On Saturday 2005-01-08 15:57, Erik Reuter wrote: > On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 04:21:37PM -0600, Gary Denton wrote: > > Yes, they have (I saw your correction). The budget deficit urgently > needs to be fixed. So does SS. So does Medicare/medicaid. Let's get to > work. Bush won the election, so he gets to choose the order of attack.
As I understand it, GD, based on libertarian principles and sentiment, does not specifically endorse the contemporary legitimacy of either the constitutional American republic known as the United States of America (though this involves neither denial of his right to be culturally or socially American). By extension, but even more so, he cannot be said to endorse the federal government operated by the USA. Bush's winning the election could be contested on the grounds that the ENTIRE SYSTEM of election in the USA is so compromised by innumerable factors inimical to natural libertarian freedoms and principles that neither Bush nor any other holder of the POTUS role need be regarded as legitimate _per se_. Furthermore, even if one allows that Bush is _de facto_ and _de jure_ POTUS, that is no reason to admit the Bush administration should have the right to "choose the order of attack" since such strong administrative power is indicative of an imperial presidency that is inimical to natural libertarian rights. Finally, even if one (merely for the sake of argument) stipulates that the Republic, its government, the current understanding of the POTUS office, and Bush's holding the office of POTUS are all legitimate; and if in addition, we assume that the Administration does have the right and power to choose the legislative-political agenda, then that is STILL no excuse to sit back and LET the administration freely set the agenda. Responsible citizens who disagree with the agenda (particularly the members of the fifth estate) have a DUTY to conscience and country to use any reasonable means to alter what said citizens collectively and singlely believe to be bad policy. > By the way, do you have a plan for fixing the budget deficit that is > more coherent than "raise taxes on the rich"? Or do you just like to > whine about Bush? I don't know about G. Denton, but I most certainly enjoy whining about Bush_#43[?] at every opportunity. Don't you? At any rate, whether or not GD whines about Bush cannot be relevant to his argument. I fail to see how pointing to his criticism of Bush is anything but a mildly distasteful rhetorical distraction. As for raising taxes on the rich, I suppose you are correct in assuming that raising taxes for the wealthy could be cosidered a complete systematic "plan". Raising taxes on the rich, however, could be a critical part of a systematic plan. It bears consideration. I favor progressive-rate tax systems. I think the grossly regressive structure of FICA taxes is economic idiocy and morally distasteful. In any event, you will please quote a passage where GD actually recommends raising taxes. GD has previously said that he regards the income tax as invasive, unconstitutional, a fundamental threat to essential freedoms, and regardless of any other consideration repugnant. Furthemore, according to my understanding of his position, ANY taxes collected by the government of the United States are of questionable legitimacy since they are used to support a non-libertarian regime and Republic of questionable legitimacy. In theory, GD should not have advocated raising taxes (except hypothetically). Furthermore, though I have not read all of GD's posts, and have not always read the remainder carefully, I have NO recollection of GD ever recommending higher taxes to solve the budget issue. That is, I have no evidence that GD in fact advocated raising taxes as good policy. You have repeatedly and viciously accused GD of poor reading comprehension. If you want to declare, accuse or insinuate that GD advocated raising taxes, let alone advocated simply taxing the rich as a systematic solution to the fiscal imbalance, please produce a relevant passage. ================ Of course, this begs the question: if the Republic and its institutions are neither legitimate nor desirable, why worry about their fiscal state? _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
