When men get in the habit of helping themselves to the property of others, they cannot easily be cured of it.
— The New York Times, in a 1909 editorial opposing the very first income tax
That is the quote of the day from the Freedom Foundation.
Then I began reading a piece from the National Centre for Policy Analysis which contained this warning;
* By 2020, the average EU country will need to raise the tax rate to 55 percent of national income to pay promised benefits.
* By 2035, a tax rate of 57 percent will be required.
* By 2050, the average EU country will need more than 60 percent of its GDP to fulfill its obligations.
Nice juxtaposition.
New Zealand is in only a slightly better position than most EU countries, having a higher fertility rate. But we will still be faced with the massively increased costs the ageing population brings.
Bob Jones makes a point in the DomPost this morning that talk of burdening the youth of today with the debt taken on to get us out of the current mess is a nonsense because they inherit the infrastructure and assets. But that doesn't take into account the imbalance of demographics and the varying burdens generations carry.
There can be no doubt that our children will be required to look after a much larger dependent population than we did. Therein lies the problem with socialism and collective funding. If individuals saved and insured themselves, this inequitable and iniquitous situation would largely vanish. Even Sweden has had the good sense to recently move to individualised social security accounts. (And no, I don't want to get into an argument about compulsion. As I have said before, I would rather be forced to save for myself than forced to save for somebody else. The element of force is not going away in my or my children's lifetime.)
Here's hoping that National will start listening to Roger Douglas some time soon.
NB. I am quite schizophrenic on this issue however. Tomorrow I could just as easily write a post arguing that the state has absolutety no right to dictate how I should use my own property. And I would be right. But then again... if there is a lesser evil than the current system, and is was on offer, should I turn it down?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
"But then again... if there is a lesser evil than the current system, and is was on offer, should I turn it down?"
By accepting the lesser evil you condone it. Sure it may be better than the alternative (for *you*, for now) but that doesn't make it right. That is why I am not a minarchist. Less govt is still govt - there being less of it does not legitimise the force that is still being used.
Is it not better to openly reject the injustice of all coercion than to simply capitulate when they cut you a temporary 10% reduction deal in how much coercion you are to be subjected to?
All or nothing? Or should that be "Nothing" or nothing?
I sympathise with your point. But accepting a 10% reduction in the amount of coercion subjected to can be seen as a compromise rather than capitulation. Never compromising in any aspect of your life is a recipe for trouble.
Also, nothing ever happens in absolutes. Or overnight. Hence I can be persuaded to support change which is heading in a better direction.
"But accepting a 10% reduction in the amount of coercion subjected to can be seen as a compromise rather than capitulation."
Call it compromise if you will, but you are still accepting the situation. You are saying that since the coercion has been reduced by 10% it is now acceptable to you. You may still say you disagree with it but your 'compromise' actions say otherwise and have validated it. You no longer have the moral position to then claim that when it was 10% higher it was wrong. It's either wrong or it isn't. You are mixing practicality with the morality and compromising the morality.
Would you find it acceptable to say that if we could reduce the murder rate by 10% we should accept that as ok since it's now less than before and therefore moving in the right direction? Of course not. Murder is always wrong, regardless of the amount. Yes it will always be with us and yes it's utterly impractical to attempt to eradicate it completely but it is still never acceptable and it's immorality is not lessened by it's frequency.
I see all violence/coercion in that same light morally. Violence to achieve ends is never acceptable from anyone, including 'govt' and regardless of whether that govt agrees to use slightly less violence on you today than it did yesterday the violence is still wrong.
'I am quite schizophrenic...'
Maybe if we got you sectioned, you wouldn't have to worry about capitulating to coercion and compromise. Or whatever.
If the police put a proposition that by, for example, introducing tasers they can reduce the murder rate by 10 percent, am I to reject it because only a zero murder rate is morally acceptable? Should I reject National's tax cuts because only a low flat tax rate is morally acceptable?
And I could never agree that all violence/coercion should be seen in the same light. Context and degree matter.
PM, Is there anywhere left to section me to? :-)
"If the police put a proposition that by, for example, introducing tasers they can reduce the murder rate by 10 percent, am I to reject it because only a zero murder rate is morally acceptable?"
Regardless of whether the police (or indeed anybody's) action can reduce the murder rate, it doesn't make the newly achieved murder rate any more morally acceptable. You don't say that the new rate is now ok simply because it is less than before. It's still wrong in principle and should remain so. Saying "I would rather be forced to save for myself than forced to save for somebody else" is akin to saying "I will accept murder if you can reduce it by 10%". The coercion is the issue, whether you benefit from the saving or someone else does - the beneficiary should be irrelevant, the coercion should not.
"Should I reject National's tax cuts because only a low flat tax rate is morally acceptable?"
The argument is not about whether it is right or practical to try to reduce the amount of a bad thing. It is about the moral ambiguity in deciding that there is a point where something bad becomes (in effect) something good simply because it at a lower level than previously.
In response to your own earlier comment, I can sympathise with your position and indeed held that same position myself for a long time. However the conclusion I came to is that if you believe in a voluntary society and reject the initiation of force then the only morally consistent way to achieve that is to convince people through persuasion rather than coercion. As soon as you use coercion to achieve anything then the moral case for less state is lost as you are condoning precisely what you are trying to reduce.
The bailouts in the UK leave a debt of £17000 for each new born in britain.
Post a Comment