Gene Wolfe Fans Talk Politics (Again)

James Wynn · 19 May 2009, 20:01 · from 2009-May.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: crushtv at gmail.com (James Wynn)
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 15:01:03 -0500
Subject: (urth) Gene Wolfe Fans Talk Politics (Again)
In-Reply-To: <2BCC6FAA-905B-4A04-BFAE-817E0EDE9BD8 at io.com>
References: <mailman.68838.1242757770.12296.urth-urth.net at lists.urth.net><4A1304A1.1000901 at verizon.net><13409.67.142.130.18.1242761222.squirrel at brunians.org>
	<2BCC6FAA-905B-4A04-BFAE-817E0EDE9BD8 at io.com>
Message-ID: <D67BBCB673F4491BB8DC3A37289BD563@eMachinePC>

>>Josh said:
>> Please do explain how consensual taxation works: I am all ears.
>
>Adam responded: This one's easy.
> The government provides services I find beneficial, such as police and 
> fire protection, maintained roads, public education, and so forth.
> Therefore, taxation is, at least for me, consensual.

Well, okay, Adam but if you change your mind about the cost-benefit of the 
services provided, they will take it from you anyway. The obvious conclusion 
is that your personal consent is irrelevant.  That you have decided you like 
it right now is just a happy coincidence for you.

But that's just fee for service. In tDiaF, Wolfe is talking about something 
else. You don't support police, fire protection, etc. equally with your 
neighbors. Most people are benefiting from those services far beyond what 
they would receive if everyone paid the same percentage from their labor and 
property. This is a *transfer* of wealth from one citizen to another. This 
is what Wolfe is talking about when he compares socialism/welfare state with 
Robin Hood.

For example, the market value of health care is established given what 
people pay out of pocket, for insurance, and the amount the government 
subsidizes hospitals and such. If people were told that --in order to cover 
people not covered--they'll have to pay more or get decreased quality of 
care, they'd never go for it. The way it is sold is that *somebody else* is 
going to bear the increased costs: somebody who can "afford it." That is 
certainly "theft" by many common definitions.

You can say that "Well, we live in a society, and that's just the burden 
that rich people will have to bear to live in it with us. Fine. The Wall 
Street Journal has an article yesterday by Art Laffer on what the response 
of rich people is to that ultimatum.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124260067214828295.html

They leave.
Just as the pilgrims left when Wat set up shop in the forest.

So the arrangement is unsustainable (if increased prosperity for all is the 
goal).

J.

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net