If in however many years they convince ignorant people that the best way to stay alive is to get shot in the head, it doesn’t mean getting shot in the head is the “life” that won. It means death won to all rational people. The reality isn’t that life won through getting your brains blown out. Again, the reality is death won. The fact that some people are ignorant and dumb enough to call death life doesn’t make that reality.
Just like how you were talking about taxation. You don’t like to call it theft. Okay, what difference does what you like have to do with it. Taxes are the coerced taking of property. It is a simple fact. THAT is reality. The fact that you don’t like the consequences of attempting that fact does not matter. If you are for taxation, of any amount, you are in favor of using guns to take money from people who have do nothing wrong. Period. Your rationalization is what isn’t reality.
I’m following the philosophical back and forth. I’ll jump in when I have more time.
It’s a broad topic from theory to policy. I wasn’t sure where it would go, but I appreciate the discussion. I started reading Free To Choose and it’s perfect. So much to say.
I’m hopeful that we’re due for a Libertarian moment in this country. We’ve seen huge price hikes and failures in Obamacare, scandals at the IRS, FBI, JD, state department, etc. Republicans elected in both houses of congress seems to be a message toward smaller government. That’s my hope.
Um, no. I stated a very simple fact, one you offered no argument against. I endorsed nothing in that statement. The fact hat you think if someone doesn’t rationalize away that clear fact it obviously leads to only one rational political philosophy is telling for you though. It means that’s what you think you should be if you were rational.
Then if you’re not a anarcho-capitalist, and you believe government has even one legitimate function (for which it’ll need revenue to carry out), I’m left to believe that you yourself support ‘theft.’
So, if you like a military, you endorse theft.
If you like a local fire department, theft.
And, so on.
So that’s why I assumed you must be an anarcho-capitalist, what with the negative connotation usually associated with ‘theft.’ Still, that was an assumption. Perhaps you embrace the idea that is theft, and see it as a necessity for the ‘necessary evil’ that is government. The only other thing I can think of is that you only had certain confiscations in mind. And not, for example, taxation to fund a military. Which would be completely silly.
You never know, if the wild boar were more political (and intelligent) he might gaze upon a pig farm and marvel at the beneficence of the pig-farmer, while envying the freedom, the leisure (freed up time), of the domesticated pig. He might marvel at their freedom from parasites (at least relative to himself) and bacteria.
The boar might think that the constant need to procure sustenance and face parasites and illness without treatment might be a harsh and brutish slavery to nature.
If it weren’t the case as I’ve been describing it…Well, look at our untouchable entitlements.
I’m assuming that we aren’t anarchists here, but and that we believe in being subject to just laws. Even if we can agree that we now live in a complex society that needs agencies like the FDA, how do we roll back some of the coersive rules? It seems like these would be things that even left leaning people would agree with. We now have a government that influences and controls big sectors of our economy.
For example, I don’t think any of us pictured tax money being used to help the Dept of Agriculture promote the sale of fresh Christmas trees, but that happens. Regardless of how you feel about health care, the government can now penalize someone for NOT buying something the government told them to. It’s called Obamacare, and that’s the way it’s currently set up. We’ve “given” government power that we’ve fought to protect for hundreds of years.
Term limits.
Line Item Veto.
Looking hard at every government agency at where it can be cut, privatized, brought back to state or local control…
I see government power as a lot like Tolkein’s Ring. Who should have it? Even the wise and good Galadriel knows it would corrupt her. We often think that government power is fine if “it’s in the right hands.” That usually means we can trust someone from our favorite political team. Let’s face it, the Republicrats have done a terrible job with this. Anytime we have lots of money in the hands of our elected officials, they get entrenched in favor granting, graft, picking economic winners and losers. Big corporations, special interests, and unions all have tremendous influence in the flow of all of this “government money.”
We’ve lost sight of the idea that the tax money belongs to us. To the people. The individual is above the collective. Citizens own the government, not the other way around. We have a lot of unchecked power in the hands of beuracrats who are not even elected. I’m hopeful that people on both sides of the aisle are getting a better idea of how broken and corrupt the Machine is.
I think you guys would all REALLY like this short version of the John Robson documentary Magna Carta, Our Shared Legacy of Liberty. It’s just 30 minutes. Perfect to watch on the eve of the election. I watched it with my family tonight and was paraphrasing it a little bit in my post above. I think this is key to trying to preserve our freedoms. We have to educate ourselves and the next generation. A lot of these things we learned way back in civics or our college American Heritage class, but unless we keep them in the forefront of our minds, we take them for granted and forget. These things aren’t “alive” in our lives unless we’re defending them.
There’s a full-length version. I plan to watch it next.
@anon71262119, do you listen to Penns podcast, Penns Sunday School? This weeks episode he talked a lot about libertarianism and some of the ideology behind it, and how bureaucracy develops in large government systems. Interesting listen if you find yourself with 90 minutes of time and a set of headphones.
Though nothing is certain, the boar makes his own destiny. The Pig gets slaughtered.
Sadly many people do fall for the scenario you described. “Hey if he’s doing it, I might as well too.” This doesn’t change what freedom is, it’s just that more and more people are rejecting liberty and embracing comfort.
Aren’t you partially responsible for the theft by agreeing to work for an employer who registers you as an employee for tax/theft purposes? You could always find someone to pay you under the table and make overall less than you do now but at least you won’t be a victim of theft anymore.
Why do you assume one would make less working for “under the table” wage as opposed to a wage that’s taxed? The individual’s skills aren’t diminished and they’re performing the same job, correct? As a whole, at least for me, my effective wage, after taxes, is about 28% less than the nominal wage. So, I could accept a wage that is 72% of my current, taxed wage and still bring home the same amount of cash.
Given my current skill level, if I were to operate under the table, I’d think I’d earn something comparable, if not more, than I do now with the added risk of “tax evasion” - I mean look at black market wages, they seem to be substantially higher than their mainstream counterparts (based on observation of course - I don’t have any hard numbers on which to rely for this argument) which seems to capture the added level of risk associated with any type of clandestine activity.
So, I’m really just curious what your assumptions are and why you think black market wages are lower than their mainstream counterparts?
Ummm, sort of. It’s more about how efficient the means of production becomes over time and how that results in less distribution of wealth. Robotics was beyond Schumpeter’s time and that’s more of a symptom than the actual problem. I think he’d actually advocate for robots taking over because of his thoughts on “creative destruction”.
He doesn’t frame it the way you have, but they’re similar maybe even parallel issues.
You might make more or the same as now but how much would your employer save and would it be worth their added risk? Your employment is a business expense so they wouldn’t be benefiting that full 28% less to your pay.
Also you could easily be in the line of work which is an exception to this, I was simply talking about the majority or even what DD does for work. What is that anyway? Hope its not government work, that would be ironic.
Thanks, NickViar. Have you read Block’s book, Defending the Undefendable? I just looked him up since you made a reference to him and found this John Stossel video talking about his book. I really like both John Stossel and Nick Gillespie from Reason.
[quote=“sufiandy, post:97, topic:223168, full:true”]
You might make more or the same as now but how much would your employer save and would it be worth their added risk?[/quote]
If they’re employing you, then yes, obviously it’s worth the risk. The question I would ask is why is it worth the risk? What is it about the alternative (paying taxes on wages) that pushes the employer to employ under the table?
I’d assume, in most cases, it’s the type of work. Regardless, if one is employed under the table, the obviously the alternative isn’t as desirable and the reward for all parties involved is worth the risk. Again, the alternative is worth examining in this case.
[quote=“sufiandy, post:97, topic:223168, full:true”]
Your employment is a business expense so they wouldn’t be benefiting that full 28% less to your pay.[/quote]
They may or may not, depending on the work to be done, the skills of the worker and the value added to the process/final product.
In most cases, since, as I think you alluded to, most under the table work is low skill, manual labor (at least in my experience it is) the wages paid are below (taxable) market wages, the employer most likely won’t pay the taxable market wage, but the employee will either take home the same amount or more. In my experience, the latter is more common given the risk to both parties involved - but again, I don’t think either of us has the data and are only talking about our own observations and preconceptions.
Absolutely, there are exceptions of varying magnitude. It’s a fun conversation to have but ultimately without any real data to reference we’re just spinning our wheels. And it’s be a little too ironic, don’t ya think?
Assuming you’re accepting the facts (since you’ve offered no refutation or alternative) I am left assuming you don’t know what quotes mean.
I would just tell you ‘no’ and leave you to continue a very silly guessing game, but I think I’ll cut to the chase. You’re assumptions are illogical. Acknowledging the reality of taxation does not require me to either want to tear our entire system down or to be content with it’s flaws. And even more critically, the moral evaluation of something does not necessitate that I must have an applicable solution.
Murder is evil. We should get rid of murder. Our current legal/law enforcement system often allows murderers to go free. We should be able to agree on these things. We should also be able to agree that that doesn’t mean you have to either want to demolish the current system, be content in it’s flaws, or to know the answer to the problem.
As for practical maters; No, I do not believe that anarchy would lead to less coercion and therefore more freedom than the current system. But yes, I think the current system has long since crested the hill on the optimization curve.
