From: J.W. Harris (index@cox.net)
Date: Wed May 15 2002 - 17:52:10 MDT
On Wed, 15 May 2002, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> "J.W. Harris" wrote:
> >
> > The libertarian political POV is extremely attractive to me.
> >
> > BUT, for the second time (*) in my life, I have accepted government
> > welfare.
<snip/>
> > And yet, it bothers me that I failed to save up enough money to do
> > this on my own, that my education is being paid for (in large part) by
> > taxes coerced from others.
>
> Ah, but what have YOU paid in taxes? Is it in excess of what you are now
> receiving?
Good question. I'm not an accountant. What sorts of different taxes
should I count? Never mind. The mere fact the government has tangled
the issue so much is unacceptable.
> Furthermore, did you vote last election? Are you registered to vote
> anywhere?
I voted in 2000, 1996, and 1992. I have not yet re-registered since
I moved in November.
> Doing either indicates a willingness to be coerced by the
> collective will, in which case, there is no real coersion occuring.
Interesting viewpoint. Why do you believe it's valid? I saw voting
as a matter of trying to protect myself from opposing political
viewpoints. It's either vote, move to another country, or get
violent. The last is not an option for me, and every time I think
about moving to another country, I find features I dislike relative to
the USA. The USA has lots of room (and need) for improvement, but
there are worse places. There's also the problem I only speak
English.
I say taxes are coerced because I know many people who would refuse to
file if the government did not have guns to force them into jail. I
know many people who work partially 'off-the-books' for cash not
because they care about the actual amount of the taxes, but mostly
because they hate the intrusiveness. (I will not say whether or not I
have done this.) Many of these people don't really care about sales
taxes because they are not so intrusive. Many of these people, when I
pose the question to them, would love to be able to vote directly on
how much tax they pay and which government programs the money goes to.
(IOW, though they might not know the terms, they'd prefer something
farther from a Republic and closer to a Democracy. So long as there
are checks against the majority stealing from the minority, I agree.)
> Those who vote/are registered and pay taxes are not, technically, being
> coerced, since they asked for it. Similarly, those who vote/are
> registered have also voted to offer you this money, so it isn't wrong,
> from a libertarian perspective, to accept money which has been freely
> offered to you by those who have freely chosen, by registering to vote,
> to submit to the collective will.
I think you have PARTIALLY explained voter apathy -- many voters don't
care to be associated with the 'lesser of two evils'. I was scared of
Gore enough to vote for the lesser evil, Bush Jr, but for every other
office I voted Libertarian or NOTA, except for one local office (can't
remember which) the Libertarian party did not put forward a candidate
and suggested voting Democrat, since the Democrat candidate espoused
mostly Libertarian views, and backed them up with her voting record.
One person asked me why I threw away my votes on a third party or
NOTA. I asked them why they threw away their vote by not even
bothering to register.
(NOTA: None of the Above. Carries no weight as a write-in. Even in
Nevada, where NOTA is official, it is non-binding and therefore nearly
meaningless. But I believe it still sends a slight signal to
professional politicians who pay attention to election results in
planning their future campaigns and actions.)
> Libertarianism would prefer that charity be done entirely voluntarily,
> and there is plenty of money around for those who wish to only accept
> private charity to go back to school.
To tell the truth, I went with the Pell Grant because the paperwork is
much simpler -- I really don't know where to look for financial aid
that the college financial aid office doesn't know about.
> Pure libertarianism would prefer a world where you can't be taxed,
> period. Until such a world exists, it is only to the detriment of
> libertarian's self interest to refuse to participate fully in the system
> we have now. To paraphrase what the commies said, let them give you the
> rope you will hang them with.
I think I'll follow this policy in moderation.
<snip me/>
> The EITC is certainly redistributionism.
<snip/>
> One strategy for libertarians is to intentionally bankrupt the current
> system, forcing its overthrow by fed up taxpayers. If that is a strategy
> you are interested in, you ought to take advantage of every opportunity
> to get free money from the government whenever possible. This will
> increase pressure to raise taxes (or else to axe programs) and thus will
> change the government.
I will not follow this strategy because it (economically) harms other
people, and I am not convinced the long-term benefits outweigh the
short-term harm. If I did not believe in the development of MNT and
machine intelligence (which actually allow for heavy government
borrowing now to not bankrupt our grandchildren), I'd be a lot more
worried about government interference with the economy.
Government interference with personal liberty is totally unacceptable,
but I don't have the firepower to challenge this, so I vote in a
feeble (but not negligible) attempt at self-defense. Government
interference with the economy and with personal liberty are closely
linked, but I don't believe the link is absolute.
J.W. Harris
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:07 MST