John Stossel: "I Was Brainwashed"

[lomiller]

It's pretty clear to me that the internet or something like it would have come into existence as the technology arose and became profitable,

Which technology?
Networking devices can’t be profitable if there are no network providers
Networking providers can’t build networks without networking devices
Network providers can’t become profitable with no ISP’s or content providers to buy their services
Network providers can’t form an Internet without a framework to exchange traffic (after all the free market provides zero incentive to carry traffic for other providers as they have to for the internet to work)
ISP’s can’t sell internet access without application if there are not application s that use the internet or content on the internet.
Application developers can’t make a profit selling applications without ISP’s, network providers and content providers
Content providers can’t make a profit without applications, ISP’s and network providers.

The fact is that the technology existed back in the 70’s (even though significant parts were developed by/for the government even then) but the private network providers like Prodigy simply didn’t catch on. It wasn’t until government got involved in the early 90’s to fund application development (The “killer app” being the Mosaic web browser developed by NCSA) and replace the ad-hoc collection of T1 connected universities with real backbone network service providers with data sharing agreements that the Internet we have today took off.

So in short, there is simply no evidence any of this could have happened on its own.

 

[leftysergeant]

The internet was originally conceived to coordinate strategic nuclear command networks. Again, an outgrowth of military spending.

Which basically means it was created by Fascist corporate-state partnership.

The express purpose of Fascist corporate-state partnerships is to socialize research and development costs on to the backs of tax payers so private entities don't have to cough up the research dough on their own.

This allows private firms to reap technological gains while having their research costs be subsidized by their competitors or by other industries that have no research costs.

Thus, corn farmers and teachers are paying to subsidize the research and development costs of companies like McDonald Douglas, Raytheon, General Electric, Pfizer and others.

Yeah, but the individuals are also paying back the expense of their public education and all the governmental functions that make life more safe and pleasant.

What you have offered here is a good rationale to tax the bejabbers out of the corporations that pick up the government-created technologies and turn a profit without paying the R&D costs.

 

[JoelKatz]

What you have offered here is a good rationale to tax the bejabbers out of the corporations that pick up the government-created technologies and turn a profit without paying the R&D costs.

All that would do is raise prices fairly uniformly across the technology sector, forcing consumers to pay again for the technology they already paid for. The other affect would be to disadvantage technology sectors other sectors, further reducing private research.

 

[leftysergeant]

All that would do is raise prices fairly uniformly across the technology sector, forcing consumers to pay again for the technology they already paid for.

If the taxes are on profits after what little innovative research they do themseves and expansion of physical plant, they have more incentive to do some of their own R&D and to expand physical plant and hire more people.

If they choose not to build the product here, they can pay a nice tariff to fund more research here.

 

[lomiller]

Nope. Whilst I don't think it would be desirable to live in a minarchist state, even one with an effective police force, it wouldn't look anything like Somalia.
An an-cap society? Yeah that would look like Somalia pretty quickly. The difference is important.

TBH I’m not sure if there is a practical distinction between self proclaimed libertarians and anchro-capitalists. In theory, yes, the AC says we need no government while the Libertarian calls for minimal government. The problem arises when you try to pin down exactly what minimal government means the answer they give is always “less”, but less repeated indefinitely is not really different then “none”.

What needs to happen is that Libertarians need to do a better job of defining how much government they think there should be and why that amount, but no more, is justified. This is what would really set them apart from the an-caps, but in my experience they won’t go into detail because they can’t rebut arguments that this would allow less personal freedom than we have now.

The fundamental failing of most Libertarian positions is that they fail to account for the fact that as Governments power to impact personal freedom goes down the ability of powerful individuals to impact my personal freedom goes up. Maximizing freedom is therefore a balancing act and there is no right answer only best answer for a given time. As I mentioned, however, the Libertarian answer is always “less government” so it’s again always going to have the same failings as a full on an-cap position.

 

[leftysergeant]

So the big difference between a Libertarian and an an-cap is a lack of basic discipline.

 

[AvalonXQ]

TBH I’m not sure if there is a practical distinction between self proclaimed libertarians and anchro-capitalists. In theory, yes, the AC says we need no government while the Libertarian calls for minimal government. The problem arises when you try to pin down exactly what minimal government means the answer they give is always “less”, but less repeated indefinitely is not really different then “none”.

Not so. In my experience most libertarians support a public system of justice, usually including both the police and the courts. Most libertarians also support a democratic form of government very similar to what the U.S. has today with a legislature and an executive. And libertarians usually support some kind of taxation to pay for these things (although many propose that the legislature/executive should not be full-time or draw a salary).
Libertarians just sharply curtail what powers that government has to interfere with private property and with business, and limit taxing and spending to a very small world of appropriate things. That doesn't mean they want taxes to drop to zero or government functions to drop to nothing.
Unlike anarchists.

 

[brodski]

Not so. In my experience most libertarians support a public system of justice, usually including both the police and the courts. Most libertarians also support a democratic form of government very similar to what the U.S. has today with a legislature and an executive. And libertarians usually support some kind of taxation to pay for these things (although many propose that the legislature/executive should not be full-time or draw a salary).
Libertarians just sharply curtail what powers that government has to interfere with private property and with business, and limit taxing and spending to a very small world of appropriate things. That doesn't mean they want taxes to drop to zero or government functions to drop to nothing.
Unlike anarchists.

I pretty much agree, I have seen plenty of military and police only libertarians. I'm not quiet sure where to put your proposal for a government with no (enforceable) tax raising powers though. How would you classify that?

 

[AvalonXQ]

I pretty much agree, I have seen plenty of military and police only libertarians. I'm not quiet sure where to put your proposal for a government with no (enforceable) tax raising powers though. How would you classify that?

I don't think that's enough detail to classify it. In fact, such a system could be pretty much anywhere on the political spectrum depending on what laws and institutions remain in place from voluntary taxation.
It is my belief that such a government could be successful, but would be the much leaner sort of government that I want. But I believe that if peoples' actual tax payments were public, there would be enough incentive for people to pay their fair share on the things people actually care about -- if not at first, then certainly in response to them not having the things they see they need.

 

[lomiller]

Not so. In my experience most libertarians support a public system of justice, usually including both the police and the courts. Most libertarians also support a democratic form of government very similar to what the U.S. has today with a legislature and an executive. .

Yes but they go on to argue that these institutions shouldn’t be doing anything, unless of course they should while leaving the reasoning between should and shouldn’t remarkably vague.

Libertarians just sharply curtail what powers that government has to interfere with private property and with business, and limit taxing and spending to a very small world of appropriate things.

Regulation invariably exists to either keep a business from externalizing their costs to third parties or to prevent anti-competitive behaviour. Without them you don’t actually end up with the benefits of a free market and personal freedom is therefore reduced. Rather then dealing with it, however, many Libertarians hand wave away the issue. If you ignore the existence of externalities and anti-competitive behaviour the distinction between Libertarians and an-caps basically drops to zero on economic matters.

 

[Dorian Gray]

John Stossel discusses the experience of his liberal brainwashing at the hands of Marxist college professors:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcbbG4s6ZRQ

I love the opening comments made by one of the students who says:

"Liberty is an extension of my body. Because I own my body, I own the product of my labor. I own the property I produce with my labor. Therefore no one has a right to take my property without my consent."

Indeed, his comments form the core of the non-aggression principle, which is predicated on self-ownership and the property rights that follow from that.

If one takes a moment to think about it, the libertarian definition of property rights is the only definition that allows for peaceful co-existence. All other definitions of property rights ultimately entail the initiation of violence, which is distinctly different than the use of violence for self-defense or defense of property.

The moral philosophy of libertarian property rights is spelled out in this fantastic video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

If we say that someone else has a higher claim on the product of my labor than I do, then it obviously follows that I am not the owner of the product of my labor. I am merely a allowed to keep an arbitrary portion of what I produce, which my owner has deemed appropriate. My owner may arbitrarily change his mind about how much he will allow me to keep as my own from time to time.

If I don't ultimately own the product of my labor, then it follows that I must not own myself. Someone else must have a higher claim on my person than I do in order to make me work for them by taking what I produce against my consent. This is tantamount to slavery.

Given that people will naturally defend themselves AND that which they have labored to produce, the initiation of violence (or the threat thereof) is necessary in order for someone else to take that which I have labored to produce against my consent.

This state of affairs becomes readily apparent if one considers how slavery operated in the South. The slaves did not own the product of their labor, their masters claimed that for themselves, and then handed out a portion of what the slaves had produced back to the slaves.

The only difference between the Southern slavery of blacks and the way tax slavery operates today is that rather than directly taking the physical product of a slave's labor, the State takes the money a slave has bartered his final product for. This allows slaves to work in the occupation of their choosing, while ownership of the slave's labor is still ultimately retained by someone other than the slave himself.

This use of coercion has resulted in modern day "tax farms" which most people call "nation states."

Learn more about tax farms and the wars and misery they have caused the human race here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A

The initiation of violence (or threat thereof) necessarily result when the self-ownership principle is not enforced by society.

If we look to those countries who are worst off in this world, they have all had a long history of ignoring private property rights. Only those countries who have had a history of strong (relatively speaking) property rights enforcement have become prosperous as nation states.

Any deviation from this path has leads to nothing but human misery.

Your arguments are reminiscent of those of the guy who shot Congresswoman Giffords.

 

[JoelKatz]

If the taxes are on profits after what little innovative research they do themseves and expansion of physical plant, they have more incentive to do some of their own R&D and to expand physical plant and hire more people.

Yes, those are also disadvantages to such a tax. If you don't see why, consider this: What would be the effect of a law requiring every company hiring 20 or more employees to increase their employment by 5%?

 

[IchabodPlain]

That seems unlikely.
Assume that, tomorrow, the U.S. Congress decried that all criminal penalties for failing to pay taxes would be revoked, but that taxes would still be calculated and collected, and that the actual taxes paid (voluntarily) by each individual and business would be a matter of public record.
Can you explain by what process this would cause the United States to become Somalia, and how long this process would take?

Become Somalia? Not likely as they have a different culture, values, history, and starting point than the US has. However:

If taxes were to be collected on a voluntary basis, it would be safe to assume they would fall to near-zero - and could theoretically be zero. This is a problem for those who are tasked with drawing up budgets and proposals as you have no idea how much revenue there will be next year. Heck, you might not even collect enough to pay the people tasked with budgeting!

Assuming salaries for elected officials remains the same, then by drawing less revenue you are devoting less to the projects that people who donated the money want. This would make government a less attractive route if you have $30,000 you want to contribute - it would be more wise to donate it to your child's school for new books/laptops/whatever, or roads, or anything else which has a defined mission/focus. By removing the guarantee of revenue (coercive taxation), you are removing the guarantee that laws will be passed and/or enforced. You are removing the guarantee that courts will be there to hear cases regarding abuses of rights.

Further, you're only focusing on the raising of revenue, not on how it's spent. Is the current electoral system still on the books in your ideal world? That is, do I get an equal vote even if I voluntarily choose to pay no tax? Surely if involuntarily taking my money is immoral, then so must be a system where both you and I have the same say over spending when I choose to pay tax, but you do not. And again - why would I even waste my time giving money to the government and having less than a 1% say in its expenditures, when I can give it to a private program where I have 100% say in where it goes?

A proposal like this is illustrative of an ideologue. You start from (what you believe is) a moral principle, and then say damn the real world when it is in conflict with your principle. Even better - you revel in it. I mean, how good can something be if it doesn't have a sound starting principle? Even if I agreed with you that something must have a moral starting principle - why isn't the idea of the social contract any less moral than what you advocate? Indeed, involuntary taxation can be viewed as moral through the lens of the social contract.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Libertarians make me giggle.

 

[Muldur]

Yes but they go on to argue that these institutions shouldn’t be doing anything, unless of course they should while leaving the reasoning between should and shouldn’t remarkably vague.


Regulation invariably exists to either keep a business from externalizing their costs to third parties or to prevent anti-competitive behaviour. Without them you don’t actually end up with the benefits of a free market and personal freedom is therefore reduced. Rather then dealing with it, however, many Libertarians hand wave away the issue. If you ignore the existence of externalities and anti-competitive behaviour the distinction between Libertarians and an-caps basically drops to zero on economic matters.

QFT!

Ultimately, the difference between the Libertarians and the an-caps as I see it is that the Libertarians at least acknowledge a theoretical limit on individual freedom: harm to others.
Then, of course, they define away "harm to others" to exclude all but direct physical violence.

Both systems rely on either a (naive) belief that individuals either will: always act in a moral and proper manner, or that it doesn't matter if they do not, because everyone will do likewise and the competing harms magically cancel each other out.

 

[Cactus Wren]

So, I have $10K in the bank, the corporation I'm suing (because they're contaminating my groundwater and causing air pollution) has an annual legal budget of $10 million. Just how do you think that is going to work out in court? No justice but for those who can afford it is exactly how libertarians would have it, I'm guessing.

Michael seems to have dropped this when he fled the thread.

Several people have argued that it is immoral to initiate violence. I would like to offer three scenarios that are not violent acts:

A man operates a motor vehicle while heavily intoxicated.
A man prints his own counterfeit currency in his basement.
A family does not bother to feed their child.

I live in a society were all of the above acts are illegal. If the perpetrator is found out, there are police offers who are willing and able to stop them, with force if necessary. This would be an initiation of violence. Why is this immoral?

Alex Libman, late of these fora, was known to argue that every sort of child abuse short of murder or catastrophic brain damage should be lawful -- on the grounds that "in a free society children may be able to sue their parents upon obtaining their freedom, but a dead child can't sue".

 

[Muldur]

Michael seems to have dropped this when he fled the thread.


Alex Libman, late of these fora, was known to argue that every sort of child abuse short of murder or catastrophic brain damage should be lawful -- on the grounds that "in a free society children may be able to sue their parents upon obtaining their freedom, but a dead child can't sue".

It's also well known that corporations can and will do a cost/benefit analysis when it comes to issues like product liability and if their number-crunching tells them they'll make MORE money by simply paying fines and legal penalties than by doing the right thing initially, then that is what they will do.

Sickening, isn't it?

 

[leftysergeant]

Yes, those are also disadvantages to such a tax. If you don't see why, consider this: What would be the effect of a law requiring every company hiring 20 or more employees to increase their employment by 5%?

I have no idea what you were trying to ask here.