Are there exclusions to Individual Liberty? Part 2

This was not meant to be a 2 part post but thinking more about what I wrote the other day about the ways that people see exclusions in what they consider liberty I wanted to touch on it in a few more ways. It seems to me that while some can claim they oppose something for themselves they would be happy to see the same or worse happening to someone else, or to be done by transferring power to another person or entity.

“Talking of Taxes”

When people talk of taxes there usually isn't too much happiness or joy in what say. Generally taxes are seen as a burden or nuisance on people and a hindrance on businesses. To some they are considered a price for what they consider “freedom” or put as just what we have to do to have a civilized society. There are some though that will defend increased taxation on others.  One recent example is the proposed added increased taxation of Wall Street (a separate post will cover this subject in detail later). Known by the name of The Robin Hood Tax it is being pushed by individuals who are partially involved with the Occupy movement, other group demographics make up its base of supporters. This new Tax scheme comes by way of the European Union (EU) some years ago. EU members proposed taxation on stock trades and income that is derived from them.

Labeled as the Robin Hood Tax gives it a wild chance of being successful even if not comprehended in its economic entirety and its effects would be the same as if a rise in income taxes were raised across the board. Proponents of the measure claim otherwise and say that it is only a tax on the derivatives of stock trading and speculative investing, this is false. Since stocks do not trade themselves and are held by corporations and companies who in turn are owned and operated by individuals, these business owners(individuals) would be liable for the increased tax and would then pass on that tax in the form of higher consumer costs and prices. Individuals also hold stocks and this bill would have the same effect on their trading. This is the exclusionary part of this mindset, which is individual taxation is too high “BUT” we need to raise taxation on businesses and corporations, because obviously these businesses and corporations are not run by individuals who are already taxed at higher rates. If it is too much for one then it is too much for all. Excluding yourself from the effects of increased taxation to pass it on to someone else is hypocritical to the idea of individual freedom. You cannot be against one kind of tax and then endorse another that you think doesn't affect you.

“Legalize it, and then TAX it!”

The push for legalized cannabis is another great example of this. We have all heard the conversation before, “We need to just legalize marijuana, AND then tax it.  There is no reason the government should say what goes in anyone’s body”.  No, No, NO, just stop it! There needs to be no more taxes, and what does it matter if they tell you what you put in your body if they are stealing from your pockets?  I still haven’t figured out why so many are willing to have a tax imposed on marijuana in the first place. As Colorado is seeing right now adding a tax to their legalized recreational use has led to more street purchases outside of the “Pot Shops”. Why? Because buying marijuana was tax exempt from the start, why in the world would you want to give the state any more money than what they already extract by force? But the majority of people would be ok with this, as it is seen as a “voluntary” tax, it is anything but. If it were truly voluntary, the shop owner would say,” Would you like to add tax to this purchase?” You could then say, “Yes” or “No”. That is voluntary Taxation.

The other discrepancy in the legalization argument is that of legalizing certain strains of cannabis to help with medical conditions, BUT to exclude the recreational use of all forms of cannabis. This is the case for Charlotte’s Web Medical strain of Marijuana being discussed in Sates across the nation. This is clearly an exclusionary liberty issue and falls under a hard line of hypocrisy.  The ability to discriminate the use of a plant is outrageous in itself, and then to make it illegal for those that use it outside of an authorized or accepted medical use is preposterous. This is the very essence of the individual liberty issue, “Can one do what others are prohibited from doing?”

“The Marriage Gap”

The arguments against same sex marriages are usually based on the simple premise that the federal government should allow it, or at least allow the state governments should decide for themselves. Where the contradiction on this issue comes into play is when you mention that if it were allowed that same sex couples be “legally” married, why not also allow marriages consisting of multiple people, or polygamy.  Here comes the “BUT” for most people. “I believe these two people can get married even though they are the same sex, BUT these 5 people cannot.”  Why is that? How can excluding any group of people or their beliefs from the same right to be married be considered liberty for all? Now personally I am all for the government not being included in contracts between individuals, and marriage as a contract would be included in my belief.  The idea is that these contracts need no government endorsement or approval and would not require intervention in cases of separation or breaches of contracts; private arbitration proves to be a substantially superior alternative. That’s just my view though; I don’t force its acceptance on anyone.

“The Government is overbearing, but it is needed in some cases.”

There has been a rise in the belief that our current government is overbearing, intrusive, and working outside of its designated powers, and it is in my opinion; at least on two of those charges. The current government is that of an empire run by revolving dictators and feared by its serfs. So how can people belief there is anything it is needed for? The mindset of minarchy or “limited government” as both the Republicans and Democrats will call it, is that no matter how bad things get, how intrusive it becomes, how much it impedes on the daily lives and restricts the natural rights of the people, it is needed in some way. This is possibly one of the biggest misconceptions for them to get over and many refuse to even try to understand the true meaning of anarchy. No Rulers, No Masters. 

The idea that government is needed for certain roles is a lack of understanding of how things can work and work more efficiently with no theft of wealth through taxation if ALL roles of government were replaced by market alternatives.

Again this is just a few more examples of what can be called exclusionary liberty. Can you think of anymore issues where this is a relevant discussion?