No taxation equals no government?


Samson Corwell

Recommended Posts

As a courtesy to R of R a link would have been better. Also to Olers, for this topic is not current. It is 5 weeks old or 5 years?

--Brant

Brant,

Just for the sake of completeness, here is the RoR link to the original article: A Proposal to Completely Eliminate Federal Income Tax.

For those interested, the link to the discussion is over there is here.

The article is from Sept., 2012.

Without even reading it, I'm already friendly to the idea.

I hate coerced taxation (confiscation).

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Darrell:

Because the stockholders voluntarily bought into an enterprise that is democratically run — at least according to each stockholder's stake.

Yeah, that's what I said.

Francisco:

Since government regulations of the free market are an encroachment on property rights, pro-liberty people should be in favor of giving corporations and other property owners the means to stop or short-circuit those regulations. Treating "influencing" or "lobbying" as uniformly bad requires one to ignore all context. In fact, we should celebrate as a hero anyone who successfully influences someone else to mind his own goddamned business.

As for making all corporate decisions subject to unanimous approval of all stockholders, as soon as that insane proposal comes to pass, we shall see the end of the corporation in any meaningful sense. All it would take to put GM out of business is for a Ford employee to buy one share of GM and demand that "his" company cease automobile production immediately.

And unions, both in theory and historical practice, do not always coerce membership.

Lobbying is almost always done behind closed doors with the big money of special interest groups and is contrary to my opinion that the 'influence' on government decisions should be proportional to the amount of money contributed by individuals.

In re-reading my response I can see how you came to the conclusion that you stated. If I was of that opinion I should be treated as a troll. Of course they shouldn't and I provided an example of citizens electing Aldermen to represent them. Each and every citizen doesn't get his views executed by the mayor.

I'm not aware of any unions not requiring dues for membership. I've been a member of two unions.

Sam

Whether lobbying is done inside the Illuminati's Vault of Secrets or live on CSPAN, the principle of free speech is the same. You cannot stop representatives from talking to people and still call them "representatives." Prohibiting a corporation from making a $50 donation and allowing, say, George Soros the individual to fatten the Democrats' account by $50 million certainly makes for great humor.

Earlier, you mentioned people "forced into joining a union." In the blue states below, no one is forced to join a union or pay its dues:

RTW24_NRTWC_0.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francisco:

We should make the distinction in 'lobbying' of 'talking to people' and 'donating' to a representative or campaign. 'Talking to people' isn't what is objectionable. It's the presumed 'access' that big money has in Washington. The lobbyists get paid an enormous amount of money according to their talents as persuaders and con men and it's a contest between one side and the other to out-con the other. It doesn't result in the position of the most merit that wins. More insidiously, lobbyists (frequently representing unions) can promise a certain number of votes that can be delivered to a representative if they can take their side. (Watch 'Game of Thrones' for just that scenario.)

I concede your point about Right to Work.

Darrell:

We're pretty much on the same page but I don't see why 'cycles' should come into it. Individuals should be able to make contributions at any time and have them publicly available virtually instantly.

Any huge contribution by an individual (no corporations) to a More Fund, for instance, would be known and if it were contrary to the views of the majority of citizens they could counter by collective contributions to the Less Fund. This is an argument for donors being connected to either a More, or Less Fund. An argument against that would be that 'it's no one's business what my politics are.'

How would contributors build monuments to themselves? The politicians would be in control of how the funds were to be spent. How could George Soros get a monument built to himself? Maybe he should just do it himself like Trump built the Trump Towers. Maybe he could get an airport named after him if he donated the funds for the airport.

Sam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Darrell:

Because the stockholders voluntarily bought into an enterprise that is democratically run — at least according to each stockholder's stake.

Yeah, that's what I said.

Sorry, I didn't read your earlier comment carefully and was replying to your later comment which was unqualified.

Darrell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Earlier, you mentioned people "forced into joining a union." In the blue states below, no one is forced to join a union or pay its dues:

RTW24_NRTWC_0.gif

I'm not sure what you mean about people being forced to join a union, but I know that Colorado is not a closed shop state. It isn't a right to work state either. It's sort of half-way in between.

Darrell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're pretty much on the same page but I don't see why 'cycles' should come into it. Individuals should be able to make contributions at any time and have them publicly available virtually instantly.

Any huge contribution by an individual (no corporations) to a More Fund, for instance, would be known and if it were contrary to the views of the majority of citizens they could counter by collective contributions to the Less Fund. This is an argument for donors being connected to either a More, or Less Fund. An argument against that would be that 'it's no one's business what my politics are.'

How would contributors build monuments to themselves? The politicians would be in control of how the funds were to be spent. How could George Soros get a monument built to himself? Maybe he should just do it himself like Trump built the Trump Towers. Maybe he could get an airport named after him if he donated the funds for the airport.

Hi Sam,

I'm not sure if understand how your system is supposed to work.

Let's say there was a raging debate about how much money should be spent on defense with both sides donating large sums of money in order to win the argument. In the end, it might turn out that the More fund had slightly more than the Less fund. If I understand correctly, that would imply that a small amount of money would be spent on defense. In the mean time, both funds would have large amounts of money in them that would just sit there unused. Or, am I not understanding something?

My system would work much the same as the current system except that it would be much harder for the politicians to spend other people's money.

One way to attract donations would be to offer to build monuments to the largest donors or put their names on the cornerstones of a new buildings that they helped fund. Of course, people could build their own monuments to themselves, but a plaque on the side of a building demonstrating how much they cared about the Republic would seem much more desirable than a self-aggrandizing monument. Trump has been ridiculed for naming a building after himself, but donors to universities are rarely ridiculed for donating money for the construction of a new building with their name on it.

Placing a plaque on the side of building is a token of appreciation from the recipients of the funds. Placing one's own name on a building is like saying, "I appreciate myself."

Joke I heard many years ago:

Donald Trump decided to name himself after himself. He is now Trump T. Trump.

There is a difference between being proud of oneself and being full of oneself and a lot of people seemed to think Trump belonged in the latter category.

So, yes, an airport might be named after someone if he donated the funds to build it. But it might also be named after him if he donated a lot of money to fund the government in general.

Darrell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's say there was a raging debate about how much money should be spent on defense with both sides donating large sums of money in order to win the argument. In the end, it might turn out that the More fund had slightly more than the Less fund. If I understand correctly, that would imply that a small amount of money would be spent on defense. In the mean time, both funds would have large amounts of money in them that would just sit there unused. Or, am I not understanding something?

Expenditures could only come out of the More fund. If it becomes depleted because of apathy then the fund would be closed and either the donations to the Less fund could be returned to the donors entirely or give the donors the option of re-allocating them. It would be inconceivable that the Defense Fund or the Justice Fund would ever be depleted.

I suppose that if a person were to say, "I'll donate a battleship to the Defense (More) Fund if you will name it after me" that somehow it should be accommodated. :-) But, yes, I think that naming a structure or whatever after a patriot or public benefactor is entirely appropriate. The politician sponsoring it would suffer the public wrath if it were inappropriate.

Sam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francisco:

We should make the distinction in 'lobbying' of 'talking to people' and 'donating' to a representative or campaign. 'Talking to people' isn't what is objectionable. It's the presumed 'access' that big money has in Washington. The lobbyists get paid an enormous amount of money according to their talents as persuaders and con men and it's a contest between one side and the other to out-con the other. It doesn't result in the position of the most merit that wins. More insidiously, lobbyists (frequently representing unions) can promise a certain number of votes that can be delivered to a representative if they can take their side. (Watch 'Game of Thrones' for just that scenario.)

I concede your point about Right to Work.

Any attempt to lay down regulations against lobbying will constitute a violation of First Amendment rights. Moreover, any attempt to stipulate who is big money or little money, connected or non-connected, insider or outsider could never be based on any rational criteria.

Joe knows somebody who knows somebody, and because he speaks only for himself (supposedly), he'll have no trouble getting in to talk to Senator Bomb.

Jill's a paid spokeswoman for the John Galt Society, but that makes her a lobbyist, and Senator Bomb's office is off limits to her.

If the goal is simply to get rid of people who "get paid an enormous amount of money according to their talents as persuaders and con men," then editorial writers, talk show hosts, and TV commentators will have to be threatened with prison terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said, "Talking to people isn't what's objectionable." If it is merely talking then Senator Bomb won't entertain Joe more than Jill if there is no quid pro quo. I've never suggested that lobbying should be prohibited and I would oppose it.

My proposal is centered on a way to fund the government without taxation and be replaced by voluntary donations. It doesn't go beyond that into revamping the political system.

Sam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said, "Talking to people isn't what's objectionable." If it is merely talking then Senator Bomb won't entertain Joe more than Jill if there is no quid pro quo. I've never suggested that lobbying should be prohibited and I would oppose it.

My proposal is centered on a way to fund the government without taxation and be replaced by voluntary donations. It doesn't go beyond that into revamping the political system.

Sam

But practically speaking this country is too big to begin with for this approach. I read once that Leonard Peikoff posited the best size for a country is the city-state as in ancient Greece.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joke I heard many years ago:

Donald Trump decided to name himself after himself. He is now Trump T. Trump.

There is a difference between being proud of oneself and being full of oneself and a lot of people seemed to think Trump belonged in the latter category.

Maybe he's proud of himself for being full of himself.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Furthermore, Rand and Brook would call for these justice-providing services to be rendered to Jeweler A at no cost to him. The expense of investigating, solving and adjudicating robberies would be covered by the fees that financial institutions and merchants such as Jeweler B must pay to have their contracts enforced.

You are in error. You have no basis for positing what Ayn Rand (or Yaron Brook) would say because you do not know what she actually did write. Read "Government Financing in a Free Society" in The Virtue of Selfishness. Rand specifically explained why the government is not the unpaid servant of anyone and everyone.

As for paying insurance (or not), Rand was clear that the proposal was illustrative - and illustrative only. It was meant to open the door to critical thinking about a difficult topic. "The question of how to implement the principle of voluntary government financing--how to determine the best means of applying it in practice--is a very complex one and belongs to the field of the philosophy of law."

Moreover, Rand insisted that such a discussion would be appropriate to the final stages of the creation of a free society. She paid her taxes. She never said that you should not pay yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The following was posted on the Rebirth of Reason forum and I think it is relevant to the current topic here. The resultant discussion wasn't heated but there were no outright dismissals of the proposal. I believe that this complies with all of the values of Objectivism and, indeed, Libertarianism.

A Proposal to Completely Eliminate Federal Income Tax

by Paul Hibbert

In order to make my case consider the purest and cleanest conditions — the more general case can be expanded later. Libertarians will generally agree that the only legitimate form of government is one that protects individual rights, that is: a system of justice, including courts of law, police, judges and prisons, and defense of the nation from invasion and imminent threat. Therefore, for the time being, consider just those two branches: Justice and Defense.

Thanks for posting. I did not remember this from RoR. It is an interesting proposal. It reminds me of the writings of E. C. Riegel.

I do have another argument on a point. It does not change your thesis. Prisons are a bad idea. They are not integral to criminal justice, but only a historical accident.

(And welcome to OL.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael:

As bad as prisons might be, do you have any suggestions as to how we can temporarily or permanently separate wrong-doers from the rest of society (short of executing them?) House arrest with ankle bracelets? I don't think so.

Sam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sam, do not close the door before the discussion begins. House arrest and ankle bracelets do work. They are not for everyone. They are not necessary for everyone. The people you call "wrong-doers" are not a special class. Everyone commits harms. The only questions are: Whom did you hurt? And: What are you going to do about it?

I am working on a longer answer. I have been at it for three hours. So, I am going to take some time away from the keyboard. However, I will have an article for the Politics Forum on "Alternatives to Prison." We can discuss it there.

Thanks.

MEM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael:

As bad as prisons might be, do you have any suggestions as to how we can temporarily or permanently separate wrong-doers from the rest of society (short of executing them?) House arrest with ankle bracelets? I don't think so.

Sam

This is almost beyond simple, and I don't mean to complexity. Most people in prisons have no business there at all. Get them out, then address the rest. The alternative is spinning hypotheticals of no use whatsoever in anyone's lifetime reading them now.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Furthermore, Rand and Brook would call for these justice-providing services to be rendered to Jeweler A at no cost to him. The expense of investigating, solving and adjudicating robberies would be covered by the fees that financial institutions and merchants such as Jeweler B must pay to have their contracts enforced.

You are in error. You have no basis for positing what Ayn Rand (or Yaron Brook) would say because you do not know what she actually did write. Read "Government Financing in a Free Society" in The Virtue of Selfishness. Rand specifically explained why the government is not the unpaid servant of anyone and everyone.

Then a jeweler would be billed for the costs of tracking down and prosecuting a necklace thief? A woman would be billed for the cost of tracking down and prosecuting down her rapist? Why is that not mentioned in "Government Financing in a Free Society" or anywhere else in Rand's works?

You say "Read 'Government Financing in a Free Society.'" Let's do. This is what she actually did write:

When one considers the magnitude of the wealth involved in credit transactions, one can see that the percentage required to pay for such governmental insurance would be infinitesimal—much smaller than that paid for other types of insurance—yet it would be sufficient to finance all the other functions of a proper government. [my emphasis]

Clearly then such "other functions of a proper government" as rounding up jewel thieves and rapists would be paid for by a tax on "credit transactions" to ensure their enforcement.

The government would not be an unpaid servant. But that does not mean the people it served would necessarily be the ones paying.

As for paying insurance (or not), Rand was clear that the proposal was illustrative - and illustrative only. It was meant to open the door to critical thinking about a difficult topic. "The question of how to implement the principle of voluntary government financing--how to determine the best means of applying it in practice--is a very complex one and belongs to the field of the philosophy of law."

Moreover, Rand insisted that such a discussion would be appropriate to the final stages of the creation of a free society. She paid her taxes. She never said that you should not pay yours.

"Illustrative" of what? Of a system that allows one part of society to benefit from the costs paid by another part of society? "Critical thinking?" Well, she succeeded. My thinking on her suggestion was quite critical.

And why, I ask, must we wait until the "final stages" of the welfare state to talk about getting rid of taxes? Randites repeat this as an article of faith with no explanation. Depriving government of its source of revenue is the surest way to force the welfare state into its final stages.

Starve the beast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As the discussion here is "No taxation equals no government?" consider the fact that the government can and does spend more than it takes in. They can keep taxes down by issuing more money to meet their expenses.

Governments also charge fees for their services. It costs money to file for incorporation, to get copies of documents (beyond the mere cost of production), even to register your career if you are a barber, surveyor, interior decorator, or any of a hundred others. You pay to license your pets. In the USA air traffic control and aviation weather service are free; in Canada, they cost. The US FAA also has a special "overflight fee" for aircraft that do not land in the USA. Airports charge landing fees; but they are usually waived for private general aviation, though not always.

All of those are examples of people paying for government services.

The difference in Ayn Rand's proposal was that those would be voluntary. (Here and now, if you want to work legally as a fingernail technician, you have to pay the fees for licensing and registration.) Rand illustrated one kind of voluntary fee. She left it to us to come up with others.

FF: Then a jeweler would be billed for the costs of tracking down and prosecuting a necklace thief? A woman would be billed for the cost of tracking down and prosecuting down her rapist? Why is that not mentioned in "Government Financing in a Free Society" or anywhere else in Rand's works?

If you have a ouija board, you can ask her. Otherwise, you have to live with what was written or said and make the best of that. Ayn Rand and Frank O'Connor had cats as pets. She never explained why. Myself, I believe that it was because cats are individualists while dogs are slobbering altruists with collectivism in their mangy genes. A dog will love you more than you love yourself. Why did she not write that? ("I am calling for Alice… Can you hear me Alice? … You are welcome here, Alice…" I felt the table move!! She's here! She's here!)

Seriously, you know, you could follow that idea (charging for police services) on your own and post it here as an essay. A rigorous treatment might even be accepted by JARS.

Ferrer, you are easily one of the very best trolls we have had the pleasure to interact with. You are a cut above the usual anti-Rand anti-Objectivsm hangers on. Thanks for playing. If you contact me via private message with a mailing address, I have prize for you, no kidding: a penny for your thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ferrer, you are easily one of the very best trolls we have had the pleasure to interact with. You are a cut above the usual anti-Rand anti-Objectivsm hangers on. Thanks for playing. If you contact me via private message with a mailing address, I have prize for you, no kidding: a penny for your thoughts.

He's a better troll than you are for he doesn't do hit and runs and sticks to the subject at hand.

--Brant

in fact he's not a troll and your trolling is somewhat dubious, but to disagree with Rand and Objectivism in part means trolling and anti-Rand and anti-Objectivism is silly especially from any "empiricist" because Rand was argumentively a bedrock deductionist who used data to support her conclusions as necessary and once there then ran up and down the deductionist-empiricist ladder obscuring this fact

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marotta,

If I am a troll, then you've been dealing with me long before "troll," in the sense you use it, was invented. Four decades ago, under a less distinguished moniker, I contributed regularly to Skye d'Aureous and Natalee Hall's Libertarian Connection.

--Francisco

Regarding your response:

The difference in Ayn Rand's proposal was that those would be voluntary. (Here and now, if you want to work legally as a fingernail technician, you have to pay the fees for licensing and registration.) Rand illustrated one kind of voluntary fee. She left it to us to come up with others.

The fee is not voluntary if you are forbidden to seek justice (i.e., recovery of what is rightfully owed to you) by any means other than the monopoly insurer of all contracts, namely the government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marotta,

If I am a troll, then you've been dealing with me long before "troll," in the sense you use it, was invented. Four decades ago, under a less distinguished moniker, I contributed regularly to Skye d'Aureous and Natalee Hall's Libertarian Connection.

--Francisco

Regarding your response:

The difference in Ayn Rand's proposal was that those would be voluntary. (Here and now, if you want to work legally as a fingernail technician, you have to pay the fees for licensing and registration.) Rand illustrated one kind of voluntary fee. She left it to us to come up with others.

The fee is not voluntary if you are forbidden to seek justice (i.e., recovery of what is rightfully owed to you) by any means other than the monopoly insurer of all contracts, namely the government.

I started on the "Internet" over 25 years ago when all I had was a dial up connection to "Ft Freedom." (Google my name and Ft Freedom.) How did you do anything four decades ago in the mid-70s?

So now we know your name is neither "Francisco" nor "Ferrer"?

--Brant

I did "The John Galt Line" in the early 1990s; it may have morphed into the original "Atlantis," but I don't know, but only Peter Taylor has a substantial archive of that and no one I know of has any "John Galt," so beware this electronic stuff will eventually disappear

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marotta,

If I am a troll, then you've been dealing with me long before "troll," in the sense you use it, was invented. Four decades ago, under a less distinguished moniker, I contributed regularly to Skye d'Aureous and Natalee Hall's Libertarian Connection.

As we know each other from LC, then one or both of us failed a Turing Test. Hidden behind your new name, your work sounded like that of many others who have come and gone. They came to engage and mostly argue against Objectivism. Among the best of them were Dragonfly and Ted Keer, and there were others. Like you, they were insightful, knowledgeable, and challenging. But at some level it just wears thin. OTOH, Selene is not doctrinaire; and I do disagree with him. But he does not care one way or the other. He is not here to engage. He is here to present. Boydstun, Campbell, and a few others are like that. They offer deep content but do not care much to argue back and forth.

So, granted that you deserve more respect than I accorded you at first, allow me to apologize, so that we can move on.

The fee is not voluntary if you are forbidden to seek justice (i.e., recovery of what is rightfully owed to you) by any means other than the monopoly insurer of all contracts, namely the government.

We cannot argue about what Ayn Rand did not say. Private adjudication is a lacuna in her thin political theory. She never regarded politics as important as so many of her admirers today do. She did say that the most important social changes must be philosophical. That will lead to the political changes. Rand did devote much time and effort to political commentary, but most often to illustrate moral or epistemological truths.

To me, if you did not pay the government fee, then you cannot go to a government court; but you are perfectly free to seek justice any other way, except by force. Wolf Devoon has strong arguments on why government must have the power of coercion for the courts to work at all. But, again, Rand said nothing about that, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now