What % of the so-called alt-right were just plain ol' libertarians before?

[Steven Schear]

The U.S. founders were quite clear in prohibiting income-like distributive
taxes. The saw the peril for what it was: a means to use to pit one
group/clsss against another.

Warrant Canary creator

On Nov 21, 2016 8:38 AM, "jim bell" <jdb10987 at yahoo.com> wrote:



*From:* Razer <rayzer at riseup.net>
On 11/20/2016 09:49 PM, jim bell wrote:

>>Oh!  I see you are justifying robbing people based on the mere assertion
that they can 'afford' it.

>No. I justify it on the fact that they're the criminals and taxes
appropriately applied are really a form of restitution. If they don't like
it they can hire an army. They can afford it. After all that's how they
robbed the rest of us in the first place.

You have not qualified the term, "they".  Are you saying that all income
must necessarily be theft?  I would have thought people like you would have
taken the position, something like "All income over $100,000 per year is
theft".  Or, you know, limit the number of people who are called thieves
to, perhaps, the famous "1%".


>Thing is taxes aren't appropriately applied. That 50% tax on the wealthy
you speak of doesn't really exist after deductions and writedowns nd
donations of high-heeled shoes to the Haiti relief fund. Right? Some
wealthy people pay less taxes than that guy living in a box in a field.
Actually most wealthy people pay almost nothing percentage-wise after all
the bennies their plutocrat friends write into tax codes compared to their
UNEARNED (as in they didn't actually work or produce anything useful to
society) income.

Do you have specific statistics to back up your claims?
I have read, elsewhere, that the total Federal government expenditures, as
a portion of GDP, tends to remain relatively constant at approximately
20%.  Why should there be any tax rate dramatically greater than that?


>And then there's sales tax, which rips workers off way out of proportion
to the wealthy.

What's wrong with what amounts to a flat tax based on what you spend?
 (arguendo; I'm a libertarian, but I can still argue these issues).
A person who makes $1 million per year doesn't use 100x the food,
transportation, housing, manufactured goods as a person who makes $10K per
year.  It sure sounds like you are, at least, assuming that taxes should be
proportional to income.  Why?

Also, you still haven't addressed the issue about the specific person cited
in the article, the guy who claimed to have been a libertarian. After all,
the thread is titled, "What % of the so-called alt-right were just plain
ol' libertarians before?"

 The entire relevance of your reference is based on what so far is
unprovable:  Was that guy actually ever a "libertarian" as most other
libertarians would recognize.  Now, I can't prove that he wasn't a
libertarian, but I find your focus on libertarians here to be misleading.
The way I see it, "alt-right" (what does that actually mean?!?) people
probably 'came from' a lot of different political philosophies.  Why do you
point solely to libertarians?

I should also add that this guy may STILL be libertarian:  He may not
believe in the "initiation of force or fraud" against his fellow person,
the "non-initiation of force or fraud principle".  (NIOFF).  That he may
have other identifiable beliefs might be interesting, but at the same time
wouldn't have to be damning of him.  For instance, hypothetically an
"alt-right" person might believe that American government has been used,
for many years, to allow certain groups to sponge off the rest of the
population.  Merely  believing that, or saying that out loud, doesn't make
him non-libertarian, does it?  In fact, he is objecting to the way the
government itself has initiated force, threatening people into paying
"taxes", and them disbursing those taxes in order to obtain political
advantage.  (votes.)   If anything, his making this argument would make him
a consistent libertarian.

Now, you may object to libertarians for precisely this reason:  You may
believe that it's okey-dokey for government to threaten people to pay
"taxes", so the government can use that money for political-benefit
reasons.  But taking that position merely identifies you as being
non-libertarian.

        Jim Bell
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 8205 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20161121/84d118ee/attachment.txt>