I'm something of a libertarian myself, but this is really stupid. Taking advantage of the infrastructure, market, and support of one country only to flee to a tax haven abroad is neither moral nor respectable.
If this happens, it's going to infuriate people and ultimately hurt the cause he's trying to promote. Headlines: "rich business people, calling themselves oppressed, flee to central Chile to avoid paying taxes."
> Taking advantage of the infrastructure, market, and support of one country only to flee to a tax haven abroad is neither moral nor respectable.
A thief comes into your home and takes half of your property. He's done the same with your neighbors, and down the street, he's handing out some of the goods to whomever stops by.
Is it moral or respectable for you to go down the street, get something back, and then move out of the neighborhood because you don't like being robbed?
That analogy is a fantastic failure. I was going to try to rebut it with some sort of home owner's association analogy, but why bother. The idea of the tax man as a thief in the night is just silly.
> The idea of the tax man as a thief in the night is just silly.
Oh, really? Instead of argument by assertion, let's try an idea.
Your neighbor comes and takes your bicycle without your permission and won't give it back. Theft? Sure.
Your neighbor comes in with one of his friends, and they take your bike together, same circumstance. Theft? Sure.
Your neighbor comes in with 2 of his friends, 3, 4, etc. At what point is it no longer theft? 51%, you say? What magically happened at that point? I say nothing: theft is still theft, irrespective of the claims of the majority.
Theft is not exchanged. You're completely ignoring the fact that the government is providing things in return.
This gentleman is a Canadian Expat, the government in Canada is not depriving its citizens for nothing in return. The redistribution of wealth is important for an effective society. It protects the 'wealthy' from the uprising of the peasants/proletariat/commoners, hoarding all the wealth does no good to the wealthy—they often lose their heads. So instead they lose a piece of, what they consider, their rightfully earned pie, in exchange for the betterment of all and the stability of a society—along with all its benefits. "Smart indentureship"
Sure, you can argue that what they are providing in return does not equate the amount you're giving them, but guess what: you agreed to live and earn in this society. Good riddance to those who do not see this, but don't be taking what is not yours as the door hits you on your way out—you earned it under the agreements and covenants of the 'System'.
It's no longer theft when they are taking the bicycle to collect on a debt you owe and where bicycles are the normal form in which debts of this kind a repaid.
Taxes, as Ben Franklin noted, are payment on the debt that you owe for making use of the benefits society provides for you.
I understand your point. Like you, I disagree with xemoka's assertion that "you agreed to live and earn in the society." It's not quite right (and a little naive) to say all government is voluntary because you happen to live in the countries boundaries. Anarcho-capitalism addresses this with the concept of actual opt-in governments, rather than asserting "you agree to this" whether you do or not.
With all of that said, he's still used/using the infrastructure of other countries to make money. Whether he agreed to build the roads with tax or not, the fact is that they are built and maintained with tax. One cannot pretend that government offers the rich NO benefit whatsoever.
And your parents were jailer because you couldn't do whatever you wanted right?
Like it or not, we are born into society and the social contract that goes along with it. The "utopia" of zero government already exists in the form of failed states.
The "theft" argument sounds a lot like the child who complains that "I didn't ask to be born!" when faced with family chores.
Can you show me a copy of this social contract I've supposedly signed? I hear so much about 'social contract' this, 'social contract' that, but I have yet to clap eyes upon it...
Honestly it doesn't bother me at all if they are self-sustained. If they generate more revenue than their costs, then big deal. If, long term, they spend more money than they're able to generate, then the project is a complete failure imo.
Yeah, my thoughts exactly. The West is full of self-righteous superficial Randians (who have never read her nonfiction in most cases) who in reality are welfare beneficiaries on a massive scale. It's only socialism if it's going into someone else's pocket.
Rand's philosophy contains some interesting points, but it's also extremely naive in a lot of ways. It's clear that she had little contact with the actual realities of the business world. Her heroes bear little resemblance to the vast majority of businessmen... who tend to more closely resemble her villains. Your typical businessman is indistinguishable from a party apparatchik in the former USSR.
Its naive only becaue it is idealist. If you have read her non-fiction, The Romantic Manifesto might give you the reasoning behind it. Art is the realm of the ideal, not the real. (I often give the analogy of the cave painters wasting their time painting skinny meatless cattle (which may have been the reality) instead of fat cattle that would feed their tribe for months...). And we all know what ideals are don't we?
Rand built "exaggerated" characters, that's true. Unfortunately the style results in a bunch of cheesy straw men.
The business leaders like Rearden are hard-working, smart, and good looking. The villains are stupid unattractive leeches, or at best weak and cowering pushovers. Nowhere in those books will you find an intelligent argument in favor or utilitarianism or moderate altruism.
Rand was guilty of disingenuous representation of opposing views, which shouldn't be totally excused under the guise of the romantic style.
> ... leaders ... are ... good-looking, villains are ... unattractive
Neither true of Howard Roark nor of Keating. She described them several times in Fountainhead.
> Nowhere in those books will you find an intelligent argument in favor or utilitarianism or moderate altruism.
And why would you her expect to do that? Those were not her positions.
> Rand was guilty of disingenuous representation of opposing views.
Rand was guilty of inaccurate representations of all kinds of views, scholarship was not her forte. And you are guilty of disingenuous representation of Rand.
And why would you her expect to do that? Those were not her positions.
It's the difference between one-sided propaganda and reasoned argumentation or discussion.
It's fair enough that it's fiction, and thus perhaps unfair to hold it to a standard. But making an intellectual argument using your characters as a mouthpiece and then declaiming responsibility for propagandizing strikes me as trying to have it both ways.
Probably her biggest fallacy was in only considering the most extreme of views, such as fanatical religious altruism and authoritarian communism, and then contrasting them with her own. To her anything between was simply a compromise, a mixture of good and evil. (I am aware of her views on this matter.)
The problem is that reality disagrees. Very, very often the optimum in a complex system is found somewhere between a large number of polar attractors. I'd say the optimum is rarely near a pole.
It seems that so far the human societies that maximize happiness and well being are those that are somewhat altruistic, but not to the point of smothering individual initiative or removing the incentive for productivity.
"Once you see the property and the location you’ll likely be thinking the same thing as me: This is like buying in Napa Valley or Santa Barbara fifty years ago, but with all of today’s modern amenities, and none of the modern day headaches."
If the best analogy for your Randian utopia is California, then we must have read different editions of Atlas Shrugged (although, to be fair, I listened to the audiobook and it might have been abridged).
That kind of depends what government is in power and what form it takes. From what I've read it has been reasonably stable and democratic since Pinochet turned it over in 1990.
If this happens, it's going to infuriate people and ultimately hurt the cause he's trying to promote. Headlines: "rich business people, calling themselves oppressed, flee to central Chile to avoid paying taxes."