Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Who's That Knocking on My Door?
Some people doubt the ethical nature of Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens' transactions. Those people now include the feds.
Federal law enforcement agents raided U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens’ Alaska home in Girdwood on Monday, hauling off undisclosed items from inside and taking extensive pictures and video. Officials wouldn’t say what they were looking for or what they found.
“All I can say is that agents from the FBI and IRS are currently conducting a search at that residence,” Dave Heller, the assistant special agent in charge of the FBI’s Anchorage office, said Monday.
Stevens has told reporters he's cooperating with an investigation into Veco Corp., an energy company that larded up state lawmakers with at least $400,000 of bribes. Ramesh Ponnuru has a point that "busting pork" doesn't much alter the tide of federal spending, but is anyone surprised when Congress's more energetic pork addicts—Stevens, John Murtha—move on to outright graft?
Sen. Tom Coburn's battle with Stevens recounted here.
|7.31.07 @ 8:50AM|#
Duke Cunningham could use a couple cellmates - Rep. Jefferson and Sen. Stevens for "Three's Company."
|7.31.07 @ 8:55AM|#
It just never stops, does it?
I don't think the earmarks/graft connection is very strong. Duke
Cunningham wasn't a porker, while Robert Byrd is Hall of Famer.
thoreau|7.31.07 @ 9:00AM|#
Let's not forget Trafficant.
But as to involvement with oil companies, you need to realize that
an energy distribution is not just a truck, it's not something that
you can just dump something on. It's a series of tubes.
|7.31.07 @ 9:03AM|#
If you're interested in the background, here's the huge Ted Stevens archive from TPM Muckraker.
|7.31.07 @ 9:06AM|#
Even members of big government are not immune from the armed
agents of big government.
I fully expect a report later from Radley Balko as to whether they
were wearing paramilitary attire during this raid.
|7.31.07 @ 9:07AM|#
Duke Cunningham wasn't a porker, while Robert Byrd is Hall
of Famer.
Apparently, as long as you're open and honest about bringing home
the bacon, and make sure you only fatten your wallet as it rampages
downstream and not directly, it's all A-OK.
|7.31.07 @ 9:13AM|#
Congress has legalised theft for the goverment.Why shouldn't they take abit on the side?
|7.31.07 @ 9:15AM|#
I'll always appreciate Stevens for informing me that the Internet is not actually just some Big Truck.
|7.31.07 @ 9:21AM|#
Well, MP, the difference between getting money spent on a public project and putting that money in your bank account would seem to be a relevant difference as well.
|7.31.07 @ 9:28AM|#
Between Stevens and Don Young, these guys are your typical Alaskan bullshitters. And they're not even that good at it. You'd think as crooked as they are and as in bed with oil companies that they would have had ANWR drilled to the earth's core by now. But NOOOO! They allow Senator Maria Cant(read)well to block it.
x,y|7.31.07 @ 9:29AM|#
Well, MP, the difference between getting money spent on a
public project and putting that money in your bank account would
seem to be a relevant difference as well.
Maybe to you joe. But some people don't care where the money that
was taken from them (immorally I might add) ends up.
|7.31.07 @ 9:30AM|#
Well, MP, the difference between getting money spent on a
public project and putting that money in your bank account would
seem to be a relevant difference as well.
The difference is that the direct route simply enriches the
politician. The indirect route leads to power, and that power has a
far greater enrichment potential.
And the difference is also that one is easy to prosecute, and the
other leads people to become libertarians as their disgust for
power in politics boils over. ;)
thoreau|7.31.07 @ 9:42AM|#
Countries where the cash goes directly to the politicians' bank
accounts tend to be worse places to live than countries where the
money is spent on public projects.
I'm not suggesting that public projects are better
than letting people keep their own money. I am
suggesting that sending the cash into a politician's personal bank
account (or a crony's account) is even worse.
One can dislike two things but dislike one more than the other. And
one can say that one of those practices should be a crime while the
other one should be curtailed via the legislative process.
|7.31.07 @ 9:43AM|#
It time for my obligatory monthly defense of joe. At least as a
porker, he's open about his theft as opposed to doing it
secretly.
I think joe's point was that the Venn Diagrams of corrupt and
porkish don't have as much overlap as Ponnuru implies.
|7.31.07 @ 9:45AM|#
x,y,
Some people have a massive blind spot. Some people can't
distinguish between political beliefs that disagree with their own
and a crime. Some people can't distinguish between doing one's job
to the best of one's ability and understanding, and selling one's
vote to the highest bidder. Some people can't tell the difference
between providing a public good and enriching one's self.
thoreau|7.31.07 @ 9:49AM|#
It's not about the money, it's about the way that power is used. The places where money is handled in the most corrupt way tend to be the places where other powers are most egregiously abused as well.
|7.31.07 @ 9:50AM|#
"It just never stops, does it?"
No, joe, it doesn't. And it never will. But dreamy-eyed true
believers like you will keep saying wistfully, "Government is good;
we just need to get the Right People in place, but for some totally
baffling reason, we can't."
P Brooks
dba The Bigoted Disgusting Snob in Joe's Head
thoreau|7.31.07 @ 9:56AM|#
It's not statist to think that graft and embezzlement are even worse than pork.
tubular|7.31.07 @ 10:00AM|#
The TUBES,
Ted! Hide in the TUBES!
Oh, by the way, Ted, remember what you said if Congress cut your
Bridge to Nowhere funding? Is that offer of your resignation still
good?
|7.31.07 @ 10:00AM|#
People who keep voting for the wrong people.
You did not just imply "If only the right people were elected". Did
you? Did you? I swear I read at some point that you swore off that
line of defense.
It's not statist to think that graft and embezzlement are even
worse than pork.
Sure, but graft and pork are kissing cousins.
Seitz|7.31.07 @ 10:01AM|#
joe, your statism was cute ... at first.
So was the notion that taxation is legalized theft.
|7.31.07 @ 10:01AM|#
Can anyone on hear say with a straight face that farm and ethonol payments are not theft?The money is to buy votes.I also happen to believe it illegal.
Scooby|7.31.07 @ 10:08AM|#
Even members of big government are not immune from the armed agents of big government.
I fully expect a report later from Radley Balko as to whether they were wearing paramilitary attire during this raid.
Is there a prize for being first to spot Dan T.'s new handle?
Ayn_Randian|7.31.07 @ 10:12AM|#
People who keep voting for the wrong people.
O RLY?
What about those who say it and don't vote at all? What about the
other libertarians who voted Blue to go for a balance of
power?
I'm not sure that, even as strongly principled as I am, that I
could resist getting just a small piece of the trillions of dollars
flowing through D.C. I mean, the river shouldn't be there in the
first place, but hey, I'm thirsty...I might as well drink. Everyone
else is.
That's why I stay far, far away from the bureaucracy as possible.
(Except, you know, the military).
P.S. to Scooby..sorry mac, but somebody downblog already did
that.
|7.31.07 @ 10:13AM|#
Scooby,
Dammit! I was just about to post the same thing. It took until this
thread until I was sure everyone's favorite lame-ass troll was
back.
|7.31.07 @ 10:14AM|#
"You know who says that?
"People who keep voting for the wrong people."
Well, that lets me off the hook.
The self-interested behavior of power-mad scumbags
politicians will inevitably result in transfers of wealth which
benefit the few at the expense of the many. And those self-same
politicians are at the pointy part of the pyramid; that's why they
work so hard to get there, by duping suckers like you.
x,y|7.31.07 @ 10:21AM|#
It's not statist to think that graft and embezzlement are
even worse than pork.
Maybe not, but it is statist to believe there's nothing wrong with
pork. I don't believe I'm misrepresenting joe on that, but please
correct me if I'm wrong.
So was the notion that taxation is legalized theft.
This is a libertarian website where people discuss libertarian
ideas. This principle is well-grounded in libertarian
philosophy.
x,y|7.31.07 @ 10:22AM|#
Taxation IS legalized theft. It was never a cute
notion.
Exactly. If any one of us tried to do what the government does re:
the income tax, we'd be thrown in jail.
|7.31.07 @ 10:24AM|#
When people spend millions of [other peoples]dollars to get a job that pays an average of $170,000.00 one wonders.
|7.31.07 @ 10:29AM|#
re: Taxation is Theft
If somebody comes to your door soliciting donations for the
impoverished victims of some tragedy and you donate to the cause,
and subsequently discover that those donations were used, for the
most part, to buy a new Jaguar for the director of the fund, and a
miniscule portion actually made it to the victims, you have the
right to refuse to make any donations in the future.
Tell the IRS you don't wish to contribute to their slush
fund.
P Brooks
dba The Bigoted Disgusting Snob in Joe's Head
Seitz|7.31.07 @ 10:44AM|#
This is a libertarian website where people discuss
libertarian ideas. This principle is well-grounded in libertarian
philosophy.
It's also why (unfortunately, in my opinion) a lot of people don't
take libertarians seriously.
Mike Laursen|7.31.07 @ 10:49AM|#
People who keep voting for the wrong people.
So, joe, who are the right people, and, if they were sitting in
charge of the government, would you place any limits on their
power?
|7.31.07 @ 10:50AM|#
This is a libertarian website where people discuss
libertarian ideas. This principle is well-grounded in libertarian
philosophy.
An internally consistent model maybe, but "well-grounded" tends to
mean something on the order of "strongly connected to reality."
Being "well-grounded" in a pie-in-the-sky philosophy does not
increase an idea's verdicality. To most people, there is a
meaningful difference between theft and taxes. Just as there is a
meaningful difference between fraud and a mugging, and between pork
and embezzlement.
thoreau|7.31.07 @ 10:52AM|#
It's also why (unfortunately, in my opinion) a lot of people
don't take libertarians seriously.
Drink!
|7.31.07 @ 10:52AM|#
In a recent thread the US constitution was touted as the "greatest hit" of libertarian philosophy. And yet it sanctions taxes. Hmmmmm....why? Were the founder smarter than Rothbard.
|7.31.07 @ 10:56AM|#
In other words, "Taxation is theft" is a metaphorical phrase
that emphasizes certain qualities of the two concepts that align
with each other. It backgrounds the ways that the two concepts are
not aligned. Most people recognize that the qualities of the two
concepts that the phrase backgrounds are important for
understanding the two concepts and their relationship to the real
world.
Taxation is theft is a bumper sticker.
It is not a well constructed proposition/equivalence.
|7.31.07 @ 11:00AM|#
The problem with associating the "Taxation Is Theft" bumper sticker to libertarianism is that it really implies that libertarianism = anarchy. Libertarian minarchists accept the necessity of taxation as a necessary evil, so it doesn't do the libertarian cause any good to hump the "Taxation Is Theft" meme.
|7.31.07 @ 11:01AM|#
If taxation is theft then all payments in return for services rendered are theft.
Seitz|7.31.07 @ 11:03AM|#
Drink!
Well, maybe just sip. I don't think it was quite on a par with "for
site called Reason....."
|7.31.07 @ 11:04AM|#
If taxation is theft then all payments in return for
services rendered are theft.
That's like saying to someone after you rape them that they owe you
money. Even though it was non-consensual, you still provided them
the service, so pay up!
|7.31.07 @ 11:06AM|#
"If taxation is theft then all payments in return for services
rendered are theft."
Grade: D-
Please try harder.
P Brooks
dba The Bigoted Disgusting Snob in Joe's (and possibly Dan T'S)
Head
|7.31.07 @ 11:09AM|#
I don't see how the guy can sleep at night. Hell, I don't see how the guy can sleep on the senate floor either. (there should be a youtube clip here, but I'm too lazy to look for it)
|7.31.07 @ 11:10AM|#
Taxation is theft. Imprisonment is kidnapping. Physical removal
of tresspassers is assault.
Yawwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnn...
|7.31.07 @ 11:10AM|#
"Taxation is fee for service" is just as poorly constructed a metaphor as "taxation is theft."
|7.31.07 @ 11:11AM|#
Sietz,
Sorry, but non-libertarians coming on to the board to tell us what
is wrong with libertarianism is a full drink, even if they think
they are telling us for our own good.
|7.31.07 @ 11:13AM|#
x,y,
I don't believe I'm misrepresenting joe on that, but please
correct me if I'm wrong.
You are misrepresenting me. Pork is bad; bribery is worse.
And if you began digging up the road with a front-end loader, like
the DPW does, you'd be thrown in jail, too. So?
|7.31.07 @ 11:15AM|#
Sugarfree,
So does that mean you drink whenever SIV makes a comment about
"real libertarians"?
|7.31.07 @ 11:15AM|#
Mike Laursen,
The right people are the ones who aren't corrupt, bigoted, or
otherwise transparently evil.
And yes, even they have to have limits placed on their power, as
the system produces moral hazards and temptations that need to be
arrested, rather than just relying on the goodness of
officeholders.
|7.31.07 @ 11:16AM|#
You can not compare today's tax stucture and it's use with the intent of the consititution.The founders hated taking from one class to give to another.The tax on tea was passed to save the East India Company from banckrupty.How is that different from today?
|7.31.07 @ 11:16AM|#
That's like saying to someone after you rape them that they
owe you money. Even though it was non-consensual, you still
provided them the service, so pay up!
That, my friend, is some tortured logic.
|7.31.07 @ 11:18AM|#
Is it theft to collect taxes to pay for the judges and police
who enforce property rights?
"Taxation is theft," like "pork is the same as bribery," that high
schoolers who just finished their first Ayn Rand book get an
emotional jolt out of writing on their algebra notebooks. Neither
one is a serious idea; they just mark the speaker as childish.
x,y|7.31.07 @ 11:20AM|#
Seitz/NM/Dan T. -
A principle's correctness has nothing to do with its popular
acceptance. 2+2=4, even if 99% of people think otherwise.
Seitz|7.31.07 @ 11:24AM|#
Sorry, but non-libertarians coming on to the board to tell
us what is wrong with libertarianism is a full drink, even if they
think they are telling us for our own good.
What makes you think I'm a non-libertarian? If a Republican can be
opposed to the war, and a Democrat can be pro-life, why can't a
libertarian believe that taxation isn't theft?
|7.31.07 @ 11:25AM|#
That's like saying to someone after you rape them that they
owe you money. Even though it was non-consensual, you still
provided them the service, so pay up!
It's more like joining a club and then complaining that you did not
consent to paying the dues because you didn't explicitly request
soap to be placed in the restrooms.
|7.31.07 @ 11:27AM|#
If a libertarian is somebody who believes that it is appropriate for the government to enforce property rights and prosecute murderers, than a libertarian has to believe either that taxation is not theft, or that theft is sometimes appropriate.
|7.31.07 @ 11:27AM|#
The right people are the ones who aren't corrupt, bigoted,
or otherwise transparently evil.
And yes, even they have to have limits placed on their power, as
the system produces moral hazards and temptations that need to be
arrested, rather than just relying on the goodness of
officeholders.
I'm sorry, but any system that relies on altruism to succeed is
doomed to fail. This is especially true with the following
conditions:
1. You increase the size of government, requiring you to find more
of the "right" people.
2. You increase the power of each individual in power, which makes
the good-natured part of the person work harder against
temptation
3. There is no really effective way to judge whether or not someone
is corruptible
I'm sorry, but any system that relies on altruism to succeed is
doomed to fail. This is especially true with the following
conditions:
1. You increase the size of government, requiring you to find more
of the "right" people.
2. You increase the power of each individual in power, which makes
the good-natured part of the person work harder against
temptation
3. There is no really effective way to judge whether or not someone
is corruptable
|7.31.07 @ 11:29AM|#
Some people can't tell the difference between providing a
public good and enriching one's self.
joe you might want to brush up on the definition of a public good.
Just because a public sector employee provides it does not make it
a public good. Here is a handy primer:
National Defense: Public Good
Almost Everything Else The Federal Government Does: Not A Public
Good
x,y|7.31.07 @ 11:29AM|#
joe,
Anarcho-libertarianism is a philosophy that provides the framework
for a free society.
Taxes are legalized theft. This is not a childish remark.
It's a true statement.
Now, before you comment on how "childish" I'm being, please show us
why the statement, " Taxes are legalized theft" is not true.
|7.31.07 @ 11:34AM|#
Now, before you comment on how "childish" I'm being, please
show us why the statement, " Taxes are legalized theft" is not
true.
Because if something is legal, it's not theft. Since theft is
defined as an illegal act.
x,y|7.31.07 @ 11:35AM|#
Pork is bad; bribery is worse.
And if you began digging up the road with a front-end loader, like
the DPW does, you'd be thrown in jail, too. So?
joe, why do you think pork is bad?
And why is state held to a lower standard than the governed?
|7.31.07 @ 11:37AM|#
I cannot believe the stupidity on this thread.ALL TAXATION IS NOT THEFT BUT AS PRACTICED TODAY IT IS.Every day comerce can be theft when done with deception.When you take money by force from one group to benefit another that's theft.We are being ruled by a group very much like the Black Hand of years gone by.
|7.31.07 @ 11:37AM|#
Reinmoose,
Hence, my statement about moral hazards and temptations, and the
need for limits on government. What are you sorry about?
swillfredo,
OK, how about "there's a difference between attempting to provide a
public good and attempting to enrich one's self?" Does that work
for you?
Is everyone who endoreses any government action that you happen to
disagree with the equivalent of Duke Cunningham?
x,y,
Theft is the unauthorized taking of something of value from its
owner. Under our system of government, the government is authorized
to collect taxes.
|7.31.07 @ 11:38AM|#
Neu Mejican,
Yes, all roads are two ways in a drinking game.
Seitz,
You can believe what you want and call yourself anything you want,
but if you run into a church and scream "THERE IS NO GOD!" then you
really can't object to some puzzled and angry looks. It's a widely
held belief to many here that current levels of taxation are
excessive and taken from people with the threat of force. It's easy
to be lazy and call that "theft."
Seitz|7.31.07 @ 11:40AM|#
Taxes are legalized theft. This is not a childish remark.
It's a true statement.
Well gee, who can argue with logic like that?
|7.31.07 @ 11:40AM|#
x,y,
Pork, as a whole, is bad because it encourages an inefficient use
of public tax dollars. The waste of tax money one inefficient
projects means that it is not being put to use more efficiently,
and achieving greater good, either through more effective
government programs or through the spending of private parties.
|7.31.07 @ 11:43AM|#
x,y
A principle's correctness has nothing to do with its popular
acceptance. 2+2=4, even if 99% of people think
otherwise.
Yes. Now explain to me how the meaning of a word is equivalent to a
well defined quantity. Provide the equation that demonstrates the
that x=y whereby x=taxation and y=theft.
The degree to which you accept the idea that lexical or
propositional semantics are equivalent to arithmetic can be used as
a partial gauge of how childish your understanding of the world
is(to borrow joe's phrase).
|7.31.07 @ 11:46AM|#
C'mon MyTube, you can do better than that.
Actually, I can't. Because that's the correct answer.
Seitz|7.31.07 @ 11:48AM|#
C'mon MyTube, you can do better than that.
He doesn't have to. It's right there in the dictionary.
x,y|7.31.07 @ 11:51AM|#
Theft is the unauthorized taking of something of value from
its owner. Under our system of government, the government is
authorized to collect taxes.
You're being semantic joe and you know it.
1. If you're going to be that way, just substitute another word for
theft, e.g., plunder, which should convey the same point.
2. You still haven't explained why the state (assuming the state
even has a legitimate purpose) should be held to a lower standard
than the governed. Why, for example, should the state be able to
withhold money from your paycheck to pay for "public goods" when I
would get thrown in jail for doing the same thing?
3. Let's say "murder" is defined as "the unauthorized killing of a
human being except joe." Well, it looks like killing joe is
authorized. It must by A-OK then!
|7.31.07 @ 11:53AM|#
Is everyone who endorses any government action that you
happen to disagree with the equivalent of Duke
Cunningham?
Those elected officials who engage in actions that violate their
oath of office and the constitutional constraints on their power
are in my mind not one bit superior, morally or otherwise, to Duke
Cunningham.
x,y|7.31.07 @ 11:54AM|#
Pork, as a whole, is bad because it encourages an
inefficient use of public tax dollars. The waste of tax money one
inefficient projects means that it is not being put to use more
efficiently, and achieving greater good, either through more
effective government programs or through the spending of private
parties.
I could say the same thing about tax dollars generally, with some
justification. And if I'm justified in holding that view, why
should I have to pay taxes (or risk going to jail)?
|7.31.07 @ 11:55AM|#
x,y
3. Let's say "murder" is defined as "the unauthorized killing
of a human being except joe." Well, it looks like killing joe is
authorized. It must by A-OK then!
This assumes that things that are not murder are A-OK. Why assume
that?
The phrase "taxation is legalized theft" is a semantic argument.
Don't complain that others respond to a semantic argument with an
explanation of how, semantically, it is poorly formulated.
|7.31.07 @ 11:56AM|#
Reinmoose,
Hence, my statement about moral hazards and temptations, and the
need for limits on government. What are you sorry about?
Yeah, you said that, but it's horribly vague. Are you saying that
all federal financing of "public goods" (pork) should be
eliminated? Are you saying that only those projects that you don't
deem to be virtuous shouldn't be funded? Would you say that would
help US Senators/Congresspeople be focused on their real job of
representing their state/district on issues of federal importance
(which if you ask me only has to do with issues that extend outside
the US)?
|7.31.07 @ 11:58AM|#
X,y,
In other words. If you want to argue that taxation is not a
justifiable action, try and different formulation for your
argument.
Changing "theft" to "plunder" doesn't get you very far down that
road.
(hint: try a utilitarian argument).
|7.31.07 @ 11:58AM|#
You still haven't explained why the state (assuming the
state even has a legitimate purpose) should be held to a lower
standard than the governed. Why, for example, should the state be
able to withhold money from your paycheck to pay for "public goods"
when I would get thrown in jail for doing the same
thing?
Because that's the purpose of government - to get people to do
things that are necessary but would never rationally do on their
own.
|7.31.07 @ 12:02PM|#
x,y,
But be careful. Down the utilitarian road there are detours that
lead to "some taxation is acceptable." (c.f., MP's comment above,
or the US constitution).
x,y|7.31.07 @ 12:05PM|#
Yes. Now explain to me how the meaning of a word is
equivalent to a well defined quantity. Provide the equation that
demonstrates the that x=y whereby x=taxation and y=theft.
The degree to which you accept the idea that lexical or
propositional semantics are equivalent to arithmetic can be used as
a partial gauge of how childish your understanding of the world
is(to borrow joe's phrase).
Numbers are not that much different than words. They're shorthand
for conveying concepts. Perhaps I'm being lazy by using the word
"theft" but you know very well the concept I'm conveying. Playing
semantic games like "theft is unauthorized force, and government is
authorized" is about as disingenuous as you can be.
|7.31.07 @ 12:06PM|#
You're being semantic joe and you know it.
No, x,y, I'm not. Whether the taker has authority is precisely the
difference between theft vs. some other act of taking, such as
taxation or reposession.
That's the difference between the government and private citizens -
the govenrment is authorized to withhold money from your paycheck
and private citizens usually aren't.
|7.31.07 @ 12:06PM|#
I think it would be cool to replace all references to pork with porn. Then we could have porn barrel projects and porn laden legislation. Excellent!
|7.31.07 @ 12:08PM|#
swillfredo,
Is everyone who disagrees with you on a government program
violating their oath of office or surpassing the Constitutional
limits on their power as they understand them?
Can't somebody just be mistaken, or even just hold a different
opinion?
x,y|7.31.07 @ 12:08PM|#
Because that's the purpose of government - to get people to
do things that are necessary but would never rationally do on their
own.
I'm pretty sure people would find ways to provide roads, courts,
etc. without the state.
Jennifer|7.31.07 @ 12:11PM|#
One can dislike two things but dislike one more than the
other.
Not on THIS chat board, you can't!
Incidentally, maybe we should replace "taxation is theft" with
"taxation is the government saying it has more right to your money
and property than you do." The latter is more accurate, I
think.
|7.31.07 @ 12:11PM|#
Ix,y,
I could say the same thing about tax dollars generally, with
some justification.
Sure you could. We're arguing about what is and what is not a good
idea, a good use of money.
And if I'm justified in holding that view, why should I have to
pay taxes (or risk going to jail)?
Because holding a view contrary to the law doesn't give you
immunity from that law.
|7.31.07 @ 12:12PM|#
x,y,
Numbers are not that much different than words. They're
shorthand for conveying concepts.
Please specify how much different they are.
Numbers have a much more constrained interpretation than most other
words. They are processed differently in the brain, they are
constructed explicitly to convey a very narrow meaning along a
single dimension (quantity). The list goes on.
but you know very well the concept I'm conveying
Yes I do. And that is why I am criticizing the formulation of your
semantic argument. As a bumper sticker to rally the troops, it is a
fine phrase. As a serious argument about the role of government, it
is weak.
x,y|7.31.07 @ 12:13PM|#
I think I got some panties in a bunch by saying "theft." Now joe, NM, and the rest want to play semantic games instead of arguing about the concept underlying my (misplaced) use of shorthand.
|7.31.07 @ 12:14PM|#
Reinmoose,
Are you saying that all federal financing of "public goods"
(pork) should be eliminated? No. Also, that is not what is
generally meant by "pork."
Are you saying that only those projects that you don't deem to
be virtuous shouldn't be funded? Yes. Good projects should be
funded; bad projects shouldn't be.
Would you say that would help US Senators/Congresspeople be
focused on their real job of representing their state/district on
issues of federal importance Yes.
(which if you ask me only has to do with issues that extend
outside the US)? I disagree.
|7.31.07 @ 12:14PM|#
x, y
There's an easy way to not pay taxes and not get thrown in jail.
Leave. Unfortunately, taxes are the price of admission. I'm not
happy about high city income taxes in New York City, but I chose to
live there and you have to pay to play. If I wanted to avoid state
taxes, I could move to another state, like Texas or Florida.
I'm not happy about high taxes either, but the way to change it is
through reasoned discourse. Chanting mantras like, "All taxes are
theft*," hurt our side and make us look ridiculous to the average
Americans as nutjobs. Think of Dworkin's "All sex is rape" comment,
for example.
* Which isn't true anyways. For example, gas taxes to pay for roads
that you drive on are a form of user fee.
Seitz|7.31.07 @ 12:14PM|#
Playing semantic games like "theft is unauthorized force,
and government is authorized" is about as disingenuous as you can
be.
Maybe in a dictatorship. But ultimately, this is still a democracy.
We vote for the people who make the laws. We give them the
authority to make those decisions when we elect them. It's not a
perfect system, and politicians don't do everything their
constituents want them to do, but that's why we have elections. You
can vote against someone who doesn't believe what you believe. So
in our system, it's not at all disingenuous to say that taxation
isn't theft because the government is authorized to collect
taxes.
Seitz|7.31.07 @ 12:15PM|#
Chanting mantras like, "All taxes are theft*," hurt our side
and make us look ridiculous to the average Americans as nutjobs.
Think of Dworkin's "All sex is rape" comment, for
example.
Which was, of course, my original point, stated more clearly here,
I suppose.
|7.31.07 @ 12:17PM|#
Is everyone who disagrees with you on a government program
violating their oath of office or surpassing the Constitutional
limits on their power as they understand them?
Can't somebody just be mistaken, or even just hold a different
opinion?
In theory the courts are there to rectify the acts of the mistaken.
A majority of the justices on the U.S. Supreme Court clearly have a
different opinion of what the Commerce Clause means than I do.
|7.31.07 @ 12:17PM|#
The guy comes out with the statment, wholly unadorned and
without support, "Taxation is theft."
And now he's accusing other people of hiding behind
semantics?
Tell you what: Libertarianism is stupidity. Go ahead, prove to me
I'm wrong, but you're not allowed to do so by discussing the
meaning of words.
OK? Go!
|7.31.07 @ 12:18PM|#
x,y,
Now joe, NM, and the rest want to play semantic games instead
of arguing about the concept underlying my (misplaced) use of
shorthand.
If you present your ideas with statements like "Taxes are legalized
theft. This is not a childish remark. It's a true statement" you
are explicitly guiding the discussion towards the truth value of
your proposition.
What this means is that when people say "no it's not" they
are arguing about the concept underlying your
statement.
|7.31.07 @ 12:19PM|#
What Seitz said. I happen to support the ideas conveyed in the
Declaration of Independence and Constitution. To wit; the
government is not the equivalent of a biker gang that wants your
stuff, but derives just -JUST! - power from the consent of the
governed.
The government has just power, because it has been given that power
by the demos. That's why the government can do things that, say,
swillfredo pareto, who hasn't been given power by anyone,
cannot.
|7.31.07 @ 12:21PM|#
swillfredo,
Now we're getting somewhere.
A majority of the justices on the U.S. Supreme Court clearly
have a different opinion of what the Commerce Clause means than I
do.
Does that make them criminals?
x,y|7.31.07 @ 12:26PM|#
The guy comes out with the statment, wholly unadorned and
without support, "Taxation is theft."
I believe my original formulation was that taxes are *legalized*
theft. Someone else said "taxes are theft" and you've been imputing
those words to me since. Please check the record around 11:29
a.m.
Now, seriously, I enjoy talking with you about this. And I think we
agree about the authorized vs. unauthorized part. That's precisely
why I said (initially at least, and I hope I kept it up) that taxes
are legalized theft. In other words, there's no moral
distinction between the government confiscating a fraction of my
money and someone else doing it.
|7.31.07 @ 12:29PM|#
"Because that's the purpose of government - to get people to do
things that are necessary but would never rationally do on their
own."
Since this is apparently "semantics day" at H&R, please define
necessary for us. And, while you're at it, give us your
definition of rational.
P Brooks
dba The Bigoted Disgusting Snob in Joe's Head
|7.31.07 @ 12:30PM|#
x,y
In other words, there's no moral distinction between the
government confiscating a fraction of my money and someone else
doing it.
Now we are getting somewhere. You have formulated a different
proposition.
I believe joe's comment at 12:19 addresses the moral distinction.
Notice how this is an argument about the term "legalized" in your
original statement. About the relationship between "legal" and
"moral" which are no more equivalent than "theft" and "taxes."
x,y|7.31.07 @ 12:33PM|#
There's an easy way to not pay taxes and not get thrown in
jail. Leave. Unfortunately, taxes are the price of
admission.
You're begging the question. Just "leave" assumes the government
has legitimate authority over a given territory. I say it
doesn't.
Professor Long at Auburn has some interesting thoughts on
this:
www.mises.org/etexts/longanarchism.pdf
|7.31.07 @ 12:33PM|#
Does that make them criminals?
It is fairly well established that the U.S. Constitution was
written and ratified to constrain the power of the federal
government. Reasonable people can opinionate on where that
line should be drawn, but to accept the welfare state as it exists
today is to ignore its existence entirely. You know as well as I do
that the Teds (Stevens and Kennedy for example) have never
considered encumbering themselves with the restraint provided by
the 10th Amendment. I am not sure if that makes them perjurers but
it makes them every bit as execrable as Duke Cunningham.
|7.31.07 @ 12:33PM|#
x,y,
In other words, the shape of the argument remains semantic. You
have just changed the focus to a different word/concept in the
original proposition.
Does the government have equivalent moral standing to individuals?
Should an abstract process be seen as a moral agent in the same
sense that an individual human is? I am not sure I see how that
makes sense in detail.
|7.31.07 @ 12:36PM|#
Theft is the unauthorized taking of something of value from
its owner. Under our system of government, the government is
authorized to collect taxes.
Do you support the income tax? Just an honest question. I do not
and I'm curious to know why anyone would support it.
|7.31.07 @ 12:42PM|#
"Taxation is theft," like "pork is the same as bribery,"
that high schoolers who just finished their first Ayn Rand book get
an emotional jolt out of writing on their algebra notebooks.
Neither one is a serious idea; they just mark the speaker as
childish.
Well, those phrases are bumper stickers, not fully fleshed out
philosophies. But if you think that no serious people believe in no
government (anarchy), you're wrong.
|7.31.07 @ 12:42PM|#
I do not and I'm curious to know why anyone would support
it.
One reason to support it is that it's worked pretty well thus
far.
Personally, I'd be more in favor of a national property tax,
though.
|7.31.07 @ 12:43PM|#
x,y,
Ah, but I haven't based my dispute on the "legal" part. If some
thug declared himself God-King and started demanding your nickels,
that would be legalized theft. Under our system, however, our
government is authorized - not just legally, but morally - through
the consent of the governed.
If enough of y'all take Ayn Randian's advice, the government will
no longer have the consent of the governed to take tax dollars or
tell us what side of the road to drive on, or enforce our property
rights, or do any of the other things that the government gets to
do, and we don't, because of its authority.
|7.31.07 @ 12:45PM|#
I'm actually with x,y on this one. You all have been attributing
the phrase "taxation is theft" to him/her this whole time, while I
remember his original statement as being "taxation is legalized
theft"
Take anything that would otherwise be immoral and make it legal for
some exclusive sector of the population and voila! Similarly we
could say "police raids are legalized trespassing," so? You just
don't like that (s)he's giving an immoral characteristic to
collecting taxes, which I believe is what his/her initial statement
was all about.
|7.31.07 @ 12:45PM|#
But if you think that no serious people believe in no
government (anarchy), you're wrong.
Only if by "serious" you mean seriously insane.
|7.31.07 @ 12:47PM|#
Jim Bob,
The income tax, as a way of generating necessary revenue in a
reasonable and reasonably fair manner, seems "good enough."
Max,
OK, fair enough. Serious anarchists can use those terms in a
logical, meaningful sense.
|7.31.07 @ 12:47PM|#
I'm actually with x,y on this one. You all have been
attributing the phrase "taxation is theft" to him/her this whole
time, while I remember his original statement as being "taxation is
legalized theft"
Take anything that would otherwise be immoral and make it legal for
some exclusive sector of the population and voila! Similarly we
could say "police raids are legalized trespassing," so? You just
don't like that (s)he's giving an immoral characteristic to
collecting taxes, which I believe is what his/her initial statement
was all about.
The point is that "legalized theft" makes no sense as a concept.
You might as well say that theft is a legal transaction that's been
outlawed.
Mike Laursen|7.31.07 @ 12:58PM|#
And yes, even they have to have limits placed on their
power, as the system produces moral hazards and temptations that
need to be arrested, rather than just relying on the goodness of
officeholders.
Cool. I'll take that as your admission that there is no "the right
people" or "the wrong people".
Mike Laursen|7.31.07 @ 1:08PM|#
I like to say that taxation is a cousin of theft. Taxation and
theft lie on the same spectrum, but taxation has more legitimacy:
we get to vote on taxes, and mots (at least a lot) of the tax money
is spent on the supposed victims.
As I pointed out the other day, the value of being able to the
individual of getting to vote on what the government does is
overestimated; the balance between one's measly little vote and the
power the government has over one's life is way out of whack.
If you get down to looking at specific instances of taxation, you
can find examples that are outright theft. And you can find cases
where taxation is used in a fairly benign way.
|7.31.07 @ 1:11PM|#
Mike,
Then you would be mistaken.
It's quite possible - quite common, actually - to believe both that
honest and decent people do a better job in public honest than
corrupt thieves, and also believe that there need to be checks on
the power of officeholders.
It's sort of like believing that roads should be designed safely
AND that you shouldn't hire a drunk psychopath to drive you home:
really, really easy.
|7.31.07 @ 1:15PM|#
Mike,
The taking of money does't become theft, or cease to be theft,
depending on what the theif does with it.
If a guy breaks into your house and steals your television, so he
can buy food for starvign orphans, it's still theft.
If you give your nephew a fifty for Christmas and he spends it on a
hooker, it isn't theft.
By even bringing up your opinion about government programs and
initiatives, you basically gave away the game. You acknowledged
that your assertion about "theft" isn't based on whether the
government has the right/authority to collect taxes, but on policy
disputes.
Policy disputes have nothing to do with who is the rightful owner
of something of value.
Mike Laursen|7.31.07 @ 1:18PM|#
How exactly do we voters screen for honest and decent people when selecting our government officials?
|7.31.07 @ 1:20PM|#
Question:
does anyone's position on how taxation and theft are related change
if instead of saying that "government" is committing the theft, you
consider that the "majority" (or the voting majority, or a
politically powerful special interest) may be committing the
theft?
Consider 5 people in a room
Person A has $10,000 and Persons B-E have $5,000 each. If B-E vote
that Person A should be taxed $4,000 and having it redistributed to
them, is that theft?
Mike Laursen|7.31.07 @ 1:22PM|#
The taking of money does't become theft, or cease to be
theft, depending on what the theif does with it.
Huh. You have more in common with hardcore "taxation is theft"
libertarians than I thought. Of course it makes a difference what a
so-called thief does with the stolen goods. If the so-called thief
turns around and gives the goods back to the supposed victim, it
doesn't exactly fit the definition of theft.
I suppose I didn't make it clear, though, that I fully agree with
"taxation is theft" libertarians that taxes are collected by "men
with guns". In that way, taxation is very much like theft.
Mike Laursen|7.31.07 @ 1:24PM|#
If B-E vote that Person A should be taxed $4,000 and having
it redistributed to them, is that theft?
Depends. How much did Person A buy into the whole idea before they
took the vote?
|7.31.07 @ 1:25PM|#
Depends. How much did Person A buy into the whole idea
before they took the vote?
If he refuses and they respond by tying him to a chair, does it
matter?
Mike Laursen|7.31.07 @ 1:30PM|#
If he refuses and they respond by tying him to a chair, does
it matter?
Sure. If we're going with classic Libertarian thinking, then Person
A established a contract when he agreed to pool his money with all
the other people and vote on redistributing it. So, Persons B-E are
just enforcing the contract.
Of coruse, it would be a stupid thing for Person A to do, but
that's the premise of the hypothetical situation you outlined. A
more realistic scenario is one where Person A thinks he might gain
something by pooling all their money and voting.
|7.31.07 @ 1:39PM|#
does anyone's position on how taxation and theft are related
change if instead of saying that "government" is committing the
theft, you consider that the "majority" (or the voting majority, or
a politically powerful special interest) may be committing the
theft?
This doesn't help much, imho.
Government is really a sort of metonymy (i.e., shorthand)for a
quality of a community. It is not, I think, accurate to give it
status as an entity. It is a process, a property, a feature of the
community. If an individual is part of that community (even if they
disagree with specific aspects of the process of government used by
the community) then they are to a certain extent agents of that
process. The question is how does one extract oneself from the
community if one does not consent to the process of government they
use?
|7.31.07 @ 1:41PM|#
I missed the part where Person A agreed to pool his money.
Under that logic, all of your income is the property of the
collective, and they're simply more efficient by allowing you to
keep some of it instead of collecting it all and then giving you
some measured amount back.
|7.31.07 @ 1:42PM|#
In other words...
If you are member of the community and the process of government of
that community authorizes use of your property for a specific
purpose, to the extent that you consent to being a member of the
community, you consent to the process that authorized that use. You
would, in essence, be stealing from yourself.
This is all very schematic, of course.
|7.31.07 @ 1:44PM|#
Again, I think it comes down to a question of how a person removes their consent for a process while still claiming to be a member of the community with that process of government.
|7.31.07 @ 1:46PM|#
Government is really a sort of metonymy (i.e., shorthand)for
a quality of a community. It is not, I think, accurate to give it
status as an entity. It is a process, a property, a feature of the
community...The question is how does one extract oneself from the
community if one does not consent to the process of government they
use?
I think this is a very good point, and a strong argument against
centralized power. The idea of a social contract isn't paticularly
invalid in its entirety, it just doesn't exactly work as well for
300,000,000 people as it may for 10,000.
Mike Laursen|7.31.07 @ 1:56PM|#
I missed the part where Person A agreed to pool his
money.
I was asking whether that was part of your scenario. Let's say
Person A in no way agreed to this vote, does your hypothetical
situation yield any interesting insights into how taxation
typically works in real life?
VM|7.31.07 @ 1:59PM|#
Who's That Knocking on My Door?
The same one who's ringing the bell, perhaps...
Regardless: do me a favor: open the door, and let him in...
|7.31.07 @ 2:19PM|#
Reinmoose,
I would say it doesn't work at the same level/in the same way for a
group of 300 million. That doesn't mean it can't be valid, it just
needs to be defined in a way that is coherent for the level
of/degree of consent that makes sense for defining a community that
large. Certain activities make sense to govern at the larger scale
(i.e. the military, civil rights), some at the local scale (i.e.
education). Community manifests as a highly structured and nested
concept in application.
|7.31.07 @ 2:21PM|#
The question becomes, at what level of community does a government process that includes taxation make the most sense? Are federal taxes any less authorized by community membership in the larger community than local taxes?
|7.31.07 @ 2:32PM|#
Reinmoose,
Well, if you think of the government as a very large homeowners'
association, then the answer becomes obvious. There are lots of
rules that my homeowners' association has that I disagree with,
limits on the height of trees, colors I can paint my house, dues
and what they pay for, etc. However, they are the ruling boy for a
certain block of houses. The easy way to avoid their rules is to
not move in or move out. The hard way is to try to convince the
board members to see things my way.
It's a lot harder to convince other homeowners that they should see
things my way if I call their dues legalized theft than if I say
they're too high and they cover too much. BTW, since final
enforcement of dues eventually can hit a courtroom, it means these
dues are also enforced by dudes with guns.
I think most of us agree the Feds cover too much and pay for too
much, but that's a far cry from "all taxation is legalized
theft".
|7.31.07 @ 2:43PM|#
I think most of us agree the Feds cover too much and pay for
too much, but that's a far cry from "all taxation is legalized
theft".
True. I don't argue here
I was asking whether that was part of your scenario. Let's say
Person A in no way agreed to this vote, does your hypothetical
situation yield any interesting insights into how taxation
typically works in real life?
Do you think that being a citizen of the US is "agreeing" to the
terms of whatever the federal government thinks it should do? It's
not exactly an option for most people to up and move out of the
country
|7.31.07 @ 2:45PM|#
All I was getting at was trying to change the point of view. Instead of looking at it as some abstract object like "government" as stealing, I was trying to look at it from the standpoint of people using the government to steal from each other. That's all.
Scooby|7.31.07 @ 2:52PM|#
Even if you do "up and move out of the country", you're still subject to taxation by the US government. The club's management won't let you quit and take your wealth with you.
Mike Laursen|7.31.07 @ 3:00PM|#
I was trying to look at it from the standpoint of people
using the government to steal from each other.
Shit, sorry. I got caught up in analyzing your scenario, and buried
your basic point, which is a good one. Sometimes taxation is used
as a way for a bunch of people to raid other people's wealth.
|7.31.07 @ 3:04PM|#
Mike Laursen,
How exactly do we voters screen for honest and decent people
when selecting our government officials?
How do employers screen for honest and decent people when they're
hiring? By looking at information from their backgrounds, watching
how they respond to questions, and checking out their
references.
|7.31.07 @ 3:06PM|#
Mike,
If the so-called thief turns around and gives the goods back to
the supposed victim, it doesn't exactly fit the definition of
theft. Uh, yes, it does, actually. People have been arrested
for car theft after parking the car back where they found it.
Mike Laursen|7.31.07 @ 3:07PM|#
Do you think that being a citizen of the US is "agreeing" to
the terms of whatever the federal government thinks it should
do?
No, typically it's all much fuzzier than that. A person is born
here, so they start out as a native of not just the country, but
tied into the society of a particular region of the country. At
that point, typically, the person becomes part of the United
States' social contract more by complacency than a formal
agreement; unless you live your life like an outlaw, shunning any
interaction with the society and government, you've bought in to
one degree or another.
Mike Laursen|7.31.07 @ 3:08PM|#
People who keep voting for the wrong people.
My mistake for debating with you over what was simply a snipe on
your part, rather than a statement with any substance behind
it.
|7.31.07 @ 3:09PM|#
Reinmoose,
The idea of a social contract isn't paticularly invalid in its
entirety, it just doesn't exactly work as well for 300,000,000
people as it may for 10,000.
Aw, come on! Who's going to write that on their notebook?
;-)
Mike Laursen|7.31.07 @ 3:09PM|#
Uh, yes, it does, actually. People have been arrested for
car theft after parking the car back where they found
it.
I disagree with you about the definition of theft. We'll have to
leave it at that.
|7.31.07 @ 3:13PM|#
A counter-snipe, Mike. Counter-snipe.
Let's not forget, I was responding to:
No, joe, it doesn't. And it never will. But dreamy-eyed true
believers like you will keep saying wistfully, "Government is good;
we just need to get the Right People in place, but for some totally
baffling reason, we can't."
Gotta watch Wapner. Wapner's on in 27 minutes. Gotta watch
Wapner.
|7.31.07 @ 3:37PM|#
joe says: "Some people have a massive blind
spot."
Confession is good for the soul, yeah?
"Some people can't distinguish between doing one's job to the
best of one's ability and understanding, and selling one's vote to
the highest bidder. Some people can't tell the difference between
providing a public good and enriching one's self."
And these people are called politicians, joe. That they have
convinced themselves that they are doing a service by looting us
and then giving a bit back via government programs doesn't make it
right.
BTW -- I do agree that when the tax dollars go directly into your
pockets, rather than indirectly through campaign contributions and
a really high salary, the money is liable to be even more badly
misspent and thus these direct bribes should be crimes.
|7.31.07 @ 3:49PM|#
Libertarian minarchists accept the necessity of taxation as
a necessary evil, so it doesn't do the libertarian cause any good
to hump the "Taxation Is Theft" meme.
Depends on the form of taxation -- whether voluntary or compulsory.
Most minarchists would greatly prefer voluntary taxes -- you use
public roads, you pay a fee to do so. You want Social Security?
Check off the box accepting the fees to be a member, or leave the
box blank and pay nothing and opt out.
"Compulsory taxation is theft" -- is that slogan clearer?
|7.31.07 @ 3:54PM|#
joe says: "The right people are the ones who aren't corrupt,
bigoted, or otherwise transparently evil.
So the right politicians are the ones not yet corrupt, not bigoted
against the people joe prefers, and whose evil is well-hidden
rather than transparent?
Yeah, let's all vote for those folks.
|7.31.07 @ 4:03PM|#
Depends on the form of taxation -- whether voluntary or
compulsory. Most minarchists would greatly prefer voluntary taxes
-- you use public roads, you pay a fee to do so. You want Social
Security? Check off the box accepting the fees to be a member, or
leave the box blank and pay nothing and opt out.
All taxes are voluntary. You don't pay property tax unless you
choose to own property, you don't pay income tax unless you earn
income, etc.
|7.31.07 @ 4:11PM|#
I guess some people don't know how to use a dictionary.
Theft - 1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious
taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the
rightful owner of it b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or
burglary) of property
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/theft
Taxation is not felonious taking and it is lawful. PERIOD. Anything
else is wishful thinking or BS. Your government, like it or not,
approved taxation. Therefore it is legal and NOT theft.
The 16th Amendment to the Constitution.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes,
from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the
several states, and without regard to any census or
enumeration.
THEREFORE TAXES ARE LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL!!!!!
Of course I'm all for making the 28th Amendment a repeal of the
16th.
|7.31.07 @ 4:16PM|#
I guess the moral of the story is that it's easy to give government power, it's far more difficult to take it back.
|7.31.07 @ 4:19PM|#
All taxes are voluntary. You don't pay property tax unless
you choose to own property, you don't pay income tax unless you
earn income, etc.
Ummm, no. I didn't volunteer to pay those taxes. There's a huge
difference between "if you earn anything or own anything, we'll
forcibly take money from you" and "if you want to use a public
service, you must first voluntarily apply for the benefit and
explicitly accept the terms and fees offered by the government, and
you're allowed to opt out of using the service and thus opt out of
paying the fees"
|7.31.07 @ 4:45PM|#
Bigoted Disgusting Snob | July 31, 2007, 12:29pm | #
"Because that's the purpose of government - to get people to do
things that are necessary but would never rationally do on their
own."
Since this is apparently "semantics day" at H&R, please define
necessary for us. And, while you're at it, give us your
definition of rational.
P Brooks
dba The Bigoted Disgusting Snob in Joe's Head
---------
Still waiting-
Is it necessary for the federal government to take money
from people in Texas, or Hawaii, or New Jersey in order to give it
to the people of Bozeman, Montana to build a parking garage?
|7.31.07 @ 4:46PM|#
"""Is it necessary for the federal government to take money from
people in Texas, or Hawaii, or New Jersey in order to give it to
the people of Bozeman, Montana to build a parking garage?"""
No, but it is lawful.
|7.31.07 @ 4:53PM|#
"Compulsory taxation is theft" -- is that slogan
clearer?
I like this one better: No taxation without representation.
|7.31.07 @ 5:07PM|#
That means I think this man
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Mayhew
is smarter than Murray Rothbard.
Patches O\'Houlihan|7.31.07 @ 5:28PM|#
Is it necessary for the federal government to take money
from people in Texas, or Hawaii, or New Jersey in order to give it
to the people of Bozeman, Montana to build a parking
garage?
Necessary? Is it necessary for me to drink my own urine?
|7.31.07 @ 5:36PM|#
TrickyVic-
It is lawful, unfortunately. The original, long-forgotten, basis of
this thread was a news report that Senator Stevens is under
investigation for corruption.
The never-ending expansion of what constitutes "lawful" activity on
the part of the government creates ever-expanding opportunities for
elected representatives to personally benefit from their ability to
influence those "lawful" activities. Furthermore, the evidence
seems heavily weighted in favor of the proposition that the fault
lies in that aforementioned never-ending expansion, rather than
faulty electoral choices.
P Brooks
dba The Bigoted Disgusting Snob in Joe's Head
Mike Laursen|7.31.07 @ 6:17PM|#
No taxation without representation.
Oh, come on. What kind of crazy-ass libertarian nutcakes came up
with that one?!
x,y|7.31.07 @ 6:30PM|#
Ah, but I haven't based my dispute on the "legal" part. If
some thug declared himself God-King and started demanding your
nickels, that would be legalized theft. Under our system, however,
our government is authorized - not just legally, but morally -
through the consent of the governed.
Sorry I'm late to the party again, but got caught up at work.
joe, your "consent of the governed" argument doesn't work. First, I
never consented to being taxed. Second, I did not consent by living
in the territoyr. This *just leave* argument, as I mentioned
earlier, begs the question. It assumes the government has
legitimate authority over a certain area. I say it doesn't. Why
can't I just opt out of the system? If I could opt out, then I
might buy the whole consent of the governed bit.
|7.31.07 @ 7:41PM|#
x,y,
I disagree with you, on First Things.
I agree with the language of the Declaration of Independence.
Good evening to you!
|7.31.07 @ 8:08PM|#
x,y...
Opting out is possible, it just has costs you are not willing to
take on, I imagine. It requires that you give up the benefits that
the community provides you with. Benefits such as a structured
framework for legal transactions with other members of the
community, recourse for violation of your rights by other members
of the community... the usual list.
Opting-out of a community is not an easy choice, but it is not
impossible. Opting-in is easy. That asymmetry seems to be the
source of your complaint. Recognizing that asymmetry is a good
reason for restrained and codified governance, but it hardly
invalidates the authority a community gives to the process of
governance.
|7.31.07 @ 8:12PM|#
x,y,
I think you are conflating "consent to be taxed" with "consent to
be considered a member of the community." It is the second form of
consent that joe points out, while you are complaining about the
first. The second type of consent provides the authorization for
the taxation without the need for the first.
Is that a fair take on it?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245