Bowery Goes Stark II: The Starkness Continues

Posted by daniel on February 09, 2012, 07:46 PM | #

Robert interviews James Bowery on distributism. Topics include:

· Capital market fails technological investment as a result of the way people are taxed and compensated;

· Fruits of civilization accrued unjustly to those who incidentally hold assets, yielding economic “rent” of civilization’s advance upon them – should be taxed as the cost of civilization’s protection;

· Rather than progressive income tax of the productive: an “in place” value of property, meaning its value in relation to other assets upon unstressed market compensation in liquidation, should be held in escrow and established as standard level of monetary backing behind transactions, while excess personal assets taxed in exchange for civilization’s protection;

(link 1992 white paper (link) on net asset tax and citizen’s dividend) http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/doing_the_basic_math_for_net_asset_tax_as_proposed_by_bowery_in_1992/

· Monetary value is thus not sacrificed in the transfer of ownership. Would begin to remove corruption and rhetorical games in assessment of values;

· This would end Austrian school of economics as last resort of Jewish virulence, as it seeks border crossing with impunity;

· Citizen’s dividend distributed of net asset tax would do away with need for rhetorical plea to pay for foreign children – as tax payers, young couples, having what they need to establish family and small businesses, would be more reasonably able to go where their children are welcomed to receive natural empathy.

Posted by Jimmy Marr on February 09, 2012, 10:42 PM | #

In my opinion, Austrian school economics is the last refuge of Jewish virulence

James Bowery at about 19 minutes into the interview.

Posted by daniel on February 11, 2012, 08:54 AM | #

Net asset tax based on “in placed value” would provide anecdote to corporatism.

Distributism would provide anecdote to big government

Excellent! a way and cause for encouragement.

Posted by Leon Haller on February 11, 2012, 11:31 AM | #

Have not listened to interview, but Bowery always sounded stupid to me (a variant, if you will, on the JRichards mentality). The topic synopses confirm my impression.

We need to stop taxation of the productive in order to subsidize the parasitical (which in turn increases dysgenesis). We don’t need asset taxes - WHAT AN ASSHOLE!!! We need limited, Constitutional government, termination or minimization of Welfare, deregulation, gold standard/sound money, no immigration, end foreign aid, bring home most troops, transportation and energy privatization ... In a word… NATIONAL CAPITALISM!

Why are people so f——-ignorant around here?!

The key to intra-nationalist victory is to deviate only slightly from the broader conservative mainstream; say, by being militant on the neglected issue of immigration cessation. Rope in the conservatives, thereby effectively isolating nationalist socialists, while still advancing the Cause.

I need to do a strategy post. I really do. Amren/Vdare are basically the way to go. Bowery would alienate millions of Middle Americans - esp the slightly affluent whose money and influence we need - from the more important issue of stopping the invasion.

Anything that divides anti-immigration forces, or nationalists from conservatives, must be rejected.

Posted by daniel on February 11, 2012, 04:36 PM | #

ok boss.

I don’t think so.

Posted by alex zeka on February 11, 2012, 05:40 PM | #

The only bit of Bowery’s thing I ever understood the reasons for is taxing assets instead of income. And I’m pretty sure non-anarchist Austrians agree with that

Posted by alex zeka on February 11, 2012, 05:42 PM | #

I’m talking about HH Hoppe style residential communities gov’t

Posted by daniel on February 12, 2012, 01:29 AM | #

Haller, there would be an asset exemption up to a rather generous point. It would discourage unbridled greed, is all It would not discourage the truly creative at all. In fact, according to his scheme, there would be protections and exemptions for inventions as well. On the other hand, dividend distribution would be quite modest (about 13 k a year); and would put a limit on irresponsible breeding as there would not be increased benefits for additional children. More, those not welcome into the local ecology would be prodded to leave for that reason, as they would not have need to stay and their pleas for more money for more children would be rejected as transparent - everyone, as they have the same start, would know that they had what should have been enough to plan a modest family at least, without burdening others.

In my opinion, non-Whites should be excluded from the plan altogether, ultimately. I guess that Bowery would agree.

Posted by Lew on February 12, 2012, 03:08 AM | #

This was another excellent interview. Bowery has an impressive and agile intellect. I wish he would start writing here again.

Posted by Lew on February 12, 2012, 03:32 AM | #

Leon Haller:

Two goals of a Distributist system would be to 1) ensure the widest possible distribution of private property among private citizens, and 2) to help private citizens obtain freedom and control their own economic destinies by allowing them to control their own means of production.

Why in the world would White Middle America be against those things?

Posted by Leon Haller on February 12, 2012, 05:04 AM | #

Two goals of a Distributist system would be to 1) ensure the widest possible distribution of private property among private citizens, and 2) to help private citizens obtain freedom and control their own economic destinies by allowing them to control their own means of production. (Lew)

Lew,

I’m actually quite sympathetic to Distributism, as I understand it. What is its seminal text - Belloc, The Servile State, perhaps?

I, too, strongly support the widest possible dissemination of private property. I, too, hold the nuclear family to be the foundation of modern Western civilization, and accordingly believe in a family-centric economy (as opposed to a completely individualistic one, or most certainly, a State directed one).

To repeat, in fairness to Bowery, I have not listened to the interview. I only read the topic headlines, and recall JB as the fanatic who has this intricate theory as to why the return of dueling (which I think, as a freedom matter, ought to be re-legalized) would save the West, or white race. But these two headlines:

The case for taxing assets rather than income in exchange for civilization’s protection;
How Austrian school economics facilitates Jewish virulence;

already suggest to me someone on the wrong path.

I keep saying the following. To develop a nationalist political economics, one must first start with correct economics (and yes, there is such an animal), and then “deviate” from it in ways that further white EGI. For example, a libertarian might argue for open borders immigration, saying that a private business owner has a moral/property right to hire whomever he wishes. It might even be the optimal thing to do from a particular business perspective (eg, agriculture or fast food employers). For reasons that I don’t care to elaborate on here, but which should be obvious, this is silly, self-defeating over the long run, and dangerous to white EGI. So I gladly support closed borders, even if that means somewhat lower (short-term) economic productivity (long run, I think immigration is always bad for Western nations, as whites are generally superior to other peoples; even if we were to ‘cherry-pick’ immigrants, taking only IQ 140+ Asians, I would still oppose it, even on efficiency grounds, as ‘diversity’ breaks down social cohesion, which itself is an independent variable generating economic gains, especially in times of stress or external threat).

But we don’t need some grand retheoretization of capitalism. Capitalism is the most efficient system possible, and for the three reasons I keep mentioning: economic calculation (Mises), dispersed knowledge (Hayek), and profit incentives (conservatives over the centuries).{Want me to elaborate on those three, or do people understand me?}

Now, there are ways an authoritarian government could ‘tweak’ capitalism to better serve State objectives. Some really would result in a better economy (and society) than allowing unlimited free choice. For example, a govt could outlaw gambling and pornography, which generate huge sales, while creating no true wealth gains (wealth gains derive either from increasing human physical mastery over nature, or else in the discovery of more efficient mechanisms of resource utilitization - say, scientific discovery and managerial innovation). In fact, gambling and porn are just pure entertainment, which, from an EGI perspective, are pure wastes (no net money or children made).

This in essence is what China has done. They allow the exercise of the profit motive; they allow for a real price system, and hence rational profit and loss decisions are possible, and persons can utilize their particular knowledge to pursue making money. This is the essence of capitalism.

But additionally, for very, very complex reasons that very few people fully understand (because China’s precise economy is still shrouded in considerable secrecy; that is, it is not always clear who is making what decisions, and what the real motives are - or so I’ve read: I don’t speak or read Chinese, have never been to China, etc), China has so structured its political economy as to essentially allow people to make lots of money, but it then functionally ‘forces’ them to save much of it (which can then be recycled as capital for still more growth), by means of restricting access to consumer goods.

Is that type of economy what we would want? I don’t think most Americans would go for it. Nor do I think it necessary for us to have to become busy little worker/saver bees in order to preserve our race and nations (some day things might get bad enough that this would become necessary, but let’s try shutting off immigration, and re-legalizing freedom of association first, OK?).

So the answer to economic problems is in fact more capitalism, less government regulation as a general matter, much lower government consumption of capital, low taxes, privatization of those state assets which are basically just businesses (eg, airports), but also, targeted pro-white-EGI general rules governing economic affairs. This isn’t that hard, either to understand or even legislate (at least in theory; in practice getting anything into law is hard).

When JB talks about changing the targets of taxation - instead of lowering taxes - I tune out, as he’s misconceiving the problem, which is too much socialism and general idiotic govt interference with business.

Sometime this year, I will do a post on what I perceive to be is the optimal relation between capitalism and white preservationist issues.

Posted by Leon Haller on February 12, 2012, 05:14 AM | #

Daniel,

Maybe I’ll take a listen to the proposals, as I only partially grasp the argument from your comment. But I do strongly support the accumulation of assets; in fact, I believe all taxation should be on income. To get America out of the employment doldrums, I would, inter alia, and besides radical tax simplification, advocate the total elimination of ALL business, investment, capgains, and estate taxation. The only taxes should be income, and payroll/Medicare, assuming we maintain those inherently socialist programs. For reasons of ultimate social stability, I want to encourage the largest and widest possible accumulation of assets. I would like a nation where everyone is a property owner, or at least, where rootless proletarians are the fewest.

Only income should be taxed, if we maintain a system something like today’s. IDEALLY, only sales taxes should exist; SUPER-IDEALLY, all govt revenue should derive from tariffs on foreign goods - the truly American way of (self-limiting) taxation.

The purpose is to maximize incentives towards productivity, while minimizing the amount of wealth stolen by the Vampire State.

Posted by anon on February 12, 2012, 07:57 AM | #

I wish he would start writing here again.

For some reason i understand what he’s getting at much better when it’s spoken compared to when i used to read it - or maybe i’ve just shifted closer so it’s easier to get…hmmm.

Posted by Ex-Pro White Activist on February 12, 2012, 10:45 AM | #

@ Judeo Haller

We need to stop taxation of the productive in order to subsidize the parasitical (which in turn increases dysgenesis). We don’t need asset taxes - WHAT AN ASSHOLE!!!

These pejorative labels of “productive” and “parasitical” were favorite pejoratives of the Jewish Bolsheviks.  And unsurprisingly they are equally loved by Jewish Austrian School propagandists such as yourself and by Judeo National Review writers in general.

As used by those and all other Jewish entities these labels decode as follows:

“Productive”:  Capable of being exploited for Jewish advantage.

“Parasitical”:  Refuses to be exploited for Jewish advantage.  The most successful sections of Russian and Ukrainian agriculture were eventually described by the Jewish Bolshevik criminals as ‘parasites’.  This was not because they failed to produce but because they refused to yield their produce.

You have already shamelessly confessed to being a non-productive parasite (redundant adjectives) lawyer who doesn’t know how to make anything anyone wants.  Therefore you are not situated to pass such judgments regarding “productive” and “parasitical”.  Dr. Lister’s recent brain surgery example applies here.  You can only use those words in the Jewish sense that I described.

The truly creative producer no more fears “asset taxes” than he fears a haircut or a manicure.  It is the financial vampire who fears asset taxes.  The reason you fear asset taxes is you are incapable of producing assets.  You can only obtain assets from those who do produce them by means of paper manipulations.

Posted by Leon Haller on February 12, 2012, 11:07 AM | #

XPWA,

I know you’re not really very bright, but you could at least

try

to understand what I was saying @11.

Posted by Ex-Pro White Activist on February 12, 2012, 11:20 AM | #

@Leon Haller #15

I’ve understood you far better than you wanted or intended.

See http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments//free_speech_open_discussion#c122987

Cui bono?

Posted by Ex-Pro White Activist on February 12, 2012, 11:41 AM | #

@Leon Haller @15

I know you’re not really very bright

Worse than everything else you are becoming boringly repetitive.  It’s just like any other Jewish show right before it’s canceled.

“He’s stupid, your dumb, I’m smart, I’m an elite Ivy Leaguer…”

Puh-leze! Is that your entire range of Stupid Pet Tricks?  I’ll even buy a bag of doggy treats to reward you if you’ll work on learning some new ones.

Posted by Leon Haller on February 12, 2012, 11:51 AM | #

Mocking is appropriate in dealing with you. I write something serious, and it just floats right by ...

Do you know anything about economics? You do understand that economics is not about the specifics of any particular production process, don’t you? Understanding how the economy works is not the same as understanding how to make bricks, or whatever it is you do.

I’m a gentle-man. I never would mock someone who is dumb, or ignorant, if that person also displayed appropriate humility and a desire to be instructed.

You on the other hand are insufferably arrogant, all the while revealing your total ignorance.

I suppose I’ll have to read your micro-com idea, just in order to s—- it out. Please link to your best explanation.

Posted by GenoType on February 12, 2012, 01:39 PM | #

I’m actually quite sympathetic to Distributism, as I understand it. - LH

This is classic libertarian sail-traimming, with a qualifier added to fool the gullible into believing that he is open to “persuasion.”  Throughout MR, the lying opportunist Leon trashes distributism and distributist ideas as “socialist.”

The reason you fear asset taxes is you are incapable of producing assets.  You can only obtain assets from those who do produce them by means of paper manipulations. - XPWA

Very true.

But I do strongly support the accumulation of assets; in fact, I believe all taxation should be on income. - LH

Whereby Bob Cratchit is barred from accumulating assets because his miserable income is taxed and Scrooge’ assets, obtained through EZ paper manipulations (the key to his wealth accumulation and power), are taxed at a much lower rate or not at all. 

IDEALLY, only sales taxes should exist; SUPER-IDEALLY, all govt revenue should derive from tariffs on foreign goods - the truly American way of (self-limiting) taxation. - LH

Are we fooled when a parasitical propagandist for the plutocracy controlling the government harkens back to a time when conditions were very much different, to soften the impact of his claim to Bob Cratchit’s taxable income in the present?  Yes, many people are fooled.  That is why lawyers

Mocking is appropriate in dealing with you. I write something serious, and it just floats right by ...  I never would mock someone who is dumb, or ignorant, if that person also displayed appropriate humility and a desire to be instructed. - LH

You’re a lying propagandist for parasitical plutocrats who would use the government to tax Bob Cratchit’s miserable income and leave their EZily-acquired assets unmolested.

I’m a gentle-man. - LH

An assertion like this made in the face of massive evidence to the contrary is called, “chutzpah.”

Posted by GenoType on February 12, 2012, 02:22 PM | #

To get America out of the employment doldrums, I would, inter alia, and besides radical tax simplification, advocate the total elimination of ALL business, investment, capgains, and estate taxation. - LH

Haller would eliminate taxation on Scrooge’s assets to create the low-paying service jobs needed to put Bob Cratchit back to work.  How very noble of him!  He neglects to mention the fact that taxes on Scrooge’s assets were very much higher back when Bob began his apprenticeship in the early 50s and was able to afford a home for his family on a solitary income by the late 50s and throughout the 60s.

Liars like Haller are counting on you to forget this stuff.

Posted by Lew on February 12, 2012, 04:58 PM | #

The idea is great but the name “asset tax” could be better and clearer. It does not clearly convey (IMO) the main idea: taxing wealth that was not earned through labor or productive activity.

Posted by Leon Haller on February 12, 2012, 08:55 PM | #

GT,

Conducting any sort of discussion with you is a complete waste of time. You are a man of low ethics, who misrepresents what I say, either deliberately or out of profound ignorance.

Show me your brilliant micro-com idea, and I will deconstruct its errors, for the benefit of the openminded.

FYI - I am very openminded re Distributist ideas, as my post above makes clear. Of course, calling some piece of rancid socialism “Distributist” doesn’t cut it, for those who know about these matters.

Posted by Leon Haller on February 12, 2012, 08:58 PM | #

Actually, I don’t think GT understands Distributism at all. List its seminal texts; I may have read some of them. Then explain your understanding of it. I will decide if what you propose can be considered Distributist at all. (Hint: when I read The Servile State, I found nothing to disagree with.)

Posted by George on February 12, 2012, 10:00 PM | #

It does not clearly convey (IMO) the main idea: taxing wealth that was not earned through labor or productive activity.

I don’t think that’s the main idea. And your formulation has certain punitive or redistributive connotations that I don’t think are really behind the concept.

I think the main idea is about appropriately charging for the cost of holding or protecting the wealth that comes with government.

There is a cost to holding any piece of wealth. In a state of nature, a man who lives out in the woods in his cabin and patch of land uses his own resources and life to protect his wealth (his cabin, tools, clothes, land, food, whatever else he might have). That is he directly bears the cost of holding his wealth. There are natural limits to his wealth as a result - there is only so much wealth he can reliably protect directly with his own resources and life. He could try to own thousands or millions of acres of land as his personal wealth, but reliably defending that much land himself would be very costly and or he’d be killed trying to do so.

With the advent of government comes a force wielding group that can protect more wealth than the man alone could. The man can now hold thousands or millions of acres of land as his personal wealth via the government that now does the protecting. There is a cost to maintaining this government and the service it provides of protecting wealth. It makes sense for the people receiving this service of the government to pay for it, rather than making other people pay for it by taxing their various activities.

Posted by Lew on February 12, 2012, 10:23 PM | #

You expressed that well. I stand corrected.

Posted by George on February 12, 2012, 11:16 PM | #

You do make an important point though. I think it would be a major consequence of something like this.

Posted by anon on February 13, 2012, 01:13 AM | #

@George

Nicely put.

Posted by J Richards on February 13, 2012, 01:36 AM | #

GT and XPWA

Engaging Haller in any sort of meaningful debate is a waste of time.  Make fun of him.

Posted by Desmond Jones on February 13, 2012, 02:00 AM | #

he’d be killed trying to do so.

He may also be killed defending his homestead whether by professional Norse berserkers or Shoshonees on the Oregon Trail as they moved west to establish homesteads. The forces of government (the US Army)may also work for those with little wealth or avarice, and simply a desire to homestead in a new territory.

Those asets that appreciate, with the advance of civilization, land, water, oil/gas, railway lines, or MS DOS per JB etc. when no value is added are targeted for taxation. However, what does that entail? Facebook, hedge funds, Walmart, Mars confectionary or an Chasidic Jewish slaughterhouse in Postville IA?

JB’s discussion of the citizen’s dividend is utilized in the framework of a belief in promoting implicit whiteness simply because explicit whiteness has failed as a strategy. Therefore it appears he holds the notion of a true dividend for all citizens. However, it does pose a problem in that giving all citizens a dividend with no means of discrimination may encourage other groups to follow white migration because the communities they build will be attractive.

Posted by Ex-Pro White Activist on February 13, 2012, 09:15 AM | #

J. Richards,

GT and XPWA

Engaging Haller in any sort of meaningful debate is a waste of time.

This is true. 

Here is a classic Leon Hallerism @22:

Show me your brilliant micro-com idea, and I will deconstruct its errors,

He hasn’t read it but he already knows it is wrong.  This is a routine predicate by him.  “I haven’t read it”  “I didn’t listen to it…and here are my superior Ivy League opinions on it….”

for the benefit of the openminded.

Translation:  Those who still pay him any heed.

I think at least around our websites the definition of “Free Speech” must include “honest speech” and “good faith”.  For instance, I strongly disagree with you on the possibilities of significant action on central banking, just as I disagree with Leon Haller about his vague Austrian School nostrums for centralized action on “banking”, “economics” and “immigration”. 

The difference between you and Leon is your statements are honestly made in good faith.  Leon otoh does not act in good faith.  And he arrogantly flaunts the fact that he acts in bad faith, as I just illustrated with his quote above.  GW will eventually discover that he must either ban Leon or watch M-R finally destroyed.

Pls keep me posted about your proposed website.

Posted by GenoType on February 13, 2012, 07:35 PM | #

J Richards,

Engaging Haller in any sort of meaningful debate is a waste of time.  Make fun of him.

Indeed I shall make fun of him.

Dittoing XPWA re: your proposed website

Posted by Roland on February 15, 2012, 09:36 PM | #

I agree with Bowery’s construction of “property rights” but he seems to be unfamiliar with Hoppe’s contribution to the Austrian theory.  Hoppe expressly opposes the state-enforced mechanism of horizontal transmission - forced integration through publicly-administered thoroughfares and borders - and free protection from a sovereign (territorial monopolist).

Posted by Watts on February 16, 2012, 02:29 AM | #

he seems to be unfamiliar with Hoppe’s contribution to the Austrian theory.

He has suggested elsewhere that he is somewhat familiar with Hoppe’s view. See the thread here: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=26791