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

juan juan.g71 at gmail.com
Mon Nov 21 12:51:05 PST 2016


On Mon, 21 Nov 2016 19:59:58 +0000 (UTC)
jim bell <jdb10987 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> 
> 
>  From: juan <juan.g71 at gmail.com>
> 
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2016 18:11:11 +0000 (UTC)
> jim bell <jdb10987 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> >> > Steve Kinney <admin at pilobilus.net>
> >> > In the United States, 500
> >> > billionaires presently own about 1/2 of the capital assets;
> 
> >> Did they obtain them legally or illegally?  
> 
> >    Do you have to ask?

> Yes, I DO have to ask.  Chalk it up to my not being PC.  Sorry if
> that microagression offends the snowflakes.

	I'm not a unique snowflake nor was I offended. If anything, my
	retort was less than polite =)

> 
> >Basic political economy
> What is "political economy"?  Are you simply talking about economics?


	Political economy. Frederic Bastiat, Adam Smith, that sort of
	thing...

	'economics' is a more vulgar name for it =P - Also, all kinds
	of statists swear that their schemes are based on 'economics'.
	Allegedly there's commie 'economics' etc. But "political
	economy" is more unequivocally libertarian...or should be...


> Remember, I'm a LIBERTARIAN.  I believe "taxation is theft".  This
> means that I don't automatically accept the idea that government is
> somehow entitled to rob people of their assets and income. 

	Neither do I. 



 
> > and natural rights theory should inform you...But the answer is,
> > for the record,
>     ILLEGALLY.

> What is "natural rights theory". 

	"Political system based on rights to life, liberty and
	property. Those rights are inherent to human beings, not
	granted by any criminal mafia or 'government'. Et cetera"
	Something like that...


> At least, how do "natural rights"
> somehow allow a system (American, for example) of taxation that
> didn't exist for 99% of world history?  Doesn't sound too 'natural'
> to me.

	I didn't mean that natural rights allow for taxation. Of course
	they don't. what I meant is that rich people in
	mercantilistic/corporatist systems get rich by violating
	natural rights. 

> 
> 
> > If illegally, enforce the
> > law.  If legally, change the laws if necessary.
> 
>     I'm not really following. Why should libertarian anarchists
>     bother with state legislation?

> Despite being a libertarian anarchist, I can engage in discussions
> which do not assume that libertarian anarchy exists or is proper.
>  For example, I can consider the existing political system, and
> discuss various improvements to it, ones short of actually
> implementing libertarian anarchy.    Properly used, brains can do
> things like that.


	That's fine. Now, being a libertarian anarchist I would never
	suggest 'reforms' that give even more power ot hte ruling
	class. 

	So, back to the taxation thing...If american corporatists get
	say,  100 000 000 000 millions in subsidies, and then they have
	to pay 3% tax, or even 50% tax, are they being 'robbed'? 

	The state and the private sector are two factions of the
	same mafia. If there's a dispute over the spoils, can it be said
	that one faction is 'robbing' the other? It turns out, none of
	them have a legitimate claim to the property in dispute...

	

> 
> >    That doesn't mean that 'restitution' by means of taxes makes
>  >   much sense either. Obviously the state, whose purpose is to TAX
>  >  THE POOR and give the money to the RICH is not going to do the
>  >   opposite.

> If the job of the government is to "tax the poor", it isn't doing an
> especially effective job. 

	
> As I previously cited, " "The Top 50
> Percent of All Taxpayers Paid 97 Percent of All Income Taxes; 


	So what (assuming your statistics were true) - Income tax is not
	the only tax at all. As Steve Kinney pointed out, and apparently
	you flatly ignored :

	"Currency inflation is also a tax on the poor for the benefit
	of the rich." 

	I'll add that the american mafia taxes the whole fucking world
	because the dollar is used everywhere. 

	There's also an incredible amount of regulations that
	restrict competition, hurt consumers and benefit
	producers. There's so called 'intellectual property' - a
	profoundly anti-libertarian, anti-free market aberration
	that leads to capital concentration. Et cetera. Again, all
	these mechanisms that violate natural rights and benefit the
	mercantile/ruling class have been thouroughly studied
	by...political economists.




> the Top
> 5 Percent Paid 57 Percent of All Income Taxes; and the Top 1 Percent
> Paid 35 Percent of All Income Taxes in 2011" Assuming you agree that
> "the poor" inhabit the region "the bottom 50 percent of all
> taxpayers", then those "poor" are only paying 3% (100%-97% = 3%) of
> the total Federal taxes collected.  That's not very effective "tax
> the poor" results, is it? 


	See above.



 If "the poor" are those in the bottom 10%
> of taxpayers, then the statistic (which I don't have) would probably
> be even more extreme. Looks to me if they are trying to CONCEAL their
> taxing the poor, they are doing an excellent job. But then again, if
> you are content with simply inventing reality, such statistics aren't
> much of an impediment. Jim Bell
> 
>     



More information about the cypherpunks mailing list