Liberty, society; taxes, user fees, social goods

Stemming from another thread, a discussion of private v. public, taxes as user fees, social goods, liberty, society.

Just to get the ball rolling (Guerilla, apologies for the grab - needed to make my other point contextually understood):

From the other thread:

Table's open. By the way, not par for my course, I intend to keep my mouth shut for a while - interested in stimulating other folks' thoughts.

 

If you are free to have a religion, and your religion forbids a death penalty, then how does one reconcile living in a society where the death penalty is prevalent? Because you're not just living in that society, but contributing to state sponsored murder.

It's tricky stuff for sure.

This is why I resent the idea of nationalism being inherently evil. With freedom, we should be able to locate others with like or similar morality, needs and desires to form small societies. That's sort of the idea behind how the US Constitution was originally laid out.

States were able to set their own laws and punishments for violence and crime. Their own voting processes. Their own taxes. Run their education.

And at one time, States even had the right to secede!

The idea being that some rights are universal, and others could be decided collectively, but in small enough groups that it would allow for differentiation (choices).

 

I would argue that giving away a bit of your liberty towards society actually increases your liberty because you are guaranteed to have access to the public goods and services. This in turn increases the equality of opportunity for everybody.

When you're taking about liberty and the possibillity of loosing it you must first recognize all the possible threats to it and private enterprise is a very real and serious threat specially if it's left unregulated. If I own your town's water resources, the roads, the schools you're pretty much fucked if you piss me off or if a company that sells the same stuff you do pays me to stop allowing you to use my roads. I hope you realise stuff like that would definitely happen on a large scale. Every time there's something to abuse you can be certain people will abuse it. And with the top 1% of the population already owning about 50% of USA's wealth you can be sure they would buy everything that now is public and with every formerly social good they purchase more and more of your liberty will be lost. You can use your current healthcare system as an example of this. Millions of people can't get access to it because the owners charge too much

I also support having an income tax because that's what keeps the difference between the poor and the rich to grow too much. If you have only a consumption tax the guy earning 1000 $/month will pay tax for all his income because he's most likely going to have to spend it all, while the guy earning 100 millions /year might pay taxes only for 1% of his income.

 

This basically goes to my contention: absolute liberty for one is absolute enslavement for another. And once you admit the limitations on liberty endemic to society, it is just a matter of where that dividing line between private liberty and societal welfare lies - not whether there is a tradeoff or not.

 

Not everyone deserves equality of opportunity. Corporations do not deserve welfare, people who choose not to work do not "deserve" social goods.

What you are saying, is that the working class (not everyone) has to give away their liberty, so that others can have liberty.

Sounds like redistribution to me.

This is incorrect. It defies the law of supply and demand. No one prices their product beyond demand, that's bad business.

You also remove the opportunity for upward mobility. You create a glass ceiling with taxes, that makes it harder to rise beyond a certain threshold.

Welfare != compassion. Freedom = compassion.

 

people who choose not to work are an anomaly. Most people do work, specially if jobs are available and they are paid well.

Last time I checked not only people who don't want to work use public schools, roads, etc.. The working class gives up some of their freedom so they can get more freedom for themselfs.

that's exactly what it is and I think it's a necessary thing for a successful society

Sure they can, specially when it comes to healthcare. If you're going to be ill you're going to pay as much as they charge you to get you back to good health

I think we must first worry about giving upward mobility for the poor and for the middle class and then worry about being harder for one to catch up on bill gates

I'm not making an argument for compassion here, I'm making an argument for a system that leads to a successful society

You didn't say anything about private enterprise also taking liberties. What do you think about that? What do you think is the sollution?

@northpointaiki
Use less fancy words when you're adressing to me please, It's hard for me to understand what you mean

 

BS. Welfare promotes a dependent, unproductive class. It is not an anamoly.

Read this again slowly. By giving up freedom, you get more freedom. so if I can pay for public school and roads, but instead pay for social schools, then I get more school by subsidizing everyone who is unproductive?

Ants have successful societies. I'm a human being. I want freedom.

Competition lowers prices. If we stopped subsidizing healthcare, people might take more interest in living healthy, because it would be very expensive to not look after your health.

Upward mobility is the productive gain to move up, not a handout. You can't make a poor person middle class, by taking from the middle class and giving to the poor. You end up hurting someone to help someone else.

Most people aren't Bill Gates. He's not middle class. He's not a small business owner. I respect what Bill Gates has been able to accomplish, he's surely bent rules and made unpopular decisions, he may have even done some things that are illegal, but he has to be punished by the law and market for those, not taxed into acceptability.

Understand that taxing the cheats, doesn't solve the problem, it institutionalizes it. Boycotts and legal action are the ways to keep the unscrupulous in check

Again, coercive participation in a society is not liberty. Indoctrinated participation is not liberty. If people freely choose to be taxed, or participate in a society, that is their right. But it is not ethical to force everyone to participate, whether they agree or not.

Enforce the law. Everyone is looking for a system, so that they don't have to expend the energy required to be vigilant. Why do you think business gets in bed with government? Because government spends the most money in the society by forced collection of taxes, and because they control the judiciary, where they can have laws and regulations made or changed to benefit them.

There are people who need compassion. But you can't truly call helping them compassion if you pass laws that make it illegal not to help, instead of a concious moral decision.

 

Hahah - well, Iul, I wasn't actually addressing you, brother, but the community. And I write as I write. I don't use words for needless effect - this is just my voice. Ironically enough, I was just re-reading John Fowles, whom I admire very much. I think he said it very well:

Counterpoint, Chicago, 1964; 217-225.

The world is ever shrinking to language as mere conveyance, sterile utility. So is the species. I consider language, in all its full flower, as the last, primordial stand against our final dehumanization. So, no, I won't be using words "less fancy" than "societal," "contention," "endemic," "enslavement," etc., in

for instance. I understand that English may be a second language? If so, or if there are words that seem uncommon, I'd compassionately recommend - grab a dictionary.

 

The bigger the population of a democracy is, the less liberty people ultimately have.

Economies would be far more efficient and prosperous if the population under economic management was generally kept to less than a million.

Federal governments are only required for defensive purposes and probably currency, although if everyone just swapped to a gold standard this wouldn't be an issue either.

Bottom up management. Small regional government is the answer.

 

Norway is probably the best example of a welfare state yet it's unemployment rate is below 2%

nope, if you give away a part of your income you will have guaranteed access to public domain which increases your freedom. You're basicly guaranteed freedom of movement for example

Congo has a failed society and basicly no functional government, if that's your ideea of freedom then you can move there, I'm sure you'll enjoy the civil war that comes with failed societies

it's already more expensive for americans than for europeans to get healthcare yet that doesn't really seem to make them change their lifestyle

no, but you can make a poor man middle class by giving him equal opportunity with the guy who was born in a middle class family

do you think, for example, that getting an education for your children shouldn't be mandatory because it forces you to be a part of society?

a system is a way of doing things. No matter how you choose to deal with issues in a state you still have a system. Of course business gets in bed with government and do whatever you want. It's because you have no real power in your hands, that's why I support having a direct democracy. And isn't the law regulation? I thought you were against regulations in the economy.

Let me give you an example, tell me how this would be solved in the type of state you support:

A and B are two cities, I own the road between them (the blue line) and also a long strip of land (the red line) that prevents any effective alternative routes to be build. I basicly have a monopoly. My brother and you both have factories in city A and sell the same product in city B. I decide to give him a hand and stop allowing your trucks to use my road. How do you think this situation should be solved?

I'm not talking only about helping those who really need it, I'm also talking about giving equal opportunity (or at least as close to it as possible) to everyone

@northpointaiki
Language's purpose is to transmit your message to others in such a way that they get exactly what you mean and to achieve that you need to keep it as simple and easily understandable as possible. Using fancy words has the same effect as using slang: it makes your message harder to descipher by the people you communicate with which is contrary to the very purpose of language. You understizzle?

 

The USSR had 0% unemployment. If you didn't work, you were sent to a Gulag, where you worked.

I don't understand how one person paying for 1.2 people, 1.4 people or 2.0 people gets more of a service by subsidizing others.

Examples can be found every where. Places like Congo (IMO) have a failed judicial system at the base of their problems.

I don't think you understand the nature of the problem in the US. Medicaid provides medical care to the poor. It's the middle class that cannot get medical care.

You can't MAKE someone middle class. They have to work to get there.

I agree about equal opportunities, but we don't all start from the same point, or progress at the same speed, or reach the same destination, so be careful when you use the word "equality". It doesn't mean equalization.

We've already had this discussion. No, I don't believe in force. Some of the greatest poets, artists, business men and thinkers in history were self-educated.

A (sic) real democracy is just the rule of the majority over the minority.

I'm for enforcement of contracts. If we agree to a contract, then it must be followed. But regulating who can produce a good, where a good can be produced, how much workers should be paid, what the minimum sales price is etc hinder the free market.

Right, so you're going to remove some of the fruits of labor from people who have created it, and re-distribute it to those who have not. You're seeking to equalize the playing field, in education, in commerce, etc. With no regard to personal sacrifice, aptitude or commitment. We're all equal in our right to live, pursue happiness and be free. But that doesn't mean that if you make good decisions and work hard, throughout our lives, I am entitled to the same level of prosperity as you if I have not worked hard or made good decisions.

 

Iul, in my world, language is a tool to convey meaning. Words that float into consciousness, hopefully, words used, precisely convey that inner meaning. In the same way that sometimes "carmine," "cochineal," or others must do, where "red" may not, my language is a product of my mind. It's how I see the world. And my writing is not some tool apart from the mind that utilizes it.

And it's a moving target. I might see "enslavement" as the "opposite" to liberty, one day; or I might see "constraint" as the "antipode" to liberty on another. Whatever. Language is a rich part of the human mind, to me, and I do not seek "fancy words" to either bedazzle or befuddle. In fact, I don't seek "fancy words" at all. I also don't reserve my usage to a particular, utilitarian enclave within the larger, and far richer, universe of the English language. I just write. If my thoughts and writing aren't your cup of tea - that's cool, don't buy the book.

 

guerilla, you haven't told me how the scenario I presented would be solved in your ideal state

 

Is freedom of movement a right? Personally, I haven't come to a conclusion on this, admittedly not investing a ton of time thinking about it.

Some compromise has to be reached if freedom of movement is a right, and we still want to preserve personal property rights.

Bear in mind, I'm a minarchist. I vehemently oppose socialism, but that doesn't mean there isn't a role for government.

 

I think freedom of movement is definitely a right. If you can be banned from using the roads around your house you're practicly enprisoned on your property.

My point is some regulation is definitely needed in a state. I also believe there should be some services provided by the state to keep the society working at least at minimum levels. The state needs to provide education for everyone for example. I don't support large welfare for the unemployed like some European countries have but I think the state must at least provide enough for everyone who needs it to survive.

A purely capitalist state, with no regulation whatsoever will not lead to more freedom

 

iul, I'm tracking NPT as he searches all of my old posts to find quotes to use against me, and came upon this thread from his user profile.

Are you into carrying on the discussion? I've learned a lot more about privatization since we last touched on these topics, particularly freedom of movement.

 

sure, why not. Go ahead, I'll get back to you soon.
Wow, you two guys are tracking eachother and stuff?! I guess teh internets is even seriouser business than I previously thought

 

Use the ignore button on each other, save yourself all this tracking trouble.

 

We tried that, he continues to pop up in thread after thread and attack my posts, to the point that I have to respond.

@iul - ok yeah, the internets is real serious and stuff.

 

Oh, lord - it's quite thick, and this little corner of the universe really needs a shovel. What a poor, poor guy. Guerilla feels free to level attacks left and right, and post all manner of baseless crap, and when - hold your hat - I or someone else takes issue with it, and posts why, with specifics - it's....it's...an ATTACK!

In addition to every other false method, guess the sympathy factor has some play.