On Wednesday 2 May 2012 at 1:41 PM, Ingrid wrote:
> On 2 May 2012 10:04, Venky <[email protected] (mailto:[email protected])> wrote: > > > > I'd say that is a straw man, except that definitions of libertarianism are > > all over the place nowadays and I'm sure you can find a citation for just > > such a definition. > > > > At least in my book, I don't see anything fundamentally libertarian about > > "every man for himself" or anything essentially anti-libertarian about > > helping out people you feel need your help. Charity is not anti-libertarian > > -- your property is yours to do as you see fit, and that includes giving it > > away. What *is* anti-libertarian though, is forcing another man to give up > > his property for a cause which *you* see as a just one. > > Anti-libertarian on these lines? > > http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/30/stephen-king-tax-me-for-f-s-sake.html > > Ingrid Did not understand your point. Are you agreeing with me? If Stephen King wants to give his money away, he has every right to. If he says, "As I want to give my money away, I want to force every person who makes more than a certain amount of money to also give his money away", no, I don't think he has a right to. Do I think he is within his rights to advocate to the rich that they should give their money away -- yes, I think he has every right to. Do I think he has a right to force them to -- no, I don't. Do I think it is unfair that the rich pay less in taxes than the non-rich -- yes, I do. Do I think the rich should have to pay more taxes as a percentage of their earnings than I do -- no, I don't. Do I support a simple flat tax rate for everybody (assuming that's what King meant by the phrase "tax equality" near the end of the article) -- yes, I do. Do I know how much I pay in taxes -- no, I don't. Venky (the Second).
