Some of the Wealthy Asking to Be Taxed

[c1ue]

Re: Some of the Wealthy Asking to Be Taxed

My goal is to move toward a system that supports individual rights, including property rights, and forbidding the initiation of the use of force by both government and individuals -- and which does so in an internally consistent, non-contradictory way. Not being forced to pay taxes is a consequence, not a primary.

Your goal seems to be to remove the need for you to pay property taxes as well as other taxes unless you personally deem the expense worthwhile.

While you may indeed be seeking individual rights protection, at the same time you continue to ignore the concept of collective rights.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but from what I see it appears your idea of individual rights is to assign every right to the individual, with the collective having rights to whatever is left.

I personally do believe in individual rights, but equally I believe there are fundamental collective rights. In my view, there are absolutely many areas in which the collective right supersedes the individual's rights, just as there are absolutely many areas in which the individual's rights should supersede collective rights.

Sure, it wasn't so long ago that the 'rugged individual' was the norm, at least in the Western US/frontier. In a nation with a huge, largely unoccupied, undeveloped, and even unexplored frontier, it makes perfect sense to not have property taxes, not have income taxes, and so forth. There was no infrastructure to speak of - either physical or government/societal.

We don't live in that world anymore. There is physical infrastructure, as well as societal/government. Why is it so offensive to be paying for it?

I understand if you feel the use of it is inefficient or the amount you're being charged is too high, but there are plenty of avenues to address that.

No, Warrant Officers are not enlisted. Be careful when you make assertions that you aren't sure about. Warrant Officers are technical specialists and are in a series of paygrades that allows the respective services to have individuals exclusively train and operate in certain specific roles or capacities. They are not technically Commissioned Officers even though they are treated as such, but they are certainly not enlisted. There are, however, many enlisted personnel that do receive significant bonuses. These include special forces, nuclear-trained personnel, and those serving in a critical rating billet or MOS.

All of that is irrelevant to this discussion, however, because no data posted here uses prior-service accessions.

Fair enough - in my mind a Warrant Officer is where senior enlisted NCOs go.

As for numbers, as noted previously, there are 18000 pilots in the military. As this represents over 1% of the overall numbers of the US military, this sub-demographic itself skews overall income numbers.

From this link: http://208.84.116.223/forums/index.php?showtopic=21705

It appears that there are significant numbers of senior officers: 4000+ in the US Army that are colonel or above. 9000+ lt. colonels. 14600+ majors. etc etc.

The pay scales for the Army show an 8 year major has a base of $72K. Toss in housing allowances, much less other bonuses, and it seems very conceivable that $100K is closer to the norm than not.

You have provided all the proof you need. Read the data you posted and read what Buffett said. Any value greater than 0% means that Buffett is wrong, and since even the enlisted-only, non-prior-accession data gives a figure of 3.5%, then that is conclusive that Buffett is full of it. He's not the only one, apparently:

You're interpreting Buffett's statement as there is not a single rich family's kid in the military.

Under that interpretation, you are correct - he would be wrong.

My understanding based on following his written work for 15 years, is that he thinks in terms of proportions. Proportionately either in terms of overall absolute representation or in terms of relative representation to demographic representation, the rich contribute very little to the military.

3.5% non-prior service accessions for the top 20% if incomes - which in turn represents the top 20% of families - is severe under-representation by any measure.

I would assume that the officer/warrant officer demographic would show significantly better relative representation, but as the military is only 18% officer it seems unlikely to itself compensate. The question then is how the NCO/prior accession numbers break down.

Either way, it still is unclear to me whether Buffett's statement is wrong, given my understanding.

Note that under your strict interpretation - assuming I am understanding it correctly - Buffett's statements that the rich don't pay enough taxes is equally wrong.

Except that I know it isn't and have clarified many times now exactly what he says and why.

[Sharky]

Re: Some of the Wealthy Asking to Be Taxed

Your goal seems to be to remove the need for you to pay property taxes as well as other taxes unless you personally deem the expense worthwhile.

As I said, the goal with regard to taxes is secondary.

While you may indeed be seeking individual rights protection, at the same time you continue to ignore the concept of collective rights.

More than just ignoring them, I strongly deny that collective rights exist.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but from what I see it appears your idea of individual rights is to assign every right to the individual, with the collective having rights to whatever is left.

No, I don't think the collective has any rights of its own.

When most people talk about "collective rights," what they mean is the rights of some people over others. And when they talk about "rights," what they really mean is "whatever the majority" wants -- it's a form of tyranny of the majority.

I personally do believe in individual rights, but equally I believe there are fundamental collective rights. In my view, there are absolutely many areas in which the collective right supersedes the individual's rights, just as there are absolutely many areas in which the individual's rights should supersede collective rights.

This is clearly one of the main areas where we differ. In my view, the only way to "supersede" individual rights is to violate them.

There is physical infrastructure, as well as societal/government. Why is it so offensive to be paying for it?

I understand if you feel the use of it is inefficient or the amount you're being charged is too high, but there are plenty of avenues to address that.

It's not the amount. It's the fact that I am forced to pay. You endorse the use of force; I say it's immoral.

I want a government that protects my individual rights. If government has to violate my rights, then it can't also protect them.

There is no social contract. I recently wrote an article rebutting Elizabeth Warren's rant along these lines:

http://www.12knowmore.com/index.php/...class-warfare/

[c1ue]

Re: Some of the Wealthy Asking to Be Taxed

More than just ignoring them, I strongly deny that collective rights exist.

If you are willing to deny collective rights exist, so then can everyone else deny that individual rights to no taxation exist.

No, I don't think the collective has any rights of its own.

When most people talk about "collective rights," what they mean is the rights of some people over others. And when they talk about "rights," what they really mean is "whatever the majority" wants -- it's a form of tyranny of the majority.

This is frankly ridiculous.

While I understand the historical philosophical basis you are coming from, the reality is that you cannot have any form of civil society or government without infringing on someone's individual rights somewhere.

The only way to fully preserve all individual rights is to have a society of anarchy. Not chaos, which is what most people think when they see the word 'anarchy', but a complete absence of laws. Chaos, however, isn't that far away.

As I've noted before, the uniqueness of the libertarian movement is entirely due to this United States.

Only the United States has been so free of strife and outright war/suffering that so many people fail to recognize that a civil society and a functional government requires some limitations on individual rights.

This is clearly one of the main areas where we differ. In my view, the only way to "supersede" individual rights is to violate them.

As I've said, you only consider your rights violated because you're being compelled to do something you don't want. The reality is that accomplishing what you want would equally violate other people's rights towards a civil society, etc etc.

The real world means we can't all get what we want.

It's not the amount. It's the fact that I am forced to pay. You endorse the use of force; I say it's immoral.

I want a government that protects my individual rights. If government has to violate my rights, then it can't also protect them.

There is no social contract. I recently wrote an article rebutting Elizabeth Warren's rant along these lines:

You're frankly contradicting yourself.

You're saying government is a tyranny because it represents the will of the majority, not of every person.

Yet you want government to represent your own specific will.

All you're saying through these contradictory statements is that you want your own way even though few others do.

Surely you recognize that it is physically impossible for any actual government that exists to not violate someone's individual rights, as you term them, in some way, in every action said government undertakes?

As for morality, if the majority of the people think your attitude is immoral, do you still think taxation is immoral?

As for compelling via violence: that happens every day, every where, in every thing.

We don't drive on the wrong side of the road because otherwise we'd be arrested. We don't rob stores because we'd eventually get arrested. We don't dump motor oil on the front lawn because we'd get arrested. We don't engage in nasty things like nonconsensual sex because we'd get arrested.

Your view on taxation as immorality is, of course, your view and you're welcome to it.

[aaron]

Re: Some of the Wealthy Asking to Be Taxed

Sharky, if it makes you feel any better, and it did to me, consider your taxes as a payment to keep the masses of free-loaders/eaters/angry,fast-breeders/ at bay. Your taxes prevent them from taking what is yours. It costs money, I am afraid.

That money is spent to keep them fed; not fed well, just enough to keep them from tearing your arms and legs off for meat.

It keeps 'em warm in the winter. Again, not too warm. We would not want them to be comfortable... just warm enough so that they do not bust down your doors to make firewood out of your bed.

It keeps the kids in school so they do not go Lord of the Flies all of your land.

It keeps the kids from dying from treatable diseases --> again, this protects you. Parents of dying children will rip out your heart if it might help save their kid.

[Sharky]

Re: Some of the Wealthy Asking to Be Taxed

Sharky, if it makes you feel any better, and it did to me, consider your taxes as a payment to keep the masses of free-loaders/eaters/angry,fast-breeders/ at bay. Your taxes prevent them from taking what is yours. It costs money, I am afraid.

Thanks for the idea, but unfortunately it doesn't help.

For me, that's like asking a small store owner to be happy when they pay protection money to the mob, since it means their store won't be trashed. Theft by any other name is still theft.

The problem with small compromises in principles is that they inevitably come back to bite you. How long until they raise tax rates to take everything you have? If the tax monies really are keeping the wolves at bay, how long until the money runs out? No, sorry -- I morally refuse to buy my happiness and comfort that way.

[Sharky]

Re: Some of the Wealthy Asking to Be Taxed

While I understand the historical philosophical basis you are coming from, the reality is that you cannot have any form of civil society or government without infringing on someone's individual rights somewhere.

So you keep saying, and I keep disagreeing. My view is the opposite: it's impossible to have a durable civil society when individual rights are routinely violated by government.

You know, individual rights like the right to life. Let's make a civil society by killing people or putting millions in prison! Yay! That always turns out well.

The only way to fully preserve all individual rights is to have a society of anarchy. Not chaos, which is what most people think when they see the word 'anarchy', but a complete absence of laws. Chaos, however, isn't that far away.

I'm against anarchy. I support a proper government.

Only the United States has been so free of strife and outright war/suffering that so many people fail to recognize that a civil society and a functional government requires some limitations on individual rights.

Perhaps, but those people are mistaken. A functional government does not require any limitations on individual rights.

If majority rule is so superior, then what about societies where the majority decides that some minority is inferior? Maybe they should be required to wear a yellow star? Or be deprived of their property? Or be sent to concentration camps? As long as the majority wants it, how much violation of individual rights is too much?

As I've said, you only consider your rights violated because you're being compelled to do something you don't want.

No, it's not just something I don't want. If I wanted to kill or rob someone, denying that to me is not a violation of my rights.

The reality is that accomplishing what you want would equally violate other people's rights towards a civil society, etc etc.

The main thing that I would ask for in government is to outlaw the initiation of force or fraud by individuals or by government. That does not results in the violation of rights; it results in their protection.

You're frankly contradicting yourself.

You're saying government is a tyranny because it represents the will of the majority, not of every person.

Yet you want government to represent your own specific will.

There's a difference between having a majority form a government and having a majority impose its will in the form of laws on the minority. I'm in favor of the former, but not the latter.

Surely you recognize that it is physically impossible for any actual government that exists to not violate someone's individual rights, as you term them, in some way, in every action said government undertakes?

No, it's not impossible at all.

As for morality, if the majority of the people think your attitude is immoral, do you still think taxation is immoral?

In my view, morality exists independently of the majority.

As for compelling via violence: that happens every day, every where, in every thing.

And that makes it right?

We don't drive on the wrong side of the road because otherwise we'd be arrested. We don't rob stores because we'd eventually get arrested. We don't dump motor oil on the front lawn because we'd get arrested. We don't engage in nasty things like nonconsensual sex because we'd get arrested.

The threat of arrest has very little impact on my everyday life.

I don't drive on the wrong side, because it's dangerous. I don't rob stores, because I respect property rights and I have a principle against the initiation of force. I don't dump motor oil on my front lawn, because it would damage my own property. I don't engage in "nasty things," because I respect other people's lives, and it would be an initiation of force.

Your view on taxation as immorality is, of course, your view and you're welcome to it.

I'm welcome to it as long as I don't act on it, right? At which time force will be used against me to ensure my compliance.


As you alluded to before, you're not going to be able to talk me out of my view. If you have reasonable questions about what I believe, I'm happy to answer them -- but it seems like we've gone beyond that point by now, haven't we?

[aaron]

Re: Some of the Wealthy Asking to Be Taxed

I morally refuse to buy my happiness and comfort that way.

You cannot buy anything without society. You ought to put down the Ayn Rand and get a clue.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Some of the Wealthy Asking to Be Taxed

You cannot buy anything without society. You ought to put down the Ayn Rand and get a clue.

Aaron, you come at it from a different angle than I would, but you are essentially right. There has never been a civilization without compulsory taxes. Ever. Period. Maybe it's the mother of all sampling biases, but I tend to think that if it hasn't happened since we figured out writing and beer, it ain't gonna. Ben Franklin thought likewise. He was a smart man. Of course, he also lived in the real world...



Dreaming of what might be is fine. Dreaming of what might be while ignoring 10,000 years of civilization is foolhardy.

[Sharky]

Re: Some of the Wealthy Asking to Be Taxed

You cannot buy anything without society. You ought to put down the Ayn Rand and get a clue.

Straw man. I never suggested not having a society. I am rejecting the initiation of force as the basis for building one. It's those who think they can build a society based on the initiation of force who should get a clue. How do you think we ended up in the mess we're in today? Is more of the same really going to fix anything?

Aaron, you come at it from a different angle than I would, but you are essentially right. There has never been a civilization without compulsory taxes. Ever. Period. Maybe it's the mother of all sampling biases, but I tend to think that if it hasn't happened since we figured out writing and beer, it ain't gonna.

I'm pretty sure that early colonial America didn't have compulsory taxes; they were reasonably civilized.

There were those who said a Constitutional Republic would never work because it had never been tried, in the days before America. Just because it hasn't been done doesn't mean it's impossible. Some things, ideas, approaches, have to be discovered and understood before they can be implemented.

Unlike socialism and communism, by the way, which have been tried -- and have failed in every case.

Dreaming of what might be is fine. Dreaming of what might be while ignoring 10,000 years of civilization is foolhardy.

People like you claim that man is an incurable brute, inevitably with the goal of ruling over them -- Philosopher Kings and all that. No thanks.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Some of the Wealthy Asking to Be Taxed

I'm pretty sure that early colonial America didn't have compulsory taxes; they were reasonably civilized.

Taxes on colonies by the founding nation states led to the revolutionary war, but there was plenty of direct local taxation from Jamestown on. (Flat-taxer Alvin Rabushka wrote a 1,000-page book on the subject.) After the war, we get to Shays’ rebellion. He’d fought, got wounded, but was paid nothing for his service. He came home to find his farm being foreclosed on. Boston had declared amnesty for the rich loyalist merchants, many of whom had fled the colonies. Instead of a debt jubilee, the rich returned demanding payment on debts skipped during the war. They raised private armies to make sure it would be collected. The farmers were losing property because the super-rich controlled every facet of government.

[Sharky]

Re: Some of the Wealthy Asking to Be Taxed

Taxes on colonies by the founding nation states led to the revolutionary war, but there was plenty of direct local taxation from Jamestown on. (Flat-taxer Alvin Rabushka wrote a 1,000-page book on the subject.)

From the end of Page 41 in Rabushka:

"The exemptions and other privileges varied among the companies and colonial settlements, but the pattern was clear. Freedom from taxation, in part or in whole, and subsequent limited taxation were embedded in the constitutional foundations of the early colonies."

[dcarrigg]

Re: Some of the Wealthy Asking to Be Taxed

Straw man. I never suggested not having a society. I am rejecting the initiation of force as the basis for building one. It's those who think they can build a society based on the initiation of force who should get a clue. How do you think we ended up in the mess we're in today? Is more of the same really going to fix anything?

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.

I'm pretty sure that early colonial America didn't have compulsory taxes; they were reasonably civilized.

See what Thailandnotes posted. Here's a book review on the topic. Those of us in New England can readily see customs houses - many that predate the republic. They were built for applying taxes.

There were those who said a Constitutional Republic would never work because it had never been tried, in the days before America. Just because it hasn't been done doesn't mean it's impossible. Some things, ideas, approaches, have to be discovered and understood before they can be implemented.

Who? There were plenty of models from antiquity and other nations - particularly the Iroquois and the Roman Republic in the US-centric case. The only one in my mind who discussed its inevitable failure was Marx...who did so after it had been working for some time...but who also was bought into historical inevitabilities ... which leads me to:

Unlike socialism and communism, by the way, which have been tried -- and have failed in every case.

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.

I don't think that anyone ever tried communism - because it's that difficult to pull off and unnatural. But really bad and really stupid things were done in its name.

I'm not here to defend equality of results anyways. Just equality of opportunity. I don't think anyone wants to get on that merry-go-round (at least, I'm aware of nobody who self-identifies as a communist here). Terms should have to be defined - not just thrown out there as specters and boogymen a'la 1950s Sen. McCarthy - which is what I feel people often do with the word socialist in the US.

The only red scare these days that I see is hipster kids wearing communist propaganda because it's ironic.

People like you claim that man is an incurable brute, inevitably with the goal of ruling over them -- Philosopher Kings and all that. No thanks.

Could one really argue that man is an incurable brute because he has to share a little with his fellow man sometimes? There's a reason we teach sharing to children while they are young.

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.

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.

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.

[Ghent12]

Re: Some of the Wealthy Asking to Be Taxed

c1ue, the salaries of people currently serving in the military are not relevant to the discussion of enlisted-only, non-prior-service accessions which is the only data that has been presented so far. Comments about pilot incomes or military incomes have nothing to do with this discussion at all, unless one can point out a source of data that actually used re-accession.

You're interpreting Buffett's statement as there is not a single rich family's kid in the military.

Under that interpretation, you are correct - he would be wrong.

My understanding based on following his written work for 15 years, is that he thinks in terms of proportions. Proportionately either in terms of overall absolute representation or in terms of relative representation to demographic representation, the rich contribute very little to the military.

3.5% non-prior service accessions for the top 20% if incomes - which in turn represents the top 20% of families - is severe under-representation by any measure.

I would assume that the officer/warrant officer demographic would show significantly better relative representation, but as the military is only 18% officer it seems unlikely to itself compensate. The question then is how the NCO/prior accession numbers break down.

Either way, it still is unclear to me whether Buffett's statement is wrong, given my understanding.

You think 3.5% is "severe under-representation by any measure," but then acknowledge that the measure itself is far from incomplete. As I said, 3.5% from that income level into the enlisted ranks is far above anyone's reasonable expectation of contribution (which would be 0% in non-draft times).

If we're not taking Buffett's literal meaning but his figurative one, then why can't we include the second quintile in income too when attempting to draw conclusions? At that point it is crystal clear that "the rich" are not very under-represented in the military at all, even just on the enlisted side of the coin. If the career opportunities available to one are a function of income level, then one would expect the military to be comprised primarily of the bottom quintile in income as it had been in most military forces for centuries (led by the aristocrats or noble-birth types, of course), yet here we see a case where the claim that the rich don't contribute to the fight is suspect at best.

Do the top 0.05% in income supply 0.05% of military manpower? Who knows or cares? Buffett may think in terms of proportions, but at this point he's just mindlessly parroting an old line that doesn't hold any more water than it did decades ago. "The rich" may be a bit underrepresented in terms of raw manpower in just the enlisted ranks based upon suspect data, but there is no evidence to suggest that they are underrepresented in overall military manpower. Further, it should be noted that "the rich" pay for a vast majority of the military's expenditures, which Buffett again says is too little a contribution.

[c1ue]

Re: Some of the Wealthy Asking to Be Taxed

So you keep saying, and I keep disagreeing. My view is the opposite: it's impossible to have a durable civil society when individual rights are routinely violated by government.

You know, individual rights like the right to life. Let's make a civil society by killing people or putting millions in prison! Yay! That always turns out well.

The problem here is you are assuming your individual rights are what everyone else believes, or at a minimum that everyone else should take into account your view of individual rights even if they don't agree with them.

Everyone agrees that murder is bad. Everyone agrees that there are too many people in prison. Pretty much everyone voted for those politicians who passed the 3 strike laws, which put many of those people in prison. The dichotomy between the 2nd and 3rd sentences in this paragraph is the prerogative of the voting public.

You still haven't answered my comment: can you have any government which does not infringe on someone's individual rights, as each person defines them?

I'm against anarchy. I support a proper government.

Your proper government has no reliable source of income.

Your proper government cannot infringe on any individual's rights as each individual defines them.

Perhaps, but those people are mistaken. A functional government does not require any limitations on individual rights.

If majority rule is so superior, then what about societies where the majority decides that some minority is inferior? Maybe they should be required to wear a yellow star? Or be deprived of their property? Or be sent to concentration camps? As long as the majority wants it, how much violation of individual rights is too much?

Ah, the invocation of Godwin's law.

Well, my response to this ridiculous straw man is that abuses will occur. Just as abuses occurred in the millenia where government was a non-factor - where might was right and 1 armored knight could literally lord it over 1000 people.

You're trying to do the same thing, only instead of chain mail, a war horse, and a saber, you're trying to use the concept of 'individual rights' as you define them: My rights are paramount and all you 1000 other people just have to accept it.

No, it's not just something I don't want. If I wanted to kill or rob someone, denying that to me is not a violation of my rights.

It isn't a violation of your rights because you don't want it to happen to you, and therefore the right to arbitrarily kill or rob is not an individual right as you define it.

But for someone who wants to be the armored knight as noted above, the inability to do so is in fact a violation of their individual rights as they define it.

The difference here is what exactly? Oh, right: that most people agree arbitrary killing and theft is not an individual right.

Just as most people agree taxation is not a violation of your individual rights.

But you don't agree with the latter despite agreeing with the former.

I'd also note that the armored knight examples isn't outlandish at all.

We have "God's Work" as defined by Blankfein as the modern counterpoint.

The main thing that I would ask for in government is to outlaw the initiation of force or fraud by individuals or by government. That does not results in the violation of rights; it results in their protection.

How can government do this without money? Or the ability to investigate? Or arrest? Or imprison?

Who defines what constitutes initiation of force or fraud?

There's a difference between having a majority form a government and having a majority impose its will in the form of laws on the minority. I'm in favor of the former, but not the latter.

That's admirable, but I have yet to see how you resolve these two directly contradictory statements.

By definition a majority has a different opinion than a minority, and equally by definition the will of the majority will always be an imposition of the majority's will on the minority.

Originally Posted by c1ue
Surely you recognize that it is physically impossible for any actual government that exists to not violate someone's individual rights, as you term them, in some way, in every action said government undertakes?

No, it's not impossible at all.

...

In my view, morality exists independently of the majority.

You keep saying it is not impossible for government to not violate "someone's" individual rights, yet there are situations everywhere around us in which different people's individual rights are opposing.

Is polygamy an individual right? What about a drinking age? Driving age? Driving while 0.08% blood alcohol? Driving while 0.10% blood alcohol? Liquor taxes/"sin" taxes?

It seems to me that the implicit assumption being made is that "every right thinking person has the same morals and thus individual rights as I demand".

And that makes it right?

As the Rolling Stones said: "Like a new born baby, it just happens every day"

If you have a proposal which can realistically and fairly apportion everyone's individual rights, no matter how wacky said rights are, without infringing on anyone else's as each person sees it, I'd love to see them.

Your proposals thus far have been distinctly lacking in this regard.

The threat of arrest has very little impact on my everyday life.

I don't drive on the wrong side, because it's dangerous. I don't rob stores, because I respect property rights and I have a principle against the initiation of force. I don't dump motor oil on my front lawn, because it would damage my own property. I don't engage in "nasty things," because I respect other people's lives, and it would be an initiation of force.

That may be, but then again it would be impossible to gainsay without direct insight into your personal life.

Do you always wear a seat belt? Do you ever talk or browse on your cell phone while driving? Do you have liability insurance for your car? Do you jaywalk? Do you smoke? Do you drink? Do you drive after drinking? Do you throw trash out the window?

There are all sorts of situations where force or threat of force is used to maintain order.

Surely you recognize that laws exist not for the lawful, but for those who might break the law, and that who constitutes a potential lawbreaker is different for every law.

I'm welcome to it as long as I don't act on it, right? At which time force will be used against me to ensure my compliance.

You can act on it all you want, but if the rest of society doesn't agree then there will be consequences.

Is this any different than anything else you do?

Maybe you're British and believe fundamentally that driving on the left side is the correct way of the world.

This will not save you when driving in the United States, however. Force will be used to restrain your individual right to drive on the left side.

c1ue, the salaries of people currently serving in the military are not relevant to the discussion of enlisted-only, non-prior-service accessions which is the only data that has been presented so far. Comments about pilot incomes or military incomes have nothing to do with this discussion at all, unless one can point out a source of data that actually used re-accession.

Agreed.

However, you've not provided any data which backs your assertion that the wealthy do in fact contribute more than their share to military manpower.

And that is the original bone of contention.

If we're not taking Buffett's literal meaning but his figurative one, then why can't we include the second quintile in income too when attempting to draw conclusions?

For one thing, the second quintile definitely is not anyone's definition of 'wealthy'.

It is arguable that the entirety of the top 20% is not the 'wealthy', but it is equally clear that the 'wealthy' do fall within this quintile.

The data for the overall non-prior service enlisted accession would make it unlikely that the wealthy do contribute more than their share, especially in light of the over-representation in the second quintile - it may well be that the 'middle class' ethic which is clearly over-represented in the non-prior service enlisted accession ranks in fact extends up to the lower portions of the top quintile.

However, I freely acknowledge that the representation from the non-prior service enlisted accessions is not the definitive word either way, and pointed out a number of both pro- and con- points within the remaining military manpower pool.

A $100K cutoff would definitely be affected by high ranking officer/pilot pay, for example, unless you define the cutoff as some value like 0.57% (i.e. $4 million annual income or above), just as equally I would expect a large proportion, possibly even a majority, of officers to come from the top 20%.

Either way, the original point as noted above remains: you've asserted that Buffett is wrong in his statement that the wealthy do not contribute their share to military manpower, but have not yet provided any countervailing evidence.

And again, I'm not saying Buffett is always right.

I simply want to see evidence that he is wrong in this case, and I have not yet.

[Sharky]

Re: Some of the Wealthy Asking to Be Taxed

The problem here is you are assuming your individual rights are what everyone else believes, or at a minimum that everyone else should take into account your view of individual rights even if they don't agree with them.

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

You still haven't answered my comment: can you have any government which does not infringe on someone's individual rights, as each person defines them?

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

Your proper government has no reliable source of income

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

It isn't a violation of your rights because you don't want it to happen to you, and therefore the right to arbitrarily kill or rob is not an individual right as you define it.

But for someone who wants to be the armored knight as noted above, the inability to do so is in fact a violation of their individual rights as they define it.

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

How can government do this without money? Or the ability to investigate? Or arrest? Or imprison?

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

Who defines what constitutes initiation of force or fraud?

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

By definition a majority has a different opinion than a minority, and equally by definition the will of the majority will always be an imposition of the majority's will on the minority.

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.

You keep saying it is not impossible for government to not violate "someone's" individual rights, yet there are situations everywhere around us in which different people's individual rights are opposing.

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.

If you have a proposal which can realistically and fairly apportion everyone's individual rights, no matter how wacky said rights are, without infringing on anyone else's as each person sees it, I'd love to see them.

I'll end with an explanation of individual rights from, yes, Ayn Rand:

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.)

The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.

Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.

The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.

Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values.