4 ms·

> I'm aware libertarians believe it's the principle of the thing, dammit, but I'm truly weary of arguments which boil down to "Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax is

> I'm aware libertarians believe it's the principle of the thing, dammit, but I'm truly weary of arguments which boil down to "Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax is philosophically indistinguishable from a call for nationalizing all industry." First, while some wealthy people remain wealthy, I'd guess there's a much larger impact on people who are becoming wealthy than those who are already super-rich. Second, as you said, it's the principle. I've got an objection to seizing people's stuff to then give away to others. There is no reason government should supply anything that is not a pure public good, and it should supply precious few of those, too. Remember that every act the federal government takes is backed up with the threat of death. If you don't comply, a bunch of agents will bust down your door at 3 AM and haul you away (see the disturbing number of paramilitary groups many federal agencies now possess). If you resist, you get killed. This applies to income tax too, by the way. I couldn't care less how much good you think you can do with it, no one gets to take someone else's stuff because he wants to give it to someone he deems more deserving.

bandushrew 7y ago
That is objectively wrong though, isn't it? The government absolutely can, and does, pass laws to legally take anyone's stuff for any reason it likes. If that is your bottom line, then almost every government in almost every country I know of overran it almost immediately. What we are discussing right now is....given that they ca, and do....under what circumstances we want them to do it. Think of it as a reality based discussion.
- big_chungus 7y ago
  Unfortunately, governments do indeed steal stuff all the time. That's why it needs to be as hyper-local as possible and why citizens should own military-grade arms. I think our arguments are jousting without clashing, so to speak, because I'm making a principled point rather than a pragmatic one.
  - bandushrew 7y ago
    Im not sure you have thought through the consequences of citizens owning military grade arms. It (arguably) removes the government as a threat, but replaces the threat with other citizens. It seems to me that history teaches that in the absence of a strong government, people are taxed by whoever is capable of becoming a strong local warlord. Somalia or South Sudan would be current examples. Im not sure how that is better?
chipotle_coyote 7y ago
> First, while some wealthy people remain wealthy, I'd guess there's a much larger impact on people who are becoming wealthy than those who are already super-rich. Given that her proposed tax is for wealth over $50M, I'd guess there is not much impact at all on people who are "becoming" wealthy. > If you don't comply, a bunch of agents will bust down your door at 3 AM and haul you away (see the disturbing number of paramilitary groups many federal agencies now possess). If you resist, you get killed. The number of first-world multimillionaires brutally gunned down by federal agents because they underpaid their tax is indeed countless. I hear this is a real problem in Denmark. > This applies to income tax too, by the way. I couldn't care less how much good you think you can do with it, no one gets to take someone else's stuff because he wants to give it to someone he deems more deserving. Living in a society is quite a tragedy.
- blackflame7000 7y ago
  >Given that her proposed tax is for wealth over $50M, I'd guess there is not much impact at all on people who are "becoming" wealthy. It's the corporate taxes that hurt the most because in a globalist society those taxes are taxes their competition does not have to pay and therefore can undercut them in price in world markets.
foobarrio 7y ago
The income that is paid to you derives it’s value from the stability of the backing gov’t. I don’t think money is as “yours” as you think it is. Gov’t is already involved whether you like it not.
- big_chungus 7y ago
  It has been since we went off the gold standard, yes. However, the government has already been taxing for this service in the form of inflation (which, incidentally, is one of the more regressive taxes one could devise). All we have to do is abolish the fed and go back to the gold standard and this problem is solved.
brnt 7y ago
The state backs up your right to personal property with violence too. Your stuff is only your stuff we decided it is a right and have our state enforce that right.
- big_chungus 7y ago
  Well sure, stealing from others is a violation of the NAP. That's part of the "keeping the peace" duty I mentioned in my above position that the state should keep the peace, uphold property rights, and enforce contracts.
  - brnt 7y ago
    What's the NAP? In any case, we rely on the state to uphold those rights, and since we cannot expect the state to work for free, we accept a percentage is needed for the maintenance of those right.
    - big_chungus 7y ago
      Sorry, non-aggression principle. Basically, no using force against someone else until he does it first. You're right that we do have to have some government to uphold basic duties. However, those duties are pure public goods and should be billed as such. Sum the total expenditures each year, divide by the number of adult citizens, and directly bill each citizen that amount.
      - brnt 7y ago
        I think it should be normalized to the amount of wealth rather than pax, because a larger pile of wealth relies more on this authority to maintain it. I'd even think perhaps supralinearly so.
dTal 7y ago
>There is no reason government should supply anything that is not a pure public good, and it should supply precious few of those, too. Remember that every act the federal government takes is backed up with the threat of death. Ah yes, radical libertarianism. We meet again. The job of government is not just to redistribute wealth. If it were, the whole kit and caboodle could be replaced by a set of scripts to effect bank transfers. The point of government is to organize society, to provide a framework for doing things which we all collectively agree need to be done, but is in nobody's selfish interest to do. There is a lot of stuff that fits this category. It's also not fair to say "every act the government takes". It's not all about "compliance" - the government doesn't just set rules and boss you around. It does things like track the weather, create maps, maintain the roads and forests, and warn of and respond to life-threatening emergencies. Yeah, that costs money. Do you think society should be organized or not? That's what government is. The notion that everything will all magically self-organize into a nice society is manifestly a myth. I would rather live in the former Soviet Union in all its totalitarian dysfunctionality than in what libertarians imagine utopia to be like. If you want an example of that, try Somalia. tl;dr libertarianism is anarchy in a business suit.
- big_chungus 7y ago
  > radical libertarianism Calling something "radical" is a tried-and-true technique to attempt to discredit it without arguing the point. What I described isn't that far from the federal government in early America. > The point of government is to organize society, to provide a framework for doing things which we all collectively agree need to be done, but is in nobody's selfish interest to do. Why? How do you justify using force to coerce others toward your vision of what you believe correct? > There is a lot of stuff that fits this category. Such as what? Please tell me why each of these must be done by the government. > the government doesn't just set rules and boss you around. Well, that is mostly what it does. There were over 50 volumes of federal law by the 80s: http://www.kowal.com/?q=How-Many-Federal-Laws-Are-There%3F http://www.kowal.com/?q=How-Many-Federal-Laws-Are-There%3F Some of the services you mentioned are there for good reason. I'm okay with weather and maps - the military does need to have that information (even if the military should be smaller), and once the information is collected, it's a public good and can be made available to citizens. I'd prefer stuff like forests were managed on a local level. As for emergencies, private disaster relief often does a better job: https://capitalresearch.org/article/private-sector-disaster-relief/ https://capitalresearch.org/article/private-sector-disaster-... > Do you think society should be organized or not? Talk about a false dichotomy. There are absolutely more- and less-organized societies. I've made it pretty clear that the government should keep the peace, uphold property rights, and enforce contracts. > The notion that everything will all magically self-organize into a nice society is manifestly a myth. Why? The above provide plenty of structure for a "nice society", for some definitions of nice. What's yours? > I would rather live in the former Soviet Union in all its totalitarian dysfunctionality than in what libertarians imagine utopia to be like. That's your choice, except your choice messes with my life. Mine only messes with yours to the extent that you no longer get to steal my stuff. > If you want an example of that, try Somalia. The Somalian government does not keep the peace. It does not uphold property rights. It does not enforce contracts. > tl;dr libertarianism is anarchy in a business suit. That statement is a willfully ignorant attempt to create a straw man. Democrats are communists in business suits, republicans are fascists in business suits, both of those statements are just as important. There are some anarchists, but not very many.

bandushrew 7y ago

That is objectively wrong though, isn't it? The government absolutely can, and does, pass laws to legally take anyone's stuff for any reason it likes. If that is your bottom line, then almost every government in almost every country I know of overran it almost immediately. What we are discussing right now is....given that they ca, and do....under what circumstances we want them to do it. Think of it as a reality based discussion.

big_chungus 7y ago
Unfortunately, governments do indeed steal stuff all the time. That's why it needs to be as hyper-local as possible and why citizens should own military-grade arms. I think our arguments are jousting without clashing, so to speak, because I'm making a principled point rather than a pragmatic one.
- bandushrew 7y ago
  Im not sure you have thought through the consequences of citizens owning military grade arms. It (arguably) removes the government as a threat, but replaces the threat with other citizens. It seems to me that history teaches that in the absence of a strong government, people are taxed by whoever is capable of becoming a strong local warlord. Somalia or South Sudan would be current examples. Im not sure how that is better?

chipotle_coyote 7y ago

> First, while some wealthy people remain wealthy, I'd guess there's a much larger impact on people who are becoming wealthy than those who are already super-rich. Given that her proposed tax is for wealth over $50M, I'd guess there is not much impact at all on people who are "becoming" wealthy. > If you don't comply, a bunch of agents will bust down your door at 3 AM and haul you away (see the disturbing number of paramilitary groups many federal agencies now possess). If you resist, you get killed. The number of first-world multimillionaires brutally gunned down by federal agents because they underpaid their tax is indeed countless. I hear this is a real problem in Denmark. > This applies to income tax too, by the way. I couldn't care less how much good you think you can do with it, no one gets to take someone else's stuff because he wants to give it to someone he deems more deserving. Living in a society is quite a tragedy.

blackflame7000 7y ago
>Given that her proposed tax is for wealth over $50M, I'd guess there is not much impact at all on people who are "becoming" wealthy. It's the corporate taxes that hurt the most because in a globalist society those taxes are taxes their competition does not have to pay and therefore can undercut them in price in world markets.

foobarrio 7y ago

The income that is paid to you derives it’s value from the stability of the backing gov’t. I don’t think money is as “yours” as you think it is. Gov’t is already involved whether you like it not.

big_chungus 7y ago
It has been since we went off the gold standard, yes. However, the government has already been taxing for this service in the form of inflation (which, incidentally, is one of the more regressive taxes one could devise). All we have to do is abolish the fed and go back to the gold standard and this problem is solved.

brnt 7y ago

The state backs up your right to personal property with violence too. Your stuff is only your stuff we decided it is a right and have our state enforce that right.

big_chungus 7y ago
Well sure, stealing from others is a violation of the NAP. That's part of the "keeping the peace" duty I mentioned in my above position that the state should keep the peace, uphold property rights, and enforce contracts.
- brnt 7y ago
  What's the NAP? In any case, we rely on the state to uphold those rights, and since we cannot expect the state to work for free, we accept a percentage is needed for the maintenance of those right.
  - big_chungus 7y ago
    Sorry, non-aggression principle. Basically, no using force against someone else until he does it first. You're right that we do have to have some government to uphold basic duties. However, those duties are pure public goods and should be billed as such. Sum the total expenditures each year, divide by the number of adult citizens, and directly bill each citizen that amount.
    - brnt 7y ago
      I think it should be normalized to the amount of wealth rather than pax, because a larger pile of wealth relies more on this authority to maintain it. I'd even think perhaps supralinearly so.

dTal 7y ago

>There is no reason government should supply anything that is not a pure public good, and it should supply precious few of those, too. Remember that every act the federal government takes is backed up with the threat of death. Ah yes, radical libertarianism. We meet again. The job of government is not just to redistribute wealth. If it were, the whole kit and caboodle could be replaced by a set of scripts to effect bank transfers. The point of government is to organize society, to provide a framework for doing things which we all collectively agree need to be done, but is in nobody's selfish interest to do. There is a lot of stuff that fits this category. It's also not fair to say "every act the government takes". It's not all about "compliance" - the government doesn't just set rules and boss you around. It does things like track the weather, create maps, maintain the roads and forests, and warn of and respond to life-threatening emergencies. Yeah, that costs money. Do you think society should be organized or not? That's what government is. The notion that everything will all magically self-organize into a nice society is manifestly a myth. I would rather live in the former Soviet Union in all its totalitarian dysfunctionality than in what libertarians imagine utopia to be like. If you want an example of that, try Somalia. tl;dr libertarianism is anarchy in a business suit.

big_chungus 7y ago
> radical libertarianism Calling something "radical" is a tried-and-true technique to attempt to discredit it without arguing the point. What I described isn't that far from the federal government in early America. > The point of government is to organize society, to provide a framework for doing things which we all collectively agree need to be done, but is in nobody's selfish interest to do. Why? How do you justify using force to coerce others toward your vision of what you believe correct? > There is a lot of stuff that fits this category. Such as what? Please tell me why each of these must be done by the government. > the government doesn't just set rules and boss you around. Well, that is mostly what it does. There were over 50 volumes of federal law by the 80s: http://www.kowal.com/?q=How-Many-Federal-Laws-Are-There%3F http://www.kowal.com/?q=How-Many-Federal-Laws-Are-There%3F Some of the services you mentioned are there for good reason. I'm okay with weather and maps - the military does need to have that information (even if the military should be smaller), and once the information is collected, it's a public good and can be made available to citizens. I'd prefer stuff like forests were managed on a local level. As for emergencies, private disaster relief often does a better job: https://capitalresearch.org/article/private-sector-disaster-relief/ https://capitalresearch.org/article/private-sector-disaster-... > Do you think society should be organized or not? Talk about a false dichotomy. There are absolutely more- and less-organized societies. I've made it pretty clear that the government should keep the peace, uphold property rights, and enforce contracts. > The notion that everything will all magically self-organize into a nice society is manifestly a myth. Why? The above provide plenty of structure for a "nice society", for some definitions of nice. What's yours? > I would rather live in the former Soviet Union in all its totalitarian dysfunctionality than in what libertarians imagine utopia to be like. That's your choice, except your choice messes with my life. Mine only messes with yours to the extent that you no longer get to steal my stuff. > If you want an example of that, try Somalia. The Somalian government does not keep the peace. It does not uphold property rights. It does not enforce contracts. > tl;dr libertarianism is anarchy in a business suit. That statement is a willfully ignorant attempt to create a straw man. Democrats are communists in business suits, republicans are fascists in business suits, both of those statements are just as important. There are some anarchists, but not very many.