From: Technotranscendence (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Sat May 25 2002 - 11:55:16 MDT
On Saturday, May 25, 2002 12:53 PM Dossy dossy@panoptic.com wrote:
>> Samantha, in a capitalist society the use of tax money to fund public
>> college is taking your money from you to train your competitors.
>> I can see where those without a university degree would object.
>
> However, training them just enough so they can be self-sufficient
> instead of parasites is in my best interests.
Yet if you don't have welfare in any form (for the poor, for the rich,
for corporations, for museums, for artists, for middle class, etc.)
people will have to be self-sufficient -- or rely on charity. (Don't
bring up theft, because people still steal even with welfare -- and
taxation is nothing more than organized theft. Some -- such as
Hans-Hermann Hoppe in his _Democracy -- The God that Failed_ -- argue
that such a system only reinforces shortsightedness (no need for long
term planning if one has a social safety net), irresponsibility (why
worry if the state will provide; why not be wreckless), and disrespect
for people and property (you see other people as either prey (to be
taxed) or predators (as tax takers) kind of makes for more criminal
behavior not less.)
> Perhaps a tax system where you are required to pay a percentage of
> your income in taxes but you get to allocate the money you pay to
> categories of your choosing (or, opt-out and let the tax authority
> distribute on your behalf, if you don't care) might be interesting.
It might be better than the current system, though it would not be as
good as a no tax system in terms of choice. I don't have to buy, e.g.,
any particular product or service on a free market. My ability to opt
out -- the exit option (as opposed to the voice option where one can't
opt out but has some say in what's done as in voting for politicians) --
and use money for what I want or like would be better. A problem I see
is who is going to define what one is allowed to choose and also the
amounts.
If politicians decide this, the choices might be nearly meaningless. As
a corrective, one should be allowed to keep one's tax money that would
go into such a system. This way, if one were offered say the choice
between funding program Coke or Pepsi as well as not funding any of
these, it would be much more like a market choice. E.g., I can choose
to eat at restaurants X, Y, or Z -- or not to eat out at all. Note this
makes for X, Y, and Z being much more attentive to consumers than if
they had guaranteed income and merely had to fight over the
distribution. (Not to mention that under a spoils system, they would
not be interested so much in capturing consumers, but merely making the
others look bad.)
Also, under such a system, it might even better to make the default
choice to be return the money to the tax payer -- making it a proactive
choice to fund something. This would mean programs that wanted money
would not have the guarantee of even minimal spoils.
Even so, I'm quite skeptical of the idea and prefer, as stated above, no
taxation.
Later!
Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:21 MST