Oakes

I am NOT advocating that we follow a bunch of archaic laws that are never or rarely enforced. Like I said in the "Fair Tax" thread, if the government doesn't respect the law enough to enforce it, I need not respect it enough to follow it. I realize that it is law-breaking; what I meant was that I don't include civil disobedience in my usage of "law-breaking." Civil disobedience acknowledges the rule of law by intending the act to be caught by the authorities. I agree that many instances of civil disobedience can be immoral (if the object of protest is misguided) or even should be illegal (if it constitutes an initiation of force). However, I am confused why you think this is always the case. First of all, we are talking in the context of modern times in the United States. Second of all, nobody is "[c]alling on citizens to place coercive laws above their rights." We should continue to speak out against them, and engage in open and honest civil disobedience if needed, but as long as society can be considered civilized and rights-respecting, the idea of "breaking laws that deprive man of his natural rights" is inappropriate. Breaking laws is the last-resort measure you take when society is no longer fundamentally free, so unless you are advocating violent revolution now, be prepared to follow the laws. You are ignoring the context of this discussion completely. We are talking about a situation where the law protects our rights enough for us to deal with others with persuasion - where using such a tool becomes in our interests more than breaking laws, because it preserves and acknowledges the rule of law. To say that I "condemn a creator for disobeying unjust laws" leaves the door open for other contexts, such as a totalitarian state (in which case, I would not condemn him).

Yes, I condemn her for that. But like all cases of unjust-law-breaking, I leave room to condemn the law as well, and to reinforce her right to her property.

When I say "freedom of speech," I am naturally including everything else that hierarchically preceeds it, including the right to life. If my right to life is taken away, so is every right that it leads to, including freedom of speech. Nobody is morally obligated to follow a law that by definition cannot be followed. The same applies to Microsoft's anti-trust case - these laws are defined vaguely (which, I would venture to guess, is just how the law-makers like it). I will add, by the same reasoning, one is also not morally obligated to follow contradictory laws.

No. I'm saying that it betrays - on a moral level - the nature of the society you are in; i.e., it undermines your goal of a fully rights-respecting society under the rule of law; i.e., it is not in your interests. Why would it be condoning what they're doing? You can morally condemn an act without acting as a tool of state coercion.

I side with the rule-of-law, and I do not agree with your summary. I do not condemn law-breaking out of fear that it could lead to anarchy - that would be subjectivist, because it suggests that we cannot evaluate the law-breaking based on an objective standard. The overarching quality of civilized societies is that people deal with each other by argumentation, rather than force. Politically, this at the very least means that people have the freedom to speak - i.e., to argue. This is the ruling standard, and why law-breaking is unacceptable. Note: I do not include civil disobedience in law-breaking. Civil disobedience is the open and honest breaking of a law as a form of protest - as opposed to the evasive law-breaking that seeks to "get away with it" - and depending on the object of protest, it can be justified in a civilized society.

I understand that double taxation already exists, but how can you say it is impossible to eliminate without eliminating taxes? What double taxation occurs in the NST plan? I think a direct tax would be a great step towards voluntary taxation, but it won't be accepted unless questions like these can be answered. A tax rebate to consumers from other states might work, although that would mean extra work on part of retail stores to keep track of sales from non-state customers.

About Sowell, Your take is very new to me. I've heard Reisman recommended before, and now I'm tempted to buy his book. However, I still think I can get a lot of value out of finishing Sowell's book, so I'll do that first. About the direct tax, One problem I see: Some states may adopt a sales tax, and others an income tax. The prices for goods would then vary wildly from state to state, and lead to many people being taxed twice (once in their home state via income tax, and once during a visit to Aunt Judy's state, via sales tax). To fix this problem, you would have to make it law that under a direct tax, states cannot be allowed to tax anyone other than residents of that state. This, to me, means that a sales tax would be out of the question, unless you can find a way to make it apply only to a certain group of people (maybe with monthly tax rebates, like what NST uses for the poor).

Resources are allocated under capitalism just as much as any other system. I think you're reading too much into that - Sowell does NOT mean coercive allocation. That misunderstanding was probably my fault, however, because I didn't provide the context in which he said it. Yeah, after some thought I can't understand how it would be implemented. That's what I thought it meant - and now I really like it. The fact that it could lead to a non-coercive tax system is enough for me to support it, and the fact that it offers choice and flexibility on part of the states makes it seem politically viable. What do you think? Do you see it as realistic?

Could you explain how a head tax would work? How would the states take the money from the people? I think Thomas Sowell has it right when he said: From the standpoint of the allocation of resources, government should either not tax resources, goods, and services or else tax them all equally, so as to minimize the distortions of choices made by customers and producers. (Basic Economics, pg.58) What would be the best tax to do that?

Like I said: When the government no longer allows me the mechanisms to peacefully persuade change. If you join a job specifically to enforce unjust laws, you are being immoral and I wouldn't associate with you. Agreed - and since America upholds both of those enough to make persuasion possible, it is a civilized society. See the immediately preceeding quote. In accordance with the Objectivist virtue of Justice, I punish people according to the severity of their immorality. Although I regard all breaches of the law in civilized societies as immoral, I would not treat the illegal use of fireworks or lack of a seat belt the same as I would a more serious crime like tax evasion. As for laws that are on the books but rarely if ever enforced, I would not regard it as immoral to break them. If the government doesn't respect the law enough to enforce it, I need not respect it enough to follow it. (this may or may not apply to the examples you gave) I only support objective, rational law, but because I live in a free, civilized country where I can voice my disagreements, I need not - and thus have no moral right to - disregard unjust laws in order to get rid of them.

Is it moral to break any unjust laws, or just this one? What I gather right now is that you would encourage someone to break an unjust law - any unjust law - if only there wasn't the risk of being caught. Let me just say this: As long as the government allows me the mechanisms to peacefully persuade change, I would not allow a tax-evader into my house. A civilized society requires respect for the rule of law.

Are you an advocate of violent revolution, or do you think it is moral to break the law only in this case?

Thomas Sowell addresses this point in his book, Basic Economics, starting on page 205: In case you’re wondering what would happen if we began running out of a valuable resource in a capitalist society, Sowell answers that, too:

If any of the moderators are thinking that this thread is getting off-topic, I would suggest moving every post starting at #186 to the Ending Islamic Immigration topic, since that is where the immigration discussion in this thread began. [EDIT: Added "in this thread"]

USAF playing cat and mouse game over Iran - January 26, 2005 "The U.S. Air Force is playing a dangerous game of cat and mouse with Iran's ayatollahs, flying American combat aircraft into Iranian airspace in an attempt to lure Tehran into turning on air defense radars, thus allowing U.S. pilots to grid the system for use in future targeting data, administration officials said." Read the whole story here: http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?Stor...26-045615-4690r

Let the record show that this is twice you've accused me of rationalism and twice you have called me a fascist, both as stand-alone emotionalistic grumbling. Peikoff is saying that only going after individuals is useless without going after their source of funding and support. He does not say that we should ignore individuals. I repeat: We need to fight it on both fronts.

You persist to treat terrorism as a conventional, governmental problem. Terrorism is supported by governments, but it is practiced by individuals. We need to fight it on both fronts. BTW that was slick how you fused immigrant Muslims with Westernized Mislims. Hell, why would the radicals want to immigrate here? I thought I was being sarcastic just now, but apparently you do believe that the radicals have no reason to immigrate here, no reason to create terrorist strongholds in the heartland of America under the slogan of "Moderate Muslim" that the multiculturalist left handed to them. Just as when we bomb the cities of Iran, when we restrict Islamic immigration we are bound to affect innocent people. The only alternative, however, is to put our own security at risk by evaluating the situation person by person. Between us and them, I choose us, fully confident in the fact that I am not responsible for harming any rational people dispersed in the mix - that, my friend, is a tragedy to be blamed on our enemy.

What's your point? Islam is the current threat, and other than the version practiced by a minority of Westernized Muslims like the one whose wedding you went to, it is still an extreme and violent ideology that continues to hold oppressive political power over millions of people. A proper foreign policy would make that connection and prevent Muslims from immigrating. Since I do not advocate appeasement, this question doesn't make any sense. You are twisting a noble principle to strip a free nation of its right to retaliatory force.

I am tempted to jump to the conclusion that you are a libertarian more interested in protecting the freedoms of foreign aliens than your own citizens, but than again, that would be making the same mistake you just made. You jumped on my usage of the word "restriction" and ran with it. And whether or not you intended it, I take the last line of your post as an insinuation that I am a fascist. Let me start by saying that "restriction" != "ban." I have advocated complete bans on Muslims in particular, both because it is chosen and because it is behind our current war, but for the Third World in general I advocate restriction. I want strict background checks and patriotism tests. I'll leave the specifics to the experts. I will repeat what I told you the last time we spoke: The purpose of government is to secure and protect the rights of its citizens - when retaliating against a foreign threat, we have no obligation to sacrifice our own safety to discriminate between the guilty and the innocent. I think the best measure of globalization is Foreign Investment: How willing are people to invest in your country? This is tied directly to the amount of economic freedom and rule of law. He suggests the same - that we should shrink the Gap (the underdeveloped region of the planet) by exporting security to those areas. Although he shrouds it in altruistic language at times, he makes it clear that this is the way to fight this new threat; i.e., it is in our interests.

The government has some role in this; It has the right to censor any direct commands to kill westerners, both here in America and elsewhere. As for the broader culture war between the West and Islam, it is just that: cultural. The government has no control over the ideas its citizens are exposed to, nor does it need to. Reason will prevail. Witness Iran's dismal level on the Index of Economic Freedom, specifically check out the Foreign Investment section on their page. They are by no means connected to the global economy. This is not at all what I'm suggesting. I don't seek to weaken their grip on power by flushing in western ideas; in fact, I suggest the exact reverse. I want to dispose of the mullahs militarily and allow western ideas to enter via new economic freedoms.

That's because global terrorism is only a recent phenomenon - before globalization, terrorism and violence were solely contained within the Third World. Their lawless nature is now spreading to developed countries, which means we no longer have the luxury of ignoring them. Colonial expansion and third-world immigration restriction is a must. I certainly agree that ideas are at the root of the problem - I do not mix cause & effect and suggest that economic isolation causes their anti-life ideology. Their ideas have damned them to the primitive existence they now suffer through. However, reconnecting their economies to the world will take away the only base they have to spread their ideas, and will open the doors to more life-affirming, Western views. I advocate wasting cities right now. Punitive war and colonial war are not mutually exclusive, as exemplified by our vaporization of cities in Imperial Japan followed by occupation. I want to see Arab countries brought to their knees with firepower and constitutions dictated to them afterwards.

Cox&Forkum quoted Tracinski's commentary on Bush's speech in their most recent blog, and I think it is relevent to Wakeland's talk about colonial war. Read what he (Tracinski) says in this quote: The good part of the "Forward Strategy of Freedom" is Bush's recognition of the connection between tyranny and war. Nations that murder and enslave their own citizens always seek to export those evils outside their own borders. So it is true that America's long-term interests come from the spread of liberty across the globe. In other words, MisterSwig and others are correct in that we shouldn't liberate a country for altruistic reasons, but if it will benefit us in the long term to topple dictatorships that don't directly threaten us, it would be morally right to do so. Philosophy only tells us to act in our interests and not sacrifice troops for altruistic purposes - the method of war changes with time. In the Cold War, it would've been suicide to attack Russia, even though it was a constant and severe threat. The proper approach was the doctrine of Mutually-Assured Destruction (MAD) and proxy war. In the age of terrorism, however, pre-emptive, colonial war is precisely the right method. Pre-emptive because terrorists do not abide by MAD, and colonial because the disorder and economic isolation of the Third World is what fuels terrorism. Refer to the guru for further explanation: Thomas Barnett, author of The Pentagon's New Map.

Francisco's discussion with Rearden might be relevent here. I'll post an excerpt, but anybody interested should read the whole dialogue:

I advocate, as a step toward freedom, simplifying and improving our current coercive tax system. As long as political reality prevents me from advocating a completely voluntary system, it must be completely involuntary. Do you really suggest I promote a system that is intentionally easy to evade? I'll give that bill a good three days before it becomes political mincemeat.

But it wasn't the NST you were arguing against - your "short-sighted" comment was applied to anyone who sought to change the type of tax our government uses. My previous post was purely in opposition of that view - it should not be taken as commentary on the NST. Simplicity, transparency, and consistency are general attributes I want in a tax system, whether it is NST or something else. In fact, in addition to your fear that the income tax will never actually be dropped, I've been having my own doubts recently about the NST. The questions I would like Delay and DeMint to answer are: (1) Will the NST raise enough? (2) Even though people will see the tax on their receipts when they walk out of the store, is it really transparent if they don't know the total amount they are taxed each year? (3) Can you prove that we will lose less money through the NST's black market of un-taxed goods than we do today through income tax evasion? (DeMint made that assertion here)