Jim Choate wrote:
Forwarded message:
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 09:08:11 -0500 From: Soren <sorens@workmail.com> Subject: Re: How to solve the tax problem w/o anarchy or force (fwd)
<P>This also provides an outlet for the social do-gooders to create their utopias by vastly inflating those taxes associated with less favored consumables
Hm, interesting choice of terms for comparison. So you're admitting that anarcho-whatever isn't a social do-gooder, the intent is not to make the system better or more equitable.
No, the intent *is* to make the system better and more equitable. It's just that we don't favor the socialist definition of "equitable". We support voluntary systems, not coercive ones.
Rather you're admitting, apparently tacitly, that the goal of the anarcho-whatever is personal rather than social improvement. There is also a further tacit admission with this system won't address the social ills that plague us currently.
Except that it's personal improvement for *everyone* (except for tyrants and other politicans, but we didn't like them much anyway).
I must admit I'm impressed. In a couple of days I've run across two seperate anarcho-whatever supporters who admit their proposal won't address the social ills but rather leaves them up to chance. That's more than in the last 20 years.
Our proposals do not leave things up to chance any more than the current system does. In fact, it can be argued that our system leaves less up to chance than yours does. Lets do a comparative analysis. In today's system: 1: Social Ill exists. 2: Social Ill is identified by someone. 3: That someone makes a lot of noise, and lobbies the state to supply money to finance the correction of the Social Ill. This is done by convincing a majority of voters in some election or other, which may not take place for at least a year, that this Social Ill is very important --more important than all the other Social Ills. 4: Someone who wants the Social Ill corrected gets into power, and proceeds to try to correct the Social Ill with a huge rumbling centralized governmental machine. This often excacerbates the Social Ill, rather than correcting it. The net result: The Social Ill is not likely to be corrected until the next election, and will be paid for by taking more money away from everyone else (since the state gets its money from taxpayers, and cannot create value out of thin air). Even worse, the person lobbying for the correction of the Social Ill may not get into power, since he may have lost the election to someone who used lots of money to make him look bad. Thus, the Social Ill may not get corrected for some time, if ever. Under a truly free system: 1: Social Ill exists. 2: Social Ill is identified by someone. 3: That someone makes a lot of noise, alerting everyone else to the existance of this Social Ill. Those who agree with the first someone will contribute time, money, and resources to correcting this Social Ill. 4: Social Ill is dealt with in the most effective manner possible, since people will be free to try to correct it in any number of ways, and will of course prefer to contribute their money to an effort that has the best effect. This is an improvement upon today's system. We no longer need to have the majority of voters approval to start correcting the Social Ill. All we need is a group of people who are willing to support the correction of the Social Ill. This makes the most sense, since we obviously don't need to draw on *everyone'* resources to correct every Social Ill. (of course, some rare Social Ills will be that large, but the larger the Social Ill, the more people wil recognize it as such.) Better yet, frivilous problems (i.e. those invented for the advancement of some politician's career, or out of sheer stupidity) will not have large amounts of resources wasted upon them. Only the most blind and stupid of people would contribute to the correction of nonexistant Social Ills (of course, that is their right, but at least nobody else will have to waste their money, if they don't wish to). So, is it now clear to you why your above statement was somewhat premature? Michael Hohensee