[ExI] the formerly rich and their larvae...

[Tom Tobin]

Geez.  I just realized that I'm sitting on the Extropy Institute
mailing list ... the libertarian transhumanist mailing list ...
complaining about libertarianism.  I must sound like a troll.  I'm
sorry.  I'll go somewhere else.  ^_^

On 2/13/08, Tom Tobin <korpios at korpios.com> wrote:
> On 2/13/08, Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 13, 2008 10:55 AM, Tom Tobin <korpios at korpios.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > A job is what I'll be spending 1/4 of my life doing (approaching 1/3,
> > > if you only count waking hours); I damn well *better* enjoy it, lest
> > > it aggravate and depress the hell out of me.  I've been fortunate
> > > enough to (mostly) enjoy my current and previous jobs (web-oriented
> > > programming using open source tools), but the salary demon keeps
> > > haunting me due to my debt.  If not for the debt, I could stop chasing
> > > money — I'm perfectly content with a handful of gadgets (laptop, etc.)
> > > and renting apartments indefinitely.
> >
> > ### Yeah, I agree that since you don't feel like making money,
> > spending it wasn't a good idea.
>
> Debt isn't a good idea, period.  No arguments there.  I was stupid.
>
>
> > > I don't quite get how taxes make me a "slave" to others; I appreciate
> > > many of the things that taxes accomplish, even if I wince at many
> > > others.  I've never bought into the libertarian "taxes are the root of
> > > all evil" argument; hell, without public roads, libertarian property
> > > interests could keep me physically boxed into one area, unable to
> > > move, forever.  :p
> >
> > ### Taxes mean you are forcibly deprived of the resources you could
> > use to attain your goals - obviously, right?
>
> Err, no, not "obviously" at all.  Leaving my society is always an
> option; taxes happen to be part of the ruleset of this society, same
> as any corporation-state might impose.  If I really want to leave, I
> can; I had better not try to come back, of course.
>
> > Slavery is being forcibly
> > deprived of the use of all your resources (body and mind). In both
> > cases the resources taken from you are used by others to achieve their
> > goals, which frequently may be immoral and repugnant on their own
> > (like slaughtering brown people, jailing drug sellers).
>
> All too true; if that's *all* taxes got me, I wouldn't be sticking around.
>
> > There is only
> > a difference of degree, since a slave is wholly owned, while I am
> > owned only during about 40% of the time I spend working for money.
>
> You're "owned"?  Really?  Your boss can kill you with impunity?
>
> > I
> > wonder what would you say about taxes if they took not 20% but 80% of
> > your income? You presumably wouldn't be able to afford your laptop,
> > among other things. Would that change your POV?
>
> From my point of view, if all my basic needs are taken care of, and
> I'm not looking to obtain anything else (like ::cough:: children,
> which I remain convinced are the ultimate luxury items), I damned well
> could afford that laptop, that cellphone, and connectivity.  And I'd
> be perfectly content, since that's *all I'd need*.
>
> > In general, since as you say you are not interested in making money on
> > your own, I am surprised you show interest in monies belonging to
> > others. If you really don't care about money, don't ask (or force)
> > others to give it to you.
>
> Money is a product, one of the glues, of society; it doesn't have any
> value on its own.  I don't why libertarians haven't figured out that
> the only way they can obtain resources as efficiently as they do is
> because we have a framework to do it with.  (Don't get me started on
> the joke of "natural rights", either.)  ^_^
>
> > As an aside, this public roads argument is an old canard - of course
> > you don't need taxes to have excellent, widely accessible roads. The
> > theory and practice of non-state road ownership are/were
> > well-established. If you think that your taxes efficiently accomplish
> > many of the things you appreciate, you may be a victim of political
> > salesmanship.
>
> What I meant is this: under, say, an anarcho-capitalism scheme, I
> could own a piece of land which is then surrounded by land owned by a
> malicious entity.  Said entity won't let me cross its land.  How do I
> get out?  A libertarian would claim that the entity was completely
> within its rights to restrict me from crossing, and perhaps even to
> attack me if I tried.
>