‘By the way, they’re also immoral. The Left talks about these things as though [they’re] moral. It’s not moral to steal other people’s wealth just because you’re poorer than they are.’
Again with the fucking Objectivism. You realise that property rights are man-made and don’t just naturally occur, right? Of course you don’t, even though they comprise a substantial part of the exact same legal system you studied at Harvard Law, including the Sixteenth Amendment to your favourite document, which states pretty clearly that income tax is not theft.
Also, since you have provided no argument to support your moral claim, I won’t bother spending thousands of words explaining why there can be nothing moral about a tautological theory of value that justifies an opportunistic author receiving upwards of $400,000 a year while a nurse, whose job is far more demanding and infinitely more important, makes a tenth of that. And don’t try and tell me it’s about ‘freedom’, either.
But, okay, even if we grant that all taxation over and above the government’s people-shooting budget is theft—and I honestly don’t know why we would, but I guess I’m feeling charitable (call it tzedakah, if you like; of which paying taxes sounds a lot like the second-best type)—why not choose to actively engage in some non-violent tax resistance? That would be the moral thing to do, right? Take a stand, Ayn Ghandi. Sure, you will likely face imprisonment when you refuse to pay the fine, but it’s not like they’ll shoot you. After all, the government’s not just a big ‘people-shooting machine’. And you must adhere to your morals, Yahweh is watching.
‘As government has gotten larger, it turns into this giant grab-bag of cash. So, what you have is a bunch of constituencies in the United States who are dependent on these grab-bags of cash.’
You mean, how the government stepped in to save the American people from that other unmitigated disaster your beloved free market created? What, with its dreadful New Deal policies and such? The ones that worked, even despite those noble ‘captains of industry’, those ‘supermen’, the ‘job creators’ you so admire refusing to create any jobs? And the Keynesian policies that followed, which saw your heroes forced to pay a marginal tax rate of anywhere up to 94%, the results of which were so devastating that people typically only dare refer to the period by way of euphemism, such as ‘the long boom’ and ‘the Golden Age of Capitalism’? Yeah, I thought that’s what you meant.
‘Palm Beach is a very rich area, and this little old lady toddles up to [former GOP Governor Linda Lingle]—pearl necklace, diamond earrings—she walks up to her and says, “What will you do to keep them from cutting my Social Security?” And I thought to myself, who are you? Like, you paid fifty dollars into Social Security when you were thirty-five and you’re probably getting out three thousand dollars a month now.’
I mean, I could run those numbers, but I understand you were just being hyperbolic. Still, what’s your point, exactly?
‘But, because people have been made that promise, they’re now dependent on the government.’
Right, so you weren’t implying that her pearls and diamonds suggest that she is not in fact dependent on the government, but simply being greedy? Kinda seems like you were.
‘Once you get into the business of, the government takes care of you in your old age, now we’re just arguing over methodology; we’re not arguing over morality.’
Aren’t we? Because your whole objection to taxation and using it to take care of people to this point has revolved around your deontological—i.e., rule-based—‘ethical’ claims that all tax is theft, theft is impermissible, and all thieves must be shot.
Don’t get me wrong, I understand the appeal of consistent, universalisable rules. Prima facie, they seem very appealing. Herein lies the appeal of religion for a lot of people. The only problem is—to use your words—they don’t work, they’re crap. Allow me to demonstrate.
‘Don’t kill people.’
Okey dokey. Except inadvertently, in self-defence, right?
‘Don’t kill people.’
Except if the SS officer at my door asks about the Jews in my attic, right?
The only way such an approach could be viable is if you were to have an infinite number of very specific rules for the infinite number of very specific circumstances that could possibly arise; which is to say, it is not viable at all.
‘My view is that, people have been made promises. We have to keep those promises, because otherwise we just have too many people who have no source of income. You make a promise; you keep a promise. But, if you are under a particular age, no Social Security at all.’
Even though those people have also been made exactly the same promise since exactly the same date on which the promise was made to the elderly? Now, if you’d constructed an argument about how best to pay for the social safety net as a whole, that would have been about methodology. But, no, you are suggesting that some people be excluded because you deem them to be less deserving. That’s a moral position. ‘You make a promise; you keep a promise’ is a moral statement. And, not only do they happen to be in direct conflict with one another, but they’ve got fuck-all to do with methodology.
‘I want my money back, okay? I’m getting fifteen per cent of my salary taken every year to be put in a fund that I will never see again.’
Except in the form of the police, military, and judicial system of which you approve, as well as all of the infrastructure you presumably don’t use. Which, of course, you do; but perhaps you’d like it all to be privatised? A small fee every time you step out of your house to use the footpath (ugh, fine, ‘sidewalk’) or drive on a road? But then, that would require an awful lot of that bureaucracy you’re not very fond of, so I guess the whole neighbourhood would have to be privatised. Then, just throw a fence around the whole thing and you’ll keep those undesirables out, right? Nope. Oh, and don’t invite any friends from outside to visit you, or one of your fellow shut-ins is likely get spooked and blow them away. Plus, it’s still not very efficient, so you’d probably be better off just privatising the whole city, so you could consolidate the payments you have to make in order to have access to its conveniences into a single payment. Wait, what does that sound like? Oh, that’s right, it sounds exactly like taxation, except much more expensive, because every fucker involved at every step along the way is doing it for the sole purpose of making a profit.
Also, if you’re telling the truth about your income, you should really be paying at least 33% in tax.
‘I would much prefer to put that in a SEP IRA and just let that grow with the stock market.’
Leaving aside the pretty generous tax breaks you’re already getting on any SEP IRA contributions you make, when that stock market—completely unregulated, just the way you like it—inevitably crashes again, wiping out most of your retirement fund, I’m sure we won’t hear a peep out of you. You’ll just let the chips fall where they may; because, hey, you win some, you lose some, right? No, you’re probably pretty confident that governments around the world will step in, like they always do, to shore up your investments with taxpayer dollars. And exactly how, pray tell, do you suppose that would work if there were no taxpayer dollars? Oh, who cares, just as long as they’re no longer funding the global homosexualist agenda.
ALMOST CERTAINLY NOT TO BE CONTINUED