-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 10:09:53AM -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> It's a not entirely uninteresting approach, but one doesn't have
> to resort to libertarian rights-theory to refute it (not that
> arguing about rights is going to resolve anything anyway).
>
> Simple pragmatism can do the same. I mean, Nathan, have you ever
> considered what happens when taxes are raised to 95 percent?
>
I guess it depends on the country. In the U.S., I'm not sure what
would happen.
> I know you were just speaking hypothetically, but to be realistic, a
> hypo will have to includse the negative effects as well as the
> positive.
You are correct. Just so it's clear, I did say "IF raising taxes to
95%..." I'm not sure that it would.
> For instance, what are the economic effects?
Again, it depends on the economic framework under which we are operating.
> What are the
> black markets that arise?
I don't know, what black markets would arise? If people were housed,
clothed, fed, etc, then most would still have plenty of disposable
income to buy what they wanted.
> What punitive measures must nations adopt
> to enforce tax collection?
I'm not sure. However, if all housing and food was provided by the
government, and not paying your appropriate level of taxes removed
your entitlement to said housing and food, then I'd think most people
would pay their taxes.
Not that I'm advocating government being the sole distributor of food
or anything. I'm just illustrating that it depends on the exact situation.
> What about revolt and the ensuing
> bloodshed?
Who would revolt? The rich? Too few in numbers. The middle class?
They're apathetic, and they'd still get access to everything they had
under our system in the new system. The poor? They'd be better off,
so they wouldn't revolt. Cypherpunks? Sorry, guys, but there aren't
that many of you. ;-)
> What about public choice theory?
I'm not familiar with this. Want to explain it to me? Probably not,
seeing as both you and T.C. seem to think that I'm not worth speaking
to. Ah, well.
>
> Think these things through, if you really want to be "pragmatic."
>
> -Declan
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 11:58:18PM -0700, Nathan Saper wrote:
> > least pain." I guess this is basically pragmatism. For
> > example, if raising taxes to 95% would feed everyone in the
> > world (I'm just speaking hypothetically), then I would advocate
>
- --
Nathan Saper ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) | http://www.well.com/user/natedog/
GnuPG (ElGamal/DSA): 0x9AD0F382 | PGP 2.x (RSA): 0x386C4B91
Standard PGP & PGP/MIME OK | AOL Instant Messenger: linuxfu
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.5 and Gnu Privacy Guard <http://www.gnupg.org/>
iD8DBQE593dy2FWyBZrQ84IRAqWqAKCb7gKuqtNzXqjP/BKY92wQ/ZZQ1gCdEWS0
U7yPhPvI/n+/49eq1x3lHgQ=
=P4CJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
