Peter Schiff Says The Majority Doesn't Have A Right To Steal His Money

[MediumTex]

We all try to do what we can to live within the system but game it what little bit we can.  Sometimes, there's enough wiggle room, that lawyers, accountants, or financial advisors can actually be hired, and worth it, to help us through the process.  Individually, none of them can affect the tax code or legal system, all they can do is help people play the game.  All any of us can do is play the game.  We can pontificate and debate about how things should all be run, but individually we are left with very little influence on the system.

Ouch.  Pee on my parade, why don't you?  The implication you seem to be implying is that we're all helpless in one giant orgy and we should just go ahead and incestously snack and feed on each other, no matter what the collective end result, because we have no individual power.  And that does seem to be the direction America has been going for a while.  I have a problem with that line of thinking.  I'm not a standoffish libertarian anymore.

I do hate pontificating over and over about what could or should be, but at the same time if we didn't have these nit-picky discussions, how would we push the envelope for society to reform and improve in the future?  I'm just as invested in the system as everyone else, but I'm not content to sit on my damn ass and accept things as they are.  Oh jeeze, now I sound like I'm pulling a doodle...

I get to push things a little every day. 

I don't feel powerless at all. 

If anything, I feel like I am on the front lines of a worthwhile effort to improve society (both personally and professionally).

IMHO, the challenges in changing the world are basically twofold: First, you have to be able to wake people up.  Second, once people are awake, you have to be able to answer the question "Why did you wake me up?" 

I think that a lot of would-be world changers succeed in waking up a few people, but struggle to offer a coherent answer to the question they ask upon being awakened, apart from something along the lines of "Well, I was sick of looking at all these people sleeping and didn't want to be awake by myself."

[doodle]

[align=right][/align]

We all try to do what we can to live within the system but game it what little bit we can.  Sometimes, there's enough wiggle room, that lawyers, accountants, or financial advisors can actually be hired, and worth it, to help us through the process.  Individually, none of them can affect the tax code or legal system, all they can do is help people play the game.  All any of us can do is play the game.  We can pontificate and debate about how things should all be run, but individually we are left with very little influence on the system.

Ouch.  Pee on my parade, why don't you?  The implication you seem to be implying is that we're all helpless in one giant orgy and we should just go ahead and incestously snack and feed on each other, no matter what the collective end result, because we have no individual power.  And that does seem to be the direction America has been going for a while.  I have a problem with that line of thinking.  I'm not a standoffish libertarian anymore.

I do hate pontificating over and over about what could or should be, but at the same time if we didn't have these nit-picky discussions, how would we push the envelope for society to reform and improve in the future?  I'm just as invested in the system as everyone else, but I'm not content to sit on my damn ass and accept things as they are.  Oh jeeze, now I sound like I'm pulling a doodle...

"a doodle" would be valiently fighting off an onslaught of vicious libertarian attacks for 28 pages while steadfastly holding to your position. It's the forum equivalent of landing on Omaha beach.  I'm pulling for ya brother! 

[Pointedstick]

Now I'm trying to imagine what a vicious libertarian attack sounds like.

"…You haven't read Human Action? Get out of my house, statist!"

[MediumTex]

[align=right][/align]

We all try to do what we can to live within the system but game it what little bit we can.  Sometimes, there's enough wiggle room, that lawyers, accountants, or financial advisors can actually be hired, and worth it, to help us through the process.  Individually, none of them can affect the tax code or legal system, all they can do is help people play the game.  All any of us can do is play the game.  We can pontificate and debate about how things should all be run, but individually we are left with very little influence on the system.

Ouch.  Pee on my parade, why don't you?  The implication you seem to be implying is that we're all helpless in one giant orgy and we should just go ahead and incestously snack and feed on each other, no matter what the collective end result, because we have no individual power.  And that does seem to be the direction America has been going for a while.  I have a problem with that line of thinking.  I'm not a standoffish libertarian anymore.

I do hate pontificating over and over about what could or should be, but at the same time if we didn't have these nit-picky discussions, how would we push the envelope for society to reform and improve in the future?  I'm just as invested in the system as everyone else, but I'm not content to sit on my damn ass and accept things as they are.  Oh jeeze, now I sound like I'm pulling a doodle...

"a doodle" would be valiantly fighting off an onslaught of vicious libertarian attacks for 28 pages while steadfastly holding to your position. It's the forum equivalent of landing on Omaha beach.  I'm pulling for ya brother! 

I'm surprised that you felt attacked just because people resisted your attempts to impose your beliefs on them.

I have no problem whatsoever with your beliefs or how you choose to act on them.

[moda0306]

MG,

I'm not saying we're completely helpless and should "snack off each other," but at some point we actually have to do what we can to make a difference for people and realize that being an activist is a very inefficient way of doing so.  Our strategic conversations on 401k's and Roth IRA's here do far more to help people avoid taxes than being a tax-protester does.

Each person has to balance their own (potentially fruitless) activism out of principal with their utilitarian actions to actually help themselves and their cohorts.  I think attacking where MT decides to balance his actions is a bit much...

And again... do you spend time reading about and using 401k/Roth tax strategies when you could be organizing a tax-revolt?  If so, are you not "snacking off others" by ignoring their plight with some of your time?  How are we to choose the right balance?

The only areas I could see people having quasi moral obligations to make change is if they're charasmatic and/or of enough means to do so but choose to snort blow and piss away their influence.  Even then, though, it's a bit much for me to expect something of someone just because they can. 

[Reub]

Since Sandy, I don't have the urge to argue much. However, I don't think its fair to blame the son for the sins of his father.

[MediumTex]

Since Sandy, I don't have the urge to argue much. However, I don't think its fair to blame the son for the sins of his father.

I'm not blaming Schiff at all.

I'm just pointing out that his anti-tax arguments are not the arguments of a dispassionate observer of the system.

Any time someone potentially has an agenda behind his comments that listeners may not be aware of, I don't think that there is anything wrong with full disclosure.

[tgif]

The original conception of the US government allowed the freeholders, those who had an economic stake in the country to vote.  Setting aside for the moment the disenfranchisement by skin color, heritage or gender, one can see the reasoning behind this largely State rights based decision.

Fast forward to our present state, when we have transitioned to a more democratic, less plutocratic state and you can see how the interests of the electors have changed.  Luckily, the populist media still obscures the distinction between high wage earners and high networth individuals.  Hurry up guys, make your number and become the latter!

[MachineGhost]

The only areas I could see people having quasi moral obligations to make change is if they're charasmatic and/or of enough means to do so but choose to snort blow and piss away their influence.  Even then, though, it's a bit much for me to expect something of someone just because they can.

I think there is a quasi-moral obligation for the very smart individuals in this fine forum to be activist, rather than standoffish.  It does not take a large number of people acting as leaders to effect real world changes, if only because the vast majority of people are sheep and just go along with the flow.  While I respect HB's reasoned principles about indirect action, I think that he ignores the reality of the division of labor, political monopoly and how our government works, i.e. lobbying by concentrated special interest groups.  Only several (pro & con) special interest groups can ever dominate for any given area of specialization; thus, it becomes easy to identify those few to direct resources to.  There's a big difference between grass-roots activism or free political speech to get people emotionally riled up vs actual political lobbying or political representation.  So far as far as I can tell over the past 20 years, being a standoffish libertarian on principle seems to have done absolutely nothing to change the nature of government.

[Pointedstick]

The only areas I could see people having quasi moral obligations to make change is if they're charasmatic and/or of enough means to do so but choose to snort blow and piss away their influence.  Even then, though, it's a bit much for me to expect something of someone just because they can.

I think there is a quasi-moral obligation for the very smart individuals in this fine forum to be activist, rather than standoffish.  It does not take a large number of people acting as leaders to effect real world changes, if only because the vast majority of people are sheep and just go along with the flow.  While I respect HB's reasoned principles about indirect action, I think that he ignores the reality of the division of labor, political monopoly and how our government works, i.e. lobbying by concentrated special interest groups.  Only several (pro & con) special interest groups can ever dominate for any given area of specialization; thus, it becomes easy to identify those few to direct resources to.  There's a big difference between grass-roots activism or free political speech to get people emotionally riled up vs actual political lobbying or political representation.  So far as far as I can tell over the past 20 years, being a standoffish libertarian on principle seems to have done absolutely nothing to change the nature of government.

So when are you starting the GyroscopicPAC? 

[Greg]

The only areas I could see people having quasi moral obligations to make change is if they're charasmatic and/or of enough means to do so but choose to snort blow and piss away their influence.  Even then, though, it's a bit much for me to expect something of someone just because they can.

I think there is a quasi-moral obligation for the very smart individuals in this fine forum to be activist, rather than standoffish.  It does not take a large number of people acting as leaders to effect real world changes, if only because the vast majority of people are sheep and just go along with the flow.  While I respect HB's reasoned principles about indirect action, I think that he ignores the reality of the division of labor, political monopoly and how our government works, i.e. lobbying by concentrated special interest groups.  Only several (pro & con) special interest groups can ever dominate for any given area of specialization; thus, it becomes easy to identify those few to direct resources to.  There's a big difference between grass-roots activism or free political speech to get people emotionally riled up vs actual political lobbying or political representation.  So far as far as I can tell over the past 20 years, being a standoffish libertarian on principle seems to have done absolutely nothing to change the nature of government.

So when are you starting the GyroscopicPAC? 

Can we fund this PAC without knowing where the money came from? Cuz I might know a guy (although I believe he was just in a terrible boating accident)...

[smurff]

and we should certainly invest the pac funds in a pp.

[ngcpa]

I am kind of surprised that nobody has mentioned Ayn Rand in this thread.  I didn't read all of the replies that carefully, so maybe somebody did and I missed it.  In "Atlas Shrugged" the question was "who is John Galt".  If you don't know what I am talking about, Google Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged and Who is John Galt individually.
Norm

[Pointedstick]

I think most of us have kinda moved beyond Ayn Rand.

[MachineGhost]

I think most of us have kinda moved beyond Ayn Rand.

This may surprise a lot of people in here, but I've never read her books, though I did try and start Atlas Shrugged one time but got really bored (the sheer size of the book alone was daunting).  The obsessive compulsiveness of her groupies just turns me off to Rand.

One thing I've learned about "extreme" political ideologies is there is always a huckster waiting in the wings behind every one to snare the politically disenfranchised.  I think it's a bit hypocritical for libertarians to profess absolute belief in democracy, free markets and voting with political or economic power, but at the same time disregarding the mainstreamed, bottoms-up consensus that dominates current reality courtesy of Boobus Americanus.  Even if current reality is in fact an actual massive orgy of regulatory capture cronyism...

Greed alone is simply an inadequate basis to organize civilization around.

[MediumTex]

I read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged when I was in college and found them to be bold, exciting and a little subversive.

In the intervening 20 years or so, every time I have tried to pick up these books and re-read them I have had to put them down because they seemed to have grown progressively sillier as a result of sitting on my bookshelf (or maybe there is some other process unfolding that is more subtle than that).

For me, these books are sort of the libertarian equivalent of Where The Red Fern Grows.  The power of emotion you felt when you first read it at a certain stage of life is very hard to recapture when you come back to it later.

[l82start]

i only got around to reading it just recently after the first movie came out,  its a bit Harlequin romance toward industrialists, and clunky in more than a few spots, but it is a philosophical point of view in  ""fiction""   form worth exposing yourself to, i think it is probably better done when you are older and your youthful idealism has been tempered a bit, but definitely worthwhile to read .  i don't know much about Ayn rand enthusiasts but the idea that they are obsessive groupies seems to be pretty common....

[WildAboutHarry]

I found both Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead to be profoundly silly but filled with thought-provoking ideas.  And I have read (and listened to) both.  I may have even read AS more than once, although I hope not.

And in this day and age a novel about a US passenger railroad and a steel baron probably would not resonate with someone born post 1970 (or whenever Penn Central went under).

Perhaps a re-write with John Galt being more of a Steve Jobsian character?

[KevinW]

I haven't read Rand, but by coincidence I watched the Atlas Shrugged movie last night. Absolutely terrible.

Honestly the world view espoused by the film seems pretty silly and at times incoherent. Hardball business deals are good when Taggart and Rearden do them, but are evil when the Mexican guy pulls one on them? Rand was one of the biggest IP hawks ever, but it's a good thing when the protagonists capitalize on the engine plans they find hidden in the derelict warehouse? Huh?

Also, for all their objective economic success, they seem absolutely miserable. They aren't effective role models, at least for me.

Maybe Harry Browne poisoned the well for me with that chapter in How I Found Freedom... that argues against objectivism.

And in this day and age a novel about a US passenger railroad and a steel baron probably would not resonate with someone born post 1970 (or whenever Penn Central went under).

I'm a child of the 1980s, and I tried to suspend my disbelief about the railroad and the steel, but I just couldn't get past it. I think the film adaptation could've made a superficial change to bullet trains and carbon fiber, or something, without affecting the narrative. Instead they doubled-down on diesel-locomotive trains and rolled steel forges. It's weird.

[MediumTex]

The fact that Rand was apparently an utterly humorless person was probably one of her many flaws.

We live in a world too filled with absurdity not to have a sense of humor.

[WildAboutHarry]

I'm a child of the 1980s, and I tried to suspend my disbelief about the railroad and the steel, but I just couldn't get past it. I think the film adaptation could've made a superficial change to bullet trains and carbon fiber, or something, without affecting the narrative. Instead they doubled-down on diesel-locomotive trains and rolled steel forges. It's weird.

Thanks for the info.  I will skip AS the movie, I think.

The book is worth a read, just so you can say you have done it.  Kind of like getting your wisdom teeth pulled.

The fact that Rand was apparently an utterly humorless person was probably one of her many flaws.

I had not considered humor in the context of AS and TF before.  Is there any (intended) humor in either one?

[Benko]

Ayn Rand the person is irrelevant to the ideas, and while it ain't great literature, she saw a lot of what is happening now.  John Galt's speech (from Atlas Shrugged) is still worth reading though I suppose it doesn't make much sense without context. 

http://amberandchaos.com/?page_id=106

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“You have heard it said that this is an age of moral crisis. You have said it yourself, half in fear, half in hope that the words had no meaning. You have cried that man’s sins are destroying the world and you have cursed human nature for its unwillingness to practice the virtues you demanded. Since virtue, to you, consists of sacrifice, you have demanded more sacrifices at every successive disaster. In the name of a return to morality, you have sacrificed all those evils which you held as the cause of your plight. You have sacrificed justice to mercy. You have sacrificed independence to unity. You have sacrificed reason to faith. You have sacrificed wealth to need. You have sacrificed self-esteem to self-denial. You have sacrificed happiness to duty.

“You have destroyed all that which you held to be evil and achieved all that which you held to be good. Why, then, do you shrink in horror from the sight of the world around you?....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is much longer than that, and I hardly know the subtleties of all her beliefs, but the big picture makes a lot of valid points.

[smurff]

I had not considered humor in the context of AS and TF before.  Is there any (intended) humor in either one?

No.

[smurff]

And the sex scenes are corny, too.

[WildAboutHarry]

Ayn Rand the person is irrelevant to the ideas, and while it ain't great literature, she saw a lot of what is happening now.

Agree about the ideas and agree about the presentation.