Fossten, there's still hope

[Marcus]

I assume you're aware of this already, but Bob Barr is running for the Libertarian party's candidacy:

http://www.bobbarr2008.com/

I've actually grown to have a lot of respect for Bob Barr, although his stance on the war on drugs and some other social issues is sometimes inconsistent with libertarian thought.

His views on civil liberties are clear and correct, and I support them without question. There are other issues I agree with him on, or at least don't have a big problem with.

But I don't think I can get on board his "Fair Tax" plan, unless someone can demonstrate to me that it won't shift a huge amount of the tax burden towards the poor and middle classes, or offer up creative ways for the super-wealthy to get around paying taxes at all.

The only truly fair tax in my mind is one where every monetary transaction is subject to tax, not just the sale of NEW items. For example, the Fair Tax, as I understand it, only applies to personal purchases of new goods. Business expenditures would be exempt from any taxes. So what keeps a corporation from buying a fleet of cars and then selling them as "used" to its top executives, thus bypassing any taxes? If someone can clear this up for me I'm happy to listen. It's just that I see a lot of room for an "underground" economy popping up with this plan, and it wouldn't just be restricted to the wealthy. Everybody would be motivated to come up with creative ways to label items as "used", thus shifting even more of the tax burden onto those who actually play by the rules.

Finally, while I'm all for getting government out of people's lives, history has shown again and again that we can't always count on big business to regulate itself honestly. I'm not talking about issues of "fairness", I'm talking about fraud and corruption along the lines of Enron, or issues of endangering people's lives like dumping toxic substances into rivers and streams which work their way into people's drinking water. I know you're a big Ayn Rand fan Fossten, but the noble characters of Atlas Shrugged like Hank Rearden and John Galt just don't exist in the real world, or if they do, they're the exception rather than the rule. If they did exist, government regulation wouldn't be necessary. If libertarians would recognize these realities instead of zealously clinging to the utopian myth of (absolute) "free markets", I'd be more inclined to jump aboard.

I realize that this is post is kind of all over the place as far as topics go, but I figured I'd get something going.

 

[fossten]

I recognize your concerns about the Fair Tax. I understand that there is a provision that ensures that people below a certain income level get a complete return on their taxes on a monthly basis. So this wouldn't be a punishment of a lower class. Moreover, as Huckabee points out, drug dealers and pimps would finally have to pay taxes, and that's a good thing, right?

Furthermore, I encourage you to resist the mindset that the voracious maw of the government "must be fed." You will note that throughout history the government has always found a way to close tax loopholes. Interestingly, the government rarely if ever tries to relax its clenched grip on our hard-earned cash. Why are all tax decisions resolved in the government's favor and never in our favor?

Take the internet for example. The internet was supposed to be the new beacon of freedom, free trade, and liberty from oppressive government tax. Instead, the government found a way to tax everything and made the internet a non issue. The government always finds a way to tax everything. Remember the old days when people would joke that the government would tax the air if it could get away with it? What do you think a carbon tax is?

You say that you are in favor of getting the government out of our lives, but the only way to truly do this is through reduction in taxes and spending. Half the country is a dependency class. It's really our own fault; the citizens of this country demanded that the government grow bigger and take care of them, and it responded.

Just try and switch your paradigm to this: The government confiscates from working people money that it does not earn, and inefficiently distributes this money to people who do not work for it, after taking its share. This is nothing more than legalized theft. Ask yourself this question: If income taxes were optional, how many people would pay them?

I would also encourage you to resist the impulse to resent the "super-wealthy," (individuals and corporations) as very much like in Atlas Shrugged, without them, the economy would grind to a halt. That is hard to dispute. If you've read the book, you understand that governments and working people have zilch without them.

I understand your point about Atlas Shrugged being slightly out of date, and I will admit that corporations have their problems. However, I would like to point your attention to a fantastic quote by Shagdrum a while back:

While the private sector is far from perfect, they are no where near as bad as the government. When businesses screw up, you get Enron; when governments screw up, you get Vietnam, Waco (Texas), WW2, Ruby Ridge and many more examples too numerous to name. There is a large difference in ability and scale. There is also a difference in accountability and justice. Look at what happened to the Enron corporation and it's accounting firm as well as the individuals who played the system. Contrast that with no accountability and/or punishment when the government screws up.

***

The bottom line:
Businesses try to make money, and in doing so produce both positive and negative results. On the whole, the good far outways the bad (wealth creation and driving the economy, among other things). Governments inherently reduce wealth and freedom by their actions. Both are subject to corrupt and evil individuals and interests abusing them to the detrement of society. However, due to the power and influence the government has, the consequences of its actions are far greater and farther reaching then anything a business could ever do (the exception, in some instances, may be the media).

The bottom line for me is that government is only really good at two things: Taking away freedom and breaking things. Government should be more accountable and more restricted than any other organization. In this country, however, the government has almost unlimited power, finances, and freedom to do whatever it wants.

 

[MonsterMark]

Great. Another Ross Perot to attract the zombies.

 

[stang99x]

Take it from someone in GA who voted against barr, he's an idiot

 

[fossten]

Great. Another Ross Perot to attract the zombies.

Bryan, I'm not voting for Bob Barr. And he won't get 5% of the national vote, I guarantee it.

By the way, I'm disappointed that you didn't even comment on Tommy's and my posts. They are, in fact, works of literary art, and they deserve your attention.