Pages: 1 [2] 
|
 |
|
 Author
|
Topic: California Initiative Would Raise Alcohol Taxes Up to 12,775% (Read 4579 times)
|
|
TANSTAAFL76
|
why would you automatically assume 'through taxation'? Because I call a spade a spade. However you want to structure the fee, in the end it is a tax. The courts necessarily must be able to over-rule government in cases where government has over-stepped. Because of that, the courts are a de-facto governmental agency which has operating costs that will be funded through taxation of the populace via one route or another. Your argument is not logical. Replace 'courts' with any other good/service 'roads need money to operate' 'schools need money to operate' 'libraries need money to operate.' Do you think that we NEED taxation to fund them? My argument is not logical? Sir, your argument is not logical. In their role as a check on government, the courts do not provide a market good or service to be consumed, as would roads, schools, and libraries. Courts provide the legal framework for the protection of individual rights against aggression. That protection is not tangible but it is priceless because without it a free society based upon individual liberty caves to mob rule and aggression. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. Those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
|
|
|
|
Polemic
|
However you want to structure the fee, in the end it is a tax. The courts necessarily must be able to over-rule government in cases where government has over-stepped. Because of that, the courts are a de-facto governmental agency which has operating costs that will be funded through taxation of the populace via one route or another.
Courts are not only de facto governmental agencies, they are de jur governmental agencies. C.F. U.S. Constitution. By the way, love your tagline quote, though I'm not a huge fan of its author. why would you automatically assume 'through taxation'? Your argument is not logical. Replace 'courts' with any other good/service 'roads need money to operate' 'schools need money to operate' 'libraries need money to operate.' Do you think that we NEED taxation to fund them?
This thread has taken the type of hilarious turn that only libertarian leaning forums can: CA Initiatives to arguing about private court systems. Really? I love this place. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Optimists proclaim that we live in the best of all possible worlds; pessimists fear that this is true."
|
|
|
|
BigJoe
|
why would you automatically assume 'through taxation'? Your argument is not logical. Replace 'courts' with any other good/service 'roads need money to operate' 'schools need money to operate' 'libraries need money to operate.' Do you think that we NEED taxation to fund them?
This thread has taken the type of hilarious turn that only libertarian leaning forums can: CA Initiatives to arguing about private court systems. Really? I love this place. Godwin's law states that "as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1" I think that the libertarian equivalent is 'as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of anarchy related talk approaches 1' Although we certainly are not exempt from the Nazi rule either, especially if you allow for 'fascism' to count as well. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Polemic
|
Godwin's law states that "as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1" I think that the libertarian equivalent is 'as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of anarchy related talk approaches 1'
Although we certainly are not exempt from the Nazi rule either, especially if you allow for 'fascism' to count as well.
+ 5 |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Optimists proclaim that we live in the best of all possible worlds; pessimists fear that this is true."
|
|
|
|
1DayAtATime
|
And guess what... Buffet turned out to be correct.
In this case, he certainly did. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
John Edward Mercier
|
I'm pretty sure the NH small town system is much better described as direct democracy than the CA system. This system seems to work ok for small towns but I don't see it working as well for states.
There are a number of things that have majority support but that the government will not allow to happen. For example, marijuana legalization. A state ballot initiative system could help the will of the people prevail in such situations. I find being told what I can and can't do by a majority of my peers slightly less distasteful than being told what I can and can't do by a small group of privileged career politicians. We don't have career politicians in NH. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
John Edward Mercier
|
why would you automatically assume 'through taxation'? Because I call a spade a spade. However you want to structure the fee, in the end it is a tax. The courts necessarily must be able to over-rule government in cases where government has over-stepped. Because of that, the courts are a de-facto governmental agency which has operating costs that will be funded through taxation of the populace via one route or another. Your argument is not logical. Replace 'courts' with any other good/service 'roads need money to operate' 'schools need money to operate' 'libraries need money to operate.' Do you think that we NEED taxation to fund them? My argument is not logical? Sir, your argument is not logical. In their role as a check on government, the courts do not provide a market good or service to be consumed, as would roads, schools, and libraries. Courts provide the legal framework for the protection of individual rights against aggression. That protection is not tangible but it is priceless because without it a free society based upon individual liberty caves to mob rule and aggression. Fees are voluntary. Taxes are not. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BigJoe
|
why would you automatically assume 'through taxation'? Because I call a spade a spade. However you want to structure the fee, in the end it is a tax. The courts necessarily must be able to over-rule government in cases where government has over-stepped. Because of that, the courts are a de-facto governmental agency which has operating costs that will be funded through taxation of the populace via one route or another. Your argument is not logical. Replace 'courts' with any other good/service 'roads need money to operate' 'schools need money to operate' 'libraries need money to operate.' Do you think that we NEED taxation to fund them? My argument is not logical? Sir, your argument is not logical. In their role as a check on government, the courts do not provide a market good or service to be consumed, as would roads, schools, and libraries. Courts provide the legal framework for the protection of individual rights against aggression. That protection is not tangible but it is priceless because without it a free society based upon individual liberty caves to mob rule and aggression. Fees are voluntary. Taxes are not. not really. If there is a government monopoly on a given good/service, then its not exactly voluntary. Yes you can decide not to buy said good/service, but you are deprived of competition in the field that would have driven down the price and/or offered better quality/more variety. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
TANSTAAFL76
|
Fees are voluntary. Taxes are not. Well then I am proceeding under the assumption that you are volunteering to participate in a society in which your rights and person are protected from aggression. If that's not the case, then you'd likely be a victim of the mob at some point anyway, so taxation would be a moot point. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. Those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
|
|
|
|
John Edward Mercier
|
It means the constitutional use of the two are differentiated.
Obviously when I purchase a meal, I volunteered to do so. But fees in NH are not considered taxation... why the JUA fund could not be absorbed by the State treasury.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BigJoe
|
Fees are voluntary. Taxes are not. Well then I am proceeding under the assumption that you are volunteering to participate in a society in which your rights and person are protected from aggression. If that's not the case, then you'd likely be a victim of the mob at some point anyway, so taxation would be a moot point. using aggression against people's property to defend people's property from aggression. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
TANSTAAFL76
|
It means the constitutional use of the two are differentiated.
Obviously when I purchase a meal, I volunteered to do so. But fees in NH are not considered taxation... why the JUA fund could not be absorbed by the State treasury. Whether a state considers something a fee or a tax is largely a matter of semantics. The end result is the same for the payer, they wind up having that much less than they did before. When the court acts as a check on government power, it is in essence acting as an agent on behalf of all individuals living within its jurisdictional boundaries. If it is funded by a flat fee spread across all those individuals on a recurring basis, the practical end result is that it is a tax. If I were pursuing a personal legal matter and paid a fee to the court to cover the cost of considering my matter, that brings in a different angle in which the court is providing a specific service to a specific individual, whereas its role as a check on government is a passive advocacy for all individuals whether they all specifically ask for that advocacy or not. using aggression against people's property to defend people's property from aggression. That's the paradox of minarchism, which makes it the worst political philosophy except for all the others. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. Those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
|
|
|
|
John Edward Mercier
|
In civil court... you do. And that is a fee. The fee goes directly to pay for your benefit.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Mo250
|
That's the paradox of minarchism, which makes it the worst political philosophy except for all the others.
it wouldn't be paradoxical if your understanding of what constitutes force/aggression wasn't primitive just like Big Joe's is. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
TANSTAAFL76
|
it wouldn't be paradoxical if your understanding of what constitutes force/aggression wasn't primitive just like Big Joe's is. If you find it primitive let's do a thought experiment. Let's say the courts, in their role as acting as a check in government and as a passive advocate for all individuals in their jurisdiction, are funded via a tax/fee imposed on all citizens: a universal justice fee, if you will. I tried to think up an appropriately distasteful name that the government would use. It would be nice if we could make it voluntary, but what if the collected funds as insufficient to run the court? Are the rights of the people dissolved until such time as there is enough voluntary contribution to get the courts running again? It is likely that in order to establish continuity of justice and protection that the government would need to compel the payment of the universal justice fee. What is the penalty for not paying that fee? Additional monetary fine? What about after that? Jail? Surrender of property? Deportation? Certainly some of these acts would qualify as force if not aggression. In the end, any time you have government imposing a mandatory fee and backing it up with these sorts of measures I do not think it is necessarily primitive to suggest that there is some level of force or aggression involved in that process of compulsion. One could say that while one may abhor use of force/aggression, that by an individual agreeing to live in a society in which the individual rights of everyone are protected by the government, they are giving their consent to fund the government functions necessary to fulfill their portion of the social contract. One could easily respond with a slippery slope argument here, and it would not necessarily be invalid either. In the end we come back to the issue of whether it is possible to have a society that protects the rights of individuals without compelling those individuals to pay for that protection. In civil court... you do. And that is a fee. The fee goes directly to pay for your benefit. Correct. The point I'm differentiating here is the difference between a specific matter in that regard, and the court's broader responsibility as a restraint on the government intruding on the rights of all individuals. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. Those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
