (much less prosper) if they were free. Like them, I am willing to accept the consequences that come with freedom. Now as back then, just because a majority supports the government's initiation of force doesn't make it morally right.

Now that I see how much you enjoy Ayn Rand, and since my words are continually being mangled and misunderstood, here's another relevant quote that reflects my views, from Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged. Perhaps her words will make more sense to you than mine:


Whatever may be open to disagreement, there is one act of evil that may not, the act that no man may commit against others and no man may sanction or forgive. So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate—do you hear me? no man may start—the use of physical force against others.

To interpose the threat of physical destruction between a man and his perception of reality, is to negate and paralyze his means of survival; to force him to act against his own judgment, is like forcing him to act against his own sight. Whoever, to whatever purpose or extent, initiates the use of force, is a killer acting on the premise of death in a manner wider than murder: the premise of destroying man’s capacity to live.

Do not open your mouth to tell me that your mind has convinced you of your right to force my mind. Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins. When you declare that men are irrational animals and propose to treat them as such, you define thereby your own character and can no longer claim the sanction of reason—as no advocate of contradictions can claim it. There can be no “right” to destroy the source of rights, the only means of judging right and wrong: the mind.

To force a man to drop his own mind and to accept your will as a substitute, with a gun in place of a syllogism, with terror in place of proof, and death as the final argument—is to attempt to exist in defiance of reality. Reality demands of man that he act for his own rational interest; your gun demands of him that he act against it. Reality threatens man with death if he does not act on his rational judgment; you threaten him with death if he does. You place him in a world where the price of his life is the surrender of all the virtues required by life—and death by a process of gradual destruction is all that you and your system will achieve, when death is made to be the ruling power, the winning argument in a society of men.

Be it a highwayman who confronts a traveler with the ultimatum: “Your money or your life,” or a politician who confronts a country with the ultimatum: “Your children’s education or your life,” the meaning of that ultimatum is: “Your mind or your life”—and neither is possible to man without the other.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Some of the Wealthy Asking to Be Taxed

Look, the main thing I want is to be free from having others initiate force against me. Slaves once wanted to be free, and others said it was impossible, or it had never been tried, or they could not survive (much less prosper) if they were free. Like them, I am willing to accept the consequences that come with freedom. Now as back then, just because a majority supports the government's initiation of force doesn't make it morally right.

I think that at this point it's best to agree to disagree. I truly wish you no ill will, Sharky. I hope that this has been clear.

I thank you for the debate. It was enjoyable to swap concepts. I hope you enjoy your day (It is, daytime there, right?)

Until next time...

[aaron]

Re: Some of the Wealthy Asking to Be Taxed

Rand, if not herself a psychopath, certainly promoted a view on life that only a psychopath could come up with. Unfortunately, her writing and ideas are quite seductive. I thought she was the shizzle when I was 19.. it wore off after a couple of years when I saw more of the world.

Sharky, it is suprising to read that you are an old guy with 22 year old kids. I have not met nor heard of anybody your age who even admits to reading Rand, let alone quoting her. There are some threads on this site related to psychopathy; some theorize that 1-3% of the world has this way of thinking. In that sense, it is not a disease but a different way of looking at things.

[Sharky]

Re: Some of the Wealthy Asking to Be Taxed

I think that at this point it's best to agree to disagree.

Fair enough.

I truly wish you no ill will, Sharky. I hope that this has been clear.

Sorry, unfortunately that's not clear to me at all.

I thank you for the debate. It was enjoyable to swap concepts. I hope you enjoy your day (It is, daytime there, right?)

I always enjoy a good debate. Yes, daytime here (+17 hours from New England to NZ this time of year).

[Sharky]

Re: Some of the Wealthy Asking to Be Taxed

Rand, if not herself a psychopath, certainly promoted a view on life that only a psychopath could come up with.

Which ideas, in particular, do you find psychopathic? Wanting to be free of force and fraud? Her support of honesty? Principles? Justice? Living a moral life? Being productive? Using reason? Having self-esteem? Being independent? Having integrity? Pride?

Unfortunately, her writing and ideas are quite seductive. I thought she was the shizzle when I was 19.. it wore off after a couple of years when I saw more of the world.

Sharky, it is suprising to read that you are an old guy with 22 year old kids. I have not met nor heard of anybody your age who even admits to reading Rand, let alone quoting her.

I know several people in their late teens and early twenties who read Atlas Shrugged and maybe The Fountainhead, and liked what they saw. Then they were swayed by the constant bombardment of crap from the media, relatives, teachers at school, preachers at church, etc, and ended up repudiating the ideas that they were initially attracted to -- but without ever reading any Objectivist nonfiction works -- so most didn't really understand what Objectivism was either when they said they liked it or when they rejected it.

There are plenty of Objectivists around, if you know where to look. Where you say you don't know any, I know dozens at least, and I'm not very well plugged-in. They include highly successful businesspeople (John Allison), famous authors (Terry Goodkind, Andrew Bernstein, Tara Smith), entertainers (Neil Peart, Penn Jillette), everyday parents, and others from all walks of life.

There are some threads on this site related to psychopathy; some theorize that 1-3% of the world has this way of thinking. In that sense, it is not a disease but a different way of looking at things.

How nice of you to deign that another way of thinking is not psychotic -- particularly one that focuses on an objective reality, rather than one that is driven by feelings and imagination.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Some of the Wealthy Asking to Be Taxed

Sorry, unfortunately that's not clear to me at all.

Well, I hope it can be now. Sometimes tone is lost when debates happen via text. The result can be taken the wrong way - that was never intended.

[mesyn191]

Re: Some of the Wealthy Asking to Be Taxed

Which ideas, in particular, do you find psychopathic? Wanting to be free of force and fraud? Her support of honesty? Principles? Justice? Living a moral life? Being productive? Using reason? Having self-esteem? Being independent? Having integrity? Pride?

Those are all straw men and worthless platitudes. Objectivism has been debunked so thoroughly so many times online its impossible to defend it rationally except through willful ignorance. You can literally type into google "criticisms of objectivism" and get all the info. you need to know why its so horrible. It is a fundamentally amoral philosophy that just plain doesn't work out at all in the real world and makes monsters of everyone since it advocates a sociopathic mindset. And Rand herself was likely seriously mentally disturbed, given that she often held up a sociopathic child murder as her ideal Objectivist and even wrote him into some of her fiction.

I know several people in their late teens and early twenties who read Atlas Shrugged and maybe The Fountainhead, and liked what they saw.

I know dozens in a similar age group who were mystified by what they read (huuur I have pay taxes oh noes, lets go Galt and screw everyone cuz' I can't get MY way!! MY WAY IS ALL THAT MATTERS, IF ITS NOT MY WAY THEN ITS OPPRESSION + SLAVERY WAAAAAH!!!!!) could be taken as serious philosophy and often couldn't stand to read through the pages of ranting, especially at the end of Atlas.

I think that at this point it's best to agree to disagree. I truly wish you no ill will, Sharky. I hope that this has been clear.

Called it pages ago dude, you can't reason with him at all. His own super special personal definitions of slavery, freedom, society, etc. are inviolate and subject to ever more bizarre goal post shifting. He'll never budge on them despite the huge amount of effort you put into trying to reason with him. Towards the end there he wasn't even trying to reply rationally, just tossing random Rand quotes out despite you already mentioning you consider her to be a trash author at the very least.