Bernie Sanders, champion of the downtrodden
I don't know if it's unfair. Trump makes his business experience the primary qualification for the presidency. He's going to "win" for our economy. It's not unfair to point out that the government can't use the tactics he's used in his business (even if they're legal and appropriate). The United States can't just declare bankruptcy and negotiate new settlement terms with creditors as the Donald seems to imply it can.
ml1 said:
I don't know if it's unfair. Trump makes his business experience the primary qualification for the presidency. He's going to "win" for our economy. It's not unfair to point out that the government can't use the tactics he's used in his business (even if they're legal and appropriate). The United States can't just declare bankruptcy and negotiate new settlement terms with creditors as the Donald seems to imply it can.
Is it unfair to point out the government has gotten involved in projects like Solyndra that went bankrupt, or the joke about 'shovel ready jobs'?
With Solyndra the overall project was a success but Solyndra was written off and there is still some stink about how the creditors were paid off.
PVW said:
terp said:
OK, so onto the Taxation is theft argument. Philosophically, I think the question is where does the sovereign lie? Does it lie with the individual as I contend. If so, you'd agree that I have a right to live. If I have a right to live, that must mean I have a right to work and enjoy the fruits of that work in order to live. Who would have a right to take that from me by force? If you agree that I have a right to live and thus I have a right to what I produce, then nobody has a right to take my life or my labor by force.
The key phrase in your response is "enjoy the fruits of that work."
I completely agree a person has the right to the fruits of their labor.
And what if someone else also contributed labor toward those fruits? A partner or employee? If we're consistent, then we must agree that the second person also has a legitimate claim to a portion of the fruits.
And if those fruits are at least partially based upon the labors of the state? Well then, clearly the state also has legitimate claim to a portion.
For you to maintain that taxation is theft, you either have to argue that the state plays no portion in wealth creation, or that the principle that connects laboring to a claim on its fruits somehow doesn't apply to governments.
There are contractual agreements with partners and employees. These are entered into voluntarily. If the government provides a service, they should charge for that service.
I need to do no such thing, just as you were not compelled to answer my argument. I am not going to prove a negative. You prove to me that government is responsible for my labor.
Furthermore, why should I pay the govenmentto spy on me? Why should I pay for new weaponry capable of ending human life on this planet many times over? Why should I pay for outdated weaponry that the military doesn't even need any longet? Why should I pay for military interventionism that makes me and my family less safe? Why should I pay to bail out financial cronies that are much richer than I am? I could go on....
tjohn said:
All cats are libertarians. Completely dependent on others but fully convinced of their own independence.
Libertarians are dependent on others. We just believe people are able to cooperate without sticking a proverbial gun in their face. I guess the regressive is a leach. Can't live on their own and must have a host to feed upon.
terp said:
I need to do no such thing, just as you were not compelled to answer my argument. I am not going to prove a negative. You prove to me that government is responsible for my labor.
Furthermore, why should I pay the govenmentto spy on me? Why should I pay for new weaponry capable of ending human life on this planet many times over? Why should I pay for outdated weaponry that the military doesn't even need any longet? Why should I pay for military interventionism that makes me and my family less safe? Why should I pay to bail out financial cronies that are much richer than I am? I could go on....
If the government played no part in creating the wealth under your control, it has no claim to any of it. If it does, it has legitimate claim to a portion.
You keep avoiding this and complaining about what the government spends money on, which is irrelevant to the question of the legitimacy of taxation. And yet, you still maintain that taxation is theft, despite your continued refusal to actually defend your position. Or are you know claiming that theft is defined by what one spends the money on? If I steal your wallet and use that to buy Ron Paul pamphlets, I guess that's not theft?
PVW said:
terp said:
I need to do no such thing, just as you were not compelled to answer my argument. I am not going to prove a negative. You prove to me that government is responsible for my labor.
Furthermore, why should I pay the govenmentto spy on me? Why should I pay for new weaponry capable of ending human life on this planet many times over? Why should I pay for outdated weaponry that the military doesn't even need any longet? Why should I pay for military interventionism that makes me and my family less safe? Why should I pay to bail out financial cronies that are much richer than I am? I could go on....
If the government played no part in creating the wealth under your control, it has no claim to any of it. If it does, it has legitimate claim to a portion.
You keep avoiding this and complaining about what the government spends money on, which is irrelevant to the question of the legitimacy of taxation. And yet, you still maintain that taxation is theft, despite your continued refusal to actually defend your position. Or are you know claiming that theft is defined by what one spends the money on? If I steal your wallet and use that to buy Ron Paul pamphlets, I guess that's not theft?
I'm not avoiding your argument. I'm sorry you feel that way. Your argument seems based on some abstract that the government played a part in creating wealth. However, you won't explain exactly how. I can't be sure why, because it seems as though you believe this point.
It's almost as if you are claiming taxes are a bill magically equated to how much wealth government created for me, but they're not. They are rather arbitrary in nature. In this country, it doesn't even matter if I reside here. if I am a citizen I must pay federal income taxes.
ml1 said:
I take great pride in being able to post my thoughts on this internet I built
Here's the thing Al. I know you guys think the Government thought up this here internet thing and then provided it for all of us. I'm not sure its that simple.
A couple things on this line of reasoning. Back when this technology was being created, there were quite a few players. There were corporations, universities and governments. Governments, lead by ours, tried to get everyone to adopt the Open Systems Interconnect(OSI) standard. This went nowhere.
Rather than a top down mandated approach what worked was a decentralized standard. This standard was TCP/IP. Different Universities could change the standards and if you wanted to talk to that university you would adhere to that standard. This approach beat out the OSI and the other corporate standards put forth by Xerox and IBM.
Was there government $$ involved? There sure was. And here's the thing about that. The government takes about 1/4 of the nation's capital in a given year. So, they are going to be a big player.
There was government $$ involved. But, does this mean that this is necessary or even the preferred method to finance research? I don't thinks so. The fact that government funds so much research here does not mean that is the best way.
Look at it this way, you could go to North Korea and a comrade will tell you that all the food he has is due to the Great Leader. Thus, the Great Leader is good. This is the way its always been and it must be good. You would look at him like he was an ignorant crazy schmuck. As we know the Great Leader is evil, and he keeps his people in a destitute state. But, give the guy a break. He doesn't have access to that Internet you built.
terp said:
It is freedom of the individual that drives progress.
How would you explain this axiom in light of the plantations, mining towns and, say, meatpacking plants that helped drive the pre-World War economic progress you admire?
terp said:
I'm not avoiding your argument. I'm sorry you feel that way. Your argument seems based on some abstract that the government played a part in creating wealth. However, you won't explain exactly how. I can't be sure why, because it seems as though you believe this point.
It's almost as if you are claiming taxes are a bill magically equated to how much wealth government created for me, but they're not. They are rather arbitrary in nature. In this country, it doesn't even matter if I reside here. if I am a citizen I must pay federal income taxes.
"Taxation is theft" is an extreme statement. For it to be true, it would mean the government has no legitimate claim to any wealth under an individual's control at all.
A much easier statement to defend, in contrast, would be "excessive taxation is theft." Then when you say things like "[taxes] are rather arbitrary in nature" you would be arguing in support of your statement. If you simply claim that taxation is inherently theft, that the government has no legitimate claim to levy any tax of any amount, well then, nothing you've written supports that at all. You can rail against various government programs all you like, but that's lending not a whit of support to your extreme claim that all taxes are illegitimate.
Take your next post, where you note that the government was involved in creating the internet, but you don't think this was "necessary or even the preferred method."
That may be true, or it may not be, but it doesn't change the fact that it is what actually occurred, and so the internet that exists, exists thanks in part to the labor of the government.
So it's really a simple question - do you believe that when people labor, they have claim to the fruits of that labor? If you do, then when the government contributes labor, it legitimately has claim to a portion of the fruits. It doesn't really matter if you believe there government should not have been involved -- if it was involved, then on what basis do you deny it any legitimate claim to the fruits of its contribution?
Perhaps you'd like to revise your claim downward to arguing that "excessive" or "disproportionate" taxation is theft?
no one said it was.
terp said:
Here's the thing Al. I know you guys think the Government thought up this here internet thing and then provided it for all of us. I'm not sure its that simple.
terp said:
PVW said:
terp said:
OK, so onto the Taxation is theft argument. Philosophically, I think the question is where does the sovereign lie? Does it lie with the individual as I contend. If so, you'd agree that I have a right to live. If I have a right to live, that must mean I have a right to work and enjoy the fruits of that work in order to live. Who would have a right to take that from me by force? If you agree that I have a right to live and thus I have a right to what I produce, then nobody has a right to take my life or my labor by force.
The key phrase in your response is "enjoy the fruits of that work."
I completely agree a person has the right to the fruits of their labor.
And what if someone else also contributed labor toward those fruits? A partner or employee? If we're consistent, then we must agree that the second person also has a legitimate claim to a portion of the fruits.
And if those fruits are at least partially based upon the labors of the state? Well then, clearly the state also has legitimate claim to a portion.
For you to maintain that taxation is theft, you either have to argue that the state plays no portion in wealth creation, or that the principle that connects laboring to a claim on its fruits somehow doesn't apply to governments.
There are contractual agreements with partners and employees. These are entered into voluntarily. If the government provides a service, they should charge for that service.
I need to do no such thing, just as you were not compelled to answer my argument. I am not going to prove a negative. You prove to me that government is responsible for my labor.
Furthermore, why should I pay the govenmentto spy on me? Why should I pay for new weaponry capable of ending human life on this planet many times over? Why should I pay for outdated weaponry that the military doesn't even need any longet? Why should I pay for military interventionism that makes me and my family less safe? Why should I pay to bail out financial cronies that are much richer than I am? I could go on....
Terp is your taxation is theft position based on the non-aggression principle )often espoused by other libertarians)?
paulsurovell said:
I consider myself as strong and loyal a supporter of Bernie Sanders as anyone else on this thread and beyond. I have already volunteered to support his Our Revolution campaign.
I don't think Bernie's purchase of the third house contradicts his commitment to the working class and the poor.
However, I don't like the idea that he decided to buy another house just after he concluded his campaign, is in the middle of the campaign to defeat Trump and is about to launch Our Revolution (August 24). A house purchase is too big a deal to get involved in with all that activity going on.
I also don't like the idea that he reneged on his promise to release his tax returns. There's no excuse for that. He should release them now.
As I indicated above, there's nothing hypocritical about Bernie's purchase of a third home, and it has no bearing on his advocacy for the middle class and poor, including his call for greater redistribution of wealth through higher taxes on the rich.
However, the timing of the purchase is lousy, coming in the middle of the Presidential campaign and on the eve of the launch of Bernie's Our Revolution(August 24th).
Regarding Bernie's tax returns, long before the primaries were over, he promised to release more tax returns beyond the 2014 return that was released.
On April 29th Jane Sanders said she had dropped off additional tax returns with an accountant who was going over them prior to their release.
What distinguishes Bernie from other politicians is -- as he himself said many times -- is that he tells the truth. And as such, he should be held to a higher standard. His failure to release the additional tax returns despite his pledge to do so, is a stain on that standard, albeit a very small stain, and it should be cleaned up.
terp said:
PVW said:
terp said:
OK, so onto the Taxation is theft argument. Philosophically, I think the question is where does the sovereign lie? Does it lie with the individual as I contend. If so, you'd agree that I have a right to live. If I have a right to live, that must mean I have a right to work and enjoy the fruits of that work in order to live. Who would have a right to take that from me by force? If you agree that I have a right to live and thus I have a right to what I produce, then nobody has a right to take my life or my labor by force.
The key phrase in your response is "enjoy the fruits of that work."
I completely agree a person has the right to the fruits of their labor.
And what if someone else also contributed labor toward those fruits? A partner or employee? If we're consistent, then we must agree that the second person also has a legitimate claim to a portion of the fruits.
And if those fruits are at least partially based upon the labors of the state? Well then, clearly the state also has legitimate claim to a portion.
For you to maintain that taxation is theft, you either have to argue that the state plays no portion in wealth creation, or that the principle that connects laboring to a claim on its fruits somehow doesn't apply to governments.
There are contractual agreements with partners and employees. These are entered into voluntarily. If the government provides a service, they should charge for that service.
I need to do no such thing, just as you were not compelled to answer my argument. I am not going to prove a negative. You prove to me that government is responsible for my labor.
Furthermore, why should I pay the govenmentto spy on me? Why should I pay for new weaponry capable of ending human life on this planet many times over? Why should I pay for outdated weaponry that the military doesn't even need any longet? Why should I pay for military interventionism that makes me and my family less safe? Why should I pay to bail out financial cronies that are much richer than I am? I could go on....
Agreements such as this?
http://abcnews.go.com/US/report-details-combat-helmet-makers-alleged-shoddy-manufacturing/story?id=41460916
Back to the OP - apparently they didn't exactly sell the Maine house - she sold her share to her brothers and walked away with 150K but they paid cash for the house in North Hero.
The lack of financial disclosure seems a little murky when you look at this.
http://vtdigger.org/2016/07/15/sanders-campaign-millions-go-to-mystery-firm/
DaveSchmidt said:
terp said:
It is freedom of the individual that drives progress.
How would you explain this axiom in light of the plantations, mining towns and, say, meatpacking plants that helped drive the pre-World War economic progress you admire?
Not sure I understand. How would the income tax mitigated those scenarios? Is your assertion that if we had an income tax that would solve the world's injustice? If so, please explain why there is injustice today?
PVW said:
"Taxation is theft" is an extreme statement. For it to be true, it would mean the government has no legitimate claim to any wealth under an individual's control at all.
A much easier statement to defend, in contrast, would be "excessive taxation is theft." Then when you say things like "[taxes] are rather arbitrary in nature" you would be arguing in support of your statement. If you simply claim that taxation is inherently theft, that the government has no legitimate claim to levy any tax of any amount, well then, nothing you've written supports that at all. You can rail against various government programs all you like, but that's lending not a whit of support to your extreme claim that all taxes are illegitimate.
Take your next post, where you note that the government was involved in creating the internet, but you don't think this was "necessary or even the preferred method."
That may be true, or it may not be, but it doesn't change the fact that it is what actually occurred, and so the internet that exists, exists thanks in part to the labor of the government.
So it's really a simple question - do you believe that when people labor, they have claim to the fruits of that labor? If you do, then when the government contributes labor, it legitimately has claim to a portion of the fruits. It doesn't really matter if you believe there government should not have been involved -- if it was involved, then on what basis do you deny it any legitimate claim to the fruits of its contribution?
Perhaps you'd like to revise your claim downward to arguing that "excessive" or "disproportionate" taxation is theft?
I guess I'm ambitious. Here's the thing. People have the right to enjoy the fruits of their labor. On that, you and I agree.
However, people do not have the right to take what they want or even what they think they deserve for that labor. If someone works for a store and feels they are underpaid, does that give them the right to steal in an effort to make up the difference? Of course not.
So, that's the thing. I'm not sure where I've made an agreement with the government to take about half of my $$ to do things for me. It sure seems like I was born, and the government takes what they want. If I don't give them what they want, they come with guns and take me to prison. That is very different than an employer contract, or any free market transaction.
Furthermore, I believe the government actually impedes production. They crowd out private entities for capital, they over-regulate, they tax, they print $$, they subsidize preferred private players. All of this has a deleterious effect on our economy. So, maybe they should be sending me $$.
ml1 said:
no one said it was.
terp said:
Here's the thing Al. I know you guys think the Government thought up this here internet thing and then provided it for all of us. I'm not sure its that simple.
Hmmm. Then your point eludes me.
RealityForAll said:
Terp is your taxation is theft position based on the non-aggression principle )often espoused by other libertarians)?
in a way. I do, by and large, subscribe to the NAP. I think its a good rule of thumb. To me its really about natural rights or negative rights. I have a right to live. I have a right to work and enjoy the product of that work. I have a right to believe what I want to believe. I have a right to associate with whom I'd like. I have a right to enter into agreements with consenting adults as I see fit. etc.
Nobody has a right to violate these rights, even if they would like to violate them for a perceived good.
That is why I question the authority of Washington to tax me, make me turn over personal financial records, make me register for the selective service, tap my phone lines and all electronic communication, make me enter into contracts with 3rd parties, tell me what I can and can't eat, drink, etc. To me, those are violations of my natural rights. They may be well intended, but you know what they say about the road to hell.
I also think it is against the idea of America. It's an idea that is, alas, lost on the vast vast majority of Americans. But we still like to wave our flags.
pmartinezv said:
Agreements such as this?
http://abcnews.go.com/US/report-details-combat-helmet-makers-alleged-shoddy-manufacturing/story?id=41460916
Na. I meant free market agreements.
terp said:DaveSchmidt said:Not sure I understand. How would the income tax mitigated those scenarios? Is your assertion that if we had an income tax that would solve the world's injustice? If so, please explain why there is injustice today?
terp said:How would you explain this axiom in light of the plantations, mining towns and, say, meatpacking plants that helped drive the pre-World War economic progress you admire?
It is freedom of the individual that drives progress.
Asked another way: You praise 19th-century American economic progress for being accomplished without an income tax. Any acknowledgment of the driving role of individuals who worked in something less than freedom?
I'm not sure where I've made an agreement with the government to take about half of my $ to do things for me. It sure seems like I was born, and the government takes what they want
That's an argument that the government takes too much. This is very different from claiming that "taxation is theft."
Furthermore, I believe the government actually impedes production. They crowd out private entities for capital, they over-regulate, they tax, they print $, they subsidize preferred private players. All of this has a deleterious effect on our economy. So, maybe they should be sending me $.
Irrelevant to the claim that taxation is theft. What the government spends money on doesn't address whether it has any legitimate claim to a portion of the money in the first place.
You can talk all you like about how the government didn't have to be involved in building the internet, or building and maintaining roads, or any of the various sundry activities that wealth is built on in this country, but it doesn't change the fact that the government was and is involved in this. Sure, in some hypothetical alternate reality were government was not involved, it would have no claim to any wealth built upon such labors. We don't live in that world, though, and you can't appeal to a hypothetical reality to justify a claim in our actual one.
But I think that's it for me on this topic. You clearly feel that, unlike any other people or groups of people, government has no right to the fruits of its labor, and that "theft" is defined by what one spends money on. Not a way of defining things that makes sense to me, but I guess that's yet another reason I'm not a libertarian.
terp said:
ml1 said:
no one said it was.
terp said:
Here's the thing Al. I know you guys think the Government thought up this here internet thing and then provided it for all of us. I'm not sure its that simple.
Hmmm. Then your point eludes me.
In the context of responding to a guy who was implying that his family did everything themselves with no outside input, it makes more sense.
PVW said:
I'm not sure where I've made an agreement with the government to take about half of my $ to do things for me. It sure seems like I was born, and the government takes what they want
That's an argument that the government takes too much. This is very different from claiming that "taxation is theft."
Furthermore, I believe the government actually impedes production. They crowd out private entities for capital, they over-regulate, they tax, they print $, they subsidize preferred private players. All of this has a deleterious effect on our economy. So, maybe they should be sending me $.
Irrelevant to the claim that taxation is theft. What the government spends money on doesn't address whether it has any legitimate claim to a portion of the money in the first place.
You can talk all you like about how the government didn't have to be involved in building the internet, or building and maintaining roads, or any of the various sundry activities that wealth is built on in this country, but it doesn't change the fact that the government was and is involved in this. Sure, in some hypothetical alternate reality were government was not involved, it would have no claim to any wealth built upon such labors. We don't live in that world, though, and you can't appeal to a hypothetical reality to justify a claim in our actual one.
But I think that's it for me on this topic. You clearly feel that, unlike any other people or groups of people, government has no right to the fruits of its labor, and that "theft" is defined by what one spends money on. Not a way of defining things that makes sense to me, but I guess that's yet another reason I'm not a libertarian.
In other words, you claim the govenment has a right to take the fruits of my labor yet you refuse to even make a superficial effort to explain why.
“The government is good at one thing. It knows how to break your legs, and then hand you a crutch and say, 'See if it weren't for the government, you wouldn't be able to walk." -Harry Browne
ml1 said:
terp said:
ml1 said:
no one said it was.
terp said:
Here's the thing Al. I know you guys think the Government thought up this here internet thing and then provided it for all of us. I'm not sure its that simple.
Hmmm. Then your point eludes me.
In the context of responding to a guy who was implying that his family did everything themselves with no outside input, it makes more sense.
Please show me where I made that claim. This is a strawman of the worst kind. Either apologize or learn to *****ing read.
terp said:
Libertarians are dependent on others. We just believe people are able to cooperate without sticking a proverbial gun in their face. I guess the regressive is a leach. Can't live on their own and must have a host to feed upon.
DaveSchmidt said:
terp said:DaveSchmidt said:Not sure I understand. How would the income tax mitigated those scenarios? Is your assertion that if we had an income tax that would solve the world's injustice? If so, please explain why there is injustice today?
terp said:How would you explain this axiom in light of the plantations, mining towns and, say, meatpacking plants that helped drive the pre-World War economic progress you admire?
It is freedom of the individual that drives progress.
Asked another way: You praise 19th-century American economic progress for being accomplished without an income tax. Any acknowledgment of the driving role of individuals who worked in something less than freedom?
Alas, we live in an imperfect world. Crimes are committed by governments and private entities alike. Sometimes they collude to commit crimes. However, i think you will find that we didn't go from utopia to the issues you cite.
And people call libertarians utopians.
You didn't. It was someone else. It's not always about you
terp said:
ml1 said:
no one said it was.terp said:
Here's the thing Al. I know you guys think the Government thought up this here internet thing and then provided it for all of us. I'm not sure its that simple.
Hmmm. Then your point eludes me.
In the context of responding to a guy who was implying that his family did everything themselves with no outside input, it makes more sense.
Please show me where I made that claim. This is a strawman of the worst kind. Either apologize or learn to *****ing read.
terp said:
Libertarians are dependent on others. We just believe people are able to cooperate without sticking a proverbial gun in their face. I guess the regressive is a leach. Can't live on their own and must have a host to feed upon.
terp said:
In other words, you claim the govenment has a right to take the fruits of my labor yet you refuse to even make a superficial effort to explain why.
Of your labor? No. Of its labor? Yes.
Are you seriously claiming that absolutely none of the wealth under your control was created thanks to the work of the government? Are you just floating some perfect vacuum out in space, farting out gold bricks, and saying the government has no right to those shiny metal blocks? Congratulations, in that case you're right, and the government has zero claim to your wealth. If not, well, this idea that everything you own is 100% a result of your own labor, dependent on no one else, is pretty absurdly narcissistic.
ETA - Here's a challenge. Name me any profession in American. Any at all. Guaranteed, it has some dependency on government action, and hence government logically has a legitimate claim to some portion of any wealth that profession generates. A much easier position to defend than yours, I'd think, but let's see if you can surprise me.
terp said:
And people call libertarians utopians.
Let the record show that the rosy vision of pre-World War, income-tax-free American progress was not invoked by me.
PVW said:
terp said:
In other words, you claim the govenment has a right to take the fruits of my labor yet you refuse to even make a superficial effort to explain why.
Of your labor? No. Of its labor? Yes.
Are you seriously claiming that absolutely none of the wealth under your control was created thanks to the work of the government? Are you just floating some perfect vacuum out in space, farting out gold bricks, and saying the government has no right to those shiny metal blocks? Congratulations, in that case you're right, and the government has zero claim to your wealth. If not, well, this idea that everything you own is 100% a result of your own labor, dependent on no one else, is pretty absurdly narcissistic.
ETA - Here's a challenge. Name me any profession in American. Any at all. Guaranteed, it has some dependency on government action, and hence government logically has a legitimate claim to some portion of any wealth that profession generates. A much easier position to defend than yours, I'd think, but let's see if you can surprise me.
PVW, it is just as easy to claim that the "government got paid, in the form of various taxes, in exchange for various services provided by government." Hence, the fruits of your (or my) labor created wealth while utilizing services bought and paid for through the taxes (of you and me). However, collecting taxes and then providing services to the taxpayers does not in my mind create a right of the government to collect further taxes on these newly created fruits of labor.
IMHO, the idea that government is/should be a direct partner in the fruits of our labors is abhorrent (and is not my understanding of the basis of the sovereign's right to tax those who are resident and those carrying on business within the sovereign).
RealityForAll said:
PVW said:
terp said:
In other words, you claim the govenment has a right to take the fruits of my labor yet you refuse to even make a superficial effort to explain why.
Of your labor? No. Of its labor? Yes.
Are you seriously claiming that absolutely none of the wealth under your control was created thanks to the work of the government? Are you just floating some perfect vacuum out in space, farting out gold bricks, and saying the government has no right to those shiny metal blocks? Congratulations, in that case you're right, and the government has zero claim to your wealth. If not, well, this idea that everything you own is 100% a result of your own labor, dependent on no one else, is pretty absurdly narcissistic.
ETA - Here's a challenge. Name me any profession in American. Any at all. Guaranteed, it has some dependency on government action, and hence government logically has a legitimate claim to some portion of any wealth that profession generates. A much easier position to defend than yours, I'd think, but let's see if you can surprise me.
PVW, it is just as easy to claim that the "government got paid, in the form of various taxes, in exchange for various services provided by government." Hence, the fruits of your (or my) labor created wealth while utilizing services bought and paid for through the taxes (of you and me). However, collecting taxes and then providing services to the taxpayers does not in my mind create a right of the government to collect further taxes on these newly created fruits of labor.
IMHO, the idea that government is/should be a direct partner in the fruits of our labors is abhorrent (and is not my understanding of the basis of the sovereign's right to tax those who are resident and those carrying on business within the sovereign).
It seems to me that here we're now getting into questions of when taxes should be collected, and the mechanisms for collecting them. I think I can see what you're getting at, but we're already now at a very different place than the flat claim that "taxation is theft." Your argument is already conceding quite a bit more nuance than terp's, and so is already on much more solid ground, even on the points I disagree with.
In your second paragraph you bring up the idea of sovereignty, and while I think that becomes relevant in discussing the details of any tax system, to me that's not really the key question that legitimizes the basic concept of taxes. Rather, I'd ask, where does wealth come from?
What does it mean to call property a "natural right" for instance, if the idea of property varies from culture to culture (as we saw with the collision of European and Amerindian cultures?). How does all the talk about voluntary entering into contracts jibe with the fact that much of our activity (and our wealth) flows through networks of dependency that we neither chose, nor can easily break, but rather were born into? What should we make of the fact that the amount of wealth any individual controls is often pretty arbitrary, rather than tied to any actual labor on their part?
Libertarian philosophy seems premised upon a radical individualism that doesn't reflect the deep interdependence all human beings have upon each other -- an interdependence that is for the most part neither voluntary nor breakable. For better and worse, we're not the atomized free agents of libertarian utopianism.
PVW said:
Of your labor? No. Of its labor? Yes.
Are you seriously claiming that absolutely none of the wealth under your control was created thanks to the work of the government? Are you just floating some perfect vacuum out in space, farting out gold bricks, and saying the government has no right to those shiny metal blocks? Congratulations, in that case you're right, and the government has zero claim to your wealth. If not, well, this idea that everything you own is 100% a result of your own labor, dependent on no one else, is pretty absurdly narcissistic.
ETA - Here's a challenge. Name me any profession in American. Any at all. Guaranteed, it has some dependency on government action, and hence government logically has a legitimate claim to some portion of any wealth that profession generates. A much easier position to defend than yours, I'd think, but let's see if you can surprise me.
I have often dreamed of farting gold bricks. Alas, something much more unpleasant usually comes out. That being said, after a few trips to PF Changs it often feels like...oh forget it.
I'm not sure why people keep saying that I claim to be "dependent on no one else". I have never made that claim. It is not something I believe. I believe that human progress is dependent in great measure to cooperation. However, I believe true progress is based on voluntary cooperation. This cooperation occurs spontaneously, not at the end of a gun....
Since our government has decided to stick its nose into the economy we have been made less free and thus poorer. You state this dependency on government action. I've been asking for an example for a while now and I have not seen one posted. Government has inhibited our ability to trade. This has been done through taxation, regulation, subsidies, etc. It is making us poorer.
I ran across the chart below today. Now, you may say that "College is dependent on government $$!!1!!1", but you could also say that it is making college more difficult to attain and weighing down young people w/ debt at increasingly unprecedented levels. Again, there is government involvement. Of that there is no doubt. Is it positive or is it negative? From where I sit, its a negative. At the end of the day, my opinion doesn't matter because I'd better pay up or got to prison.
Is college dependent on government? Could people only learn these concepts with government? To me that's silly. Of course it is not dependent on government. Would college education be organized differently if not for government intervention? I'm sure it would be. It would be organized in a way that would better serve the interest of the student and their ability to pay.
We could jump through the same hoops with health care, imports, you name it. Government has its hands all over it. But it is destructive. It is not constructive. If it was constructive there would not be a need to coercion. This is government sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong.
ml1 said:
You didn't. It was someone else. It's not always about you
As you can see from PVW's post above that assertion was simultaneously being made at me. If you are going to make vague snarky remarks when there are various perspectives being expressed simultaneously I'd suggest you quote your target to avoid confusion.
So, my bad if I'm mistaken, but your target really doesn't seem to be making that argument either.
PVW said:
Libertarian philosophy seems premised upon a radical individualism that doesn't reflect the deep interdependence all human beings have upon each other -- an interdependence that is for the most part neither voluntary nor breakable. For better and worse, we're not the atomized free agents of libertarian utopianism.
You are entitled to your opinions. But you are not entitled to your own facts. This statement is factually incorrect and frankly quite ignorant. Don't talk about things you clearly have no idea about. It's actually quite the opposite.
No he wasn't exactly. It was in a series of three kind of silly posts. And if I had realized it was going to be taken as seriously I would have used the quote function. Or maybe posted nothing at all.
terp said:
ml1 said:
You didn't. It was someone else. It's not always about you
As you can see from PVW's post above that assertion was simultaneously being made at me. If you are going to make vague snarky remarks when there are various perspectives being expressed simultaneously I'd suggest you quote your target to avoid confusion.
So, my bad if I'm mistaken, but your target really doesn't seem to be making that argument either.
For Sale
-
REVO luggage $100
More info
Free Items
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Advertisement
I detest Trump. However, it appears Trump is being unfairly tarred with respect to reorganizing under bankruptcy protection (in this instance the Plaza Hotel).
In 1992 Trump gave up almost half of the equity in the Trump affiliated company holding the Plaza Hotel to sophisticated lenders, such as Citibank. Which kind of begs the question. Question being: if the initial capital contribution to the Trump affiliated company was so minimal as to make the entire Plaza Hotel project over-leveraged then why would six banks go into this transaction?
==================================================
Reprint from NYT article of December 12, 1992:
COMPANY NEWS; TRUMP'S PLAZA HOTEL BANKRUPTCY PLAN APPROVED
Published: December 12, 1992
A Federal bankruptcy judge yesterday approved a prepackaged bankruptcy plan for Donald J. Trump's Plaza Hotel, giving a 49 percent stake in the luxury hotel to Citibank and five other lenders. Under the plan, Mr. Trump will still be employed as chief executive but he will not be paid and will not have a role in day-to-day operations, said Matthew Feldman, a lawyer representing the Trump Organization.
The hotel was unable to meet its debt service payments and filed for bankruptcy protection on Nov. 2. Lawyers said Mr. Trump would continue to work on marketing plans for the Fifth Avenue hotel, which overlooks Central Park in midtown Manhattan. The lenders, which include the Industrial Bank of Japan, will take control of the hotel in exchange for giving more favorable terms to Mr. Trump on more than $550 million in debt on the hotel. The plan was approved by United States Bankruptcy Judge Prudence Abram.