It is said, “There is no better investment than taxes. Only see what a number of families it maintains, and consider how it reacts upon industry: it is an inexhaustible stream, it is life itself.” FULL ARTICLE by Frederic Bastiat
Source link: http://blog.mises.org/11064/taxes/
Taxes
Previous post: Tucker Speaking on IP
Next post: The Strike-Threat System
{ 15 comments }
Methinks Fed Up is going to be quite active today.
Mike,
Well, I have to admit, those old days essays and articles on economics read like if they were fresh written today. How could they have so much insight and knowledge of economics and politics back then ?
Those old and outdated articles are a revelation, they prove Albert Einstein’s statement that everything has changed except the human mind.
It’s sad to see science and technology advance but to see mankind is as stupid today as it was back in 1850.
It’s sad to see that since 1850 we have not made any progress towards freedom, on the contrary.
I admit my mistake, if those early philosphers were alive today, they would probably write the same articles as they did in the past. So their date is not that much relevant because their material is still actual.
How could our political and economic environment has gone so sour ? Why is it that in 159 years nobody read and applied those knowledge ?
Is tyranny a genetic human trait ? Are the masses genetically programmed to be mindless drones longing for a powerful tyrant ? Are the 2% gifted genetically programmed to be self-serving psychopaths taking advantage of this situation ?
Why is things getting worse instead of better since all that could be said about our current problems have already been said 159+ years ago ?
Is the libertarian dream still viable in light of centuries of active denial from the public and the rulers ?
Fedup:
“Is tyranny a genetic human trait ? Are the masses genetically programmed to be mindless drones longing for a powerful tyrant?”
It seems to me that the message of “no-fault” insurance promised by governments makes a powerful impression on the average citizen. Who can blame them for wanting to not be responsible for their own actions?
Just my $.02 comment.
I more or less agree with the pessimistic outlook myself. America is really the only instance of hands-off freedom (well, was) in history. It worked at first because it was undiscovered and the only people who would want to go there were pioneering, conscientious, freedom-loving individuals.
Once these individuals succeeded in making the place cozy and comfortable, it was taken over on one hand by the lazy, those content to give up their freedom to have others care for them, and on the other hand by the ambitious thieves, for whom the lazy are no match.
The little part of me that’s a cynical totalitarian utopian would argue that in order to have and maintain a free society, a massive eugenics campaign to eliminate the anti-freedom elements of human nature (such as envy, acceptance of dependence, etc.) would first need to take place.
Nevertheless, am I to tolerate the boot on my face, the misery it causes me, simply because I can’t think of any realistic way to remove it? Maybe I should. And honestly, I don’t expect to see liberty in my lifetime. But as a science-minded person, I care about the truth. As such, I do not consider the substitution of comfortable fantasy for miserable reality a good trade. I choose the red pill for its own sake, and that’s why I’m here.
Mike,
This freedom problem is not new and those “old” 1850 articles and Frederic Bastiat is in fact very modern and actual when compared to the history of mankind.
Since prehistoric times, mankind is living in bondage of the strongest or religious-mystical beliefs.
Maybe technology, the internet, artificial intelligence etc. will find a way to give freedom to those who want it while letting rot those who don’t.
Maybe there is still hope. Maybe we are seing the symptoms of a dying totalitarian system and that sophisticated technology will free people in more ways than it will bond them.
If it was not for the internet, I could not find new ideas or buy all the stuff that I want.
The fact that mises.org exists is perhaps a candle of hope in this deep darkness of despair.
The reason the writings of Bastiat continue to be so relevant today is that the politicians and ruling elites keep using the same arguments. For example we hear today the word “investment” to describe government spending programs just as they did in Bastiat’s day. The characterization of government spending being an investment is just as false today as it was then.
Jacob Steelman,
Government spending benefits the government, it’s kind of an electoral “investment”
What shocks me about Bastiat and our founding fathers is that in their times, government was a lot smaller than today, spent a lot less money and taxes were trivial compared to today.
Income taxes were nonexistent and sales taxes were very small and only on trivial discretionary spending items.
To say that the Boston Tea party was about a small 2% sales taxes on discretionary items, including tea.
Yet, our founding fathers understood the meaning of freedom and self-dignity.
Today, the government taxes as much as 40% directly on our paychecks in the forms of income tax.
What a stark contrast. To say that Bastiat and the likes complained about such small and untaxing governments that most contemporary libertarians would be happy with.
I would be happy to trade my mandatory income tax for a 2% sales tax on discretionary items like tea.
How times have changed.
Someone better check — I think there is an imposter using the “Fed Up” name…. call security!
As to our general acceptance of burdens imposed by government and the magnitude of the current burdens to those that previously caused revolution, it is a stunning testimony to our general level of “un”-education about freedom, liberty, property rights, natural law, and the nature of government.
The state will educate your children…and guess what will be taught.
Bastiat was not against taxes in themselves, but against the falsity of certain argumentations used to justify them.
Fed Up, if to apply those knowledge seems so difficult to do, I would say that, firstly, it is because it’s very easy to see the ‘seen’ but much more less easy to see the ‘unseen’.
Gerry Flaychy,
Bastiat was an intellectual and could not satisfy himself by being against taxes just to be against them.
He very well knew that there were no valid argumentations to justify taxes.
To be against “false” reasons to tax is to be against taxes because there is no true nor good reasons to tax.
Bastiat would argue for free market and individualistic solutions to any tax justifications.
Wars could be fought by militias, roads could be private etc.
But he was a man of idea and always challenged the rationale behind taxation.
It ends up that he was always right.
Danny,
Sorry to burst your bubbles but I am the same Fed Up.
Just because I earlier showed you the seen (my display of stupidity) doesn’t mean there isn’t the unseen (my deep genius hidden below).
Appearances can be deceitful. Remember that there is always depth below the surface.
Underneath the clown costume, there is a perfectly capable human being with 100 Billion neurons who might be a Ph.D. in physics. You never know.
Cheers and have a good day
Fed Up, when we read the paragraph where Bastiat write :” Therefore, my arguments do not at all apply to useful functionaries. All I say is — if you wish to create an office, prove its utility. …
But, apart from this intrinsic utility, do not bring forward as an argument …”
it is clear that he is not against taxes whatever their utility, but only against a certain argument.
If he were against all taxes, or against the principle of tax itself, he would not have taken the time to bother to make the distinction he made between the argument ‘utility’ and the ‘certain’ argument : he would have been against the two arguments all the way from the start.
If in another writing(s) he says otherwise, that’s always possible, but it is not the case in this present piece.
Gerry Flauychy,
Sounds like Bastiat is a minarchist and an utilitarian.
“If you wish to create an office, prove its utility.”
He might still have thought that there could never be a “utility” to a government program, since the “unseen” is that the service could be provided by the market.
Hence what he means by “prove its utility,” I think (I hope) is that he was not challenging minarchists to create better and more efficient programs, but in effect tricking minarchists into accepting that government should be eliminated since it cannot provideutility better than the “unseen.”
Comments on this entry are closed.