Capitolism: Harnessing the Power of Stupid

[EthanAllen]

He also keeps spouting the Labor Theory of Value ala Marx.

Thanks Tom (I almost missed this) I'm glad I'm not the only one who is picking this out from all the gobbledygook.

How can you even decide what is and what is not "gobbledygook"?

What is the basis of your decision?

Marx's prescription to his perceived exploitation of labor was no private ownership of capital. As a libertarian, I believe the basis of property rights is labor. Capital is labor applied to "land" to create wealth. The taxing of labor-based property is theft.

[EthanAllen]

I have never said I liked the courts

It is not a question of whether or not you "like the courts". A minarchists believe that government should have a monopoly on force over a specific territory based on narrow constitutional authority (a "strict" constitutionalist).  Typically that means an independent judiciary as a separate branch of governance to judge the constitutionality of laws and assist in the judging of innocence or guilt as it relates to the laws. Anarchists believe in polycentric law based on a voluntary market system.

[EthanAllen]

So I just have one question for you...

if we all say, YES, EA, we agree with you because you are right right right about everything, will you then STFU?

Is it too much to ask on a discussion board to supply the why too? Why you agree or disagree and not respond with what you had hoped the person had written so you can easily refute it?

Logical fallacies are just intellectual laziness.

[EthanAllen]

Jane has no apparent philosophical understanding of libertarianism.

My understanding of it is that different people have different ideas of what it is, so it can't be pinned down.

I think the Wikipedia definition is pretty good:

Libertarianism is a political philosophy maintaining that all persons are the absolute owners of their own lives, and should be free to do whatever they wish with their persons or property, provided they allow others the same liberty.

I think most of us here can agree upon that principle. The problems come in applying the principle to various issues.

I would only quibble with the term "property". Because labor is the basis of property rights they should qualify this by saying "labor-based" property.

Yes, the next questions inevitable center around what is the nature and role of governance (limited government/minarchism) and then how to pay for it...

"is all taxation theft?"

If yes, then you are in the anarchist realm. Even there we have question about whether anarchism historically has meant being against the state or all forms of illegitimate authority.

If not, then what system of taxation does not violate the fundamental tenet of self-ownership.

[CNHT]

So I just have one question for you...

Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer.

LOA, 

[EthanAllen]

If not, then what system of taxation does not violate the fundamental tenet of self-ownership.

The tarrif, the sales tax (minus food, clothing, shelter, medical care, land), and the death tax.  These tax commercial interactions with society at large, or reclaim possessions that you are done with, and hence do not violate self ownership. 

All sales taxes (including tarrifs) are ultimately paid for by individual consumers.

[EthanAllen]

Most homes will appreciate faster than the loss to a lender

Houses depreciate via entropy. Land appreciates because the supply is inelastic.

[Dreepa]

Land appreciates because the supply is inelastic.

Does all land appreciate?
Is 40 acres in the middle of Death Valley = 40 acres in Malibu?

[EthanAllen]

Land appreciates because the supply is inelastic.

Does all land appreciate?
Is 40 acres in the middle of Death Valley = 40 acres in Malibu?

The unimproved land value is based on the location's proximity to the labor and services of those they exclude.

Are there more people in proximity to the 40 acre Death Valley location or the 40 acre Malibu location?

[jsorens]

If not, then what system of taxation does not violate the fundamental tenet of self-ownership.

The tarrif, the sales tax (minus food, clothing, shelter, medical care, land), and the death tax.  These tax commercial interactions with society at large, or reclaim possessions that you are done with, and hence do not violate self ownership. 

All sales taxes (including tarrifs) are ultimately paid for by individual consumers.

Of course they are, but I think you are missing the point, which is that that tax is based on interacting with society, and benefitting from the social fabric, protection of laws, etc.  If you choose to remain solely self supporting, you will never have to pay that tax.  If you choose to partake in the benefits of society by trading with it, then you pay a small fee each time you do so.

That logic applies to all economic activity, including all forms of income.

[jsorens]

If not, then what system of taxation does not violate the fundamental tenet of self-ownership.

The tarrif, the sales tax (minus food, clothing, shelter, medical care, land), and the death tax.  These tax commercial interactions with society at large, or reclaim possessions that you are done with, and hence do not violate self ownership. 

All sales taxes (including tarrifs) are ultimately paid for by individual consumers.

Of course they are, but I think you are missing the point, which is that that tax is based on interacting with society, and benefitting from the social fabric, protection of laws, etc.  If you choose to remain solely self supporting, you will never have to pay that tax.  If you choose to partake in the benefits of society by trading with it, then you pay a small fee each time you do so.

That logic applies to all economic activity, including all forms of income.

Right, which is why I advocate creating exceptions for necessities of life.  To survive, you must work, you must buy shelter, you must buy food, you must buy clothing, transportation, etc...  It becomes a voluntary tax when you dont have to pay the tax to survive.  Yes, it is inconvenient to avoid buying alcohol if you dont want to pay the tax, but it is doable.  Yes it is inconvenient to not buy imports if you dont want to support the state, but it is quite doable, and you can live your life without it.  By attacking only spending on non essential items, you do not invade the right to work or the right to live, just trade.   

Many libertarians advocate the charge of user fees to pay for services provided,  then why not see a sales tax or tarrif on non essentials as a user fee to access the common market.  Everyone benefits according to their level of interaction, and they pay according to their level of interaction.  I dont see how this is a problem.

So you would support income taxes then...

I'm not opposed to trying to figure out what the "least bad" taxes are. However, I do object to calling any kind of tax consensual or not a violation of rights.

[error]

You are advocating paying to the government some tax for "accessing the common market." Who are these government people and why would I want to give them anything? They didn't create the market and they don't maintain it. Your argument that I should be forced to pay the government for the "benefits of society" makes absolutely no sense. It does not follow.

[EthanAllen]

I do object to calling any kind of tax consensual or not a violation of rights.

How is requiring landowners to share the economic rent in exchange for exclusive use violating their self-ownership rights?

By definition the economic rent is unimproved land value therefore the landowner contributes no labor towards it's creation and thus their absolute right of self-ownership is intact.

[jsorens]

If not, then what system of taxation does not violate the fundamental tenet of self-ownership.

The tarrif, the sales tax (minus food, clothing, shelter, medical care, land), and the death tax.  These tax commercial interactions with society at large, or reclaim possessions that you are done with, and hence do not violate self ownership. 

All sales taxes (including tarrifs) are ultimately paid for by individual consumers.

Of course they are, but I think you are missing the point, which is that that tax is based on interacting with society, and benefitting from the social fabric, protection of laws, etc.  If you choose to remain solely self supporting, you will never have to pay that tax.  If you choose to partake in the benefits of society by trading with it, then you pay a small fee each time you do so.

That logic applies to all economic activity, including all forms of income.

Right, which is why I advocate creating exceptions for necessities of life.  To survive, you must work, you must buy shelter, you must buy food, you must buy clothing, transportation, etc...  It becomes a voluntary tax when you dont have to pay the tax to survive.  Yes, it is inconvenient to avoid buying alcohol if you dont want to pay the tax, but it is doable.  Yes it is inconvenient to not buy imports if you dont want to support the state, but it is quite doable, and you can live your life without it.  By attacking only spending on non essential items, you do not invade the right to work or the right to live, just trade.   

Many libertarians advocate the charge of user fees to pay for services provided,  then why not see a sales tax or tarrif on non essentials as a user fee to access the common market.  Everyone benefits according to their level of interaction, and they pay according to their level of interaction.  I dont see how this is a problem.

So you would support income taxes then...

I'm not opposed to trying to figure out what the "least bad" taxes are. However, I do object to calling any kind of tax consensual or not a violation of rights.

NO, I don not support income taxes, read again my exception for trade based taxes required to live.  You must work to live.  I would support a tax on business profits that arent associated with a wage over a certain dollar limit though.

You can object to calling any kind of tax consensual if you want, but you would be wrong.  A tax based on voluntary non survival behavior is consensual, you dont have to pay it if you choose not to, just dont do the activity being taxed.

Nobody forces you to buy cigarettes for example, you can always grow your own tobacco, make your own paper, and build your own matches.  If you want to voluntarily pay the tax, you get to take advantage of society, and its probably cost effective for you to do so.

The marginal income tax works by taxing income only above a certain amount. I don't know what the minimum bracket is, but let's say it's $30,000. You don't need more than $30,000 to live. So if you make under that amount, you don't pay taxes, but if you make over that amount, you start paying on your additional income. Seems to fit your schema quite nicely.

Being forced not to do certain activities if I don't want to pay taxes is still force, and it's still a violation of rights. If I want to buy something from a neighbor that he lawfully owns, he and I consent to a bargain, and the government can come with their guns and imprison us for failing to give them a cut, that's coercion no matter how you slice it. By saying it's not coercion, you're either saying that: a) my money is not mine to dispose of, it's the government's, or b) that item my neighbor wishes to sell is not his, but the government's. So much for property rights.

[EthanAllen]

It becomes a voluntary tax when you dont have to pay the tax to survive.

Geez-

Why not make it easy. A flat tax on income and everyone gets a basic income guarantee for goods and services needed for survival? (Charles Murray's latest proposal)