Corruption and wingnut Christianity seem to go hand in hand. Case in point: Vox Day, misogynist Christian freak, is the son of Robert Beale, Minnesota millionaire, founder of both a computer products company and the Minnesota Christian Coalition. The elder Beale is on the lam from The Man for tax evasion.
"He fundamentally believes, and has stuck to his belief since this case started, that the federal income tax is illegal," said Bradford Beale, his son and vice president of Comtrol Corp., the firm that his father founded.
"It was common knowledge at Comtrol," wrote Rank, "that Beale was opposed to paying taxes as Beale had begun encouraging people at Comtrol not to pay their taxes and had even placed a poster in the Comtrol lunchroom advising people not to pay taxes."
Theodore Beale, AKA Vox Day, tries to pretend it's all a minor misunderstanding.
"He is a highly intelligent, highly educated man," Theodore Beale said of his father. "My sense is that he believes the tax laws are being applied improperly by agents who either don't understand that or have gone rogue."
Daddy makes several million dollars a year, and refuses to pay any income tax. I don't think there's a misunderstanding or bad IRS agents trying to persecute him: he thinks he's above the law.
Oh, and Theodore Beale was contacted at his home in Italy—no doubt enjoying the fruits of his family's wealth.
- Log in to post comments
It's good to see that they're finally cracking down on this garbage. "Fifty-eight federal charges" should be the IRS's new mantra.
Personally, I think he's a nut too. Can I ask you brainy people something that's been bothering me for a while when you talk about taxes and taxpayers?
I sometimes wonder if you ever stop to think about the law you advocate so strongly. I wonder which you regret more, the fact that he made some money, or the fact that you (in the person of the government) didn't get your hands on any of it.
If I came to your house and took something just because I needed it, you might well be charitable because you're a decent person, but then again you might jump up shouting, "Hands off my stuff!" You'd certainly be entitled to run me off and have me arrested as a thief. But if the government just takes your hard-earned money and gives it to me, you seem to be OK with it because it's the law.
Personally I wouldn't stoop to take anything from you that you didn't give me of your own free will, and I hate the present system of so-called services that makes me complicit by default in the government theft of your money. Yes, I would give up a lot of present comforts and privileges to be able to say that I was able to live honestly and payt my own way.
So what's so wrong with a man making some money and then wanting other people to stop taking pieces of it away?
Neoconservatives only want to uphold the laws and traditions of our great nation!
(Well, except the ones they don't agree with -- those don't count)
It's good to see that they're finally cracking down on this garbage.
OTOH, the IRS is now privatizing the collection of back taxes, and let's wonder if that makes any sense:
"The private debt collection program is expected to bring in $1.4 billion over 10 years, with the collection agencies keeping about $330 million of that, or 22 to 24 cents on the dollar. By hiring more revenue officers, the I.R.S. could collect more than $9 billion each year and spend only $296 million - or about three cents on the dollar..."
This link.
"ashamed of you" apparently has never heard of a social contract and has her/his own roads, schools, police, fire protection, national defense, parks, courts, museums, libraries, bank insurance, food and drug safety and efficacy service, meat inspectors, Federal Reserve System, U.S. Mint, etc.
And s/he apparently acquired great wealth without using any of those governmental services that are only available to the rest of us through the outright theft of our money.
I wish I lived in Libertopia instead of the real world. Sigh.
aoy, taxes are the fee the rich pay for the army that keeps Canada from coming down and turning this into a civilized country. It's a fee for services rendered.
So what's so wrong with a man making some money and then wanting other people to stop taking pieces of it away? - ashamed of you
Not a thing, except that man enjoys all of the fruits of a civilized society. If his house catches fire there will be firemen there putting their lives on the line to save his crap. If he falls on hard times there is a safety net in the form of walfare. He has electricity brought right into his home from an electrical grid, travels on a system of roads, and enjoys running water and sewage to name but a few things that were conceived of and constructed by the government with tax money. The infrastructure will crumble without the money like we saw in the form of broken levies during Hurricane Katrina - and note that this happened during the reign of an administration which is trying it's damndest to abolish all taxes on the wealthy.
How many of those McMansions are capable of pumping their own water or generating their own electricity for however long it will take to fix the infrastructure after you idiots allow it to collapse because of your petty greed? Nobody pays taxes because they like it fool, it is a social contract that keeps everyone safe, rich and poor alike. Or would you like to see what life is like after a few weeks without heat, or food, or electricity, or water, or law enforcement sitting there in the dark hugging your piles of precious cash?
Yeah. I heard of a social so-called contract. I don't recall signing one or otherwise agreeing to be contractually obligated.
And I don't own any social services or government buildings. They were built with your money and mine and we had no real say in any of it. I would prefer to do without them than to have to feel like I wasn't paying my own way and that I was really no better than a thief's accomplice.
Ok, it's a real theoretical stance, the "libertoid worldview," but at least it's honest. I don't want to live off of your money you earned that was taken from you by the government. I can't help it that the laws of the social so-called contract force me to walk on taxpayer streets and use taxpayer infrastructure. I deeply suspect I could not afford to pay for all the government crap I'm mandated to consume. I wish we could all just keep what we make.
I'm not a Christian, either. Christians supposedly believe in everyone giving all they have to the cult...
SI don't recall signing one or otherwise agreeing to be contractually obligated. - a.o.y.
You are free to leave the country at any time. Don't let Florida hit you in the ass on the way out.
because of your petty greed?
My what? I'm greedy now because I don't care to live at taxpayer expense? How's that?
Thanks to everyone who responded with some tolerance. I was really asking in good, uh, faith. I don't mean to hijack the thread. End this whenever you wish and go back to pointing out what a kook Vox Day's daddy is. Personally I think he needs to keep his nuttiness to himself and not make other people break the law. He can question it himself but that's beyond the pale.
Well, if you like the idea of a truly free-market system, a.o.y., I suggest you consider the economic and political history of Russia since 1991, and then see if you still like it.
I suggest you consider the economic and political history of Russia since 1991
OK, I considered it. It seems like a lot of dishonesty, corruption, and government nastiness is going on there. Hardly the self-sufficient, honest, fair pay-your-own-way sort of thing I mentioned, I think.
Gotta pick up my BF at the uni. BBL
AOY,
Get off my frigging internets. It was my taxes that built this thing.
You didn't sign a contract.
Also don't use any of my roads. Good luck flying or boating out of the country without using my airports or my ports.
Or better yet, just refuse to pay your taxes.
Then you'll be using the prison my money paid for. Freeloader.
"OK, I considered it. It seems like a lot of dishonesty, corruption, and government nastiness is going on there. "
Yeah... if only they had a set of ...guidelines?...rules? Wait, LAWS! And a way to enforce them... the honor system? nah.... karma? nahh.... Wait, POLICE! And a way to judge it impartially....guessing games? Rock Paper Scissors? .a fair and independant judiciary!
Yeah... and a way to punish the guilty.... let me think of something.....shunning?... hmmm...no...Wait, I've got it!
A body of elected officials who write laws, enforced by the police, judged by the judiciary and punished by the prison system! It's a GREAT IDEA!
Oh, but wait... the only people we can use this system on have to sign this... Social Contract..... and, here's the worst part, it'll COST MONEY to run it.
Naaah. We just go back to corruption, Comrade. Is cheaper! Work perfect in Soviet days!
AOY, voting is how you sign the social contract. Now, you live in a democracy. The thing about a democracy is that in it, the majority decides. That's not always a good thing, but it means that you are not without voice. Vote for the candidate that is running on a platform of abolishing all taxes and all services. If there is no such person running, the run yourself. Get enough people to support you and you'll end up with the mayhem you profess to want. If you can't get enough people's support you're stuck with what the majority decides. It sucks to be on the losing side of a vote, I know. I would love to have Stephen Harper out of office at least as much as you would love to live without public utilities and services, but I lost that particular vote so the evil jackass is my Prime Minister. That's how democracy works. Can you come up with a more just system of government?
AOY should also take note that Vod Day's daddy didn't accumulate millions by doing millions of dollars of honest work. Millions can be made by one person only on the backs of others - no doubt he employs hundreds who need our country's services more than he does - police to protect them in their non-gated community, not to mention welfare for when he fires them. Of course, it's at least statistically likely that Daddy Day got a good education in our public shool system - one that wasn't equally afforded to everyone in this country, much less the world.
The whole "I earned it, it's mine" ideology is overly simplistic and short sighted, and neglects the complex web of relations that makes all this work. If a person has a clever idea and makes bank off it, great, I guess - but a good place to start is to think about the words "deserve" and "earn".
ashamed of you, come back to us when you've taken eighth-grade social studies, and we'll talk
OT, i know.. so ban me, but Charlie Rose is interviewing both E.O Wilson and Francis Watson on Darwin tonight. On now on WHUT in DC. If you miss it, well.... I pity you, fool!
WATCH IT!!!
And let's not forget the federal court system -- supported by our tax money, of course -- that protects a.o.y's property (and everyone else's) and facilitates reparation when some other less-than-honest citizen tries to take it. That is, after all, why governments exist in the classic-liberal world; even the most fresh-faced, annoyingly earnest nineteen-year-old libertarian (which is most of them - the other half are annoyingly earnest economists from the U. of Chicago) knows that. Better to surrender a little tax money to the government than risk it all out there in the state of nature (see Locke, John, _Second Treatise on Government_).
But then again - I hate taxes, too. After all, Our Idiot Emperor Gee-Dubya proceeds to pour most of what I give him down the Iraq rathole. After, of course, giving his corporate buddies a whole slew of tax breaks, rebates, loopholes, etc etc. I'm getting robbed!!
Sad to say, a.o.y. is probably the most articulate and well thought out fiscal libertarian I've ever seen in these here tubes paid for by taxes and brought to the public thanks to Al Gore.
AOY: The social contract is what keeps people who have fewer morals than you from killing you and taking all of your stuff.
Of course, you don't like the social contract because you think that you'd be one of the killers and not one of the victims. Think again.
What a silly little Randroid. Sorry, dude, but The Fountainhead was fiction, and fiction written by one really whacked-out human being.
Um, no. You're confusing the social contract with police power. It's fear of police power that keeps people who have less-stringent morality from killing me and taking my stuff.
PZ: get ready to go ballistic:
http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=v6pywllczrz22q3ybkb4b94qrx35ck…
"Educators Question Absence of Evolution From List of Majors Eligible for New Grants"
Scott said there is a small movement nationwide of people, including Beale, who believe, after examining tax laws, that they do not have to pay federal income taxes because the statutes that set up the income tax do not apply to people who are not government employees or living in federal territories including the District of Columbia.
Beale is an MIT grad. That takes some game. What could have made him this dumb?
[Theodore Beale] said that his father founded the Minnesota Christian Coalition, which is affiliated with the politically oriented Christian Coalition of America.
Oh.
a.o.y writes: " I would prefer to do without them than to have to feel like I wasn't paying my own way and that I was really no better than a thief's accomplice."
That would make you an outlaw, in the original sense of the term. You would be forsaking the protection of the law. Anyone would be able to assault you with impunity, take your property, etc. How do you propose to protect your rights without making use of courts and laws that you want no part of and do not want to pay for the maintenance of?
We may be endowed by our Creator with inalienable Rights, but He's never once shown up to defend a person's claim to them.
Too bad Jason is no longer around. I am wondering whether he would side a.o.y. but I think he would pass this time.
Speaking of that, thank you professor Myers. Now the discussions are actually about your posts.
I stand corrected, Caledonian. I forget that fear and not morality is the only thing holding Randroids in line.
Ya know, I thought that Beale's name rung a bell. So he's Vox Day's father, eh? And why does this not surprise me?
Nice try AOY, but you're going to learn that soundbytes and one-liners don't do you any favors around here. Someone said you sign the social contract by voting, and I don't think even that's right. You sign the contract by living here. Whether directly or not, you've used our roads, you've used our education system, you've used our military, you've used our police, you've used our courts. That means you get to help pay for them especially if they've made you wealthy.
If you don't like this whole "civilization" thing, you might consider taking up residence in one of those third world holes that arise because the leaders there practice your asswhack version of economics.
And aoy?
Beale's loaded. That means if he bothered to consult a real accountant--instead of whatever Libertarian space cadet told him that if he just didn't pay his taxes, the Good Fairy would come around and magically change the way the IRS operates--he would have been up to his keister in tax shelters and off-shore bank accounts, and the net effect would be the same. Except that right now, he'd be in his own house, in his own La-Z-Boy, drinking martinis and making fart noises against the naugahyde.
dyslexia strikes... JAMES Watson, Francis Crick ::-)
It was amazing... if it's not over in your time zoone, i recommend highly!
"Whether directly or not, you've used our roads, you've used our education system, you've used our military, you've used our police, you've used our courts. That means you get to help pay for them especially if they've made you wealthy."
And took advantage of the SEC that keeps America's markets relatively healthy, dependable, and dynamic; the FDA which made if far more likely AOY wasn't raised on a diet of adulterated products and dangerous drugs; NOAA and other meteorological facilities which help warn of tornados and provide air and sea travelers with essential information for safe travel. Etc. Etc. Etc.
People like Beale prefer to imagine that everything they have is their own accomplishment, that their success was completely independent of all external factors, that they were born with an unstoppably potent seed of great wealth in them. But in reality, they owe a great deal to the government that provided the rich, fertile soil, temperate climate, protection from corrupting parasites, and shelter from extreme weather, which were essential to their success. People like Beale would be nobody if they'd been born and raised in, and tried to start a business in, say, Paraguay or Chad.
There are countries without laws and without taxes. People like Beale rarely pick up and move there, they'd rather stay here. Which says to me they're more interested in the government-provided comforts and safety than they will admit.
I'm greedy now because I don't care to live at taxpayer expense?
And yet here you are on the taxpayer-funded internet complaining about taxes before you get onto the taxpayer-funded roads to pick your boyfriend up from his taxpayer-funded university.
At least have the courage of your convictions, you coward. You sound like every other ungrateful 17-year-old living in Mommy and Daddy's basement who insists that they can totally get by on their $5.15 an hour if there weren't all of these rules, man! Where's my bong?
AOY:
You're a citizen of whatever country you're a citizen of, right? Yes? Well, there you go.
We all have quite a bit of say in the way our governments are run, actually, through things like voting, lobbying, financial contributions, speaking up at townhall meetings and the like, petitioning, protesting, etc., etc., etc. I suspect that most people who decry the alleged non-participatory nature of Western governments have just never actually tried to participate. I also suspect that the "I'd rather do without" crowd have also never actually had to "do without."
If you can't afford pay your own way regardless, then it doesn't really matter if you get to keep what you make, does it? We pay taxes for the same reason we have insurance. Insurance is the only thing that you buy in the hopes that you don't have to get anything back from it. But we all still buy it just in case, because if we don't, we're fucked. Taxation operates basically the same way, but has the distinct advantage that we don't have to wait for something bad to happen before we get something back for our investment. Most of the basic necessities of civilized life, those that exist above and beyond the purely biological needs (food, water, air, shelter), are pretty expensive. Personally, I'm glad I don't have to pay a toll every time I want to go to the grocery store.
You're absolutely right that if we were all forced to pay our own way, only the rich people would be able to live an adequate life. That's why we've all gotten together and agreed that forcing everyone to pay their own way is generally a bad idea, for all kinds of reasons.
No, Russia since 1991 is just what actually happens when you try to set up that self-sufficient, honest, fair, pay-your-own-way sort of thing you mentioned. There are two basic problems with the concept:
1) Economic self-sufficiency is a myth, a complete and total fabrication. It does not exist, has never existed, and will never exist. You rely on other people to provide your income, just as other people rely on you for their income. One noodle does not a plate of spaghetti make.
2) In a free market economy, honesty and fairness are equally mythical. It's much, much easier to make money when you don't care about treating other people with honesty and fairness (viz. every nation that's ever tried to set up a free market economy).
What follows is a snipping of comments from three hours of reaction to one person expressing theoretical libertarian views. The only remotely derogatory comments made by this person were in reference to the idiot Beale clan and perhaps by referring to Christianity as a cult.
after you idiots allow it to collapse because of your petty greed? Nobody pays taxes because they like it fool
You are free to leave the country at any time. Don't let Florida hit you in the ass on the way out.
Freeloader.
come back to us when you've taken eighth-grade social studies, and we'll talk
even the most fresh-faced, annoyingly earnest nineteen-year-old libertarian (which is most of them
What a silly little Randroid.
I forget that fear and not morality is the only thing holding Randroids in line.
If you don't like this whole "civilization" thing, you might consider taking up residence in one of those third world holes that arise because the leaders there practice your asswhack version of economics.
At least have the courage of your convictions, you coward. You sound like every other ungrateful 17-year-old living in Mommy and Daddy's basement who insists that they can totally get by on their $5.15 an hour if there weren't all of these rules, man! Where's my bong?
I understand that our online debating personas tend to the abrasive and shortfused side. Years of dealing with reality free creobots, two-faced IDiots, and generally self-righteous fundies tend to leave psychic scars. However, can we please try having a civil discussion with someone who mildly expressed a different socioeconomic view?
There's an elementary school a block from me. Because I'm on a dead end street, I get tied up in traffic all the time. The bullhorns they use to herd the kids in the morning always manage to start before I've had caffeine. And I don't have kids.
I'm delighted to pay taxes to support that school. It's a magnet school, a Spanish immersion program. Since this is one of those socially mixed, gentrifying historic neighborhoods, the kids are a mix of yuppie children and working class. I'm happy they're getting the opportunities I had, and my cynical side knows I need those kids to pay my Social Security.
I detest people like Robert Beale. I hope he gets 100 years and they strip him of every penny.
Yeah, because it's not like anyone who writes "you brainy people" and signs with a handle like "ashamed of you" would be trolling or anything.
"But in reality, they owe a great deal to the government that provided the rich, fertile soil, temperate climate, protection from corrupting parasites, and shelter from extreme weather"
They do all that? Katrina, global warming, invasive species...hmmm, I must have missed these biblical acts of government protection. The residents of New Orleans trusted the government to build and maintain their levees, and to maintain order in the event of disaster. Pretty effective insurance policy...
"It's a fee for services rendered."
...like W's faith-based initiatives?
" the FDA which made if far more likely AOY wasn't raised on a diet of adulterated products and dangerous drugs"
...and that women can't get Plan B, and that cancer patients can't get medical marijuana?
"I suspect that most people who decry the alleged non-participatory nature of Western governments have just never actually tried to participate."
Actually, my experience participating in government reinforced my view that legislators spend most of their time trying to find new ways to spend your money and justify their existence, not trying to make government leaner and more efficient.
I'm not saying that we don't need tax funded courts, militaries, schools etc., but I don't understand why so many otherwise rational people have such an irrational faith in big government - despite constant failures and abuses (did you miss the rubber bullet video?). Those governments that claim to be truly egalitarian achieve it only with ruthless force and at the expense of their citizens (North Korea, former Soviet Union, Cuba etc.) Our own government wouldn't be able to wage a half-trillion dollar war on the other side of the planet without excessive spending and taxation. Our country's founders never would have approved of the bloated monstrosity that our government has become.
As for the democratic process, would we still be free if the Christians voted for a tax-funded creationist museum in every town? How about if they just started spending our money to tap our phones without warrants...uh...oh...never mind. Democracy only ensures liberty for the majority. Liberty requires absolute limits to government power -including limits on taxation.
... And that mercury and rat faeces aren't part of your balanced breakfast. Organizations like the FDA screw up from time to time, yes, but I wouldn't want to get rid of them. Idiocy over Plan B and medicinal marijuana doesn't make food regulation any less important.
Concerning your other point: I don't think it's an irrational faith in big government, Heterocronie, I think it's just basic argumentation. I think that the tendency for a lot of people, especially when confronted with someone who's advocating getting rid of most/all government, is to emphasize the benefits provided by those government institutions, rather than the drawbacks and incompetency. ie. people try not to make make their opponent's job easier.
Hrm... By way of analogy, let's say you're arguing with an altie about science. When it comes to arguments, do you bust out with 'Science is valuable but incomplete', or do you go with 'Science is the best tool we have for understanding the world we live in'? They're both true, but one is probably more representative of your actual views than the other. Well, assuming you're sensible. :)
I suppose that to be completely fair, you should eventually comment on the drawbacks of whatever you're arguing for, but it just seems a bit much to expect disclaimers like that.
Dear Trolly,
You are aptly named, as I am certainly ashamed of you. There are many reasons to have misgivings, even objections, to income taxes, but even without ever having discussed the issues with you that not even ONE of your positions has the slightest merit: you are a self-serving pseudo-libertarian without more than the ghost of a conscience. Putting it simply enough, so I need not dirty my mind with any further thought of you: eat bu--sh-- and die. Fake! Liar!
I would bet a year's salary that every single one of Mr. Beale's objections to taxes are self-serving, greedy, arrogant bullshit of the very highest order, and would wager a fair amount that his company received government monies with pleasure, and would have - if they didn't actually - jumped at the chance to fill tax-paid government orders.
"... And that mercury and rat faeces aren't part of your balanced breakfast. Organizations like the FDA screw up from time to time, yes, but I wouldn't want to get rid of them. Idiocy over Plan B and medicinal marijuana doesn't make food regulation any less important."
Mechanophile, I don't advocate getting rid of the FDA completely, however, I do think we should be able to overide their rules with regard to what we choose to put in our own bodies (perhaps with exceptions for things like antibiotic-overuse that could have far-reaching consequences). I also suspect that private organizations (like a version of Consumer Reports) could, in concert with independent scientific advisors, do most of what the FDA does, and do it better.
"I think that the tendency for a lot of people, especially when confronted with someone who's advocating getting rid of most/all government, is to emphasize the benefits provided by those government institutions, rather than the drawbacks and incompetency. ie. people try not to make make their opponent's job easier."
Ok, that's understandable. I wasn't being entirely fair with my blanket characterization, but neither was the mob attacking the earlier poster. I advocate a system of limited government where flat taxes, property taxes, gambling taxes, illicit drug taxes, and lotteries pay for the basics (courts, a defensive military, police, patents, school grants for the disadvantaged, a CDC, and environmental/scientific advisory board and a few other things). Public works projects can be paid for by those who are willing to pay. An advocate (anyone) could post a proposal for a project (like a museum) on a government website, and supporters could then vote with their pocket books by a delayed pledge contribution that is collected only if the measure receives adequate funding.
I'm sure this would have some challenges, and is incomplete, but then the current system has its problems too. In the absence of the implimentation of my fantasy world idea, it would be nice if people at least thought about the idea that government involvement in every aspect of your pocketbook really isn't all that different from government involvement in your body or your home. Again, I'm not saying there shouldn't be a financial cost to citizenship, just that our current system isn't anywhere close to ideal - nor is it what our nation's founders intended.
Yeah, because it's not like anyone who writes "you brainy people" and signs with a handle like "ashamed of you" would be trolling or anything.
Your sarcasm detector must have a much finer set point than my own model. I had only a small needle twitch on the 'brainy' word and nary a quiver on the rest of aoy's comments.
Your sensitivity gauge is even more, well, sensitive, than your sarcasm detector if simply posting under the username "ashamed of you" can put someone into the troll category. Go read goddogtired's first paragraph. Please compare and contrast with the writings of aoy with special attention as to the relative levels of trolliness (trollosity?).
I would not have bothered with my first post if this were an isolated incident. As loathe as I am to admit it, I find myself somewhat agreeing with some of the true trolls who make references to PZ's echo chamber. Polite and rational comments which differ from this site's orthodoxy are as often mocked/smeared/lampooned as they are rebutted in a rational manner.
So to those of you who did make well reasoned points as to the value of income taxes paying for essential government services...thank you.
What is a troll but a plinth on which trollkin may stand and claim the moral high ground?
Thanks, Sean.
Notwithstanding that libertarian economics are in themselves offensive, I must agree that the hostility blowing like a hot fart from this discussion table often undermines the message. Scorn is fun, but is it effective? Calling names is not an effective way of arguing.
It is all to easy to look at someone else's beliefs and scoff. But people who believe stupid things are not necessarily stupid. People who believe destructive things (like theism) do not necessarily intend destruction. Maybe they have not thought the whole thing through. Confirming their stereotypes won't help them, or us, or anyone.
So what's so wrong with a man making some money and then wanting other people to stop taking pieces of it away?
In the simplest terms (becaues you have presented only the simplest argument), it's because that money wasn't made in a vacuum, that money was made because of those "so-called" services, not in spite of them.
You seem to have some reading comprehension problems: fear, and not morality, is how the current system works - you know, the one you're supporting? 'Randroids' have nothing to do with it.
Perhaps if you were less eager to attack and mock other positions and more interested in understanding them and analyzing their strengths and weaknesses, you wouldn't have these problems.
I recommend that people who yearn for truly uncontrolled libertarian societies should take an extended visit to either Pakistan's tribal territories ort Somalia. They aren't very similar, but both are fascinating places to visit, yet not enjoyable places to live, and either will make anyone very aware of the benefits of living in a country with a working social contract.
Another line of argument against extreme libertarianism rests on the Americas' own history: every part of N & S America was once (from a European perspective) the frontier, with thousands of repetitions of people settling in isolation from other caucasians, with or without Indians in the vicinity, with gradual growth into larger communities. Shoot'em up Westerns, "Deadwood", and modern Brazilian gold-fields notwithstanding, communities again and again and again chose to develop and live under a social contract and the rule of law. Randians might consider that millions of actual experiences and choices might be of more value than the fictional writing of one rather eccentric author.
From the article: "He fired his attorney, Dan Scott, saying that for Scott to represent Beale, the person, is "an absurdity." He has kept Scott on to represent him as a "corporate entity.""
Sound familiar? Looks like Beale has been using the same crib sheet as our friend Hovind.
Life o' Brian:
What did the Romans ever do for us?
XERXES:
The aqueduct.
REG:
Oh. Yeah, yeah. They did give us that. Uh, that's true. Yeah.
COMMANDO #3:
And the sanitation.
LORETTA:
Oh, yeah, the sanitation, Reg. Remember what the city used to be like?
REG:
Yeah. All right. I'll grant you the aqueduct and the sanitation are two things that the Romans have done.
MATTHIAS:
And the roads.
REG:
Well, yeah. Obviously the roads. I mean, the roads go without saying, don't they? But apart from the sanitation, the aqueduct, and the roads--
COMMANDO:
Irrigation.
XERXES:
Medicine.
COMMANDOS:
Huh? Heh? Huh...
COMMANDO #2:
Education.
COMMANDOS:
Ohh...
REG:
Yeah, yeah. All right. Fair enough.
COMMANDO #1:
And the wine.
COMMANDOS:
Oh, yes. Yeah...
FRANCIS:
Yeah. Yeah, that's something we'd really miss, Reg, if the Romans left. Huh.
COMMANDO:
Public baths.
LORETTA:
And it's safe to walk in the streets at night now, Reg.
FRANCIS:
Yeah, they certainly know how to keep order. Let's face it. They're the only ones who could in a place like this.
COMMANDOS:
Hehh, heh. Heh heh heh heh heh heh heh.
REG:
All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
XERXES:
Brought peace.
Heteroc. writes: "They do all that? Katrina, global warming, invasive species...hmmm, I must have missed these biblical acts of government protection."
It's called a metaphor, in which Beale's success was likened to a plant, and the environment in which that success happened was likened to a protected, sheltered area with the protection and shelter provided by the government. Try learning how to read.
"AOY should also take note that Vod Day's daddy didn't accumulate millions by doing millions of dollars of honest work. Millions can be made by one person only on the backs of others - no doubt he employs hundreds who need our country's services more than he does - police to protect them in their non-gated community, not to mention welfare for when he fires them."
Assuming the above is true, apparently this guy ran a business that employed hundreds of people? So those people paid taxes, the business paid taxes, the business paid 7.5% additional tax on the income of all employees, items were bought and sold by the hundreds of people working there and taxes were paid. Sure, the guy needs to pay his personal taxes, but to say he hasnt paid for the infrastructure of this country by all the tax revenue generated by his company is insane. OTOH, maybe he didnt own a company and the person who made that comment is talking out of his ass, like when he said "Millions can be made by one person only on the backs of others"
As I was perusing the IRS site again (for a entirely different reason), I discovered the following little document: The Truth about Frivolous Tax Arguments March 15, 2006.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf
It's a nice 50+ page summary of the various arguments, including the case law shooting them down.
Cheers,
-Flex
Well, since I found Pharyngula though Ebon's Daylight Atheism blog, and AOY brought up a subject that he's tackled, why not link to Ebon's post on Libertarianism? I can see that I'll need to reread it myself; it was only 20-30 comments when I read it and it's up for 90 now, though the last one was well over a month ago.
Ugh.
"and it's up to 90 now"
No one who complains that they don't remember "signing" any social contract is worth addressing like a rational adult. Call me prejudiced.
Well, that's free speech for you. Anyone is free to write a provocative and condescending post full of arguments that have been politely refuted over and over; anyone else is free to either respond thoughtfully or pile on, as they like; and you're perfectly free to deplore it either way.
I don't see that happening to polite and rational comments, though. For example, Scott Hatfield posts here a lot, and although he differs philosophically from most of the regulars here, with rare exceptions, I've never seen his posts mocked, but responded to with civility and thoughtfulness.
Of course, he doesn't pepper his posts with sarcastic appeals to "you brainy people", so perhaps that has something to do with it.
Heterocronie:
The problem with that is that when they're given the choice, manufacturers will not tell you a bloody thing about what they're putting in your food or how effective/dangerous your medicines are, and they'll fight tooth and nail to keep it that way. This is borne out over and over again, every time the government tries to enact a new set of regulations or content standards. Every single damn time.
This is because corporate accountability is bad for business. It costs money to ensure that your product doesn't kill or maim people, and it costs empathy to care about it in the first place. And that cuts into the profit margin.
So either the government provides the service and you pay for it via taxes, or the private sector provides the service and you pay for it via fees. You're still paying either way. The FDA accounts for, what, a few percent of your tax bill, at the most? For the average Joe that means at the most a couple of bucks a year. How much does an annual subscription to Consumer Reports cost?
And if CR also had to do drug testing and food-additive screening and product-safety testing and nuclear regulations and all the other stuff the government does, I'll bet that subscription rate would skyrocket very quickly. The private sector might (emphasis: might) be able to render certain services better than the government does. I've never seen much evidence to back up that assertion, but let's concede it for the moment. Services provided by the private sector invariably cost more to the individual consumer than those provided by the government, for all kinds of definitions of the word "cost." For example, if your house is on fire, you aren't going to want to spend an hour calling privately-run fire departments trying to get the best deal. If you've been kidnapped or your kid has been abducted, you aren't going to want the police to call off the search because they've gone over budget (viz. THX 1138). You want to call 911 and be done with it. You want to let them do their jobs so that you don't have to.
I think we're so used to government agencies doing these things for us that some of us take them for granted and get the idea that they exist in a vacuum, or that they're just not doing anything we really need. All of this stuff -- taxes, the FDA, welfare, corporate regulations, etc. -- exists for a reason. They weren't just invented ex nihilo and applied willy-nilly just for shits and grins. There is a manifest need for their existence, in most cases. No one is saying that it's perfect, or even that it's well run, but the fact of the matter is that it's socially, politically and economically impossible to impose a libertarian economic system on any society larger than a small rural village.
Oh sprinkle me with grated Parmesan and touch me with His Noodly Appendage, don't these jeebers ever spend even a second looking at the history of these claims? That one's been getting shot down by the courts since 1796:
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#federalareas
These "tax protestor" arguments have been thrown down, danced upon and laughed at in court so many times that they make judges page through their dictionaries seeking a way to say "demented fuckwit" without losing their judicial dignity.
And yet the tinfoil-hat brigade keeps tweaking a few words and whipping them out again and again, in the apparently sincere belief that if they just recite the right magic formula the little man from the IRS will stamp his feet and disappear like Rumpelstiltzkin. That this never happens doesn't faze them in the least.
You've got to give the "tax protestor" crowd credit for one thing- they sure do practice recycling, even though it's only trashed claims being recycled.
I agree with Sean - why is it that whenever anybody ventures a non-lefty view on political economy here it transforms into "beat on the straw-libertarian".
The "If you don't like gov't go to some 3rd-world country where the gov't doesn't work" is particularly grating since it demonstrates that the person saying it understands next to nothing about libertarianism. Libertarians believes that the scope of government should be limited to a few specific things. The specific list varies but some provision is always made for protection of people and their property against others who would harm them and a means of redress for those harms. Many libertarians argue that redress for harm done by inaccurate claims or faulty products via the tort process is by itself sufficient to deter the sale of unsafe products. Governments that have corrupt or ineffective legal systems don't appeal to libetarians because they aren't doing one of the few things libertarians think government should do.
(Note: This is what distinguishes libertarians from anarcho-capitalists, who like their left-anarchist counterparts, hold the unrealistic belief that their prefered economic systems is what will result in the absence of authority. The failed state argument is effective against anarchy, but that's not what you're arguing against.)
Take the time to read some Friedman, Hayek, Mises, Rothbard, or even Rand with an attention to detail. You may not agree with them (they don't even agree with each other), but you may at least pick up a strong enough understanding of libertarianism to make intelligent critiques of it.
As an aside, although most contemporary tax protesters tend to be cranks, not paying taxes as a form of civil disobedience is not a new phenomenon (remember Thoreau?) and can be morally justified if substantial portion of government funds go to activities that you find morally objectional. Of course, like Thoreau, contemporary tax protesters shouldn't be the least bit suprised when they end up in a cell.
So, explain to me then how it is that I'm misunderstanding Mary Ruwart when she clogs my inbox with bullshit about how there should be no such thing as public education, public roads, public funding for abortions, or even public funding for healthcare for that matter. Am I misreading the Libertarian party platform when it says those exact same things? Or are you about to tell me that the Libertarian party is made up of Libertarian imposters who don't understand what real libertarianism is? I'll bet you are...
I just want to stress that this is an incredibly important point. One of the many points that Jared Diamond emphasizes in Collapse is that publicly-held corporations are legally obligated to maximize profits; shareholders have the ability to sue when profits are not maximized.
So unless there are actual government regulations (with fines or other punative measures for noncompliance) that companies can point to that they have to follow, it is actually in the companies' best short-term interests to pollute, to use the lowest possible standards for purity control, and to use the least amount of testing on their products before releasing them to the market.
"Invisible hand", my foot.
Dustin, are you sure that Mary Ruwart is talking about the Libertarian Party, or Liberia?
And, in something like food quality, market forces and redress wouldn't do squat. Say I got E. Coli from some badly processed beef. I could sue, but I'd have to prove in court that my contraction of E. Coli wasn't due to my own mishandling of the meat. As I don't videotape myself when I cook, that's probably not going to happen. So, there's no redress. I'm also not interested in buying beef on a trial and error basis and remembering which brands give me e. coli, and which ones don't.
So, you don't see anything wrong with the massive number of fools that give their kids arsinic laced "medicines", made by some traditional medicine man/woman, like was going on in some parts of California about 10 years ago and think it should be sold over the shelf? Or newer cases like these:
http://scienceblogs.com/retrospectacle/2006/08/minors_legal_rights_redu…
http://scienceblogs.com/retrospectacle/2006/08/traditional_african_poti…
And you would love to see more of this sort of insane logic in the US, because the FDA wouldn't be allowed to stop it? Glad you made it clear what you think...
Personally, I don't think the FDA has a) enough funding, b) enough people (for example, Penn and Teller, for one of their Showtime episodes looked at water safety and found that there was only **one** person in the entire local FDA responsible for maintaining water standards for their state, and it constituted 1/5th of their overall duties... That's one person, who spends 20% of their time checking to see if thousands of wells contain bacteria, poisons or other hazzared that don't meet safe standards.) or c) enough legal grounds to handle "every" dangerous thing someone might be exposed to, since 90% of quack medicine involves thinly veiled claims that herbs x, y, and z "may" help cure you cure your cancer, but its really "a food suppliment". The sort of food supliments that you still find sold in the same mixes at "health food" stores, even though the FDA "could" ban them in specific food products, and did, after a bunch of people, mostly in their teens and twenties died while mixing them with nothing more than "caffeen".
I think the FDA is being undermined, underfunded and sabotaged. You however think its too powerful? Pull the other one, its got bells on! lol
Not to mention, Dustin, since the incubation period for E. coli is typically 3-9 days, pinpointing whether the infection was from which beef n days ago or maybe some improperly-washed salad you ate however many days before that and assigning the proper tort would be impossible.
Yes, of course they do. But the fundamental problem with this assertion is that it is demonstrably false. The tort process sucks at redressing harm done to consumers by inaccurate claims or faulty products. If it didn't, we wouldn't need all this legislation to do the job in the first place, and this whole issue would be moot. The only situation in which the tort process is even remotely fair is when the two parties in the suit are are equal economic status. But in cases in which Joe Citizen is suing Giant Fat-Cat Coproration, you'd better believe the scales are tipped from the get-go. Money talks, bullshit walks, and all that.
Actually, the fundamental problem with that assertion is that the two terms in the argument are not causally related, or even necessarily related at all. Corporate fraud/incompetence are in absolutely no way whatsoever dependent on the economic/legal context, or vice versa.
Oops.
"...are of equal economic status."
No one who complains that they don't remember "signing" any social contract is worth addressing like a rational adult. Call me prejudiced.
I suppose 'prejudiced' could be shoehorned into applying.
For the past couple centuries, an assortment of philosophers, economists and freethinkers have questioned the validity of the social contract. Do you issual a blanket denial of their status as rational adults as well?
Is rational adult status denied only to those who lean towards differing economic theories? If I were to disagree with your choice of favorite color, should my views be dismissed by stating I should go back to eighth grade art class? Were I to state a dislike for your favorite band, do you advocate my return to...well, you grok the concept.
Shifting gears slightly to what I see as being the root of this kind of behavior. I come across many folks who claim the two major American political parties are essentially the same. Republicrats seems to be their favorite witty one word soundbite.
I disagree.
American liberals and conservatives appear more vitriolically opposed than ever. Woe to the individual who expresses anything that is outside the official party line for one of the two camps. That individual will then be lumped into the opposite camp and verbally blasted, lampooned and dismissed by both sides. I have been a mindless, bootlicking, Bush toady and a terrorist-loving, America-hating, Francophile for the same posting in another forum. The grey between the two extremes has become a free fire zone.
I can experimentally calculate pi to many significant digits and call you Wrong if you disagree. Scientists can experimentally derive the speed of light in a vacuum and call you Wrong if you disagree.
Politics. Philosophies. World views. Values. Morals. These are not objective measurable facts in the same vein as pi or c. They will vary according to the personal intricacies of an individual human being's opinions. Why is an increasing percentage of our current society trying to shoehorn them into the objectively right or wrong category?
"why is it that whenever anybody ventures a non-lefty view on political economy here it transforms into 'beat on the straw-libertarian'."
If flesh and blood "straw-libertarians" didn't insist on venturing their "non-lefty" views than maybe people wouldn't have to beat on them.
Numad, you just lost any right to claim to be a spokesman for anyone here, since this statement is a blatent admitence, at least in your case, that the accusations of the right about the left being closed minded and bigoted is 100% true. Our did you actually completely miss that fact somehow? The rest of us, I hope, are not in agreement with such a bullshit, one sided and unthinking view point, even if we do think the poster being argued against here is a clueless fool that thinks even less than you just admitted to.
I think any conception of libertarianism which can hope to be consistent must view the government/business relationship in the same light as the business/consumer relationship. A lot of statements consistent with this have been made already (particularly on Ebon's blog).
I've always found odd the reluctance of libertarians to accord businesses the rationality and freedom of choice they accord to consumers/workers whenever defending the practices of any particular business. Nothing outside of circumstance forces anyone to shop or work at Wal-Mart, and similarly, nothing outside of circumstance--or perhaps poor planning--forces any particular business (or the head thereof) to patronize a particular government.
But what if all the other governments are even less genial? Well, just as it is for the consumer/worker that the ability to choose does not entail an ideal choice, so it is here. I've never purchased a perfect product and have yet to attain employment with a company that will pay me billions to read science blogs all day. I can, however, hope to gradually better things for myself by voting with my feet: quitting my job for a better deal; going to a new company when it offers a better product and so putting pressure on its competitors to improve their own. It should be the same for businesses. If you find current wage laws too egregious, go to a less restrictive state or country and let those vaunted market forces do their work. If your service/patronage is valuable enough, the original government may try to entice you back by lowering its minimum wage. This is the only fair way to do things, by libertarianism's own professed standards. Alas, it seems most libertarians are only fair-weather fans of the market. Instead of exercising their freedom of choice, they prefer instead to stay put and practice what is essentially unionization on a national scale.
Dustin:
You're missing the point. A major reason why conditions are poor in many 3rd world countries is because they lack transparency and accountability in their governments and a fair legal system. Libertarians do believe that a functional legal system is a legitimate government function and tend to complain quite a bit about corruption in government (which is one of the reasons why they want it's scope minimized). Libetarianism believe that well-defined and enforced property rights are the foundation of a successful economy, and a functional legal system and transparent government are required for it, things which are notably absent in most undeveloped countries. This kind of corruption is a problem regardless of the scope of government services, since it precludes effective private sector or public sector development, and is a widely recognized problem in development economics.
"Numad, you just lost any right to claim to be a spokesman for anyone here, since this statement the accusations of the right about the left being closed is a blatent admitence, at least in your case, that the accusations of the right about the left being closed minded and bigoted is 100% true. Our did you actually completely miss that fact somehow? The rest of us, I hope, are not in agreement with such a bullshit, one sided and unthinking view point, even if we do think the poster being argued against here is a clueless fool that thinks even less than you just admitted to."
One: I never claimed to be a spokesperson for anyone.
Two: This is total, posturing BS. You did NOT get all that from my one sentence post. I might not be the most intelligible writer on the planet, but there's no way you'd get "is a blatent admitence, at least in [my] case, that the accusations of the right about the left being closed minded and bigoted is 100% true" from my posting unless you'd already believe that proposition. Which is a pretty big prejudice for someone to drag around if they want to wag fingers about others being close-minded.
Otherwise, I don't see where you got this fabulation from.
I'd like to clarify my previous statement but I wouldn't know where to begin since your response to it is so fantastically off the mark.
Sean:
It is indeed possible for an opinion to be wrong, because just having an opinion doesn't grant you any special intellectual status. If your opinion is based on faulty premises or asserts unassailable certainties that historical fact simply does not substantiate, your opinion isn't really worth all that much. Or as I've stated in previous threads, if you don't know what you're talking about, your opinion doesn't count.
Libertarian economic assertions, regardless of their status as this or that person's dearly held opinion, are simply not borne out by historical realities. In fact, they have proven to be a repeated failure, and usually quite a catastrophic one. And for those of us for whom such things are important, it is an absolute obligation to point this out every time these assertions rear their ugly heads again.
It is a historical fact that some political systems, philosophies, worldviews, values, and morals do not stand up to scrutiny. Some of them are even, as I'm sure you'll agree, flimsy houses of cards held up by little more than wishful thinking and collective metaphorical fingers jammed firmly into shared metaphorical ear canals. I don't see what can be gained by denying it, other than the cold comfort of pure truthiness.
One the other hand, here's an attempt at clarification.
"Ashamed of you", whose statementes is what people in this thread were "beating", isn't a "straw-libertarian" (hence the "flesh and blood straw-libertarian" term). The notion (and it's not the first time I see this pop up) that one can't take comments like AOY's at face value and respond to them on their own is somehow unfair to libertarianism is total bunk.
It basically implies as long as a statement has some shades of libertarianism it benefits from some almost magical influence of whatever libertarian authority a "real libertarian" then cares to invoke.
How else do you interpret a statement that basically says, "If you don't like being harrased, don't show up with opinions that contradict the left!"? That is precisely what you said. I am hard pressed to figure out what clearification could be applied to it that wouldn't make it sound like close minded bullshit. It hardly matter if its *not* what you intended to mean, its still how the right wants everyone to think we act and being bone headed enough to actually say something that anti-intellectual, intended or not, is seriously stupid (at bare minimum).
Now, I am sorry for going over board about it, but even I haven't come up with statements that badly chosen, and I have a habit of never proof reading anything. And as someones else pointed out, its way too easy to get confrontational, when you have been dealing with a new batch of nuts, than say, "Are you entirely sure you mean what you just said?"
"How else do you interpret a statement that basically says, 'If you don't like being harrased, don't show up with opinions that contradict the left!'?"
Maybe I abuse of quotes in general, but I did put "non-lefty" in quotes, didn't I? I didn't agree with the idea that "ashamed of you" got piled on simply because their opinions were "non-lefty".
And one thing: if I wanted to use that sentence I would have used that sentence.
"It hardly matter if its *not* what you intended to mean, its still how the right wants everyone to think we act and being bone headed enough to actually say something that anti-intellectual, intended or not, is seriously stupid (at bare minimum)"
It does matter what I intended to mean. It also matters who is actually misintrepreting my words. It's not "The Right". Has "The Right" posted in this thread?
You're the one who just posted, for the second time, a broad misintepretation of one sentence of text, isolating it from the context in which it was posted and stretching it to vindicate "The Right".
"Now, I am sorry for going over board about it"
You certainly don't seem to be.
"its way too easy to get confrontational, when you have been dealing with a new batch of nuts, than say, "Are you entirely sure you mean what you just said?""
Ironically enough, it didn't occur to you to go the second route.
Well, on the one hand, injecting yourself into a perfectly good incipient flame war between two other posters is probably never too smart an idea to start with. On the other hand, I've reached a break point in the infectious-diseases informatics lesson I'm writing, so what the hell.
Kagehi, it's possible you read numad's statement too literally--I read "straw libertarian" and "non-lefty" as positively dripping with sarcasm, because we've been discussing libertarian ideas right and left in various threads here, such as the public schools one. After you have the same conversation about the same debunked points over and over again, it gets more efficient to just cut to the snark right away. So that's how I read numad's remark, and I'm sure he or she will correct me if I'm mistaken.
Personally, I'm thoroughly sick and tired of repeatedly having the same type of conversation with self-professing libertarians*, one that goes something like this:
Me: "But you haven't explained how the free market will fill in the gap currently (and, granted, imperfectly) served by government public health and consumer safety agencies, such as the E. coli case, where the biological reality of establishing the source and onset of infection is structurally ill-suited to establishing tort."
Libertarian: "The free market will provide, and it's not my task to match your level of pathetic detail." (paraphrased, of course, but that's what it always comes down to.)
Having that same non-discussion countless times has quenched my appetite for discussing libertarianism. But like I said about freedom of speech above, if others want to pile on the same repeatedly-debunked claims, it doesn't bother me if they do.
And since at the moment I'm working on my public-health infectious-diseases course, which seems to hit on exactly the areas where the free market is weakest at providing solutions, maybe I'm even more than usually inclined to read numad's comment with more than a touch of sarcasm attached, not as a literal statement that "no non-lefties need post here". Having the same non-conversation a myriad of times will do that to you, I guess.
* I'm not interested in picking through all of them to determine who's the No True Scotsman libertarian, who's the straw libertarian, who's the Real Libertarian, etc.
"So, you don't see anything wrong with the massive number of fools that give their kids arsinic laced "medicines", made by some traditional medicine man/woman"
What you choose to put in your own body is different from what you put in a child's body. Your children are not your property. Medical doctors aren't even allowed to write themselves or their spouses a prescription in this country. Big brother knows best! Please note, Big Brother isn't President Bartlett Ph.D. from the West Wing - he's George W. Bush!
"And, in something like food quality, market forces and redress wouldn't do squat."
Independent food inspection corporations would be paid by food producers to put their inspection stickers on the products as a selling point. If they did a bad job, then consumers would no longer trust the stickers from Consumer Reports Meat Inspection Division for instance and the meat with those stickers wouldn't have high consumer confidence. Maybe the government's role would then be to maintain a web-accessible list of complaints or cases against the various private inspectors that would also be summarized or rated in the store next to the meat.
"For example, if your house is on fire, you aren't going to want to spend an hour calling privately-run fire departments trying to get the best deal. If you've been kidnapped or your kid has been abducted, you aren't going to want the police to call off the search because they've gone over budget."
I don't think privatizing the police or fire departments is a good idea.
Frankly, I think our country is as good as it is because of its libertarian roots. THe government just needs some linits, some trimming and some competition. For example, the reason many of us hate to go to the post office or the DMV is because they have no competition and no real reason to improve their service.
stretching it to vindicate "The Right"
Now who is misinterpreting what someone else said. Seriously, I went overboard. I am sorry about that. But I wasn't claiming vindication of anyone or anything. The crux of my point, which you missed entirely, is that, "You don't say stupid things, that might be taken as justification by some people, when you know they can and will quote mine the statement as proof of their position."
You can rightly chew me out for not making the point clearer, but we constantly talk about the right wing implication that, "those other people should just shut up and not state their non-right opinions", all the time. Then you turn around and say basically the same thing. Even in context it doesn't get any better, since the prior sentence was questioning "why" some people where being treated badly. Instead of saying, "stating their unfounded and provably bad opinions", you opted to suggest that the cause wasn't the logic, the reasoning of the facts, but that it was "non-left". Then again, I always get mildly cofused as to why "" is used to lessen the meaning of something, in a mildly derogatory way, when its normal use is to emphasize the statements of other people. To me, its intended to make the word stand out, not to imply, "This is just a trivial bit of fluff some people use to describe others. It has no real meaning." I have no clue where the later convention came from, but it makes no sense, since its damn hard sometimes to figure out which context is meant by stuffing something in "". Obviously I, once again, confused the context...
Dan:
I actually agree that torts alone isn't enough and support the existence of an civil law investigational arm of the gov't to preempt fraud, but find a Rothbardian and the 3 of us could go around forever about the best means of eliminating fraudulent claims and defective products. The point is to dispel the misconception that libertarianism means it's acceptable to screw over whoever you want however you want with no consequences.
Owlmirror:
I've never heard of a case where shareholders sued management for not breaking regulations (if you have one, point me to it), however, there have been numerous cases where shareholders have sued because management cost the company money by subjecting the company to legal liability and getting sued for it. It's worth nothing that the fiduciary requirement to maximize shareholder profits for public corporations is mandated by the government. Private companies have much more flexibility in this regard.
Numad:
Thank you for your thoughtful contribution to this discussion.
Is rational adult status denied only to those who lean towards differing economic theories? If I were to disagree with your choice of favorite color, should my views be dismissed by stating I should go back to eighth grade art class? Were I to state a dislike for your favorite band, do you advocate my return to...well, you grok the concept.
"ashamed of you" isn't even presenting an argument that I think most Libertarians would want to associate themselves with. They're simply saying that they don't want to pay taxes and they don't think they should have to. You can take them seriously at your pleasure.
Sigh...despite all my valiant resolution, the siren song of mechanisms sucks me back in again.
Nope, no conflict of interest there...
How do you report, track, and follow up on the prevalance and course of foodborne infections? Do you require a standardized computer system to ensure that we're comparing apples to apples and not to oranges when determining whether un unexplained fever is foodborne E. coli, or just unrelated seasonal flu?
Or do you require a distributed schema, or make it optional, just absorbing the lack of interoperability (and its clinical consequences) as cost of doing business? Remember, 2 days' time saved in recognizing and mobilizing resources in an epidemic can save--depending on the spcific infection--anywhere from dozens to thousands of lives. So in your system, how do you optimize all these private systems to track infection efficiently and accurately? Or is that simply not an important concern of your proposed system?
Simply put, how is this proposal (lacking even proof-of-concept) any different from replicating the current quasi-system, except with less transparency, less interoperability, and higher transaction costs? And I'm not trying to jerk you around; these are perfectly serious mechanism questions that I never seem to get serious answers to from advocates of libertarian politics.
Heterocronie:
Well, my point is that history tells us over and over again that that's always what ends up happening in a real free market economy. So insofar as libertarians advocate a free market, then yes, libertarianism does come to mean that it's acceptable to screw over whoever you want however you want with no consequences. Note that I'm not talking about the abstract concepts that precede libertarianism, I'm talking about the real-world effects that necessarily follow it.
The fact that you didn't intend for the inevitable consequences of your actions to come about doesn't mean you're not at least partly responsible for them.
"The crux of my point, which you missed entirely, is that, 'You don't say stupid things, that might be taken as justification by some people, when you know they can and will quote mine the statement as proof of their position.'"
I didn't miss it. It's just a ridiculous point. First of all: I don't agree that my original point was stupid and I stand behind it. Secondly, I agree that it was badly phrased. I think that the point "avoid badly phrasing points" is obvious, and that universally so.
Unfortunately, it happens to be accidental. Anyone would prefer for their points to be understood. How does your intervention help, exactly? Should the formulation of points be first and foremost be concerned with the aberration of the mind that is quote mining? Certainly not. Bad faith can make anything out of nothing, so there's no real hope of being understood, and by being first and foremost concerned with willful misinterpretations one participates in the corrosion of debate.
"you opted to suggest that the cause wasn't the logic, the reasoning of the facts, but that it was 'non-left'"
I think you're doing it on purpose. The expression I used is "non-lefty". It's an expression that I took out wholesale of the comment that I was responding to. The quote marks where meant to signify that the term was alien to my own discourse. It's a fundamental use of quotation marks: to distance the use of a term from the author. Since I was seeking to contradict the post, I didn't think someone would assume that I was simply parroting it.
"Non-lefty" is a ridiculous term on its face, and I don't think anyone who considers themselves on the left in anyway is going to use it without sarcasm. By dropping the 'y', it seems that you might be trying to make a straight reading of the term more believable.
"Obviously I, once again, confused the context..."
My post was badly conceived, but you seem to have fully ignored the context in the first place.
"I have no clue where the later convention came from, but it makes no sense"
Tell that to newspaper editors all over the world.
Actually, I should be totally fair, and note that in an earlier thread, I actually had a civil discussion about air-quality/environmental-health issues with a libertarian--I believe it may even have been you, Matt--who admitted that the environment is a weak spot in libertarian theory, and pointed me to a source where some libertarians discuss things like that. So "never" is overstated; I should say "almost never" to be accurate.
But it does seem that the only way libertarianism can even begin to work in the real world is to make concessions like government air-quality agencies or like the fraud-enforcement wing Matt mentioned above. And once that point is reached, are we even discussing the same thing (namely, libertarianism) as I-just-don't-want-to-pay-taxes types like Beale and AOY, or are we just discussing the set point of the agreed-upon necessity for liberal government?
RavenT, I'm honestly glad you're asking tough and important questions. I'm not an expert in food-borne illnesses, but my off-the-cuff answer would be that a common and simple interace between private inspectors and the CDC would be needed.
As I said in an earlier post, I do think some form of CDC is a legitimate part of government. The CDC could provide the private food inspectors with some type of standardized mandatory pathogen assay (like an ELISA kit) that would cheapily and quickly differentiate between the most common dangerous pathogens. They would have a corresponding online form - click 1 if well #1 was positive, then type in the location of the contaminated food etc.. it would take about an hour for a tech to do. Well #1 might contain an antibody for pathogenic coli s-layers (or whatever they have)- for instance. The CDC could then follow up on the report if it was a suspected dangerous pathogen. Maybe this is an inadequate answer. Good question though!
I think you're doing it on purpose. The expression I used is "non-lefty". It's an expression that I took out wholesale of the comment that I was responding to.
Umm.. All I can say is, "Oops". I completely missed the "y". Still, unfortunately, we do need to worry about the aberration of these people's minds. Its the heart and core of why they quote mine in the first place.
"I have no clue where the later convention came from, but it makes no sense"
Tell that to newspaper editors all over the world.
And of course they are the epitomy of common sense, reasonable standards and good judgement. lol But yeah, its about the only thing the practice has going for it.
"Well, my point is that history tells us over and over again that that's always what ends up happening in a real free market economy."
Could you please provide us with a specific example or two and a brief summary of the socio-political context of the situation?
http://www.zompist.com/libertos.html
Scroll down to the section headed "We tried it, and it failed." In fact, just read the whole page.
"Still, unfortunately, we do need to worry about the aberration of these people's minds."
For the reasons I stated above, I disagree that autocensorship is the solution.
"And of course they are the epitomy of common sense, reasonable standards and good judgement. lol But yeah, its about the only thing the practice has going for it."
I don't think so. I don't endorse the way editors play with these conventions to alter readers' perception, but the fact is that those conventions are dervied quite naturally from the first use of quotation marks: "these are not my words".
The fact that they can be used in several stylistic ways doesn't particularly overtax people's reading comprehension if they are used well (I don't pretend that I put a whole lot of thought in the offending passage).
Dan, great examples. A free market means the government isn't involved in a pro-business role either.The East Indies Trading Company? Seriously...they were an arm of the British Crown. When government teams up with corporations, the results are never good. The railroad barons of the gilded age were funded by government grants in exhange for kick backs (eg. Credit Mobilier), maintained their status as monopolies by government intervention, and wouldn't have been possible at all without governmental
theft (eminent domain) of property along the railroad route (eg. Luxton v North River Bridge Co. 1894). For a modern example, look at Fannie Mae - they are an arm of the government and that hasn't prevented their widespread corruption:
http://www.ofheo.gov/media/pdf/FNMfindingstodate17sept04.pdf
The Russian people's inheritance of a failed communist state after generations of communist rule was really a recipe for success...sort of like democracy in Iraq.
Pinochet? Yeah he was the poster child for non-initiation of force as an ethical foundation. He purged people left and right.
If you want to compare a relatively free economy with a less free one, how about comparing Hong Kong with mainland China before economic reform. They have zero resources and a GDP that rivals most western nations. That would be more fair, but, given these examples, I'm not so sure you're really interested in being fair.
I have to say, I had a crazy Rand worshipping friend in college put that quiz on his door. Heck, my hawk-liberal roommate and I put it up outside our dorm to see where our friends and neighbors put themselves, but we were proud to be 'merely' liberal. Many a night was spent at the snack shop trying to explain to the rand-believer why exactly his me-first-only-me-me-me philosophy would hurt people in the long and short run.
One thing, though, the orientation of the chart always bugged me, because it put 'true libertarianism' as the top, the highest achievement of individuality.
An interesting article on the libertarians' two poster children: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Asian_Economy/EG12Dk01.html
Of course libertarianism and corporatism are different beasts in theory, but if in practice one always leads to the other, one begins to sound like the equivalent of a coffeehouse Marxist apologist (especially if there's at least some little shred of government present in the society to serve as a scapegoat). "It works in theory; it's just never been applied properly..."
The point remains: is Robert Beale's position on the tax code legitimate or is he trying to defraud the government? I guess he'll have his day in court.