From: Arlo Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Mon Jul 18 2005 - 21:59:58 BST
Hi Platt,
[Arlo previously]
> > Ah, but you wax towards the idea of "evil-involuntary" rather than
> > "good-involuntary". At least it comes across to me this way. If I, as a
> > member of my local gym, stop paying my dues, I face possible legal action
> > or expulsion. I am certainly not allowed to continue using the services.
> >
> > So, in this case, my dues could also be seen as "involuntary". The trouble
> > with the larger case of a national tax is you join by being born into it.
> > Now, since you are also by being born here using the services. So this is
> > not a problematic thing for me. Indeed, I always find it ingrateful when
> > people rail against "taxes", but then take their kids hiking in state
> > parks, or drive their motorcycles cross-country on public roads, or make
> > use of EMT services should something bad happen.
[Platt responded]
>Well, I'd say if voluntarism is the issue that it's a lot easier to
>voluntarily opt out of the gym than a country.
[Arlo]
I'd support the notion that people should be able to "opt out of" taxes, if
they leave the country and move somewhere else. Of course, I'm not sure
where they'd go. Do you know of any country at all that has (1) no
taxation, and (2) a developed infrastructure? If so, we could direct people
who are against taxation there.
[Arlo previously]
> > Consider the havoc wreaked on the majority of the nation's citizens before
> > government levied labor laws and workplace regulations. Its not only
> > government that can do bad when telling everyone it is doing good.
[Platt]
>In using "havoc" I was thinking of gulags and ovens, not labor relations.
>There is a difference wouldn't you say?
[Arlo]
Sure. There is a difference between gassing someone and the labor
conditions that prevailed at the turn of the century (before workplace
regulations). This does not make any one "right" or, in this case "doing Good".
[Arlo previously]
> > Our government, the way I see it, is a moderating force. It protects us
> > from abuse from other individuals and from power structures that would seek
> > to enslave.
> > Sadly, I would agree, and this is why MSH started the thread,
> > it is not doing so. It is, in fact, "in bed" with these coercive power
> > structures.
[Platt]
>Please define what you mean by "enslave." As I look around town I don't
>see much slavery going on.
Perhaps "enslave" was a poor word choice on my part. I was, again, talking
about the "invisible coercive" force rather than visible, physical slavery.
But I would also add such things as price-fixing, monopolies, market
control, and debacles like Enron where the corporate power structure
directly robbed the savings of the workers.
[Arlo previously]
> > But I'm curious, and this is just a rephrasing of what MSH has been asking,
> > what tax-based services do you feel are in-line with the MOQ, and which are
> > not? Let me ask specifically about the ones afforementioned:
> >
> > Public roads? State parks? Libraries? Public transportation? Museums?
> > Public legal representation? EMT services?
> >
> > Are there any services that are NOT provided by taxes that you feel should
> > be? Or that should be expanded? (I've suggested more funding for libraries
> > and museums, for example).
>
[Platt]
>I don't see anything in the MOQ that is "in line with" the tax-based
>services you mention. Perhaps you can refer me to the appropriate quotes?
[Arlo]
Of course, you know Pirsig never talked directly about taxation. We can
only infer, based on the MOQ hierarchy (which is what we are doing, no?)
what may or may not be appropriate uses for tax dollars.
MSH had suggested that "parking tickets" may be something that should not
be supported by a common tax collection. Perhaps this should be privatized.
I have suggested that libraries and musuems should be funded "more", with
my reasoning being that providing greater access to information for the
majority is the best way to keep the country "free" and not becoming an
oligarchy. That is, to serve the MOQ idea of freedom, supporting open
access to information for the majority of citizens is a necessity.
I also think "public lands" falls into this category. To maximize freedom
for the majority, you have to support lands that will remain open access.
With privatization, you are denying access to those without the capital to
use. This counters the MOQ ideal of freedom. In my opinion. Yours? Do you
think you'd increase freedoms for the majority by privatizing state parks?
You've suggested, if I am not mistaken, that a protective military is good
use for tax dollars. Ant, if I recall, had responded with the suggestion
that a privatized military would be more in line with MOQ philosophy
(unless he was just pulling your leg ;-)). Certainly Pirsig never provided
a quote saying "military spending is a good use of taxes". And yet, you
believe it is in line with the MOQ. If I am right, this is because of
Pirsig's statement that society has the moral right to protect itself from
the "biological, might-makes-right" dangers it may face.
Or do you think the MOQ can offer no guidance whatsoever in deciding upon
Good uses for tax dollars? And, do you feel that the MOQ says nothing at
all to using tax dollars to support libraries, museums and state parks?
What about the military?
Arlo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 19 2005 - 01:37:45 BST