Quote:
|
Originally Posted by loganmule
You stated that "you can guarantee absolute economic equality or you can guarantee individual rights in economic matters." This is simply untrue.
|
How is it untrue? Explain to me how you can guarantee that everyone is economically unequal without taking property from the wealthy?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by loganmule
When indivduals consent to be members of a society, subject to government authority, there must be a "taking" to pay the freight, and it will either be in the form of taxes which are progressive or regressive in nature. Whether or not it's seen to be "equal" depends on whose ox is getting gored.
|
Not all taxation is incompatible with individual rights. Taxation to pay for the military, police/fire departments, prisons, court systems, etc. are perfectly acceptable, since these institutions exist for the purpose of protecting individual rights.
By the way; the only equal tax would be flat tax, where the same percentage of everyone's income is taken in taxes.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by loganmule
How do you distiguish estate tax from income tax, where the government is "confiscating" a third or your income?
|
I mentioned it in my first post of this thread. The estate tax allows the government to levy an never-ending series of taxes on the same chunk of money.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by loganmule
You evidently don't get that some compromise of one's individual rights is the price paid for living as a member of a society of individuals.
|
You evidently don't get that it doesn't have to be to the extent that it is today.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by loganmule
Finally, my opinion on the role of government is irrelevant, it being a given that there are certain essential functions of government.
|
Define "essential". If you want to confiscate people's property to fund government programs and policies, it would be nice of you to explain what you want the money spent on.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by loganmule
What good would it do for me to tell you about my views on government funding of more controversial programs, when things like defense spending are mandatory?
|
Because unlike defense spending, many other government policies don't have anything to do with protecting the rights of its citizens.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by loganmule
(my apologies, if you are an anarchist, but then you wouldn't be on a computer, paying tax as part of your user fees, and subject to FCC jurisdiction...you instead would be communicating with me via carrier pigeon).
|
When I first read this sentence, I thought you wrote "antichrist" instead of "anarchist".
Thankfully I'm not an anarchist (or an antichrist). These debates would take forever if we had to communicate with carrier pigeons. Plus it would be difficult for other TFP members to participate.
