HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ervan@rice.edu (Ervan Darnell)
Subject:  property tax? was: Income tax or excise tax?
Originator: ervan@dawn.cs.rice.edu
Reply-To: ervan@rice.edu (Ervan Darnell)
Organization: Rice University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 19:27:27 GMT


 In article <1t5y!+=@rpi.edu> you write:
|> What makes you think that libertarians want to replace income tax with
|> a flat sales tax?  As I understand it, libertarians want to abolish ALL
|> forms of taxation.  The idea is to get rid of coercive government funding
|> (i.e., theft) and replace it with voluntary funding (i.e., donation).
|> 

You have lost track of the orignal post.  Of course, Libertarians want
to get rid of all taxes, but given that that is not possible,
at least not immediately, what compromises are tolerable?

Most of the discussion has focused on a sales tax.  Let me offer
a philosophical defense of property tax:

Taxes should go to pay for the benefit that one derives from
government.  Some things, e.g. defense, accrue to everyone's
benefit and are all or nothing propositions, i.e. you cannot
say that you don't want to be defended in case of war and therefore
owe no taxes. Government should only provide those services
which cannot otherwise be provided, i.e. defense, police, and
the judiciary.  Given all of that, the benefit that one derives
from protection is proportional to the amount of property that
is being protected.  Insurance for a mansion is more than for
a hovel, likewise tax for defense should be more for large
property owners.  Additionally, even if you have no money, your
life is being protected and the potential to make money is
being protected.  That *might* argue for a head tax in the sense
that your body is property too.

Yes, there are serious pragmatic objections to such a proposal.
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Libertarian myths.
Date: 15 Sep 92 01:26:00 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <192vihINN4da@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:

>These dogmas take the form of short, bumpersticker myths with about as much
>honesty as former President Reagan's statement that "trees pollute".
>Here's a collection that was kindly provided for us.

This is the best news I've seen all day.  Since it has been conclusively
proven that trees do pollute, this must mean that libertarian dogmas
have also been conclusively proven.  Trees give off hydrocarbons which
react with sunlight to form smog.  The environmental laws dealing
with cars over the last 20 years have been a monumental waste of time
and money.

-- 
--Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: wayne@csri.toronto.edu (Wayne Hayes)
Subject: Re: Income tax or excise tax?
Date: 11 Sep 92 07:29:21 GMT

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.
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Advantages:
>4.  It is more progressive.
                ^^^^^^^^^^^
Considering this group was created for the discussion of a political
philosophy that actively argues *against* a "progessive" tax, I think
you'd better be willing to back up the claim that a progressive tax is
an "advantage".  I've never understood why this sort of tax system was
considered "progress" or "fair".  (Don't interpret that statement as
meaning anything more than it's formal logical meaning: just because I
don't understand "X", it doesn't mean that I'm in favour of "not X".)

-- 
The primary goal of science is to describe whatever scientists see as being
in need of description.

Wayne Hayes     INTERNET: wayne@csri.utoronto.ca        CompuServe: 72401,3525
From: bashford@scripps.edu (Don &)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: property tax? was: Income tax or excise tax?
Date: 12 Sep 92 06:15:15 GMT
	<BuG5Kq.1BA@rice.edu>
Organization: The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA, USA


A bit of history might by helpful to the discussion of property taxes.
I beleive that they arose in the US as one of several means of
compelling small self-sufficient farmers (Jefferson's "Yeomen") first
to produce for the market rather than for self-sufficiency and then to
either get big and modern or get out of farming.  Thus, a largely
independent agrarian population capable of living with little or no
government intervention became a highly dependent population of
industrial workers.  In Britain a similar process occurred several
decades earlier driven by land enclosure laws and other government
measures.

In this context, it seems to me that property taxes are anethema to
any ideal of building society along Libertarian, or Voluntaristic,
or even Jeffersonian lines.

Don B.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: bacon@mtu.edu (Jeff Bacon)
Subject: Re: property tax? was: Income tax or excise tax?
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 16:22:29 GMT

In article <420@asylum.UUCP>, dab@asylum.UUCP (Dave Bridgham) writes:
> ervan@rice.edu (Ervan Darnell) writes:
> >owe no taxes. Government should only provide those services
> >which cannot otherwise be provided, i.e. defense, police, and
> >the judiciary.
> 
> I would argue that defense is best provided by a militia (i.e. armed
> citizens) not by the government.  From a pragmatic point of view of
> course, most people seem to want to be told what to do and such a
> defense would probably abdicate to the first group that came along and
> promised to make up their minds for them.

I really kinda doubt this about the best defense being an armed militia.
Would an armed milita have the money to come up with tanks? fighters? nukes?
all the stuff that makes up modern technological warfare? Maybe, I suppose,
but I sure as hell wouldn't bet on it. People in general, I don't think, are
damned likely to spend good money on defense until far after it's too late.
And where are your professional soldiers going to be? You know,
the ones who know how to fight? Without an army, they're gonna be making shoes
and selling insurance, and any military tradition/knowledge/etc - all that
stuff that makes a good army - is out the window in a generation.

Yes, I realize that the dream of many of the founding fathers was that there
would be no more need for a standing army. A nice ideal. And in those days, if
you were working on a defense-only basis, an armed-militia approach might
have possibly been enough. (I still think we're damn lucky we beat the Brits
in the first place tho - and look at the help we got from the French too.)

However, the face of war has changed drastically since then - it ain't
been the same since Hitler unleashed the Luftwaffe and Wehrmacht against Poland
and France. Or Joffre's war of the trenches. Or any number of other instances.

Yes, our military ain't the most efficient, and the memory of $700 hammers
still lingers. But it does work.

Not to say that there ain't a place for the armed militia. I believe there is.
Or would be, if we had one. But people don't seem to recognize the concept
anymore. (Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this messy fight over gun control
and the 2nd amendment.)

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.
(The UN, not having a real military force and hence no real means of enforcement,
does not count.)

-- 
= Jeffery Bacon       General Systems Hack, Michigan Technological University =
= bacon@mtu.edu, bacon@mtus5.bitnet        ph-(906)487-2197 fax-(906)487-2822 =
From: lando@cirrus.com (Dave Landis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Libertarian Positions
Date: 12 Sep 92 06:12:45 GMT
Organization: Cirrus Logic Inc.  Fremont, California
Originator: lando@tango

Could a bona fide libertarian please outline the party's
position on the following areas?  If you're not a Libertarian,
I'd rather not hear what your opinion is pro or con.  I just
want some data.  Thanks in advance.

1)  How does the Libertarian position guarantee that I will
    breathe clean air?  In other words, how would they protect
    the environment or would they?

2)  In light of the fact that nations such as Japan and Taiwan have
    very good nationalised education programs, how can Libertarians
    justify a more privitised education system.

3)  It is an unfortunate fact of life that people who are not Caucasian
    are more frequently victims of discrimination than those who are 
    Caucasian [U.S.A context].  If minorities are to enjoy "life,
    liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.." what is in the Libertarian
    platform that would ensure them the same job opportunities as
    Caucasians?

4)  The invasion of Kuwait was indeed a terrible action on the part
    of Sadaam Insane.  Would the Libertarian party condone the use
    of force against them outside of our boarders?  It is reasonable
    to assert that the U.S.'s participation was based upon economic
    interests.  I'm personally glad that the u.s/u.n. kicked Sadaam
    out of Kuwait, because I have to commute to work.   I like having
    income.

5)   Would Libertarians condone the preservation of unique land areas
     under the National Park system?  Personally, I'm glad to see
     places such as Rocky Mt. Nat'l Park, Yosemite, etc. protected
     for everyone to enjoy.

6)   Is Alaska the most Libertarian of the 50 states?

If the Libertarian platform has been posted several times, it may not be
proper to post it, but I'd be interested in reading it. (e-mail if
appropriate)

Also, I'd be interested in seeing a list of candidates of Libertarians
running for office at the state and national level.  I live in California,
you know, the no-budget, IOU state; and I'd like to replace some of
those bums in Sacramento with people who are commited to limitted
government.

Again, please do not respond if you are not a Libertarian.  I want
answers straight from the horse's mouth. Not someone else's
interpretation of those Libertarian "twits". ;-) (I.e. horses may
speak, not jack-asses).


-- 
"He is the best friend of American liberty who is most sincere and active
 in promoting pure and undefiled religion." John Witherspoon, signer of the
 Declaration of Independence.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: delisle@eskimo.celestial.com (Ben Delisle)
Subject: LP PR: ballot petitioning completed!
Apparently-From: microsoft!tomis
Organization: -> ESKIMO NORTH (206) For-Ever <-
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 01:52:30 GMT


>MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM<
: LIBERTARIAN PARTY                                       Libertarian Party :
: Defenders of Liberty            NEWS             1528 Pennsylvania Ave SE :
:                                                      Washington, DC 20003 :
:                                                              202-543-1988 :
>MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM<

For immediate release.                             FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
9 September 1992                Mary Gingell, LP National Chair: 415-858-1842
                               Gary Johnson, LP Media Relations: 512-441-6378



            LIBERTARIANS COMPLETE BALLOT PETITIONING NATIONWIDE


     "The Libertarian Party has finished the petitioning to be on the ballot
in all 50 states and the District of Columbia," Libertarian Party national
chair Mary Gingell (JING'-gel) proudly announced today.

     The last petition was turned in on Tuesday, 8 September, in Minnesota.
A total of 3,186 signatures were submitted at 9 a.m. by the Minnesota
Libertarian Party to the Secretary of State's office at the state capitol in
St. Paul; 2,000 were needed.

     In several states, other paperwork remains to be done, or state
officials still must confirm that enough signatures were collected.  In
Alaska, a lawsuit involving a petition deadline is pending.  But party
officials expect these final steps to be completed shortly.

     "The Libertarian Party will be the only political party, other than the
Democratic and Republican parties, to be on the ballot in all 50 states and
the District of Columbia on November 3rd," Ms. Gingell proclaimed.

     "The Libertarian candidates for President and Vice President, Andre
Marrou (AHN'-dray mah-ROO') and Nancy Lord, are the only actively-
campaigning, viable, national alternatives to the failed two party system,"
she said.

     "Rep. Marrou and Dr. Lord deserve to be invited to the national
television debates. Their names should be included in the questionnaires for
the opinion polls."

     "America's third largest party will field more than 750 candidates
for office this year, including more than 140 for Congress.  We are the
agents of change."

     Libertarians believe "That government is best which governs least."
Rep. Marrou, 53, was elected as a Libertarian in 1984 to the Alaska House of
Representatives and served from 1985 to 1987.  Dr. Lord, 40, is both a
medical doctor and a practicing attorney.

                                  [END]
From: thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Income tax or excise tax?
Date: 14 Sep 92 20:47:07 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA


In article <1992Sep10.012706.1765@nb.rockwell.com>, wade@nb.rockwell.com writes:

> Well, one disadvantage with sales tax is that in discourages buying.  In
> times of recession, people may look at a slightly higher price and decide
> not to buy something -- let's just hold on to that buck.  This is exactly
> what should NOT be encouraged during a recession.  An income tax does not
> discourage anything (especially a graduated or flat tax); people aren't
> going to stop making money 'cause the government is going to get some of
> it.

In other words, taking money away from somebody when they spend it will
discourage spending, but taking it away before they spend it won't, as if
the amount of money one had was somehow unrelated to how much one
actually spent.  Ponder this statement for a moment, and revel in its
stupidity.

I've already lightly addressed the Keynsian falacy of spending our way
out of the economy in another post.  I would enjoy going into it at
greater depth if anyone cares to.

thant

P.S.  Pardon the harshness of my post.  I've been watching too much Dan
Fucking Rather.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: adams@bistro.berkeley.edu (Adam L. Schwartz)
Subject: Re: Libertarian Positions
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 17:38:19 GMT

I'll respond to this one:
>2)  In light of the fact that nations such as Japan and Taiwan have
>    very good nationalised education programs, how can Libertarians
>    justify a more privitised education system.

First, note that Japan and Taiwan are very homogenous societies and are much more
like a bee colony than a society like ours.  Thus, from their point of view, 
nationalized education is workable and makes sense.  This is not the case in our
society.  Thus the attempts we have made to provide public education have been
dismal to say the least.

The public system we have is the welfare of education.  It promotes apathy and
malaise in the students.  A private system is preferable not only because of the
better education that it provides but because when people have to work to send 
their children to school they will be much more likely to take an interest in 
how well their child is doing.  Now, given the political reality of government
controlled education the concept of the voucher system is a good "half-way"
solution.  It already cost the government almost as much money per student to
provide a lousy public school education as the voucher program would cost (in
the voucher system, the government would give vouchers worth about $5000 to each
student which could be used to pay for private education.  This would have the
side benefit of creating more competition in the private school sector and thus
further improving the quality of education and lowering tuition).

As a libertarian, I'm not against government support of education (in the form
of vouchers) because I believe that education is a public good from which 
everyone benefits.
From: adams@milano.berkeley.edu (Adam L. Schwartz)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Libertarian myths.
Date: 16 Sep 92 01:02:26 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL

In article <195hprINN5k3@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>I'm already inclined to think you're that stupid.
>
>It's obvious that you cannot recognize an analogy if it bites you in the ass.
>
After having read many of your posting, Mike, I'm getting sick of seeing you attack
people just because you disagree with their opinions.  I'm anxious to hear what you
have to say against Liberatarian philosophy but you know nothing about me or the others
you attack and your comments seriously dilute the value of what you have to say.

>Even after taxes, we live the richest, most luxurious life humans have ever
>known, but you want to whine because you want to pay less for it.
>Poor baby.  I would be happy to pay higher taxes to achieve certain social
>goals that other nations have demonstrated are not only possible, but can
>coexist with strong economic growth.
>
Mike, don't presume to tell me why I believe what I do.  I believe in lower taxes because
I think our society will be better of when people are free to spend their money the way
they best see fit.  I don't trust the government with this responsibility and I take it 
upon my self to fund social projects which I think are worthy of support.  In fact, even
though my income just puts me above the poverty level, I give 15% of it (before taxes) to 
charity.  I also contribute my time and energy helping social causes and community efforts
which I believe in.  Can you say the same?  Or is it just that your happy to see other
people pay for the programs you want?
>
>Sorry, but this country belongs to more people than just you.  The government
>is how we negotiate and decide what we want: it is not soem reified enemy
>entity.  This is where libertarianism displays its religious nature: the
>government is the great satan of libertarian theology.
The government is not how I negotiate and decide what I want nor does it decide what 
the majority wants.  The government is a drain on our economy and an obstacle to
personal freedom.  There is nothing religious about this observation.
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: The word "Libertarian" was invented by Spanish Anarchists
Date: 11 Sep 92 14:51:59 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <BASHFORD.92Sep10232136@griffy.scripps.edu> bashford@scripps.edu (Don &) writes:
>It seems to me that most of the people running around these days calling
>themselves "Libertarians" (e.g.  Libertarian Party, Self Governors,
>Ayn Rand groupies, etc.) are really just timid and truncated Anarchists.
...
>This fits in with something I came across recently in "The Spanish
>Labyrinth" by Gerald Brenen (1943):
>
>     The word "libertarian was invented by Sebastien Faure in 1898,
>     when the great anarchist periodical, _Revista Blanca_, was founded.
>     Since at that time anarchist propaganda was forbidden, some other
>     word had to be used to express the idea.

Perhaps at one time, byt the word doesn't have that meaning today.

I consider myself a libertarian because I have the following view on
government:

Laws exist to protect one's rights from another person.  If you harm
none other than yourself, then no law should exist to regulate the
action.

This is why I have (among many others) the following views:

1) Legalize drugs, but place very very stiff penalties if a person is
   found operating machinery (like cars) while high on them.

2) I approve of seat belt laws, but not motorcycle helmet laws.  A
   seat belt keeps you in control of the car and prevents further
   injury to other drivers.  A helmet only prevents injury to the
   wearer. 

etc.

Commerce laws are necessary to prevent various people (and businesses)
from stepping on each others' rights.

Police are necessary to enforce laws, of course.

A judiciary is necessary to try offenders, of course.

Taxes should only be raised for the following reasons:

1) To pay for the police and the judiciary
2) To pay for services which all the taxpayers will benefit from - and
   want.  A good example is sewage and sanitation.  I include defense
   among these.

They should not be raised to:

1) Pay for services that only a small minority will benefit from.
2) Pay for unnecessary committees and organizations that only exist at
   the request of small, high-pressure groups.

These things should be paid for by private organizations.  The
government can provide appropriate incentives (like tax breaks) to
encourage such organizations to exist.
-- 
   |)  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: gliesche@lonestar.utsa.edu (Jules D. Gliesche)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: The word "Libertarian" was invented by Spanish Anarchists
Summary: Markets over Guns!
Date: 11 Sep 92 17:34:07 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

I can't resist responding to the earlier comment about libertarians being
insensitive to the "tyrany of business / the market"

We're so insensitive to it that we are the ONLY party which advocates ONE
and only ONE set of laws which apply to everyone. This means that Exxon
has to follow the same rule's as Bubba's BBQ and VD Clinic.

If it weren't for "well-intentioned" memebers of the demopublican party being
in bed with big corporations (and vice versa), the market forces would
prevent a lot of the abuses traditionally blamed on the market.

To wit: "anti-trust" laws supposedly protect us from monopolies. However,
all they really do is put the govt. in the position of choosing which
monopolies will be tolerated. Cable TV companies, utility companies,
the post office, etc. are all monopolies in their areas - legally
protected from competition. Is it any wonder they treat us like dirt?

All this pseudo-Upton-Sinclair whining about the evil market (alwe a
in the most emotional, heart-wrenching terms possible) sounds like
No - the market isn't perfect - but it's a hell of lot more efficient,
compassionate and sensitive to human needs than governments accountable to
no one except themselves.

 _______________________________________________________
 |     "I love my country, but I fear my government"     |
 | Marrou / Lord '92 - VOTE LIBERTARIAN - 1-800-682-1776 |


modified version of the crap the old Soviet Union used to pump out. In
From: rogerc@ssd.intel.com (Roger Christal)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Income tax or excise tax?
Date: 11 Sep 92 20:42:07 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Systems Division, Intel Corp.

In article <BASHFORD.92Sep10225337@griffy.scripps.edu> bashford@scripps.edu (Don &) writes:

>... 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 heard from a reputable source that 43% of all US income tax revenues
are paid by 5% of the population.  You're absolutely right.  These
suckers aren't paying nearly enough!

Is {;^) really necessary?
-- 

>>=-  Roger Christal  rogerc@techbook.com  rogerc@ssd.intel.com  -=<<
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian