"Conservatives" Under a Microscope I

[Velleity]

• Tweet

As we all know one of our "conservatives'" favorite ploys is to loosely and recklessly throw around terms that they have deemed to be derogatory. For example, although the effort seems to have had only limited success at best, as most things of the Bush years: the effort to throw around the term "Liberal" simultaneously make "Liberal" a derogatory term.

Of course, too, we have the mindless "socialist" phony epithet, which is supposed to invoke God only knows what.

The idea I would like to drill down on in this thread, though, is the idea that imposing a tax is tantamount to theft. Where did this idea come from? Another "conservative" ploy is to proclaim that their ideas are somehow derived from the founding fathers. Actually the founding fathers were a diverse and contentious lot and it's very difficult to make such a claim. In fact they left many things ambiguous by design, but if they were of the resolute opinion that taxes were tantamount to theft then this resolution is not something I have observed in them.

Their idea was that taxation without representation was tyranny, and this relates to the whole idea that they were rebelling against the British aristocracy and monarch. It's more than a small leap to go from that to "taxation is tantamount to theft."

No, this idea seems to emanate from the mid-twentieth century, more specifically to Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard.

It certainly doesn't come from Adam Smith. Nor does it come from Locke or Mill, who made a clear distinction between property rights and more basic human rights.

It is true that taxation is aggression but is it really true that it is the same thing as having a knife put to your back and having to choose between your wallet and your life? Taxation is a price that has to be paid in order to live in a functional society. Having a knife put to your back is not even close to that.

I have a problem with the Rand and Rothbard notions of property. To Rand and Rothbard, if one fell out of a 21st story window and managed to grab onto a flagpole a floor below, it would be immoral to break a window and save one's self from falling to one's death because they would violate the owner's property right both by breaking the window and trespassing on the owner's property.

Such is the absurdity one always reaches when one insists on bright lines. There are no bright lines. Every instance has to be judged on the facts and circumstances.

[johnhp]

It is true that taxation is aggression but is it really true that it is the same thing as having a knife put to your back and having to choose between your wallet and your life? Taxation is a price that has to be paid in order to live in a functional society. Having a knife put to your back is not even close to that.

i agree with everything in the post except this.  i just do not think taxation is aggression.  It is the grease that keeps the engine moving.  As i have always said, the people who do not want to pay taxes should drop out and walk to work on their privately funded sidewalks or drive on their publicly funded streets.

Apparently loons who do not want to pay taxes believes streets grow on trees or some crazy bullshit.

And, quite frankly, these people who live on investment are whining punks.  We need to start applying the progressive income tax to these groups too.

[IM2]

First let me start off with those living on investments,. These investments are usually tax shelters so they don't have to pay taxes on the income they have or the amount of income invested, one or the other. If this was a poor person living in welfare, they would be considered moochers.

Secondly, I am not sure, and if someone knows differnt, please tell me, but those claiming that being taxed is tantamaount to being robbed, seem to miss that congress was given the right to levy uniform taxes throughout the land by the constitution. So then if these guys were so gung ho against taxation, why is it written in the document as a legislative right?

Third, vel you post a great point, the fight or tea party was not about tax, it was about being unfairly taxed with no one having any say about how much tax was levied or what was taxed. So called conseratives are represented, and have a chance to be represented by the electoral process, which is something the colonists did not have.

[JC]

the fight or tea party was not about tax, it was about being unfairly taxed with no one having any say about how much tax was levied or what was taxed. So called conseratives are represented, and have a chance to be represented by the electoral process, which is something the colonists did not have.

Logic is lost on these bitter clowns. While nobody can readily admit to enjoying parting with their money, especially when it comes to taxes, the harsh unfortunate reality is that in order for government AND society to work well, taxes are necessary to pay for the wonderful things we do enjoy as a nation, like highways, infrastructure, etc...

IMHO, taxes do suck, but those who are looking for ways to not pay taxes, skip out on paying taxes and complain about paying taxes are more un-American than those they spout off against. Just pay yer G-D taxes, shut up and be happy to live in this country or ship out.

 

[Velleity]

i agree with everything in the post except this.  i just do not think taxation is aggression.  It is the grease that keeps the engine moving.  As i have always said, the people who do not want to pay taxes should drop out and walk to work on their privately funded sidewalks or drive on their publicly funded streets.

Apparently loons who do not want to pay taxes believes streets grow on trees or some crazy bullshit.

And, quite frankly, these people who live on investment are whining punks.  We need to start applying the progressive income tax to these groups too.

You're reading more into my use of the word "aggression" than I intended. Of course there are other ways to look at it and I glossed over those other ways of looking at it.

One thing that "conservatives" gloss over is the contractual nature of government and you're interjecting that into the discussion. I am currently considering radical capitalism, like Rothbard, Rand, Friedman, Hayek, von Mises, . . . From their perspective taxation is coercive.

Not saying I agree with that. Again, it's supposed to be "conservatives" under a microscope. But thanks for highlighting this particular aspect.

[Velleity]

First let me start off with those living on investments,. These investments are usually tax shelters so they don't have to pay taxes on the income they have or the amount of income invested, one or the other. If this was a poor person living in welfare, they would be considered moochers.

Secondly, I am not sure, and if someone knows differnt, please tell me, but those claiming that being taxed is tantamaount to being robbed, seem to miss that congress was given the right to levy uniform taxes throughout the land by the constitution. So then if these guys were so gung ho against taxation, why is it written in the document as a legislative right?

Third, vel you post a great point, the fight or tea party was not about tax, it was about being unfairly taxed with no one having any say about how much tax was levied or what was taxed. So called conseratives are represented, and have a chance to be represented by the electoral process, which is something the colonists did not have.

We have many different kinds of "conservatives" IM. Rand and Rothbard might be more aptly called "libertarians." Or maybe not? I don't know because so many "conservatives" have adopted so much objectivist thought that it's hard to distinguish.

Look at Observer, for example. He would not even fess up to being objectivist until he was fleshed out, and even then he offered a mealymouthed denial of sorts. At least I think it was a denial.

His biggest problem, of course, was that he was relentless in holding Democrats to objectivist "values" while not so vigilant and way more flexible when issues came up regarding Republicans. The same was true with his notion of being a "strict constructionist," which I always saw as being another one of those "conservative" ploys.

But getting back to Rand and Rothbard, you have to understand the extreme point of view these radical capitalists assume. I gave the flagpole example for a reason here. It's extreme to say that one has to plunge to their death instead of breaking a pane of glass and treading on someone else's floor. This extreme has never been our jurisprudence. Yes, if you save yourself you will have to replace the window and theoretically pay something for the trespass. However you are absolutely entitled, under our jurisprudence, to save yourself.

The idea that taxing someone is stealing from them is an equal extreme, and there is a certain degree of logic to the assertion. That doesn't mean the conclusion is correct. It is, however a bright line. Again, think back to Observer with his bright lines (ignoring his double standard). Observer always said that everything is either black or white.

This insistence upon bright lines based on a "natural law" is perhaps the fatal flaw in the ideology. We can cite other examples of failure. I keep citing Greenspan's realization that there is a fatal flaw in the ideology. Remember that Greenspan was Rand's dear friend and he believed the market would police itself. Well, it didn't quite work out.

That bright line isn't so bright after all.

[Velleity]

Logic is lost on these bitter clowns.

Logic is certainly lost on the unthinking "conservatives" who have no sense of history and no idea where their ideology emanates from. Then there's an intellectual lightweight like Ivan, who may not be a "conservative" but who the hell knows what he is?

While nobody can readily admit to enjoying parting with their money, especially when it comes to taxes, the harsh unfortunate reality is that in order for government AND society to work well, taxes are necessary to pay for the wonderful things we do enjoy as a nation, like highways, infrastructure, etc...

Ah, but is it "their money?" What does that mean, exactly?

Do a little thought experiment. If there were no taxes and no government, then what?

IMHO, taxes do suck, but those who are looking for ways to not pay taxes, skip out on paying taxes and complain about paying taxes are more un-American than those they spout off against. Just pay yer G-D taxes, shut up and be happy to live in this country or ship out.

I'd settle for a more thoughtful dialogue on the subject. If they could manage to detoxify their ideology that would go a long way for me. I'm not sure that giving politicians a free pass to set whatever taxes and spend them any old way is such a great idea either.

However I think I do get what you're really saying and I agree with the premise. 

[Velleity]

Actually I need to further refine and explain my use of the term "aggressive." I was referring to the non-aggression axiom:

"I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of any individual. Anarchists oppose the State because it has its very being in such aggression, namely, the expropriation of private property through taxation, the coercive exclusion of other providers of defense service from its territory, and all of the other depredations and coercions that are built upon these twin foci of invasions of individual rights." -Murray Rothbard in Society and State

Of course there is a lot more to this but this idea is at the core of the ideology and has been expropriated by "conservatives."

[Velleity]

Further background for anyone who wants to play:

Anarcho-capitalism

[johnhp]

You're reading more into my use of the word "aggression" than I intended. Of course there are other ways to look at it and I glossed over those other ways of looking at it.

One thing that "conservatives" gloss over is the contractual nature of government and you're interjecting that into the discussion. I am currently considering radical capitalism, like Rothbard, Rand, Friedman, Hayek, von Mises, . . . From their perspective taxation is coercive.

Not saying I agree with that. Again, it's supposed to be "conservatives" under a microscope. But thanks for highlighting this particular aspect.

i understand and have no problem with your description; it is accurate as to their beliefs.  Just want to make sure that their position is subject to criticism.

[johnhp]

Actually I need to further refine and explain my use of the term "aggressive." I was referring to the non-aggression axiom:

"I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of any individual. Anarchists oppose the State because it has its very being in such aggression, namely, the expropriation of private property through taxation, the coercive exclusion of other providers of defense service from its territory, and all of the other depredations and coercions that are built upon these twin foci of invasions of individual rights." -Murray Rothbard in Society and State

Of course there is a lot more to this but this idea is at the core of the ideology and has been expropriated by "conservatives."

Rothbard is dishonest by half.  Anarchists oppose the State because they believe it is aggressive, but they also believe private property (which they understand as the privatization of the means of production; which in advanced industrial societies is rarely, if ever, personal) is the product of aggression.  Anarcho-capitalism is self contradictory.  These guys should get over themselves and call themselves libertarians, which is what they are.  Anarchism, classically, advocates the abolition of private property, as understood above.

[Velleity]

Rothbard is dishonest by half.  Anarchists oppose the State because they believe it is aggressive, but they also believe private property (which they understand as the privatization of the means of production; which in advanced industrial societies is rarely, if ever, personal) is the product of aggression.  Anarcho-capitalism is self contradictory.  These guys should get over themselves and call themselves libertarians, which is what they are.  Anarchism, classically, advocates the abolition of private property, as understood above.

We have to live with them as much as they have to live with us. They are so wrapped up in their ideology they don't even try to understand us.

It behooves us to understand where they think they're coming from and at least Rothbard and Rand made a earnest attempt at a real and creative intellectual underpinning.

Same is true of Observer, to a lesser extent.

Compare that to Ivan.

[johnhp]

We have to live with them as much as they have to live with us. They are so wrapped up in their ideology they don't even try to understand us.

It behooves us to understand where they think they're coming from and at least Rothbard and Rand made a earnest attempt at a real and creative intellectual underpinning.

Oh, i do not mind understanding them.  It seems to me that they are dishonest when referring to themselves as anarchists.  They are attempting to co-opt that language much as the 10thers try to co-opt constitutional language.

Same is true of Observer, to a lesser extent.

Compare that to Ivan.

Tweedle ass and tweedle hole as far as i am concerned with those two.  Remember Observer went to the mat arguing that the images posted in the second post on this page were not racist.

[Velleity]

Tweedle ass and tweedle hole as far as i am concerned with those two.  Remember Observer went to the mat arguing that the images posted in the second post on this page were not racist.

One of his less impressive ventures to be sure.

When you back him into a corner he has no choice but to go into ridiculous mode. The same was true with his abuse of his power with respect to you. That's when he started to claim that you were the anti-Christ and that he and he alone was saving Newsrake from you.

Pepsi made a noble effort to let him save face but he would have no part of it.

Now he's awfully quiet.

[IM2]

JC,

I agree with every word you posted. We have decided by our citizenship that we will abide by the rules of american law. One of those rules is that we pay taxes. Those taxes to help us maintain a pretty decent standard of living, one that if we did things the "conservative" way, would end.

Vel,

We have many different kinds of "conservatives" IM. Rand and Rothbard might be more aptly called "libertarians." Or maybe not? I don't know because so many "conservatives" have adopted so much objectivist thought that it's hard to distinguish.

I don't know what kind of politcs to give to rands writing. She was a fiction writer, and its funny how people take peices of fiction and try making them into things they are not. It would be like to me, someone taking Gene Rodenberry's writings as a guide to understanding space travel, or to create a philosophy on space travel.

But getting back to Rand and Rothbard, you have to understand the extreme point of view these radical capitalists assume. I gave the flagpole example for a reason here. It's extreme to say that one has to plunge to their death instead of breaking a pane of glass and treading on someone else's floor. This extreme has never been our jurisprudence. Yes, if you save yourself you will have to replace the window and theoretically pay something for the trespass. However you are absolutely entitled, under our jurisprudence, to save yourself.

The right wing controls the republican party and they are extremists. They have only one beleif. I got mine and fuck you if you don't have yours. Cause I made it alone, which is wrong, and since I did it by myself you can do it by yourself. Forgotten in all of this bragging is the many examples of extra help each of us have gotten in our lives when we needed it. Teh example we saw was Observer tough luck stance. Well we can argue about procedures or extremes in jurisprudence to some extent to how a double standard was placed on such jurisprudence racially, and in fact sexually or by wealth accumulation, but thats not the point here, so we won't.

The idea that taxing someone is stealing from them is an equal extreme, and there is a certain degree of logic to the assertion. That doesn't mean the conclusion is correct. It is, however a bright line. Again, think back to Observer with his bright lines (ignoring his double standard). Observer always said that everything is either black or white.

You mean the great dull line. These guys don't want to pay for shit, but want everything given to them. They represent the biggest moochers of all, and whats worse is they teach themselves they are entitled to it by right, and in some cases by birthright due to their race. I really can't find the logic to any assertion of taxation being money stolen from you. It doesn't have to be stolen. If one does not want to pay US taxes they have the right to move. They are not forced to stay here.

This insistence upon bright lines based on a "natural law" is perhaps the fatal flaw in the ideology. We can cite other examples of failure. I keep citing Greenspan's realization that there is a fatal flaw in the ideology. Remember that Greenspan was Rand's dear friend and he believed the market would police itself. Well, it didn't quite work out.

The problem here is that they not only continue beleiving this flaw, they insist upon redoing the same thing over and over again hoping that if they repeat it enoguht that one time it will render different results.