Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
That's what I've always thought.

When libertarians talk about property rights and less government, what they mean is, they like a common law regime of property rights -- i.e., property rights determined by judges, in accord with what a bunch of dead English people decided.

It's not just property rights. But if you want to leave it to elected officials to determine your free speech rights, well "shut up, then."

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
And, those people aren't getting to deduct on their federal taxes whatever it is that their state is using to raise funds, unless it's property taxes, which I think (but fuck if I know, the AMT hasn't hit me yet) are added back in for AMT purposes just like state income taxes are.

Can't one now deduct either state income taxes or state sales taxes (based on receipts or an imputed amount based on AGI)? Kind of makes both of you wrong.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
That's what I've always thought.

When libertarians talk about property rights and less government, what they mean is, they like a common law regime of property rights -- i.e., property rights determined by judges, in accord with what a bunch of dead English people decided.

Not my understanding of what they want at all.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Can't one now deduct either state income taxes or state sales taxes (based on receipts or an imputed amount based on AGI)? Kind of makes both of you wrong.

Oooooh, buuuuuuurn. Probably you are right.

Nonetheless, in opposition to what Ty says, I am not bitter at all. He might do well to recall that I now live in the same state he does, with the accompanying high state income taxes. I'm just not a bitcher, since I don't see why state income taxes should be treated differently than, say, OASDI/Medicare taxes, which are taken out starting with the very first dollar you earn and the full freight of which are taken out of all income if you make less than $90k (or whatever the limit is) -- but we don't get to deduct those. Those dollars aren't available for me to pay my state or my federal income taxes with.

In any event, I think the whole "I used that money to pay taxes!" is one of those bad kinds of argument, the particular name of which I can't remember right now because the motherfucker assjack in the office next to me is talking so fucking loudly and I haven't had any coffee.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Ah, selfishness, yes. It couldn't possibly based on cocepts of liberty (hence "libertarian" must be a misnomer). It's got to be selfishness.

It could be based on concepts of liberty. However, since all your arguments are essentially different versions of the "I have to give my money to someone else" song, I'll go with selfishness.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
That's what I've always thought.

When libertarians talk about property rights and less government, what they mean is, they like a common law regime of property rights -- i.e., property rights determined by judges, in accord with what a bunch of dead English people decided.

Club only used to like that, until I pointed out to him that the common law was based on the Statute of Wills, which was enacted in exchange for the first inheritance tax.

[Spanky]

Another reason why I vote Republican:

Centrist Democrats oppose Central American trade pact

By JIM PUZZANGHERA

Knight Ridder Newspapers


WASHINGTON - The leaders of a group of centrist Democratic lawmakers announced their opposition Wednesday to a free-trade agreement with Central America.

Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif., chair of the 41-member New Democrat Coalition in the House of Representatives, released a letter to President Bush asking him to renegotiate the Central American Free Trade Agreement, known as CAFTA. They said that the pact does not provide adequate protection for worker rights in the region and that the Bush administration needs to do more to help U.S. workers who have lost their jobs because of increased global trade.

"Free trade cannot consist of simply reducing trade barriers. As we pursue trade liberalization we have a responsibility to address the impact that trade deals will have on workers both here and abroad," Tauscher said. "Today we are saying to the president, `Stop.' Don't send a faulty CAFTA trade agreement to Congress."

Tauscher and her New Democrat Coalition co-chairs - Reps. Adam Smith of Washington, Ron Kind of Wisconsin and Artur Davis of Alabama - said Bush needed to use the clout of the United States to force the Central American countries to improve worker rights. They also slammed Bush for failing to provide enough money in his budgets to re-train U.S. workers whose jobs have gone overseas, and for failing to reach out to pro-business Democrats for input as CAFTA was being negotiated.

"We want to support trade," Smith said. "But we want to support trade that works for the people we represent broadly, for the workers who are struggling in the New Economy and for the workers internationally who are trying to rise out of poverty and into a middle class."

The trade deal between the United States and six Central American countries - Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua - is a top priority of the export-heavy high-tech industry. CAFTA would lower tariffs on tech products that range from 5 percent to 30 percent, saving U.S. exporters an estimated $75 million annually.

U.S. high-tech exports to the six countries totaled nearly $2.5 billion in 2003. High-tech executives hope CAFTA pave the way for a broader free-trade agreement through South America.

But without the support of centrist Democrats, who tend to be pro-business and have provided crucial votes for previous trade deals, CAFTA's fate in the House is uncertain.

Although Bush and the House GOP leadership are strongly in favor of CAFTA, some Republicans from regions with textile factories or sugar farms already oppose it out of fears of greater competition from countries with low-wage workers. Republicans have been hoping to lure enough Democrats to make up the difference.

The centrist New Democrats are usually the main source of such votes. Tauscher said that she will not actively urge her group's members to oppose CAFTA, but that the opposition of the group's leaders undoubtedly would influence Democrats who are undecided.

No date for a vote has been set in the House.

Neena Moorjani, press secretary for the U.S. Trade Representative's office, said Bush administration officials have held numerous meetings with New Democrats and have known passage of CAFTA "would be a tough fight."

House Republican officials blasted Democrats for not being more supportive of CAFTA during a news conference Wednesday before dozens of high-tech industry representatives to unveil the GOP's high-tech legislative agenda for the year, which include passage of the pact.

"We cannot do this by ourselves and you shouldn't expect us to," House Majority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Missouri, said of CAFTA. "We'll put the 90 percent or so of our members on the line ... just like we always do, and then if this doesn't happen, it doesn't happen because of the Democrats who tell you they'll be there and never are."

Blunt told the lobbyists and tech officials - many wearing buttons urging passage of CAFTA - to withhold support from Democrats who proclaim they are pro-trade during campaigns but then vote against important trade deals.

The loss of centrist Democratic votes will force Republicans to try to offer deals to GOP lawmakers from states that produce sugar to allay their concerns over CAFTA and secure their votes, predicted Ralph Hellmann, the top lobbyist for the Information Technology Industry Council, a coalition of 31 top IT companies such as Intel and Hewlett-Packard.

The presidents of the six Central American nations will try to give CAFTA a boost next week, traveling together to 12 U.S. cities Monday and Tuesday on a tour coordinated by the White House and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The presidents then will join Bush for a meeting at the White House to promote the pact next Wednesday.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't mind talking to libertarians while drinking, particularly if it's a Peter Franus zinfandel or something of that sort, but it seems to me that the "let's revert to the free market" impulse is particularly unhelpful when you're talking about health care, for the reasons I suggested above.

If you think comprehensive healthcare must be provided to everyone as some sort of right, then Libertarianism will not fix that problem. If you think that the system should make health care, of various levels of quality and comprehensiveness, as affordable as possible and therefore available for purchase to as many people as possible should they choose it, then Libertarian solutions have a lot to offer.

FWIW, I go off strict libertarianism here, as I do with public K-12 education. I consider both to be matters of general public (rather than strictly private) concern, the neglect of which impose sufficient social costs that G intervention is justified (to some extent) to ensure access and force an expenditure of resources that is probably higher than freely-choosing individuals would allocate.

BR(Libertarianism is like Christianity - it's not that it's been tried and found wanting, but that it's been found difficult and so never tried)C

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Another reason why I vote Republican:

Centrist Democrats oppose Central American trade pact

The article doesn't do a very good job of explaining why Dems like Ellen Tauscher -- who supported the bankruptcy reform bill and who has voted for free trade bills in the past -- have turned against this one. I'm guessing it has something to do with the administration's strategy of using free trade agreements to gut environmental and labor protections.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
If you think comprehensive healthcare must be provided to everyone as some sort of right, then Libertarianism will not fix that problem. If you think that the system should make health care, of various levels of quality and comprehensiveness, as affordable as possible and therefore available for purchase to as many people as possible should they choose it, then Libertarian solutions have a lot to offer.

I think I've made pretty clear on this board that I generally find market to be superior means of allocating goods and services, but with health care, not so much.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by taxwonk
It could be based on concepts of liberty. However, since all your arguments are essentially different versions of the "I have to give my money to someone else" song, I'll go with selfishness.

Not quite. My arguments are that I should be free to give MY money to those I see fit.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Club only used to like that, until I pointed out to him that the common law was based on the Statute of Wills, which was enacted in exchange for the first inheritance tax.

Club doesn't care if it's an unelected judge or an elected official.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Spanky
Another reason why I vote Republican:

Centrist Democrats oppose Central American trade pact

<snip>

Although Bush and the House GOP leadership are strongly in favor of CAFTA, some Republicans from regions with textile factories or sugar farms already oppose it out of fears of greater competition from countries with low-wage workers. Republicans have been hoping to lure enough Democrats to make up the difference.

The centrist New Democrats are usually the main source of such votes.

Damn those centrist Democrats for not making up for the opposition from within the Republican party!! I mean, the nerve of these people -- how dare they not help us to get what we want, even when some of our own posture for their constituents so that they can keep their jobs!! Why do they hate America so?

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by taxwonk
the common law was based on the Statute of Wills, which was enacted in exchange for the first inheritance tax.

I assure you, the common law significantly predates the reign of Henvy VIII.

The pre-SoW common law rules for the inheritance of real property were just different. There was significant interesting work in England from Domesday on figuring out ways, effectively, to will real property, generally with a fair amount of success. (A very significant portion of that was wealthy priests with families ensuring their children inherited, actually.) eta: (Very like gay couples currently have to contract around the status quo to obtain rights generally available to others.)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
It's not just property rights. But if you want to leave it to elected officials to determine your free speech rights, well "shut up, then."

But the rights club really gets exercised about are property rights, so we can start there.