I said that you could not determine my ideology simply from an endorsement of the sentiment of the quote: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs".
I was not attempting to determine your ideology. Why don't you take this opportunity to voluntarily state your ideology and it's underlying philosophy?
Meanwhile, consider this statement:
The basic principle behind the entitlement state is that a person’s need entitles him to other people’s wealth. It’s that you have a duty to spend some irreplaceable part of your life laboring, not for the sake of your own life and happiness, but for the sake of others. If you are productive and self-supporting, then according to the entitlement state, you are in hock to those who aren’t.
That is certainly more eloquently stated than my own "monopoly on the legal use of force" statement, but it's the same principle. What is your view regarding the statement that a person's need entitles him to other people's wealth?
Again, you said that the government using force at the expense of the individual for the sake of the collective was immoral. That's taxation. You clearly had in mind redistributive taxation, but that isn't what you said.
I tend to choose my words very carefully and I even looked over previous posts, I did not find where I said that.
I often speak about the differences between the concepts of General Welfare and Exclusive Welfare, the latter being an immoral use of government power as it takes from one individual or group to the exclusive benefit of another individual or group. The welfare state is such an example.
the argument can be made that you violate others' rights when consequences of your 'free' actions adversely affect them, which happens all the time in a free market.
We would have to understand each others concept of "rights" as well as the "free market" before any meaningful conversation could take place on that subject. Suffice it to say, a system based on volitional consent and mutually beneficial exchange is the only moral basis for any system of government. The welfare state is based on forced compliance and exclusively beneficial exchange, by design it must violate rights in order to function.
There are plenty of moral justifications...
I would like to hear a moral justification for government policies of discrimination. Can you give me one?
You lack appreciation for degree. A tax increase has very little in common with slavery. I'm sure your argument can stand on its own without the use of so much provocative hyperbole.
I can understand why you would see it as hyperbole, just like the "gun to the head", but degree is not relevant... Unless you consider morality to be determined by degree as well (is that the case?).
Furthermore, using a policy of discrimination to force one individual, or group, to engage in uncompensated labor for the exclusive benefit of another individual, or group, would seem to have a great deal in common with slavery. If you can think of another word that's more applicable to what I've just described, I'd be glad to hear it.
We've got enough on our plate, clearly, just trying to communicate the most simple points to each other.
Really, you have piqued my interest by claiming to have a philosophical argument that isn't based on historical data or morality. I would like to know what philosophy you hold and how you use that to argue in favor of the "Buffet Rule".
Actually that quote of mine was an invitation to discuss the 'mountain of historical data'.
Great! Is the CBO acceptable, or do you consider that particular source to be biased in some way?
Regardless, the point Buffett is making is that he earns 63 million dollars a year and pays less in taxes than his secretary, and the CRS reports that this is true of about a quarter of millionaires. I'm not sure people care all that much the source of the income. People still find it inherently unfair.
Why aren't they demanding their own taxes be lowered to match the lower rates of these select few millionaires? If I were pissed off that a millionaire was paying a lower percentage of his income in taxes than I was, I'd want my taxes lowered. That would have a noticeable impact on my life, raising taxes on those millionaires wouldn't.
Again, I read that article, and that point concerns me, although I haven't spent enough time looking in to it. But you're lumping in other aspects of the jobs bill. This goes beyond the Buffett Rule. The Buffett Rule is the rule concerning tax rates for millionaires, not interest on municipal bonds.
That article was specifically about the Buffet Rule, the "jobs" bill was never mentioned.
At the end of the day, Buffett has a lower tax burden proportionally than those in a lower tax bracket and that seems unjust to a large proportion of the American public.
I ask again, why do they see the solution as demanding that the rich pay more rather then demanding their own taxes be lowered?
But again, my primary concern is whether or not the Buffett rule will be effective in raising revenue without having a comparable adverse impact on the economy.
What evidence do you have that enacting the "Buffet Rule" will cause revenue as a % of GDP to rise at all?
