HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wlee@argo.acs.oakland.edu (Walter Lee)
Subject: Re: Some help for a tyro
Reply-To: wlee@argo.acs.oakland.edu
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, MI
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 01:02:56 GMT

In article <BuLBp3.2B9@acsu.buffalo.edu>, sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski) writes:
>
>	However, to directly answer your question, let me ask you a question:
>
>	If there is a free market in police and legal protection, why shouldn't
>your hypothetical person not simply sign on with an honest police force?  There
>would certainly be a market for it.
>
>
>Mark Sulkowski


There certainly would.  The good cop would be in a very lucrative market.
But would the good cop be able to make and back up the 'guarantees' of
the bad cop?  Does Right make Might?  Or even market share?

Walter Lee    wlee@argo.acs.oakland.edu, lee@plex-1.ann-arbor.mi.us

Keep the Aspidistra Flying!
From: kandt@ai-titania.JPL.NASA.GOV (kirk kandt)
Subject: Re: Income tax or excise tax?
Organization: NASA/JPL
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 20:48:32 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.191803.14086@njitgw.njit.edu>, dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep10.172423.1897@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov> kandt@ai-titania.JPL.NASA.GOV (kirk kandt) writes:
|> >In article <1992Sep10.163530.11479@njitgw.njit.edu>, dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
|> 
|> >|> The problem with no exceptions is that it doesn't give people and
|> >|> business any incentive to do anything.  How many rich people would
|> >|> give large endowments to the arts if they didn't get a tax break out
|> >|> of it?  Etc.
|> >
|> >Why should someone get a tax break for donating money to an enterprise
|> >that will not enhance the economy?
|> 
|> OK, how about a tax break for investing profits into the company
|> instead of pocketing it?

No.  One should only invest money if he feels that he is going to make money
on it.  If one needs a tax break to encourage investment then it is probably
a poor investment.  Tax breaks are simply the governments way to get
individuals to make bad investments (i.e., those with poor monetary returns
in light of the potential risk).
From: KAMCHAR@ibm.cl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Fairest Tax
Summary: Fairest Tax?  Unworkable tax is more like it...
Date: 15 Sep 92 02:14:50 GMT
Organization: Kamchatka Charlie

In article <BuJBM0.MwC@world.std.com> kkirksey@world.std.com (Ken B Kirksey)
writes:
>With all this discussion on tax, I'm surprised no one has mentioned what
>Jefferson called the "fariest tax":  a lottery.  What would be the pros
>and cons of using a lottery to raise "tax" revenues.
> 
>                            Ken
>                           
     Okay, let's look at this "fairest tax:"
Pro:  The tax is indeed voluntary.  Only those 
Cons:
1)  You need to set aside a sizable amount of the sum in order to cover
compensation for people who win the lottery.  You need many small prizes to
keep the buyers buying through long periods, and occasional big prizes to keep
the hope high that "one day we will win the big one."  This means that a
sizable amount of money must be set aside in order to pay off those who buy the
tickets--or else no-one will be buying tickets.  True you can cheat by
investing part of the money into a slush fund and using the interest for the
prize fund, but how many governments do you know are trustworthy enough to
allow to do this.

2)  The type of people who buy lottery tickets are generally poorer people. 
Therefore, the system of using lotteries to raise funds works best with a
system of ENDEMIC poverty, or in other words an underclass.  (let's face it--if
you can earn $100,000/year with the possibility of raises, why spend part of
your hard-earned $$$ on lottery tickets promising $50,000/year straight (no
adjustment for inflation) through twenty years?)  A generation of constant,
across-the-board prosperity strong enough to jerk the homeless into
respectability would make lotteries unworkable (at which point I can hear the
Anarchist Capitalists proclaiming "Voila!  Utopia without coercion!" to which I
say "Human nature will make it impossible."

3)  With the above restraints (need for a large prize fund plus those who would
use the lottery don't have much money in the first place), it is highly
unlikely that enough $$$ would be raised for armies, police, roads & upkeep,
schools, or any of the other features which we take for granted thanks to our
tax dollars.  (okay, take the last sentance with a grain of salt; that's just
MNSHO)  Either the people would have to accept a much lower level of services
than they are used to or other ways of raising $$$ for the services would have
to be considered.

     Which leads to the next question:

Just how much government is necessary?

     While this net.board would say "enough for defense, and that's all," I
would expect that the needs would end up being much more than expected.  Half
of what we take for granted we would miss (or have much less of to give out) if
we switched from our present system to a "minarchist" government (defense
only).

Later--can't wait for the discussion.

kamchatka Charlie          KAMCHAR@ibm.cl.msu.edu
From: gliesche@lonestar.utsa.edu (Jules D. Gliesche)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Libertarian and objectivist idiocy
Date: 14 Sep 92 17:31:25 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio


Tim,

I agree with your arguments, and I truly understand how frustrating it is to
hear ideas that we believe in slandered and dismissed without serious
thought, but referring to people as "twits", etc. neither persuades the
misinformed (which is often not possible) nor convinces the passive reader
of this board (which is often VERY possible.)

Although mud-slinging is a time-honored political tradition, we should attempt
to present our ideas with the dignity and class they deserve.

'Nuff said.

Jules

 _______________________________________________________
 |     "I love my country, but I fear my government"     |
 | Marrou / Lord '92 - VOTE LIBERTARIAN - 1-800-682-1776 |
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: walden@ready.eng.ready.com (Eugene Walden)
Subject: Re: The word "Libertarian" was invented by Spanish Anarchists
Organization: Ready Systems
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 22:28:52 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.160546.2103@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> adams@bistro.berkeley.edu (Adam L. Schwartz) writes:
>Most of the elevation in living standards throughout the world have
>been a direct result of technology created by free markets.  The
>alternative, socialism, has produced nothing but misery (with a few
>exceptions on a small scale).

One of the most obvious examples of a successful economy is Japan. 

Look at Japan's move on the automobile industry. One of the reasons it was
so successful is because it was a national strategy. 

How do Libertarians address the success of the Japanese economy? 

   - Eugene Walden (walden@gate.ready.com)
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Income tax or excise tax?
Date: 11 Sep 92 14:24:03 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Sep11.094424.9386@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> gfeygin@eecg.toronto.edu (Gennady Feygin) writes:
>>An even easier solution is already in place (at least in Canada): everyone
>>gets a "basic personal exemption", which in Canada is about $6000.  So
>>you get taxed on the amount (Income - excemption), which clearly for
>
>We were talking about sales tax replacing an income tax. Kind of difficult to
>give an exemption from income tax when no income tax exists. Since sales
>tax would be collected at retail level, the exemption would have to take a
>form of direct refund at the end of the year. Otherwise, my idea is quite
>similar to yours. 

A direct-refund would be difficult to implement.  After all, what if
the person spent less than the exception amount in sales taxes?  The
direct-refund would have the effect of a welfare payment.  I'm sure
you wouldn't want this, would you?

So, records would have to be kept (by the state, probably) of how much
sales tax is charged to whom throughout the course of the year.  The
bookkeeping would be incredible, and would probably nullify any
savings that would be gained, since the taxes would be raised to cover
this overhead.
-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "LECTURER, n.  One with his hand in your pocket,
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   his tongue in your ear, and his faith in your
 ((|,)                          patience."
  ~|~                              --- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Some help for a tyro
Date: 14 Sep 92 22:55:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <YOUNG.92Sep14164244@ssdd475a.erim.org>, young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young) writes...
>I have seen that Libertarianism is based on the concept that
>"Peaceful, honest people have the right to be left alone."
> 
>The sounds wonderful.
> 
>I have always wondered, though, how basic services are provided.
>Privitization?  Picture this:
> 
>You just moved in your new house.  Comes a knock on the front door.
>You open to find two gentlemen of a size to dwarf W. Perry.  
> 
>"We wanted to welcome you to the neighborhood and offer you the
>services of our fire department.  We guarantee our service.  That is
>we guarantee that without our service, your house _will_ burn down."
> 
>"Why, you can't do that!  That's extortion!  I'm gonna call the
>police!"
> 
>"Let me help you out with that.  Here's my brother-in-law's card:
>Guaranteed Police Protection.  Reasonable rates."
> 
>Etc., etc., etc.
> 
>What makes a Libertarian think that honest people living free would
>work any better than "from each according to his abilities, to each
>according to his needs"?

	Well, it is possible to have a limited government support a
free market (clearly non-Marxist).  However, if you are refering to
a libertarian society where even the police are privatized, you really
should read David Friedman's book _The Machinery of Freedom_ and Bruce
Benson's book _The Enterprise of Law_.

	However, to directly answer your question, let me ask you a question:

	If there is a free market in police and legal protection, why shouldn't
your hypothetical person not simply sign on with an honest police force?  There
would certainly be a market for it.

> 
>PBY
>young@erim.org
>--
>Peter Young
>young@erim.org

Mark Sulkowski
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: nancy@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Nancy Lebovitz)
Subject: Re: Income tax or excise tax? 
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 12:32:45 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.195753.22879@zip.eecs.umich.edu> rjones@z.eecs.umich.edu (Randolph M. Jones) writes:

>It has always seemed to me that the "best" tax would be a high sales tax
>and no income tax...the advantages are obvious to me...can anybody summarize
>what the expected DISadvantages to such a system would be?

Well, offhand, the first one that comes to mind is that organized crime
would be involved in the selling of _everything_ rather than just the
relatively few items which now are forbidden or heavily taxed. 

As for the tax being regressive, it could be fiddled with as state
sales taxes are to make it less so. (No tax on unprepared food, or 
whatever.)

Actually, my most major fear about a national sales tax is that it would
be instituted, but that the income tax wouldn't be eliminated.

                               Nancy Lebovitz
                               calligraphic button catalogue availible
                                         by email  (170K)
                               nancy@genie.slhudel.edu

Politicians are like rats--what they take for themselves is trivial
compared to what they destroy to get it
From: hagman@crs.cl.msu.edu (Tim Hagman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: The word "Libertarian" was invented by Spanish Anarchists
Summary: Silly Rebuttal
Keywords: Not!
Date: 12 Sep 92 18:13:22 GMT
Reply-To: hagman@crs.cl.msu.edu.UUCP
Organization: Michigan State University

In article <BuEztt.5Eu@ais.org> plucky@ais.org (Chris Adamson) writes:
>
>	If you'd like to meet some genuine anarchists, I suggest you
>give your local representative of Operation Rescue a call.  Their
>tactics -- the forceful denial of an abortion clinic's property rights
>and the attempt to overwhelm local police (they never pick BIG cities
>with large police forces) -- create a localized state of anarchy, in
>which their will can be forced on others.
>
No -- not big cities with large police forces known for their hostility towards
lawlessness -- like Milwaukee, WI.  No -- they would never plan demonstrations
there a year in advance and then "spontaneously" decide to stay for a couple
extra weeks.  Never.  They would never do something like this _just this 
previous summer_.  That would be so unlike them.

I don't support OR's viewpoint -- but I sure don't support the viewpoint
of people who are so obviously well-versed in current affairs.

>    =========================================================================
>   / Chris L. Adamson    /     Always look on the bright side of life:     /
>  / Michigan State U.   /  Face east in the morning and west in afternoon./
> / Telecomm Production / ----------------------------------------------- / 
>/ M.A. student        /   plucky@irie.ais.org , plucky2@aol.com         /
>========================================================================
>DISCLAIMER:  MSU wishes it could be so erudite and clever...

MSU wishes its students to have knowledge -- not just opinions.

--Standard Disclaimer: Anything I have said, written, or thought during my life 
may not under any circumstance be held against me or thought to imply any view
held by me, any organizations I have chosen to associate myself with, or any 
people who have chosen to associate themselves with me. - hagman@crs.cl.msu.edu
From: dab@asylum.UUCP (Dave Bridgham)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: property tax? was: Income tax or excise tax?
Date: 11 Sep 92 22:46:26 GMT

bacon@mtu.edu (Jeff Bacon) writes:

>Would an armed milita have the money to come up with tanks? fighters? nukes?
>all the stuff that makes up modern technological warfare?

I doubt it.  Would they need them?  If they want to go out and fight a
war, certainly.  But for defense?  It's arguable that our collection
of strategic nukes is the only reason the Soviet Union didn't turn the
U.S. into a glass parking lot.

Unfortunately, upon more thought and suggestions from other posters, I
think I'm wrong about a militia being sufficient.  Given the
dependence of our current society on constant trade, the whole thing
(even trade that's entirely within the country) could be brought to a
screaching halt from a distance with modern weapons.

The only way I see past this that would allow for keeping a militia
style defensive system is to reduce or remove that dependence.  Not
likely.

>I think that one of the biggest things that bugs me about Libertarian politics
>is that it tends to ignore the fact that we live in a world with a whole bunch
>of other people in it, many of whom aren't playing the game the same way. (And
>some who aren't even playing with a full deck.) And there ain't no referee.

Or you could look at it as one of the real challenges of libertarian
philosophizing.

					Dave Bridgham
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:82 alt.politics.marrou:1153 alt.politics.usa.misc:20 ba.politics:5290
From: brunner@lakota.ssd.loral.com (Brian Brunner)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.usa.misc,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Letter to KQED-FM
Date: 14 Sep 92 17:57:26 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Space Systems/Loral

So the news media should follow the LP so we can choose from the
lesser of THREE evils ;->


-- 
Columbus didn't even `discover' that he got lost by 8,000 miles!
brunner@lakota.ssd.loral.com; Space Systems/Loral; Palo Alto, Calif.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: gfeygin@eecg.toronto.edu (Gennady Feygin)
Subject: Re: Income tax or excise tax?
Organization: University of Toronto
Date: 11 Sep 92 20:03:30 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.142403.6594@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>In article <1992Sep11.094424.9386@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> gfeygin@eecg.toronto.edu (Gennady Feygin) writes:
>>>An even easier solution is already in place (at least in Canada): everyone
>>>gets a "basic personal exemption", which in Canada is about $6000.  So
>>>you get taxed on the amount (Income - excemption), which clearly for
>>
>>We were talking about sales tax replacing an income tax. Kind of difficult to
>>give an exemption from income tax when no income tax exists. Since sales
>>tax would be collected at retail level, the exemption would have to take a
>>form of direct refund at the end of the year. Otherwise, my idea is quite
>>similar to yours. 
>
>A direct-refund would be difficult to implement.  After all, what if
>the person spent less than the exception amount in sales taxes?  The
>direct-refund would have the effect of a welfare payment.  I'm sure

Not a welfare payment, but a reward for being frugal and investing instead of
spending. After all this "overpayment" would also go to wealthy person
who spends less. Furthermore, the whole idea of refund is to make
tax system a little more progressive. A few people may actually get out more 
than they paid, but the total amount of overpayment would be less than
the amount that would be spebt on bureacracy+cost of administering of
exemptions on necessities of life (the system we have in Canada is precisely 
that --- food for eating at home is not taxable, food for eating out is taxable). Thus donut is subject to sales tax, but 1dozen donuts in a box are not.
This is a nighmare for business. An ocasional "overpayment" due to 
fixed refund would be worth it, in my opinion

>you wouldn't want this, would you?
>
>So, records would have to be kept (by the state, probably) of how much
>sales tax is charged to whom throughout the course of the year.  The
>bookkeeping would be incredible, and would probably nullify any
>savings that would be gained, since the taxes would be raised to cover
>this overhead.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: steve-b@access.digex.com (Steve Brinich)
Subject: Re: LP PR: ballot petitioning completed!
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
  >  Is there SOME LAW which discriminates against smaller political parties?
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 21:18:26 GMT

  No, there is not "some law" which discriminates against smaller political
parties.  There are, rather, a plethora of such laws.
From: wade@nb.rockwell.com (Wade Guthrie)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Income tax or excise tax?
Date: 11 Sep 1992 22:16:42 GMT
Organization: Rockwell International


In article <6274@transfer.stratus.com>, tarl@apache.sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter) writes:

> Now we start with the fun part of taxes - the exceptions. Who decides
> what the exceptions are? Is Caviar food? Are fur coats clothing? Are
> 40-room mansions shelter? Are Lamborghinis transportation? How about
> Learjets?
> 
> The whole point of a single-tax system is that there are no exceptions.
> It's simple, obvious, non-amendable to lobbying, ect. Once you start
> adding exceptions, it is very hard to persuade a congress to not add
> more for themselves or their buddies.

Gawd, a voice of reason!  Hear, hear.

Wade
wade@nb.rockwell.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: rjohnson@shell.com (Roy Johnson)
Subject: Re: Income tax or excise tax?
Organization: Houston, TX
	<1992Sep10.172423.1897@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov>
	<1992Sep10.191803.14086@njitgw.njit.edu>
Date: 11 Sep 92 09:19:47

dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
 >kandt@ai-titania.JPL.NASA.GOV (kirk kandt) writes:
 >>Why should someone get a tax break for donating money to an enterprise
 >>that will not enhance the economy?
 >
 >OK, how about a tax break for investing profits into the company
 >instead of pocketing it?

Your tax break is that your profits from investing into the company
aren't taxed.  The potential for earnings is greater than if you
pocket the money, so you have incentive to invest.
--
Roy Johnson, who is not Kibo
Shell Development Company (but speaking for myself)
"Notice how people who don't know what they're talking about tend
 to use personal attacks?"	-- Lon Stowell
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Closing loophples?
Date: 11 Sep 92 14:33:03 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <BASHFORD.92Sep10225337@griffy.scripps.edu> bashford@scripps.edu (Don &) writes:
>How about the opposite?  Eliminate all sales taxes and retain only
>the income tax with lost sales tax revenues made up for by closing
>loopholes and raising the taxes of the upper income brackets.

I won't argue income/excise taxes here, as it is irrelevant to my
point, so please bear with me on this.

I fail to see why closing loopholes is a good thing.  During the past
12 years, the Republicans have lowered tax rates and closed loopholes.
The effect has been a marginal savings for the middle class -
resulting in lost revenues, and no difference for the rich.  The upper
class pay the same dollar amounts in taxes as before, only now they
don't have to do anything to get the lower tax rates.  Because of
this, companies didn't have to invest in research or hire workers, or
anything else, to get the low tax rates.  This is, IMO, greatly
responsible for the problems the nation's economy is in now.

Personally, (and I'm going to get flamed for this one...), a higher
maximum tax bracket (keep the middle and lower classes the way they
are) with lots of loopholes to allow the rich to do things to bring
themselves back down.  This will have the effect of encouraging the
rich (and corporations) to do certain actions to get the lower tax
brackets.

If these actions are things like "expand your factory", or "hire more
workers", or "invest in research", etc., it will have a very positive
effect on the nation as a whole.

If the income taxes are flattened out, with no loopholes, than there
is no (tax) incentive to do these things, and it's less likely that
they'll be done.


-- 
   |)  David Charlap           "LECTURER, n.  One with his hand in your pocket,
  /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu   his tongue in your ear, and his faith in your
 ((|,)                          patience."
  ~|~                              --- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary