Comments on: Percy Shelley – Left-Libertarian? http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/04/percy-shelley-left-libertarian/ Free Markets and Social Justice Sat, 18 Nov 2017 18:00:00 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.8.3 By: TracyW http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/04/percy-shelley-left-libertarian/#comment-28849 Thu, 25 Apr 2013 12:55:00 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=5431#comment-28849 Hmm, I wonder what Shelley would have thought of the fortunes accumulated by Bill Gates and other IT billionaires. (I am no defender of all of modern IP laws, but copyright in software is rather less unjust than Queen Elizabeth I giving a grant of monopoly rights in providing some good to her favourites).

]]>
By: Rick http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/04/percy-shelley-left-libertarian/#comment-28848 Thu, 25 Apr 2013 12:46:00 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=5431#comment-28848 Those questions were central in legal history leading up to ratification of the 16th Amendment, which although now obscured, originally targeted property acquired by the controllers and dominators among us (landlords, lenders, employers and speculators). Common labor was never meant to be the target of the 16th Amendment.

But to use Shelley’s words, the focus of the income tax shifted on to labor in 1937 (with an income tax on currency substitutes) “by dishonourable cunning and the taking advantage of a fictitious paper currency to obtain an unfair power over labour and the fruits of labour.”

]]>
By: Nathanael Snow http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/04/percy-shelley-left-libertarian/#comment-28847 Thu, 25 Apr 2013 12:30:00 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=5431#comment-28847 And yet, even property once acquired in the second manner may be then exchanged or transfered in accordance with the first. Does that property then become justly owned by the second party? If so, who then becomes responsible for compensating the party initially defrauded or otherwise wronged?

]]>
By: Sean II http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/04/percy-shelley-left-libertarian/#comment-28796 Wed, 24 Apr 2013 13:22:00 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=5431#comment-28796 There it goes again. In any thread of sufficient length, someone always ends up being compared to Thomas Hodgskin.

]]>
By: Roderick Tracy Long http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/04/percy-shelley-left-libertarian/#comment-28790 Wed, 24 Apr 2013 05:42:00 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=5431#comment-28790 Sounding more like Hodgskin than like his father-in-law Godwin.

]]>
By: Rick http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/04/percy-shelley-left-libertarian/#comment-28775 Tue, 23 Apr 2013 22:12:00 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=5431#comment-28775 Shelley went into much greater detail, and said it much better than Locke and his “labor mixing” idea, but basically they’re both saying the same thing. Remarkable description.

Shelley talks about two “description[s] of property,” one that “all true political institutions ought to defend,” and the second, which “has its foundations in usurpation, or imposture, or violence” (which includes “taking advantage of a fictitious paper currency to obtain unfair power over labour and the fruits of labour”).

Not sure if Shelley was familiar with the U.S. Constitution, but his first description of property is protected by the Direct Tax Clauses, and his second description is subject to regulation under the Indirect Tax Clause, to which both categories of income tax were added after the Civil War.

]]>
By: martinbrock http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/04/percy-shelley-left-libertarian/#comment-28774 Tue, 23 Apr 2013 22:04:00 +0000 http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/?p=5431#comment-28774 Seems libertarian from every direction to me.

]]>