Martin Ling wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 22, 2000 at 07:15:41PM -0400, Michael S. Lorrey wrote:
> > Martin Ling wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, May 22, 2000 at 08:19:21AM -0700, James Rogers wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Since when exactly was the level of taxation directly inversely
> > > > > proportional to how 'free' a country is? Unless one is arguing for a
> > > > > system of no taxation and public services at all, the specifics seem
> > > > > somewhat irrelevant.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The specifics are entirely relevant. First, the amount of taxation
> > > > essentially determines how much of your labor is slave labor (adjusted for
> > > > rate of return, but that typically is pretty damn low). Second, taxation
> > > > that is tied more closely to service usage is more fair than taxation
> > > > based on other arbitrary metrics.
> > >
> > > [snip long, but very good example of (non)efficient tax usage]
> > >
> > > I was ambiguous. What I think I meant is that the specifics in terms of
> > > the percentile figures for taxation are not much use with no
> > > consideration of how that money is being used (which can be well or
> > > badly, as you say).
> > >
> > > Once you've decided to allow for some taxation, however (as opposed to
> > > none at all, as Mike has suggested - and it is a vaild option) it makes
> > > very little sense to try and compare exactly how much freedom a country
> > > has removed, via its taxes. There are simply far too many factors.
> >
> > Well, the fact is that Charlie is enslaved 40% of the time, while I am
> > enslaved less than 16% of the time. Which of us is more free?
>
> But if you look at both formal and effective freedoms, you may work out
> to be more free than before, overall.
>
> Formally, I have the right to go into a computer shop and buy myself a
> nice shiny new laptop. Effectively, I can't, because I can't afford it.
>
> Formally, I have the right to a good education, but in a tax-free,
> service-free system, I may not have the effective freedom to have it.
> But by removing some of one of my freedoms (the right to choose how I
> spend my money), one of my other rights is protected.
You have the right to educate yourself, or to buy an education. You
could volunteer to participate in the public school system, but forcing
others who choose to send their kids to private school to also pay taxes
to support you sending your kids to school is criminal. You are only
gaining your education by stealing from others. At least be honest about
it.
>
> Things aren't as simple as more tax == less freedom. By careful
> adjustment - removing some to ensure, or add, others - one can end up
> with greatly varying amounts of freedom.
Actually, its not zero sum like you seem to assume. Leaving more money
in the hands of private citizens aids economic growth and increases
personal wealth and standards of living, and more people can afford a
good education bought on the open market. Its a synergistic effect.
Public education is merely a chimera by which a union gets the
government to force you to use union labor in educating your kids, thus
making your education costs higher than they should be.
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:11:33 MDT