Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 v7 ucbtopaz-1.8; site ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!ucbvax!ucbtopaz!mwm From: mwm@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Re: Libertarianism as ideology (repl Message-ID: <834@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA> Date: Wed, 20-Mar-85 03:53:45 EST Article-I.D.: ucbtopaz.834 Posted: Wed Mar 20 03:53:45 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 21-Mar-85 04:44:49 EST References: <1467@dciem.UUCP> Reply-To: mwm@ucbtopaz.UUCP (Praiser of Bob) Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica Lines: 59 Summary: [Enter parody mode.] In article <1467@dciem.UUCP> mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) writes: >Nat makes the common mistake of confusing the benefits received >from society with the benefits received from people in the society. Martin makes the common mistake of confusing a collection of people with an entity that can act on its own. In this case, Nat was pointing out that most people do not act to benefit Nat, so Martin is claiming that those actions aren't the ones that Nat owes society for. Martin, would you be so kind as to point out actions which benefit Nat which were not undertaken by a person? >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. I think this illusion of distinction may well lie at the root of the philosophical differences between socialists and the people socialists like to call "libertarians." Socialists seem to regard society as an active entity, whereas "libertarians" recognize that the people and their interactions constitute the sum total of society. [Exit parody mode.] >It is to this organization -- the >infrastructure, if you prefer -- that everyone owes what Nat calls >a debt. Two responses: First, fine - and I repay the debt by participating in society. If I don't participate, then I don't owe a debt, and if I do, then the debt is de-facto paid. Second, should I concede that I owe money to "society", will you provide a mailing address where I can send the check :-)? >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. The above statements only apply if the income tax is flat. A little thought will show that any graduated tax is always unfair to people acting in concert, one way or another. Loopholes are only loopholes for other people - for you they are "legitimate deductions." The list of problems just goes on and on. My personal favorite (if we absolutely must have a tax) is sales tax, excluding staple foods and rent/upkeep on a single domicile. If you let people post prices with "sales tax included," it can even be made as invisible as income tax. And of course, it seems "totally fair, easy to administer, and just."