Strict property rights – sounds great, but to make that an absolute value? That's insanity. If somebody has in excess and other is deprived, it's almost an human right that there happens a transfer of wealth.
I'll concede that it's
almost a human right, but it's still not. However, the right to keep the fruits of one's own labors most certainly
is a human right that is regularly violated by people who claim the authority to do so by reason that they are the government.
To say that wealthy would put up a private charity that's sufficient is naive and arrogant at the same time.
It seems to have worked pretty well in the US right up until the New Deal.
To say there's no obligation is just immoral.
Obligation to do what, exactly? Aid your fellow man? Sure, I'm obligated as a
Christian to help the needy, but that is
my religious obligation. It's not something that can be satisfied on my behalf by government taking from me to give to another. Nor can I, as a Christian, force my mores upon others.
To force fortunate people to invest in their fellow citizens – well-being is capital – is both just and will be beneficial to the society as whole.
<sigh>
If you aren't a communist at 20, then you have no heart. If you are still a communist at 30, then you have no sense.
In libertarian system values are greatly defined by success in game called economics. Money, however, is bad measurement for being a good friend, a wife, a husband or a member of community. Art, culture, science and nature would be subordinate to profit. To fix that one needs just to give sufficient freedom from economy so these just as important values have chance to flourish.
You obviously have a distorted understanding of what libertarian system would be.
I agree, the current system is broken and does not function. Taxes are used to means not morally justifiable. Decisions have nothing to do with public opinion. However, if your car is broken you wouldn't wreck it altogether and say everybody else should do the same. You would fix it.
There comes a point that it's no longer worth trying to fix, and it's just better to junk it and try again. We passed that point around 1971.
In this case something considerably more lightweight design might do the trick. My model is basic income (or NIT, they are equivalent) + 10%-40% overall tax rate + abolishing of IPRs + regulations on enviroment and safety of products + free elementary education and subvented basic healthcare, more expensive treatments through insurance. Basically I'm advocate of public and private living side by side as they will dovetail each others flaws.
Public & private is what we have been getting for as long as I have been alive, and as you pointed out above, that seems to lead to a broken system with endless stream of bad decisions.
Show Posts
