Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Knight who wrote (51073)	10/23/2000 4:28:31 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 769670

Thanks for the elaboration! It is precisely correct that it is easier to adjust tax rates than to sunset programs, according to experience. (I like the Bastiat, too)......

To: Knight who wrote (51073)	10/23/2000 4:51:59 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

To expand on Bastiat: The idea behind libertarianism is that coercion is bad, and although some minimum might be a necessary evil, respect for the dignity of the individual means leaving most social transaction in the realm of voluntary behavior. Conservatives and liberals both agree, against libertarians, that society has a broad claim to ensure civility and a humane environment. Conservatives, however, are more prone to rely on voluntary transactions, and to consider governmental action ancillary to the spontaneous ordering of society, through mediating institutions like churches, clubs, corporations, and charitable foundations, and therefore are able to cooperate with all but the most fanatic libertarians. The main difference between government and such institutions is the blunt instrument of force. A charity persuades people to contribute to a worthy cause, a government implicitly holds a gun to their head. Obviously, one should be leery of wielding the instrument in a heavy handed way, regardless of whether the person is affluent or not, and regardless of the high mindedness of one's intention. That is the point, for example, in deploring confiscatory taxes: When one takes in excess of 50% of someone's property and/or income, it cannot be anything other than robbery, no reasonable person would agree to such treatment. Democratic participation in the process permits some rough calculation of fairness, but there is always the danger of the less affluent using the powers of the state to rob the rich, since they constitute the majority. One of the minorities that the Founder's wanted to protect was the one with substantial property.

To: Knight who wrote (51073)	10/23/2000 5:13:34 PM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Knight...thanks for the reminder! Socialism Is Legal Plunder This site should be of interest: lexrex.com Socialism Is Legal Plunder Mr. de Montalembert has been accused of desiring to fight socialism by the use of brute force. He ought to be exonerated from this accusation, for he has plainly said: "The war that we must fight against socialism must be in harmony with law, honor, and justice." But why does not Mr. de Montalembert see that he has placed himself in a vicious circle? You would use the law to oppose socialism? But it is upon the law that socialism itself relies. Socialists desire to practice legal plunder, not illegal plunder. Socialists, like all other monopolists, desire to make the law their own weapon. And when once the law is on the side of socialism, how can it be used against socialism? For when plunder is abetted by the law, it does not fear your courts, your gendarmes, and your prisons. Rather, it may call upon them for help. To prevent this, you would exclude socialism from entering into the making of laws? You would prevent socialists from entering the Legislative Palace? You shall not succeed, I predict, so long as legal plunder continues to be the main business of the legislature. It is illogical -- in fact, absurd -- to assume otherwise. The Choice Before Us This question of legal plunder must be settled once and for all, and there are only three ways to settle it: 1. The few plunder the many. 2. Everybody plunders everybody. 3. Nobody plunders anybody. We must make our choice among limited plunder, universal plunder, and no plunder. The law can follow only one of these three. Limited legal plunder: This system prevailed when the right to vote was restricted. One would turn back to this system to prevent the invasion of socialism. Universal legal plunder: We have been threatened with this system since the franchise was made universal. The newly enfranchised majority has decided to formulate law on the same principle of legal plunder that was used by their predecessors when the vote was limited. No legal plunder: This is the principle of justice, peace, order, stability, harmony, and logic. Until the day of my death, I shall proclaim this principle with all the force of my lungs (which alas! is all too inadequate).* *Translator's note: At the time this was written, Mr. Bastiat knew that he was dying of tuberculosis. Within a year, he was dead.