Good grief, people.

David, you’re a moron.

To Greg A in comment 39, I wish I had the time to respond to you, but I’ve spent WAY too much time thinking about philosophy this past 3 days Maybe I should quit this grad school physics lark and jump ship to philosophy??! Anybody willing to write a letter of recommendation…???….I didn’t think so!

You are right. It does contradict my basic principles and my logic. I am advocating theft. If I truly had faith in human beings I would accept the following: … … And to be frank, I’m somewhat ashamed for that. I am violating my own principles. I am defaulting to the next best alternative that, at best, preserves the spirit of what I have said above. In reality, however, I have given up.

Some would draw the obvious lesson that any political philosphy, which leads inexorably to the logical conclusion that even the most rudimentary forms of government are illegitimate, is a worthless political philosophy. And they would look about for some firmer foundation on which to base their political beliefs.

My experience with hardcore Randians is that they are often not so-easily cured. The usual prescribed treatment — healthy doses of Locke, Rousseau, Mill, …, ending up, usually, with Rawls — is often ineffective.

Good luck!

How to not complain about taxes: I, II, III, IV

You are right. It does contradict my basic principles and my logic. I am advocating theft. If I truly had faith in human beings I would accept the following: Abolish all taxes. Allow the free market to conduct the affairs of men. A free market is a free market because men enter entirely volitional contracts with one another with the end of increasing their own wealth. Those who would benefit the most from such a system are the most productive. They would, no doubt, become wealthy. It is in the interest of these productive, wealthy men to ensure that contracts are not forced upon them by other men. Therefore these productive, wealthy men have a vested interest in an independent body to oversee transactions and would therefore contribute most to such a legal system of self-government and judiciary. How could a society function if every man had is own militia enforcing their contracts under threat of force? It is precisely this type of erratic, irrational individual with whom the productive man cannot conduct his affairs. Say every man had his own militia. What happens? The man with the biggest militia will win, every time. What sort of incentive is that for the rest of men to produce? It is no incentive. It is stalemate. Stagnation. Socialism. Communism. Dictatorship. Death.

So do I think that this will work? Namely do I think that the abolition of taxes and a reliance on wealthy, productive, rational men, in my own words “to oversee transactions and therefore contribute most to such a system.”. No at this point, I don’t. And to be frank, I’m somewhat ashamed for that. I am violating my own principles. I am defaulting to the next best alternative that, at best, preserves the spirit of what I have said above. In reality, however, I have given up.

Jacques said:
“And, by what leap of illogic, do you conclude that the amount he should pay scales linearly with his income?”My reply:
I attempted to answer that in the subsequent sentences folllowing the passage on which you have quoted me.

No, you didn’t. You asserted (rather unconvincingly, I might add) that the amount should rise with rising income level. You did not justify why it should rise precisely linearly with income, rather than faster than linear (or, for that matter, slower than linear).

A progressive tax system is one in which the tax burden rises faster than linearly with income. If you’re resolutely opposed to the very idea of progressive taxation, you’d better have an argument why the tax burden should not rise faster than linearly.

How about slower than linear or, for that matter, flat (independent of income, as I suggested earlier)?

So far, all you’ve done is repeat that linear is “fair” and faster-than-linear is “unfair.”

No-one can opt-out. THAT is not fair.

Why? If the only function of government (by your account) is to enforce property rights, and I can enforce mine without its aid, why should I be forced to paid for something I don’t need? That, by your own logic, is theft.

My reply:
I attempted to answer that in the subsequent sentences folllowing the passage on which you have quoted me.

You said:
“For that matter, if protecting his property rights is the only function of government, why shouldn’t he be able to ‘opt-out’, pay nothing in taxes, and hire a private militia with the savings? That would be more cost-effective for many a rich man.”

My reply:
I abhor anarchy as defined here: http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Anarchy
There must be a rule of law by which people can live and have the opportunity to be happy and attempt to fulfill their potential. Every man (and woman:)) should pay a low, flat, tax to an independent body called “the government” with a cooly unemotional, scientific, constitution-bound judiciary as it’s enforcer-in-chief. No-one can opt-out. THAT is not fair.