[MD] Sin Part 1

[Case]

Just to keep it a three way here, let me point out that you guys are
addressing: what should be taxed and how. These are issues for legislative
bodies to debate. I think they are worth discussing but only if we are
considering the pragmatics of taxation. Why would the community seek funds
for a particular purpose? Why would the government be involved and at what
level of involvement?

Platt seems stuck on the idea that the government has no right to levy
taxes. He seems to believe that taxation is theft and the process of levying
taxes is unjust.

This seems to me to be the most pernicious of and subversive of claims.
Rather than promoting the concept of "we the people" it calls for US against
a faceless system. Rather than promoting responsible citizenship it speaks
of revolution. It represents a willful misunderstanding or a cynical
misrepresentation of how our system is designed to function.

We the people do not require free men to participate in any economic system.
We do not tax those who do not participate and we do not deny them any of
the other rights and obligations of citizenship as a result. Free men can
petition their government in court. They can speak out at public meetings.
They can vote their consciences in free elections. If the government we have
is substandard, it is because "We the People" have failed to live to live up
to the standards we have set for ourselves.

We have missed the mark.

We have sinned.

And every capitalist should know the wages Sin pays.

> [Arlo interjects]
> Here's an idea. Let's make taxes voluntary, but only the people who pay
> them are allowed to use the roads, the libraries, police, fire and EMT
> services, public parks, public transit, etc.

Excellent, high-quality idea.

> Then let's say that goods
> in the market should be revalued for the non-taxpayer to underwrite the
> cost of moving goods on the public roads proportionally (ie, why should
> they get the same low-cost goods that I do when I am the only one who is
> paying for the roads to be maintained?).

Excellent idea.

> Let's say that those who do not
> pay taxes have to pay a hiring fee when then hire someone who's been
> publically schooled, since they are then leeching off MY payment to the
> schools to make reasonabley educated people (it would be their choice if
> they chose not to hire public school grads).

Oops. While we're at it, let's make funding of education voluntary, 
too. 

> And let's not forget the
> military. We'd have to send out maps to the international community
> denoting which properties are not currently protected by the US military
> (the non-taxpayers can, of course, develop and pay for their own
> military, wonder how much that alone will cost them per year?).

Police and military are legitimate functions of government. They 
benefit everyone. So OK to tax to fund them.

> No post
> office means every letter has to go through FedEx, who I am sure will
> adjust their rates appropriately to build the infrastructure to more
> parcel. 

Good idea. Eliminates a lot of junk mail currently subsidized.

> Any and all FDA, CDC and programs of the like will be offlimits.
> Next time a salmonella outbreak occurs, we only let taxpayers know about
> it. The non-taxpayers can, of course, hire and pay for a private firm to
> track and control these outbreaks in their own community. Let's see if
> that ends up costing them less.

Yes. Like Consumers Reports. 

> Since most of the airlines are operating
> on government loans, let's let the non-taxpayers who wish to fly pay the
> rates they would have to without this bailout. ($6200 for a flight to
> Germany? One way? One person? You bet.)

No reason to subsidize the airlines and trips to Germany. Trucks are 
heavily subsidized. Let them pay the true costs.

> Oh, and finally, the courts too
> would be off-limits, as would any other public office.

Courts funded voluntarily by those who want to enforce contracts, like 
insurance policies.

> No one collects MY taxes by threat of force. I am glad to pay them.

So next time, why not double or triple your happiness?

> Now,
> I'd personally change the collection structure (100% consumption tax,
> that's my stance),

Agree, to fund military and police.

> and I'd increase some funded areas (public parks)
> while decreasing others (corporate welfare), and I'd certainly agree
> that the implementation structure for some is broken and in need of
> repair (money for school lunches should go for school lunches, and
> nothing more). But taxes, hell, I call them a membership fee for all the
> great infrastructure we have supporting our nation.
 
You can call them whatever you want. I call them highway robbery. 
Anyway, thanks for some very creative ideas on how to improve the 
economy and ensure a higher quality of life. Gav and other have called 
for such ideas. I'm sure they will appreciate them, too.   


moq_discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/