Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: LIBERTARIAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE POLLS 6%
From: f67700241@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin)
Date: 6 Sep 92 00:32:15 MST
 <1992Sep4.002456.1@violet.ccit.arizona.edu> <1992Sep4.173412.1930@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
Nntp-Posting-User: f67700241

In article <1992Sep4.173412.1930@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, gliesche@lonestar.utsa.edu (Jules D. Gliesche) writes:
>>Ah yes, taxation has been going on for almost a century now.  The LP's
>>main attraction in their platform is the call for abolishment of taxation.
>>It doesn't ring true to me.  The math behind it has exactly as much
>>support as the math for supply-side economics.  The LP (and Marrou)
>>is clearly using it as a slogan to attract disaffected voters: i.e.,
>>"read my lips, no more taxes."  Zero intellectual content, and no
>>guarantees the promise would be carried out.
> 
> The LP is not saying taxation should be abolished because it's the popular
> thing to say this year. The LP opposes taxation because it is taking some-
> one else's property by force. While we can debate the practicality of
> this attitude, it is not "zero intellectual content", but rather putting
> the old "thou shalt not steal" into action.

True trivially; the LP's platform has always opposed taxation from the
beginning!  I think the true rationale behind its inclusion is reflected
when you defend it using a phrase borrowed from the 10 Commandments.  Moses
was given 10 precepts; his job was not to question the rationale or
implications of the precepts, but to suck them in and enforce them on
his followers.  Zero intellectual content, but it sounds "right."

Taxation has more of a "we're all in this together"/social contract
basis than a "stealing" basis.  It's the dues you pay for admission into
a republic, IMHO.  Saying "taxation = stealing" is an LP campaign tactic
guaranteed to fail, because it is far from clear that taxation is
equivalent to stealing (a loaded word) to most people, including me.

> Marrou is not saying that abolishing the income tax would reform the
> government financing mess we're now having to put up with.
> Eliminating the income tax will put more money into people's pockets,
> which will in turn allow them to have more to spend on the goods and
> services they desire (which would be good for economic growth.)
> Reforming government financing would indeed be more complex, as even
> a Libertarian government would have to undertake the monumental task
> of dismantling the federal monster.

Even with the income tax close to 0% for the very lowest bracket, people
suffer and go hungry for lack of food and housing now.  Eliminating the
income tax means you must reduce the federal government's size, yes, but
that means axing programs that hurt THOSE people most.  No leaders except
those of totalitarian countries would intentionally inflict such pain on
so many people.  A bad situation would worsen.

>>My opinion is that if the LP were running the government, things like
>>the hurricane would be even worse than they have been.  Even less help
>>would come to the stricken area, on the grounds of "no national funds
>>to alleviate private problems."  And Marrou would be bounced out of
>>Florida in the next election by a 10-to-1 margin.

> Since, however, private charities do perform so
> well, it is not illogical to assume that if only private charities
> existed and people REALLY cared as much as they claim to when voting
> for statist Republicrats - the problem would be solved as well as
> the government is solving it now, if not better.

Sad to say, I don't think the Libertarian ideals take people into
account in their principles.  Here's a hypothetical. Let's say I
am looking at buying a PC.  I am a poor grad student, so I can only
afford, at most a $1500 computer.   Part of my income tax, say $2000,
goes to SS, education, and federal disaster relief.

Now under a Libertarian government, income tax is eliminated and I
have that $2000 back for me.  Now would I spend it in donations to
private charities, old folks homes, or schools, or would I redirect it
to my PC purchase so I can buy a $3500 machine?

If a lot of people choose the latter, then functions formerly provided
(however inefficiently) by the government thru tax dollars wouldn't
even begin to be made up for by private enterprise.  $20 billion (the
estimated damage figure I heard today for the hurricane) means every
man, woman, and child in the U.S. would have to donate $80 each to relief
efforts.  I doubt most people far away from the damage will send $320
(assuming a family of 4) to Florida instead of putting it towards a home
redecorating or a new stereo, even if there were no income tax.

Government, as unfriendly as it is today, would have done the nation
a whole lot better in that particular situation with taxation, rather
than non-taxation.  Saving us from ourselves, as it were.

Again, the LP's math doesn't work out.  A precedent was established in the
1980s with the S&L scandal.  S&Ls were deregulated in the hopes that
more money and fewer restrictions would increase the amount of wealth
in the country for more people--exactly the scenario envisioned by the
LP.  Instead, the S&Ls bought stock in overpriced real-estate and
burned most of their capital in frauds and risky investments, and all
that wealth was pissed away.  I don't want to risk that happening in
general with Libertarian governments.

Again, thanks for your reply.
-- 
Greg "Mockingbird" Franklin      Interviewer: "Sir, how do you spell relief?"
f67700241@ccit.arizona.edu               Dan: "R-O-L-A-I-D-S-E."

"[George Bush is] the most ruthless white man in the history of the planet."
	-- Richard Ben Cramer, author of _What It Takes_