Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Income tax and "theft"
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8  Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Income tax and "theft" (Read 1292 times)
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 11878
Location: California Coast
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Re: Income tax and "theft"
Reply #60 - Jul 3rd, 2019 at 11:49am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Jul 3rd, 2019 at 11:24am:
...why do libertarians oppose UBI?

2 reasons:

1) It's not the government's job to redistribute wealth.  If the government is distributing wealth, then it has become too powerful.

2) UBI would cost US Taxpayers $3.25 Billion per year.   That's a boatload of money!!   Libertarians oppose income tax, so they naturally must oppose any government program which is funded by Taxes.

The Opposition wrote on Jul 3rd, 2019 at 11:24am:
Why do they hate your guest visa plan? Why are they so hung up on that fifty bucks or whatever you want to charge being aggression?

(Most) libertarians believe that economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of people and goods across national borders - open borders, basically.

My Guest Visa plan is not "open borders".   It might exclude some people because there is a strict vetting process and the $500 fee. 

It's still a wonderful compromise between the border mess that we have now and "open borders".

And once in place, it will be self-sustaining.  The money collected from the Guest Visa fees would be used to run the system.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Industry
Libertarians Full Member
***
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 247
Joined: Jun 14th, 2019
Re: Income tax and "theft"
Reply #61 - Jul 3rd, 2019 at 12:56pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Jul 3rd, 2019 at 11:24am:
Why do libertarians oppose UBI?


because your dumb lol you don't understand redistribution is wrong
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Dr.Entropy
Junior Member
**
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 33
Joined: Jun 24th, 2019
Re: Income tax and "theft"
Reply #62 - Jul 4th, 2019 at 5:37pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Jul 3rd, 2019 at 6:16am:
Yes to the first. The federal government has been charged with the duty of providing us with stable money and the power to tax to support the Treasury Dept. and any mints necessary to coin money for us. They already make money by coining/printing money.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/seigniorage


Someone (government employees) had to work to coin/mint "our" money and provide protection for it. Should that someone not be compensated for their labor? Wouldn't taxation provide such compensation? Should government employees be forced to work for free?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Dr.Entropy
Junior Member
**
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 33
Joined: Jun 24th, 2019
Re: Income tax and "theft"
Reply #63 - Jul 4th, 2019 at 5:40pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Jul 3rd, 2019 at 6:21am:
So I'll find someone who will mow my lawn in exchange for lunch.


Very good. Now neither of you have to pay taxes.

The IRS doesn't tax lunches, do they?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Dr.Entropy
Junior Member
**
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 33
Joined: Jun 24th, 2019
Re: Income tax and "theft"
Reply #64 - Jul 4th, 2019 at 5:52pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Jul 3rd, 2019 at 11:24am:
You want to contract for aggression? Profit from aggression? Go crazy. Don't violate the NAP.


How is contracting for aggression not aggression, or are you just pointing out what you consider to be the short comings of the NAP? I am a little confused here.

Also, isn't profiting from aggression the same as parasitism which some (including me to an extent) might consider aggression as well?

The Opposition wrote on Jul 3rd, 2019 at 11:24am:
Libertarianism is not unsuccessful.


So libertarianism is successful?  Huh
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 11878
Location: California Coast
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Re: Income tax and "theft"
Reply #65 - Jul 4th, 2019 at 5:59pm
Print Post  
Dr.Entropy wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 5:37pm:
Wouldn't taxation provide such compensation? Should government employees be forced to work for free?

Government employees should be paid with chits.   Chits can be redeemed for goods or services at Government stores.  Chits are similar to Federal Reserve Notes (in that they are all the same physical size, but are of different denominations), but are not considered "legal tender". 

(Sorry, you can't pay the baby-sitter with chits.)

Private corporations, local farmers, and other benefactors would donate goods to government stores to keep them well stocked. 

In the event that private donations dropped to very low level, Federal Prisoners would be called on to produce goods to be sold in government stores.  The Prisoners will be compensated with reduced sentences, i.e., one day reduction in sentence for each 8 hours worked.

This will eliminate the need for all Taxes.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 11312
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Income tax and "theft"
Reply #66 - Jul 4th, 2019 at 6:30pm
Print Post  
Dr.Entropy wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 5:52pm:
How is contracting for aggression not aggression, or are you just pointing out what you consider to be the short comings of the NAP?


It's not a shortcoming. The NAP is what it is.

Note that I'm only going on what others have said about contracting for aggression not being aggression.

Welfare queens who entice the government to steal for them are innocent. They are not guilty of stealing because they have others do it for them.

Dr.Entropy wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 5:52pm:
So libertarianism is successful?  Huh


Very. Everyone who follows the NAP and nothing else is a pure libertarian of the highest order.

That includes every progressive Leftist cowering in his shower and laughing about the YouTube video he just made telling people it's okay to punch Nazis.

Did he punch anyone himself? Did he initiate force? Did he commit fraud?

Nope. He's not responsible for what others do.

If no one goes out and punches a Nazi on the coward's word, obviously there is no aggression. Since the coward's act is either aggression or not, purely on the merit of the act itself (it does not depend upon what others do in response to it) it is not aggression.

And when the Nazi who's had his skull bashed bursts into that shower and punches the coward, that will be initiatory force - aggression.

I'm just stating facts about the Non-Aggression Principle, based on what I've read on this forum and in libertarian literature. If you don't like it, then find another principle.

SkyChief wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 5:59pm:
Government employees should be paid with chits.   Chits can be redeemed for goods or services at Government stores.  Chits are similar to Federal Reserve Notes (in that they are all the same physical size, but are of different denominations), but are not considered "legal tender". 

(Sorry, you can't pay the baby-sitter with chits.)


Well, you can't force her to take it, but so far as I know, no one is forced to take dollars either. (Dollars just lie to you and indicate that there is such force in play.)

I'd be happy to babysit or tutor or whatever else you've got for a couple chits. If I know I can use them for food, I'll be happy to have them.

In this way, only grocery stores really have to be stocked.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Dr.Entropy
Junior Member
**
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 33
Joined: Jun 24th, 2019
Re: Income tax and "theft"
Reply #67 - Jul 4th, 2019 at 9:21pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 6:30pm:
If no one goes out and punches a Nazi on the coward's word, obviously there is no aggression. Since the coward's act is either aggression or not, purely on the merit of the act itself (it does not depend upon what others do in response to it) it is not aggression.


If the coward knew that by promoting Nazi punching, he/she induces a high probability that a Nazi will be punched then that could be counted as aggression. Then again, if people have total free will then there is no way the coward can affect the decision to punch a Nazi by promoting Nazi punching and thus has committed no aggression.

The Opposition wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 6:30pm:
I'm just stating facts about the Non-Aggression Principle, based on what I've read on this forum and in libertarian literature. If you don't like it, then find another principle.


I have. I call it the Entropian-Non-Aggression-Principle (ENAP). Basically and roughly, don't actively engage in non-residual interactions with other sentient beings without their agreement (residual meaning unavoidable). This would include not initiating harm but also not initiating parasitism to some extent.

The definition of aggression (initiated non-residual violence) under the ENAP is more broad and more nuanced than the standard NAP.

Violence would include things like assault, lying, endangerment, enslavement, surveillance, fraud, and even certain forms of institutionalized deprivation. When such violence can be avoided without causing other violence (including to self) and is unwanted by the recipient, it becomes aggression.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 11878
Location: California Coast
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Re: Income tax and "theft"
Reply #68 - Jul 5th, 2019 at 10:32am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 6:30pm:
Well, you can't force her to take it, but so far as I know, no one is forced to take dollars either. (Dollars just lie to you and indicate that there is such force in play.).

Of course you're right.

You can pay the baby-sitter with cowry shells if she'll take them!   Grin.   Grin

I should have said "Don't expect the baby-sitter to accept government chits as payment for services rendered."

Because only government employeees can redeem chits for goods and services in government stores.   

That's important because people will stop donating if wealthy people are allowed to use government stores.

I know I would.  The whole system would collapse.

Quote:
I'd be happy to babysit or tutor or whatever else you've got for a couple chits. If I know I can use them for food, I'll be happy to have them.

In this way, only grocery stores really have to be stocked.
Government employees will need other things than just food. They will need clothing,  housing, and many other things.

Participating donors will allow chits to be used in lieu of real money, and then the government would exchange real money for chits redeemed.

In this way, goods and services can be "donated" to government employees.  A retailer might offer to sell a flat screen TV for $700 to the public, but 500 chits to a government employee.   The retailer just donated the equivalent of 200 chits on that sale.

The downside is there will be a stigma attached to using chits to buy things in retail stores.   There will be phrases like "Don't be a piece of chit." . . . or "That ain't worth chit."
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 11312
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Income tax and "theft"
Reply #69 - Jul 5th, 2019 at 1:19pm
Print Post  
SkyChief wrote on Jul 5th, 2019 at 10:32am:
Of course you're right.

You can pay the baby-sitter with cowry shells if she'll take them!   Grin.   Grin

I should have said "Don't expect the baby-sitter to accept government chits as payment for services rendered."

Because only government employees can redeem chits for goods and services in government stores.   

That's important because people will stop donating if wealthy people are allowed to use government stores.


I think you might have a black market on your hands that it's just better to avoid. If you tell me I can't use the chits myself, I'll just have Govbob buy me the stuff out of the government store.

You'll have the same thing you see with EBT cards. People will sell the use of their foodstamp cards for cash. The people without access to foodstamps are eager to get the basic needs for a little less and the people with essentially infinite basic need fulfillment (yes I know EBT isn't infinite but it's quite a lot) are eager to get the cash.

I think you should just let me tutor Govbob's kid for chits.

Dr.Entropy wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 9:21pm:
I have. I call it the Entropian-Non-Aggression-Principle (ENAP). Basically and roughly, don't actively engage in non-residual interactions with other sentient beings without their agreement (residual meaning unavoidable). This would include not initiating harm but also not initiating parasitism to some extent.


It's going to be tough to make the case for that. I think you should try, though.

Just remember that libertarians aren't going to take kindly to the idea that buying up all the vanilla and throwing it away should be impermissible just because it reduces the choices of others.

I think nonlibertarians would probably gobble it up, though. I know I'd live a lot better under your principle than under the NAP because what I care about the most is practical freedom of speech.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Income tax and "theft"
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy