Please forgive my tardiness. I just found this thread - indeed, this entire forum - via a link in an online article I was reading. Having read a few of the early responses, I decided to weigh in, even though the last response was a year and a half ago.
I voted "No" on the proposition, mainly because of the proposal of "replacing it with income tax and sales tax." As another, early responder stated, "what have you gained" by trading one tax for another?
As any libertarian will tell you, "taxation is theft." It matters not whether the person taking your money under threat of violence is a thug in a dark alley, or a thug in a government-issued costume with a government-issued shiny badge, taking your money against your will is theft. If the thug in the dark alley assures you that he is going to use the money to improve the lives of others, it's still theft. As William Pitt said, "necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
I also object strongly to the part of the proposal that suggests limiting the amount of land one may own. As I point out frequently in other fora, you either believe in freedom, or you don't. If you believe in freedom, then how can you propose limiting how much property a person is "allowed" to own?
As to the various responses regarding how government would provide "services," and support infrastructure without taxes, I can only point out that, according to Thomas Jefferson, and all the Founders who signed their names agreeing with him, those are not the proper functions of government. "That to
secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..." The purpose of government is to protect individual rights.
Individual rights; not the "rights" of the collective.
Infrastructure can and will be provided and supported by private enterprise if it is needed and desired by the People. An early responder asserted, I absolutely disagree. Neither "our" society, nor any other, requires the forced taking of private property in order to function. Society will function much more smoothly if some people in the society are not living off the takings from others in the society.
That responder continued, Businesses use revenue generated by
voluntary exchange. If a business does not provide a product or service that people are willing to trade for voluntarily, then that business will generate insufficient revenue, and go out of business. Government uses revenue generated by coercion and theft. (And, as such, is open to misuse by those who gain access to that revenue. But that's another issue.) If government doesn't provide goods and services that people want badly enough to be willing to trade for voluntarily, it still generates whatever revenue it desires, and the People are poorer for it. (As
Ernie Hancock says, "I want fire department government, not police department government." Take a moment to think about the differences in how the fire department and the police department provide their "services," and you'll understand what he means.)
To those of you who cling to government as the answer, and provider of solutions, to the problems of "society," I say, come away from the Dark Side. Embrace freedom and voluntary exchange. It's a bit scary; there's no Mommy Government to take care of everything when something bad happens. But in the long run, we will all be better off.
:2razz:
