carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (01/07/85)
From a recent posting by a libertarian:
> Taxation is theft....
Please give us a break from this type of rhetoric. If you simply mean that
taxation is the transfer of wealth by (the implied threat of) force, no one
can disagree. If you mean that taxation is UNJUST, you must present
arguments in support of a theory of distributive justice on which such an
assertion must be based. And thereby hangs another tale....
In Libertaria, a future libertarian society, Jack inherits $1 zillion. He
spends his days playing tennis and polo, driving his Rolls, and sipping
Courvoisier by the poolside with the many women who wish to share his
wealth. Whenever he gets into legal trouble (e.g., for paternity), he
engages the top legal talents of Gouge & Swindle to get him off the hook.
He attends church regularly to give thanks that he lives in a society where
freedom prevails and he is not forced to sacrifice his values for the
benefit of others, whether through paying taxes or compulsory military
service (Libertaria has been fighting a war against totalitarian
aggressors).
Across town lives Jill. She works 12 hours a day, except when she's been
laid off, in the Acme Asbestos plant which Jack owns. She never gets very
far ahead of poverty; her sons were killed in the war. Since there is no
OSHA or EPA, she must rely on the cheapest lawyers in town, Torts-R-Us, to
represent her in her suit against Jack when she contracts cancer from
working in the plant (their record against G&S is zip-500)....
We see here how Jack's possession of property gives him dominance over Jill,
a situation that a socialist society would be designed to prevent (at least
in my concept of socialism). Libertarians say that if Jack's heart bleeds
for Jill, he is free to donate some of his wealth to her or perhaps marry
her. This is true, but entirely beside the point: libertarians believe
that the distribution of wealth is just, WHETHER OR NOT Jack gives away any
of his bucks. The ONLY criterion for justice, say they, is whether the
distribution of wealth is the result of free-market transactions in the
absence of force or fraud.
Such a view seems hard to beat for sheer moral turpitude. Is this truly
your idea of a decent society, libertarians? The common moral sense of
mankind holds that, in some sense, people should get what they deserve and
deserve what they get. Not so, say (all, most, some) libertarians:
considerations of desert are irrelevant to justice. Well, perhaps the
common moral belief of mankind is wrong. I am increasingly intrigued by the
libertarian concept of distributive justice (and so should you be, as
libertarianism is a growing political force in the US). I await with great
interest a libertarian explanation as to why we should accept Nozick's
theory of DJ in preference to any alternative theory.
P.S. Will the socialists on the net PLEASE STAND UP AND IDENTIFY
THEMSELVES? I am beginning to feel as lonely as a moderate
Republican....Perhaps they have gone underground, plotting the overthrow of
the American Way of Life....
From the foxhole of
Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnescliff@unmvax.UUCP (01/08/85)
> From a recent posting by a libertarian: > > > Taxation is theft.... > > Please give us a break from this type of rhetoric. If you simply mean that > taxation is the transfer of wealth by (the implied threat of) force, no one > can disagree. If you mean that taxation is UNJUST, you must present > arguments in support of a theory of distributive justice on which such an > assertion must be based. And thereby hangs another tale.... Taxation is unjust. The money is taken from hard working citizens and is spent by myopic politicians. The majority of benefits of income redistribution are aimed at the middle class, who can easily make do without them ('specially if they don't have to pay the taxes in the first place). A good percentage of the few programs that are directed at the poor establish a dependence on the programs which are available only to the poor and hence create an incentive to stay poor. > In Libertaria, a future libertarian society, Jack inherits $1 zillion. He As opposed to the wealth that is always associated with the ruling class in socialist countries... They *earn* it. Please point out a socialist country where there isn't a ruling class (yes, I know there isn't supposed to be such a thing, but look at them all). > In Libertaria, a future libertarian society, Jack inherits $1 zillion. He > spends his days playing tennis and polo, driving his Rolls, and sipping > Courvoisier by the poolside with the many women who wish to share his > wealth. Whenever he gets into legal trouble (e.g., for paternity), he > engages the top legal talents of Gouge & Swindle to get him off the hook. Surprise, since the legal code would be so much easier to understand it would be inconceivable that a lawyer's prowess would enter into the play. Of course if there were sufficient corruption, then the wealthy would still be getting the freebies, but we are talking about a libertarian country with a minimalist government that is non prone to corruption; we are not talking about one of the many socialist governments riddled with graft. > He attends church regularly to give thanks that he lives in a society where > freedom prevails and he is not forced to sacrifice his values for the > benefit of others, whether through paying taxes or compulsory military > service (Libertaria has been fighting a war against totalitarian > aggressors). If the lack of a draft is so harmful then Libertaria will fall and Jack will be out on his ass and you will be as happy as a clam, so what's eating you there? Could it be that you prefered the Vietnam days draft of the U.S. that allowed people to avoid military service if it could be shown that they would be receiving considerably less pay than they would be making on the outside? > Across town lives Jill. She works 12 hours a day, except when she's been > laid off, in the Acme Asbestos plant which Jack owns. She never gets very > far ahead of poverty; her sons were killed in the war. Since there is no > OSHA or EPA, she must rely on the cheapest lawyers in town, Torts-R-Us, to > represent her in her suit against Jack when she contracts cancer from > working in the plant (their record against G&S is zip-500).... This is utter bullshit! How about Jill is constantly employed, since there is no unemployment. Jill doesn't have to worry about inflation and has had enough money to save up for her future years. Her sons both opted not to join the service since there was little incentive (think what the volunteer armed services would be like if there were 100% employment of civilians...). Why can't I write a similar paragraph: Across town lives Jill. She lives in an utter rat hole, since she and the other people in her project do not own the building they do not care for it and it is as poorly maintained as your average ghetto government-funded project. She works 12 hours a day because the socialist society has determined that by doing so she would be optimally benefitting society. The only time she doesn't work is when there are shortages of products essential to her plant. She isn't included on the poverty list because it would not be optimal for the state to admit to the conditions of its workers. One of her sons was drafted and killed in war, the other after seeing the fate of his brother turned to criticizing the government. He was captured, put in an insane asylum, experimented upon and eventually died. She has absolutely no recourse whatsover when she contracts cancer due to the working conditions; the government doesn't allow itself to be criticized much less sued. Oh, but I am being to kind. Maybe a more succint story would be: Jill dies before she is even 10 years old, because the socialist government that she lives under did not allow its citizens to prepare adequately for the drought that has hit her nation. Free market countries with sympathetic citizens rush food that their country has in abundance to her nations aid, but much of it arrives too late. > We see here how Jack's possession of property gives him dominance over Jill, > a situation that a socialist society would be designed to prevent (at least > in my concept of socialism). Libertarians say that if Jack's heart bleeds > for Jill, he is free to donate some of his wealth to her or perhaps marry > her. This is true, but entirely beside the point: libertarians believe > that the distribution of wealth is just, WHETHER OR NOT Jack gives away any > of his bucks. The ONLY criterion for justice, say they, is whether the > distribution of wealth is the result of free-market transactions in the > absence of force or fraud. You already knew that Jack was redistributing his wealth. Every time he buys a Rolls Royce, money is transfered. If his money is sitting in a bank then it is being used by some project that is transferring money. If his money is sitting in gold bars in his basement it is keeping inflation down. > Such a view seems hard to beat for sheer moral turpitude. Is this truly > your idea of a decent society, libertarians? Why of course it is, I wouldn't have typed it in if it weren't. What? I *didn't* type it in? Who did? Oh, then it must be *his* view of a decent society. Duh. > The common moral sense of > mankind holds that, in some sense, people should get what they deserve and > deserve what they get. Not so, say (all, most, some) libertarians: > considerations of desert are irrelevant to justice. Well, perhaps the > common moral belief of mankind is wrong. I am increasingly intrigued by the > libertarian concept of distributive justice (and so should you be, as > libertarianism is a growing political force in the US). I await with great > interest a libertarian explanation as to why we should accept Nozick's > theory of DJ in preference to any alternative theory. Again, I have stated that I doubt this medium can be used to convince you of the boons of libertarianism. Lets discuss a smaller issue in depth. How about the issue of conscription. I guess you think it is wise for a country to allow slavery. I don't. Shall we volley the issue a few times? > P.S. Will the socialists on the net PLEASE STAND UP AND IDENTIFY > THEMSELVES? I am beginning to feel as lonely as a moderate > Republican....Perhaps they have gone underground, plotting the overthrow of > the American Way of Life.... > > From the foxhole of > Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes --Cliff [Matthews] {purdue, cmcl2, ihnp4}!lanl!unmvax!cliff {csu-cs, pur-ee, convex, gatech, ucbvax}!unmvax!cliff 4744 Trumbull S.E. - Albuquerque NM 87108 - (505) 265-9143
kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery) (01/11/85)
[Disclaimer: I am not a member of the Libertarian party; nor may any statements I make be construed to represent the viewpoints of *anyone* besides myself.] >From: carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) > >From a recent posting by a libertarian: > >> Taxation is theft.... > >Please give us a break from this type of rhetoric. Your cute little story below is far worse than the above quotation, for being pure rhetoric. > If you simply mean that >taxation is the transfer of wealth by (the implied threat of) force, no one >can disagree. Then how can you even admit the possibility that taxation might be just? Am I to understand that you consider the use of force to be justified? > If you mean that taxation is UNJUST, you must present >arguments in support of a theory of distributive justice on which such an >assertion must be based. Not necessarily. I appear to have missed the "distributive justice" discussion; however, there is a very simple reason why taxation is immoral: it is the enforced payment of a non-contractual pseudo- obligation. The key word is *non-contractual*. Taxpayers never (at least in this country) entered into an agreement with the government whereby the government would provide each of them with well-defined services for well-defined costs. (And even if one set of taxpayers did enter into such an agreement, that would be ethically binding neither on their descenants nor on their contemporaries.) > And thereby hangs another tale.... > >In Libertaria, a future libertarian society, Jack inherits $1 zillion. He >spends his days playing tennis and polo, driving his Rolls, and sipping >Courvoisier by the poolside with the many women who wish to share his >wealth. Note that we immediately have loaded rhetoric here: Jack is put up to be a prime example of a wealthy person; the claim is then made that the average person of wealth is a wastrel. But what Mr. Carnes declines to recognize explicitly is that wealth does not exist in a vacuum -- it must be *produced*. Even $1 zillion (whatever that is) will not last forever unless it is somehow maintained. Thus it is that Jack (as seen below) owns a factory. Jack's method of producing wealth is to make it possible for others to produce goods in his factory. If this factory didn't exist, people like Jill might have no way to support themselves at all. > Whenever he gets into legal trouble (e.g., for paternity), The story continues to be loaded against Jack. I wonder why Mr. Carnes chose to pick on sexual morality here. It appears to have the same relevance to the rest of the example as the comment about Jack's church attendance below. > he >engages the top legal talents of Gouge & Swindle to get him off the hook. As I understand libertarian principles, such as society would not even have lawyers -- the legal system would not be sufficiently complex to require such specialists to help people defend their rights. >He attends church regularly This is irrelevant. Religion has nothing to do with anything else except when used as a basis for coercion of others. But Jack is not engaged in any discernible coercion. > to give thanks that he lives in a society where >freedom prevails and he is not forced to sacrifice his values for the >benefit of others, whether through paying taxes or compulsory military >service It is reasonable to be happy about a good situation. > (Libertaria has been fighting a war against totalitarian >aggressors). Note that even Mr. Carnes admits the existence of totalitarian agression. But he does not establish the relevance of Jack's non-sacrifice. > >Across town lives Jill. She works 12 hours a day, except when she's been >laid off, in the Acme Asbestos plant which Jack owns. She never gets very >far ahead of poverty; her sons were killed in the war. Since there is no >OSHA or EPA, Maybe not, but there would almost certainly be unions... > she must rely on the cheapest lawyers in town, Torts-R-Us, to >represent her Once again, no lawyers needed, so none to be hired. > in her suit against Jack when she contracts cancer from >working in the plant (their record against G&S is zip-500).... The story continues to be loaded, protraying the typical employer (Jack) to be unethically unconcerned with potential dangers to his employees. > >We see here how Jack's possession of property gives him dominance over Jill, I don't. I think you're twisting the meaning of the word "dominance" here. My roommate's dictionary defines it as "control or authority". The fact that Jack has more money than Jill does not, per se, give Jack control or authority over Jill. >a situation that a socialist society would be designed to prevent (at least >in my concept of socialism). You wish to prevent something which does not exist? > Libertarians say that if Jack's heart bleeds >for Jill, he is free to donate some of his wealth to her or perhaps marry >her. This is true, but entirely beside the point: libertarians believe >that the distribution of wealth is just, WHETHER OR NOT Jack gives away any >of his bucks. The ONLY criterion for justice, say they, is whether the >distribution of wealth is the result of free-market transactions in the >absence of force or fraud. > >Such a view seems hard to beat for sheer moral turpitude. Is this truly >your idea of a decent society, libertarians? The common moral sense of >mankind holds that, in some sense, people should get what they deserve and >deserve what they get. Not so, say (all, most, some) libertarians: >considerations of desert are irrelevant to justice. Why does someone deserve other that what he/she can get through free trade of value for value? I think your apparent view, that Jack is obligated to give away something in return for nothing, is "hard to beat for sheer moral turpitude". > ... > >From the foxhole of >Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes It appears that Mr. Carnes has no rational basis for his argument, merely a blind hatred of wealth. I gather from this article that he would level wealth distribution, thus reducing everyone to a common level of misery: under such a system there is a counter- incentive against production, since most of the values any one person produces are immediately taken from him/her (by force if necessary), and distributed to those who did not produce it. Is this your idea of a "decent" society, Mr. Carnes? -- The above viewpoints are mine. They are unrelated to those of anyone else, including my cats and my employer. Ken Montgomery "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" ...!{ihnp4,allegra,seismo!ut-sally}!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA [for Arpanauts only]
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (01/12/85)
> > P.S. Will the socialists on the net PLEASE STAND UP AND IDENTIFY > THEMSELVES? I am beginning to feel as lonely as a moderate > Republican....Perhaps they have gone underground, plotting the overthrow of > the American Way of Life.... > > From the foxhole of > Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes There's support for democratic socialism from this corner...... tim sevener whuxl!orb
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (01/12/85)
> > In Libertaria, a future libertarian society, Jack inherits $1 zillion. He > > spends his days playing tennis and polo, driving his Rolls, and sipping > > Courvoisier by the poolside with the many women who wish to share his > > wealth. Whenever he gets into legal trouble (e.g., for paternity), he > > engages the top legal talents of Gouge & Swindle to get him off the hook. > > Surprise, since the legal code would be so much easier to understand it would > be inconceivable that a lawyer's prowess would enter into the play. Of course > if there were sufficient corruption, then the wealthy would still be getting > the freebies, but we are talking about a libertarian country with a minimalist > government that is non prone to corruption; we are not talking about one of > the many socialist governments riddled with graft. Don't imagine that all the corruption and injustice in the world come about because of the government -- the point of this "story" is to provide a scenario where injustice comes about because of the lack of government regulation in society. > > Across town lives Jill. She works 12 hours a day, except when she's been > > laid off, in the Acme Asbestos plant which Jack owns. She never gets very > > far ahead of poverty; her sons were killed in the war. Since there is no > > OSHA or EPA, she must rely on the cheapest lawyers in town, Torts-R-Us, to > > represent her in her suit against Jack when she contracts cancer from > > working in the plant (their record against G&S is zip-500).... > > This is utter bullshit! > How about Jill is constantly employed, since there is no unemployment. > Jill doesn't have to worry about inflation and has had enough money to > save up for her future years. No unemployment?? No inflation?? Where do you get these claims? > Her sons both opted not to join the service > since there was little incentive (think what the volunteer armed services > would be like if there were 100% employment of civilians...). Maybe they joined because it was the only job they could find, and they felt duty-bound to help their dying mother. Where this figure of 100% employment comes from, I don't understand... But libertarian thought moves in strange and wonderful ways, so I shouldn't presume to question your logic. > Why can't I write a similar paragraph: > > Across town lives Jill. She lives in an utter rat hole, since she and the > other people in her project do not own the building they do not care for it > and it is as poorly maintained as your average ghetto > government-funded project. > She works 12 hours a day because the socialist society has determined that by > doing so she would be optimally benefitting society. The only time she doesn't > work is when there are shortages of products essential to her plant. She isn't > included on the poverty list because it would not be optimal for the state to > admit to the conditions of its workers. One of her sons was drafted and killed > in war, the other after seeing the fate > of his brother turned to criticizing the > government. He was captured, put in an insane asylum, experimented upon and > eventually died. She has absolutely no recourse whatsover when she contracts > cancer due to the working conditions; the government doesn't allow itself to > be criticized much less sued. > > Oh, but I am being to kind. Maybe a more succint story would be: > Jill dies before she is even 10 years old, because the socialist government > that she lives under did not allow its citizens to prepare adequately for > the drought that has hit her nation. Free market countries with sympathetic > citizens rush food that their country has in abundance to her nations aid, but > much of it arrives too late. Sounds bad. But this is like saying, "If you don't think it would be good to be poisoned, think what it would be like to be shot." I don't find this sort of argument very convincing. > > We see here how Jack's possession of property gives him dominance over Jill, > > a situation that a socialist society would be designed to prevent (at least > > in my concept of socialism). Libertarians say that if Jack's heart bleeds > > for Jill, he is free to donate some of his wealth to her or perhaps marry > > her. This is true, but entirely beside the point: libertarians believe > > that the distribution of wealth is just, WHETHER OR NOT Jack gives away any > > of his bucks. The ONLY criterion for justice, say they, is whether the > > distribution of wealth is the result of free-market transactions in the > > absence of force or fraud. > > You already knew that Jack was redistributing his wealth. Every time he > buys a Rolls Royce, money is transfered. If his money is sitting in a bank > then it is being used by some project that is transferring money. If his > money is sitting in gold bars in his basement it is keeping inflation down. So the money is being transfered to Joe across town who is also rich and builds Rolls Royces. Big deal. Keeping inflation down by taking money out of circulation isn't always the best economic policy, either... > > Such a view seems hard to beat for sheer moral turpitude. Is this truly > > your idea of a decent society, libertarians? > > Why of course it is, I wouldn't have typed it in if it weren't. What? I > *didn't* type it in? Who did? Oh, then it must be *his* view of a decent > society. Duh. You are right, libertarians do have a vastly different idea of their ideal society than the one presented here. Of course, this one is much more likely to come about... Wayne
baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (01/13/85)
Cliff [Matthews] responded to Richard Carnes' parable of Libertaria: > > Surprise, since the legal code would be so much easier to understand it would > be inconceivable that a lawyer's prowess would enter into the play. > > > How about Jill is constantly employed, since there is no unemployment. > Jill doesn't have to worry about inflation and has had enough money to > save up for her future years. > If he had the courage to take his logic a little further, Cliff might also have noted that in Libertaria the lion shall lie down with the lamb, all men shall be women, and television sets will grow on trees. Baba
act@pur-phy.UUCP (Alex C. Tselis) (01/13/85)
In article <426@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: >> >> P.S. Will the socialists on the net PLEASE STAND UP AND IDENTIFY >> THEMSELVES? I am beginning to feel as lonely as a moderate >> Republican....Perhaps they have gone underground, plotting the overthrow of >> the American Way of Life.... >> >> From the foxhole of >> Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes > >There's support for democratic socialism from this corner...... > tim sevener whuxl!orb There're lots of socialists around. There are also sympathizers, and there are also those like me who don't call themselves "socialists" because they don't exactly know what that means, but who seem to agree with those who call themselves "socialists" a fair amount of the time.
nrh@inmet.UUCP (01/14/85)
>***** inmet:net.politics / gargoyle!carnes / 9:17 pm Jan 6, 1985 >From a recent posting by a libertarian: > >> Taxation is theft.... > >Please give us a break from this type of rhetoric. If you simply mean that >taxation is the transfer of wealth by (the implied threat of) force, no one >can disagree. If you mean that taxation is UNJUST, you must present >arguments in support of a theory of distributive justice on which such an >assertion must be based. And thereby hangs another tale.... Grr. You seem to have missed this debate -- taxation is THEFT, because the two words mean the same thing. Taxation is UNJUST for the same reason that theft is unjust. That some may argue that tax money is used for "good" purposes later doesn't impress me much -- the act of taking it by threat of force is inherently bad. As for your attempt to lure me into a false position by requiring a "theory of distributive justice": Pfui! The libertarian philosophy focuses on the preemptive importance of "means" as opposed to "ends". If I understand you rightly, you're asking for a definition (by a libertarian) of a just "end" -- some description of how wealth "should" wind up distributed WITHOUT REGARD TO HOW it is distributed. Sorry, no can do -- the method used to reach a given distribution determines whether the distribution is just or not. This is, by the way, a little like demanding from the fellow who came up with the scientific method a list of the outcomes of the method, before you'll employ the method. People who do this tend to get trampled by history. Of course, those who have some particular distribution figured out in advance will sanction almost any degree of force in order to reach it ("End justifies the means" and all that), so of COURSE they must work hard at justifying the OUTCOME -- they've NO moral justification for the PROCESS, EXCEPT the outcome. Libertarians point out that MEANS and not ends are what are under the control of human beings -- thus it is possible to define "good" means and stick to them, but NOT possible to define good outcomes and guarantee one reaches them. (I am aware that "cleaving to good means" constitutes an "end", but for now let's just remember that libertarians aren't promising a "perfect" society, and that "cleaving to good means" is certainly easier to do than "erecting the worker's paradise"). >In Libertaria, a future libertarian society, Jack inherits $1 zillion. He >spends his days playing tennis and polo, driving his Rolls, and sipping >Courvoisier by the poolside with the many women who wish to share his >wealth. Whenever he gets into legal trouble (e.g., for paternity), he >engages the top legal talents of Gouge & Swindle to get him off the hook. >He attends church regularly to give thanks that he lives in a society where >freedom prevails and he is not forced to sacrifice his values for the >benefit of others, whether through paying taxes or compulsory military >service (Libertaria has been fighting a war against totalitarian >aggressors). > >Across town lives Jill. She works 12 hours a day, except when she's been >laid off, in the Acme Asbestos plant which Jack owns. She never gets very >far ahead of poverty; her sons were killed in the war. Since there is no >OSHA or EPA, she must rely on the cheapest lawyers in town, Torts-R-Us, to >represent her in her suit against Jack when she contracts cancer from >working in the plant (their record against G&S is zip-500).... I take it there are no outraged unions in this society? No clever, honest lawyers with a conscience? No fair judges? No charitable societies for provision of decent protection to the indigent? No news media looking for a good sob story? No socialists looking for a good cause to rally around? No competing companies unscrupulous enough to point out Jill and call for a boycott (and thus enlarge their own market share)? No other employees with whom Jill might make common cause? No Ralph Naders? No law firms out to make a fortune by suing Jack for 1/2 zillion on a contingency basis for Jill? Quite a straw-man libertarian society you've proposed here, if you don't have at least half of these. By the way, in OUR society, things are handled more along socialist lines: the main employer of asbestos workers was the US government -- so now, years after WWII (a great deal of shipbuilding apparently used asbestos), when asbestos-caused health conditions are beginning to be a real problem two things are happening: 1. It is ILLEGAL to sue the government (unless Congress accedes -- it hasn't) for anything, so the people falling ill are suing the asbestos companies. (Ah yes, Government, a good instrument of justice). 2. Almost all of these suits are being handled on a contingency basis -- by lawyers who will get nothing if the client loses, and a percentage of the damages if the client wins. (So much for the theory that you must be rich to sue the Big Guys (even if you're forced to sue the wrong Big Guys)). [Source -- "60 Minutes"] As for OSHA and the EPA, I've two words for you to ponder "agent orange". Remember -- the government frequently exempts itself (and in a socialist society this would have more widespread impact than it does now) from its own regulations. Congress, for example, is exempt from Equal Opportunity guidelines. >We see here how Jack's possession of property gives him dominance over Jill, We see nothing of the kind -- If Jill is a subsistence worker, there'd be other jobs available to her (so if she wishes, she may leave Jack's employ at any time). F. A. Hayek had a pretty good quote about this -- he said that a millionaire, even though he might be your neighbor or your employer has less power over you than the least government functionary who can interfere with your right to work. In a libertarian society, there are probably quite a few millionaires, but I don't think there'd be any government functionary who (for example) could tell you that you don't have a work permit, and so you can't work here, move along sonny.... >a situation that a socialist society would be designed to prevent (at least >in my concept of socialism). You will not believe how little the notion that "your" socialist society would be "designed to prevent" certain situations impresses me. Have you ever looked at the constitution of the USSR? From what I've seen (somebody reprinted part of it a while ago) this is a document designed to guide a great, free, people. Did this matter to Stalin? Does it matter to the KGB? Such societies fail to remain free because they concentrate enormous power (enough, as they see it, to correct a bunch of bad things about free market decisions) into the government -- which is promptly a more desirable item for control by the power-hungry than any likely position in a libertarian society. >Libertarians say that if Jack's heart bleeds >for Jill, he is free to donate some of his wealth to her or perhaps marry >her. This is true, but entirely beside the point: libertarians believe >that the distribution of wealth is just, WHETHER OR NOT Jack gives away any >of his bucks. This is correct, as far as it goes. Libertarians would not sanction the initiation of force to redress what some would see as a badly-askew distribution -- BUT -- there'd be nothing preventing (say) a boycott of Jack's products by those who think him too wealthy, or other non-coercive, non-fraudulent ways of stripping him of his fortune. After a while, Jack's fortune will tend to bleed away anyhow (if nothing else, his law firm and the ladies by the poolside are making a fair bundle off of it). To put a finer point on it, some libertarians would surely believe that Jill (or the Jills of the world) got a raw deal, and would devote a portion of their resources to helping them out. That they would do this doesn't mean that they consider Jill has a reason to demand (via a government and initiation of force) compensation from Jack (although, of course, she might if she could prove that Jack had told her that (say) asbestos work had no health hazards associated with it). >The ONLY criterion for justice, say they, is whether the >distribution of wealth is the result of free-market transactions in the >absence of force or fraud. > >Such a view seems hard to beat for sheer moral turpitude. This is like saying that cutting your lawn with a hand mower rather than a power mower is hard to beat for sheer moral turpitude. If libertarians choose non-governmental ways of handling charity, are they therefore less moral? If their charity is relatively cost-efficient, is the money saved by the givers (to ensure a given level of aid to the indigent, they need give less) "dirty money"? >Is this truly >your idea of a decent society, libertarians? The common moral sense of >mankind holds that, in some sense, people should get what they deserve and >deserve what they get. Oho! The "common moral sense of mankind"! Well, I claim no such grandiose backing, but merely point out that there's a difference between recognizing a desirable end and deciding that it must be pursued by governmental means. It is a difference you are blurring, to be sure, but a difference none the less. Let's make it clear. You argue: 1) There are distributions of wealth that are "just" and others that are "unjust". 2) Government must not tolerate an unjust distribution, and is therefore free to initiate force, fraud, or threats against those who benefit from the unjust distribution. Now let me advance a rather new idea -- "government" is not all that good an instrument for "justice". It is sometimes WORSE than nothing. Let me advance another idea -- government control of everything (the socialist plan) implies immense power for those in control of the government. Is government the best way to arrive at social justice? Should high Soviet military types get country houses while factory workers must live with their parents in Moscow (if they're lucky?). >Not so, say (all, most, some) libertarians: >considerations of desert are irrelevant to justice. Well, perhaps the >common moral belief of mankind is wrong. It certainly wouldn't be the first time that the popularity of an idea had no impact on its validity. It doesn't matter how many people believe the earth is flat (or round, for that matter). It doesn't matter how sincere a physicist is when he sets up an experiment -- the universe plays according to rules that render INTENT irrelevant to PERFORMANCE. Socialists are fond of pointing out what they see as brutal consequences of libertarianism, but tend to underplay the massive cruelties of those engaged in socialist reform (in the USSR, for example), or to dismiss those places as "not really socialist". This is a natural tendency -- such a glaring counterexample to the notion that a powerful, well-intentioned government will produce just results is difficult to reconcile with their belief that "justice" is consistent with "the end justifies the means". >I am increasingly intrigued by the >libertarian concept of distributive justice (and so should you be, as >libertarianism is a growing political force in the US). I await with great >interest a libertarian explanation as to why we should accept Nozick's >theory of DJ in preference to any alternative theory. In a nutshell then: any theory of DJ which focuses on ENDS focuses on something that human beings cannot control. Human beings must employ means to achieve ends, and while they may control the means, the ends are not guaranteed. Thus ANY system that leaves aside the morality of the means is essentially ignoring the fundamental human moral question: "How to act?" This is not a bad reason to prefer Nozick's ideas to those of Marx.
rjw@ptsfc.UUCP (Rod Williams) (01/14/85)
>There's support for democratic socialism from this corner...... > tim sevener whuxl!orb ditto! -- Rod Williams "...uh...now what I was going to put here... dual!ptsfa!ptsfc!rjw ...um...er...ah...will this do instead...?"
cliff@unmvax.UUCP (01/16/85)
> You are right, libertarians do have a vastly different idea of their ideal > society than the one presented here. Of course, this one is much more likely > to come about... Please back up your claim that RC's view is more likely to come about. His scenario was a hack job. The socialist scenario I painted was also a hack job. My point was to discredit the first by showing it would be easy to make up sob stories about a possible government. Tell me how *your* government would work and I will show you another sob story. Of course my comment about Jill starving before she was 10 isn't that far off base; I can think of many socialist countries that have had (or are having) troubles with production and distribution of food for their citizens. So what does a hypothetical story have to do with the issues? Here is another plea to discuss the merits of libertarianism or socialism on a small scale (i.e. I believe that the repeal of all victimless crime laws (esp. drugs, gambling and prostitution would significantly lower the number of violent crimes committed.) It might be possible to introduce some evidence for both sides. Real life examples could be used rather than storybook fantasies. If RC wants to distill all the points he was making about libertarianism into specific topics I will discuss them without hesitation (I would attempt to do the distillation myself, but I wouldn't want to introduce the possibility of misrepresenting his views). Since you are convinced that his depiction is a better prediction of the future than mine you can cite your reasons too. I just don't want to debate on such a grand scale that issues will be slippery and cause and effect hard to pin down. > > Wayne --Cliff
garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (01/16/85)
> [Disclaimer: I am not a member of the Libertarian party; > nor may any statements I make be construed to represent > the viewpoints of *anyone* besides myself.] > > >From: carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) > > > >From a recent posting by a libertarian: > > > >> Taxation is theft.... > >Please give us a break from this type of rhetoric. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary: Tax (vt): 1. To assess ordetermine judicially the amount of (costs in a court action). 2. To levy a tax on. 3. (obs) To enter (a name) in a list. 4. Charge, accuse, censure. 5: To make onerous and rigorous demands upon. Tax (n): 1a. A charge usually of money imposed by authority upon persons or property for public purposes. 1b. a sum levied on members of an organization to defray expenses. 2. A heavy demand. [key phrase is "by authority"] Taxation (n): 1. The action of taxing; esp. the imposition of taxes. 2. revenue obtained from taxes. 3. the amount assessed as a tax. Theft (n): 1a. The act of stealing; specif, the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it. 1b. an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property. 2 (obs) something stolen. 3 a stolen base in baseball. I think that "depriving the rightful owner" is synonomous with "without authority." Therefore, taxation is not theft; the question remains, however, is what the government does taxation or theft? I.e., does the government have the authority to levy taxes? (Answers of the form, "no, because taxation IS theft" are question-begging.) Does the government have any responsibilities which require funding to discharge? Or, are all of the responsibilities of the government contingent on someone's willingness and ability to finance it? > there is a very simple reason why taxation is > immoral: it is the enforced payment of a non-contractual pseudo- > obligation. The key word is *non-contractual*. Taxpayers never > (at least in this country) entered into an agreement with the > government whereby the government would provide each of them with > well-defined services for well-defined costs. (And even if one > set of taxpayers did enter into such an agreement, that would be > ethically binding neither on their descenants nor on their > contemporaries.) Then, neither should the government's monopoly on the use of force be binding on those same descendants. > > And thereby hangs another tale.... ...which I agree is an absurd scenario. > > he > >engages the top legal talents of Gouge & Swindle to get him off the hook. > > As I understand libertarian principles, such as society would not > even have lawyers -- the legal system would not be sufficiently > complex to require such specialists to help people defend their > rights. Oh come now. No lawyers? HA! I keep hearing libertarians say that in the case of a dispute, one can always sue. Who's going to handle these suits? > You wish to prevent something which does not exist? Of course. If it already exists, it's too late to prevent it. Gary Samuelson ittvax!bunker!garys
mwm@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA (01/17/85)
In article <671@bunker.UUCP> garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) writes: [Definitions deleted - mwm] >I think that "depriving the rightful owner" is synonomous with >"without authority." > >Therefore, taxation is not theft; the question remains, however, >is what the government does taxation or theft? I.e., does the >government have the authority to levy taxes? (Answers of the >form, "no, because taxation IS theft" are question-begging.) It all becomes crystal clear now: Taxation is not theft, because it's being done by the government. The same actions, taken for the same reasons, by somebody other than the government, would be theft. Looks like you're begging the question just a bit, too. >Does the government have any responsibilities which require >funding to discharge? Or, are all of the responsibilities of >the government contingent on someone's willingness and ability >to finance it? I think you found the nub. To rewrite it, if you think that the government has the right to tax people, then taxation isn't theft. Likewise, if you don't think it has that right, then taxation is theft. I'll duck the question from now on, and just say that theft is taxation. Now, if you think that the government has the right to tax you, are you going to argue with it's right to spend the money as the duly elected officials decree? Such things as the SDI, more missiles, enforced discrimination, 100% retirement pay for some federal employees, etc? <mike
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (01/18/85)
> >I think that "depriving the rightful owner" is synonomous with > >"without authority." > > > >Therefore, taxation is not theft; the question remains, however, > >is what the government does taxation or theft? I.e., does the > >government have the authority to levy taxes? (Answers of the > >form, "no, because taxation IS theft" are question-begging.) > > It all becomes crystal clear now: Taxation is not theft, because it's being > done by the government. The same actions, taken for the same reasons, by > somebody other than the government, would be theft. Looks like you're > begging the question just a bit, too. No, what he is saying is, "The government defines what is right and what is wrong". > Now, if you think that the government has the right to tax you, are you > going to argue with it's right to spend the money as the duly elected > officials decree? Such things as the SDI, more missiles, enforced > discrimination, 100% retirement pay for some federal employees, etc? I will say that it is right to spend the money as the duly elected officials decree. I will also say it is right to elect officials who are going to spend the money however you want them to. You elected those officials who are buying missles, so why are you complaining about them? Wayne
cliff@unmvax.UUCP (01/18/85)
> > As I understand libertarian principles, such as society would not > > even have lawyers -- the legal system would not be sufficiently > > complex to require such specialists to help people defend their > > rights. > > Oh come now. No lawyers? HA! I keep hearing libertarians > say that in the case of a dispute, one can always sue. Who's > going to handle these suits? No lawyers may be misleading... Currently I represent myself. I have no qualms about taking someone to small claims court if they screw around on the otherside of a deal. Usually it is settled out of court. If I had more free time and there was some money in it (or a worthy cause in need of my services) I would be willing to represent someone else. Of course the bar might get a little upset and it probably wouldn't be worth the hassle. Taking time to look up all the relevant laws and precedences for just a simple dispute currently takes quite a bit of time (and on top of that I usually wind up reading all sorts of misc. tidbits on the way, wasting still more time); if the laws were simpler more people would be representing themselves and their friends/neighbors or people willing to give them money... would they be lawyers? Yes and no, these people would be doing the work of a lawyer but they would be as free to practice law without being certified as I am to program without being a member of ACM ('though I am a member of ACM, I am free not to be). --Cliff [Matthews] {purdue, cmcl2, ihnp4}!lanl!unmvax!cliff {csu-cs, pur-ee, convex, gatech, ucbvax}!unmvax!cliff 4744 Trumbull S.E. - Albuquerque NM 87108 - (505) 265-9143
mwm@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA (01/18/85)
["Taxation has two forms: Random pillage and organized extortion."] [>> = me, > = faustus@ucbcad.UUCP] >> Now, if you think that the government has the right to tax you, are you >> going to argue with it's right to spend the money as the duly elected >> officials decree? Such things as the SDI, more missiles, enforced >> discrimination, 100% retirement pay for some federal employees, etc? > >I will say that it is right to spend the money as the duly elected >officials decree. I will also say it is right to elect officials who >are going to spend the money however you want them to. You elected those >officials who are buying missles, so why are you complaining about them? > > Wayne Wait a minute! I 1) didn't complain, and 2) didn't elect (most of) those officials. I complain about the organized extortion that the government is running, and vote for people who should reduce the amount of the tax and the number of victimless crimes & post facto laws. Since the public is sold on all of the above, very few of the people I vote for get elected. <mike
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (01/18/85)
> > >> Taxation is theft.... > > Tax (n): 1a. A charge usually of money imposed by authority > upon persons or property for public purposes. ... > > [key phrase is "by authority"] > ... > Theft (n): 1a. The act of stealing; specif, the felonious taking > and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the > rightful owner of it. ... > > I think that "depriving the rightful owner" is synonomous with > "without authority." > > Therefore, taxation is not theft; ... These definitions seem almost defensive of the status quo... I think they are bad definitions, ie, not very close to the commonly accepted meaning of "taxation" and "theft". For example, if there is graft and the tax money goes into private hands, was it not tax in the first place? Or, theft is not necessarily a felony; in NJ a felony is a crime "exhibiting disregard for the value of human life", ie, violent crime. I claim that the normally accepted meaning for taxation is simply "the government's taking your money" and for theft "anyone's taking something against your will". All the counter-argument amounts to is "taxation isn't illegal so it isn't theft". A matter of opinion, I'd say. --JoSH Ironic PS: Back to Webster's Collegiate: Extort, vt: to obtain from a person by force or undue or illegal power or ingenuity (note the "or"s) This causes "tax" and "extort" to agree quite nicely; the libertarians should perhaps be saying: "Taxation is extortion." Do you like that better? Final note--same dictionary: Extortion, n: the act of extorting esp. money or other property; specif: the offense committed by an OFFICIAL engaging in such practice. (emphasis mine)
nrh@inmet.UUCP (01/20/85)
>***** inmet:net.politics / bunker!garys / 5:19 pm Jan 17, 1985 >> [Disclaimer: I am not a member of the Libertarian party; >> nor may any statements I make be construed to represent >> the viewpoints of *anyone* besides myself.] >> >> >From: carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) >> > >> >From a recent posting by a libertarian: >> > >> >> Taxation is theft.... > >> >Please give us a break from this type of rhetoric. > >Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary: > >Tax (vt): 1. To assess ordetermine judicially the amount of >(costs in a court action). 2. To levy a tax on. 3. (obs) >To enter (a name) in a list. 4. Charge, accuse, censure. >5: To make onerous and rigorous demands upon. > >Tax (n): 1a. A charge usually of money imposed by authority >upon persons or property for public purposes. 1b. a sum >levied on members of an organization to defray expenses. >2. A heavy demand. > >[key phrase is "by authority"] > >Taxation (n): 1. The action of taxing; esp. the imposition >of taxes. 2. revenue obtained from taxes. 3. the amount >assessed as a tax. > >Theft (n): 1a. The act of stealing; specif, the felonious taking >and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the >rightful owner of it. 1b. an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement >or burglary) of property. 2 (obs) something stolen. 3 a stolen >base in baseball. > >I think that "depriving the rightful owner" is synonomous with >"without authority." >Therefore, taxation is not theft; That's interesting -- My dictionary "Webster's New World" defines "steal" as: "To take or appropriate (another's property, ideas, etc.) without permission, dishonestly, or unlawfully, esp. in a secret or surreptitious manner." Note that lack of permission is all that is required (or dishonesty, or unlawfullness). To say that taxation is not theft on dictionary grounds would be quite risky. Your implication is that taxation is not theft because the government hast the right to define ("by authority") what portion of one's salary is not rightfully owned by its earner. My own dictionary leaves the question of "authority" vs. "right" open: "Authority:... the power or right to give commands, enforce obedience, take action, or make final decisions". Note that "power" and "right" are distinguished. > ... the question remains, however, >is what the government does taxation or theft? I.e., does the >government have the authority to levy taxes? (Answers of the >form, "no, because taxation IS theft" are question-begging.) >Does the government have any responsibilities which require >funding to discharge? Or, are all of the responsibilities of >the government contingent on someone's willingness and ability >to finance it? Oho! Let's be clear on ends and means here. To say that the government has the "responsibility" to do something doesn't mean that any means whatsoever are permissible in pursuit of that goal. If, for example, the government had the responsibility to keep the streets safe, that would not render permissible the torture and interrogation of street gang-members. The CONVENIENCE of the government is not the basis for good law -- thus your question: "Does the government have any responsibilities which require funding to discharge" is MILES away from being the same as "Does the government have the right to tax people". > >> there is a very simple reason why taxation is >> immoral: it is the enforced payment of a non-contractual pseudo- >> obligation. The key word is *non-contractual*. Taxpayers never >> (at least in this country) entered into an agreement with the >> government whereby the government would provide each of them with >> well-defined services for well-defined costs. (And even if one >> set of taxpayers did enter into such an agreement, that would be >> ethically binding neither on their descenants nor on their >> contemporaries.) > >Then, neither should the government's monopoly on the use of >force be binding on those same descendants. IT WAS NOT! That's why states had their own police forces despite having a central government. That's why the FBI can use force inside state borders. That's why the right to bear arms was in the constitution. If you disagree, please find in the constitution the place where the US government claims a monopoly of force. > >> > And thereby hangs another tale.... > >...which I agree is an absurd scenario. > >> > he >> >engages the top legal talents of Gouge & Swindle to get him off the hook. >> >> As I understand libertarian principles, such as society would not >> even have lawyers -- the legal system would not be sufficiently >> complex to require such specialists to help people defend their >> rights. > >Oh come now. No lawyers? HA! I keep hearing libertarians >say that in the case of a dispute, one can always sue. Who's >going to handle these suits? That sort of depends -- my own belief is that there would wind up being professional negotiators, lawyers if you like, but that not all judgement agencies would permit their use. In any case lawyers in a libertarian society would have no special privileges, they'd need none (perhaps this is what the poster meant?).