On 10/21/2013 04:54 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > I get what you are saying, but you should recognize that I disagree, > and nearly everyone else disagrees. We say that "taxes are the price > we pay for civilization" (Holmes). The fact that taxes and all other > laws are backed by the implicit use of force does not bother us, > because the alternative is much worse. By striving for an ideal, you > would make the perfect the enemy of the good.
Oh course I know you disagree. But by what authority can you and your associates decide the rules that I am to follow, when I can't decide the rules that you should follow? A universal moral code, which applies to everyone in the same fashion, derived not from an arbitrary authority, will give everyone the ability to live their own lives, each as they see fit. So I'm arguing for universality. > > You need to watch that video and get a grip on reality. Watch the > whole thing: Since you asked, ok. :) > But the wealthy don't become wealthy by stealing money. They acquire > > wealth through voluntarily providing goods and services to others. > > > Many of them inherit wealth these days, or they are rentiers. Many > have gained enormous amounts by gaming the system, and by reducing the > taxes they pay down to ~12% (Romney's tax level). But the system they are gaming is the current system where laws, regulations, and theft, govern peoples' lives. It's a large part of the problem. > > We cannot change our technological and economic systems overnight even > if we want to. Even if most people agreed with you and we decided to > get rid of the highway systems or our electric power distribution > system, we cannot do that. We depend on these things for our survival. > We would starve to death without them. No disagreement here, and I don't want to get rid of roads and power systems; I just want consent. But I'm making an argument against expanding the system of wealth redistribution even more. If people will ever agree with me, I don't know, but making the argument is the first step. > > We are, to some extent, slaves to our technology. Everyone throughout > history has been. We have more choices and a lighter burden than > people did in the past, when nearly everyone had to work on a farm. > > Perhaps cold fusion will give us an alternative to the centralized > high tech world we live in. Perhaps we will no longer need big > electric power companies, and big government to regulate the power > companies, and to build highways. Cold fusion may even do away with > the need for sewers, as I said. If these alternative technologies > becomes available, then society can hold a debate and we decide to let > people opt out of using electricity and flush toilets. Many places allow people to opt-out of electricty and flush toilets today. I don't think you need these in Texas. in the 1960s, we had a beach house there, and our water was from a rain tank on the roof, and the toilet was an outhouse in the back. We weren't suffering. These days, it's nostalgic. > > You are highly unrealistic. I suggest you take a trip to India or > China. You will see what happens when you make taxes and social > obligations an option for wealthy and middle-class people. They do not > like beauty. They do not like roads, courts, parks or police. Not as > much as they love money. They build walls around their houses, and > they let poor people live in filth and starve to death at the gates of > their houses. You can walk down urban streets in these countries and > see that for yourself. In the morning you will see emaciated corpses > of dead people lying in the gutters and in filth-choked streams. I > mean it. This is not a fantasy or an exaggeration. This is life in the > third world, and this is how life was like in New York City in 1900. If you go to India or China, you will find a culture which does not believe in the protection of individual rights and/or property rights. You are making an erroneous assumption that taxes and regulations prevent these kinds of problems. "After the hypothesis testing proved that there is a positive correlation between economic freedom and gross domestic product per capita, it is shown that there is indeed a relationship between the type of economy and wealth. The more capitalistic the practices, the more the amount of goods and wealth traded within the nation." http://education.uncc.edu/cstem/sites/education.uncc.edu.cstem/files/media/SV/2010/AMSA/Hun%20Wong-%20Economic%20Freedom-%20The%20Relationship%20between%20a%20Gover.pdf Perhaps you can find a counter-study, but my point is that it's an unproven assertion that taxes and regulations lead to decreases in misery. > > There is plenty of wealth in India and China. These problems could > easily be fixed. Everyone could have a decent life. The poverty is > caused by wealthy people who take for themselves everything not nailed > down. Look at that video and you see that wealthy people in the U.S. > would do the same thing, if they could get away with it. This is human > nature. The problems can be easily fixed, but I doubt if we would agree on the solutions. An economy is a dynamic system, and fundamental changes will fundamentally change how it behaves; but there is a difference between 'taking' and 'selling'. Selling something creates a win-win relationship. Taking creates a win-lose relationship. If someone is 'taking' something, then that is theft, and is part of the problem. Craig
