PDA

View Full Version : Thomas Sowell Quote



llotter
06-21-2011, 04:18 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Liberalism is totalitarianism with a human face. </div></div>

Sounds about right to me.

Soflasnapper
06-21-2011, 04:29 PM
Libertarians have many good policy ideas, in my view.

However, their guiding philosophy is an extreme one that says taxing people is totalitarian theft. I cannot agree with that claim at all.

It's fairly clear it would be very hard to find a society in history without a form of taxation. Yet, are all societies therefore totalitarian? Not really, or if you redefine things to say they are, you have lost the meaning of the word.

LWW
06-21-2011, 04:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">However, their guiding philosophy is an extreme one that says taxing people is totalitarian theft. I cannot agree with that claim at all. </div></div>

I know of no libertarian which believes this ... and libertarians are the actual liberals in America.

Those who claim to be liberal are actually oligarchists.

llotter
06-21-2011, 04:56 PM
Sowell is referring to 'liberals', not libertarians. LWW is correct, as usual, in pointing out that the meaning of liberalism has changed dramatically over the last hundred years or so. It used to be being liberal meant someone with a well rounded education, open to competing points of view, pro freedom and against statism in all its forms...about the same as today's conservatives.

Liberals in today's parlance are, like Sowell indicates, in favor of central planning and central authority of the kind that any tinpot dictator would love.

Soflasnapper
06-21-2011, 06:15 PM
I was referring to Sowell as a libertarian, which I believe is accurate, and discussing why he thinks liberals are totalitarians.

It's because they want to tax beyond the limits of a very small state function (basically, national defense), to achieve various social ends.

And any unnecessary taxation (i.e., except for defense), is considered forcible theft, and therefore, totalitarianism on the part of liberals.

Soflasnapper
06-21-2011, 06:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">However, their guiding philosophy is an extreme one that says taxing people is totalitarian theft. I cannot agree with that claim at all. </div></div>

I know of no libertarian which believes this ... and libertarians are the actual liberals in America.

Those who claim to be liberal are actually oligarchists.

</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Question

Most libertarians oppose the current income tax system. Is this because the system is too complicated and the IRS has a poor history, or because income taxes are inherently bad? What type of taxation system would be best? What type of taxation system would be best at the state and local levels?
Answer

Libertarians do not advocate the initiation of force, fraud, or theft to achieve social or political goals. If you refuse to contribute to my favorite charity, and I took your money at gunpoint anyway, I'd be stealing from you. Similarly, if I vote for taxes to force you to contribute to that charity through taxes, I'm asking the government to take your money -- at gunpoint, if necessary.

What is wrong for me as an individual, is wrong for a group of individuals acting through 'government.' Wrong doesn't turn into right, just because the majority agrees to it. Minorities have no protection if they have to depend upon the majority for it.

As a result, libertarians believe that ALL taxation is theft. Libertarians believe that the services supported by taxes can be provided more economically and efficiently by the private sector. </div></div>

Soflasnapper
06-21-2011, 06:34 PM
From 'A Geek with Guns'

Why Taxation is Theft

OK, libertarians often talk about how taxation is theft while statists call the libertarians crazy. The statists donít understand why libertarians would call taxation a form of theft and honestly many libertarians who make the statement that taxation is theft donít fully understand why. Thus we have a lot of people with a misunderstanding walking around and I feel it necessary to explain the concept of taxation being theft. Really this post is me being selfish, instead of having to retype this argument every time I make it Iím just going to link back to this.

The foundation of libertarian philosophy is founded on something we like to call the non-aggression principal. The non-aggression principal states all aggression is illegitimate. Aggression is defined as any initiation of force, be it physical or simply a threat, against another person or their property (which Iíve explained is actually an extension of a person). This means any time somebody initiates force or coerces somebody to perform an action it is seen as illegitimate by libertarian philosophy.

Taxation is the collection of money by the state. This collection isnít voluntary though as not paying money to the state will lead to them either confiscating your property or placing you in prison. The threat of property confiscation and prison time are forms of aggression and thus the action of taxation is seen as illegitimate by libertarian philosophy. When one party uses aggression to obtain property of another party the act is called theft and we say the first party stole from the second party. For example if I threatened to kidnap you and hold you in my basement for 10 years if you donít pay me 10% of your earning every year most people would consider my act theft. Thus comes the phrase taxation is theft.

Libertarians arenít claiming taxation as theft because weíre greedy. The claim is made because the entire concept goes against the very foundation of libertarian philosophy, the non-aggression principal.

Now you statists can stop calling us crazy when we claim taxation is theft. You are more than free to make an attempt of arguing for social benefits of taxation but please stop screaming, ďYOUíRE FUCKING CRAZY!Ē Weíre getting sick of hearing it and it makes you look like a moron who lacks a real argument against our statement. Those identifying as libertarians please understand the reason behind the phrase, ďTaxation is theft.Ē Youíre not helping libertarianism by making statements you canít explain, it just makes us look crazy to the statists.
Ads by Google

Qtec
06-21-2011, 09:59 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Aggression is defined as any initiation of force, be it physical or simply a threat, against another person or their property (which Iíve explained is actually an extension of a person). <u>This means any time somebody initiates force or coerces somebody to perform an action it is seen as illegitimate by libertarian philosophy.</u> </div></div>

By that definition he must be against the rule of Law. eg, a 70 mph speed limit.

Q

llotter
06-22-2011, 11:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I was referring to Sowell as a libertarian, which I believe is accurate, and discussing why he thinks liberals are totalitarians.

It's because they want to tax beyond the limits of a very small state function (basically, national defense), to achieve various social ends.

And any unnecessary taxation (i.e., except for defense), is considered forcible theft, and therefore, totalitarianism on the part of liberals. </div></div>

I stand corrected.

On the point, however, Sowell believes that there must be limits of what the government does and I think he is saying essentially, that without those limits it is totalitarian and liberals are unwilling to set limits.

Gayle in MD
06-23-2011, 10:23 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I was referring to Sowell as a libertarian, which I believe is accurate, and discussing why he thinks liberals are totalitarians.

It's because they want to tax beyond the limits of a very small state function (basically, national defense), to achieve various social ends.

And any unnecessary taxation (i.e., except for defense), is considered forcible theft, and therefore, totalitarianism on the part of liberals. </div></div>

I stand corrected.

On the point, however, Sowell believes that there must be limits of what the government does and I think he is saying essentially, that without those limits it is totalitarian and liberals are unwilling to set limits. </div></div>

Completely false to state that Liberals are unwilling to set limits on what Government can do.



g.

Sev
06-25-2011, 06:03 AM
Yah. The skys the limit.

llotter
06-25-2011, 06:24 AM
What are the limits that liberals are willing to accept as beyond the function of government within the economic/welfare/justice arena?

Soflasnapper
06-25-2011, 01:51 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What are the limits that liberals are willing to accept as beyond the function of government within the economic/welfare/justice arena? </div></div>

The will of the people, expressed through their representatives, if duly passed by Congress and signed by the POTUS, or should he/she veto, if properly passed over the veto.

That is the standard NOW, even for Constitutionalists, as regards STATE governments, which are not bound by 'enumerated powers' except as stated in their individual state Constitutions.

That's the Romney argument about why the MassCare plan is legally allowable whereas he says the national plan is not-- no curb on states' activities from enumerated powers.

Most conservatives even hold this is true.

llotter
06-26-2011, 09:48 AM
You seem to be saying that majority rules and that the Constitution only provides for procedural limits that you stated. Is that what you are saying?

No need to amend the Constitution as long as the elected representatives pass it and it get signed by the President or is veto over-ridden, that is all that is required. Is that your thinking?

I appreciate that that is the methodology of the Left and has been for many years but I am surprised to hear it stated so blatantly, without some legalize to obscure the intent.

LWW
06-26-2011, 09:51 AM
When you begin with false "FACTS" you will come to false conclusions.

The idea that Romney is a conservative is quite funny.

Soflasnapper
06-26-2011, 10:21 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When you begin with false "FACTS" you will come to false conclusions.

The idea that Romney is a conservative is quite funny. </div></div>

The notion that states aren't bound by the federal government's restrictions is a conservative theory, and actually the fact of the matter as well, which does not rely on Romney being a conservative. I do not rely on what Romney has said, although he is correct in this case.

It's a well understood and well accepted feature of how state government's proscribed areas vary from the federal government's proscribed areas.

Soflasnapper
06-26-2011, 10:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You seem to be saying that majority rules and that the Constitution only provides for procedural limits that you stated. Is that what you are saying?

No need to amend the Constitution as long as the elected representatives pass it and it get signed by the President or is veto over-ridden, that is all that is required. Is that your thinking?

I appreciate that that is the methodology of the Left and has been for many years but I am surprised to hear it stated so blatantly, without some legalize to obscure the intent. </div></div>

Well, upon further consideration, I take back the strong version of what I said. I'd still want the SCOTUS to make sure any such legislation is consistent with the personal protections enshrined in the Bill of Rights and other amendments, and if there were irreconcilable differences, requiring an amendment, if wanting the change despite the SCOTUS having struck it down.

But the reach and scope of the federal government under the commerce, general welfare, and necessary and proper clauses is sufficiently already enormous that, by a hundred or more years of precedent, virtually anything is plausibly allowed.

I don't know how that toothpaste can be put back in the tube. It would probably require a Constitutional convention to rewrite the thing, and although that is attractive to many, be careful what you wish for. The history of the original Constitutional convention saw the ashcanning of the prior Articles of Confederation, even though it was only supposed to be a revision.

There is no guarantee that any of the rights of the current Constitution would carry over into the product of a ConCon, and opening up everything would be an ideal way to institute a far worse tyranny (I'd guess a fascist one) under supposed color of law.

llotter
06-27-2011, 06:27 AM
When you recognize that straying away from the Constitution is a bad thing, the solution is not to re-write it but to go back to it as fast as possible.