From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Tue Jul 19 2005 - 16:51:54 BST
Hi Arlo,
> [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.
I don't know of any country without taxes. But, if your looking for low
tax countries I suggest you take a look at www. lowtax.net.
> 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.
Well, as I look around town I don't see much price-fixing, monopolies, or
market control going on. Maybe I'm just blind. As for the Enron debacle, I
wouldn't take that case or cases like it and condemn the entire "corporate
power structure" which provides goods, services and jobs for millions, not
to mention most of the tax base. Anyway, people know, or ought to know,
that when you invest in stocks you risk losing it is all. Compared to the
scam that is Social Security, the Enron rip off was trifling..
> [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.
With the advent of the Web, libraries are becoming increasingly
unnecessary. But, I agree in principle that open access to information is
compatible with the MOQ idea of intellectual freedom. Let's just pray that
the government keeps its hands off the Web.
> 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?
Setting aside certain lands for use as the "commons" supports freedom I
agree. Intellect needs refreshment which nature is conducive to providing.
But I don't see that expenditures for "park services" other than park
police can always be justified on the same ground.
> 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.
Yes.
> 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?
I like your freedom justification for imposing taxes when it based on MOQ
morality. But let me be clear. IMO what the MOQ means by freedom is the
absence of restraints imposed by government such as not being able to keep
what you earn, not freedom as the absence of necessity such as working to
put food on the table. Highest on the MOQ morality scale rests
intellectual freedom. So yes, I support taxes for education through high
school, but in the form of vouchers so parents are free to choose the best
schools in a competitive school environment. The government monopoly on
secondary education has been in most cases an obscene disaster.
What do you think?
Platt
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 - 18:30:51 BST