Tax travesties (Leftists Argue Against Property Rights)

Boston Globe ^ | Jan.26, 2003 | Liam Murphy

[SerfsUp]

Just so you know what leftist intellectuals spend their time working on: an airtight argument against individual property rights.

Even more outrageous than this socialist-collectivist nonsense is the fact that so-called academic intellectuals are actually paid tuition dollars to prodcue trash like this.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Its hard to believe garbage like this is still tolerated.

[AuntB]

Also what is amazing is the consclusions they can arrive at....based on their premise that "our money isn't ours until it's taxed and you see what you have left". No, they don't mind a bit suckling off the public teet to support their blather.

[keithtoo]

I'd like to go over to this guy's house or apartment and take "our" TV and computer. It's none of his business when or if I return them.

It is also amzing how close this article comes to supporting the Feudal right of kings and lords. In that system, EVERYTHING, from wild game to cultivated crops, belonged to the royalty, and whatever they 'let the people keep' was, literally, a gift.

[xp38]

I remember a sign on an apartment door in the movie Reds which said Property is Theft. Not much has changed.

[Fintan]

Liam Murphy and Thomas Nagel are both professors of law and philosophy at New York University. They are the authors of "The Myth of Ownership: Taxes and Justice."
 

Oooooooooooo...They're "professors" and golly gee, if they say ownership is a myth then, dang, it must be true...

And I'll bet my entire 401k, stock holdings and savings that these effete little twits have their tenure in their little ivory tower and neither one ever worked a day in their self-absorbed little lives.

My solution is that if they don't believe my property and savings and earnings belong to me then they are cordially invited to come to my front door to try to take it away from me...

 

[SES1066]

Which goods, at what level, should be provided by collective public decision and which goods by private individual choice?

Please tell me what 'goods' are provided by a 'collective'? There is collaberation such as this piece of tripe, but nothing is produced by a collective, which explains the failures of communistic 'utopias'. Since4 the first protohuman picked a fruit or snared a rabbit, it is the INDIVIDUAL effort, singly or in common, that has been the source of these goods. Their entire argument is based on a fallacy.

[SerfsUp]

This is a glimpse into the frightening mindset of the leftist intellectual. The average American can go about his business not bothering anyone and one day find out that the intellectual class has determined that he and his family no longer have rights over their property.

[Mark Felton]

Their argument would make even Marx blush. This is deliberate agitprop.

Private property pre-exists government of any sort. Family, clan or tribal ownership of property existed eons before the rise of the "state" and more modern forms of government.

The clan would control and manage the property using their own marshal forces. Basically, any land which you could control for your own purposes made you the "rightful" owner.

"Nothing is ours, which another may deprive us of." --Thomas Jefferson to Maria Cosway, 1786. ME 5:440

Entreaties and alliances were negotiated with neighbors to help extend periods of peace, and provide for mutual defense.

It was not until more expansive alliances required joint ownership of resources that "taxes", mutually pledged fiscal support, would be contributed for their common cause. Also taxes would be demanded when a superior military force would conquer lands and demand "taxation" as a price to pay for continued "ownership". The first type of taxation is the approach of a free society, the latter is the method of authoritarianism.

"By nature's law, every man has a right to seize and retake by force his own property taken from him by another by force or fraud. Nor is this natural right among the first which is taken into the hands of regular government after it is instituted. It was long retained by our ancestors. It was a part of their common law, laid down in their books, recognized by all the authorities, and regulated as to circumstances of practice." --Thomas Jefferson: Batture at New Orleans, 1812. ME 18:104

[SerfsUp]

Absolutely right.

In the name of "social justice and efficiency", the government hereby confiscates your television, computer and home. Get thee to the gulag.

[metesky]

We all know there was no property in the U.S. before 1913.

Don't we?

[Libertarianize the GOP]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list

[GladesGuru]

Thanks for posting this classic of socialist agitprop. May I suggest a warning be appended - 'Reading will induce overstimulation of gag reflex!"

[Belisaurius]

Did anybody actually read the article? I think they accurately described what we, and the left-wingnuts believe about the tax system. They do not agree with my point of view on taxes, but their arguments are reasonably worded and coherent. They didn't resort to calling us names. Perhaps y'all could extend to them the same courtesy.

[squibs]

That's what is wrong in this country. To many
commies (aka:dems) believe this. And think they
should be in control to own everyones lives and property.

[Karsus]

"And think they should be in control to own everyones lives and property."

That statement also applies to quite a few FR posters. Maybe not on this topic, but on quite a few others.

[buffyt]

If you haven't all read RADICAL SON by David Horowitz and what his parents [who were communists] found out about property rights. He has a chapter in the book that covers it. His parents didn't believe in owning private property. They rented a home. It was taken away from them. They had to move out. Later they bought one just like it for a whole lot more money.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

I thought the Author did a good job of laying out his basic thesis. He sees taxes as just another arrow in the Government quiver that should be used to help remake society. By carefully defining the debate he can shape the likely outcome. If he stuck to debating tax fairness he might arrive at the one definition he carefully avoids; a fair tax is one where every citizen pays the cost to the government of providing that citizen with the government benefits that citizen utilizes.

[TruthShallSetYouFree]

If you allow someone to define the argument, you've already lost. If the argument is about something specific, such as how to distribute the tax cut "fairly," the libs want to talk about "the big picture." If you want to talk about "the big picture" such as getting rid of Saddam, the loonies want to talk about how that affects one specific subject (the "innocent victims.") Right now, Bush is applying a tax cut proportionately to those who pay the taxes. That seems very fair to me. If they want to get into a Talmudic, Cosmic discussion of the tax structure in general, that's fine, at another time and place.

[Dr. Zoo]

Oops, sorry, I thought it said Tax Transvestites...

T-man, what should the rate be, something like...

69%?...LOL couldn't let that be seen, I am trying to be wholesome