Forum Post: Anarchy is not chaos
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 18, 2011, 5:35 p.m. EST by ltjaxson
(184)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Let me say it again - Anarchy is not chaos. When the founding fathers were framing our constitution is was un the umbrella of 'Republicanism' because in the late 18 th century the word 'democracy' was to closely associated with the reign of terror, etc and the French Revolution - what some could consider chaos. Thomas Paine, Jefferson and othe great Patriots advocated for a 'progressive tax' system aimed at limitng the unjustified authority of those of 'landed and accumulated wealth' in order to promote the newly fromed 'social contract' of the 'The Rights of Man' and socially responsible govt of the Enlightenment. Those ideas have been fought against until this very day by labeling them as Anarchy - 'Chaos'. But that is not what it is about... 1) Worker-led industry. Eliminate the shareholder and replace him/her with the employee of the business. Shareholders will not think twice about eliminating employees and sending their jobs overseas if the bottom line is that it will increase his/her profit margins. No employee will vote to send his/her job oversaeas, and will now have direct influence on the direction of the company, while sharing in the profits collectively and responsibly. 2) Community-led govt. Lets reduce the amount of unjustifed authority of the federal govt by empowering local govt to decide the direction of their twons, cities, villages, hamlets, pueblos, etc. This will eliminate the sense of disillusionment of voters and hold local and state politicians more accountable, while giving their constituents more access to them. 3) Exapnd the number of national govt. representatives in order to dilute their authority, create more party diversity and give their constituents more access on a federal level. At the eve of the first Congress there were 50,000 citizens per representative - today there are 500,000 per representative (91 representatives for 4 million in 1789, 535 representatives for 300,000,000 today). The smaller the number the more authority. Remember - Anarchy = worker-led industry, community-led govt and a reduction of unjustifed authority at the national level...not chaos!
Your information is incorrect.
"1800 - With the assistance of his Secretary of the Treasury, Albert Gallatin, newly elected Republican President Thomas Jefferson sought to reorient the fiscal policy of the United States. Jefferson’s four main goals included: (1) a reduction in government expenditures, (2) a balanced budget; (3) a decrease in the size of the national debt, and (4) alleviation of the tax burden. The latter two objectives seemed to conflict with one another; specifically, Jefferson's desire to abrogate Hamilton's funded debt plan and retire all government obligations as judiciously as possible required a steady stream of revenue.
Nevertheless, Jefferson abolished all internal taxes, including the whiskey excise tax and the land tax. Meanwhile, the Napoleonic Wars in Europe, though a diplomatic minefield for American statesmen, proved a significant stimulus to the economy of the United States. Vigorous commerce enriched merchants while customs duties swelled the federal Treasury. By 1808 the national debt had been reduced from $80 million to $57 million, even though the Louisiana purchase had added an $11 million liability. By 1806, duties proved so lucrative that Gallatin and Jefferson fretted about what to do with the surplus above that required for debt retirement. Treasury reserves increased from $3 million to $14 million between 1801 and 1808."
http://www.tax.org/Museum/1777-1815.htm
Mate, he advocated for progressive tax instead of a flat tax...that is the point. My post has nothing to do with govt. spending, balanced budget, etc???? If that is all you got out of it, then you are hunting for flaws instead of opening up to ideas...
I agree with Misguided in that I like your post but that one point is not true. Early American government was funded by tariffs. Tariff revenues, later, also became the reason for the civil war. The south imported a lot from Europe and collected 75% of the tariffs in the US. The north did not want to lose that revenue so they slaughtered the south and forced them to remain in the union which Jefferson would have opposed as he supported the right of secession!
This may be true...but my post was about the advocation of a 'progressive tax' instead of a 'flat tax ' (which Jefferson supported) where someone of great wealth paid the same tax as someone of very little weath in an attempt to reduce the advantage of inherited and accumulated wealth! The exact same thing #OWS is fighting against.
No not looking for flaws just pointing out that there is no way Jefferson could have supported a progressive income tax because at the time there was no such tax, and the post I made was more to illustrate that he actually managed to fix many problems without any internal taxes at all.
However I do not disagree with the premise of your post. I like all of your points except #1. It's been attempted and failed.
A land tax can be a highly progressive tax-more progressive than an income tax. Generally ownership of wealth is more concentrated than income-and in the early US, land made up a larger component of wealth than today. The problem with income taxes, they tend not to distinguish between folks becoming wealthy, those that are wealthy-and those that are liquidating assets to handle an emergency.
Custom duties tend to be more broadly spread-but in the case of the early US, custom duties tended to be paid largely by southern planters who were doing a big export business-and used their revenue to buy from the same countries they were selling in.
The progressive tax is an idea of the enlightenment and was talked about at length in Paine's 'American Crisis' and Common Sense' before, during and after the War of independence. Jefferson supported these ideas of a progressive tax aimed at inherited and accumulated wealth. I disagree, worker-led industry hasn't failed and hasnt been attmpted on a mass-scale. The hard part is to get the start-up funding...
Anarchy is not chaos...
Mate, he advocated for progressive tax instead of a flat tax...that is the point. My post has nothing to do with govt. spending, balanced budget, etc???? If that is all you got out of it, then you are hunting for flaws instead of opening up to ideas...