Taxes Aren't the Only Price of Liberty
Bret Cahill
You have to read some political classics, discuss the issues, invoke
your rights in court, campaign for office, start ballot initiatives,
and last and least . . . vote.
If enough people aren't doing the above then the money spent on taxes
is indeed wasted or even counterproductive and it's easy to see how
many would become libertards or Randroids who, like Lincoln, would
prefer to take their despotism straight, "unalloyed by the base metal
of hypocrisy."
Bret Cahill
Chris Cathcart
Bret Cahill wrote:
> Freedom isn't free but taxes aren't the only price of liberty.
>
> You have to read some political classics, discuss the issues, invoke
> your rights in court, campaign for office, start ballot initiatives,
> and last and least . . . vote.
You mean, to do all this just so that we can get on with the business
of living our own lives. Wait -- that's all we're trying to do to
begin with; we don't have time to go play make-believe
controlling-our-destiny in a futile attempt to counteract or negotiate
with thugs (like you). We actually go out and live and control our
destiny in the world to the extent that we actually can before running
into thugs like you.
That's another area where otherwise sane and reasonable folks around
here like Ken Gardner experience epistemological fallout when it comes
to politics. I'm actually interested in those areas of life that I can
actually control and make real changes in. Democracy and voting is
basically a waste of time in that regard. It may help foster the
illusion that you're doing something with even the remotest reasonable
expectation that it'll influence some outcome that'll affect your life
in some way. Maybe thugs like you really like the fostering of this
illusion.
Look, pal, when the opinion polls start showing majority support for
moving significantly in the direction of laissez-faire, I'd feel some
satisfaction in going to vote and encouraging everyone I know to do
likewise (that is, vote for laissez-faire candidates) as basic
tit-for-tat and just good ol' feel-good cheerleading. It would be a
shame, yes, for a majority to be laissez-faire and only the thugs
getting out to do the voting. But let's stop with this illusion that
one vote has more than the remotest chance of changing anything.
> If enough people aren't doing the above then the money spent on taxes
> is indeed wasted or even counterproductive and it's easy to see how
> many would become libertards or Randroids who, like Lincoln, would
> prefer to take their despotism straight, "unalloyed by the base metal
> of hypocrisy."
You're obviously one to speak of hypocrisy.
Bret Cahill
<> You have to read some political classics, discuss the issues, invoke
<> your rights in court, campaign for office, start ballot initiatives,
<> and last and least . . . vote.
< You mean, to do all this just so that we
< can get on with the business of living our
< own lives.
BINGO! You got it!. Eternal vigilence is the price of liberty and
eternal vigilence consists of more than merely flaming those with whom
you disagree.
The public sphere was half the life of 1830s Americans according to
DeTocqueville.
Think of it this way: Isn't some or even a lot of work that doesn't
benefit you directly better than the only alternative: 24/7 slavery?
< Wait -- that's all we're trying to do to begin
< with;
Sorry, you got to work harder than that to live in a free country.
Democracy is based on virtue and virtue ain't sloth.
< we don't have time to
This reminds me of a van load of convicts brought out to clean up near
a fishing area. I saw the orange jump suits coming at me and was about
to grab my poles and take off running when one saw the expression on my
face. He explained that he wasn't dangerous just that he "didn't have
time to go to court for a . . ."
I broke out laughing, "if you have a court date then you better MAKE
time."
Same is true for politics. If you agree with me then you must agree on
the point of public participation: It's 1/2 your life. Make time.
If you don't agree with me then you need to make time because I'll win
by default.
Either way you better MAKE time.
Otherwise you can just stew in your own servitude. Forever.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
otherwise simply hasn't done anything political.
The anti-government point of view has a powerful appeal. You are
paying money (taxes) to spend HALF your waking hours on public matters
that will benefit everyone else as much as yourself.
It sounds so desirable to just give [elective] gummint the ol' heave
ho.
The problem is it is lazy thinking to believe utopia will break out w/o
elective government.
The reality is despotism breaks out.
Bret Cahill
We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we now
know that it
is bad economics.
-- Franklin D. Roosevelt
Mark N
> This reminds me of a van load of convicts brought out to clean up near
> a fishing area. I saw the orange jump suits coming at me and was about
> to grab my poles and take off running when one saw the expression on my
> face. He explained that he wasn't dangerous just that he "didn't have
> time to go to court for a . . ."
>
> I broke out laughing, "if you have a court date then you better MAKE
> time."
>
> Same is true for politics. If you agree with me then you must agree on
> the point of public participation: It's 1/2 your life. Make time.
>
> If you don't agree with me then you need to make time because I'll win
> by default.
Win what?
Mark
x
x
fred...@papertig.com
> We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we now
> know that it
> is bad economics.
>
> -- Franklin D. Roosevelt
This from the guy who after 8 years with his heedless (and headless)
altruism of massive gov't programs had barely made a dent in the
Depression. Unemployment was still 19% of the workforce in 1938.
Fred Weiss
Matt Barrow
<fred...@papertig.com> wrote in message
news:1119130651....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The great stock analyst Martin Zweig once pointed out that the stock market
did not recover it's original 1929 value (around $300), even with all the
activity from World War II, until 1954. It didn't recover the inflation
adjusted dollar value until 1962 and lost most of that again in the 1968
panic.
It didn't see positive growth until the Reagan years, even with the October,
1987 hit, which it recovered in nine months.
The great depression of 1893, worse proportionally than 1929, corrected
itself in nine months.
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO
Bret Cahill
billion during the high tax Clinton economic boom, supports higher
taxes on the rich.
Or why Greenspan recanted on tax cuts for the rich.
Bret Cahill
Chris Cathcart
Bret Cahill wrote:
> Funny how no one here can explain why Warren Buffet, who made 20
> billion during the high tax Clinton economic boom, supports higher
> taxes on the rich.
Translated from Troll, the answer is that Buffet doesn't mind high
taxes on those trying to get rich, and he's got tons of his own left to
spare. He *could* of course just give it away and mind his own fucking
business when it comes to what other people do with *their* money.
Tell us -- in English, motherfucker -- why it's anyone else's goddamn
business what you do with your own life, your own finances, how much
you make, etc.
> Or why Greenspan recanted on tax cuts for the rich.
Heaven knows why the former Rand-protege does anything any longer. One
minute he wants to abolish the Fed, next minute he's running the thing.
Can you -- in English, motherfucker -- make heads or tails of it?
Bret Cahill
<> billion during the high tax Clinton economic boom, supports higher
<> taxes on the rich.
. . . .
< Buffet doesn't mind high taxes on those
< trying to get rich,
Not trying to get rich, those who are ALREADY rich.
Buffet supports progressive taxation.
No only does Buffet support paying more in taxes than you, Buffet
supports paying a greater percentage of his income to taxes than you.
< and he's got tons of his own left to spare.
Which is STILL a smaller percentage of what he made than you.
< He *could* of course just give it away
And you, of course could just move away to another lower tax country
and mind YOUR own business.
We don't need you. We don't want you.
Call 1-800-FLY-4-LESS and book the next one way flight to Mogadishu.
. . .
<> Or why Greenspan recanted on tax cuts for the rich.
< Heaven knows why the former Rand-
< protege does anything any longer.
Like I said, Randroids cannot explain it.
The real issue is, how DUMB do you have to be to not understand why
Buffet, who made 20 BILLION trading equities during the high tax
Clinton boom, supports higher taxes?
Try thinking about it again:
Clinton raised taxes to their highest levels ever and Buffet made 20
BILLION.
You don't need to be Baron Montesquieu. Most people could figger it
out.
Pavlov's DOG could figger it out.
High taxes = better economy = bigger middle class = more insurance
policies.
Bret Cahill
fred...@papertig.com
> No only does Buffet support paying more in taxes than you, Buffet
> supports paying a greater percentage of his income to taxes than you.
No one is stopping him. The gov't is happy to accept contributions.
> <> Or why Greenspan recanted on tax cuts for the rich.
Because he's no longer an Objectivist.
Anyway, we don't support tax cuts for the rich, per se, as distinct
from tax cuts *for everyone*. However, I would say that if you want the
most bang for your buck in helping the economy, tax cuts for the rich
are definitely the way to go. Nonetheless the primary issue that
concerns Objectists is gov't *spending*. That's what we want to see
drastically cut. That in turn of course will lead to major tax cuts.
> Clinton raised taxes to their highest levels ever...
He did? When was that?
Fred Weiss
Ken Gardner
wrote:
>Nonetheless the primary issue that
>concerns Objectists is gov't *spending*. That's what we want to see
>drastically cut. That in turn of course will lead to major tax cuts.
More specifically, the concern is how government spends the money.
It does many things that Objectivists believe it shouldn't be doing.
But it is also not doing some things that Objectivists believe it
should be doing, such as being more aggressive against Islamofascists.
Ken
fred...@papertig.com
That could be accomplished with perhaps 10% - at most 20% today - of
the current Federal budget. The rest either immediately or phased in
over time could be cut and left in the economy where it would actually
do some economic good and/or be used much more efficiently than the
gov't does.
Here's an interesting likely consequence. We would experience an
immediate shortage of labor - just as we did in the 19th Cent. We'd
either have to open the floodgates of immigration, also as we did in
the 19th Cent. (which would be a good thing in my view) and/or do even
more of our manufacturing overseas. Increased immigration in any event
would be a virtual necessity because there would be a great need for
services fueled by the rising standard of living, e.g. restaurant and
hotel workers. There are certain segments of our economy which I
understand even now could use increased immigration. Imagine what would
happen if the economic growth rate doubled or tripled!
Fred Weiss
Bret Cahill
<> supports paying a greater percentage of his income to taxes than
you.
< No one is stopping him. The gov't is happy to accept contributions.
And we the people won't stop Randroids from "taxpatriation." _Forbes_
ran an excellent article on it a few years ago.
We don't need Randroids.
We don't want Randroids.
Randroids and other disreputable types want to have it both ways.
First they act like they want everything to be individualist free
market free trade and then when I do just that and treat
citizenship/taxation as an individualist free market free trade, they
get in a snit.
You need to make up your minds. Is everything an individualist free
market free trade?
If so, then you can "vote with your feet." I recommend Mogadishu in
low tax Somalia.
If not, then you must be willing to submit to some forms of
collectivism such as taxation.
Taxation doesn't mean you make an individualist contribution to the
government.
Taxation means a majority votes to raise or lower taxes on EVERYONE.
Now quit yer flippity flopping and make up your minds.
<> <> Or why Greenspan recanted on tax cuts for the rich.
< Because he's no longer an Objectivist.
Like I said, one down, 14 to go.
. . .
<> Clinton raised taxes to their highest levels ever...
< He did?
Yes he DID!
< When was that?
Right before GOP "market economists" at Hoover, Heritage, Cato and the
Chicago School predicted a recession because of the tax hikes.
Don't you remember THOSE predictions?
Bret Cahill
fred...@papertig.com
> <> No only does Buffet support paying more in taxes than you, Buffet
> <> supports paying a greater percentage of his income to taxes than
> you.
>
> < No one is stopping him. The gov't is happy to accept contributions.
<snip blather>
> You need to make up your minds. Is everything an individualist free
> market free trade?
No.
> If so,...
But it isn't, so there is no "if so..."
> If not, then you must be willing to submit to some forms of
> collectivism such as taxation.
Do you know what a non-sequitur is?
> Taxation doesn't mean you make an individualist contribution to the
> government.
I didn't say it was. I just said if Warren Buffett, you, or whoever
wants to pay more in taxes, no one would stop you.
> Taxation means a majority votes to raise or lower taxes on EVERYONE.
First, that's not what taxation *means*. Second, so what? A majority
can also vote to put people in concentration camps.
<snip more blather>
Fred Weiss
Ralph Hertle
Bret Cahill wrote:
> Freedom isn't free but taxes aren't the only price of liberty.
]...]
> Bret Cahill
I totally disagree with your evil statement.
You are package dealing the reader by implying that is is necessary to
pay for freedom and that it is necessary to submit to and to accept the
cost of coercive taxation.
In Objectivism we consider statism (vs. individualism), taxation,
coercive taxation, and the initiation of force, to be the major evils of
government, and that taxation should be ended in favor of voluntary
methods of raising government revenue.
The initiation of force against the citizen, which is what taxation is,
should be ended immediately.
You apparently want to schmooze through with some nice words like
freedom and liberty, and then stick it to the reader by making him
accept the force of taxation.
Because you advocated the initiation of force by implication, you are
not an advocate of freedom or liberty. Quite the opposite.
Ralph Hertle
Joe Teicher
Bret Cahill wrote:
>
> Buffet supports progressive taxation.
>
> No only does Buffet support paying more in taxes than you, Buffet
> supports paying a greater percentage of his income to taxes than you.
>
> < and he's got tons of his own left to spare.
>
> Which is STILL a smaller percentage of what he made than you.
Warren Buffet has a very odd view on money, and his beliefs about
taxation reflect that odd view. Buffet makes money just for the fun of
making money, whereas most people make money because they want to spend
it. Buffet has a fortune worth more than $40 Billion and most of it is
in his 500K shares of BRK.A. He paid something silly like $30/share
for those and now they are worth $82K each so that's $40 Billion in
profit that he has made on those shares and he has not paid one dime of
tax because he has never sold those shares and Berkshire Hathaway pays
no dividend. Buffet just likes to have that money. He's a weirdo.
The people who are harmed by progressive taxation (besides everyone)
are people who make six or seven figure incomes, who have to actually
pay taxes, save money and live on their incomes. These are
hard-working people who don't fetishize money the way Buffet does, but
instead value it because they can buy stuff with it and want to enjoy
the fruits of their labors. Taxes are not a serious burden on those
who have more in assets sitting around than they can ever dream of
spending, but they are a horrible burden on those who are trying to
have a decent lifestyle and build up a nest egg for the future.
> High taxes = better economy = bigger middle class = more insurance
> policies.
Remarkable that this seems to be working so poorly in Western Europe,
given how obvious it is.
Joe Teicher
Ken Gardner
>The people who are harmed by progressive taxation (besides everyone)
>are people who make six or seven figure incomes, who have to actually
>pay taxes, save money and live on their incomes. These are
>hard-working people who don't fetishize money the way Buffet does, but
>instead value it because they can buy stuff with it and want to enjoy
>the fruits of their labors.
Ken