Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site dciem.UUCP Path: utzoo!dciem!mmt From: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Re: Libertarianism as ideology (repl Message-ID: <1467@dciem.UUCP> Date: Mon, 18-Mar-85 17:23:33 EST Article-I.D.: dciem.1467 Posted: Mon Mar 18 17:23:33 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 18-Mar-85 18:53:20 EST References: Reply-To: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) Organization: D.C.I.E.M., Toronto, Canada Lines: 59 Summary: nrh@imnet says: >Like many socialists, Martin seems to me to be looking at the world >in a rather static way. Of the benefits I receive from "society", only >a few result from people who particularly wanted to benefit me. >THEY thought they were in business for themselves -- to sell food, >to make compilers, to amuse, whatever. There are, to be sure, >people (parents and friends) who try to benefit me directly, and >I do not minimize their contribution. I merely point out that it >is given VOLUNTARILY, and that any obligation I feel to them is >a personal matter, not for the State or "society" to adjudicate. > >... > >"Society" is not the same as "government". Questions about what >"society" should be owed probably belong here, but they should be >carefully delineated from "government" should be owed, or, if one >believes they are the same thing, this should be stated explicitly. >Martin points out (rightly, as I see it), that one benefits greatly from >society, and many take this as a signal that government may therefore >collect on the debt. Perhaps, (that's another debate) but the two words >are not synonyms. Nat makes the common mistake of confusing the benefits received from society with the benefits received from people in the society. I think this failure of distinction may well lie at the root of the philosophical differences between libertarians and the people libertarians like to call "socialists." Libertarians seem to regard society as the sum of its people, whereas "socialists" recognize that the *organization* of society itself contributes very strongly to the benefits people get from society. It is to this organization -- the infrastructure, if you prefer -- that everyone owes what Nat calls a debt. Agreed, society and Government are not synonymous. Society covers a much wider range of organizations than just government -- friendship groups, clubs, local governments ... But "Government", as a term, is a good word for the organized superstructure that provides Value Added over and above the value of the individuals. That Value Added is subject to a Value Added Tax (a tax owed by virtue of benefiting from the organization of society by Governments). Other organizations also add value to your life, but they are not as pervasive, and do not structure the fabric of your society. You *can* choose to belong or not to belong to most of them, but you can't choose to do without the benefits of belonging to an organized society. As to what tax is most appropriate and fair: I think that the only tax should be income tax. Taxes on static property are totally unfair because they must be paid out of income that may not exist because of property paid for with money already taxed. Taxes on goods or on corporations are taken in equal measure from rich and poor, which strikes me as unfair because the poor need a much larger proportion of their income just to stay alive. Income tax seems totally fair, easy to administer, and just. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt