Jerry Story Posted September 17, 2004 Report Share Posted September 17, 2004 (edited) Capitalism Party. Is it consistent with Objectivism? http://www.capitalismparty.org/ Edited September 19, 2004 by GreedyCapitalist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew Posted September 17, 2004 Report Share Posted September 17, 2004 As such, the Capitalism Party President will repudiate government-owned debt, payoff the remaining national debt, drastically slash expenditures and replace all production taxes with a national consumption tax. People who do not want to pay taxes simply do not have to buy products. Rather than penalizing the production of wealth, this new administration will penalize the destruction of wealth. I don't think any tax is consistent with Objectivism. In a national consumption tax you're still taxing individuals' voluntary trade with one another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oakes Posted September 17, 2004 Report Share Posted September 17, 2004 I don't think any tax is consistent with Objectivism. In a national consumption tax you're still taxing individuals' voluntary trade with one another. It would be necessary until the government has shrunk to the appropriate level. It doesn't make sense to demand the end of coercive taxation while we are still in a welfare state. Capitalism.org emphasizes "The removal of all taxation would be the last step to implement in the transition to a free capitalist society." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oakes Posted September 17, 2004 Report Share Posted September 17, 2004 BTW I think the idea of a capitalism party is stupid and futile. We need to run as fiscal conservatives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chumley Posted September 17, 2004 Report Share Posted September 17, 2004 Capitalism Party. Is it consistent with Objectivism? http://www.capitalismparty.org/ The Capitalism Party web site lists the founder as "David L. Hunter." I searched Google for his name and the word "capitalism." I found an article by Hunter with the following title: "Immortal Riches - Replacing the Illuminati for eternal prosperity" At this point I realized there's no point in reading more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colonel Rebel Posted September 17, 2004 Report Share Posted September 17, 2004 It seems to be an oxymoron...... capitalist party? Well any political party would be statist, which capitalism is against (statism). I could be wrong on this one though.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coirecfox Posted September 17, 2004 Report Share Posted September 17, 2004 "The most moral act is creating entrepreneurial jobs for others." -David L. Hunter http://www.localgroup.net/cr/moral.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toolboxnj Posted September 18, 2004 Report Share Posted September 18, 2004 Viva the Capitalist Revolution! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted September 18, 2004 Report Share Posted September 18, 2004 http://www.localgroup.net/cr/moral.html Okay, you do know that this guy is one of those Neo-Tech cultists, right? As in, "Poker: A guaranteed Income for Life". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
argive99 Posted September 18, 2004 Report Share Posted September 18, 2004 Okay, you do know that this guy is one of those Neo-Tech cultists, right? As in, "Poker: A guaranteed Income for Life". Thats what this is, another Neo-Tech site. I personally like reading most of their material. It really isn't 'cultist' by the normal definition of that word. Its just so misguided. Their view that they can 'sell' some mish-mosh of Rand and other free market thinkers and affect the culture is deluded at worst and misguided at best. You can blast them if you want but I personally don't consider them as hostile and malevolent as I do many Libertarians. And they are far more benevolent and positive in their 'futuristic' view than others such as Psycho-Cybernetica or Transhumanism. By the way, Neo Tech people have been promising their wealth creating, neo-cheater sweeping revolution for 20 years now. What's with the delay? I could use the tax break. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted September 18, 2004 Report Share Posted September 18, 2004 You can blast them if you want but I personally don't consider them as hostile and malevolent as I do many Libertarians. And they are far more benevolent and positive in their 'futuristic' view than others such as Psycho-Cybernetica or Transhumanism. No, I just think they are extremely wierd, and meaningless. They do seem to be oddly cheerful. What I find most stunning is how they apparently have nothing of substance to say; it's like dehydrated water. Once you delete the verbal gas from one of their web pages, you don't have anything left. For example... Pax Neo-Tech weaves established facts from the past and present into prickly matrices that slice through evolving events to predict and then control the future. That control generates clean-sweep wealth, health, and romance for conscious life. ... Woven as matrices of thorn-laden roses, Pax Neo-Tech first pierces and then tears apart the biases, opinions, and faiths of readers. Thus, most readers flee. [or at least the sane ones]... So, what happens when one resists fleeing? What happens when among the thorns one discovers glittering diamonds that fade dark biases, opinions, and faiths? That person becomes an unchained Illuminatus who accurately predicts the future and then profitably controls it ... Are you ready to reach into its matrices of thorns to discover fields of diamonds? Are you ready to experience a paradigm shift in your thinking? It is not hard to make the leap from their obsession with thorns, to the realisation that they must be pricks. When I read: Neo-Tech works not by promoting positives that chain one to the past, but by nullifying negatives to release one into the future. Neo-Tech works not by solving old problems, but by creating new opportunities. Pax Neo-Tech is tailor-made to activate the future-predicting elements of consciousness that now lie dormant -- buried beneath dishonesties and irrationalities -- in nearly every individual. Once activated, Pax Neo-Tech’s wave/particle duality of clean-sweep waves and bullet-like particles control the future to yield justice, riches, and health. I think "Synergies! Think outside the box! Dilbert! Pointy-haired boss!". In fairness, this guy David Hunter actually seems to be reasonably rational, in comparison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chumley Posted September 18, 2004 Report Share Posted September 18, 2004 Thats what this is, another Neo-Tech site. You can blast them if you want but I personally don't consider them as hostile and malevolent as I do many Libertarians. And they are far more benevolent and positive in their 'futuristic' view than others such as Psycho-Cybernetica or Transhumanism. Maybe they're not hostile and malevolent, I think they're quite... loony! What's with that estimate of a 168-year average life span by 2020? (From the manifesto on their web site.) This is what gave me a clue that this was Neo-Tech - it's similar to other stuff I've read from them. Although if you really want to read stuff written by raving loonies, go to the Neo-Tech site and read the negative comments. (I won't post a link here - wouldn't want to defile the temple!) -- Chumley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlotte Corday Posted September 20, 2004 Report Share Posted September 20, 2004 It would be necessary until the government has shrunk to the appropriate level. It doesn't make sense to demand the end of coercive taxation while we are still in a welfare state. Capitalism.org emphasizes "The removal of all taxation would be the last step to implement in the transition to a free capitalist society." So the end of coercive taxation must await the demise of the welfare state? If that is the case, on what moral grounds do the needy have the right via government to seize the wealth of the productive class? Do we say to wage earners, "You are obliged to surrender a portion of the product of your labors to the 'needy' because the government has not shrunk enough"? What if the wage earners say, "It's not my problem that you haven't shrunk your government enough!"? Do we continue to throw productive people in jail for tax evasion just because there are still moochers on the dole? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted September 20, 2004 Report Share Posted September 20, 2004 So the end of coercive taxation must await the demise of the welfare state? If that is the case, on what moral grounds do the needy have the right via government to seize the wealth of the productive class? Do we say to wage earners, "You are obliged to surrender a portion of the product of your labors to the 'needy' because the government has not shrunk enough"? What if the wage earners say, "It's not my problem that you haven't shrunk your government enough!"? Do we continue to throw productive people in jail for tax evasion just because there are still moochers on the dole? The complete end of coercive taxation would take some time to completely implement. We could not just wake up tomorrow and decide to end all taxation and then *poof*, just like that, all taxes would be gone. The size of the government needs to be reduced gradually or it would cause MAJOR problems. I agree with you about the morality of taxes but eliminating the current welfare state system is not a simple process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlotte Corday Posted September 21, 2004 Report Share Posted September 21, 2004 The complete end of coercive taxation would take some time to completely implement. We could not just wake up tomorrow and decide to end all taxation and then *poof*, just like that, all taxes would be gone. The size of the government needs to be reduced gradually or it would cause MAJOR problems. I agree with you about the morality of taxes but eliminating the current welfare state system is not a simple process. Well, then, do we or do we not continue to throw people in jail for non-payment of taxes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlotte Corday Posted September 21, 2004 Report Share Posted September 21, 2004 Capitalism Party. Is it consistent with Objectivism? http://www.capitalismparty.org/ Unassailable proof that those behind the "Capitalism" Party are economic ignoramuses: "Taxes: Taxes are a way to finance government but the income tax enables government bureaucrats to coerce and harass citizens who prefer to be left alone. The logical and honest solution is to abolish all production taxes including the income tax and corporate tax. Production taxes will be replaced with a national consumption tax. Thus instead of taxing wealth production, the Capitalism Party will tax wealth destruction since consuming wealth is a form of destroying wealth." In other words, those who buy food and put it into their mouths are destroying wealth! And what's this about the income tax coercing and harassing citizens? Should we assume that the national consumption tax will be entirely voluntary? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted September 21, 2004 Report Share Posted September 21, 2004 Well, then, do we or do we not continue to throw people in jail for non-payment of taxes? Obviously I am not advocating that people be imprisoned for the non-payment of taxes. Both you and I can agree that the current tax system is horribly flawed, and we can also agree on the reasons that it is flawed. But what would happen under the current system if people knew that there would be no penalty for avoiding tax payment? I will repeat the point I stated before; a change from the current system to a new more ideal system cannot happen overnight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew Posted September 21, 2004 Report Share Posted September 21, 2004 My original point was I don't see the Capitalism Party using the consumption tax as a method of moving in the direction of removing taxes. I think Charlotte made it quite clear by presenting their stance that consumption is the "destruction of wealth." Like many conservatives, the Capitalism Party recognizes that the income tax is wrong but they fail to recognize how all taxation is wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlotte Corday Posted September 27, 2004 Report Share Posted September 27, 2004 Obviously I am not advocating that people be imprisoned for the non-payment of taxes. Both you and I can agree that the current tax system is horribly flawed, and we can also agree on the reasons that it is flawed. This is curious. In Post #14 you wrote, "The complete end of coercive taxation would take some time to completely implement." But logically if you do not favor the immediate end of coercive taxation, you cannot turn around and claim that you are "not advocating that people be imprisoned for the non-payment of taxes." If people are not to be imprisoned for refusing to hand over their wealth, exactly what is to be done with them? But what would happen under the current system if people knew that there would be no penalty for avoiding tax payment? I will repeat the point I stated before; a change from the current system to a new more ideal system cannot happen overnight. It is obvious what would happen: 1) the government would run out of money and would have to cut back on its myriad activities, and/or 2) it would have to rely on the people who Capitalism.org says “would voluntarily give 5 or 10% of their income to support a government that protects rights.” The vital point is that there is no moral reason to hold the peaceful, productive members of this society hostage to the “needs” of those who demand the unearned and the undeserved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socionomer Posted September 27, 2004 Report Share Posted September 27, 2004 It's too bad it took non-Objectivists to start the political party that SHOULD have been started by Objectivists. The only proper thing to do now is to hijack the Capitalism Party by taking over its leadership, changing the mission and platform to reflect Objectivist philosophical principles and commence trying to make positive changes to the government at all levels. It won't happen by continuing to support Democrats, Republicans and the others. Where's John Galt? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bowzer Posted September 27, 2004 Report Share Posted September 27, 2004 Where's John Galt? In the universities where he should be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oakes Posted September 27, 2004 Report Share Posted September 27, 2004 So the end of coercive taxation must await the demise of the welfare state? They are inseperable. As long as there is a welfare state, those running it obviously will be in support of coercive taxation. If I were given absolute power, of course I would end taxation and all the services and agencies inappropriate to the government. But it won't happen in one fell swoop precisely because I'd have to work within the given framework, fighting bit by bit. Do we say to wage earners, "You are obliged to surrender a portion of the product of your labors to the 'needy' because the government has not shrunk enough"? I would say "You are obliged to surrender a portion of the product of your labors because the government is immoral. And I can't change that because I don't have absolute power." But logically if you do not favor the immediate end of coercive taxation, you cannot turn around and claim that you are "not advocating that people be imprisoned for the non-payment of taxes." There's no point in trying to get the immediate end of coercive taxation if you can't eliminate the large bureaucracy it supports. It would be voted down easy. Advocating a national sales tax and simplification of the tax code would carve off some of that bureaucracy, and would actually have a fly's chance of being accepted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y_feldblum Posted September 28, 2004 Report Share Posted September 28, 2004 It's too bad it took non-Objectivists to start the political party that SHOULD have been started by Objectivists. The only proper thing to do now is to hijack the Capitalism Party by taking over its leadership, changing the mission and platform to reflect Objectivist philosophical principles and commence trying to make positive changes to the government at all levels. It won't happen by continuing to support Democrats, Republicans and the others. Where's John Galt? It is quite unfortunate that hijacking a tiny political party is not the best route to transforming a nation's dominant philosophy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidV Posted October 12, 2004 Report Share Posted October 12, 2004 It is quite unfortunate that hijacking a tiny political party is not the best route to transforming a nation's dominant philosophy. Especially when that "party" consists solely of a website run by a single individual with an flawed understanding of Objectivism and ties to questionable groups.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Poppycock Posted October 12, 2004 Report Share Posted October 12, 2004 "The most moral act is creating entrepreneurial jobs for others." -David L. Hunter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.