Opposing Online Sales Taxes is futile and counter-productive

Mike has published an editorial in the Batt deriding the proposed tax on Internet sales. His argument is that “if the government break[s] the barrier of taxation into the realm of the Internet, there is no reason for them to stop… Rather than seek new areas to tax or increase old ones, the government needs to cut back its current spending and programs.”

Mike fails to point out that consumers already pay taxes on the Internet whenever purchasing from online vendors based in state. (Or at least they are legally required to.) However, the bigger hole in his argument is that there is no essential difference between online and traditional sales. Any argument for or against sales taxes applies equally to both traditional and online sales. Given this fact, any attempt to carve out an exception for online taxes is bound to fail in the long run, just as any attempt to defend hunting on the grounds that they animals don’t suffer when they die is bound to fall apart.
The fatal flaw in both cases is that in arguing that the Internet should be *excluded* from sales taxes one implicitly acknowledges that there is nothing wrong with sales taxes per se. This turns the question of taxation into merely a question whether online commerce deserves any special treatment over traditional commerce. It does not.

Excluding online sales from taxation in effect amounts to giving special favors to a particular industry, and as such, is unjustified. Its exactly equivalent to giving tax breaks to politically nimble industries. In fact, that is exactly what is happening. Online-based companies are lining politician’s pockets and lobbying Washington in a hopeless attempt to carve out an exception for their industry. Because there is no rational reason why the tax law should apply to one group and not another, their effort is bound to fail. Besides, income taxes collected by the IRS, not sales taxes or the state tax agencies actually represent the most heinous and destructive form of taxation.

I say this as a partner of a web hosting service that has a lot to lose by the imposition of e-taxes – the service has a very low margin, and I’d rather close our doors than pay the accounting costs of charging taxes for the tiny transactions we deal with, since our current business is entirely under the table. There are thousands if not hundreds of thousands of similar micro – e-tailers who exist only because running a small business on the internet carries little or no bureaucratic overhead. Even a 1% tax would carry enough regulatory baggage to either shut them down, or discourage new ventures from ever starting up.

In short, if any protest against taxation is going to succeed, it will not be by carving out exclusions to popular or powerful industries. One must attack the root of the disease – the collectivist premise that theft is justified for the “common good.” If you wish to keep more of what you make, I suggest that you start by questioning the moral premise of taxation, not by jumping on the libertarian “less” or republican “more efficient” government bandwagons.

The Drexel U. philosophy club’s campaign against Objectivism is just getting started. Check out this masterpiece of modern philosophy:

Being objective is thinking purely in terms of yes or no, in pure Boolean logic. We have found out that this type of thinking cannot be applied to most real world circumstances. That’s why we are developing artificial intelligence today; we are trying to incorporate subjective thinking into computers that are inherently objective.

It wants to turn us all into cold-hearted uncaring machines worried only about our personal self-interest with nary a caring thought toward our fellow human beings and toward the other plants and animals we share this planet with.

There were a number of positive replies to the original article as well.

Updates

I realized that my JavaScript quote include had some debug code that broke it. It should now work. In fact, you can see it in action @ Keenan’s new blog AbsoluteReason.com

You can still submit your favorite quotes to my database. I’ve only gotten one good quote and a few dozen insults so far. I get the distinct impression that most of my readers absolutely loath my views, which is somewhat puzzling. Don’t you people have an anti-war or Howard Dean rally to attend? I think this may be explained by the 80/20 rule.

MT-Blacklist

If you have a Movable Type blog, there is a high probability that you have been hit with a recent deluge of comment spam. To keep those spammers out, I highly recommend MT-Blacklist as a simple and effective solution. I understand that spammers are actively avoiding even trying to post to blogs with this plugin in order to avoid being blacklisted (the plugin can share your blacklist with other enabled blogs.)

(If you are hosting a Movable Type blog at one of my domains, and have ever given me your MT password, your blogs have already been immunized and deloused.)

Are You an Austrian?

Check out the “Are You an Austrian?” quiz at the Mises Inst. I scored 94/100 (96, if I hadn’t misread a question.)
Not surprisingly, the two questions I got “wrong” are the Mises Institutes’ take on “market anarchism” and pacificism. Ex: “A market society needs no antitrust policy at all; indeed, the state is the very source of the remaining monopolies we see in education, law, courts, and other areas.” and “Security [ie: the military], like any good desired by individuals in society, can and is provided by the market economy, which is to say, by individuals organizing themselves voluntarily within the matrix of private property and exchange.” (Emphasis mine)

Last time I checked, Ludwig von Mises himself was no anarchist. Which brings up the question – is Austrian economics defined by what the actual Austrians thought, or what Rothbard’s anarchist followers believe?

Truth on Campus

Laurel mentioned a story about “a group of students at Stanford University in California [who are] demanding the ouster of the editor of the school’s student paper because it published an ad with pictures of Palestinians celebrating the 9/11 attacks.” The story inspired be to make the below image, which I recommend you add to your own website and link to http://campustruth.org
The Truth About Israel
Here is the code:
<img src="http://rationalmind.freecapitalists.org/images/ProIsrael1.gif" alt="The Truth About Israel" width="160" height="105" border="0">

I was browsing Google News today, and came across this editorial. The best part:

I feel obligated to point out the fundamental flaws in the Objectivist Club as a forum for discussing ideas…. The Objectivist Club’s constitution states that its mission is “to study, discuss and debate, using reason, the content, validity and application of Objectivism, and to disseminate Objectivist ideas.” In contrast, in its constitution, the Philosophy club states that its aim is to host, “events [that] will allow for thought-provoking, respectful discussion with peers and professors in the absence of classrooms, grades, competition, or judgment, for in such a context, people may best develop and clarify their thoughts to themselves and others… Does [the Objectivist Club] sound like a place where a free exchange of ideas occurs without competition or judgment?”

I don’t know about Drexel, but I went to a number of philosophy and agnostic club meetings at A&M. The usual format is usually as such: a speaker, usually a professor, wows the audience with an unintelligible attempt to prove that X is a “social construct” using enough logical calculus to make even a math major cry for mercy. Afterwards, the members (who have no clue what was just said, but feel enlightened already) gather into a circle and utter pronouncements such as “I get physically sick at seeing the suffering of others” (direct quote) at which point all the other members wow and feel even more enlightened. If there are enough upperclassmen who haven’t dropped out yet, the members usually proceed to one of the local bars and proceed to reach new levels of self-actualization with the aid of large volumes of booze, but without the aid of “judgement” or “reason.”

Arafat’s Looted Billions

CBS has some interesting revelations about Arafat’s finances. According to the story, he embezzled 1 to 3 billion dollars and directed it to his secret accounts in Israel and the Cayman islands. His wife receives a $100,000/month stipend for a lavish Paris mansion. He has looted billions from money that Israel gives to support the PLO, as well as the aid given by the US and other sources. He “financed a vast patronage system” to support his regime. He maintained “a system of monopolies in commodities — like flour and cement — that Arafat handed out to his cronies, who then turned around and fleeced the public.” The story just gets better and better: “The PLO’s former treasurer told us he saw Saddam Hussein hand Arafat a $50 million check for supporting him during the first Gulf War. And there were other large gifts from the KGB and the Saudis.”

What the article doesn’t mention, is that Arafat’s corruption has been pointed out by Palestinians before: however they were harassed, imprisoned, or usually murdered before the western media paid it any attention. It was only the mass public revolt by the Palestinian public (How many papers printed that story?) that forced him to appoint an honest finance minister.

I was surprised to learn that among the billions looted by Arafat were millions in tax funds that Israel gave to support the PLO according to the Oslo accord. I don’t have any words to describe how atrocious and inexcusable it is for the Israeli government to agree to finance its own destruction by money stolen from the very citizens it exists to protect.