"Freedom" thread or something

stonebeard wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: You seem to do that to yourself since you're imposing foreign assumptions on our positions. The idea that taxation could lead to an aggregate increase of the quality of life is dubious. More importantly, I think it's absurd that you call the amount of taxation a mere distraction. Why would any rational discourse assume a certain amount of money to be collected only to discuss the uses of such funds? How would you even set the amount? The very idea of a use of funds cannot exist independently from the amount of collection. Certain uses will require more taxation. Other uses will call for less taxation (unless we mean to engage in taxation qua taxation). The central problem with taxation from a libertarian viewpoint, by my judgement, is not that it's immoral to collect taxes nor that tax money often finds itself wasted on meaningless work projects and blowing people to smithereens for reasons which have become so obvious through their vacuity that discussions of "how" and "why" need never trouble the senescent conscious of political pundits. The more fundamental issue to me is that the appropriate uses of the money cannot even be properly ascertained and the result of the erroneous allocations are so pernicious that the devastating collapses are so obscured from the cause that a solution to the issue never comes and instead becomes a game of economic depressive hot potato passed from one generation to the next until eventually biological reasons implore us to accept, to preserve our own sanity, the worsening conditions as merely a incorrigible physical law meant simply to be observed rather than explained or changed. I called debating whether or not taxes should exist the distraction. Some say they shouldn't. Period. I'm not exactly convinced I'd want to see the society that tried that.... And if I'm reading what you said here correctly, are you saying that because economic fluctuations are hard to tie to specific policy actions, that we should not even play the game, and abandon taxing because of it? While I would probably not argue against the premise that it's hard to see what policies brought about what results, I would definitely try to find a different solution than that.

I read your initial statement correctly. Debating about amount and debating about taxation or no taxation is essentially the same thing. No taxation is after all just an amount of taxation is it not? And you would lump in a tax rate of $0.01 per family per year as a rate of no taxation in practice I"m sure. I could extend that figure upwards too, and it would still fall your intended criticism. The very line where taxation jumps from practically nonexistence to appreciably something is not clearly defined. We're really just talking about amount here which again cannot be separated from intents to use money.

While economic fluctuations are nearly impossible to tie to certain policy actions because of time delay and interdependence of variables, that's not my point. I'm saying that operating outside the price system, one cannot answer questions such as, What type of goods should be provided?, In what amount should they be provided?, If A and B are substitutes, which of A and B should be provided? No centralized bank of answers exists to consult. The answers to these questions cannot lie in one source as they can only truly be answered by an amalgamation of individual preferences. The price system is not simply an artificial edifice erected to facilitate or give numerical value to exchange rates. It serves a much more fundamental function in the organization of a complex economy. It acts as a signal for disparate actors to coordinate, particularly between producers of different orders, to meet the demands of consumers.

In particular, I was referring to a number of unintended consequences that propagate due to central meddling in the system. Kirzner, if I recall correctly, introduced a categorical system to describe them which can be helpful for explanation. Specifically here, I'm concerned about the stagnation that results in market dominated by control which has long reaching economic effects.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: I think I can answer to some degree why people find it important. Ignorance would be the simple answer. To make that a little longer, most people think in a federal, centralized sort of way with respect to government. They tend to forget that States have governments separate from the Federal government. Thus when you try to talk about eliminating the DoE it gets associated with eliminating all government schools and education programs when it really only means eliminating the federal bureaucracy which tries to standardize the already existing State projects. I think this makes it politically difficult to discuss until people realize exactly what it does. Of course, eliminating it right down to the local level would be the best.

No this misses the point and only highlights what you think is important--  regardless of how convenient it may be to think, most voters aren't stupid.   They may be confused or apathetic or misled or angry, but to assume most people don't understand that States have their own authority and projects is simply incorrect.   They get it, but that doesn't mean they don't also like the idea of a standardized system for certain things.  

Maybe it goes to our unsettled history (revolution,slavery,the Civil War,socio-political movements,etc) that people seem to want public education to be standardized and to collectively pay for it.   And maybe someday they won't want it, but they understand.  It's not brain surgery.

Fair enough, you called them 'ignorant' not 'stupid', but they're no more ignorant than stupid, at least no more than a casual music listener is to an expert--  does the fact that people buy Beatles and U2 albums in the millions mean they're ignorant sheep following trends, or that once-in-awhile the population gets it right.   I don't know the answer but I do know that something that is popular is not necessarily bad and something that is underground is not necessarily superior.

If you believe in abolishing the DoE or any other government departments (assuming they are in fact unnecessary), then as a fellow countryman I support you in that.   I support the sentiment, but you'll have to figure a way to accomplish it because there isn't the political will right now.   However, there could be, and I'm sure we'd all like to save 56 billion or more on something we don't need.   You just have to make sure that in the process you don't demonstrate the benefits of a DoE or a DoJ or a NASA.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: I have no interest in changing the political will. I find that to be an approach rooted in compulsion and manipulation. I prefer just to educate as I can and hope for a critical mass to be reached.

I like that.

^ Well as pointed out by Pat, the DoE standardizes certain educational materials--  I will concede to his better knowledge of how government works.   But I'd rather not take any more bait on this one, it was just an example of a Federal body among many.  Let's just say I understand that you think most of them are deeply flawed and a waste of money.  And many of them are indeed questionable, e.g. NASA, despite the admittedly exciting Mars projects.

I agree much of the progressive agenda is flawed, too easy and idealized, and not realistic.  I also sympathize with the Constitutionalist viewpoint and its discomfort with an overly progressive direction.   As far as the average voter being too concerned with his/her own life to give much thought to politics, it's a double-edged sword: If voters gave the kind of thought to things you'd like, you might not be thrilled with their conclusions.  As I suggested earlier, it's possible many Americans would find societal benefit in certain Federal projects even after any ineffectualness or mismanagement was found, move to reform and refund them, and simply tighten up the system.   Careful what you ask for, you might get it.

^ Right, lack of national political interest seems highly American to me

hey let the truth be told 

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Atavachron wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: I have no interest in changing the political will. I find that to be an approach rooted in compulsion and manipulation. I prefer just to educate as I can and hope for a critical mass to be reached. I like that. I appreciate that.

I read that. 

I think the problem with a lot of Americans is that because the country is so big they often do not travel outside the country very much (maybe Canada or Mexico). If its wonderful citizens traveled more often then it would understand the craziness its government has developed over the last 10 years.

King of Loss wrote: I think the problem with a lot of Americans is that because the country is so big they often do not travel outside the country very much (maybe Canada or Mexico). If its wonderful citizens traveled more often then it would understand the craziness its government has developed over the last 10 years.