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

juan juan.g71 at gmail.com
Mon Nov 21 12:38:01 PST 2016


On Mon, 21 Nov 2016 12:11:28 -0800
Steven Schear <schear.steve at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.


	Right. They were very interested in not having any class
	conflict, so that their class, the class of Slave Owners, could
	rule the planet unchallenged. And their plan is still working
	rather well. 



> 
> 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



More information about the cypherpunks mailing list