|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 7, 2014 10:55:48 GMT -5
But they are. Once the principle of "The Government should do something" is established, there is no end. The "iron law of bureaucracy" tells us that government agencies will keep expanding their reach and their power. As proof, just look how government and government agencies have grown in the past 60 years. So you're an anarchist now? LOL! Of course not. I'm a Minarchist. Reduce government functions to the minimum. Are you claiming we should let government grow and grow? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2014 21:19:39 GMT -5
Bob, you just said "Once the principle of "The Government should do something" is established, there is no end."
Do you include libertarianism in this, or does this only go for non-libertarian claims that the government should do something?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 7, 2014 22:40:57 GMT -5
Bob, you just said "Once the principle of "The Government should do something" is established, there is no end." Do you include libertarianism in this, or does this only go for non-libertarian claims that the government should do something? The Libertarian view is that the government should do as little as possible. That is different from insisting that the government should always be doing something more. Is it your opinion that the government should grow larger and more powerful? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2014 1:45:58 GMT -5
The Libertarian view is that the government should do as little as possible. Really? I thought the libertarian view was that the government should protect life, property, and business.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 8, 2014 23:26:32 GMT -5
The Libertarian view is that the government should do as little as possible. Really? I thought the libertarian view was that the government should protect life, property, and business. Life and property, yes. Business gets protected only as property. No special favors. And that's the most it should do. No corporate welfare. No paying farmers to not grow crops. A minimized military whose only purpose is defense and not aggressive intervention. Do you disagree with any of that? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2014 14:25:22 GMT -5
Really? I thought the libertarian view was that the government should protect life, property, and business. Life and property, yes. Business gets protected only as property. No special favors. And that's the most it should do. No corporate welfare. No paying farmers to not grow crops. A minimized military whose only purpose is defense and not aggressive intervention. Do you disagree with any of that? Bob Why would the military be minimized? It's the government's job to protect its citizens' property across the world to the best of its abilities. So if a foreign government threatens to nationalize companies that hold American investment money, a Libertarian government would be compelled to intervene regardless. And "no special favors" does not follow from your premises. Since tax cuts and tax loopholes don't count as "corporate welfare", nothing stops a Libertarian government from cutting taxes, or creating new loopholes or tax exemptions as special favors to their supporters.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 14, 2014 15:50:37 GMT -5
Life and property, yes. Business gets protected only as property. No special favors. And that's the most it should do. No corporate welfare. No paying farmers to not grow crops. A minimized military whose only purpose is defense and not aggressive intervention. Do you disagree with any of that? Bob Why would the military be minimized? It's the government's job to protect its citizens' property across the world to the best of its abilities. So if a foreign government threatens to nationalize companies that hold American investment money, a Libertarian government would be compelled to intervene regardless. Who says it's the government's job to protect citizen's property across the world? No Libertarian writer that I'm familiar with. A large military is a temptation to politicians to engage in foreign wars. That's why the military should be minimized. Yes it does. Under a Libertarian government, minimization of taxes would be one of the first steps and it will apply to everyone. There will be few opportunities after that to cut taxes further. For example, the top priority in the Libertarian Party platform is to eliminate the income tax. No tax = no possibility of cutting taxes further = no need for loopholes. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2014 18:59:45 GMT -5
Why would the military be minimized? It's the government's job to protect its citizens' property across the world to the best of its abilities. So if a foreign government threatens to nationalize companies that hold American investment money, a Libertarian government would be compelled to intervene regardless. Who says it's the government's job to protect citizen's property across the world? No Libertarian writer that I'm familiar with. A large military is a temptation to politicians to engage in foreign wars. That's why the military should be minimized. Why would a libertarian government minimize their ability to protect their citizens' property? That's still of plenty opportunities for loopholes and tax exemptions. No income tax = tax exemption for the middle class, while the bottom 50% continue to suffer from VATs and consumption taxes.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 14, 2014 19:58:48 GMT -5
Who says it's the government's job to protect citizen's property across the world? No Libertarian writer that I'm familiar with. A large military is a temptation to politicians to engage in foreign wars. That's why the military should be minimized. Why would a libertarian government minimize their ability to protect their citizens' property? A government rules only one country, not other people's country. How? If the income tax is eliminated, how can you have loopholes or exemptions? There is no need for them. And since a Libertarian government has lowered expenses, there is less need for taxes. Fewer taxes means fewer chances for loopholes and exemptions. Here in New York, we already have no sales tax on food. That helps the poor. And under a Libertarian government, taxes would be lower since the government spends less. BTW, who says that we have to have a VAT or consumption tax? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2014 15:54:50 GMT -5
Does the US Constitution require a military or a police force? AFAIK, the US Constitution sets the limits for the power of a federal government, not whether these powers should be exercised in the first place.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2014 16:04:19 GMT -5
Why would a libertarian government minimize their ability to protect their citizens' property? A government rules only one country, not other people's country. But a libertarian government must protect its citizens' property. If that property comes under threat, it's the government's duty to defend it. How? If the income tax is eliminated, how can you have loopholes or exemptions? There is no need for them. And since a Libertarian government has lowered expenses, there is less need for taxes. Fewer taxes means fewer chances for loopholes and exemptions.[/quote] And more tax cuts mean more chances for loopholes and exemptions. Selectively lowering taxes and restrictions for your own supporters is one of the oldest tricks in politics. How do the state of New York and the city of New York earn money? Well, I presumed that you are imagining a functioning government capable of maintaining a balanced budget. That means you have to have some sort of income for that government. AKA "taxes".
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 16, 2014 19:27:41 GMT -5
Does the US Constitution require a military or a police force? AFAIK, the US Constitution sets the limits for the power of a federal government, not whether these powers should be exercised in the first place. It's a little difficult to "provide for the common defense" without an army, isn't it? Unless of course you have a better way to suggest. Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 16, 2014 19:37:21 GMT -5
A government rules only one country, not other people's country. But a libertarian government must protect its citizens' property. If that property comes under threat, it's the government's duty to defend it. In the country, yes. Not out of the country. Unless you are trying to revive extraterritoriality. Eliminating the income tax is NOT "selectively lowering." Elimination is not selective. They tax just about everything else! I was just mentioning this particular exemption as one method of reducing the strain on the poor. Yes, but why does it have to be a VAT? Actually, a consumption tax might not be such a bad idea. It would encourage savings. And there could be an exemption for the first few thousands of dollars so that people could would not be taxed for buying necessities. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2014 19:14:33 GMT -5
But a libertarian government must protect its citizens' property. If that property comes under threat, it's the government's duty to defend it. In the country, yes. Not out of the country. Why not? Property is property, and the government has a duty to defend all of it. No? Eliminating the income tax is NOT "selectively lowering." Elimination is not selective.[/quote] Sure it is. We aren't talking about eliminating ALL taxes, are we? So those taxes that bother libertarian voters the most will get cut first, and the other taxes are going to be cut "eventually". Sure, sounds good. How likely is that though when you have people considering any form of progressive taxation an evil oppression of "job creators"? Well, you're going to have to find some source of revenue that matches public expenditures in scale. I just mentioned VAT because it is a regressive tax, and libertarians love regressive taxes because they only really screw over poor people. But at any rate, no matter what the Libertarian Party of America may claim, you can't run a national government on charity donations (unless we are talking about a very small country, and very large donations ).
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 17, 2014 22:54:48 GMT -5
In the country, yes. Not out of the country. Why not? Property is property, and the government has a duty to defend all of it. No? No. If you visit another country and are robbed, would you expect Austria to send a police investigator? Wrong again. The Libertarian Party favors only taxes mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, and those are very few. But eliminating taxes on food isn't selective. It affects everyone uniformly. Ho hum. Argument by slander. No, Libertarians don't love to screw over poor people. And when it comes to screwing poor people, we would be amateurs compared to the government. Actually, Libertarians don't like the VAT. And this: danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2010/02/18/a-value-added-tax-is-not-the-answer-unless-the-question-is-how-to-finance-bigger-government/And this. Apparently the VAT is hidden so it can be increased without people becoming aware of the increase. As I mentioned before, the Libertarian Party wants to limit federal taxes to those specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2014 14:42:54 GMT -5
As I mentioned before, the Libertarian Party wants to limit federal taxes to those specifically mentioned in the Constitution. That includes the federal income tax, no?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 18, 2014 15:20:14 GMT -5
As I mentioned before, the Libertarian Party wants to limit federal taxes to those specifically mentioned in the Constitution. That includes the federal income tax, no? The ORIGINAL Constitution. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2014 13:36:01 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2014 15:37:10 GMT -5
Tut, tut. Don't embarrass Bob.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 19, 2014 17:57:04 GMT -5
The subject under discussion taxation. But of course you couldn't resist the opportunity for some more strawmen. Your implications here are totally false, but I think you already knew that. What sort of government would you like to see, BTW? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2014 20:33:39 GMT -5
So what libertarians really want to do is cherry pick from the constitution those parts they like. So which parts of the US constitution or the Bill of Rights are considered expendable?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 19, 2014 23:12:56 GMT -5
So what libertarians really want to do is cherry pick from the constitution those parts they like. So which parts of the US constitution or the Bill of Rights are considered expendable? Yes. And that is bad because...? The original constitution was designed to limit the scope of government because, historically, governments had been the biggest violator of human rights. So the original taxes authorized would work just fine. As for the Bill of Rights, Libertarians give it unwavering support. But what are your opinions on the subject of government? What sort of government would you like to see in place? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2014 16:37:50 GMT -5
So what libertarians really want to do is cherry pick from the constitution those parts they like. So which parts of the US constitution or the Bill of Rights are considered expendable? Yes. And that is bad because...? The original constitution was designed to limit the scope of government because, historically, governments had been the biggest violator of human rights. So the original taxes authorized would work just fine. As for the Bill of Rights, Libertarians give it unwavering support. Did the original 1781 constitution actually authorize any taxes at all? It was my impression that the reason why the early US government used import tariffs as a primary revenue stream was because it wasn't really allowed to raise money with any other method. Wasn't it Lincoln who introduced the first real taxes to the US, during the US Civil War? I don't really think that the exact form of government is really all that important, because as far as I can tell, when it comes to actual practical governance, what matters much more is who controls the important centres of power, how they maintain that control, and to what ends. The reason why government is dangerous at all is because influence over governance grants influence over a large number of very dangerous institutions - the military, the police, the apparatus of justice, the clandestine services, political security etc. Those are the core of what's dangerous about governments, not social services that allow unemployed people to live their lives sheltered and fed. Ideally, I would like a government where these centres of power are as widely dispersed as possible, so that no single entity or organization has much influence over the population at large. The problem with that is that this also makes for a very inefficient and badly managed government, which is the exact opposite of what I want. What I would settle for is public services that are set up so as to be primarily responsible and responsive to the people they are serving, and for the bureaucrats that run them to be directly responsible to the population at large. As for military and police, to me the police ought to be run as a public service organization like any other, since that is what they supposedly are. And since I'm a pacifist, I don't believe that militaries serve a sensible function beyond destruction and terror in the first place. But, again, I do not see the problem in the scale or scope of government. The problem lies in those who exert influence over others, regardless of whether these people sit in a government or not.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 20, 2014 22:54:03 GMT -5
Yes. And that is bad because...? The original constitution was designed to limit the scope of government because, historically, governments had been the biggest violator of human rights. So the original taxes authorized would work just fine. As for the Bill of Rights, Libertarians give it unwavering support. Did the original 1781 constitution actually authorize any taxes at all? Yes. Article One, Section 8. What gave you that impression? Excise taxes are also authorized. I can agree with that, except for the first part. There can be a big difference between an absolute dictatorship and a democracy where human rights are protected. Agreed. Actually, those social services are part of the problem as well. Those same coercive services are the ones that forcibly take money from those who produce and distribute it to those who don't. That money itself is frequently used to buy the votes of the people who receive the payments. What's worse is the government now has established the right to take money from producers at will. Once that right is established, where does it end? In theory, government now has the right to everything everyone produces. We have concrete examples of this happening right now in Argentina (where the government recently seized all pensions) and Venezuela, where a few months ago the government seized all appliance stores, imprisoned the managers for "profiteering", and held a sale of all appliances at half price or less. Of course the stores sold out very quickly, but now the shelves are empty and there is no one left to restock them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2014 6:50:09 GMT -5
Cutting social services does not make social services more efficient, it just makes it so that there is less of them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2014 6:51:41 GMT -5
So you don't mind it that there are people who have the power to kill you? But it bothers you when these same people have the power to give some of your money to poor people?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 22, 2014 18:28:11 GMT -5
Cutting social services does not make social services more efficient, it just makes it so that there is less of them. But social services is not something government should be doing to begin with. This is true for several reasons. 1) It's nothing more than Robbing Peter to Pay Paul. Oh yes, the government is doing this to "help the poor." As you well know, most of the things government does are covered with the propaganda that their action is being done for some sort of "noble purpose." Of course, this is no more than Orwellian doublespeak. 2) It buys votes for politicians. People on the receiving end are more likely to vote for the politicians who passed the law. At the end of the day, all we have is another pressure group. 3) What evidence is there that government is better at providing social services than private charitable organizations? Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Mar 22, 2014 18:33:42 GMT -5
So you don't mind it that there are people who have the power to kill you? LOL! How did you possibly reach that conclusion from what I wrote above? Yes, and it should bother you too. The key here is that other people have the power to take your money. Once they can do that, they can then take your money for any purpose they like. That includes increasing their power to kill you! As for then giving some of your money to poor people, why can't you do that yourself by contributing to a private charity? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2014 22:18:17 GMT -5
Cutting social services does not make social services more efficient, it just makes it so that there is less of them. But social services is not something government should be doing to begin with. And I think warfare is not something that governments should be doing. Why is it okay to take your money in order to destroy the lives of other people, but it is terrible to use that same money to help people in poverty or illness? 1) Do you have any evidence at that unemployment subsidies don't go to people who are unemployed? Do you have any evidence that welfare doesn't go to poor people? If not, why are you trying to claim that people who support public welfare are lying about it? 2) Does that mean that you are opposed to all forms of taxation? Robbing Peter to pay Paul is exactly what happens when your beloved Libertarians use excise taxes to maintain their military and their police forces, their secret services and their surveillance specialists. Why is robbing Peter to pay for the military okay and moral, but robbing Peter to pay for welfare is evil and immoral? So you are saying that all the people who receive welfare will always vote for the party currently in power? Do you have any evidence that this is actually the case? Since there has been no point in history where a private charitable organization ever provided social services at the scale of a modern welfare state, I'm not sure if that question can be answered.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2014 22:25:35 GMT -5
So you don't mind it that there are people who have the power to kill you? LOL! How did you possibly reach that conclusion from what I wrote above? Because you said yourself that you are a minarchist, and that you believe that military and police are necessary. i.e. those institutions that are in fact capable of killing you. But you don't seem to have a problem with governments that increase their power to kill you. You are convinced that even a minimal state absolutely needs a military and a police force, while rejecting social services and infrastructure as evil and unnecessary. In other words, you believe that it is necessary that your government has the power to kill you at any moment, but oppose the very idea that your government ought to have the power to help you. False dichotomy. There is no reason that you can't contribute to private charities while simultaneously supporting a comprehensive welfare state, and there is no evidence that people give less just because they live in a state with extensive social services.
|
|