-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Here is my last post in this thread, because I feel that it is going nowhere: My views are irreconcilable with those of the libertarians on this list. Here's the way I view the world: 1) Life has no inherent value. Our being here is random, and there is no purpose to our lives. 2) "Human progress" is bullshit. We are no further along as a species now than we were in Plato's time. Basically, we're going nowhere fast. 3) People have no essential "rights." Rights don't exist. This is a theme often found in the work of many modern philosophers, such as Foucault. 5) Taking all three premises above, the only way I can find to evaluate what is right and what is wrong is "do what causes the least pain." I guess this is basically pragmatism. For example, if raising taxes to 95% would feed everyone in the world (I'm just speaking hypothetically), then I would advocate this, because this would lead to less pain in the world. (And I don't consider some people having to sell their Ferraris "pain." ;-) Someone here said that each time taxes are raised, we lose freedom. So what? First of all, what is "freedom"? Second of all, what is so great about it that it should be evaluated before everything else? So I guess when people say "but by making the insurance companies pay for the medical care, you are stealing from them," my answer is "So what?" I understand that this way of viewing the world is not shared by many on this list, so it seems that it would be damn near impossible for us to reach agreement. - -- Nathan Saper (natedog@well.com) | http://www.well.com/user/natedog/ GnuPG (ElGamal/DSA): 0x9AD0F382 | PGP 2.x (RSA): 0x386C4B91 Standard PGP & PGP/MIME OK | AOL Instant Messenger: linuxfu -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE59oRA2FWyBZrQ84IRAlgUAJ9y2Tjn0jqwpSyxZD7wQW+UGQi5dQCfczrz 5fXnbFxhPFVfaFbiPu2/KNQ= =ijeO -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
It's a not entirely uninteresting approach, but one doesn't have to resort to libertarian rights-theory to refute it (not that arguing about rights is going to resolve anything anyway). Simple pragmatism can do the same. I mean, Nathan, have you ever considered what happens when taxes are raised to 95 percent? I know you were just speaking hypothetically, but to be realistic, a hypo will have to includse the negative effects as well as the positive. For instance, what are the economic effects? What are the black markets that arise? What punitive measures must nations adopt to enforce tax collection? What about revolt and the ensuing bloodshed? What about public choice theory? Think these things through, if you really want to be "pragmatic." -Declan On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 11:58:18PM -0700, Nathan Saper wrote:
least pain." I guess this is basically pragmatism. For example, if raising taxes to 95% would feed everyone in the world (I'm just speaking hypothetically), then I would advocate
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 10:09:53AM -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote:
It's a not entirely uninteresting approach, but one doesn't have to resort to libertarian rights-theory to refute it (not that arguing about rights is going to resolve anything anyway).
Simple pragmatism can do the same. I mean, Nathan, have you ever considered what happens when taxes are raised to 95 percent?
I guess it depends on the country. In the U.S., I'm not sure what would happen.
I know you were just speaking hypothetically, but to be realistic, a hypo will have to includse the negative effects as well as the positive.
You are correct. Just so it's clear, I did say "IF raising taxes to 95%..." I'm not sure that it would.
For instance, what are the economic effects?
Again, it depends on the economic framework under which we are operating.
What are the black markets that arise?
I don't know, what black markets would arise? If people were housed, clothed, fed, etc, then most would still have plenty of disposable income to buy what they wanted.
What punitive measures must nations adopt to enforce tax collection?
I'm not sure. However, if all housing and food was provided by the government, and not paying your appropriate level of taxes removed your entitlement to said housing and food, then I'd think most people would pay their taxes. Not that I'm advocating government being the sole distributor of food or anything. I'm just illustrating that it depends on the exact situation.
What about revolt and the ensuing bloodshed?
Who would revolt? The rich? Too few in numbers. The middle class? They're apathetic, and they'd still get access to everything they had under our system in the new system. The poor? They'd be better off, so they wouldn't revolt. Cypherpunks? Sorry, guys, but there aren't that many of you. ;-)
What about public choice theory?
I'm not familiar with this. Want to explain it to me? Probably not, seeing as both you and T.C. seem to think that I'm not worth speaking to. Ah, well.
Think these things through, if you really want to be "pragmatic."
-Declan
On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 11:58:18PM -0700, Nathan Saper wrote:
least pain." I guess this is basically pragmatism. For example, if raising taxes to 95% would feed everyone in the world (I'm just speaking hypothetically), then I would advocate
- -- Nathan Saper (natedog@well.com) | http://www.well.com/user/natedog/ GnuPG (ElGamal/DSA): 0x9AD0F382 | PGP 2.x (RSA): 0x386C4B91 Standard PGP & PGP/MIME OK | AOL Instant Messenger: linuxfu -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.5 and Gnu Privacy Guard <http://www.gnupg.org/> iD8DBQE593dy2FWyBZrQ84IRAqWqAKCb7gKuqtNzXqjP/BKY92wQ/ZZQ1gCdEWS0 U7yPhPvI/n+/49eq1x3lHgQ= =P4CJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
At 17:15 -0700 10/25/00, Nathan Saper wrote:
Who would revolt? The rich? Too few in numbers. The middle class? They're apathetic, and they'd still get access to everything they had under our system in the new system. The poor? They'd be better off, so they wouldn't revolt. Cypherpunks? Sorry, guys, but there aren't that many of you. ;-)
The problem with repressing any group is that they have an annoying habit of waking up at the most inopportune moments... -- "As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air--however slight--lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness." -- Justice William O. Douglas ____________________________________________________________________ Kevin "The Cubbie" Elliott <mailto:kelliott@mac.com> ICQ#23758827
On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 05:15:06PM -0700, Nathan Saper wrote, quoting me:
For instance, what are the economic effects?
Again, it depends on the economic framework under which we are operating.
Nope. You don't get it. Economics is in part hte study of people acting in their own rational self-interest, which can't be denied by government fiat.
What are the black markets that arise?
I don't know, what black markets would arise? If people were housed, clothed, fed, etc, then most would still have plenty of disposable income to buy what they wanted.
Are you clueless? You were talking in this hypothetical about a tax rate of 95 percent. That's not a whole lot of disposable income to buy widescreen TVs.
I'm not sure. However, if all housing and food was provided by the government, and not paying your appropriate level of taxes removed your entitlement to said housing and food, then I'd think most people would pay their taxes.
Have you ever looked at government housing? If I could escape it and my tax obligations by the simple expedient of deciding not to pay, I would. You've just made taxes voluntary, twit. -Declan
Your conclusion is at odds with your views. Based one 1, it is surprising that you're not advocating humanicide. Based on 2, it is surprising that you're not advocating being Amish Based on 3, it is surprising that you don't support dictatorships. Not surprisingly, views 1,2,3 put into political power provide nothing less than oppression. Nathan Saper wrote:
My views are irreconcilable with those of the libertarians on this list. Here's the way I view the world:
1) Life has no inherent value. Our being here is random, and there is no purpose to our lives.
2) "Human progress" is bullshit. We are no further along as a species now than we were in Plato's time. Basically, we're going nowhere fast.
3) People have no essential "rights." Rights don't exist. This is a theme often found in the work of many modern philosophers, such as Foucault.
5) Taking all three premises above, the only way I can find to evaluate what is right and what is wrong is "do what causes the least pain." I guess this is basically pragmatism. For example, if raising taxes to 95% would feed everyone in the world (I'm just speaking hypothetically), then I would advocate this, because this would lead to less pain in the world. (And I don't consider some people having to sell their Ferraris "pain." ;-) Someone here said that each time taxes are raised, we lose freedom. So what? First of all, what is "freedom"? Second of all, what is so great about it that it should be evaluated before everything else?
-- ----------------------Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--------------------------- + ^ + :Surveillance cameras|Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\ \|/ :aren't security. A |share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\ <--*-->:camera won't stop a |monitor, or under your keyboard, you \/|\/ /|\ :masked killer, but |don't email them, or put them on a web \|/ + v + :will violate privacy|site, and you must change them very often. --------_sunder_@_sunder_._net_------- http://www.sunder.net ------------
At 15:29 -0400 10/27/00, sunder wrote:
Your conclusion is at odds with your views.
Based one 1, it is surprising that you're not advocating humanicide. Based on 2, it is surprising that you're not advocating being Amish
So Nathan, are you Amish? It would explain a lot... I'm not sure you justify using email but to each his own...
Based on 3, it is surprising that you don't support dictatorships.
Not surprisingly, views 1,2,3 put into political power provide nothing less than oppression. --
"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air--however slight--lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness." -- Justice William O. Douglas ____________________________________________________________________ Kevin "The Cubbie" Elliott <mailto:kelliott@mac.com> ICQ#23758827
participants (4)
-
Declan McCullagh -
Kevin Elliott -
Nathan Saper -
sunder