Top 5 Reasons Libertarians/Objectivists Aren't Taken Seriously
David Goldberg
On almost every issue, if you ask 10 Libertarians for an opinion, you'll
get 10 different answers. For example, when asked about the proper
scope of government, some Libertarains want anarchy, some want basic
Constitutionalism, some want to privatize everything, some are just
happy if marijuana were to be legalized. Or immigration. Some want
completely open borders, some want to build a fence on the border, some
want quotas, etc. Or drugs. Some Libertarians want children to be able
to buy heroin at 7-11, some want to treat drugs the same as alcohol,
some want the goverment to sell drugs from government stores.
The Party of Principle has no principles.
2. The "Non-Initiation of Force" principle is retarded and even
Libertarians don't agree with it.
All government, at every level, requires the initiation of force to pay
for itself and maintain its operations. Even if you think the
government should only operate courts and police, you're still going to
need to pay for it somehow. What if a hermit living in the woods
doesn't want to take part in your Libertarian minimal-government
scheme? Are you going to force him to participate? If so, you just
violated your main principle. If not, you're advocating anarchy.
After all, the next logical step in following the Non-Initiation of
Force principle is a complete absence of government. Yet, very few
Libertarians really want anarchy. When pressed, Libertarians almost
always say "Oh we're not anarchists, we just believe in very limited
government." But you cannot have a government, even a limited
government, without initiating force.
3. Their individualist/non-collectivist ideas go against human nature.
Ayn Rand famously said, "Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive
form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or
political significance to a man's genetic lineage葉he notion that a
man's intellectual and characterological traits are produced and
transmitted by his internal body chemistry."
She's right that racism is crude and primitive, but her reasoning is all
wrong. To say that our biological traits should be ignored is to go
against millions of years of evolution. We are a powerful and
successful species specifically because we value our bioligical
relatives and prefer to be around family than around strangers.
Rand is basically saying we should abandon our family, we should abandon
our friends, and become absolute individuals with no care for our
parents, our siblings, or our culture. Did Rand never have a family?
Did Rand never live in the collective society created by her mother,
father, and siblings?
4. America is rich and powerful specifically because we do not follow
the Libertarians' advice.
Americans like government. We want our military to maintain a dozen
aircraft carriers to keep the peace around the world and protect
American business. We want the FDA to regulate the safety of food and
drugs. We want the SEC to regulate the financial markets, keep them
stable, keep them fair, and punish crooks. We want the FBI to fight
crime at a federal level. We want the government to fund education and
maintain government schools. We want to government to confiscate land
in order to build roads. We want the government to establish National
Parks and protect the environment.
Americans have seen the Libertarian argument, and have rejected it.
5. Recent experiments in Libertarianism have failed miserably.
Exhibit A is Chile. During the 1970s and 1980s, the goverment followed
the advice of a bunch of radical University of Chicago Libertarian
Economists by eliminating most government economic regulations and
privatizing their social programs. The result was a radical slowdown in
the growth of the economy, and the quick exploitation of the market by
rich and powerful interests. Rather than making everybody free and
rich, the Libertarian experiment plunged many of Chile's people into
desperate poverty.
Exhibit B is Somalia. During the 1990s, the oppressive government was
eliminated and replaced with...nothing. It was Harry Browne's dream
come true (His primary campaign slogan: "I want to eliminate [insert
government program] and replace it with NOTHING!"). The government, the
roads, the police, the military, and everything else was essentially
privatized. But rather than creating a Libertarian utopia, Somalia
degenerated into anarchy. Multiple private governments and private
armies arose to fight each other and compete violently for resources.
Libertarians fail to realize that a strong government is essential to
economic prosperity. Libertarians are great at citing anecdotes of
government waste. But putting up with a few bumbling and overpaid
bureaucrats is a small price to pay to avoid suffering the same fate of
Somalia or Chile.
John Graeme
You present only straw man arguments, circular arguments, and other
elementary fallacies. They are not even worth answering.
> political significance to a man's genetic lineage-the notion that a
shipmodeler1
all seem perfectly valid to me.
JT
Ok...but you haven't demonstrated that. You've commented on differing
policies, not the principles behind them.
> To say that our biological traits should be ignored is to go
> against millions of years of evolution.
That would be true...if that's what she had said. But she didn't.
She decried "the notion that a man's intellectual and characterological
traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry."
That doesn't mean that evolution/internal body chemistry has *nothing* to do
with it. When I read Rand's essay on racism the ultimate point that speaks
most loudly to me is that a person's mind and will truly determine that
person's intellectual and characterological traits. "Internal body
chemistry" can only create impulses and tendencies, it cannot determine what
we do about it. Only the individual can will that.
> We are a powerful and
> successful species specifically because we value our bioligical
> relatives and prefer to be around family than around strangers.
"We" do, do "we"? Who's "we", skizziks? Blanket generalizations are
usually avoided by those who wish to be taken seriously.
> Rand is basically saying we should abandon our family, we should abandon
> our friends, and become absolute individuals with no care for our
> parents, our siblings, or our culture.
Dood...have you actually read Rand's essay on racism, or just a list of
talking points about it? She's saying a person's behavior is not bound by
what his or her family, friends, ancestors, cultural counterparts think it
should be.
> 4. America is rich and powerful specifically because we do not follow the
> Libertarians' advice.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Oh, jesus...good god that was hilarious...hold on,
let me get my breath...
America is rich and powerful *DESPITE* it's huge, voracious, and very often
illegal government. NOT BECAUSE OF IT!!!
Libertarians "advice" is to keep government as small as possible. If we
actually did that...even if "as small as possible" were kept to the
"mainstream" Libertarian idea of "small" rather than the "extremist"
idea...the wealth and power of America would SKYROCKET above what it is
today.
Check out www.fairtax.org for one very-well-presented argument for just one
reason why this would likely happen if the government got the hell off our
backs.
You are one funny guy.
> During the 1990s, the oppressive government was eliminated and replaced
> with...nothing. It was Harry Browne's dream
> come true (His primary campaign slogan: "I want to eliminate [insert
> government program] and replace it with NOTHING!").
You're mixing terms and ideas into a pile of straw again.
First you said "government" was eliminated and replaced with nothing, then
you tried to make that a Libertarian idea by saying Harry Browne wanted to
do the same. I'm sure you knew that you couldn't get away with that because
he's on record, so you slipped the word "program" in there, apparently
hoping no one would notice.
Browne didn't want to eliminate *government* and replace it with nothing, he
wanted to eliminate specific government *programs* and replace them with
nothing.
Nice try.
- JT
"David Goldberg" <david_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:450EE906...@yahoo.com...
> political significance to a man's genetic lineage-the notion that a
David Goldberg
JT wrote:
> > The Party of Principle has no principles.
>
> Ok...but you haven't demonstrated that. You've commented on differing
> policies, not the principles behind them.
I commented on both. See #1 and #2.
> > We are a powerful and
> > successful species specifically because we value our bioligical
> > relatives and prefer to be around family than around strangers.
>
> "We" do, do "we"? Who's "we", skizziks?
The human race.
> Dood...have you actually read Rand's essay on racism, or just a list of
> talking points about it? She's saying a person's behavior is not bound by
> what his or her family, friends, ancestors, cultural counterparts think it
> should be.
Yes, but I'm talking about the real world. Not some objectivist fantasy land.
Humans are collectivist beings by nature. We are dependent on family from the
time we are born. We form groups, we form tribes, nations, associations, clubs,
and guilds. By our very nature, our behavior is bound by those around us.
> > 4. America is rich and powerful specifically because we do not follow the
> > Libertarians' advice.
>
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Oh, jesus...good god that was hilarious...hold on,
> let me get my breath...
>
> America is rich and powerful *DESPITE* it's huge, voracious, and very often
> illegal government. NOT BECAUSE OF IT!!!
Do you know why massive amounts of foreign investment pours into the USA and not
Mexico or Africa? Because we have a powerful and stable government that isn't
going anywhere. Our government regulates the marketplace so that it is fair and
balanced, and no one person or group is able to have an advantage. This is all
accomplished by the FDA, the FCC, the SEC, the FBI, and a myriad of other
government agencies that Libertarians want to abolish. Our government keeps our
economy predictable and safe, and that's the primary reason we are so
prosperous.
> You are one funny guy.
Thanks.
>
>
> > During the 1990s, the oppressive government was eliminated and replaced
> > with...nothing. It was Harry Browne's dream
> > come true (His primary campaign slogan: "I want to eliminate [insert
> > government program] and replace it with NOTHING!").
>
> You're mixing terms and ideas into a pile of straw again.
>
> First you said "government" was eliminated and replaced with nothing, then
> you tried to make that a Libertarian idea by saying Harry Browne wanted to
> do the same. I'm sure you knew that you couldn't get away with that because
> he's on record, so you slipped the word "program" in there, apparently
> hoping no one would notice.
>
> Browne didn't want to eliminate *government* and replace it with nothing, he
> wanted to eliminate specific government *programs* and replace them with
> nothing.
>
Here we get back to point #1. Ask 10 different Libertarians about the proper
role of government, and you'll get 10 different answers.
Which "programs" do you think should be eliminated? Which should not be
eliminated? Will you initate force to maintain the ones that should stick
around?
shipmodeler1
we
actually did that...even if "as small as possible" were kept to the
"mainstream" Libertarian idea of "small" rather than the "extremist"
idea...the wealth and power of America would SKYROCKET above what it is
today."
Unfortunately the facts of the world do not seem to bear this out. Look
around the world, and there is a clear correlation between small
government and lousy economy. If what you are saying is true, then
Indonesia, Somalia, Russia, Liberia, etc. should all be richer and more
powerful than the US.
JT
"As small as possible" means a government that is only large enough to
fulfill each and every one of its constitutionally obligated
responsibilities and notthing more. In America this may actually mean a
government that requires 2%...perhaps even a colossal 3%...of The People's
Money in order to carry out these responsibilites for which we created the
government in the first place.
Part of these responsibilities are that the rule of law be kept within our
country, so that corporations do not defraud other corporations and/or
consumers and so that we don't steal from each other by force or fraud.
The "small governments" of Indonesia, Somalia, Russia, Liberia, etc. DO NOT
enforce these rules constraining one party from injuring or defrauding, or
outright killing and robbing, the people. The Somalis can't get rich
because the other Somalis (the ones with the guns) keep killing them and
taking their stuff.
It's not just the physical size of the government that makes it effective or
ineffective. I'm pretty sure Libertarians insist not only on small
government but also, and primarily, government that operates on certain
principles of regognition of certain rights, and the enforcement of those
rights on behalf of the people.
> Look around the world, and there is a clear correlation between small
> government and lousy economy.
That's not a correlation between small government and lousy economy, that's
a correlation between *lousy* government and lousy economy. The USSR had a
pretty freakin' huge government, their economy sucked most egregiously.
- JT
"shipmodeler1" <rog...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1158786200....@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
TommCatt
>
> On almost every issue, if you ask 10 Libertarians for an opinion, you'll
> get 10 different answers.
Actually, you'll probably get about 11 or 12 different answers. ;-)
You mention it as if it were a bad thing. I have always considered it a sign
of intellectual strength of any group. I come here to expose myself to ideas
other than the ones I hold. When reading a post, I lose interest in it when
as soon as I notice the poster holds the same idea on the particular subject
as my own. I want to hear something different, whether the different idea
is portrayed as pro libertarian/Objectivist or con. Defending one's ideas
against others, whether similar or radically different, strengthens one's
idealogical stucture. Gives one the opportunity to discover flaws in one's
arguments and/or the ideas themselves. This allows for the growth of ideas,
incorporating new ideas or new-found knowledge. This creates workable ideas
or principles that are amenable to change should altered circumstances or
knowledge require it. Unalterable principles (such as those based on
religious or "inspired" writings) suffer from this. Human society today is
different from human society of two thousand years ago or even two hundred
years ago. It will be different two hundred years from now and any
principles that survive between now and then will go through some
alteration. This requires a process of constant re-examination of those
principles.
> The Party of Principle has no principles.
>
> 2. The "Non-Initiation of Force" principle is retarded and even
> Libertarians don't agree with it.
True -- but what of it? This is close to being a universal truth applicable
to any group who advocate any set of principles. Usually, any formal
statement of a principle is the best compromise of all the different
variations held by the individuals or camps within the group. Name an
exception.
> All government, at every level, requires the initiation of force to pay
> for itself and maintain its operations. Even if you think the
> government should only operate courts and police, you're still going to
> need to pay for it somehow. What if a hermit living in the woods
> doesn't want to take part in your Libertarian minimal-government
> scheme? Are you going to force him to participate? If so, you just
> violated your main principle. If not, you're advocating anarchy.
[Sigh] This is a form of a very old, very discredited argument. It goes
something like this:
Take a set, any set, of rules or moral principles. Anyone can expose a
'weakness' in those rules or principles with a hypothical scenerio in the
form: Suppose the only way to prevent a particular highly evil act from
taking place is to deliberately commit a slightly less evil act?
Have you discovered a flaw or weakness? No, the only flaw is the argument.
Ironically, this argument is still widely used because it is effective. Many
people don't see the flaw and react to it, sometimes going to extremes in
attempting to work around it. I think this is the main problem with those
who advocate total anarchy, ironically sacrificing rights protection to
maintain purity of principle.
There is only one absolute: there are no absolutes. This does not mean that
nothing can be determined. It only means that nothing can be determined
without context.
Is deliberately killing a person a moral evil or good? Without context,
there is no answer. The principle is not "do not kill" -- it is "do not
murder." The word murder specifies a context.
Ask a libertarian: is the use of force allowed? Well, sure -- depending on
the context. Self-defense, for example, is allowed. That is why the
principle specifies *initiation* of force. Unfortunately, initiation does
not specify enough of a context to make the principle workable. For example,
I see a libertarian step into a street just as a truck rounds a corner and
heads right for him. There is no time to yell a warning and have him react
so I grab him and pull him out of the way of certain death. In a libertarian
world, have I commited a crime? Would he chastise me for initiating force on
him? Hmmm, come to think of it, I'm sure there are some that would.
So, rather than examine possible contexts where even the initiation of force
may be allowed (and convinced that any taxation is de facto initiation of
force), anarchists sacrifice any and all benefits of government in order to
maintain the purity of their principle.
> 3. Their individualist/non-collectivist ideas go against human nature.
Learn the difference between groups and collectivism. Collectivism is a
characteristic that may be applied to a group, but that doesn't mean all
groups are collectivist.
> Ayn Rand famously said, "Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive
> form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or
> political significance to a man's genetic lineage-the notion that a
> man's intellectual and characterological traits are produced and
> transmitted by his internal body chemistry."
>
> She's right that racism is crude and primitive, but her reasoning is all
> wrong. To say that our biological traits should be ignored is to go
> against millions of years of evolution.
You quote her and then proceed to misinterpret her. Where does she say that
biological traits should be ignored? She quite clearly states that
biological traits should not be used in "ascribing moral, social or
political significance..."
> Rand is basically saying we should abandon our family, we should abandon
> our friends, and become absolute individuals with no care for our
> parents, our siblings, or our culture.
However did you get this meaning from what she said?
> Did Rand never have a family?
> Did Rand never live in the collective society created by her mother,
> father, and siblings?
No. Nor do I think even families located in collectivist societies are
collectivist in nature. Here again you have tried to imply that collectivism
means any grouping. Get thee to a dictionary.
> 4. America is rich and powerful specifically because we do not follow
> the Libertarians' advice.
While you have the dictionary down, here's another word you may want to look
up: perspective.
America (US) is a libertarian paradise compared to most other countries. We
fall short of the pure libertarian standard, sure. However, that is a far
cry from being able to make the above claim. If it were true, then most
countries should be richer and more powerful than the US because they follow
libertarian's advice even less than we do.
> Americans like government.
Um, I would really like for you to support this statement. We Americans are
generally happy with our form of government. That does not mean we have no
complaints about it, or that we don't think there is room for improvement.
But I don't really think most Americans *like* government.
> We want our military to maintain a dozen
> aircraft carriers to keep the peace around the world and protect
> American business. We want the FDA to regulate the safety of food and
> drugs. We want the SEC to regulate the financial markets, keep them
> stable, keep them fair, and punish crooks. We want the FBI to fight
> crime at a federal level. We want the government to fund education and
> maintain government schools. We want to government to confiscate land
> in order to build roads. We want the government to establish National
> Parks and protect the environment.
I won't nikpick the list, just remind you that Americans are perfectly aware
that our government, and all the agencies you list, have limits on what they
may and may not do. Remove those limits and you will find us much more
uncomfortable with our government.
> Americans have seen the Libertarian argument, and have rejected it.
Really? So the long list of freedoms that we currently enjoy -- religion,
press, speech, etc. -- have now been rejected. Interesting. I completely
missed that.
Yes, those are libertarian concepts. OK, I know you said 'Libertarian' --
meaning the modern-day Libertarian political party. But the
overwhelming\bulk of the Libertarian principles are the tried and true
libertarian principles on which this country was founded. Libertarians are
mostly concerned about the slow, gradual erosion of those principles by an
ever-expanding central government. Yes, some of them pine for a time that
never was and a form of government that never existed. Big deal.
> 5. Recent experiments in Libertarianism have failed miserably.
There are a whole series of 'experiments' -- in the US and around the
world -- with lots of success. I don't know exactly what you mean about
Chile, but there is one statement that puzzles me.
> The result was a radical slowdown in
> the growth of the economy, and the quick exploitation of the market by
> rich and powerful interests.
Explain how a 'quick exploitation' of a market can lead to a 'radical
slowdown?' You praised our economy for attracting investment money from all
over the world. What is that money doing other than exploiting our markets?
How is that a bad thing?
> Exhibit B is Somalia. During the 1990s, the oppressive government was
> eliminated and replaced with...nothing. It was Harry Browne's dream
> come true (His primary campaign slogan: "I want to eliminate [insert
> government program] and replace it with NOTHING!"). The government, the
> roads, the police, the military, and everything else was essentially
> privatized.
You are right when you say the government was replaced by nothing. But that
is a far cry from privatization. What it *was* was anarchy in the worst
sense of the word.
> Libertarians fail to realize that a strong government is essential to
> economic prosperity.
Then why do the poorest countrys have the strongest governments? The old
Soviet Union controlled vast amounts of natural resources. Is the government
of South Korea so much stronger than North Korea? East Germany vs. West.
Cuba.
Economic activity is essential to economic prosperity. Government plays a
part in protecting the rights of all the participants. There is no
government program that can directly increase prosperity. You need only look
at the driving force of markets and the driving force of governments to
understand why.
Tomm Carr
--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
But in practice, there is.
S G
> "As small as possible" means a government that is only large enough to
> fulfill each and every one of its constitutionally obligated
> responsibilities and notthing more. In America this may actually mean a
> government that requires 2%...perhaps even a colossal 3%...of The People's
> Money in order to carry out these responsibilites for which we created the
> government in the first place.
What is meant here by "The People's Money"?
And would you take the same amount from all - the same percentage from
all or what?
Frank Clarke
<1158786200....@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
>Unfortunately the facts of the world do not seem to bear this out. Look
>around the world, and there is a clear correlation between small
>government and lousy economy. If what you are saying is true, then
>Indonesia, Somalia, Russia, Liberia, etc. should all be richer and more
>powerful than the US.
You have confused correlation with causality -- almost 'post hoc ergo propter
hoc' but not quite. Because two things are (apparently) associated does not
mean that they have an operational connection. In these cases you have
discounted to nothingness many other factors which need to be considered.
(change Arabic number to Roman numeral to email)
Frank Clarke
<0070-2-0.2006...@ntlworld.com>
Take? Take? I would say: "Dear Taxpayer, We need to collect $x billion
dollars to support national defense (plus a few other tasks) this year. Your
fair share is $y dollars or however much more you think you can afford. Thank
you for your generosity."
If 'the people' decide national defense is not worth the cost (and they vote
with dollars) then we don't have any, and what comes, comes. What could be
'fairer'? We are, after all, the ones who created this government; when we
don't want it anymore, shouldn't it go away?
No coercion required.
Frank Clarke
wrote:
<451192D9...@yahoo.com>
>Our government regulates the marketplace so that it is fair and
>balanced, and no one person or group is able to have an advantage.
Goodness, which of us is 'living in fantasyland'? Government regulation does
not protect you, the citizen; it protects corporations (from competition,
generally).
JT
Do you mean "what is the source of the money", or do you mean "how is it
taxed" (i.e. income tax vs. consumption tax vs. etc.)?
When I said "The People's Money" I had in mind the sum of the material value
that each member of society produces. I was estimating that if the Federal
government actually "needs" more than 3% of everything the American People
produce in order to "get the job done" then somebody is very confused as to
exactly what "the job" actually is. Unless/until China attacks with
conventional weapons. Then we're gonna need to divert a bit more effort and
$$.
> And would you take the same amount from all - the same percentage fromall
> or what?
Hmm. I've been asked that question before. For a long time my answer was
along the lines of "divide the amount it costs to run the Federal
government, X, by the number of taxpayers, Y. Result Z is what each
taxpayer pays." Please keep in mind, this is a theoretical discussion, so X
is actually a reasonable cost for things that we actually told the
government to do.
Paying a percentage of income doesn't seem right to me, if it costs $200
million to run the army and there are 200 million taxpayers, why the hell
should I only pay 10 cents while Trump and Gates have to pay $700 each?
Everybody should pay a buck.
However a friend recently pointed out that "Trump and Gates have more to
protect than you do". I haven't decided yet what I think on that particular
point. Anyone...?
- JT
"S G" <nws...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:0070-2-0.2006...@ntlworld.com...
JT
with dollars) then we don't have any, and what comes, comes. What could be
Theoretically *extremely* fair. And a properly educated populace may well
be able to operate on that basis.
But here in what's become "America" I'm guessing 47 people would actually
write that check. The real-world problem is that those 47 would die along
with the rest of us when Cameroon attacked.
But in theory I "like" that point of view best.
- JT
"Frank Clarke" <m5s...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:q206h253e3dggmgrg...@4ax.com...
Michael Price
In order: Indonesia NEVER had a small government, certainly not in
the
post-colonial period. In fact what success it had was used as evidence
of
the benefits of having a highly interventionist government. Somalia
did
considerably better after reducing the size of it's government to zero.
There was still the occasional murder but not outright clan war.
Russia
similiarly never had a small government. It had a corrupt and
inefficent one
that effectively did less good (even without reckoning the costs) than
a small
one did but it did not have a small government. Liberia I don't know
much about
but it's oil-rich right? They usually have large powerful governments.
Michael Price
> > Take? Take? I would say: "Dear Taxpayer,...If 'the people' decide
> > national defense is not worth the cost (and they vote
> with dollars) then we don't have any, and what comes, comes. What could be
> 'fairer'?...No coercion required
>
> Theoretically *extremely* fair. And a properly educated populace may well
> be able to operate on that basis.
>
> But here in what's become "America" I'm guessing 47 people would actually
> write that check.
I'm guessing considerably more.
> The real-world problem is that those 47 would die along
> with the rest of us when Cameroon attacked.
>
Why would Cameroon attack if the US military wasn't causing problems
that make people want to attack you?
JT
> murder specifies a context.
*FINALLY* somebody else appears to understand this! I was beginning to
think I was the only person left who realizes that "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is
*not* one of The Ten Commandments (except in bad English translations of the
Old Testament).
Thanks for bringing that up, Mr...."Catt", is it? ;)
"TommCatt" <tomm...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:OopQg.356$tO5.234@fed1read10...
JT
Yeah, me too. I was being pessicastic. But I choose to remain convinced
that enough people, because of our poorly educated populace, would believe
that they could get a "free ride" so as to cause our military (in this
example) to be unable to function effectively. Then they could lay dying
with the rest of us, having learned their lesson and wishing they had paid
up. "Properly educated" is the main point. Saith Tom: "If a nation
expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what
never was and never will be." (Thomas Jefferson, 1816)
> Why would Cameroon attack if the US military wasn't causing problems
> that make people want to attack you?
Point very well taken, but sticking our nose into other nations' sovereign
affairs isn't the only thing that might make another country want to attack
us.
Don't forget that collectivism (and all its theoretical and real-world
off-sloughings like Communism, socialism, etc.) doesn't produce anything.
It consumes what producing individuals create, then when it runs out it has
to go looking for more producers (that's why the UN has such a hard-on for
wielding the power of "global" laws over Americans).
Even if we left everybody alone, prospering wildly within our borders as
capitalists tend to do, I believe that one day they'd run out of stuff and
come for us anyway.
But your point is heard and well taken.
- JT
"Michael Price" <nini...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158897794.1...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Frank Clarke
<tDJQg.3514$Fh.1814@trnddc07>
>Don't forget that collectivism (and all its theoretical and real-world
>off-sloughings like Communism, socialism, etc.) doesn't produce anything.
>It consumes what producing individuals create, then when it runs out it has
>to go looking for more producers
...oh, Amway !
Frank Clarke
<r6JQg.2432$wh.2272@trnddc04>
>However a friend recently pointed out that "Trump and Gates have more to
>protect than you do". I haven't decided yet what I think on that particular
>point. Anyone...?
Sure. That's why I think your 'pessicastic' estimate should be revised
sharply upward. Tomorrow, count all the "Support the Troops" magnets on the
backs of cars, extrapolate to the entire US population and then answer the
question: if everyone with a "Support the Troops" magnet on the back of their
car sent $15 dollars to the Pentagon, what would our military budget be?
My guess is the military budget would be on the order of $3 billion (minimum),
and it would likely be higher because Gates and Trump and other
less-well-situated-but-still-loaded people would write checks for --lots more--
than $15.
$3 billion equips and trains a lot of part-time soldiers, which is exactly what
we need. Having full-time soldiers supported by coercive taxation means
dictators and demagogues who manage to sneak into the White House have 'the whip
hand'.
Of course, we wouldn't be able to afford that big pentagonal building anymore.
Maybe some university could find a use for it?
Brian Mason
Outside government coercion, incomes are earned. Gates is rich because he
has been of so much service to others that they have given him money. A
very fair system would not tax Gates at all as he has contributed already -
as measured by all the money people have given him rather than doing
something else with it. The poor should be taxed more as they have not been
of enough service to their fellows - as mused by the money their fellows
have voluntarily given them.
Not lip flapping, people trade money for things they value.
"They have it and we want to spend it" is theft. pure and simple
"JT" <a@b.c> wrote in message news:r6JQg.2432$wh.2272@trnddc04...
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Brian Mason
Brian Mason
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 12:13:29 -0700, David Goldberg
> <david_...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> <451192D9...@yahoo.com>
>
>>Our government regulates the marketplace so that it is fair and
>>balanced, and no one person or group is able to have an advantage.
>
> Goodness, which of us is 'living in fantasyland'? Government regulation
> does
> not protect you, the citizen; it protects corporations (from competition,
> generally).
>
Some corporations some times get protection. Some like Microsoft, Artia,
... are attacked.
The gorvernment ALWAYS protects itself and increases its income.
Brian Mason
US and less protection of personal rights.
In Russia the official tax rate is 15%. Less government!!!! NO That does
not include the "voluntary" contributions "encouraged" by individuals
wielding government power. It does not include the official ban on
publishing stories critical of the government.
In Somalia & Liberia it is MUCH worse. Thugs in government uniforms collect
much higher taxes than are collected here. It is up close and personal.
The libertarian position is less government. It is not an anarchist
position. There should be an armed group of humans focused and adept at
protecting individual rights. There is a strong tendency for this group to
become abusive and that must be mitigated against.
"Frank Clarke" <m5s...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:8sv5h2tf3q9gr9och...@4ax.com...
shipmodeler1
His point, however, is that less government = thugs in (and out of)
uniform ignoring the law, like we see in Russia and Somalia.
Warlord-ism, in short.
Remember what Thomas Jefferson said: "The government that wields the
arm of the people must be the strongest possible."
Frank Clarke
<1159310179.6...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
Indeed. The operative factor here is 'disparity of force'. If government thugs
always have to worry about whether they'll actually get home tonight, they tend
to be less abusive of those who might render them horizontal -- especially if
they don't know which of the 60 people in front of them might qualify.
Frank Clarke
wrote:
<11593059...@sp6iad.superfeed.net>
Point to Brian....
Bama Brian
> "The libertarian position is less government."
>
> His point, however, is that less government = thugs in (and out of)
> uniform ignoring the law, like we see in Russia and Somalia.
> Warlord-ism, in short.
You've _already_ got thugs in uniform interpreting the law - and
bureaucrats deciding what the law is, here in the U.S. It's called
anarcho-tyranny.
>
> Remember what Thomas Jefferson said: "The government that wields the
> arm of the people must be the strongest possible."
Cite, please. This seems to be out of character for Jefferson.
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
Michael Price
> Each of those countries you mention there is FAR more government than in the
> US and less protection of personal rights.
>
> In Russia the official tax rate is 15%. Less government!!!! NO That does
> not include the "voluntary" contributions "encouraged" by individuals
> wielding government power. It does not include the official ban on
> publishing stories critical of the government.
>
> In Somalia & Liberia it is MUCH worse. Thugs in government uniforms collect
> much higher taxes than are collected here. It is up close and personal.
Anyone in a government uniform trying to collect taxes in Somalia
would
get shot.
>
> The libertarian position is less government.
That's one libertarian position.
> It is not an anarchist
> position. There should be an armed group of humans focused and adept at
> protecting individual rights.
There should be several. The State has never been exactly "focused
and adept"
at protecting anything but itself.
Brian Mason
individual's rights.
This entails humans armed and specialized in use of force, an adjudicative
process for resolving disputes in a predictable manner short of force, and
some means of funding.
Somalia has LOTS of government(individuals under color of authority
extracting funds and dictating actions) yet NO respect much less protection
of individual rights.
I reject the anarchist position with considerable regret as government has
such a strong tendency to be corrupt.
With the thread. Libertarians are not taken seriously because we do not
advocate the government taking and dictating to benefit some at the expense
of others. Lies and fabrications are taken seriously and indeed celebrated
as long as they can be used to justify coercively benefiting some at the
expense of others.
"Frank Clarke" <m5s...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:d5fjh29jaqa3rr4uv...@4ax.com...
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Michael Price
Brian Mason wrote:
> The libertarian position is just enough government to protect each
> individual's rights.
And there are many that think zero is just enough.
>
> This entails humans armed and specialized in use of force,
Really? Then why did it take over a hundred years for the US to get
a police
force? And why did they spend decades without a regular army?
> an adjudicative
> process for resolving disputes in a predictable manner short of force, and
> some means of funding.
>
> Somalia has LOTS of government(individuals under color of authority
> extracting funds and dictating actions) yet NO respect much less protection
> of individual rights.
No it doesn't. There are people extracting funds from their
clanmates to
provide protection but they don't do it under colour of authority.
Those that
have the colour of authority don't dare extract funds from anyone but
foreign
governments.
>
> I reject the anarchist position with considerable regret as government has
> such a strong tendency to be corrupt.
>
>
> With the thread. Libertarians are not taken seriously because we do not
> advocate the government taking and dictating to benefit some at the expense
> of others. Lies and fabrications are taken seriously and indeed celebrated
> as long as they can be used to justify coercively benefiting some at the
> expense of others.
>
There's the rub, it's in everybodies interest that lies and
fabrications are
exposed, but also in everybodies interest that those that benefit them
not
be.
Michael Price
> The libertarian position is just enough government to protect each
> individual's rights.
>
> This entails humans armed and specialized in use of force,
Since when? If we need humans armed and specialised in the use
of force then why didn't the U.S. need a standing army for decades
after
it's formation to protect the citizens? Why didn't they need a police
force for decades after that?
> an adjudicative
> process for resolving disputes in a predictable manner short of force, and
> some means of funding.
>
> Somalia has LOTS of government(individuals under color of authority
> extracting funds and dictating actions) yet NO respect much less protection
> of individual rights.
>
Wrong on both counts. In fact those extracting funds don't get to
dictate
actions otherwise they lose customers to people that aren't so fussy.
Those
with the colour of authority can only safely extract funds from foreign
governments.
Even then they aren't that successful, the Somalian "government" being
the
only one in the world to be insolvent before gaining power. There is
an active
legal system that does protect your rights, providing you're a local.
> I reject the anarchist position with considerable regret as government has
> such a strong tendency to be corrupt.
>
>
> With the thread. Libertarians are not taken seriously because we do not
> advocate the government taking and dictating to benefit some at the expense
> of others. Lies and fabrications are taken seriously and indeed celebrated
> as long as they can be used to justify coercively benefiting some at the
> expense of others.
>
Indeed the problem is that people try harder to keep the lies that
benefit them
more than they want to destroy the lies that cost them, knowing that
it's easier
to do the first than the second.
Brian Mason
>
> Brian Mason wrote:
>> The libertarian position is just enough government to protect each
>> individual's rights.
>
> And there are many that think zero is just enough.
>>
>> This entails humans armed and specialized in use of force,
>
> Really? Then why did it take over a hundred years for the US to get
> a police
> force? And why did they spend decades without a regular army?
That was a natural part of humans improving the way they cooperate.
Differentiate and specialize ala Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. It takes
humans time to make improvements.
There is plenty of room for corruption: "policing is my job, you cannot do
anything to protect yourself but must pay me more."
>
>> an adjudicative
>> process for resolving disputes in a predictable manner short of force,
>> and
>> some means of funding.
>>
>> Somalia has LOTS of government(individuals under color of authority
>> extracting funds and dictating actions) yet NO respect much less
>> protection
>> of individual rights.
>
> No it doesn't. There are people extracting funds from their
> clanmates to
> provide protection but they don't do it under colour of authority.
> Those that
> have the colour of authority don't dare extract funds from anyone but
> foreign
> governments.
Somalians rightly fear the police as looters and rapists.
Michael Price
> "Michael Price" <nini...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1159433110.0...@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Brian Mason wrote:
> >> The libertarian position is just enough government to protect each
> >> individual's rights.
> >
> > And there are many that think zero is just enough.
> >>
> >> This entails humans armed and specialized in use of force,
> >
> > Really? Then why did it take over a hundred years for the US to get
> > a police
> > force? And why did they spend decades without a regular army?
>
> That was a natural part of humans improving the way they cooperate.
> Differentiate and specialize ala Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. It takes
> humans time to make improvements.
>
fathers of
the US. In fact it's a disaster that gets you into wars and ends up
costing you
freedom. The US army has done little that both should be done and
can't be
done with a militia.
> There is plenty of room for corruption: "policing is my job, you cannot do
> anything to protect yourself but must pay me more."
>
> >
> >> an adjudicative
> >> process for resolving disputes in a predictable manner short of force,
> >> and
> >> some means of funding.
> >>
> >> Somalia has LOTS of government(individuals under color of authority
> >> extracting funds and dictating actions) yet NO respect much less
> >> protection
> >> of individual rights.
> >
> > No it doesn't. There are people extracting funds from their
> > clanmates to provide protection but they don't do it under colour of authority.
> > Those that have the colour of authority don't dare extract funds from anyone but
> > foreign governments.
>
> Somalians rightly fear the police as looters and rapists.
>
No they used to. Now the police fear them.
Frank Clarke
<1159523189.7...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
> But a standing army isn't an improvement according to the founding fathers of
> the US. In fact it's a disaster that gets you into wars and ends up costing you
> freedom. The US army has done little that both should be done and can't be done
> with a militia.
That's absolutely true, but it goes deeper than that. As long as we have a
jingoistic press parroting the (provably false) line that American soldiers are
"fighting to preserve our way of life" the idiot populace will fall dutifully in
line behind any demagogue who feels the need to flex his (actually, somebody
else's) muscles.
When was the last time the US Armed Forces struggled to keep us free? Anybody?
Buehler?
Michael Price
Well here's a page that might help.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wars_of_the_United_States_of_America#2000-_present
Offhand I can't see any that was a struggle to keep americans free.
There was some struggle to keep other people free. And some to make
them something other than free which may or may not have been worse
than what they were. There's also some outright imperialism.
Frank Clarke
<1159689581.6...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>
Good researching! The answer is '1814'.
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
> 3. Their individualist/non-collectivist ideas go against human nature.
You have it exactly backwards - individualism is closer to our human
nature than collectivism is. We are not ants or bees, but thinking,
individual beings. That we sometimes tend to flock together is another
thing.
--
regards , Peter B. P. - http://titancity.com/blog - macplanet.dk
"The politicians don't just want your money. They want your soul. They
want you to be worn down by taxes until you are dependent and helpless."
- James Dale Davidson, National Taxpayers Union
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
> 5. Recent experiments in Libertarianism have failed miserably.
>
> Exhibit A is Chile. During the 1970s and 1980s, the goverment followed
> the advice of a bunch of radical University of Chicago Libertarian
> Economists by eliminating most government economic regulations and
> privatizing their social programs. The result was a radical slowdown in
> the growth of the economy, and the quick exploitation of the market by
> rich and powerful interests. Rather than making everybody free and
> rich, the Libertarian experiment plunged many of Chile's people into
> desperate poverty.
Liar. Per capita, the Chilean population today is one of the richest in
south America, if not THE richest.
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
> "David Goldberg" <david_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:450EE906...@yahoo.com...
> > 1. The Party of Principle can never agree on anything.
> >
> > On almost every issue, if you ask 10 Libertarians for an opinion, you'll
> > get 10 different answers.
>
> Actually, you'll probably get about 11 or 12 different answers. ;-)
>
> You mention it as if it were a bad thing. I have always considered it a sign
> of intellectual strength of any group.
Compare with Liberals who can only say one thing:
"Welfare!"
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
> Humans are collectivist beings by nature.
You're confusing yourself with an ant.
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
> "Libertarians "advice" is to keep government as small as possible. If
> we actually did that...even if "as small as possible" were kept to the
> "mainstream" Libertarian idea of "small" rather than the "extremist"
> idea...the wealth and power of America would SKYROCKET above what it is
>
> today."
>
> Unfortunately the facts of the world do not seem to bear this out. Look
> around the world, and there is a clear correlation between small
> government and lousy economy. If what you are saying is true, then
> Indonesia, Somalia, Russia, Liberia, etc. should all be richer and more
> powerful than the US.
Selective thinking. Look at Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan.
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
> In order: Indonesia NEVER had a small government, certainly not in
> the post-colonial period. In fact what success it had was used as
> evidence of the benefits of having a highly interventionist government.
> Somalia did considerably better after reducing the size of it's
> government to zero. There was still the occasional murder but not
> outright clan war. Russia similiarly never had a small government. It
> had a corrupt and inefficent one that effectively did less good (even
> without reckoning the costs) than a small one did but it did not have a
> small government. Liberia I don't know much about but it's oil-rich
> right? They usually have large powerful governments.
Oil-rich countries have a bad habit of having louse economic and
civil/political freedoms. You guess the rest.
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
> Each of those countries you mention there is FAR more government than in the
> US and less protection of personal rights.
>
> In Russia the official tax rate is 15%.
13% actually. But that is only the state taxes. Including local taxes,
you rach a tax level of 30-or-so %, which is worse than the US. And I'm
not counting corruption, which is also a kind of tax - especially on the
poor.
> Less government!!!! NO That does
> not include the "voluntary" contributions "encouraged" by individuals
> wielding government power. It does not include the official ban on
> publishing stories critical of the government.
All hail czar Putin.
>
> In Somalia & Liberia it is MUCH worse. Thugs in government uniforms collect
> much higher taxes than are collected here. It is up close and personal.
Dunno about Liberia, but Somalia is now a collection of
democratic-republican style minarchist states (up North) and islamic
thugocracies (around the Mog).
> The libertarian position is less government. It is not an anarchist
> position.
Anarchism is a subset of libertarianism, but they are not the same,
granted.
> There should be an armed group of humans focused and adept at
> protecting individual rights. There is a strong tendency for this group to
> become abusive and that must be mitigated against.
Yes.
>
>
> "Frank Clarke" <m5s...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:8sv5h2tf3q9gr9och...@4ax.com...
> > On 20 Sep 2006 14:03:20 -0700, "shipmodeler1" <rog...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > <1158786200....@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
> >
> >>Unfortunately the facts of the world do not seem to bear this out. Look
> >>around the world, and there is a clear correlation between small
> >>government and lousy economy. If what you are saying is true, then
> >>Indonesia, Somalia, Russia, Liberia, etc. should all be richer and more
> >>powerful than the US.
> >
> > You have confused correlation with causality -- almost 'post hoc ergo
> > propter
> > hoc' but not quite. Because two things are (apparently) associated does
> > not
> > mean that they have an operational connection. In these cases you have
> > discounted to nothingness many other factors which need to be considered.
> >
> >
> > (change Arabic number to Roman numeral to email)
> >
Frank Clarke
wrote:
<451192D9...@yahoo.com>
>Humans are collectivist beings by nature.
Humans are 'gregarious': they like to be in the company of other humans. That
is not the same thing as 'collectivist' which humans certainly are -not-. If it
were true that humans were collectivists by nature, socialist economies would
flourish. This is patently not true; cf. the Soviet Union.
Michael Price
> Michael Price <nini...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > In order: Indonesia NEVER had a small government, certainly not in
> > the post-colonial period. In fact what success it had was used as
> > evidence of the benefits of having a highly interventionist government.
> > Somalia did considerably better after reducing the size of it's
> > government to zero. There was still the occasional murder but not
> > outright clan war. Russia similiarly never had a small government. It
> > had a corrupt and inefficent one that effectively did less good (even
> > without reckoning the costs) than a small one did but it did not have a
> > small government. Liberia I don't know much about but it's oil-rich
> > right? They usually have large powerful governments.
>
> Oil-rich countries have a bad habit of having louse economic and
> civil/political freedoms. You guess the rest.
>
problem.
In Narou they suffered the same fate and they have bird guano. Oil
seems
to be particularly bad though.
Michael Price
"1814-25 -- Caribbean. Engagements between pirates and American ships
or squadrons took place repeatedly especially ashore and offshore about
Cuba, Puerto Rico, Santo Domingo, and Yucatan. Three thousand pirate
attacks on merchantmen were reported between 1815 and 1823. In 1822,
Commodore James Biddle employed a squadron of two frigates, four sloops
of war, two brigs, four schooners, and two gunboats in the West
Indies."
rap...@netscape.net
> On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 17:54:56 GMT, S G <nws...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> <0070-2-0.2006...@ntlworld.com>
>
> >On 21 Sep. "JT" wrote:
> >
> >> "As small as possible" means a government that is only large enough to
> >> fulfill each and every one of its constitutionally obligated
> >> responsibilities and notthing more. In America this may actually mean a
> >> government that requires 2%...perhaps even a colossal 3%...of The People's
> >> Money in order to carry out these responsibilites for which we created the
> >> government in the first place.
> >
> >What is meant here by "The People's Money"?
> >And would you take the same amount from all - the same percentage from
> >all or what?
>
> Take? Take? I would say: "Dear Taxpayer, We need to collect $x billion
> dollars to support national defense (plus a few other tasks) this year. Your
> fair share is $y dollars or however much more you think you can afford. Thank
> you for your generosity."
>
> If 'the people' decide national defense is not worth the cost (and they vote
> with dollars) then we don't have any, and what comes, comes. What could be
> 'fairer'? We are, after all, the ones who created this government; when we
> don't want it anymore, shouldn't it go away?
There are improvements on that system like using an insurance scheme.
Google dominant assurance contracts.
It would effectively say
"Dear Resident,
We need to collect $x billion dollars to support national defense (plus
a few other tasks) for the year starting on January the first next.
We estimate that this represents 1% of the nation's GDP.
We are sure you will agree that national defense is worth the cost and
would appreciate your support.
If you contribute and we fail to collect sufficient funds to provide
the public good, we will refund your contribution and in addition
compensate you at a rate of $0.15 per dollar that you contributed.
Also, we will return any excess funds if the project receives more
funds than required.
"
Basically, if you think it is going to fail, then you should contribute
to get the payoff. This acts as an additional encouragement for people
to pay. However, there is no point in paying to much.
In my opinion, a slightly better system would be to do the above for at
least 2 things. The first would be contributions to support
maintaining the national armed forces. The second would be
contributions for extending the armed forcesm like hiring more soldiers
or buying capital ships/tanks/jet fighters etc. Also, there may be a
need for funds for research.
Also, if the system fails for a year, I think a better way would be to
sell armed forces assets to cover the years expenses. This means that
there isn't a sudden loss in defense, then defense will degrade over
years if it isn't supported.
Frank Clarke
wrote:
<1160869764.1...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
>If you contribute and we fail to collect sufficient funds to provide
>the public good, we will refund your contribution and in addition
>compensate you at a rate of $0.15 per dollar that you contributed.
Where will the 15% come from?
rap...@netscape.net
(I already replied to this already, but it didn't appear on google).
Any non-zero (positive) percentage will work. The author of the paper
just uses variables.
If the company offering to build the public good sets the percentage to
high, then it will lose alot of money if it fails to get enough people
to pay. This means that there is an incentive to set it low.
OTOH, if you got a letter with asks for $100 (recommended payment) and
offers 100% compensation, then you can be sure it is worth your time to
read the offer, you will either get a good worth more than $100 to you
or $100 compensation. If it only offers 1%, then it shows that the
builder doesn't have massive confidence that there is enough demand for
the good. It probably wouldn't be worth your time to bother to reply,
for just $1 compensation.
The paper likens it to a bank promising to pay all of its depositors if
there is a run on the bank. The effect of which is that there is never
a run on the bank.
A link to the paper is in at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assurance_contracts
under dominant assurance contracts.
Under his system, each person is asked for the same amount and the good
is only built if N out of K users subscribe. I don't see what it needs
to work that way, however, maybe my suggestion breaks it.
Frank Clarke
wrote:
<1160918733.7...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
>
>Frank Clarke wrote:
>> On 14 Oct 2006 16:49:24 -0700, "rap...@netscape.net" <rap...@netscape.net>
>> wrote:
>> <1160869764.1...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
>>
>> >If you contribute and we fail to collect sufficient funds to provide
>> >the public good, we will refund your contribution and in addition
>> >compensate you at a rate of $0.15 per dollar that you contributed.
>>
>> Where will the 15% come from?
>>
>(I already replied to this already, but it didn't appear on google).
>
>Any non-zero (positive) percentage will work. The author of the paper
>just uses variables.
>
>If the company offering to build the public good sets the percentage to
>high, then it will lose alot of money if it fails to get enough people
>to pay. This means that there is an incentive to set it low.
This entirely misses the point. When the 'company' is the government, that
'company' has no other wealth than that which it receives from taxpayers.
Therefore, there is no fund from which that 15% or 2% or whatever-% can be paid.
Thus the question: Where will the 15% come from?
rap...@netscape.net
<again first reply didn't correctly send>
A buisnessman can convert the normal assurance contract into a dominant
one.
For example, if the government says it needs $50 billion for national
defense, he could sell the following contract for $100
"Will pledge $90 to national defense. If national defense is not
provided, will pay the bearer $115".
Thus, he gets $10 for every contract he sells, but only if national
defense is provided.
The other option is to use the original system to fund the building of
a warship, which is then given to the national navy.
S G
"It is generally allowed by all, that men should contribute to the
public charge but according to the share and interest they have in the
public peace; that is, according to their estates or riches.
- Sir William Petty, (1623-1687)
"The preservation of property is the end of government, and that for
which men enter into society. It is true governments cannot be
supported without great charge, and it is fit everyone who enjoys his
share of that protection should pay out of his estate his proportion
for the maintenance of it."
- John Locke, Second Treatise on Government, 1690
"Put to the vote: as many are of the opinion that a public tax
upon the land ought to be raised to defray the public charge,
say 'yea'. - Carried in the affirmative, none dissenting."
- Philadelphia's first tax law 30/1/1693
"The revenues of the state are the fraction that each subject gives of
his property in order to secure or to have the agreeable enjoyment of
the remainder."
- Baron de Montesquieu, The Spirit of Laws, 1751
"The expense of government to the individuals of a great nation is
like the expense of management to the joint tenants of a great estate,
who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective
interests in the estate. In the observation or neglect of this maxim
consists what is called the equality or inequality of taxation."
- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 1776
"Every man is bound to contribute to the public revenue in proportion
to the benefits he receives from the public protection.
- Thomas M. Cooley, Constitutional Limitation, 1868
"There are two methods, or means, and only two, whereby man's needs
and desires can be satisfied. One is the production and exchange
of wealth; this is the economic means. The other is the
uncompensated appropriation of wealth produced by others; this is
the political means.
- Albert Jay Nock 'Our Enemy the State'
"All taxes should be placed on land values until the state is
abolished entirely."
- Karl Hess, Sr., speechwriter for Barry Goldwater and creator and
first editor of the Libertarian Party News.