Sunday, December 06, 2009
The mind of a liberal
This is really quite something, right there on the pages of the New York Times:
Anti-tax zealots denounce all taxation as theft, as depriving citizens of their right to spend their hard-earned incomes as they see fit. Yet nowhere does the Constitution grant us the right not to be taxed. Nor does it grant us the right to harm others with impunity. No one is permitted to steal our cars or vandalize our homes. Why should opponents of taxation be allowed to harm us in less direct ways?
Apparently advocating lower taxes for moral, rather than technocratic, reasons warrants jail, never mind that silly First Amendment. The author of that insanity is a professor at Cornell, so it was probably easy for him to get it published in the NYT.
16 Comments:
By 
Aegon01, at
Sun Dec 06, 11:36:00 PM:
...huh? I didn't understand a word that I read. "Why should opponents of taxation be allowed to harm us in less direct ways?"
The most zealous (smart) conservative knows that taxes are necessary, he/she just thinks they ought to be lower. What exactly has this Cornell professor been smoking?
By 
, at
Mon Dec 07, 12:00:00 AM:
What's amazing is that this sort of thinking is what you get from business school professors at Cornell. Just imagine what the more traditionally left-leaning departments there produce.
By , at
Mon Dec 07, 01:17:00 AM:
We are now seeing the fruits of what happens when Professors are never challenged and surround themselves with like-minded people in protected environments. We have a President, by the way, the was a Constitutional Law teacher and yet continues to eviscerate the rights protected because of it.
By , at
Mon Dec 07, 02:43:00 AM:
The author is clearly not understanding what the Constitution protects us from. We may not be protected from taxation in the Constitution doesn't make it justified to abuse.
Opponents of taxation recognize that it is tolerable theft until a better system can be created.
By , at
Mon Dec 07, 06:37:00 AM:
No one is permitted to steal our cars or vandalize our homes. Why should opponents of taxation be allowed to harm us in less direct ways?
What significant moral or economic difference is there between stealing a car and taxing it? If anything, taxing is better than theft, because you aren't stuck with the cost of maintaining the car.
By , at
Mon Dec 07, 09:33:00 AM:
Citizens and Business should NOT be taxed more than 10% of their income. Government must BE Held to the CONSTITUTION which LIMITS their POWER. The People Should Hold those in Government Accountable for their actions and any and all criminal, Malfeasence, or Deriliction of their duty to the People of America. The Constitution Clearly states what Their function is and the Powers relegated to them.
By Dan Kauffman, at
Mon Dec 07, 09:47:00 AM:
"Yet nowhere does the Constitution grant us the right not to be taxed. Nor does it grant us the right to harm others with impunity."
Our boy needs to read the Constitution sometime
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I think that covers the activity he is complaining about
By Mrs. Davis, at
Mon Dec 07, 11:15:00 AM:
Art I Sec 9
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
Unfortunately this was repealed by the 16th amendment in 1913, the beginning of the progressive erosion of the American experiment.
By , at
Mon Dec 07, 11:31:00 AM:
The right of the government for tax money is ridiculaous on its face. These clowns keep forgetting where the seat of government authority lies.
But, beyond that, who decides what's harmful under a Pigouvian Tax scheme? You may think it's carbon from the coal plants that provide the electricity for my heat. I think it's the increase in cost of fuel from not drilling in the Santa Barbara channel (ie. you pay me for the scenery you think is so special).
Also, every time we change parties in power, do we change the whole tax structure or do we just keep adding on to the things that are considered harmful. Either way the golden goose is soon dead.
By gs, at
Mon Dec 07, 03:24:00 PM:
1. From Frank's op-ed:
Many fiscal hawks insist that the only way to eliminate deficits and pay for additional investment is by cutting government spending. But as California’s experience suggests, that approach often backfires.
So California's governance suggests that fiscal austerity doesn't work? Oh. Em. Gee.
Government programs have constituents.
If, supposedly, spending cuts are difficult to allocate optimally, why can tax policies be targeted optimally? By use of econometric models created by moonlighting climatologists? (Recall the late, unlamented Salvador Allende's 'complicated mathematical formula' which showed, surprise surprise, that US-owned copper mines could be confiscated by his government. Yes, iirc some of our media presented that with a straight face.)
2. I've long wondered if the Bush deficits arose, in large part, because Bush suborned Congress and its special-interest constituencies into funding his conduct of the war. He did not veto a single spending bill while the Republicans controlled Congress.
By The Machiavellian, at
Mon Dec 07, 05:53:00 PM:
apparently, this left professor has never read The Second Treatise and is ignorant of the fact that our founding philosophy dictates that our government is solely constructed to protect our lives, liberties, and PROPERTY.
I guess this thought would really piss him off---that it is our God given right to be only taxed enough to support a government of a size so that it enhances our natural rights.
By PD Quig, at
Mon Dec 07, 07:30:00 PM:
The obvious solution is imprison and purge those us who are for a smaller, accountable government. Come and get me, professor. Bring plenty of firepower.
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Mon Dec 07, 10:32:00 PM:
The professor's op-ed is about as clear a statement as one could imagine that individual citizens do not have the right to own anything, but that it belongs to all of us together. How else can one interpret the idea that resisting increased taxes is a form of stealing from society?
Progressives should set a good example by giving their money to the government. We'll watch and see how that works before deciding.
By , at
Mon Dec 07, 10:41:00 PM:
Everyone please calm down. This is Ithaca-speak, and it's far removed from reality. Utopians surround us. Obama, Pelosi, Frank et al, and so too Robert Frank. Even though he's in the Johnson School, and boy do I hope Sam Johnson doesn't read this little piece of idiocy or he might withdraw the funding he provided. (Can he still do that from heaven? The school's probably safe); anyway, even though Frank is in the Johnson School he's still a fool and, like so man academics these days, a totalitarian.
Bring on the pitchforks, yeoman! Let's drive this scum back to wherever they would be happiest! Where would that be....France maybe? No, taxes are too low. Hmmmm....
By Dawnfire82, at
Mon Dec 07, 11:33:00 PM:
By , at
Tue Dec 08, 04:14:00 PM:
hummina hummina
I am just astounded and speechless by the ignorance - maybe even the arrogance.
"No one is permitted to steal our cars or vandalize our homes. Why should opponents of taxation be allowed to harm us in less direct ways?"
What indirect harm is done by stealing someones hard earned work?
What harm is done to the people who are given something for nothing?
"less direct ways" is sort of like trying to prove a negative.
This is all very fuzzy thinking. The state of education and teaching is appaling.
