Re: How to solve the tax problem w/o anarchy or force (fwd)

Forwarded message:

> Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 09:08:11 -0500
> From: Soren <sorens@workmail.com>
> Subject: Re: How to solve the tax problem w/o anarchy or force (fwd)

> <P>This also provides an outlet for the social do-gooders to create their
> utopias by vastly inflating those taxes associated with less favored consumables

Hm, interesting choice of terms for comparison. So you're admitting that
anarcho-whatever isn't a social do-gooder, the intent is not to make the
system better or more equitable. Rather you're admitting, apparently
tacitly, that the goal of the anarcho-whatever is personal rather than
social improvement. There is also a further tacit admission with this
system won't address the social ills that plague us currently.

I must admit I'm impressed. In a couple of days I've run across two seperate
anarcho-whatever supporters who admit their proposal won't address the
social ills but rather leaves them up to chance. That's more than in the
last 20 years.

> be heavily taxed, and what not.&nbsp; Perhaps this is why there were multiple
> states in the US rather than a single homogenous state, prior to Honest
> (I am not a crook) Abe?

Duh, I believe the boy has it.

> <P>Last time I looked at it, there were 108 separate taxes included in
> the retail cost of an egg and 112 for a loaf of bread, so yes, I would

I'd like a reference to this particular list if possible.

> <P>One question for the socialists out there;&nbsp; when is the promised
> egalitarian utopia&nbsp; going to kick in?&nbsp; It doesn't seem to be
> getting any closer.</HTML>

I'd ask the same question of the anarcho-whatever but you took care of it so
adroitely above...


    ____________________________________________________________________
 
            Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want
            the right answers.

                                        Scully (X-Files)

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage@ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

Jim Choate wrote:

> > <P>This also provides an outlet for the social do-gooders to create their
> > utopias by vastly inflating those taxes associated with less favored consumables
>
> Hm, interesting choice of terms for comparison. So you're admitting that
> anarcho-whatever isn't a social do-gooder, the intent is not to make the
> system better or more equitable. Rather you're admitting, apparently
> tacitly, that the goal of the anarcho-whatever is personal rather than
> social improvement. There is also a further tacit admission with this
> system won't address the social ills that plague us currently.
>

I used to be an anarcho-capitalist, but concluded I was far too selfish. In fact, if
you'd read the first line about the libertarian compromize, rather than looking for
hooks, you'd see that I was attempting rapprochement.  Mostly I'm not at all
interested in being drawn into political wastings of energy, life is too short.  I
made my choice 25 years ago, and have been (largely) free and untaxed for that time.
Harry Browne's "How I found freedom in an unfree world" came along at about the same
time I cut loose from the nation-state.

Why the pejorative use of "anarcho-whatever" and the whole personal level at which you
pitch your responses?  Is it your intent to stir up anger by using imflammatory
rhetoric?  Or (more likely) is this an example of newspeak? Whatever, it comes across
as mean-spirited and sad. An indicator perhaps, of someone who loves to "go for the
jugular".  A common "small man" trait. Are you a small man Jim? Do you need the power
of the state to make you feel big by proxy?

One thing the anarcho-capitalist rants all contain, is frustration at being under the
thumb of authority.  They believe that outlawing big thumbs will fix this.  Until that
happy day (should it ever occur), I have perceived that big thumbs are very clumsy. I
prefer to move rapidly enough that they have difficulty in pinning me down, numbering
me, punching and spindling me.  My domiciles tend to be in nation-states that provide
safe havens to those who have stuff that the big thumbs would like to expropriate. I
visited and left the US at about the time the streets paved with gold turned to the
streets paved with goldbrickers.

Some of the socialist propaganda leaked out in your posting.  Why would I be concerned
about curing "social ills"?  I'm fully tied up in interacting with my own little
society -- my parents, siblings, children, friends, pets, possessions.  Why would I
need or desire any other (arbitrary) social connections?  I don't have your missionary
zeal I suppose. All such change that I could effect would be as nothing, seen from the
perspective of 100 years in the future. I'd hate to be branded as a 'deadbeat dad' by
my nakama because I was paying more attention to righting abstract wrongs, than
reading to my children. Pillory Klinton was almost correct; it does take a village, or
buggering off to live in one and leaving the neo-roman empiricists to prop up their
ailing support system without me.

If you are more concerned about addressing social ills than your personal life, I feel
sorry for you.  If you want to make a contribution to the social ills I have
accumulated however, I'll send you my numbered account details and you can deposit
directly.

> > <P>Last time I looked at it, there were 108 separate taxes included in
> > the retail cost of an egg and 112 for a loaf of bread, so yes, I would
>
> I'd like a reference to this particular list if possible.

Go find it yourself.  I'm not a charitable or state institution.  Here's a hint though
-- Ralph Nader, comsumer watchdogs.

>
>
> > <P>One question for the socialists out there;&nbsp; when is the promised
> > egalitarian utopia&nbsp; going to kick in?&nbsp; It doesn't seem to be
> > getting any closer.</HTML>
>
> I'd ask the same question of the anarcho-whatever but you took care of it so
> adroitely above...
>

Very good point. I take it as reinforcing the correctness of my decision to opt-out.

Jim Choate wrote:
> 
> Forwarded message:
> 
> > Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 09:08:11 -0500
> > From: Soren <sorens@workmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: How to solve the tax problem w/o anarchy or force (fwd)
> 
> > <P>This also provides an outlet for the social do-gooders to create their
> > utopias by vastly inflating those taxes associated with less favored consumables
> 
> Hm, interesting choice of terms for comparison. So you're admitting that
> anarcho-whatever isn't a social do-gooder, the intent is not to make the
> system better or more equitable.

No, the intent *is* to make the system better and more equitable.  It's
just that we don't favor the socialist definition of "equitable".

We support voluntary systems, not coercive ones.

> Rather you're admitting, apparently
> tacitly, that the goal of the anarcho-whatever is personal rather than
> social improvement. There is also a further tacit admission with this
> system won't address the social ills that plague us currently.

Except that it's personal improvement for *everyone* (except for tyrants
and other politicans, but we didn't like them much anyway).

> I must admit I'm impressed. In a couple of days I've run across two seperate
> anarcho-whatever supporters who admit their proposal won't address the
> social ills but rather leaves them up to chance. That's more than in the
> last 20 years.

Our proposals do not leave things up to chance any more than the current
system does.  In fact, it can be argued that our system leaves less up
to chance than yours does.  Lets do a comparative analysis.

In today's system:

1:  	Social Ill exists.
2: 	Social Ill is identified by someone.
3:	That someone makes a lot of noise, and lobbies the state to supply
money to finance the correction of the Social Ill.  This is done by
convincing a majority of voters in some election or other, which may not
take place for at least a year, that this Social Ill is very important
--more important than all the other Social Ills.
4:	Someone who wants the Social Ill corrected gets into power, and
proceeds to try to correct the Social Ill with a huge rumbling
centralized governmental machine.  This often excacerbates the Social
Ill, rather than correcting it.

The net result:  The Social Ill is not likely to be corrected until the
next election, and will be paid for by taking more money away from
everyone else (since the state gets its money from taxpayers, and cannot
create value out of thin air).  Even worse, the person lobbying for the
correction of the Social Ill may not get into power, since he may have
lost the election to someone who used lots of money to make him look
bad.  Thus, the Social Ill may not get corrected for some time, if ever.

Under a truly free system:

1:	Social Ill exists.
2:	Social Ill is identified by someone.
3:	That someone makes a lot of noise, alerting everyone else to the
existance of this Social Ill.  Those who agree with the first someone
will contribute time, money, and resources to correcting this Social
Ill.  
4:	Social Ill is dealt with in the most effective manner possible, since
people will be free to try to correct it in any number of ways, and will
of course prefer to contribute their money to an effort that has the
best effect.

This is an improvement upon today's system.  We no longer need to have
the majority of voters approval to start correcting the Social Ill.  All
we need is a group of people who are willing to support the correction
of the Social Ill.  This makes the most sense, since we obviously don't
need to draw on *everyone'* resources to correct every Social Ill.  (of
course, some rare Social Ills will be that large, but the larger the
Social Ill, the more people wil recognize it as such.)

Better yet, frivilous problems (i.e. those invented for the advancement
of some politician's career, or out of sheer stupidity) will not have
large amounts of resources wasted upon them.  Only the most blind and
stupid of people would contribute to the correction of nonexistant
Social Ills (of course, that is their right, but at least nobody else
will have to waste their money, if they don't wish to).

So, is it now clear to you why your above statement was somewhat
premature?

Michael Hohensee