4 ms·

"It is a judgement of values" The fundamental disagreement between libertarians and progressives is that libertarians do not find the values of a mob/majority

"It is a judgement of values" The fundamental disagreement between libertarians and progressives is that libertarians do not find the values of a mob/majority justify violence upon a minority. I used the word violence carefully: you don't pay your taxes, an armed man will come to put you in a pen for years. The problem with asserting positive rights, versus freedom from oppression, is that they come at a cost to someone else. For example, asserting a right to health care is asserting the right to take from a health care provider. "As a matter of record, tax rates are higher for the lower income brackets, and lower for higher income brackets than at any other point in US history." Tax rates are still higher for higher income earners. They make more, and a flat percentage would proportionally cover their wealth, but you insist on a _higher_ percentage. That is pretty hard to justify, especially considering the benefit of government is diminished proportional to increased income.

sdurkin 18y ago
Ah, now we've come to the point of it. "The fundamental disagreement between libertarians and progressives is that libertarians do not find the values of a mob/majority justify violence upon a minority." The power of the state rests upon the willful consent of the governed. The constitutional structure protects minorities from the tyranny of the majority, and as such, when it is in the good of society, that force can be used, including to collect taxes. "The problem with asserting positive rights, versus freedom from oppression, is that they come at a cost to someone else. For example, asserting a right to health care is asserting the right to take from a health care provider." Here's the fallacy. Its not a zero sum game, and the market isn't an omnipotent distributer of goods. For example, asserting a right to health care provides more output for the society, as it takes away from the costs of untreated illnesses. Some things are common to all, and ensuring that everyone has access enhances total welfare. Surely you must see that defense spending is justified? "They make more, and a flat percentage would proportionally cover their wealth, but you insist on a _higher_ percentage." This is a form of social insurance. Just as defense spending insures us against risk of attack, social programs insure us against the risk of bad luck. Imagine yourself behind the veil of ignorance, before you were born, before you knew that you would occupy that top %1. Now design a tax system. You have to take into account the decreasing marginal utility of income. $100 additional dollars to a person making several million a year has far less utility to them than $100 additional dollars to a person making twenty thousand a year. Not to mention the political folks tell me that inequality is the chief cause of revolution. If we look at this from a practical perspective, we see that times of extremely low taxation and large amounts of inequality caused a breakdown in the market system. Those who accumulate most of the wealth become a law unto themselves and ensure oligopolistic control over industry. Too much of this and in Russia the farmers get their pitchforks and the mob takes to the streets. Here you get the New Deal. Some socialism is necessary to stave off communism.
- xlnt 18y ago
  fuck man, you advocate violence, then tell the victims they consented and should thank the government for its constitutional protections that prevent anyone from being a victim.
  - sdurkin 18y ago
    First of all, force isn't violence. Nobody beats you for failing to pay your taxes. Second of all, you do consent. You have freedom of speech to express your displeasure, and a vote to rid yourself of unjust leaders. Taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society. They build our roads and pay our soldiers, and I'm sick and tired of some people acting like they're a form of theft.
    - anamax 18y ago
      > First of all, force isn't violence. Nobody beats you for failing to pay your taxes. Oh really? We put people in jail for failing to pay taxes. People get killed in jail. They get beat and raped. > Second of all, you do consent. You have freedom of speech to express your displeasure, and a vote to rid yourself of unjust leaders. If five guys vote that a woman should put out, she consents because she's free to say no and can vote against their proposal. > Taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society. They build our roads and pay our soldiers, and I'm sick and tired of some people acting like they're a form of theft. Note that they also pay for a lot of other things; things that simply don't work. SDurkin suggests a social contract. In every other contract, you can refuse the deal. You can also get out of the contract if the other side doesn't live up to its obligations. The "social contract" in reality is neither social nor a contract.
      - sdurkin 18y ago
        "Oh really? We put people in jail for failing to pay taxes. People get killed in jail. They get beat and raped." Yes, really. Victimization in prison isn't part of the state's intent or action. Its an unfortunate consequence of a poorly managed correctional system. One that would see far fewer prisoners if there were more poverty assistance programs. "If five guys vote that a woman should put out, she consents because she's free to say no and can vote against their proposal." See above for a full explanation of how constitutional democracies prevent tyranny of the majority. "Note that they also pay for a lot of other things; things that simply don't work." This is a problem with certain specific programs, not with taxes in general. "SDurkin suggests a social contract." Yes, I do suggest a social contract, because social contract theory is part of the foundation of our and every other modern democracy. Sure, it isn't perfect, but its certainly better than the alternatives.

sdurkin 18y ago

Ah, now we've come to the point of it. "The fundamental disagreement between libertarians and progressives is that libertarians do not find the values of a mob/majority justify violence upon a minority." The power of the state rests upon the willful consent of the governed. The constitutional structure protects minorities from the tyranny of the majority, and as such, when it is in the good of society, that force can be used, including to collect taxes. "The problem with asserting positive rights, versus freedom from oppression, is that they come at a cost to someone else. For example, asserting a right to health care is asserting the right to take from a health care provider." Here's the fallacy. Its not a zero sum game, and the market isn't an omnipotent distributer of goods. For example, asserting a right to health care provides more output for the society, as it takes away from the costs of untreated illnesses. Some things are common to all, and ensuring that everyone has access enhances total welfare. Surely you must see that defense spending is justified? "They make more, and a flat percentage would proportionally cover their wealth, but you insist on a _higher_ percentage." This is a form of social insurance. Just as defense spending insures us against risk of attack, social programs insure us against the risk of bad luck. Imagine yourself behind the veil of ignorance, before you were born, before you knew that you would occupy that top %1. Now design a tax system. You have to take into account the decreasing marginal utility of income. $100 additional dollars to a person making several million a year has far less utility to them than $100 additional dollars to a person making twenty thousand a year. Not to mention the political folks tell me that inequality is the chief cause of revolution. If we look at this from a practical perspective, we see that times of extremely low taxation and large amounts of inequality caused a breakdown in the market system. Those who accumulate most of the wealth become a law unto themselves and ensure oligopolistic control over industry. Too much of this and in Russia the farmers get their pitchforks and the mob takes to the streets. Here you get the New Deal. Some socialism is necessary to stave off communism.

xlnt 18y ago
fuck man, you advocate violence, then tell the victims they consented and should thank the government for its constitutional protections that prevent anyone from being a victim.
- sdurkin 18y ago
  First of all, force isn't violence. Nobody beats you for failing to pay your taxes. Second of all, you do consent. You have freedom of speech to express your displeasure, and a vote to rid yourself of unjust leaders. Taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society. They build our roads and pay our soldiers, and I'm sick and tired of some people acting like they're a form of theft.
  - anamax 18y ago
    > First of all, force isn't violence. Nobody beats you for failing to pay your taxes. Oh really? We put people in jail for failing to pay taxes. People get killed in jail. They get beat and raped. > Second of all, you do consent. You have freedom of speech to express your displeasure, and a vote to rid yourself of unjust leaders. If five guys vote that a woman should put out, she consents because she's free to say no and can vote against their proposal. > Taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society. They build our roads and pay our soldiers, and I'm sick and tired of some people acting like they're a form of theft. Note that they also pay for a lot of other things; things that simply don't work. SDurkin suggests a social contract. In every other contract, you can refuse the deal. You can also get out of the contract if the other side doesn't live up to its obligations. The "social contract" in reality is neither social nor a contract.
    - sdurkin 18y ago
      "Oh really? We put people in jail for failing to pay taxes. People get killed in jail. They get beat and raped." Yes, really. Victimization in prison isn't part of the state's intent or action. Its an unfortunate consequence of a poorly managed correctional system. One that would see far fewer prisoners if there were more poverty assistance programs. "If five guys vote that a woman should put out, she consents because she's free to say no and can vote against their proposal." See above for a full explanation of how constitutional democracies prevent tyranny of the majority. "Note that they also pay for a lot of other things; things that simply don't work." This is a problem with certain specific programs, not with taxes in general. "SDurkin suggests a social contract." Yes, I do suggest a social contract, because social contract theory is part of the foundation of our and every other modern democracy. Sure, it isn't perfect, but its certainly better than the alternatives.