... and I almost choked. A friend of mine sent me this link.
For the cut and paste crowd: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxestheft.htm
I didn't read word-for-word because I'm unable to concentrate that intensely at the moment--it's 1:10AM and I'm fighting one of my usual bouts of insomnia. I'll post up my thoughts later, but I wanted to get this one out there for critique.
"All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree." -James Madison
Quotes from paper in italics:
Liberals have two lines of argument against those who reject the idea of the social contract. The first is that if they reject it, they should not consume the government's goods and services. How they can avoid this when the very dollar bills that the economy runs on are printed by the government is a good question. Try to imagine participating in the economy without using public roads, publicly funded communication infrastructure, publicly educated employees, publicly funded electricity, water, gas, and other utilities, publicly funded information, technology, research and development -- it's absolutely impossible. The only way to avoid public goods and services is to move out of the country entirely, or at least become such a hermit, living off the fruits of your own labor, that you reduce your consumption of public goods and services to as little as possible. Although these alternatives may seem unpalatable, they are the only consistent ones in a person who truly wishes to reject the social contract. Any consumption of public goods, no matter how begrudgingly, is implicit agreement of the social contract, just as any consumption of food in a restaurant is implicit agreement to pay the bill.
This presupposes several false premises. First, that the government has the right to own anything. Second, that anything the government does have was acquired by legitimate means. Third, that if taxes were not paid then all of these programs would cease to be and private investors would not pick up the service and continue services. Fourth, the complete arbitrary nature of the social contract theory to which my reply will be the Roderick Long example: If I were to come onto your property and you said that while I was there I had to wear the funny hat. Obviously I cannot say no and continue to stay on the property. However, it is an absurdity to claim that by becoming your neighbor then I implicity agree to wear the funny hat while on my property. It assumes that you have more claim over my property then I [ the property owner ] actual do.
Welfare is a form of social insurance. In the private sector we freely accept the validity of life and property insurance. Obviously, the same validity goes for social insurance like unemployment and welfare. The tax money that goes to social insurance buys each one of us a private good: namely, the comfort of being protected in times of adversity. And it buys us a public good as well (although tax critics are loathe to admit this).
Again a list of preassumed falsehoods. One, that the private sector cannot have social insurance. Two, that we actually control where this tax money goes. Three, what is this 'public good'? It is ambiguous at best.
If workers were allowed to unnecessarily starve or die in otherwise temporary setbacks, then our economy would be frequently disrupted. Social insurance allows workers to tide over the rough times, and this establishes a smooth-running economy that benefits us all.
Committing more fallacies. Preassuming that unemployed workers, who became so because of business cycles, will in fact lead to a situation they are already in. Also this assumes that unemployment [ the taking away of wealth in the productive sector and putting it into unproductive sectors ] will in fact lead to wealth creation.
According to the Library of Congress, in 1992 such expenditures at the federal, state and local level came to $289.9 billion, or 12 percent of their combined budgets of $2,487 billion. (2) It still seems incredible that such fiery anti-tax rhetoric is reserved for 12 percent of a person's taxes. But keep in mind that this 12 percent includes such popular middle class programs as Medicaid, student grants, school lunches, pensions for needy veterans, etc. Voters have ultimately agreed that these programs provide not just social insurance, but social investment.
I would like to point out the date of this survey. 1992...
And this brings us to the second line of liberal argument: the best form of social contract is majority rule. It's not perfect, but its better than minority rule and still better than one-person rule. Government by unanimous consent is impractical, since it almost never happens, and society by anarchy results in "kill or be killed." So what do libertarians and conservatives propose in democracy's stead?
This preassumes that individual rule is an impossibility. It also shows an ignorance in Anarchist theory. And clearly he is begging the question
Of course, nearly all democracies have constraints on majority rule, designed to protect the rights of individuals and minorities. In the U.S., these are embodied in our constitution. But to be legitimate, a constitution must be a document of the people; hence it must be approved by the majority. (In the U.S., a supermajority.) And the constitution of the United States clearly allows taxation. Article I, Section 8, states:
And who signed into the Constitution? The author preassumes its legitimacy.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-ausmain.htm
Need we actually waste our time? Clearly we are all just wealthy rightists keeping a dying economic theory alive with our cult-like behavior!
It's amateur hour with Steve Kangas!
'It is difficult to imagine any normal person wishing to meet Marx for a third time.' - Alexander Gray, The Socialist Tradition
article gave me a lol
Other assumptions are equally "interesting":
Well, he did make an effort (though a feeble one) to attack the libertarian position. Only the part about anarchy reeks of ignorance.
That dude begs the question more than the corner hobo begs for money.
Sheeesh...
Where I come from, the women don't glow, but the men definitely plunder.
Nothing new, in fact just a lot of rather weak, fallacious assertions. Imagine that.
To darkness I condemn you...
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap