Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 8 Jan 2000 14:25:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
854 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> Oh, I suspect the school system will end up getting just as much money.
<nitpick> Libertarian documentation is full of (correct) comments about how
such government systems are woefully inefficient, and how they would be made
much less inefficient under Libertopia.</nitpick>
> 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,
Sounds more likely to me that they'd sponser specific children from early
childhood to working age. It's a lot cheaper, you get much more focussed
workers and they already know how to do the job before they start working if
you indoctrinate them enough.
> 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.
That's not good for the workers though.. they are workers for a corperation
before they have choice. Ie - what reason would Soda Fizz Inc have for
including a course on Nutritional Health? This means that children who go to a
specific school have very limited career choices - in fact the corperation
choose their career for them.
> > 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).
Definately there are taxes - at least in the delicate transition phase that is
planned, between evil government and the final victory of capitalism.
Libertarian literature mentions that corperations will recieve tax reductions
for every dollar that they give to charity - tax credit.
So there is the existing tax system, and replacing it is a system of charity
which (the government?) decides to give $X to education, $Y to defence etc.
This is surely just tax by another name?
And I don't think running two concurrent tax systems would simplify anything!
> 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.
Which brings up the issue - who decides what the tax-deductible rates are for
donating to healthcare, education, etc?
If the government decides to make it more attractive to donate to healthcare,
then this is a form of underhand coercion. Which is more complex to figure out
where the money is going than the existing tax system!
> > 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).
I believe that people are basically, and generally good too. But when money and
property and greed are included in the mix it becomes more complicated. I'm not
convinced that the Grand Vizers of Libertarianism have life affirming views
either, or maybe all the talk of incentives (social and financial) are just
practical compromises?
Richard
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
