Exxon's second quarter profit was $11.6 billion. Exxon delivered to governments $32.3 billion in tax revenue. I'd love to know how much more money Exxon spent on accountants and lawyers to make sure they're complying with myriad taxes, and taking advantage of the myriad loopholes? I wonder how much all of this government bureaucracy they supposedly own is adding to the cost of gasoline?

Like the butcher, Brewer, and Baker I have been away–busy visiting the plants, so those who hate me may benefit from my own self interest. Are not markets wonderful? For where else could those who hate each other also succor one another?

Sincerely,
The Albatross

Two of my favorite contributors show up when we need them most! Welcome back, Albatross and Mesa.

To those new to Muirduck: Please note that Muirduck WANTS the government to subsidize GE and Archer Daniels Midland because they're "good" companies, while he calls libertarians hypocrites for being opposed to all government subsidies.

Methinks, continue the tour de force, please….

"Your right to anything, including your right to mastery of a parcel of land with well defined boundaries, is essentially equivalent to my obligation to respect the right."

In the same way that you are "obliged" not to kill me so that I might have a right to my life. Any contrary assertion requires you to show that I have no claim to my life or the fruits of my labor. Your burden to prove. Good luck.

Then my not killing him is givign him life.

My not stealing from him is an act of charity.

Until you come up with some other way of justifying plundering somebody else's wealth through some other esoteric formula.

Its all the same thing. You think people should only have the property that you think they should have. If you don't think they should have it, then you "have no problem compelling them" to do something else with it. Since your favorite mechanism for "compelling" is the state, I think that makes you a fascist.

If you prefer the word "progressive" or some other euphemism, that's fine. Its all the same to me.

In other words, you're only as much of a thug as prior thugs, but no more so. It's good to know you're a man of principle.

I use "property" as people have used the word for centuries.

Different people have, for centuries, used a wide variety of definitions for property. You've chosen one. That your choice is the one that relies on authorities to define, & that you base the validity of this particular definition on other people holding this definition, demonstrates to me the origin of your authoritarian impulses to compel people to do as you wish.

& to head off your strawman at the pass: there's a difference between positive & negative obligations. That's why it's not coercive to deny you access to my property.

Precisely, how is this system of authority over productive means "fascist"? How are you defining "fascism" so that your assertion is meaningful rather than simply pejorative?

Of course, you'll ignore this question, because you really don't have a clue what fascism was or what classical liberals have advocated instead.

Again, another confession of a fascist.

You don't know the meaning of the word. Somehow, when I advocate a progressive consumption tax, after the fashion of Adam Smith, I become a "fascist" in your bizarre lexicon, though Mussolini never advocated one and did advocate economic organization antithetical to a progressive consumption tax.

Since you wish to compel me to use my property in certain ways, & wish to tax me if I trade any of this property with your progressive consumption tax, I'll have to assume you've redefined "mastery" in some weird way.

I use "property" as people have used the word for centuries. If you believe that mastery over property has ever been unchecked, you need a history lesson.

You wish to compel me not to use a particular parcel of land at all without your consent. That you call this parcel of land "your property" is simply a matter of entitlement. It's just your title for the parcel. The idea that "your property" is some kind of objectively unassailable assertion is the weird and thoroughly ahistorical notion.

Again, another confession of a fascist.

Since you wish to compel me to use my property in certain ways, & wish to tax me if I trade any of this property with your progressive consumption tax, I'll have to assume you've redefined "mastery" in some weird way.

Or "oppose".

Or "clear".

I'm going to tell you how much you can pay your employees.

You can try, but I expect markets to do this.

Much better. I have a problem with your CEO conducts his life and how he spends his paycheck and I need to set limits to his lifestyle.

I might or might not have a problem with it, but the approach I favor has nothing to do with the way the company organizes factors or how it pays the CEO. A progressive consumption tax on individuals doesn't constrain corporate compensation at all.

I can see no reason for him to own more than one house in Dallas and that house should not exceed 1,000 feet.

Maybe you don't, but you speak only for yourself here. I know you like choosing the words you rhetorically oppose here, but you really don't.

Anything larger would be unconscionable because it's not what I want.

You haven't constructed a reductio ad absurdum here, because my position doesn't imply your straw man's extreme position at all. I referred to an underwater chateau in the Carribean. I might have referred to Buckingham Palace or a Pyramid for the CEO's burial instead. Regardless, you've simply substituted your own words for mine, but your words are your words regardless.

Right. Just what I said. I'll be defining "most" and "productive enterprise" for you in your widget endeavors.

Law does this sort of thing routinely. Every tax deferred investment necessarily presumes definitions of "investment", "productive enterprise" and similar terms. Any distinction between consumption and investment does. You don't like these distinctions? Are they "morally wrong" or something? You make similar distinctions yourself when you write "your widget endeavors", and "your" in this case doesn't even refer to an individual person. It refers to a corporation, a legal abstraction. What's the difference between "yours" and "mine"? Does God hand down this distinction on stone tablets or something?

"I have no problem with essentially compelling people to reinvest profits rather than diverting them to unrelated consumption."

Right. That's what I wrote, and it doesn't imply any limit on anyone's profit. It's the essence of a progressive consumption tax that I favor, a reform that would dramatically limit central authority over productive means.

Of course I oppose coercion! It's compulsion that I support.

Your talking in circles here. Why don't you calm down and try again.

I'm not going to coerce you into reinvesting profits instead of diverting them to namby pamby consumption, I'm going to compel you to do it. Totally different. Duh!

No. They aren't totally different at all. The words are roughly synonymous. Didn't you know that? I make no secret of my support for particular coercive acts, because I don't pretend nonsensically to be some kind of anarchist opposing all statutory force.

All of your nonsensical rhetorical wordplay is a transparent avoidance. You could discuss the potential benefits or harms of a progressive consumption tax, for example, but you do what you do instead.

Absolutely. Everybody knows that fishing, building property on beaches and harvesting ocean and beach fruit is totally and completely environmentally neutral.

You may believe so, but I certainly don't. I refer explicitly to "competing interests". I nowhere ever suggest fishing or beach front businesses have no environmental impact.

The mere remote possibility that an oil rig 25 miles offshore (or your widget factory, for that matter) might in any way effect a single frond of seaweed (does seaweed have fronds?) is enough to justify stopping such deleterious activity in its tracks – while at the same time bitching that there's not enough of that activity. We are in complete agreement.

No. You're confused. I don't agree with your moronic straw man at all, even if you do.

No, you're correct that CEOs are not paid from profit (except the bonus is usually tied to profit – we agree this not the main point). Right. Correction: I'm going to tell you how much you can pay your employees. Much better. I have a problem with your CEO conducts his life and how he spends his paycheck and I need to set limits to his lifestyle. I can see no reason for him to own more than one house in Dallas and that house should not exceed 1,000 feet. Anything larger would be unconscionable because it's not what I want.

Right. I'm not saying that oil profits must be reinvested in oil production, but I want most of the marginal value of corporate capital reinvested in some productive enterprise.

Right. Just what I said. I'll be defining "most" and "productive enterprise" for you in your widget endeavors.

but I'm not telling anyone how much profit they're allowed. I'm not even telling anyone how to reinvest profits, but profit is routinely reinvested. I have no problem with profits distributed to shareholders as dividends and then reinvested however the shareholders like.

Of course! I'm not telling you how much profit you're allowed either or what to do with it. Let me repeat myself: "I have no problem with essentially compelling people to reinvest profits rather than diverting them to unrelated consumption."

Oh, hang on. That was you who said that. Sorry. I guess great minds think alike then, eh?

You don't oppose coercion generally, so the generalization is facile.

Of course I oppose coercion! It's compulsion that I support. I'm not going to coerce you into reinvesting profits instead of diverting them to namby pamby consumption, I'm going to compel you to do it. Totally different. Duh!

…environmental concerns are hardly irrelevant. Fishermen, people with commercial beach property, not to mention people generally who enjoy the fruit of clean oceans and beaches, have legitimate interests that warrant consideration.

Absolutely. Everybody knows that fishing, building property on beaches and harvesting ocean and beach fruit is totally and completely environmentally neutral. The mere remote possibility that an oil rig 25 miles offshore (or your widget factory, for that matter) might in any way effect a single frond of seaweed (does seaweed have fronds?) is enough to justify stopping such deleterious activity in its tracks – while at the same time bitching that there's not enough of that activity. We are in complete agreement.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/080625-oil-drilling.html

Ok, I'll bite. Martinduck – what is the proper ratio between rights and responsibilities?

The question is impossibly vague. Why don't you ask a more specific question?

Your right to anything, including your right to mastery of a parcel of land with well defined boundaries, is essentially equivalent to my obligation to respect the right. In fact, this individual right of yours is an obligation of everyone else. How could the one possibly exist without the other?

What's the "ratio"? If your right to mastery over a parcel of land is one thing, and my obligation to respect your mastery is one more thing, then the ratio of right to responsibility is roughly one to six billion, because everyone else on Earth must respect your mastery as well.