Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!cca!ima!inmet!nrh
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: 'Majority' rule - (nf)
Message-ID: <1775@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 1-Nov-84 01:35:15 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.1775
Posted: Thu Nov  1 01:35:15 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 3-Nov-84 04:02:32 EST
Lines: 74

#R:ea:2054964996:inmet:7800149:000:3534
inmet!nrh    Oct 30 13:39:00 1984

>***** inmet:net.politics / ucbcad!faustus /  3:52 pm  Oct 29, 1984
>>> Now, if you deny the government's power to collect taxes from you, you
>>> are denying the importance of this function of government. If a government
>>> cannot tax the people to carry out its functions, it loses all of its
>>> power. Before you can justify not paying taxes, you should try to first 
>>> argue that we could get along without any form of government, and I don't
>>> think you will have much success.
>>> 
>>> 	Wayne
>> 
>> In that case, Wayne, however did the U.S. Government survive in
>> the 130 years or so *before* it had a personal income tax!?!
>
>It made money through other taxes. Are you going to claim that it is ok
>to tax property, but not income? 

**WHOA!** Your implication is that the "other taxes" were property taxes,
not port fees and service fees.  I wasn't aware of any time when the US
had a nationwide property tax.  Some support for this implication,
some facts, please.

>I'd be interested in seeing the reasoning
>behind this. But the fact is that government has come to be responsible
>for a great deal more now than it was in the 1920's, and whether or not
>we should have income tax depends upon whether you can show that we would be
>better off without these things.

Not quite: whether these things should be done depends on whether you
can show that we would be better off without these things *AND THEIR COSTS*.
>
>> Arguing that tax collection is a function of government sounds
>> pretty odd to me - taking your money is a function of a robber,
>> but I've never seen that used as an argument that robbers are
>> good things.  
>
>You people sound like a broken record sometimes. Can't you think of any
>more interesting analogies to make than "Government taxation is theft"?
>If you define theft as "taking money from people without their consent",

I don't define things that way, the dictionary does.  Look it up, and
stop trying to draw a distinction that isn't there.

>then the argument will have to become, "Is government theft a good thing?",
>or, "Are we better off having government stealing our money?" I think so,
>but using this sort of language is sort of misleading. (You can call taxation
>theft, but I will use the term "paranoid anti-social spoiled children" to
>refer to libertarians.) 

You want to label us paranoid -- somebody else tried the use of the
word "psychotic".  Grab those dictionaries! We're not against
SOCIETY -- we're against an overblown government.  I've submitted
the dictionary definition of theft -- care to back up your 
accusation with the definitions of "paranoid", "anti-social",
"spoiled" and "children", and show how they apply to 
anti-big-government folks?

>
>The whole problem, though, is that libertarians think that individual
>liberty is the highest good, and I think that a better society is the
>highest good. (Although certainly not in the manner of Ellsworth Toohey.)
>You can take your pick -- all I want to argue is that if you accept that
>society is more important than absolute liberty for the individual, the
>sort of government I am advocating is the best.

You seem to be ignoring the possibility that we believe that society
would be better off if its members were free.    Remember -- 
libertarians in general believe that almost everyone in a free
society would be better off than if the society were not free.

Of course, politicians would have a worse time of it, and so, probably
would doctors, and lawyers -- but I could live with this.