From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Wed Jul 20 2005 - 19:59:14 BST
Hi Arlo,
> [Platt]
> > I don't know of any country without taxes. But, if your looking for low
> > tax countries I suggest you take a look at www. lowtax.net.
>
> [Arlo]
> I took a brief look. If you could point me to something specifically of
> interest that might help.
If you click on "Offshore Jurisdictions" at the top left of the opening
page it will take you to a list of low tax countries.
> But, the point was, I have no problem with people who want to "opt out of"
> taxes to leave, but I think that in looking for "free membership" they'd
> have to either sacrifice affordances, or look for a system that provides
> the affordances on the backs of "others". Is there any other alternative?
Not sure what you mean by "affordances" but so far as I know no country is
taxless.
> As for Enron, I think it is just one example that "business" is no more
> noble than "government". Which is my central premise, and I suspect MSH's
> too, although I don't want to speak for him. The bottom line is that
> "agencies with power will work to rip you off" :-), and that there needs to
> be a force to combat this. Government is "supposed" to be this force, but
> sadly it has become in many ways an "agency with power that works to rip
> you off". This is, in my opinion, largely due to combining wealth-interests
> with political power. I think this is something that MSH has been saying as
> well.
>
> From our agreed upon Wikipedia, is this on "oligarchy": Oligarchies are
> often controlled by a few powerful families whose children are raised and
> mentored to become inheritors of the power of the oligarchy, often at some
> sort of expense to those governed. In contrast to aristocracy ("government
> by the 'best'"), this power may not always be exercised openly, the
> oligarchs preferring to remain "the power behind the throne", exerting
> control through economic means.
>
> In many ways, I see America slipping this route, if not already firmly
> moving in this direction.
We could go around and around on this forever, so I guess we'll have to
settle for agreeing to disagree. For me, having a monopoly on legalized
violence makes government power much more threatening and frightening than
corporate power ever was or could be.
But, that we agree that an appropriate use of taxes in an MOQ moral
society is to provide access to information, assure availability of common
lands, and support a protective military constitutes a giant step forward
in our discussion IMO. As usual, the devil is in the details. But, for now
I glad we've progressed this far! Too bad others (except msh) have been
uninterested in the subject to date. All the philosophical-type discussion
is fine and dandy, but putting the MOQ to use in the "real world" is where
I see its greatest potential for an evolutionary push. (Hope this doesn't
trigger an esoteric discussion of the meaning of "real world." :-)
> [Platt]
> > I like your freedom justification for imposing taxes when it based on MOQ
> morality. But let me be clear. IMO what the MOQ means by freedom is the
> absence of restraints imposed by government such as not being able to keep
> what you earn, not freedom as the absence of necessity such as working to
> put food on the table. Highest on the MOQ morality scale rests
> intellectual freedom. So yes, I support taxes for education through high
> school, but in the form of vouchers so parents are free to choose the best
> schools in a competitive school environment. The government monopoly on
> secondary education has been in most cases an obscene disaster. > > What do
> you think?
>
> [Arlo]
> First, I think that "freedom" as you've stated it depends on a certain
> amount of agreed upon "un-freedom". To use an extreme, I don't have the
> "freedom" to commit murder, but this "un-freedom" means "greater freedom"
> for everyone, e.g. we are not walking around spending all our time
> defending ourselves from everyone seeking to harm us. So, some restraints
> are always necessary to promote a greater freedom than is possible than
> with simply having "chaos". And I'm not even talking per se about the
> static latching component of the MOQ. Sometimes my "freedom" is constrained
> by a policeman (in the case of laws against homicide, for example),
> sometimes by paying taxes (in the case of supporting open access to
> information, for example).
Excellent points. Freedom doesn't mean license.
> But your point is well taken. Freedom is not the absence of necessity.
> You've agreed to put something above your computer, and so I will agree to
> put this. I would only add that "freedom is the absence of restraints
> imposed by external power structures (not just government), in the willful
> pursuit of an individual's meaningful goals". That is, it is not only
> government that can limit freedom.
As said, I fear the power constraints of government much more than those
of the private sector. But that the private sector is also capable of
doing harm cannot be denied.
> That said, I'll come back to vouchers and higher education tomorrow.
Looking forward to it.
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 20 2005 - 20:12:11 BST