Subject:
|
Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 9 Aug 2004 18:27:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1736 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
| |
| |
I do believe that society has a responsibility to provide
basic services such as healthcare and education. Does that make me part of
the left?
|
|
It makes one non libertarian since “society” has no such responsibility, but
one’s as much a part of the modern “right” as one is the modern “left” since
both seem to hold this view. But I certainly would love to hear Scott say
clearly and explicitly what views he holds... he’s more of a questioner than
an answerer though.
|
Just for clarity, could we have a solid definition of “Libertarian” here,
leaving a minimum of wiggle room? My impression is that the Libertarian tent
admits as many variants as does the Democratic or Republican tent. What’s the
clear distinction?
| |
| |
| |
You should vote based on what is best for your country; not what is best
for you.
|
|
If these are different, the system is broken.
| |
“Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your
country.”
|
The *best* thing I can do for my country is look after my own enlightened
self interest in all things. Read your Adam Smith.
|
I think the mistake in this context is that it is all too easy to look after
one’s own unenlightened self-interest while causing irreparable and unanswerable
harm to other people’s self-interest, in essence defaulting to the very
might-is-right paradigm that I believe you reject. It is entirely possible for
a well-placed family to screw its neighbors, the system, and the market for many
generations without repercussion, and I submit that this very pursuit of
self-interest is what has led us to the current governmental morass that you
decry.
I think I snipped it, but you asked for the proper tax rate for the wealthy.
Here’s my suggestion: for one year, tax the wealthy at zero percent for anything
that they earned on their own without help or protection from “society.”
Anything in excess of, say, $500,000.00 that was acquired or “earned” under the
military, economic, industrial, corporate, or consumerist protections of society
should be eligible for taxation at a rate of 100%, since the individual is
beholden to society for those earnings.
I know, I know. The wealthy will claim that they’re “entitled” to this money
because they “earned” it “on their own” or “by their own bootstraps.” Fine.
Let them petition their cases individually.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
| (...) Why is income tax better than either of: a wealth tax or setting a common earnings per hour rate across the nation and acting as a public work clearinghouse? Chris (20 years ago, 9-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote: (snip) (...) (snip) Off topic, but since proposed legislation is being introduced, I'm wondering how all of the usual suspects here view a consumption tax for the US, as proposed (URL) HERE> No more (...) (20 years ago, 9-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
| (...) That makes no sense whatever. My wife and I have a difference of opinion about the importance of voting for Kerry, and about how much different Kerry is than the incumbent but choosing to vote one way rather than the other doesn't make it "me (...) (20 years ago, 9-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
113 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
