Going Galt

[jtucek]

And, by the way per your Post #103, since Ayn Rand considered taxation robbery, whom did Ayn Rand rob?

If you were truly interested in private jobs being created, you would advocate zero taxation. If you truly favored 100% personal responsibility, you would advocate zero taxation.

Hello Francisco. I originally started with Luca making that claim, too - "all taxation is extortion" but I had to tone that down a bit by now. I am not familiar with Ayn Rand enough, but even in Atlas Shrugged she defends some functions of the government, eg. Ragnar refuses to attack the navy because national defense is a proper function of the government. Clearly, this has to be paid for somehow. So, which forms of taxation would you consider just? Do you object only to income tax as it punishes ability but are fine with say VAT being demanded to cover the government's overhead?

[Selene]

And, by the way per your Post #103, since Ayn Rand considered taxation robbery, whom did Ayn Rand rob?

If you were truly interested in private jobs being created, you would advocate zero taxation. If you truly favored 100% personal responsibility, you would advocate zero taxation.

Hello Francisco. I originally started with Luca making that claim, too - "all taxation is extortion" but I had to tone that down a bit by now. I am not familiar with Ayn Rand enough, but even in Atlas Shrugged she defends some functions of the government, eg. Ragnar refuses to attack the navy because national defense is a proper function of the government. Clearly, this has to be paid for somehow. So, which forms of taxation would you consider just? Do you object only to income tax as it punishes ability but are fine with say VAT being demanded to cover the government's overhead?

WWII sold bonds and she certainly supported that.

She advocated a lottery and everyone knows that they can send in more than even the thugs at the Internal Revenue Service.

Here is her position:

Taxation

¶

In a fully free society, taxation—or, to be exact, payment for governmental services—would be voluntary. Since the proper services of a government—the police, the armed forces, the law courts—are demonstrably needed by individual citizens and affect their interests directly, the citizens would (and should) be willing to pay for such services, as they pay for insurance.

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. The task of political philosophy is only to establish the nature of the principle and to demonstrate that it is practicable. The choice of a specific method of implementatiohen is more than premature today—since the principle will be practicable only in a fully free society, a society whose government has been constitutionally reduced to its proper, basic functions.

This is from the Ayn Rand Lexicon which is a good starting point in terms of researching positions and terms for Objectivism:

http://aynrandlexicon.com/

A...

[jtucek]

That introduces the theme of freedom (as I see it) versus your previous them of immorality and evil. I resonate with this a lot because for me freedom is the ultimate goal. There is nothing wrong with me sending money to a project I would like to support whether the project is run by family, friend, private company or government. The problem with taxes is when you can't choose what you will support- the involuntary nature.

I understand where you are coming from now. Unfortunately, it puts the whole discussion on a dangerous slippery slope - who is going to draw the line between the services properly provided by the governenment and those that should be left to the free market? I would have really loved to believe that no government/no taxation society were possible. But I cannot imagine how for example private courts/private armies/private police could ever work.

p.p.s When I made the comment on the typos I want you to know that I had no negativity in mind.

I appreciated the help and I was really trying to save your time as typos-hunting is not something I'd ever want volunteer reviewers to do. A professional proofreader will be paid to do that to a final version of the text.

[jtucek]

Hello Selene, I didn't know about voluntary taxation. However, I find Rand's claim that it is practicable to be pretty bold Looks like I have a lot of reading on the topic to do, before I'll be able to finish the text. Many thanks for the lead.

[Francisco Ferrer]

gonna have to agree with Greg on this one

How would a soldier in the U.S. Army cover higher taxes by raising his "prices"?

What I am agreeing with Greg on is that shrink and other overhead is built into the cost of the product. It's a cost of doing business, same as labor cost or lawyers fees. The fact that you are trying to dispute that is surprising. Honestly I thought that you (and a few others on this forum) controlled a business but that sort of ignorance to the " cost of business" is hard to reconcile.

I am not disputing the fact that taxes (or other forms of theft) may be part of the cost of doing business. What I am challenging is the Moralist's position that all losses due to crime can be shirted forward without consequences to the business. The sales declines and the job losses that followed the re-imposition of the luxury tax in the 1990's is evidence that taxes are not neutral but harmful. The fact that the Moralist sneers at "employees" and at the same time is happy to have tax-paid employees deployed on missions abroad to protect "U.S. interests" provides a measure of his inconsistency.

[Francisco Ferrer]

When the government suddenly imposes a tax...

I on to you, Frank.

I know what you're up to.

All of your verbiage boils down to the need to blame (unjustly accuse) the government for your own personal failure, when it was your own free choice to be an employee instead of becoming a producer. So it's the consequences of your own choice which account for your view being so completely different from mine.

I chose what you didn't, and became a producer by creating my own job instead of an employee who needs to be given a job... so naturally I don't think like you do.

Because you think like an employee, you feel that you are entitled to security that you will never deserve. You never worked to earn it for yourself, because you felt entitled to someone else giving it to you.

Greg

You know precisely zero about my work, my finances or the quality of my life. So any statements you make in that regard serve as further evidence that your worldview is non-reality-based.

When a debater does not respond to the substance of his adversary's position but focuses on what he regards as personal weaknesses, he has drifted into the orbit of irrelevancy and irrationality.

My position in this debate is that taxation is a form of crime, is destructive of private wealth and is therefore harmful to productive individuals, businesses, and a free economy.

There are approximately 120 million full time employees in the U.S. Where is the evidence that a majority of them hold views anything like the above?

And, per your Post #103, whom did Ayn Rand rob?

[Brant Gaede]

Employees aren't producers? Greg, you've gone to la la land to sustain an argument.

--Brant

This applies particularly to Frank, as it explains why his view of the government is completely different from mine.

Greg.

Yes, you sanction government, he does not, and much more than I do. (I sanction what's left after it gets beaten down to a pulp.) The proposition that employees aren't producers, however, because they are employees--that is, not creators of wealth--is a kind of Marxism in reverse for it sanctions the idea of two, conflicting classes. The first is what you call producers--those who employ employees, who are the second class. The Marxist says your producers, or capitalists if you will, are the exploitive class. You say it's the other way around. Ergo: class warfare. It's all garbage.

Ayn Rand sort of fell into this trap too, but gave it a Nietzschean, additional elitest twist leavened by ostensible individualism. The libertarians got the individualism, but didn't care to parse the rest of it--the ethics apart from politics and what in turn was behind the ethics though nothing is more of individualism than the metaphysical-epistemological base of Objectivism (and science generally)--especially since Rand would have no truck with them.

So, the libertarians' focus is centered mostly on politics and economics through political philosophy while the Objectivists' focus is primarily on the ethics and philosophy in toto. Your focus is primarily economic off a moral and religious base and a kind of selfish selfishism which ironically was Rand's too but in a more half-assed way that kept retreating to the more palatable "rational self-interest." I suspect that's because she wasn't enough of an Aspie which she needed more of to match up with you since she had no religion. You are not an Aspie as far as I can tell. I think one needs to be a pure secularist for that. Any religion socializes to some extent. It's somewhat superficial but serves various tribes--the different religions and their sects.

--Brant

speculations--if you tell Francisco what he is in the ways you do you get these types of feed backs, at least from me--I don't think he cares very much about that; he just keeps hitting you with his rational stick

[moralist]

Frank writes:

You know precisely zero about my work, my finances or the quality of my life.

Yes I do, Frank.

By your complaining victim's view of the government and your abysmal lack of understanding the most fundamental operational principles of business have you repeatedly revealed the values by which you live.

We each have different views of government because the government treats each of us differently... and the government treats each of us differently because we each live by different values.

I never do business with a people like you. You ring the leper's bell, Frank. Your claim that the government is robbing you only means that you'd rob me as you are robbed, because you aren't productive enough to prosper regardless of the government...

...and that's what only Americans can do... while you can't.

Americans prosper regardless of the government.

Greg

[Selene]

Nobody likes a whiner Frank..get it?

A...

[Brant Gaede]

Gee. If you prosper and get robbed why not complain about the robbery? If you don't complain about it you sanction it. We know Francisco does not sanction it by that metric, but since we have no real idea if he bottom line prospers we can only speculate. That's enough for not doing business with him--anything would be; we're free agents--but to properly claim to know what you know about him tell us how you're brothers and grew up together--observationable stuff like that--to see if it matches up with your deductions. Or at least get the information from third parties. What you do instead is deduce then assault--with your standard ad hominem. The more Francisco ignores that and uses logical responses--he's not perfect like you, only 99%--the more you try to juice him.

--Brant

not arguing--what's to argue (you don't try to argue back anyway)?--just trying to understand and explain (Francisco tries to argue but it's hopeless--he is, though, taking the same approach to you as to government: no sanction)

[moralist]

Gee. If you prosper and get robbed why not complain about the robbery?

Well, there ya go, Brant... do you realize you have just revealed the fatal flaw in your approach?

You believe that your own personal solution lies in complaining to someone else about what someone else is doing to you. Lots of luck with that, pal. You'll only end up like Frank the failure. All he can do is impotently complain about how he's being robbed...and Lord, does he ever deserve it!

My approach different. It is to first change my own life... and then the world around me graciously acquiesces to that change. The power to change everything within your personal sphere of influence already exists, and is nothing less than your power to change how you live.

Since I'm religious, there's a whole bunch of promises that God made to anyone (not just me) who does what's morally right. So all I do is to take Him up on His Word, and as long as I fulfill my part, He never fails in holding up His end of the deal.

Concerning taxes: I'm happy to pay for public services like roads, police, firemen, and the military, because within that lawful infrastructure I get to make money, and enjoy living a good life.

I prosper regardless of the government

because I'm an American.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

". . . why not complain [by calling the cops]?"

--Brant

pulling teeth

[moralist]

". . . why not complain [by calling the cops]?"

--Brant

pulling teeth

What?

You're going to complain to government employed cops that the government which pays their salaries and benefits is robbing you? Don't think you'll get very far with that... although you're welcome to try. Just a reminder, the topic of this sidebar discussion was Frank's frequent complaint that the government is robbing him.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Sorry for the digression. How does robbing the government instead sound?

--Brant

[moralist]

Sorry for the digression. How does robbing the government instead sound?

--Brant

Just my subjective opinion...

People who rob the government just get robbed by someone else. So far the only way I've seen to get out of the conundrum is to become neither predator nor prey. Since they are both always linked together because they both belong to the same world... giving up one is what frees you from becoming the other.

The government answers to the same law...

It is robbed as it robs others, because it was created in the image of people who also rob others and are robbed.

An bankrupt government... created by bankrupt people in their own image... both fiscally and morally.

Greg

[jtucek]

You believe that your own personal solution lies in complaining to someone else about what someone else is doing to you.

My approach different. It is to first change my own life... and then the world around me graciously acquiesces to that change.

I prosper regardless of the government

because I'm an American.

Because you are an American ... great. Let's have a look at an example from your own country. The East Coast mafia since the end of the 19th century until today. Since their extortions are pretty much universal and large-scale, the playing field is even for all businesses and only the whining failures complain about it, right? The competent ones, change THEMSELVES, adjust to the new conditions of doing business and prosper.

If you are fine with that, the argument ends, but I will leave it to you to draw its conclusions. If you disagree, them show me one difference between the welfare state and the mafia. One asks me smugly to pay for some great services I didn't ask for, or else. And the other one asks me, not so smugly and with no pretension about what they are doing, to pay for services I didn't ask for, or else.

[Selene]

...show me one difference between the welfare state and the mafia. One asks me smugly to pay for some great services I didn't ask for, or else. And the other one asks me, not so smugly and with no pretension about what they are doing, to pay for services I didn't ask for, or else.

Piece of cake, organized crime whether Italian, Jewish, Irish, German, Russian, Colombian, Asian or Jamaican all deliver the goods at a very high success rate.

Government rarely delivers on its contracts and costs about 10 times as much as them thar criminals.

A...

[BaalChatzaf]

Sorry for the digression. How does robbing the government instead sound?

--Brant

Shutting it down sounds better.

[Brant Gaede]

Ah. The hard choice.

[moralist]

Sorry for the digression. How does robbing the government instead sound?

--Brant

Shutting it down sounds better.

Anyone can already shut down the government's role in their own life simply by not needing it. It's stupid to wait for collective popular consensus. You'll die before It'll ever happen... if it ever happens at all.

Greg

[Francisco Ferrer]

And, by the way per your Post #103, since Ayn Rand considered taxation robbery, whom did Ayn Rand rob?

If you were truly interested in private jobs being created, you would advocate zero taxation. If you truly favored 100% personal responsibility, you would advocate zero taxation.

Hello Francisco. I originally started with Luca making that claim, too - "all taxation is extortion" but I had to tone that down a bit by now. I am not familiar with Ayn Rand enough, but even in Atlas Shrugged she defends some functions of the government, eg. Ragnar refuses to attack the navy because national defense is a proper function of the government. Clearly, this has to be paid for somehow. So, which forms of taxation would you consider just? Do you object only to income tax as it punishes ability but are fine with say VAT being demanded to cover the government's overhead?

Because taxation is by definition a payment made under duress, it is a violation of an individual's rights and should be treated as a crime just as the government currently outlaws and punishes the actions of private robbers.

In the same way that firefighting services can be privately contracted, so can justice services. I will refer you to an excellent paper by the scholar and frequent contributor to this forum, George H. Smith, "Justice Entrepreneurship In a Free Market."

[moralist]

You believe that your own personal solution lies in complaining to someone else about what someone else is doing to you.

My approach different. It is to first change my own life... and then the world around me graciously acquiesces to that change.

I prosper regardless of the government

because I'm an American.

Because you are an American ... great.

Works for me...

It's your responsibility to figure things out for yourself. What I do has no effect on whatever you choose to do.

Let's have a look at an example from your own country. The East Coast mafia since the end of the 19th century until today. Since their extortions are pretty much universal and large-scale,

You're claiming that the East Coast Mafia's extortions are universal and large scale today?

From where are you getting your information?... TV shows?

the playing field is even for all businesses and only the whining failures complain about it, right? The competent ones, change THEMSELVES, adjust to the new conditions of doing business and prosper.

I'm actually talking about us as individuals today... about our own personal responsibility for the quality of our own lives right here and now, and not some group of immoral people in the 19th century.

If you are fine with that, the argument ends, but I will leave it to you to draw its conclusions. If you disagree, them show me one difference between the welfare state and the mafia.

In my opinion they're actually quite similar, as they both are the creations of immoral people who have failed to govern themselves... and each one preys on its own kind. Each deals with its own kind through their dependency on its products and services.

Nothing scares both the government and the mafia than decent responsible productive self reliant people who DON'T NEED them.

One asks me smugly to pay for some great services I didn't ask for, or else. And the other one asks me, not so smugly and with no pretension about what they are doing, to pay for services I didn't ask for, or else.

You can accurately measure your own self imposed slavery by your need of what either one offers to your life...

...and that need is solely a function of your own failure to govern yourself.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Interesting to watch a newbie run into Greg. Greg is invulnerable. This is not necessarily desirable to emulate. Reminds me of Jack Nicholson in As Good As it Gets: asked how he comes up with his great female characters--he's a novelist--he says, "I think of a man. Then I subtract reason and responsibility." That's not Greg, of course, for he keeps the responsibility.

--Brant

and his balls

[Brant Gaede]

And, by the way per your Post #103, since Ayn Rand considered taxation robbery, whom did Ayn Rand rob?

If you were truly interested in private jobs being created, you would advocate zero taxation. If you truly favored 100% personal responsibility, you would advocate zero taxation.

Hello Francisco. I originally started with Luca making that claim, too - "all taxation is extortion" but I had to tone that down a bit by now. I am not familiar with Ayn Rand enough, but even in Atlas Shrugged she defends some functions of the government, eg. Ragnar refuses to attack the navy because national defense is a proper function of the government. Clearly, this has to be paid for somehow. So, which forms of taxation would you consider just? Do you object only to income tax as it punishes ability but are fine with say VAT being demanded to cover the government's overhead?

Because taxation is by definition a payment made under duress, it is a violation of an individual's rights and should be treated as a crime just as the government currently outlaws and punishes the actions of private robbers.

In the same way that firefighting services can be privately contracted, so can justice services. I will refer you to an excellent paper by the scholar and frequent contributor to this forum, George H. Smith, "Justice Entrepreneurship In a Free Market."

You need a law to treat it as a crime for no prosecutor will touch this without a law.

--Brant

of course, you just might try lunching lynching, like they used to do with cattle rustlers

(thanks for the G. H. Smith link--I'll read it later)

[Francisco Ferrer]

Frank writes:

You know precisely zero about my work, my finances or the quality of my life.

Yes I do, Frank.

By your complaining victim's view of the government and your abysmal lack of understanding the most fundamental operational principles of business have you repeatedly revealed the values by which you live.

We each have different views of government because the government treats each of us differently... and the government treats each of us differently because we each live by different values.

I never do business with a people like you. You ring the leper's bell, Frank. Your claim that the government is robbing you only means that you'd rob me as you are robbed, because you aren't productive enough to prosper regardless of the government...

...and that's what only Americans can do... while you can't.

Americans prosper regardless of the government.

Greg

As I have shown with examples, it is a fallacy to suppose that taxes are neutral and can in all cases be shifted forward to the consumer without negative consequences to the merchant. The fallacy was thoroughly refuted by Murray Rothbard in Man, Economy and State. The fallacy is certainly not one of the business principles that helped make the success of anti-tax entrepreneurs Roger Milliken and John Mackey or anti-tax celebrities Ayn Rand and Penn Jillette.

If you do not like a "complaining victim's view of the government," you will certainly want to avoid an entire genre of literature that was written in the 17th and 18th centuries against government with unlimited powers. The most famous of these documents is a long list of complaints Thomas Jefferson wrote about the British Crown. It is known as "The Declaration of Independence."

You repeat the charge that those who claim that the government is robbing them means that they would rob others as they are robbed. The measure of a theory is how well it can be supported with examples from the real world. You have presented not a scrap of evidence that critics of taxes are more likely than not to engage in robbery.

Thus your theory is no more truthful than the old misconception that one side of the moon is always dark or that lightning never strikes the same place twice.

So is your assertion that Americans prosper despite government. The depression of the boating industry in the 1990's immediately proves this wrong. So does the jailing of Michel Milken and Martha Stewart. Looking at the bigger picture, the higher the public debt, the less the economy can grow. This has been shown to be the case in numerous studies. A detailed discussion of how government weakens the economy can be found here.

Yes, there is a fundamental difference here: between a person who draws conclusions from real world data and one whose theories have no basis in fact.