I do not support the initiation of force, and you have failed to prove that anything I've said amounts to an initiation of force. You are welcome to present your libertarian leaning case, but chances are it won't be realistic, or it will dishonestly claim I support the initiation of force when in fact I don't. Such claims are untenable.
--- In Libertarian@yahoogroups.com, "terry12622000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I welcome Paul presenting his case and several well known libertarian > leaning ( sorry I can't call them libertarian if they are for > iniation of force because they aren't) Academics etc would agree with > Paul and even go further. From what I gather Hayek and Mises thought > taxes were needed although at least Mises said that if a majority of > even a small town wanted to break away from a nation they had the > right to do so and there would be no more wars of conquest if this > principle was followed. Still 50% plus 1 of even a small town of > 1,000 voters could leave 498 of those voters out in the cold and > could lead to a large degree of tyranny. Still if taxes were a > membership fee as a requirement for a town to belong to the county, > the county to belong to the state and the state to belong to the > federal government if a simple majority in the abover areas could > vote to secede Most of us would be much better off than we are > now. > Richard Epstein a otherwise great libertarian legal scholar and > lawyer has been pushing taxes and eminet domain( for needed > government use only) as neceessary for years. Randy Barnett a > libertarian legal and constitutional scholar, legal professor and > former Chicago Prosecutor as pointed out where Epsteins arguments > clearly fail. Epstein in his case for taxes and eminet domain fails > to make his case, I seriously doubt he would win before most > juries. > If I understand Lenord Reids argument in support of taxes, he > comes the closest to presenting a good case, his case would likely > convince more > juries. > Reid thought people would give more than enough but that > might actually be the problem of donations for government, government > employees and representives may do the bidding on those that give and > thus create a unequal unjust > system. > That could happen of course, we are never going to have a > perfect system all the time until the Second Coming ( First Coming if > you are Jewish), still that is no reason to give the coresive power > of taxes because bribery will occur and it will occur no matter what > you do but you can have checks and balances to help keep honest > people honest. One check could be a maxium donation allowed, If > national income is 10 trillion dollars and there are 200 million > voters, that would average 50,000 dollars a year per voter, if 60 > billion dollars would fufill the needs of government then 6 tenths of > 1% or 300 dollars each would cover the funding, you could say no one > could give more than say 6000 dollars, because some could afford only > to give less. If only a third gave then 900 dollars each would be > required to make the revenue, you might say no one could gibve more > than 10,000 dollars. You could base the fair share donation on a > percentage of income like United Way does but have a maxium level > like the Social Security tax does or you could base it on a percetage > of land value. Land value is easier to check with inasion of > privacy, people may want to advertise they pay their fair > share. > If representives give unequal treatment to nondonners then > allow for easy recall by the majority of the voters, if the majority > of voters don't give then they can quickly fire their legislator or > Congressman if they get unequal treatment. If every county had a > right to a state senator and the state senators elect the US senators > and the state sentors could be quickly recalled the majority of the > counties could fire the majority of the US Sentors. The number of > voters in a majority of the counties are by far a minority of total > voters in the country, so even if non donors are a minority it would > be possible for them to fire the majority of senators if the non > donors got unequal > treatment. > Seccession of course would be another option for either > donors or non donors.--- In > Libertarian@yahoogroups.com, "uncoolrabbit" <uncoolrabbit@> wrote: > > > > Terry, > > > > That is your point of view, and I think your point of view should > be > > given fair consideration, just as I think Pauls point of view > should > > be given fair consideration. Fair consideration does not consist of > > more tactfull speakers on yourside, against the other sides poor > > presentation of there point of view. > > > > I wasn't asking Paul for a reasonable answer, I asked him for an > > honest answer. > > > > If I wasn't against the status quoe I wouldn't be wasting my time > > with Libertarians Terry. Is it so difficult for you to beleive that > > others may have the same goals, with different visions on how to go > > about achieving them? > > > > > > > > --- In Libertarian@yahoogroups.com, "terry12622000" <cottondrop@> > > wrote: > > > > > > But it still is not a reasonable answer. So protection and courts > > > help with a free market and a free society and that protection > and > > > courts have costs, how does that justify taxes. This social > > contract > > > theory is based on a lot of silly unsupportive assumptions to > the > > > point of almost being pure myth.Showing that there is a tooth > > fairy > > > is probally supported by more > > > evidence. > > > Weaving these silly myths about taxes, government, borders > > and > > > social contracts is just baloney to try and keep the masses in > > line > > > for the political class so that people will not bother to make > > real > > > agreements and keep the ruling class in power. It is pure BS.--- > > In > > > Libertarian@yahoogroups.com, "uncoolrabbit" <uncoolrabbit@> wrote: > > > > > > > > This is the answer I hoped to see from you Paul, thank you for > > > finally > > > > answering my question rather than dodging it. > > > > > > > > > > > > "The legitimate role of government includes protecting people > and > > > > businesses from fraud, theft, coercion, etc. in the markets. > > This > > > > protection comes at a price. That price can be a sales tax by > > the > > > > particular state." Paul Ireland > > > > > > > > > > ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
