[MD] On taxation

[Arlo Bensinger]

Dropping all the non-substantive parts of this. If you're appraisal of 
what's substantive differs from mine, please feel free to bring anything back.

[Platt]
Do you agree or not with the general proposition, "From each according to 
his abilities, to each according to his needs?" All your plans to improve 
society call upon those with ability to pay to alleviate the pain and 
suffering of those in need. Right?

[Arlo]
I do not agree with the general proposition. I'll also point out the 
rhetorical assumption you make, "those with ability to alleviate the pain 
and suffering of those in need", is a nice slant that builds in the 
proposal that "those in need" and "those with ability" are different. 
Everyone has "ability" and "needs". This is my fundamental source of 
disagreement with those favoring a "capistocracy", in that wealth becomes a 
measure of worth. SA has responded to this eloquently, so I'll just say, 
"yeah, what SA says".

[Platt]
I said "cut," not "eliminate." [taxes] So much for answering "substance."

[Arlo]
Just a misunderstanding then. Do you favor an income tax, then? What do you 
feel about Forbes argument that an income tax punishes people for taxing 
what they contribute TO society, while a consumption tax rightly targets 
what people TAKE from society? If you favor the income tax, would you favor 
abolishing sales taxes and other forms of taxation outright? If so, what 
percentage of income should be taken for taxes? With this administration's 
historical highs in spending, how would we pay this debt without increasing 
income tax?

[Platt]
When did I say getting rid of it [bankruptcy] was Marxist? The whole 
country goes bankrupt under Marxism.

[Arlo]
In my original suggestions, I included, "Eliminate bankruptcy, private and 
business." You referred to this as evidence of my Marxist agenda. When I 
asked you why this was evidence of Marxism, you replied, "Marxists abolish 
bankruptcy laws because in their controlled economy the government is the 
market. When it goes bankrupt a revolution soon follows as we saw in the 
Soviet bloc." Is it safe to assume that we agree that bankruptcy should be 
eliminated for both individuals AND businesses? And that your claim that my 
proposal evidenced Marxism was simply a misunderstanding?

[Arlo previously]
Who determines what is "legitimate"? Democratic vote? Conservative 
ideologues? Philosophers? Dare I say, "intellectuals"?

[Platt]
We the people through our elected representatives under our Constitutional 
government. You want an intellectual elite to rule?.

[Arlo]
The I take it if the majority vote for welfare, then you would consider 
taxation and redistribution a legitimate function of government? Is this a 
call for national referendums? As for an "intellectual elite" ruling the 
country, we are in no current danger of that.

[Platt]
Since I don't know what Limbaugh would disagree with I can't answer. Pirsig 
argued for freedom within a framework of order which is what conservatives 
argue for. But he argues for other things, too, like how intellectuals 
having taken over society have screwed up. Do you agree?

[Arlo]
I agree with Pirsig's premise, but find the word "intellectual" to be 
highly problematic. Pirsig, for example, is an "intellectual", and his book 
is an example of an "intellectual" proposing how to make the world better. 
Einstein was an intellectual. As I understand it, you use "intellectual" as 
simply a synonym for "college professors". And that puts us right back into 
really "just right wing politics" of attacking the Academy. It  makes for 
good soundbite, but offers nothing of substance. Also, keep in mind, that 
according the MOQ intellectuals SHOULD govern society, the problems he 
describes are a result only that SOMist underpinnings still exist. These 
same underpinnings are described as the problem in the production and 
consumption of goods discussed in ZMM. I think you neglect much of what 
Pirsig says in favor of only that which conforms to the Party.

For example, Indians. For example, the role of the collective 
consciousness. For example, the role of the peyote ceremony. For example, 
the emergentist nature of the MOQ levels. For example, the SOMist-created 
schism in production and consumption. To claim that you are not familiar 
enough with the Party Agenda to find one thing in either book that (1) you 
agree with, and (2) runs counter to conservative ideology, is quite an 
astonishing claim. I can find you several things I agree with in Pirsig 
that are counter to Marxism. As I did in this email.

As for your "still waiting" on which Victorian values are "unfitted for 
modern life", I will get to this. Although, of course, its telling that you 
refuse to even comment. You were, as I said, so quick to jump up and say 
certain Indian values are "unfitted". But watch for the thread soon.

[Platt]
In a civilized society, a person who cannot keep the product of his labor 
is a slave. Do you think slavery is legitimate?

[Arlo]
Hm. Here you seem to advance the notion that "legitimacy" is not simply a 
function of popular vote. If it isn't, from where does it arise?

[Arlo previously]
Should the government provide public roads? Public lands? EMT services? 
Public libraries? A military? Park rangers? Highway patrol officers? School?

[Platt]
Roads, parks, libraries, schools, police, military OK. EMT questionable.

[Arlo]
In other words, "let the poor die"?

I have another Marxist suggestion for you. Eliminate property tax entirely 
(which isnt really a new suggestion, since I've already said to abolish all 
other forms of taxation in favor of a consumption tax). All to often, 
property tax is used to force landowners whose land is suddenly "valuable" 
for commerical development or "desirable" to wealthy newcomers, off their 
land. And, get ride of eminent domain entirely.

Arlo