Re: Liberals: Defend capital gains taxes

E.F. Hokie wrote, On 4/20/08 2:05 PM:
> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 13:53:58 -0500, Chris Bellomy wrote...
> 
>> No, my point is that government, properly conceived, is the
>> instrument of the common good, and not an entity with financial
>> self-interest beyond achieving its mandate as dictated by the
>> voters.
> 
> Umm.. duh?
> 
>> Now, you may fairly respond that government often is executed
>> to line the pockets of the corrupt, which is obviously true.
> 
> I suppose, but not all waste (or even most of it, I think) has to do 
> with corruption.  I think it has more to do with the idea that the money

> is the government's, as opposed to the taxpayers'. 
> 
>> My counterpoint is that the moment we start crafting law that
>> assumes government to be a corrupt actor, the corruption becomes
>> absolutely endemic to the institution and the American experiment
>> fails. At some point, we have to assume that we *can* create a
>> government that comes pretty close to doing the right thing,
>> even if the current iteration doesn't.
> 
> Correcting the taxation problem in the United States isn't crafting laws

> which assumes the government is corrupt.  It's crafting laws which seek 
> to prevent the op****tunities for money to be wasted.

The questions of taxation and spending, of beneficial spending and
waste, are permanently elastic -- there is no correct answer that
stays correct over time. And again, I say that drafting a tax code
with the idea that government spending is inherently wasteful, or
at least more wasteful than beneficial, is an abandonment of the
American experiment in self-government.

> I would also like to point out that your argument is a bit of a red 
> herring, in that there are quite a few laws which not only allow for but

> practically count on a certain amount of governmental corruption.  There

> are entire sections of the U.S. Code which provide means for redress in 
> the face of corruption, waste, fraud, etc.  Hell, the highest law in the

> land specifically mentions that the citizenry has a right to "chrow de 
> bums out!" if the government goes too far to the bad. (not that a 
> Revolution is really possible anymore, but anyway...)

Quite the opposite, actually, those laws exist entirely to help
craft a government that does what it's supposed to do. My reference
was to a view of government as something that has it incapable of
doing what it's supposed to -- and drafting tax codes, etc., that
use that view as a fundamental maxim of governance.

cb