Capital Gains Taxes - Should they be abolished?

[Victor Galis]

Victor,

Thanks for responding point-by-point.

-You know there are a lot of people that don't like that

Hmm...I never thought of freedom as making us all poorer.

-Centralization enables increases in prosperity.

The US government under the Constitution is not communistic where government owns everything and allows us to live on it's land. It was not "government" that paid for my house, it was me.

-I'd like to see you try to hold on to that house for over a year without government protection.

"Government" is not a business with title to our homes.

-The government has the exclusive right to provide governamental services and charge taxes in exchange.

How many people actually starved to death before all these welfare programs?

-How many people lived to be 65?

Non-moral"? Forcing others to "buy" a service they don't want is no different that a protection racket run by the Mafia.

-Ah, but it is. The government has the legal monopoly on violence (by definition).

Btw, it is hypocritical to tell people to move if they don't like certain government policies since you are still living here.

-I still agree with the idea of taxation. I don't like the government's policies, you don't like the idea of government. It's a matter of degree.

But they do "collectively"? That makes no sense...

-But it does. Collectively they are a single entity. Individually they are not. To work, the government must be a monopoly.

You need to explain that "analogy".

-Well taxes aren't so different from other fees for services provided.

is entirely possible that Hitler never murdered anyone, that doesn't mean he wasn't a mass murderer. And you are using your vote (assuming you vote) to make decisions about other people's property, that means you're acting as a "co-landlord".

-You make very hasty assumptions. You have more of a voice in your govt. than I do.

Why would the costs be any different than the costs now? The public owns the public roads so it's up to the public to maintain them.

-The government is not out to make a profit. If three separate pieces of a 100 mile highway were owned by 3 different entities, you would have to pay 3 tolls.

And I don't oppose taxes to support an army as long as they are voluntary.

-They are voluntary, you can leave the country. The army can't just stop defending part of the country because you don't want to pay your taxes.

I just refuted your argument and now you want to debate whether or not we would come together for a common cause?

-Like hell you did. Your statement in no way proves that libertarianism doesn't lead to anarchy.

The Constitution is an anarchist document?

-It overrestricts a modern government.

Then change it through the amendment process.

-Why should we be bound by an agreement we never signed?

And Imran don't get me started on American "culture."

[Imran Siddiqui]

It overrestricts a modern government.

Which is a good thing.

Why should we be bound by an agreement we never signed?

Why have a government at all then? Any government resides on an agreement we never signed... to get out of the so-called 'State of Nature'.

And Imran don't get me started on American "culture."

Why not? It is the best . Watch how it sweeps the world.

[Victor Galis]

"Which is a good thing."

-Overrestrict implies a bad thing.

"Why have a government at all then? Any government resides on an agreement we never signed... to get out of the so-called 'State of Nature'."

-Because otherwise life would be nasty, brutish, and short And because you have an equal say in government.

"Why not? It is the best . Watch how it sweeps the world."

-The American Empire will fall before this century is out.

[Roland]

The US constitution has some gaps, but overall it is an excellent work. It would be even better if the supreme court applied it. That would really restrict federal government - currently, there is vey little cance to stop big government through the constitution.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Why not? It is the best . Watch how it sweeps the world.

[Rogan Josh]

I am interested to know where Berzerker and Mr Dolphin would draw the line. What 'services' would you have a government provide by default which one could not opt out of (eg. laws)?

And how would you justify these things to yourself 'morally' since the same 'moral' objections must still apply. I mean, if, for example, someone believed drink driving or speeding was morally OK and shouldn't be illegal, would you say that he should be allowed to opt out of that law if he desires? If not then you are surely restricting people's freedoms (at least for 'victimless' crimes).

Or would you say that there is no role for government and that making laws etc should be done on a free enterprise basis?

[Dauphin]

What 'services' would you have a government provide by default which one could not opt out of (eg. laws)?

Application of laws and collection of taxes are two seperate issues.

I am arguing for freer economies/finances; failing that, greater freedom to choose what to do with your finance. Drink driving laws are not a direct consequence or a direct effect of financial considerations.

Example. It is law that you must have vehicle insurance if you own a car. I prefer to have the choice to look for an insurer, rather than pay a tax to the government who would pay for any damage caused.

Similarly, if health insurance or pensions were compulsory (as they are with the state scheme via NI and PAYE) I would rather choose the insurer/scheme than pay it direct to the government and receive benefit from the government.

[Rogan Josh]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
Application of laws and collection of taxes are two seperate issues.
[\quote]

So how would you pay for the application of laws if not through taxes?

Example. It is law that you must have vehicle insurance if you own a car. I prefer to have the choice to look for an insurer, rather than pay a tax to the government who would pay for any damage caused.

I would agree, but that is the way it is in most countries (I am having a hell of a job finding car insurance at the moment) and is not what we are talking about here.

Similarly, if health insurance or pensions were compulsory (as they are with the state scheme via NI and PAYE) I would rather choose the insurer/scheme than pay it direct to the government and receive benefit from the government.

Again I agree, although I do still think there should be a safety net scheme which is provided by the state (by whatever means) for people who cannot afford health insurance otherwise. Clearly this extra saftey net has to be paid by some form of taxes. This is the way it is in most European countries.

I think that one should always have the option of paying for any additional service of this type (even extra private police to enforce order in your neighbourhood) as long as it is legal. However, it is the responsibility of all of us to ensure that essential services, such as health care and eductation, are provided at a basic level which is affordable for everyone. That has to be paid for by taxes (either to subsidize private companies to provide these services more cheaply or providing them directly through the State).

[Berzerker]

9 ECAC -

I'm not sure of your point. Are you arguing that 60's prosperity doesn't owe anything to a highly progressive tax structure?

Yup. The tax rates weren't just "progressive", they were high for business and investment. Hard to argue high tax rates on job producers helps create jobs. But that was in the 50's, as I pointed out, JFK significantly reduced taxes across the board.

OK, then you should also consider that the 60's was also a period in which much social assistance and entitlements legislation gained ground.

That can't account for the continued growth for the first half of the 60's and the Vietnam War stimulated the economy in the latter half. Welfare programs don't create wealth, creating jobs for poor people does. The expendable "income" of poor people on welfare does create jobs, but not when we consider how all that money would have been spent by the rightful owners. If a poor street thug robs me and goes out and buys a car, no jobs were created because I would have used my money in the economy too.

There's some merit in that argument. I would also say that the boom was created because large numbers of women entered the workforce, giving the private sector a huge pool of efficient, educated, cheap labor to plunder for a generation.

That "plunder" is why we have such large middle and upper classes. And it was WWII that was the catalyst for women in the workplace. Unfortunately wars are great at stimulating economies, but the money ends up being wasted on destroying things instead of creating wealth.

I can't prove it, but I doubt it. I assume that the level of corporate tax evasion has always been some constant.

Tax evasion is as American as apple pie
but tax write-offs have been consistently reduced ever since the income tax was passed.

You do realize that that entire post was meant to be ironic, right? A sort of Swiftian Modest Proposal for the ideal state, where rich and poor alike are prohibited from sleeping under bridges.

"Ironic"? I saw an implied charge of hypocrisy, an arguably valid charge.

No fair, you switched arguments. I was talking about the merits of progressive/regressive taxation -- you seem to be talking about the merits of any taxation at all.

Not all taxation. I support lotteries, user fees, and any other ideas for raising revenue that doesn't require the legalization of stealing.

Polls suggest I'm in the center.

I consider the welfare state and "progressive" taxation to be left wing. I believe they even appear in the Communist Manifesto.

I do think that your philosophy ultimately produces a very inefficient economy, as well as a political state that becomes more and more unstable as the number of desperately poor goes through the ceiling.

While I'm not concerned with what is "efficient" or not, I still disagree. This nation became the wealthiest on the planet partly because of economic freedom and the work ethic. Welfare programs create dependency in many people thereby destroying their work ethic. I understand the desire to help the poor, but when that help leaves the realm of charitable deeds and becomes institutionalized, welfare becomes a drug.

As for morality -- I'm sure in your quieter moments you'd admit that this is not a question of moral vs. immoral arguments.

Morality is key to my philosophy.

After all, it's hardly moral to allow people to starve, and it's hardly moral to allow large numbers of children with the misfortune to be born into poor households to grow up with no chance of getting out of poverty.

I'll ask you what I asked Victor: how many people died of starvation before welfare programs were created? It's not a question of help for the poor or no help, it's a question of morality. It is moral to feed a neighbor who needs food, it isn't moral to steal to feed him. The victim may be forgiving of the theft, but forgiveness wouldn't be needed if the act was already moral.

Because of the free rider problem, the only workable mechanism so far for that sort of revenue collection is taxation. The poor do not have the money to pay user fees on their own services, obviously. May you be the brilliant economist who comes up with a better way.

The poor can't afford taxes of any kind. My "system" of taxation allows for "free riders" and for communities to decide when people can ride free. People can understand why a poor person cannot afford a user fee while at the same time using moral pressure to compel those who can afford taxes to pay them.

Victor -

-You know there are a lot of people that don't like that

God only knows why, I like knowing which arguments are addressed to their corresponding points. I don't like reading thru someone's response to a post having to search for rebuttals while noticing many arguments were never addressed.

-Centralization enables increases in prosperity

I disagree. Centralization does not allow for economic experimentation that accompanies a decentralized republic.

-I'd like to see you try to hold on to that house for over a year without government protection.

I'd like to see you try to take my house without help from government. But can you explain why your comment here is related to what I said? This was my comment:

The US government under the Constitution is not communistic where government owns everything and allows us to live on it's land. It was not "government" that paid for my house, it was me.

And in response you claim I would not be able to keep my house without government protection? When did I say I opposed having government help us secure our property?

-The government has the exclusive right to provide governamental services and charge taxes in exchange.

Where did this "right" come from?

-How many people lived to be 65?

Are you suggesting one need be over 65 to starve to death? Can you answer my question? It is rather relevant to your claim that masses of people would starve to death without welfare programs. Btw, while we're on this subject, you accused me of being a mass murderer for not supporting welfare. Are you a mass murderer for not transporting megatons of food and condoms to Africa?

-Ah, but it is. The government has the legal monopoly on violence (by definition).

So now you're equating morality with legal status? There is no difference between a Mafia protection racket and "government" threatening us with violence to compel us to buy "services" we don't want, claiming government violence is "legal" is meaningless. Btw, you're wrong, you have the right to use violence in self-defence. That is where "government" gets it's moral authority to also use violence to protect you from attackers...

-I still agree with the idea of taxation. I don't like the government's policies, you don't like the idea of government. It's a matter of degree.

Wrong again. I don't oppose all taxes, just some, and what they are sometimes spent on. Nor do I object to government, only government that commits the same immoral acts it is supposed to help us prevent or deter.

-But it does. Collectively they are a single entity. Individually they are not. To work, the government must be a monopoly.

Individuals are collectively a single entity while individuals are not? That makes no sense. Explain why a group of individuals have a natural or moral monopoly on violence while individuals don't.

-Well taxes aren't so different from other fees for services provided.

You claimed capitalism was theft if forced taxation for unwanted services was theft.
That "analogy" is false, under capitalism I buy services I want. That isn't true for many government services.

-You make very hasty assumptions. You have more of a voice in your govt. than I do.

Meaning you don't or can't vote? Will you one day?

-The government is not out to make a profit. If three separate pieces of a 100 mile highway were owned by 3 different entities, you would have to pay 3 tolls.

Actually government is in the "profit" business, it forces us taxpayers to pay higher wages for union workers to do jobs lower wage workers can do. Many government contracts require the prevailing (union) wage be paid by contractors. The roads are already built and maintained by the public so why would the roads cost more under my philosophy? I didn't say all or any roads must be turned over to private entities, that was apparently your assumption.

-They are voluntary, you can leave the country.

So if an armed robber breaks into your home and demands that you either leave the country or hand him your money, your decision to leave or hand over the money is "voluntary"? Sheesh

The army can't just stop defending part of the country because you don't want to pay your taxes.

You're making another assumption, I gladly pay taxes to support the military. But not everyone can afford those taxes, your system would force them to pay up making them even poorer while I would not force them at all.

-Like hell you did. Your statement in no way proves that libertarianism doesn't lead to anarchy.

You made the unsupported claim that libertarianism led to or caused anarchy. While you ignored the fact most libertarians support the Constitution and the forced taxes allowed by it prior to the Income Tax amendment, I asked if the American Revolution, which was fought and won without forced taxation, was anarchistic. And you agreed it was not! If a war fought without forced taxation was not anarchistic, it is illogical to claim a system without forced taxation is anarchistic. Btw, only about a third of Americans supported the Revolution with a much smaller percentage taking an active roll.

-It overrestricts a modern government.

You didn't answer my question, is the US Constitution an anarchistic document?

-Why should we be bound by an agreement we never signed?

I agree. And why are we bound by your desires?

Rogan -

I am interested to know where Berzerker and Mr Dolphin would draw the line. What 'services' would you have a government provide by default which one could not opt out of (eg. laws)?

None. But that would severly restrict the movement of those who opted out. Living without using public roads would be difficult at best, and the people who use the public roads should pay for them via user fees such as gas and/or car taxes. But these taxes would be primarily local so that the poor who cannot afford them could rely on the charity of those who can afford them.

And how would you justify these things to yourself 'morally' since the same 'moral' objections must still apply.

The same moral objections would not apply.

I mean, if, for example, someone believed drink driving or speeding was morally OK and shouldn't be illegal, would you say that he should be allowed to opt out of that law if he desires?

Nope. They can drive drunk on their own road, but not on public roads unless a majority of the public gives their permission. It's not about opting out of laws like prohibitions on murder for example, only that those who use services should pay for them instead of forcing others to subsidize them.

If not then you are surely restricting people's freedoms (at least for 'victimless' crimes).

We are not free to drive on public roads, that act requires permission from the road's owners - the public - and drunk driving violates that permission. While I would oppose jailing a drunk driver who didn't hurt anyone, I would support withdrawing permission for that motorist (with maybe one chance).

Or would you say that there is no role for government and that making laws etc should be done on a free enterprise basis?

Government should be limited to helping us protect ourselves from the initiation of force and fraud. This would limit government to actions we are morally empowered ourselves to commit. You have the moral right to use violence to defend yourself from attack, therefore, government - other people - also have the moral "right" to help you defend yourself.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Berzerker
None. But that would severly restrict the movement of those who opted out. Living without using public roads would be difficult at best, and the people who use the public roads should pay for them via user fees such as gas and/or car taxes. But these taxes would be primarily local so that the poor who cannot afford them could rely on the charity of those who can afford them.

So you would object to state funded police forces and military?

Government should be limited to helping us protect ourselves from the initiation of force and fraud. This would limit government to actions we are morally empowered ourselves to commit. You have the moral right to use violence to defend yourself from attack, therefore, government - other people - also have the moral "right" to help you defend yourself.

And how does the state do that if it has no money?

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Again I agree, although I do still think there should be a safety net scheme which is provided by the state (by whatever means) for people who cannot afford health insurance otherwise. Clearly this extra saftey net has to be paid by some form of taxes. This is the way it is in most European countries.

Here it is a one size fits all, with no care for efficiency and applicablity, only politics and public opinion. This leads to waste and mismanagement.

On pensions say, I would prefer a system where 1-2% of all wages are "forceably" paid to your private pension scheme. Shortfalls on contributions are then paid by the government into the pension scheme offered by the insurer, upto a limit of say £20 a week. This method is transparent and more akin to paying for a service than Robin Hoodesque"stealing". Ultimately I would rather pay someones contributions through taxes than pay their actual pension - its cheaper.

Ditto for other social "security" issues.

Don't get me wrong with my view of taxes as theft. I believe they are essential for the good of society, but I would rather have a more direct and directional control on where my money is going. I see the government as a middle man in many of these things - when they should really just be the regulator.

[Victor Galis]

Similarly, if health insurance or pensions were compulsory (as they are with the state scheme via NI and PAYE) I would rather choose the insurer/scheme than pay it direct to the government and receive benefit from the government.

-And put your life in the hands of some fatcat capitalists?

I consider the welfare state and "progressive" taxation to be left wing. I believe they even appear in the Communist Manifesto.

-Funny, I consider lack of progressive taxation hardcore right-wing.

Morality is key to my philosophy.

-Good for you. Your morality has no place in government.

Centralization does not allow for economic experimentation that accompanies a decentralized republic.

-Yes, but centralization allows for large scale interstate commerce.

I'd like to see you try to take my house without help from government. But can you explain why your comment here is related to what I said? This was my comment:

quote:

The US government under the Constitution is not communistic where government owns everything and allows us to live on it's land. It was not "government" that paid for my house, it was me.



And in response you claim I would not be able to keep my house without government protection? When did I say I opposed having government help us secure our property?

-Well taxes are your protection fee. And who said anything about take and me? Sure I might apply a rocket launcher to it if you brought down the government and caused your anarchistic dreams to come true, but I wouldn't be stupid enough to try and take a house.

Where did this "right" come from?

-The fall of feudalism and the rise of the sovereign state.

Are you a mass murderer for not transporting megatons of food and condoms to Africa?

-No. I pay my taxes. That absolves me of responsibility.

So now you're equating morality with legal status?

-Who said anything about morality?

There is no difference between a Mafia protection racket and "government" threatening us with violence to compel us to buy "services" we don't want, claiming government violence is "legal" is meaningless.

-The largest provider of government services in the area is the government. If the mafia can protect you better than the "government" they are the de facto government for that area.

Btw, you're wrong, you have the right to use violence in self-defence. That is where "government" gets it's moral authority to also use violence to protect you from attackers...

-You may be right about self-defense, but that's far more limited then the government's right. You only have the right to prevent others from causing you harm, etc. The government also has the right to punish them after they have done their deeds. You don't have the right to exact your own retribution.

Individuals are collectively a single entity while individuals are not? That makes no sense. Explain why a group of individuals have a natural or moral monopoly on violence while individuals don't.

-Makes no sense?? OK, think of 5 people. Individually, they are 5 people (5 distinct entities). They form a government where they all have equal say. The government is a single entity. A single entity can have a monopoly, 5 can't.

You claimed capitalism was theft if forced taxation for unwanted services was theft.
That "analogy" is false, under capitalism I buy services I want. That isn't true for many government services.

-You can leave the country if you want. The analogy is quite true. The greater a monopoly is, and the more essential it's products the less you can do to avoid buying them.

Meaning you don't or can't vote? Will you one day?

-Can't, maybe one day.

So if an armed robber breaks into your home and demands that you either leave the country or hand him your money, your decision to leave or hand over the money is "voluntary"? Sheesh

-Of course. You're missing the one year+ notice that the armed "robber" gives you.

You didn't answer my question, is the US Constitution an anarchistic document?

-I implied that yes it was, because of its limits on government.

You made the unsupported claim that libertarianism led to or caused anarchy. While you ignored the fact most libertarians support the Constitution and the forced taxes allowed by it prior to the Income Tax amendment, I asked if the American Revolution, which was fought and won without forced taxation, was anarchistic.

-I argue that letting corporations have insane amounts of power which is what Libertarians want will very quickly lead to anarchy and/or feudalism.

I agree. And why are we bound by your desires?

-You're not I just happen to agree with what the government is binding you to.

[9 ECAC Titles]

Berzerker,

I can respect that your economic theory derives from your idea of morality, but the essence of public policy is that it can't be argued on moral grounds unless there's an overwhelming agreement on both moral precepts and implications. In this case, there is not. You and many people equate forced taxation with theft. I and many people do not. You won't convince us (though of course you are welcome to try), and we won't convince you.

What's left is looking at the actual consequences of different policies, and determining which is better. I think education, housing, and nutrition are necessary prerequisites for decreasing the number of people who need such assistance. I think it is socially constructive to provide those without the means with a fighting chance to get out of poverty. Leaving it all to the invisible hand just creates a perpertual underclass.

The percentage of people living below the poverty line stayed fairly constant for most of US history, with a brief bulge during the Depression, until the social programs kicked in. It then dropped significantly until the Reagan rollback, at which point it started to rise again. Assistance is not immediate and is not total, but it does reduce poverty. It is the most effective strategy for ameliorating the grinding effects of poverty.

I know I can't convince you that the latter is a moral good in itself, so I'll simply reiterate that from a pragmatic point of view, it makes the most sense.

[Dauphin]

Similarly, if health insurance or pensions were compulsory (as they are with the state scheme via NI and PAYE) I would rather choose the insurer/scheme than pay it direct to the government and receive benefit from the government.

-And put your life in the hands of some fatcat capitalists?

Why not? If they provide it more cheaply and more extensively and get what you pay for.

If you drove a car would you rather have car insurance policies with a car insurance company of your choice, or pay the government one size fits all taxes to cover road accident claims?

[Berzerker]

Rogan -

So you would object to state funded police forces and military?

No, as long as these are funded thru voluntary means.

And how does the state do that if it has no money?

The state will always have money, it prints it. The American Revolution was funded by lotteries and private donations.

Victor -

-Funny, I consider lack of progressive taxation hardcore right-wing.

Hardcore right wing would be no income tax, but if the lack of progressive taxes is right wing, wouldn't progressive taxes be left wing? 9 ECAC was identifying himself as a centrist, I merely pointed out that 2 of the major policies he supports are left wing.

-Good for you. Your morality has no place in government.

Your immorality has no place in government.

-Yes, but centralization allows for large scale interstate commerce.

Is this the only "centralization" you support? The Constitution you find so lacking of merit gave Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce.

-Well taxes are your protection fee.

One tax, not all taxes.

And who said anything about take and me?

Who said anything about not paying a tax for protection?

Sure I might apply a rocket launcher to it if you brought down the government and caused your anarchistic dreams to come true, but I wouldn't be stupid enough to try and take a house.

This debate is getting pointless. You haven't proven that libertarianism is anarchism, yet you keep making the accusation.

-The fall of feudalism and the rise of the sovereign state.

So the "right" of government to "legally" steal our money for services we don't want came from the fall of feudalism?

-No. I pay my taxes. That absolves me of responsibility.

Our taxes have stopped AIDS and starvation in Africa? So the fact you pay taxes means you are no longer responsible for feeding starving people?

-Who said anything about morality?

You claimed government has a natural and legal monopoly on violence. Violence is a moral issue...

-The largest provider of government services in the area is the government. If the mafia can protect you better than the "government" they are the de facto government for that area.

That doesn't "justify" Mafia or "government" protection rackets. It wouldn't be moral If I walked up to you and said, "give me your money and I will protect you from harm" with the clear implication that I will be among those who harm you if you don't pony up.

-You may be right about self-defense, but that's far more limited then the government's right.

No, the government's "right" to defend you derives from your right to defend yourself. This is the key to understanding what is or is not a moral government.

You only have the right to prevent others from causing you harm, etc. The government also has the right to punish them after they have done their deeds. You don't have the right to exact your own retribution.

Sure I do. That's why government has the "right" to extract retribution - because I have that right. If no government existed and someone murdered your child, you'd have the right to track them down and punish them.

-Makes no sense?? OK, think of 5 people. Individually, they are 5 people (5 distinct entities). They form a government where they all have equal say. The government is a single entity. A single entity can have a monopoly, 5 can't.

First, I never said individuals had a natural monopoly on violence. You said government does, which isn't true.
Individuals have the right to use violence in their defense, therefore the "government" they form has the "right" to defend them as well. And like you said in regards to the Constitution we did not sign, others who did not agree to form this government of 5 people are not bound by their contract.

-You can leave the country if you want. The analogy is quite true. The greater a monopoly is, and the more essential it's products the less you can do to avoid buying them.

You can leave if you don't like capitalism. See what a meaningless statement that is? The fact I need food to live doesn't mean the farmer I buy my food from is stealing my money. Your analogy is not accurate...

-Can't, maybe one day.

If you can't vote, how can you claim paying taxes absolves you of helping starving people in Africa? If you can't vote and your taxes are not being used to feed those people, then your taxes are irrelevant and you are still responsible for feeding them or be guilty of mass murder.

-Of course. You're missing the one year+ notice that the armed "robber" gives you.

So your decision to leave or hand over your money would be voluntary if the armed robber gave you advance notice? Here is a brief snippet from the definition of "voluntary": "unconstrained by interference". The armed robber/Mafia/government are interfering in your decision, in fact, they are the catalyst for your decision.

-I implied that yes it was, because of its limits on government

When I asked you if the American Revolution was anarchistic, you "implied" it wasn't, yet the Constitution which does allow for much more government power is anarchistic? Here is the definition of "anarchy":

"Anarchy" - the absence of government: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority.

The Constitution is not anarchistic just because it doesn't allow for all the government you think we need. Words have definitions...

-I argue that letting corporations have insane amounts of power which is what Libertarians want will very quickly lead to anarchy and/or feudalism.

Corporations have enormous power today under the Democrats and Republicans, are they anarchists? And you're wrong about what Libertarians want anyway, try actually quoting the LP platform or some other Libertarian principle to support your accusation.

-You're not I just happen to agree with what the government is binding you to.

And once you vote, we will be bound by your desires if your candidate wins and follows thru with your agenda.

9 ECAC -

I can respect that your economic theory derives from your idea of morality, but the essence of public policy is that it can't be argued on moral grounds unless there's an overwhelming agreement on both moral precepts and implications.

Was US slavery immoral? The fact many people didn't agree that slavery was immoral doesn't mean it wasn't. And actually there is an overwhelming agreement on moral precepts. Everyone agrees that murder and slavery are immoral when they are the victims, it is this "universality" reflected in the Golden Rule that creates the basis of morality. But because many people are hypocrites - that would treat others in ways they don't want to be treated - we have criminal behavior.

You and many people equate forced taxation with theft. I and many people do not. You won't convince us (though of course you are welcome to try), and we won't convince you.

True, many people seem to believe that "government" magically transforms immoral behavior into moral or "non-moral" behavior. But this "logic" falls apart upon analysis when our side points to immoral acts committed by governments which cannot be defended even by those who believe "legalized" theft is morally different from illegal theft.
But I am glad you can debate this issue without being extremely offended, a number of people on your side view our arguments as personal attacks.

What's left is looking at the actual consequences of different policies, and determining which is better.

I'm not a fan of utility. Terrible acts have been committed in the name of utility and what is best for society.

I think education, housing, and nutrition are necessary prerequisites for decreasing the number of people who need such assistance.

I think these worthy goals should be achieved thru voluntary associations and not the threat of violence.

I think it is socially constructive to provide those without the means with a fighting chance to get out of poverty. Leaving it all to the invisible hand just creates a perpertual underclass.

The "invisible hand" is a reference to the marketplace and the trillions of economic decisions we all make. And we have a perpetual underclass because of welfare...

The percentage of people living below the poverty line stayed fairly constant for most of US history, with a brief bulge during the Depression, until the social programs kicked in.

Definitions of the word "poverty" have not remained the same over this time frame, so any claim about poverty rates must take those changes into account - they don't. We have people here with a relatively high standard of living compared to past generations
who still qualify as "impoverished". Plus, we went from a largely "poor" agrarian system to an industrial one with greater "wealth".

It is the most effective strategy for ameliorating the grinding effects of poverty.

Welfare creates more dependency, jobs are more effective.

[Victor Galis]

Why not? If they provide it more cheaply and more extensively and get what you pay for.

-I do not want profit motives to influence decisions on whether or not I get critical life-saving treatments. With private medical insurance you don't get what you need, you get what a company is willing to give you thinking about it's profits the whole time.

If you drove a car would you rather have car insurance policies with a car insurance company of your choice, or pay the government one size fits all taxes to cover road accident claims?

-Irrelevant. Car insurance is not a matter of life and death. And I probably would like the one-size-fits-all because my private insurance rates are bound to be insanely high.

No, as long as these are funded thru voluntary means.

-What about those people that will not pay then?

The state will always have money, it prints it. The American Revolution was funded by lotteries and private donations.

-Under the Articles of Confederation the state was decidely penniless. Do you know what happens when a state just prints money without any form of stable income? That's right, it takes a wheelbarrowfull of money to buy a loaf of bread. Just printing money doesn't solve anything.

Hardcore right wing would be no income tax, but if the lack of progressive taxes is right wing, wouldn't progressive taxes be left wing? 9 ECAC was identifying himself as a centrist, I merely pointed out that 2 of the major policies he supports are left wing.

-I would not call progressive taxes left wing simply because moderate right wingers should support them as well as everyone on the left. Of course the steepness of the increase in percent as you go up a tax bracket might change, but that's another matter.

This debate is getting pointless. You haven't proven that libertarianism is anarchism, yet you keep making the accusation.

-And now you miss quote me. I said libertarianism leads to anarchy, not is. There is a fine difference there. A weak government like the libertarians want could never keep order in the modern world -> anarchy.

So the "right" of government to "legally" steal our money for services we don't want came from the fall of feudalism?

-Yes. Sovereign states began collecting annual taxes whose amounts were specified rather than the irregular taxes collected by feudal lords. Business thrived on the certainty that all their money would not suddenly be demanded.

Our taxes have stopped AIDS and starvation in Africa? So the fact you pay taxes means you are no longer responsible for feeding starving people?

-Yes. The ball is passed into the law maker's court. If they don't use my tax money to feed starving people that's their fault.

You claimed government has a natural and legal monopoly on violence. Violence is a moral issue...

-Like Hell it is!

Sure I do. That's why government has the "right" to extract retribution - because I have that right. If no government existed and someone murdered your child, you'd have the right to track them down and punish them.

-If no government existed you'd have no rights Claiming you have the right to take justice into your own hands only serves to strengthen my claim that you secretly want anarchy even though you claim to want limited government.

You said government does, which isn't true.

-It's one way to define a government. Of course, it does.

The fact I need food to live doesn't mean the farmer I buy my food from is stealing my money. Your analogy is not accurate...

-So then the fact that you need to live in a country that charges you tax money doesn't mean it's theft.

If you can't vote, how can you claim paying taxes absolves you of helping starving people in Africa? If you can't vote and your taxes are not being used to feed those people, then your taxes are irrelevant and you are still responsible for feeding them or be guilty of mass murder.

-Quite on the contrary. I am contributing money to an organization, whose duty it is to prevent starvation. I personally have no obligation.

Words have definitions...

-Definitions are socially constructed, and vary from person to person.

Libertarians want anyway, try actually quoting the LP platform or some other Libertarian principle to support your accusation.

-They wish to gut the government's ability to govern. That makes them no better than anarchist rabble in my mind.

And once you vote, we will be bound by your desires if your candidate wins and follows thru with your agenda.

-Your point? So will I. You get to vote too. It's entirely fair.

I'm not a fan of utility. Terrible acts have been committed in the name of utility and what is best for society.

-Same with morality. Idealists are as or more guilty of atrocities than realists.

The "invisible hand" is a reference to the marketplace and the trillions of economic decisions we all make. And we have a perpetual underclass because of welfare...

-Which is decidely smaller than in pre-welfare days.

Welfare creates more dependency, jobs are more effective.

-Are you in favor of full employment?