Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!hao!seismo!harvard!godot!ima!inmet!nrh
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: knee-jerk libertarians
Message-ID: <1724@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 18-Oct-84 00:57:34 EDT
Article-I.D.: inmet.1724
Posted: Thu Oct 18 00:57:34 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 15-Oct-84 01:50:47 EDT
Lines: 0
Nf-ID: #R:unmvax:-45900:inmet:7800142:000:2609
Nf-From: inmet!nrh    Oct  9 23:46:00 1984

>***** inmet:net.politics / ucbcad!faustus / 11:20 am  Oct  8, 1984
>> Remember, the US went from 1789 to 1913 with no Constitutional authorization 
>> for income tax.  I do believe that when the income tax amendment (++yes, the
>> Constitution had to be *amended* {Article XVI I believe}) was being ratified
>> that some congressmen thought a ceiling should be included, lest in the future
>> we might face a tax as HIGH as 3% (three percent).  Of course popular thought
>> at that time believed a ceiling unnecessary, because Americans wouldn't stand
>> for such larceny.
>
>Things have changed a great deal since then. Perhaps 3% income tax was good
>enough in 1913 for the government to do what it was supposed to be doing,
>but after the '30s and the liberal programs created then, there was a basic
>change in the understanding of what things are the responsibility of the
>government -- besides the regulation of the economy, to make sure that people
>don't starve. 

Okay, now think about it -- NOTHING prevents another "change in the 
understanding" of what a government should do.  That libertarians
work hard at producing such a change should be no surprise to you.

>This costs money, and the fact is that most people are willing
>to pay a substantial fraction of their income in taxes for this. 

Support, please -- remember, those laws were enacted by executive order
and political means in a republic -- not by popular vote.  In particular,
*WHAT* fraction of their income are they willing to commit -- not the
other fellow's income but their own?

>Libertarians,
>who seem to be unwilling to do so, are clearly in the minority, and since
>everyone benefits from this sort of "safety-net" program, including people
>who don't want it, they will have to pay for it whether they want to or not.
>It's the rule of the majority, and there's nothing you can do about that.

Au contraire!  We can try to change the majority opinion by pointing out
its flaws.  In particular, I like the notion that these social programs 
should have to PROVE their worth, rather than sounding like a good idea.

>
>Now, aside from these vague ideas, there are many details that can be debated.
>How much money should be spent on social programs, how much should government
>regulate the economy, etc... But first you have to agree that it is basically
>ok for the government to collect taxes and spend them for these things.

No thanks.  YOU agree to it.  I'm not about to cede you the idea that
it is (on net balance) worthwhile for government to have welfare
programs, school programs, milk supports, and the rest.