Critique my response to a Libertarian:

[Political Heretic]

Note that my response is not intended to be a door-slamming "smack down." I'm trying to bring this guy along. Tell me what you think.

He wrote (excerpt):

....And what does high taxation of the rich mean anyway? It comes down to implementation. I favor dumping the income tax and implementing the FairTax--under which the wealthy continue to pay much more than the middle class, and the poor still pay nothing. One nice side effect, it doesn't rely on class envy or aim to demagogue the rich as a means of retribution or punishment for their "evil ways". Rather, it encourages entrepeneurism.

I admit its a supposition, but if capitalism and socialism had been delineated in Paine's day, he would have been a hard core capitalist--the only economic system (so far?) that promotes and feeds on individual freedom. In his day, the double standard favored the capitalists/wealthy peerage which enabled the evil to become rich. Today, the double standard enables the socialist to become rich and powerful. In both cases, equal justice for all was/is ignored.

I responded:

You're right, the latter paragraph is supposition of the highest form. Not to mention the fact that, I question your ability to provide an accurate, functioning definition of "socialism" and even more strongly question what "socialists" today you are talking about. I do not mean this as a personal insult - I believe this is a pervasive problem right now; people are throwing the term "socialism" around a lot in popular culture and it is started to be defined as "anything I don't like" rather than having a substantive, concrete definition tied to practical, actually existing, historical and contemporary examples.

The same thing is happening to the word "Fascism" by the way. Another example of a word seized on by popular culture and perverted into standing for "anything I don't like" rather than having a substantive, concrete definition tied to practical, actually existing historical and contemporary examples.

So, enough with the abstract generalization. Communism and socialism aren't the same for example. Simply pointing to nations that have the word "socialist" in their title doesn't make their social structure socialist in any way. That's like suggesting that the Democratic Republic of the Congo is a fair example of why Democracy is a failed system. Irrational argumentation. And then there's the fact that there is no "one" socialism. Most societies include social programs that focus on collective good.

The best societies have some of both - both protecting individual freedoms but also balancing that protection with some collective social structuring as well - things like police and fire, both socialist, medicare and social security to protect our elderly as they move toward a phase of life in which they may no longer be able to work as consistently, and when health and other issues take a greater toll, or services and benefits to our veterans. The roads we drive on, the clean water we drink the safe food we eat - all products of social"ism" - programs we collectively share the cost of that collective benefit the broader community.

Our government, by the way, and most especially when it is run by conservative political parties, heavily favors socialist intervention - it provides massive taxpayer funded subsidies (redistribution of your money, if you will) to major corporate industries such as Oil and corporate agriculture, and to banks and wall street. The government takes your money, and then redistributes that to the super-rich. Yet I don't usually hear people of a libertarian stripe complaining about that then they are preaching about "freedom." Instead "freedom" to them seems to mean not having to ever support programs that attempt to help poor people. Subsidizing the super-rich seems to usually be fine with them.

Now, that is an obvious generalization and may not be entirely fair. But it has been my direct experience, which is one of the reasons why my interactions with libertarians (and believe me, as a former campaign manager I've sat down and met with the chair of the states libertarian party and discussed their party platform) have been so negative. In my experiences, libertarians and strong conservatives I interact with (lived in Idaho for 15 years) are not functioning in keeping with the great legacy of someone like Thomas Paine who, as you rightly note, was such a strong defender of individual liberty. Instead, they are simply self-centered, anti-social assholes whose parents never taught them the basic principles of living and playing with others that most of us were taught when we were six. Sometimes you share your toys.

Now, you seem to suggest a fair-tax system that would be progressive and not regressive, but not based on income. And so hopefully you are not one of the people I describe above that seem to cling to a double standard. I'm going to assume that you are not.

But returning to point - railing against social"ism" (or against anything for that matter) without being able to substantively define it without constructing a straw man seems pretty important. By some of the ludicrous abstract sweepingly generalizing "definitions" I've heard in the past, I'm certainly not a "socialist" - but then again, neither is any other real person in this country, because those definitions were hyperbolic sensationalist nonsense. I do believe however that few things in life are all or nothing or either/or. I believe that individual freedom must be blended and balanced with social responsibility - and that unless you are literally an island unto yourself this balance is critical for both individual well-being and the health of a community.

What I say what I say above I really mean it, which means that it goes both ways. Individual freedom, for example, must be protected against the unfair and illicit encroachment of oppressive or unfairly constricting social regulation (legal prohibitions on personal freedoms, unfair taxes, etc.) But social responsibility must also be maintained, meaning that no individual is an island unto himself or herself while operating within a community and utilizing its commons. For society to work effectively there must be a balance between personal freedoms and a personal duty to contribute to the maintenance of the community in which one lives and works. It's not either/or. If we live in a community, which all of us do, we are in this together.

One last observation. You wrote "In his day, the double standard favored the capitalists/wealthy peerage which enabled the evil to become rich."

What's changed?

[endarkenment]

1. "the double standard enables the socialist to become rich and powerful."

No it doesn't. That is just silly. The rich and powerful, especially right here in the USA, are as usual the well connected people and families at the top of the capitalist food chain. They are not socialists. Our system is not socialism. It is a capitalist kleptocracy. The aristocracy Paine railed against has been replaced by the collusion of big money and big government, the Wall Street Washington Nexus, and from that has arisen a new aristocracy, founded on wealth and connections, that has run our republic almost continuously since around 1865.

The fairtax proposal is not without merit.

[treestar]

2. What's their fetish with class envy?

Of course there is class envy. Do they really expect us not to tax the rich to prove we aren't envious?

Do they really think we give a shit?

[Hansel]

3. Send it. nt

[izzybeans]

4. I would add that "class envy"

is an Orwellian term that allows libertarians to hide, through doublethink, from injustices that are inherent in a rule-free market ideology.

Progressive taxes aren't class envy they are the recognition that a social system can not survive off of inequality for too long (see for instance, the current state of affairs).

[Political Heretic]

5. Well said. Nice addition.

[scheming daemons]

6. Very good... I'd be real interested in his response... n/t

[Spazito]

7. Good read!

I hope you did send it with the suggested addition.

I must admit I particularly enjoyed reading this:

"Instead, they are simply self-centered, anti-social assholes whose parents never taught them the basic principles of living and playing with others that most of us were taught when we were six. Sometimes you share your toys."

That statement certainly reflects my belief as well.

[flaminbats]

8. what does high taxation for anyone mean?

especially if they lose more than they make?

I support a national sales tax. but abolishing the income tax only makes the national debt worse, not less of a problem. Everyone hates being taxed, but no taxation without representation was the best solution to such an unsolvable problem. Everyone hates being poor, but cutting taxes on the rich doesn't make it better.

[rally2xs]

9. The Fair Tax

does not increase the debt, nor diminish revenues to the
gov't.  If enacted, you will see quite the opposite, I'm sure.

Wish I had the time.  I'm pretty much outa here, once I pack. 
Flight to Duluth, drive up N. coast of Superior, into Quetico
Provincial Park for canoeing, camping, and... catching all
their fish! <G>

Its still baffling to me why those not of Republican or
Libertarian persuasion oppose the Fair Tax, since it provides
those that are left, amongst whom union members are quite
numerous, the monetary trade barriers that they have been
screaming for, for decades, and sorely need.  With the Fair
Tax, there would be jobs, good FACTORY jobs, for EVERYBODY
that wanted one.  Indeed, one of our bigger problems COULD be
a labor shortage, as trillions of foreign dollars are expended
in building factories here in the USA.

Baffling, I say.

Dave Head  

[flaminbats]

10. neocons are cowards..

telling them that a national sales tax is great..only lowers their support for the "Fair Tax" proposal. It also reveals how Libertarians really feel about reducing inflation, being patriotic, and being faithful. I think a low national sales tax would work great along with our current income tax. Such a combination would help pay for universal health care, Social Security, and Medicare..while resulting in lower deficits. But abolishing the income tax would only result in higher deficits, higher inflation, and higher unemployment.

ie..I don't think Libertarians really support paying a FAIR TAX, these neocons only want to take without giving.