Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |  [ show all ]
Re: Heard it all before!! [Re: GazzBut]
    #3072999 -


You've lost me a bit here mush what free benefits do you think I expect people to pay for? Give me some specifics.

i don't know. it seemed like that was your position. in a society of free exchange, people do pay for the non-free benefits they recieve. you're suggesting that they should pay even more, so i have to conclude that you either believe they aren't paying full value for the non-free benefits they receive (impossible in an environment of free exchange) or that they should also be forced to contribute in return for their free benefits.

basically what it comes down to is that in a free society (meaning capitalism) people exchange non-free benefits at face value. the reason that living in society has a net advantage for human beings is because of the free benefits. free benefits, being free, do not cost anyone anything. you seem to be suggesting that people do not contribute enough for what they receive from society (because of free benefits, people do have a net advantage by living in society), so to make things more fair and balance things out, they should have to pay more, namely compensation for the free benefits they receive.

at least, that's my take on what you've been suggesting. am i mistaken?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Heard it all before!! [Re: deafpanda]
    #3073059 -

deafpanda said:
But how, apart from through a public police force paid for through taxation, do your rights get secured?


I am not against all forms of taxation. I am speaking mainly about income tax, which forcefully takes money which one has earned through their own labor.

Quote:
As for your land tax, I still hold that it's tantamount to an indirect income tax. I mean, people buy land, and even though it doesn't permanently belong to them, it is paid for from their income, and so a tax on their land is a tax on their income.


But who created the land? No one. No human effort went into the creation of the land. Someone simply came along and claimed it as their own, then sold it to the next occupant. As for them paying for the land with their income, it would be the seller who is taxed(and only for the value of the land), not the buyer. And since it is the community as a whole which contributes to the value of land, it is they who should enjoy the profits generated by it. In a sense, you are right--it is an income tax, but it is a tax on unearned income--income which rightfully belongs to the community which contributes to the value of that land.

Quote:
What counts as an initiation of force then? What about polluting the atmosphere - for every ton of CO2 you pump into the air, you are reducing the population's health by a tiny amount. Is that initiation of force?


I would say so, at least if the CO2 emissions are excessive. As for your question, there's no way I could write out everything that constituted initiation of force, as entire legal systems are devoted to that. However, I will point out as an example that fraud is initiation of force in that it involves taking someone's money under false pretenses.

Quote:
How about if you build a housing estate on your land right next to someone's hotel and take $10000 from the value of their land and put customers off? Is that initiation of force?


Under a land value tax, the drop in land value would coincide with a corresponding drop in taxes, so that in itself would not be initation of force under such a system. As for putting customers off, you can't really be held responsible for other people's opinions.

Quote:
You see, I think that negative externalities should be seen as initiation of force, and should be compensated for by tax. How else are they going to go away?


Sorry, I don't follow. Please explain how they would be "compenstated for" by taxes.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Heard it all before!! [Re: GazzBut]
    #3073066 -

GazzBut said:
People get together and decide rights. So if you choose to live in a group and enjoy some of the benefits of living in that group then you only get, in terms of that group, the rights they grant you. No other rights are being violated, you would just feel like they are because you wouldnt be getting your own way.


No, people get together and decide not to initiate force against one another. Rights are inherent in such a decision--they are not a decision in and of themselves, no matter how much you want them to be. By choosing to live peacefully among other people, you are agreeing not to initiate force against them, thus recognizing their natural rights, whether you know it or not. Libertarianism is simply about consciously recognizing this agreement, and taking it to its logical conclusion.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Heard it all before!! [Re: GazzBut]
    #3073122 -

GazzBut said:
Quote:
As for your land tax, I still hold that it's tantamount to an indirect income tax.



Of course it is because you get taxed on the money you make from the land and to make money from land requires effort, so you are in effect still being taxed on your productive effort.


My friend, you couldn't be farther from the truth. Land value is determined by its potential for production. More specifically, it is determined by the excess of its productive potential over the amount which could be produced by the same amount of effort on the least productive land in use. In algebraic terms, R=E/L, where R is the rent of the land(I'm using "rent" in economic terms, not its common meaning), E is the excess productive potential, and L is the productive potential of the least productive land in use. If this is confusing to you, click here.

Now, as populations increase, the difference between the values of E and L grows, thus increasing rent. Under the current system, the landowner keeps most of the rent, so many people with highly productive land find it in their best interest to hoard the land without putting in any productive effort, watch as its value skyrockets, and then selling it at a much higher price than they bought it for. This is called land speculation. The landowner can make a fortune without lifting a finger.

Under the Georgist system, the rent would be taxed, and thus land speculation would have no more use. Productive land would not be worth owning unless its productive potential was realized through labor. Thus, far from taxing productive effort, a land value tax would tax that which limits productivity.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Heard it all before!! [Re: silversoul7]
    #3073288 -

Quote:
No, people get together and decide not to initiate force against one another.



What you are saying is that when people come together to cooperate it follows that they will be agreeing not to initiate force against each other as this would make cooperation difficult if not pointless. Correct?

I agree with that point.

Quote:
Rights are inherent in such a decision



What does this actually mean? What rights are inherent in this decision?

If a group of people get together and decide to cooperate I agree it makes sense that they will have to agree not to initiate violence against each other but it certainly does not mean that the group cannot decide that they want all members to contribute to some form of welfare. That is for each individual group to decide, and to try and pretend that there is some "natural" law that prevents this seems a little strange to me.


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Heard it all before!! [Re: GazzBut]
    #3073338 -

GazzBut said:
Quote:
Rights are inherent in such a decision



What does this actually mean? What rights are inherent in this decision?

If a group of people get together and decide to cooperate I agree it makes sense that they will have to agree not to initiate violence against each other but it certainly does not mean that the group cannot decide that they want all members to contribute to some form of welfare. That is for each individual group to decide, and to try and pretend that there is some "natural" law that prevents this seems a little strange to me.


Ok, I'll explain this again: When people are completely alone, they can do whatever they want. Rights are irrelevant in such a situation, as they are indistinguishable from abilities. When other people are thrown into the mix, suddenly their abilities can include the ability to harm one another. So in the interest of preserving their own lives, they can either run away from the other people, attempt to kill them all, or agree to get along and not initiate force against one another. Most choose the third option. By participating in this society and cooperating peacefully with others, you are engaging in such an agreement.

Now, by agreeing not to initiate force against others, you recognize that they have a right to be left alone. Anything which does constitute an initiation of force, a person has a right to do. Now, as I pointed out earlier, there is plenty of gray area as to what exactly constitutes initiation of force, and entire legal systems are based on explaining just that. But if something does initiate force against someone, then it is an infringement upon their rights.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Heard it all before!! [Re: silversoul7]
    #3073416 -

Quote:
Sorry, I don't follow. Please explain how they would be "compenstated for" by taxes.



Well, taxing those who produce negative externalities reduces the extent to which they will produce them, and pays for "cleaning up". For example taxing a polluter means that you can use this money to counteract the harm done.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Heard it all before!! [Re: deafpanda]
    #3073428 -

deafpanda said:
Quote:
Sorry, I don't follow. Please explain how they would be "compenstated for" by taxes.



Well, taxing those who produce negative externalities reduces the extent to which they will produce them, and pays for "cleaning up". For example taxing a polluter means that you can use this money to counteract the harm done.


In that case, I agree. Air and water should be considered common property, just as land should. So I do not believe it would be inconsistent with libertarianism to tax such things. Since they constitute initiation of force, then taxing such activities would be retaliatory force, and therefore justified. Of course, I can't really see how you'd enforce a tax on how much you drive without having some Big Brother type of tracking system.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Heard it all before!! [Re: silversoul7]
    #3073547 -

Interesting debate so far.

However, I disagree with calling the fee paid to a society's government being called a "tax". In actual fact, it is not a tax at all. It is rent.

If the premise behind George's theory is that land cannot rightfully be claimed by any single individual (since that individual did not produce the land) but is instead a common resource, then it follows that those who utilize a part of that resource pay rent to the owner -- in this case, society (to be more specific, that society's agent, government).

Just as when you use a car for a month you pay a rental fee to the owner of the car, when you use a farm for 99 years (normally with an option to renew) you pay a rental fee to the owner of the farm -- society (according to George).

George's proposal is in no way shape or form a tax as defined by any dictionary I've ever seen. It is by any reasonable definition rent. Or perhaps "lease fees".

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Heard it all before!! [Re: silversoul7]
    #3073773 -

Quote:
By participating in this society and cooperating peacefully with others, you are engaging in such an agreement.




Why did you feel the need to explain the above, in fact your entire first paragraph when I had already stated I agreed with you upto this point?

In the second part you merely confirm the fact that the idea of what constitutes a right is a highly contentious area. This very contentiousness is what leads me to believe that natural rights do not exist. Humans naturally have the two arms and two legs, with some exceptions. Humans natuarally have ears to hear with and eyes to see with, with some exceptions. These things bestowed by "Nature" are not contentious. They are obvious. The idea that abstract human ideas can somehow be inherent in nature is basically on the same level of thought as believing in an anthromorphic vengeful god who punishes the the wicked.

How is nature being violated if a group of people get together and decide that one of the requisites of membership to their group is that everyone must contribute to the welfare of the whole without exception?


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Heard it all before!! [Re: GazzBut]
    #3073885 -

How is nature being violated if a group of people get together and decide that one of the requisites of membership to their group is that everyone must contribute to the welfare of the whole without exception?

must such decisions be unanimous?
do those who do not consent become non-members?
are non-members accorded any moral consideration?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Heard it all before!! [Re: ]
    #3074241 -

must such decisions be unanimous?

What if a section of the population refuses to go along with your "leave social welfare to charity" and it's subsequent descent into chaos?

What if they WANT a system of taxation to ensure a safety net sufficient for all? Would you FORCE them NOT to have the right to taxation?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Heard it all before!! [Re: Xlea321]
    #3074269 -

Quote:
What if a section of the population refuses to go along with your "leave social welfare to charity" and it's subsequent descent into chaos?

What if they WANT a system of taxation to ensure a safety net sufficient for all? Would you FORCE them NOT to have the right to taxation?


As has been said before: In a libertarian society, groups of people can join together and form a socialist collective if they so desire. Conversely, a group of people cannot join together and form a laissez-faire area in a socialist society.


--------------------
?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.?
-Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Heard it all before!! [Re: Ancalagon]
    #3074307 -

Yeah but the problem is it doesn't work then. It's no use 50 people bonding together if it takes 300 million people paying tax to create a social welfare system worth the name.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Heard it all before!! [Re: Xlea321]
    #3074342 -

Here's a never-before-expressed thought:

If an insufficient number of people see the value of a social welfare system worth the name, than perhaps the value of such a system is lower than many think.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Heard it all before!! [Re: Phred]
    #3074408 -

If ever an insufficient number of people do then perhaps the libertarians will have a chance of attaining power. I'm not one to piss on your dreams.

Incidentally we tried not having a social welfare system for decades. The overwhelming majority of people decided we would be better off with one so it was introduced. Social welfare isn't something that's been around forever - it's something people realised was valuable, desperately needed, worth paying taxes for and set about creating.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Heard it all before!! [Re: Xlea321]
    #3074625 -

Quote:
If ever an insufficient number of people do then perhaps the libertarians will have a chance of attaining power. I'm not one to piss on your dreams.


It's not even close to that cut and dry. The phrase 'libertarian' is scarcely known and the existence of a libertarian party even less so. On top of that, the amount of people who realize how far removed the government of today is from the Constitution and the principles of Washington, Jefferson, Paine, etc. that led the world to view America as a beacon of freedom, is very minute. But I digress...

Quote:

Incidentally we tried not having a social welfare system for decades.


The United States wasn't exactly on the verge of economic collapse for it's first 150 years or so. It went from fledgling British colonies to the absolute most dominant economic power the world had ever seen in that short amount of time for very good reason.

Quote:
The overwhelming majority of people decided we would be better off with one so it was introduced.


'Overwhelming majority' can surely be contested, but I'll work under the assumption that indeed an overwhelming majority of Americans desired socialist policies in response to the great depression. Alex, you realize that governments can exploit national catastrophes of the military sort(9-11) in order to deprive people of personal liberty and privacy, and that in their panic the people will go along with it. The Great Depression was a similar situation. The Depression, which was brought about in America primarily by malinvestment as a result of an absolutely insane monetary policy by the Federal Reserve during the 1920s, was prolonged by the meddling of Herbert Hoover(who surprisingly is criticized in the miserable public schools of this country as a Laissez-Faire Rugged Individualist who didn't do enough to stem the depression). As time passed on, people naturally became more and more desperate for solutions. They were unfortunately willing to accept FDRs New Deal and the annihalation of the US Constitution that came with it. As was articulated brilliantly after the Depression had ended(contrary to fallacious Keynesian economics) by Mises and Rothbard, FDR too had prolonged the Depression(a figure clearly visible in looking at the numbers of that time) and in fact World War Two is what truly pulled America out. Unfortunately economic illiteracy at that time must have been as high as it is today and the policies of FDR that were intended to be temporary ended up being permanent. Today, the average American does not discern how unconstitutional the federal social welfare/safety-net programs are and does not realize that there was such a time when these things did not exist and the country prospered unbelievably.


--------------------
?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.?
-Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Heard it all before!! [Re: ]
    #3074713 -

mushmaster said:
How is nature being violated if a group of people get together and decide that one of the requisites of membership to their group is that everyone must contribute to the welfare of the whole without exception?

must such decisions be unanimous?
do those who do not consent become non-members?
are non-members accorded any moral consideration?


No they do not need to be unanimous. In a libetarian society would you need unanimous consent on the cost of the land-value tax? would you need unanimous consent on how much to spend on defense and how to spend it? What about unanimous consent for foreign intervention? The clear conclusion is that political unanimity is impossible (though libertarians seem at times to believe that their minimalist approach is unanimously acceptable).

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Heard it all before!! [Re: ]
    #3074922 -

Quote:
must such decisions be unanimous?



No. A group of people could get together and one person could take control whom the group submit to either willingly or unwillingly. The permutations are endless!

Quote:
do those who do not consent become non-members?




Non-member, outcast, convict?


Quote:
are non-members accorded any moral consideration?


Depends how nice the group as a whole are I suppose!


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Heard it all before!! [Re: Ancalagon]
    #3074972 -

Quote:
As has been said before: In a libertarian society, groups of people can join together and form a socialist collective if they so desire.



Sounds great! Do you really think you will move any closer to this by voting for Mr Badnarik? Honest answer!


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |  [ show all ]

Shop: North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Henry George and the Land Value Tax
( 1 2 3 all )		 Silversoul 5,821 56 09/19/05 11:19 PM
by Silversoul
* If libertarians/conservatives believe govt welfare leads to dependency
( 1 2 3 all )		 Tao 4,433 52 12/09/04 08:56 PM
by nycomyco
* Welfare and why it bugs me
( 1 2 3 all )		 Yarry 3,141 48 01/20/04 12:13 PM
by Malachi
* Whining about taxes
( 1 2 3 4 ... 9 10 all )		 silversoul7 9,975 187 06/16/03 04:10 PM
by Azmodeus
* W.House: Tax Cuts to Create 800,000 Jobs
( 1 2 3 all )		 Ellis Dee 5,907 40 03/03/02 09:53 PM
by sparafucile
* State-Run Welfare and Libertarianism retread 705 4 10/22/04 05:27 PM
by Ancalagon
* A few "welfare" myths
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )		 Xlea321 12,862 177 07/30/03 05:19 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* General Welfare
( 1 2 3 all )		 luvdemshrooms 2,606 45 12/14/03 03:37 PM
by luvdemshrooms

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
5,911 topic views. 1 members, 2 guests and 10 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.028 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 16 queries.