PDA

View Full Version : What are your thoughts on the "general welfare"?




Philhelm
10-04-2010, 09:52 PM
First, I'd like to say that I agree with many on here, in that taxation ultimately depends upon the threat of, or the use of, physical force. Furthermore, if one is in the 30% tax bracket, then roughly speaking, that person spends a quarter of a year of labor simply to pay the national government. However, where can the line be drawn? For instance, as much as I'm angered by the current state of law enforcement, I am skeptical about privatizing it. After all, in a legitimate constitutional republic, shouldn't the law be enforced by the state? If our laws were just, then our law enforcement personnel would not be so oppressive.

Let's say we only operated with sales tax, or perhaps a 5% tax or less, and that we truly had a limited government that abided by the Constitution, and respected the concept of not enacting laws unless certain actions violated the life, liberty, or property of others. Would people here still be as morally opposed to taxation in such a situation? Again, I agree about the moral implications of taxation, but I'd imagine that it wouldn't be such a hateful thing if the taxation were minimal and our government just.

Basically, what would people here consider acceptable, as far as the genral welfare goes? I'm not here to argue or debate, but to see everyone's perspective.

Anti Federalist
10-04-2010, 09:53 PM
A 30 percent import duty.

That is all.

Philhelm
10-04-2010, 09:57 PM
A 30 percent import duty.

That is all.

Well, what if we had a responsible and just government, with even just a 1% income tax? Would you pay that price for a reasonable government? I certainly would, as many citizens pay far more than that in order to fund a police state. Again, I am against an income tax in general, for moral reasons, but am wondering where a realistic line can be drawn in today's twisted society.

Anti Federalist
10-04-2010, 10:00 PM
Well, what if we had a responsible and just government, with even just a 1% income tax? Would you pay that price for a reasonable government? I certainly would, as many citizens pay far more than that in order to fund a police state. Again, I am against an income tax in general, for moral reasons, but am wondering where a realistic line can be drawn in today's twisted society.

No, I would, in a perfect world, I never acquiesce to any form of income taxation.

The very concept opens your personal financial books to government, with no fourth or fifth amendment protections.

ClayTrainor
10-04-2010, 10:11 PM
First, I'd like to say that I agree with many on here, in that taxation ultimately depends upon the threat of, or the use of, physical force.

Good to hear. :)

It is an empirical and testable fact. Taxation is extortion, straight up.

Extort: "obtain through intimidation" - Princeton.edu dictionary


Furthermore, if one is in the 30% tax bracket, then roughly speaking, that person spends a quarter of a year of labor simply to pay the national government. However, where can the line be drawn?

IMO, the line is drawn at the Non-Aggression Principle.

Do you feel that some individuals should be granted the right to initiate aggression on other individuals?



Basically, what would people here consider acceptable, as far as the genral welfare goes? I'm not here to argue or debate, but to see everyone's perspective.

Taxation is not a legitimate means of collecting or distributing resources, by any stretch of the imagination. It will always breed more crime and corruption, because the concept is criminal and corrupt.

:)

Philhelm
10-04-2010, 10:21 PM
No, I would, in a perfect world, I never acquiesce to any form of income taxation.

The very concept opens your personal financial books to government, with no fourth or fifth amendment protections.

Alright, let's say that I somehow became Philip I, the Great (hey, this is my fantasy, so just go along...;)), King of the Americans, Count of Pennsylvania, Duke of Kansas, and the Baron of California, etc., etc. Now, assuming that under my rule, the only laws were those that violated the life, liberty, and property of others, and that all of the hateful things that we are against on this site were non-existent. If I were to say, "Hey, guys, all I need is a 1%, non-changeable income tax in order to run a limited government to maintain the Natural Rights of the citizenry.", would you be against such a government as strongly? Would I be a tyrant, or a reasonable leader?

I find myself always agreeing with you, Anti-Federalist, but at what point could we accept a measure of compromise? I only ask this for philosophical reasons, rather than practical ones. Since many of us aren't anarchists, is there an acceptable level of government intervention?

Philhelm
10-04-2010, 10:25 PM
Good to hear. :)

It is an empirical and testable fact. Taxation is extortion, straight up.

Extort: "obtain through intimidation" - Princeton.edu dictionary


IMO, the line is drawn at the Non-Aggression Principle.

Do you feel that some individuals should be granted the right to initiate aggression on other individuals?



Taxation is not a legitimate means of collecting or distributing resources, by any stretch of the imagination. It will always breed more crime and corruption, because the concept is criminal and corrupt.

:)

I generally agree with the fact that taxation is a form of extortion, and agree with the non-agression principle. However, if those of us who are not anarchists, believe that we should have a limited, proper government, then there would necessarily be some government force (albeit, not nearly the levels we see now). I'm not making an argument for taxation, mind you, but an argument for what could be considered accetable. If we had a flat 1% income tax, and a small government that respected the concepts of non-aggression, would we be able to live with that?

Vessol
10-04-2010, 10:26 PM
Alright, let's say that I somehow became Philip I, the Great (hey, this is my fantasy, so just go along...;)), King of the Americans, Count of Pennsylvania, Duke of Kansas, and the Baron of California, etc., etc. Now, assuming that under my rule, the only laws were those that violated the life, liberty, and property of others, and that all of the hateful things that we are against on this site were non-existent. If I were to say, "Hey, guys, all I need is a 1%, non-changeable income tax in order to run a limited government to maintain the Natural Rights of the citizenry.", would you be against such a government as strongly? Would I be a tyrant, or a reasonable leader?

Why would we even need Phillip I, the Great, King of the Americans, Duke of Kansas, Count of Pennsylvania, and Baron of California?

Anti Federalist
10-04-2010, 10:31 PM
Alright, let's say that I somehow became Philip I, the Great (hey, this is my fantasy, so just go along...;)), King of the Americans, Count of Pennsylvania, Duke of Kansas, and the Baron of California, etc., etc. Now, assuming that under my rule, the only laws were those that violated the life, liberty, and property of others, and that all of the hateful things that we are against on this site were non-existent. If I were to say, "Hey, guys, all I need is a 1%, non-changeable income tax in order to run a limited government to maintain the Natural Rights of the citizenry.", would you be against such a government as strongly? Would I be a tyrant, or a reasonable leader?

I find myself always agreeing with you, Anti-Federalist, but at what point could we accept a measure of compromise? I only ask this for philosophical reasons, rather than practical ones. Since many of us aren't anarchists, is there an acceptable level of government intervention?

I proclaim my right to nobility and my title as Viscount of New Hampshire.

A benevolent monarchy protecting individual rights?

Sure, why not, can't be any worse than what we have now. ;)

That being said, what you are asking really only has one answer: how much force and extortion do you want, a little or a lot?

Because when it comes right down to it, that's all government is, regardless of form.

At the same time, I don't think humanity is at the stage where global voluntarism is practical.

So I'd be willing to support anything that reduces that extortion, with the ultimate goal of getting it to zero.

Philhelm
10-04-2010, 10:39 PM
Why would we even need Phillip I, the Great, King of the Americans, Duke of Kansas, Count of Pennsylvania, and Baron of California?

To ensure the life, liberty, and property of the citizenry...and just because the titles are cool. ;)

Philhelm
10-04-2010, 10:43 PM
I proclaim my right to nobility and my title as Viscount of New Hampshire.

A benevolent monarchy protecting individual rights?

Sure, why not, can't be any worse than what we have now. ;)

That being said, what you are asking really only has one answer: how much force and extortion do you want, a little or a lot?

Because when it comes right down to it, that's all government is, regardless of form.

At the same time, I don't think humanity is at the stage where global voluntarism is practical.

So I'd be willing to support anything that reduces that extortion, with the ultimate goal of getting it to zero.

Ideally, I'd like no force or extortion. However, I personally believe that anarchy would lead to inevitable force and extortion by certain groups. Therefore, technically speaking, I approve of a certain, albeit extremely limited, form of force and extortion.

Also, if I were King, I'd say, "Yay! Guns for everyone!" Also, my personal body guard would have the duty of assassinating me if I were to violate Natural Law. I'd be such a great king that you'd become a neocon. ;)

Theoretically, a constitutional monarchy could work, after all.

Legend1104
10-04-2010, 10:43 PM
A 30 percent import duty.

That is all.

I agree with you on function but not form. I think a sales tax is far superior to a tarriff. Tarriffs have the disadvantage of hurting foreign trade which leads to hostility, isolation, and even in the extreme, war. Not to mention that it only benefits domestic business at others expense.

ClayTrainor
10-04-2010, 10:44 PM
I generally agree with the fact that taxation is a form of extortion, and agree with the non-agression principle.

When you say generally, do you mean that there are some occasions in which you don't agree?



However, if those of us who are not anarchists, believe that we should have a limited, proper government, then there would necessarily be some government force (albeit, not nearly the levels we see now).

What kind of force is that? Would it be the kind where some individuals get to initiate force on other individuals?


I'm not making an argument for taxation, mind you, but an argument for what could be considered accetable. If we had a flat 1% income tax, and a small government that respected the concepts of non-aggression, would we be able to live with that?

I'm able to live with the 40% income tax plus the thousands of other taxes imposed on me daily, so yes of course I could live with a 1% flat income tax with a small government. I'd still be very much against it though, and would expect to see both taxes and the government grow in size.

When you cut out 99% of your cancer, that 1% will grow back and kill you. When you cut out 100% of the cancer, your chances for survival increase drastically. The Goal should always be to remove 100%, although reducing it down to 1% would be a huge improvement.

Anti Federalist
10-04-2010, 10:46 PM
I agree with you on function but not form. I think a sales tax is far superior to a tarriff. Tarriffs have the disadvantage of hurting foreign trade which leads to hostility, isolation, and even in the extreme, war. Not to mention that it only benefits domestic business at others expense.

My position on tariffs is very clear.

;)

Philhelm
10-04-2010, 10:59 PM
When you say generally, do you mean that there are some occasions in which you don't agree?



What kind of force is that? Would it be the kind where some individuals get to initiate force on other individuals?



I'm able to live with the 40% income tax plus the thousands of other taxes imposed on me daily, so yes of course I could live with a 1% flat income tax with a small government. I'd still be very much against it though, and would expect to see both taxes and the government grow in size.

When you cut out 99% of your cancer, that 1% will grow back and kill you. When you cut out 100% of the cancer, your chances for survival increase drastically.

Excellent questions. First, when I say that I'm generally against taxation, I'll admit that I would not be so angered if it were small, and our government just. Let's say that everyone, at every level of our (much reduced) government were a Ron Paul. Would a 1% tax be so grievous? Personally, I wouldn't mind that, although I agree with the extortion part of taxation. But then, I acknowledge the difference between 1% taxation and 30% taxation.

As far as force, I do not entirely disagree with you, on principle. However, an governance necessarily depends on force, or the threat of force. I personally believe that anarchy would result in forceful factions that would not necessarily respect life, liberty, and property (or basic non-aggression principles). Because of this, I believe that governance is an necessary evil, but it should be such that it is minimal. In that respect, force would naturally be a consequence of governance.

I'd much prefer anarchy than the bullshit we have now, but I personally believe that some governance (extremely limited, mind you), and therefore force, is more beneficial in the long run.

ClayTrainor
10-04-2010, 11:05 PM
Ideally, I'd like no force or extortion. However, I personally believe that anarchy would lead to inevitable force and extortion by certain groups.

There will always be those groups, anarchy or not. The truth is, there will always be some people willing to initiate aggression and violence against others. Most anarcho-capitalists accept that some men are okay and some aren't, and that there will always be some degree of crime.

However, just because there could be some crime DOES NOT in any way justify the existence of the state. If men are good, than they need no rulers. If men are bad, than governments of men will be bad and probably worse due to the states ampilification of coercive power.



Therefore, technically speaking, I approve of a certain, albeit extremely limited, form of force and extortion.

And when this organization decides to add a tax to force you to pay for something you don't want, what do you do? Vote?

Philhelm
10-04-2010, 11:18 PM
There will always be those groups, anarchy or not. The truth is, there will always be some people willing to initiate aggression and violence against others. Most anarcho-capitalists accept that some men are okay and some aren't, and that there will always be some degree of crime.

However, just because there could be some crime DOES NOT in any way justify the existence of the state. If men are good, than they need no rulers. If men are bad, than governments of men will be bad and probably worse due to the states ampilification of coercive power.



And when this organization decides to add a tax to force you to pay for something you don't want, what do you do? Vote?

You bring up valid points, and to be honest, I simply don't know what the results would be. Don't get me wrong, I believe we are on the same team, but I'm simply wondering at which point we could realistically be satisfied. I hate the concept of taxation and government force too, but would there be a point at which we would accept it, from a more responsible government?

ClayTrainor
10-04-2010, 11:29 PM
Let's say that everyone, at every level of our (much reduced) government were a Ron Paul. Would a 1% tax be so grievous?

It would be a huge improvement, and I'd be pretty dam happy to have taxes that low, lol. However, I would even question Ron Pauls ability to take my property by coercive force, as much as i love the man.

:D



Personally, I wouldn't mind that, although I agree with the extortion part of taxation. But then, I acknowledge the difference between 1% taxation and 30% taxation.


Oh, so do I, of course. Think about how much money 1% of the entire US economy is though. Your plan to "protect life liberty and property" seems to imply that we need to create or have a multibillion dollar organization with the ability to initiate aggression against people who peacefully choose not to pay them. Am I mistaken?



I'd much prefer anarchy than the bullshit we have now, but I personally believe that some governance (extremely limited, mind you), and therefore force, is more beneficial in the long run.

And I'd much prefer a limited Constitutional Government to what I'm experiencing now, but I accept that the Non-Aggression principle when respected, will always lead to more liberty and prosperity.

I'm off to bed, good talking to ya. Cheers! :)

Philhelm
10-04-2010, 11:44 PM
It would be a huge improvement, and I'd be pretty dam happy to have taxes that low, lol. However, I would even question Ron Pauls ability to take my property by coercive force, as much as i love the man.

:D



Oh, so do I, of course. Think about how much money 1% of the entire US economy is though. Your plan to "protect life liberty and property" seems to imply that we need to create or have a multibillion dollar organization with the ability to initiate aggression against people who peacefully choose not to pay them. Am I mistaken?



And I'd much prefer a limited Constitutional Government to what I'm experiencing now, but I accept that the Non-Aggression principle when respected, will always lead to more liberty and prosperity.

I'm off to bed, good talking to ya. Cheers! :)

Certainly, you win on moral grounds. However, my point is to ask at which point could we realistically expect a level of victory? As great as the liberty movement is, we are the underdog by far. Also, just as one would acknowledge the difference between a 30% tax, and a 1% tax, one would have to acknowledge the difference between a tyrannical government, and a just one. While I believe that government is necessarily evil, a less funded government is more benevolent than a more funded one; or, at least, a less funded government is less capable of committing acts of evil.

Vessol
10-04-2010, 11:52 PM
Philhelm, I would prefer what you are describing to what we have now.

It does not mean that I would think it perfect, but I do agree that it would be better.

Philhelm
10-05-2010, 12:40 AM
Philhelm, I would prefer what you are describing to what we have now.

It does not mean that I would think it perfect, but I do agree that it would be better.

No doubt. However, among those of us who believe we need some government, where is the line drawn? I'm not against anarchy, aside from the belief that tyranny would eventually emerge from it (perhaps I'm mistaken, but such is my belief). Therefore, I support a limited government that truly is there to protect the life, liberty, and property of the citizenry.

Certainly what I propose is better than what we have, but I view government as a necessary evil. Granted, if the government is too large and evil it should be abolished (That damned tree of liberty is a lush, after all ;)). We will never create a Utopia, so how much government is acceptable to liberty-minded folks?

Vessol
10-05-2010, 12:49 AM
Tyranny will emerge from a limited constitutional republic just as easily as it could emerge from a stateless society. No safeguard can be made against this. I think our own republics history can attest to this.

Philhelm
10-05-2010, 12:50 AM
Tyranny will emerge from a limited constitutional republic just as easily as it could emerge from a stateless society. No safeguard can be made against this. I think our own republics history can attest to this.

You're probably correct; however, are there certain safeguards that could have helped? I'm just thinking of brainstorm ideas here.

Vessol
10-05-2010, 12:54 AM
You're probably correct; however, are there certain safeguards that could have helped? I'm just thinking of brainstorm ideas here.

I probably link this too often, but I'll link it here again.

An excellent little paper criticizing the idea that America has slowly progressed towards Statism. It happened right at the very beginning.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/davies2.1.1.html

Perhaps if Hamilton and the Federalists were not as powerful as they were, then we would have had a short time free of a coercive state, but this would be gone within a generation.