[ExI] Under the libertarian yoke was Re: Next Decade May See No Warming

[Damien Sullivan]

On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 12:04:58AM -0700, Samantha Atkins wrote:
> On May 6, 2008, at 10:22 PM, Damien Sullivan wrote:

> Which included no provision whatsoever for anything like the current  
> income tax.  It actually prohibits such and the 16th Amendment  
> according to Supreme Court rulings does not add any new taxing  
> authority.

I invite you to test that claim before the Supreme Court, then.  Or to
cite the alleged rulings that "The Congress shall have the power to
levy tax on income" does not add new taxing authority.

> 
> > A very literal social contract.
> 
> Liberal in the old sense, not as that word is abused today.

literal, not liberal

> The US was set up as a republic, not a democracy.   In losing the  
> difference lies much of our deterioration.

The US was set up as a republic (no king) and a democracy (some form of
popular rule.)  They are not exclusive.

> > If a group of people unanimously agreed to a constitution which  
> > included provisions that fees could be levied on all members by a
> > majority  vote, that'd be a contractual 'tax'.
> >
> 
> No it would not.  It would be a tyrannical assault of the majority on  
> any minority who would not voluntarily pay such.   This is impossible  

Why would it be a tyrannical assault?  The minority had previously
agreed to abide by the contract.  "unanimously agreed"

> > So you can certainly set up something similar to a modern democratic
> > government, contractually, in principle.  You can get closer, too, if
> > all land or water within an area is agreed to be owned by the
> > association.  Then what happens to a child born within the  
> > association?

> This is rank socialism.  No thank you.   Note that what we live in in  

So the proposed Paulville, where a libertarian association is buying
land that one can buy shares of, is socialism?

> > In minarchy, we give up our rights to violence, but the state can act
> > only in a predetermined sphere.  Being minimal, it has no rights  
> > outside
> > its initial list.  Expanding that list is probably very problematic if
> > possible at all, since it involves new bans on behavior, or
> > redistributing property rights, which is exactly what minarchy doesn't
> > want.

> Actually, not so.   The list is expanded when and only when the  
> recognized rights of people are shown to be violated by activities not  
> previously recognized as a violation.   I would argue that is  

Shown to whom?  A court?  A legislature?  The votes?  Any possibility of
power expansion allows for future capture of the process by special
interests.

-xx- Damien X-)