Anarcho-capitalism VS Objectivism

[Gary Fisher]

@Selene

So, if you tax a person earning $100, $30, that taxed citizen, based on your assumption would that $30 get back many times over.

Economics is not that simple. If you tax people at 0%, you have no budget to work with, and if you tax people at 100%, then you have no economy to speak of. The right amount of taxation is in between these two extremes.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Considering that businessmen are the producers in this society and considering how much we pay in taxes, I think we should get to decide how this country is run.

Gary,

Which among "we" are you talking about?

I, myself, don't like taxes. I would eliminate them.

For some reason, I am excluded from your "we."

So who are you actually talking about who is to decide what to do with my property--the part they want to take, that is?

That sounds hostile, but my intent is not.

btw - I noticed you didn't answer whether you would agree to eliminating taxes if it passed in law or whether you would work to undermine that law.

Michael

[Gary Fisher]

@Michael

I mean "we" as in all of us who are "well-born".

Well, like I said, if it ever got to the point where government was controlled by the majority I would probably leave the country long before then, regardless of their tax policies.

If today, a bill was introduced into Congress to eliminate taxes, I would definitely oppose it. An underfunded government would not be able to do a lot of the things that are necessary for the preservation of capitalism in America.

[Selene]

@Selene

So, if you tax a person earning $100, $30, that taxed citizen, based on your assumption would that $30 get back many times over.

Economics is not that simple. If you tax people at 0%, you have no budget to work with, and if you tax people at 100%, then you have no economy to speak of. The right amount of taxation is in between these two extremes.

So extorting half a citizen's production is OK in your scenario?

[Gary Fisher]

@Selene

Well what's the alternative?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I mean "we" as in all of us who are "well-born".

Gary,

I don't understand this.

I am not well born?

What is unwell born?

Michael

[Gary Fisher]

@Michael

I don't know if you're well-born or not. Basically, it's just someone who is upper-class.

[Wolf DeVoon]

"Don't bother to examine a folly -- just ask yourself what it accomplishes."

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If today, a bill was introduced into Congress to eliminate taxes, I would definitely oppose it. An underfunded government would not be able to do a lot of the things that are necessary for the preservation of capitalism in America.

Gary,

So you don't believe it is possible to fund a government correctly without it confiscating property from citizens?

Actually the confiscation is camouflaged a bit because you are give the opportunity to pay "voluntarily" what the IRS determines you have to pay. If you don't "volunteer," then they will seize it by force.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I don't know if you're well-born or not. Basically, it's just someone who is upper-class.

Gary,

Do I understand you to say that only the upper class should rule America?

I base this question on you saying: "I think we should get to decide how this country is run," then saying "I mean 'we' as in all of us who are 'well-born'," then defining well-born as "just someone who is upper-class."

That is your position?

Really?

Michael

[Gary Fisher]

@MichaelI don't believe anything except compulsory taxation will work. In the Middle Ages, Kings had to go around their kingdom and ask lords for money to fund their wars. Lords were only obligated to provide levies, but not money. They were especially reluctant to pay taxes during peace time, and come war time, there often wouldn't be enough money to pay for the provision of the army. Kings either had to make taxation compulsory or else shoulder the entire burden of defending the country and pay for it out of their own pockets.

Gary, Do I understand you to say that only the upper class should rule America? I base this question on you saying: "I think we should get to decide how this country is run," then saying "I mean 'we' as in all of us who are 'well-born'," then defining well-born as "just someone who is upper-class." That is your position? Really?

I wouldn't use the word "rule". If freedom consists in a republican form of government and respect for private property, then only those who own property can protect freedom.If you give control of the government over to the majority, guess what's the first thing to go.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Gary,

Get a little more familiar with the ideas and we'll discuss this further.

There are some assumptions you are making that wiser voices have answered far better than I could.

Here's a premise to check, though. You said, "If freedom consists in a republican form of government and respect for private property, then only those who own property can protect freedom." And you imply only they should.

Does your comment apply to slaveholders early during the first half of our country's development?

I agree that a simple majority turns into a lynch mob real fast. But rule by an elite class, a landed gentry so to speak, turns into tyranny just as fast.

What is missing from your considerations?

Can you think of something?

Michael

[Gary Fisher]

@Michael

Does your comment apply to slaveholders early during the first half of our country's development?

I think we can both agree that slaveholders did not respect the rights of their slaves.

I agree that a simple majority turns into a lynch mob real fast. But rule by an elite class, a landed gentry so to speak, turns into tyranny just as fast.

What you call "rule by an elite class", the founders and I would call "self-government". If you consider self-government a form of tyranny, and rule by the majority is also tyranny, then there is only tyranny.

What is missing from your considerations? Can you think of something?

Probably a lot of things. But I can't fit all of them into a single post in a reasonable amount of time.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Gary,

That self-government of yours seems to ignore a lot of selves since you only want the landed gentry among the selves that do the actual governing of everyone...

But come on.

You don't want to take a guess what might be missing from your proposition?

Not even an itsy-bitsy little two-word phrase?

Here's a clue.

One starts with "I" and the other starts with "R."

Michael

[Gary Fisher]

@Michael

That self-government of yours seems to ignore a lot of selves since you only want the landed gentry among the selves that do the actual governing of everyone...

We're not "landed gentry", we're the producers. I don't see how you can avoid a tyranny of the majority unless you take matters into your own hands and lobby politicians to oppose legislation which robs the rich to give to the poor or that undermines this country's national security. Are you saying that the wealthy shouldn't be allowed to lobby politicians and organize in order to represent their interests in government? If you're not, then you support the exact same kind of self-government that I do.

One starts with "I" and the other starts with "R."

Individual rights? I consider individual rights to go hand in hand with property rights. Once you allow that the products of a man's mind and labor are his own, everything else follows. I don't see how anything I advocate is at all at odds with individual rights.

[Selene]

@Michael

That self-government of yours seems to ignore a lot of selves since you only want the landed gentry among the selves that do the actual governing of everyone...

We're not "landed gentry", we're the producers. I don't see how you can avoid a tyranny of the majority unless you take matters into your own hands and lobby politicians to oppose legislation which robs the rich to give to the poor or that undermines this country's national security. Are you saying that the wealthy shouldn't be allowed to lobby politicians and organize in order to represent their interests in government? If you're not, then you support the exact same kind of self-government that I do.

One starts with "I" and the other starts with "R."

Individual rights? I consider individual rights to go hand in hand with property rights. Once you allow that the products of a man's mind and labor are his own, everything else follows. I don't see how anything I advocate is at all at odds with individual rights.

So, you are a Platonist. Got it.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

We're not "landed gentry", we're the producers. I don't see how you can avoid a tyranny of the majority unless you take matters into your own hands and lobby politicians to oppose legislation which robs the rich to give to the poor or that undermines this country's national security. Are you saying that the wealthy shouldn't be allowed to lobby politicians and organize in order to represent their interests in government? If you're not, then you support the exact same kind of self-government that I do.

Gary,

You got the individual rights thing correct, but I don't know what you mean by that concept. It seems to differ in essentials to what I mean. In my world, individual rights start with the right to be left alone when you are not bothering others. As stated so far, you support intervening in people's lives and taking their stuff. That is not individual rights to me.

But I want to address the quote above. You use presuppositions I don't share. I, me, Michael, don't need to be allowed to lobby or do anything I truly want to do. If I want it, I'll find a way to do it. And I lived in Brazil for 32 years which is built on nothing but lobbying and corruption.

However, I think lobbying stinks as a moral code. Of course it's not rule by the majority. It's rule by backroom deals and brown-nosing.

You object to my term landed gentry, saying you mean producers, but you argue for kissing up to people in your concept of upper class who don't produce anything of value except old-boy influence. So tell me about this upper class again? Are they the ones who rule or are they the toadies?

As you can tell, I have very little resonance with toadying, I mean lobbying.

If you want to suck up to lobby power-mongers, call yourself a producer and call that freedom, be my guest.

I call that crony capitalism--one of the things wrong with today's world.

Michael

[Wolf DeVoon]

If there is any plausible merit in Jefferson's right of revolution and life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, surely it's an inalienable individual right to judge what constitutes one's joy and to shamelessly seek it. That's the purpose of Jeffersonian separation of church and state. If you put clerics in power, the pursuit of individual happiness is kaput...

Kids and dumbbells have the right of innocent liberty from birth...

I am particularly eager to uphold and defend the fundamental right of innocent liberty, which implies unrestricted immigration and some public property (roads and rights-of-way) to get from point A to point B unhindered...

Few enjoy actual liberty (freedom to travel), while most are indentured beyond hope of ever escaping a crowded, disease-ridden slum in Brazil or Bangladesh...

In previous writing, I suggested that the only thing a person owns outright is his or her liberty. If mankind are truly free, in a de facto sense, then no property claim can be absolute or legally negate the liberty of others. The most we can do is to possess and defend "property" by force. Indeed, this is descriptive of the world, ancient and modern. Might makes wealth. The strongest and brightest typically succeed in smothering all other claims to property and privilege, when they choose to wage economic war.


[COGIGG, pp. 43, 57, 61, 71, 73]

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Wolf,

That's quite a pairing, Brazil and Bangladesh.

It's like pairing a fleet of Mack Trucks and a tricycle.

(No offense to the Bangladesh folks intended.)

Michael

[Gary Fisher]

@MichaelI don't understand your grief with lobbying. Essentially, it's the same thing as exercising free speech or petitioning the government. I can't think of any business of a respectable size in America that doesn't engage in some degree of lobbying either the federal or local governments. If this is "crony capitalism", and if it is incompatible with freedom, then America was never capitalist or free. I strongly disagree with this view.Lobbying is just one method by which the people make their will known to their representatives (so called, because their job is to represent their constituents). I honestly don't see how you can expect politicians to govern well if the people aren't allowed to tell them where they stand on certain issues.Since you seem to take an issue with all this "brown-nosing" and "toadying", what is your solution to this alleged problem?

As stated so far, you support intervening in people's lives and taking their stuff. That is not individual rights to me.

I think I understand precisely your conception of individual rights. I just don't agree that the sort of restrictions on government that you would like to have are practically possible. As I argued in an earlier post, if the country adopted a full laissez-faire system it would result in an economic catastrophe that the country might never recover from. First, the EU, China, and Russia would force our domestic businesses into bankruptcy by outcompeting our products with lower prices enabled by their state subsidized industries. Once each American business goes bankrupt, they'll buy up the remains at extremely low prices. They will then dismantle our military and carve up our country like a cake.

[Gary Fisher]

@Michael

I don't understand your grief with lobbying. Essentially, it's the same thing as exercising free speech or petitioning the government. I can't think of any business of a respectable size in America that doesn't engage in some degree of lobbying either the federal or local governments. If this is "crony capitalism", and if it is incompatible with freedom, then America was never capitalist or free. I strongly disagree with this view.

Lobbying is just one method by which the people make their will known to their representatives (so called, because their job is to represent their constituents). I honestly don't see how you can expect politicians to govern well if the people aren't allowed to tell them where they stand on certain issues.

Since you seem to take an issue with all this "brown-nosing" and "toadying", what is your solution to this alleged problem?

As stated so far, you support intervening in people's lives and taking their stuff. That is not individual rights to me.

I think I understand precisely your conception of individual rights. I just don't agree that the sort of restrictions on government that you would like to have are practically possible. As I argued in an earlier post, if the country adopted a full laissez-faire system it would result in an economic catastrophe that the country might never recover from. First, the EU, China, and Russia would force our domestic businesses into bankruptcy by outcompeting our products with lower prices enabled by their state subsidized industries. Once each American business goes bankrupt, they'll buy up the remains at extremely low prices. They will then dismantle our military and carve up our country like a cake.

[Selene]

@Michael

I don't understand your grief with lobbying. Essentially, it's the same thing as exercising free speech or petitioning the government. I can't think of any business of a respectable size in America that doesn't engage in some degree of lobbying either the federal or local governments. If this is "crony capitalism", and if it is incompatible with freedom, then America was never capitalist or free. I strongly disagree with this view.

Lobbying is just one method by which the people make their will known to their representatives (so called, because their job is to represent their constituents). I honestly don't see how you can expect politicians to govern well if the people aren't allowed to tell them where they stand on certain issues.

Since you seem to take an issue with all this "brown-nosing" and "toadying", what is your solution to this alleged problem?

Lobbying is bribery and should be illegal.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Wolf,

That's quite a pairing, Brazil and Bangladesh.

It's like pairing a fleet of Mack Trucks and a tricycle.

I was thinking of 11 million in favelas, plus 20 million rural poor. But you're right, Bangladesh is worse.

[Gary Fisher]

@Selene

Lobbying is bribery only when you influence a politician to do something illegal. Nobody should do that. Lobbying politicians to do something that is actually in the scope of their power is just an extension of free speech.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Since you seem to take an issue with all this "brown-nosing" and "toadying", what is your solution to this alleged problem?

Gary,

That's easy. A Convention of States. And it's coming.

It won't fix everything, but it should fix a lot.

btw - I have no problem with communicating information to the government or anywhere else. It's the bribery, backroom cartels, favoritism laws, "extra" enforcement of regulations for competitors, spying, leaking shit to the press, fat-cat nation-building agreements, and all the other stuff that goes with "telling the government where you stand" in lobbying...

And you keep using that phrase, "allowed to" as in "if the people aren't allowed to tell them where they stand on certain issues." I don't understand this on a level so deep, it goes back to before I learned to speak.

Here is a pertinent Ayn Rand quote: "The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me."

You are talking to one of those dudes.

That's why you get no resonance for you seeking permission to speak to the government. I've been in extremely high political places (in Brazil). I did not ask for permission to be there or to speak other than the normal courtesy you extend to anyone. And I was taken seriously most of the time.

For the misfires, you get jerks everywhere, especially in the government. And I always got around those dudes and got done what I wanted. In fact, now that I think about it, the few times I came up with total failure were when I actually did ask permission to be there and to speak. One time involved the São Paulo State Symphony Orchestra and my assistant conductor contract. (Huh... I just thought of this... That's interesting... I'm going to think on it some more...)

As I argued in an earlier post, if the country adopted a full laissez-faire system it would result in an economic catastrophe that the country might never recover from.

That's an opinion, not a fact. I don't share this opinion, mostly because it's wrong.

Michael