Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 8 Jan 2000 05:12:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
868 times
|
| |
|
|
Richard Franks wrote in message ...
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > Richard Franks wrote:
> >
> > > Urgh! *shudder of fear* Taxes don't seem so bad when the alternative is
> > > hoping that corperations suddenly become altruistic towards society.
> >
> > Fortunately, Libertarian theory doesn't require ANYONE to be altruistic,
>
> Maybe.. AFAIK Libertarian policy on education is to remove the burden of • school
> taxes from those not responsible for the education of children. This would
> leave the education system with substantially less income, to supplement • this,
> there does seem to be plans for some form of social contract:
Oh, I suspect the school system will end up getting just as much money. If
nothing else, corporations will spend the money so that they can get trained
workers (which is where the bulk of the money should come from anywise,
though a prudent parent will spend extra money to guarantee her child the
extra edge). The money corporations will give is definitely not altruism,
they are giving it because they need the workers (now they may also chose to
be somewhat altruistic, and give money to charity, though I expect that most
stockholders would vote to not spend the money, so they could chose how to
spend it themselves for the most part.
> The Libertarian FAQ (What about the poor?)
> <http://www.libertarian.org/libfaq.html#Lib.FAQ.13> states that "private
> charity is more compassionate and delivers the goods better than the • government
> welfare plantation".
>
> The idea of dollar for dollar charitable tax-credit is a form of coercion • to
> enforce people to donate to charity. Surely this dual-tax system would • create
> more red-tape than the existing one?
What dual tax system are you talking about? Certainly not Liberatopia. There
are no taxes (at least not to support anything other than the proper
function of government, and even then, they will be structured as user fees
based on actual value of service rendered to the individual, rather than the
amount of money the individual happens to be willing to admit to earning).
The most effective charities today rely largely on private donations
(including large corporate donations). True, they do benefit from an
advantage of tax deduction (but the contribution still costs the donor
money, just not as much), and benefit from different tax laws on their
property and income, and probably many of them also get government grants,
but still, the majority of the money is privately donated.
> > although I can't speak for libitarian guff, whatever that is.
>
> An embarrassing spelling mistake? I also changed guff to stuff, which is a • bit
> more respectful :) I do want to learn more about Libertarian politics, as • I'm
> still at the stage where every new tidbit that I learn about it makes it • seem
> even more unworkable and optimistic.. I get the feeling that there is • something
> obvious that I'm missing that will make sense of it all?
The obvious part that you're missing is what Larry calls "life affirming".
The idea that people actually are basically good. Of course while this is
obvious to me, people saddled with the Christian based belief that "people
are inherently bad." will have a hard time seeing the opposite (even when
they escape their upbringing, and join a life affirming group - I see it all
the time in people who have come Unitarian Universalists (a life affirming
religion) as adults. They just don't quite seem to get it).
Frank
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
209 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
|
|
|
|
