See, I was right. You are too pessimistic and/or utopic. Regulation and taxation aren't good enough for you, it has to be abolition or it doesn't count.
I think it was John Marshall who said the power to tax is the power to destroy. The same can be said for regulation. In fact, taxation and regulation are better than abolition and confiscation. First, like a frog in boiling water, creeping taxation and regulation create less resistance than outright abolition and confiscation, so you will be more successful. Second, confiscation requires an assumption of responsibility to perform the service confiscated, and with responsibility comes failure and criticism. Therefore, you are better off regulating and taxing, which allows you to criticize instead of being criticized. Further, your nitpicking disagreements with me avoid the point -- ideologically, modern liberalism is in agreement with the fundamental policy prescriptions of the Communist Manifesto, so Justin's daughter is correct. The fact that policy implementation does not entirely reflect the lliberal wish list does not change that fact. David Shemano --- Original Message--- To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: 8/26/2003 4:45PM Subject: Re: Sad Story >> David B. Shemano wrote: >> >> >1. "Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of >> >land to public purposes." >> >Rent control (and related tenant protections), real property >> >taxation, zoning, environmental regulations, etc. are staples of >> >liberal orthodoxy. >> >> Since when is "regulation" a synonym for "abolition"? >> >> >2. "A heavy progressive or graduated income tax." >> >The highest rate in the US was above 50% for most of the 20th Century. >> >> The effective federal tax rate on the top quintile was 27% in 1977, >> before the Reagan revolution. Keeping almost three-quarters of your >> income is hardly confiscatory. >> >> >3. "Abolition of all rights of inheritance." >> >The US has a confiscatory inheritance tax above a certain level, and >> >the concept is defended on ideological grounds by liberals, most >> >recently in response to the efforts of the Republicans to get rid of >> >the "death tax." >> >> Who actually paid those taxes? Wouldn't the Rockefeller family have >> been ruined long ago if the statutory rates were actually rates? >> Among lawyers and estate planners, the inheritance tax is described >> as "voluntary." >> >> >4. "Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels." >> >Liberals favor punitive tax treatment for individuals and >> >corporations that disclaim US citizenship or residency. >> >> Uh, they want them to pay their taxes, not confiscate all their property. Alas. >> >> >5. "Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of >> >a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly." >> >The Federal Reserve Board acts as a central bank indirectly under >> >government control. The US had throughout most of the 20th Century >> >(and continues to have) Byzantine banking laws that prevented >> >interstate and branch banking, which was ideologically defended, as >> >well as various regulations that created the S&L industry in an >> >attempt to incentivize home ownership. Liberals now support laws >> >like the Community Reinvestment Act that require banks to loan funds >> >in poor areas. >> >> Again, you're treating regulation as if it were the same as >> confiscation. And it was the big bourgeoisie that most wanted a >> central bank! >> >> >6. "Centralization of the means of communication and transport in >> >the hands of the state." >> >The ICC, FCC, DOT, FAA, etc. were and are manifestations of the >> >liberal belief that the communication and transportation sectors are >> >critical areas that required government regulation and oversight, >> >and those sectors remain heavily regulated, even after various >> >deregulation efforts. >> >> Ah that expansive def of regulation again. And it's mostly been been >> undone. Which is why we have the crappiest cell phones in the first >> world, and an airline industry on the brink of failure. >> >> >7. "Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by >> >the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the >> >improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan." >> >Various things fall into this category, from public utilities and >> >rural electrification to Amtrak. More generally, the Department of >> >Agriculture is heavily involved in farm planning. Starting in the >> >late 20th Century, the EPA represents environmental concerns, which >> >has become a central factor in industrial and land development. >> >> Oh, I see, you're doing standup comedy. Ok, I'm laughing now. >> >> >8. "Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial >> >armies, especially for agriculture." >> >OK, this one didn't happen, because liberalism became enamored with >> >the concept of the equal right not to work, so we got the >> >redistributionist welfare state instead. >> >> And who could ever turn down one of those fat, widely available >> welfare checks? That's why I stopped working 20 years ago! Thanks to >> New York State's generous home relief program, I've been enjoying a >> life of leisure in a spacious loft in fashionable SoHo. >> >> >9. "Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; >> >gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by >> >a more equable distribution of the populace over the country." >> >We do have large-scale corporate farming. Can't blame that on Marx, >> >I suppose. >> > >> >10. "Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of >> >children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of >> >education with industrial production, etc." >> >Undisputably achieved. >> >> One in ten. If you taught, everyone would want to be graded by >> someone like yoU! >> >> Doug >>
