Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

tadmjones

Regulars
  • Posts

    1318
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    22

Posts posted by tadmjones

  1. To just chew over a bit on the idea of roads, they are already "paid for" via tax dollars. Roads in this country, America, started out being developed privately. Business underwrote them initially, understanding the benefit it provided through facilitating trade. In a sense, by the state imposing itself in this matter, I have to wonder if roads would have evolved differently under continued private ownership? Are they made safer or more dangerous by state intervention? In general, I have found private solutions far more innovative and desirable than any mandated by the prescription of law and edict not constrained or delineated to the exclusive domain of identifying and establishing the protection of individual rights.

    In the chewing aspect this is interesting. Prior to lets just say 1776 property ownership was ultimately controlled by the British monarchy, an arguement could be made that the King utimately built all roads while at the same time allowing private rights to be enjoyed by the subjects of the various colonies. My point being when America came into being as a sovereign state ,say by 1789, all landowners were longer no in legal possession of property at the behest of the prior legally recognized government. I guess my point here that one will encounter,more likely than not on Oist blogs/forums, the unspoken idea there existed a near rational society in human history at some time. The principles of rational government that the constitution is founded on were the actual establishment of the possibility of achieving the existence of such a society.

  2. And if you want to use these thought exercises as mere entertainment, it would be more fun to bring them to a more esoteric level. Would Roark be the waller or the wallee in this scenerio? Would he act to purposely reduce the physical enjoyment of ownership of one or more of his neighbors? Or would he conclude that his only moral alternative is to purchase a vertically ascending vehicle,assuming the waller didn't also restrict his airspace ie antiaircraft weaponary? Or wait that would silly because in a capitalist society that type of weaponary would be considered beyond the pale of purely defensive personal weapons.Ad infinitum and I may include naseum

  3. It seems discussions of this sort, the what if format, try to show or question the possibility that in a truly rational society would there ever be rights in conflict. I would submit that the answer is always no, rights are never in conflict. Rand ,I think, was very clear on why this is never the case. So when I encounter these seemingly specious arguements I try and find where the line of reasoning blanked out on the premise, eg check your premises. Just because you construct sentences with words and concepts doesn't legitimize the core of the reasoning.(Rationalism)

    Rand said her philosophy is derived from reality and that it is a guide to living as man qua man here on earth. If the premise is that in a capitalist society a person or persons could 'wall someone in', I would ask is there a conceivable context in which a productive rational individual would derive any advantage to the walling in. Or do posts of this sort actually argue what should or could take place within such a society to combat or protect rational acters from the irrational?

  4. Given today's technology payroll taxes can be collected electronically. We are on our third generation of wage earners to have weekly deductions taken from their paychecks by their employers. I can't imagine many of those people realize how mandatory deductions came to be , let alone that it is not an inherent feature of a capitalistic society. Weekly deductions by employers were legislated during WWII, to help fund the war effort and were passed on a temporary basis set to expire after the end of hostilities. Currently employers are required to make deductions from each pay issuance, weekly paychecks I think is a practical norm. The employers are required to report and remit these amounts on a monthly basis, which I think was intended to 'sweeten the pot' for the employers' exceptance of the system in that they could escrow the holdings and earn interest on the roughly monthly float.

    Prior to the adoption of this system tax day ,April 15 th , was the day each citizen was required to figure their tax liability and remit those amounts on a yearly basis. Which meant that employees were paid their gross wages on a weekly basis, leaving the full amount of their wages to their own discretion as to spending. While the amount of governmet spending has increased in both complexity and amounts exponentially since the employer deduction/withholding system was instituted, it still operates on the premise the government receives the withholdings on a 30 day cycle , federal employer withholdings are due the 12th of every month.

    Without changing any rates on payroll deductions employees could receive their gross wage amounts and then be responsible for remitting the taxes on a monthly or even weekly basis. Which would have no effect on the aggregate amount remitted to the federal and state governments, it may actually lessen the time lag. With modern banking and communication devices systems could be developed along the lines of ATM machines or kiosks where the individual would enter the amounts 'owed' and authorize the transactions.

    Imagine the political acumen the populace would quickly glean from just being consciously aware of the rates of deductions. Imagine the types of politicians they would most likely gravitate to, those who could explain to them 'you know line 1on your weekly form, well if we adopt my plan I could half that amount ect.."And it would work in the converse, obviously, "if you adopt his plan line 2 will increase by 20% ect..."

    I believe not being consciously aware of the deductions and rates lolls too many citizens into complacency, "oh you can't fight cityhall you know". The current system also makes employers unwilling arms of the governments' tax collection czars, it is easier to threaten and cajole employers than have to try and control the whole number of wage earners.

    So far a fairly vague idea , but whaddya think?

  5. True.

    And yet, I wonder how much most gas-stations would charge, if the law did not stop them. The law is based on a very popular notion of morality and fairness, and gas-stations would probably be hesitant to raise prices for just a few days and have their regulars curse them and swear to use the guy across the street. If gas station owners discussed this and raised prices together, that might give them cover...but they'd probably be breaking a few laws by any such discussion.

    So, I suppose -- all said and done -- the voters gets the shortages and long-lines that they deserve.

    I dont understand do you mean you do not understand what gasoline prices on a retail level would be, during an emergency, or non emergency?

    Either way the answer is what the market will bare.

    It is also illegal for gasoline retailers to show on signage the break down of the sales tax. Since some states charge a percentage , they must like gouging.

  6. Monopolies can only be created by the government, private individuals can not impose restrictions or require lisencing of other individuals.

    Information symmetry(or asymmetry)is a strawman. What is the term supposed to denote? I believe the arugment is along the lines of insider trading and such. In a free market that would not be issue unless you are speaking of fraud, which is a problem that the government should mitigate.

    As to the categories of goods , I do not understand the terms.

×
×
  • Create New...