[MD] Sin Part 1

[ian glendinning]

Platt, Arlo, I agree with Case's point too.

The difference between Arlo's rhetorical questions and Platt's
enthusiastic acceptance of them is the pragmatics of actually doing
it.

Taxation based (more) on consumption is a great whose time is coming,
but the inefficiecy of collecting it all at point of use, means there
will still have to be some centrally (voluntarily / democratically)
institutionalised pre-payments and insurances. And the fact that there
will be free-loaders means we either have to force them (intellect
over social) to comply, or leave them dying at the roadside if all we
can find is their "conscientious objector" card rather than Arlo's
credit card.

The extremes are theoretical.
Reality is pragmatic middle ground.
Ian

On 11/19/06, ARLO J BENSINGER JR <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:
> [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.
>
> [Arlo]
> Agree, Case. I know we've talking about taxation "points" before. I do not feel
> taxation is either immoral or illegitimate. As I've said repeatedly, I am happy
> to pay taxes for the infrastructure I have at my disposal. Platt has said that
> the military and police are the legitimate functions of government, and I'd
> argue the reason is they are concerned primarily with protecting property
> rights. Platt needs a man with a gun to protect his property, but school
> lunches or public parks or libraries don't matter because they are not "his".
> (You see the effects of mercantilism here, no?)
>
> I've made the argument (won't rehash it entirely) to the effect that access to
> information underscores intellectual-level growth, and basing access to
> information on social-wealth, restricts (and kills) dynamic intellectual
> evolution. Hence, public libraries are a legitimate function of government.
> Now, I do not argue that all books should be free, along with all Internet
> access, but reasonabley available (per social negotiation) to those without
> social means of acquisition (libraries with public internet terminals, for
> example). I _WANT_ as many people as possible accessing as much information as
> possible. If my money goes to that, I am happy. And I benefit because my
> society improves, because intellect improves.
>
> The bottom-line question is this. What goods (if you commodify everything)
> should only be available to people with social-level means of acquisition? What
> do we commodify and sell in the marketplace, and what do we not? Or, if you
> follow the mercantilistic discourse, do we commodify everything? Is
> "healthcare", for example, a good that should be bought and sold only to those
> with financial means? The neocons position relies on social-Darwinism, namely
> that the poor are "lazy and stupid" (witness Ham's recent post on why people
> are poor), and commodifying healthcare is a way to "let the unproductive die
> off".
>
> Anyways, I think we should let Platt try to spend a year paying for privately
> what he gets through governmental taxation, and lets see what he says when he
> has less money than he does now. God forbid he needs EMT services, and can't
> find his credit card when they get there...
>
>
> 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/
>