gabor@qantel.UUCP (Gabor Fencsik@ex2642) (08/23/85)
One quick and obvious comment on JoSH's critique of socialist thought using
the extended metaphor of the social engineer operating on society 'from the
outside', adjusting or discarding parts of the machinery. The metaphor is
apt and I won't argue with it but it sounds strange coming from a libertarian
who is proposing radical reforms which would mean adjusting and discarding
a great deal and walking over a great many people. [I am not talking about
Libertaria now but the means of getting there from here.]
Take the dismantling of the welfare state, for example. Your starting point is
a society in which around one third of all households receive a part of their
income from government sources. As a matter of political reality, such
payments represent a form of property right no less real than the income
from bonds inherited from a rich uncle. This political reality will not
disappear through rational argument about legitimacy, force and fraud -
or by convincing the deluded owners of these phantom property rights
that they are bound to be better off when the experiment is finished.
You can only make it disappear through the very same process of social
engineering that you find so abhorrent in socialists. Such social engineering
would have to be underpinned by systemic arguments treating society as
a whole, just as the dreaded socialist doctrines do.
So if systemic thinking and a propensity for social surgery are inadmissible
then socialists and libertarians are equally guilty of thought-crime.
-----
Gabor Fencsik {ihnp4,dual,hplabs,intelca}!qantel!gabor mcgeer@ucbvax.ARPA (Rick McGeer) (08/27/85)
In article <513@qantel.UUCP> gabor@qantel.UUCP (Gabor Fencsik@ex2642) writes: > >One quick and obvious comment on JoSH's critique of socialist thought using >the extended metaphor of the social engineer operating on society 'from the >outside', adjusting or discarding parts of the machinery. The metaphor is >apt and I won't argue with it but it sounds strange coming from a libertarian >who is proposing radical reforms which would mean adjusting and discarding >a great deal and walking over a great many people. [I am not talking about >Libertaria now but the means of getting there from here.] > >Take the dismantling of the welfare state, for example. Your starting point is >a society in which around one third of all households receive a part of their >income from government sources. As a matter of political reality, such >payments represent a form of property right no less real than the income >from bonds inherited from a rich uncle. This political reality will not >disappear through rational argument about legitimacy, force and fraud - >or by convincing the deluded owners of these phantom property rights >that they are bound to be better off when the experiment is finished. >You can only make it disappear through the very same process of social >engineering that you find so abhorrent in socialists. Such social engineering >would have to be underpinned by systemic arguments treating society as >a whole, just as the dreaded socialist doctrines do. > >So if systemic thinking and a propensity for social surgery are inadmissible >then socialists and libertarians are equally guilty of thought-crime. > >----- >Gabor Fencsik {ihnp4,dual,hplabs,intelca}!qantel!gabor This is an interesting notion. Taxation is theft, and income redistribution is the distribution of stolen goods. Never before have I heard that the receiver of stolen property enjoys any property right in those goods, especially when, as in this case, the receivers are in fact conspirators before and during the act of theft. As a practical matter, you are correct: people who receive welfare, and those who receive the non-welfare transfer payments which are subsidies to the middle class (Social Security, Student Loans and subsidized services such as public universities) perceive a property right therein and will not countenance their removal. It is this obduracy and illusion which underlies many of our current domestic problems, from the deficit through the various agonies of public education. Informed discussions, however, require clear reasoning and moral accuracy. One has no property right in goods stolen from others, it is not social engineering to demand that the social engineers stop tinkering, and it is hardly a radical reform to ask that those who engage in systematic theft please stop. Now, if we demanded that the last socialist be hung from the entrails of the last tax collector --- well, now that would be a radical, if beneficial, reform. -- Rick.
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (08/28/85)
> Taxation is theft, and income redistribution is > the distribution of stolen goods. Never before have I heard that the receiver > of stolen property enjoys any property right in those goods, especially when, > as in this case, the receivers are in fact conspirators before and during the > act of theft. > > As a practical matter, you are correct: people who receive welfare, and those > who receive the non-welfare transfer payments which are subsidies to the middle > class (Social Security, Student Loans and subsidized services such as public > universities) perceive a property right therein and will not countenance > their removal. It is this obduracy and illusion which underlies many of our > current domestic problems, from the deficit through the various agonies of > public education. Informed discussions, however, require clear reasoning and > moral accuracy. One has no property right in goods stolen from others, it > is not social engineering to demand that the social engineers stop tinkering, > and it is hardly a radical reform to ask that those who engage in systematic > theft please stop. > > Now, if we demanded that the last socialist be hung from the entrails of the > last tax collector --- > > well, now that would be a radical, if beneficial, reform. > > -- Rick. Saying that taxation is theft has as much sence as saying that property s theft. Both statement state opposition to historically evolved social institutions. The notion of property is by no means absolute. The only absolute value is survival. All others are aquired by humans in the process of societal development (as opposed to biological evolution). Thus property, liberty, marriage, parental duties etc. are meaningful only in the context of a given society. Historically, taxation was earlier then property in capitalistic sence. Of course, earlier does not imply better. It does not imply worse either. I can listen to arguments that taxation should be minimal, as to maximize the scope of self-regulatory market mechanism. I do not agree with that, but this is a matter of some rational argument + rational value judgments. However a claim that taxation is theft is beyond the scope of rationality. Even "nigth watchman" state requires some taxes to supports its necessary functions. For some period the only federal taxes in USA were customs, which is a form of sales tax. Still, there were internal revenues supporting necessary functions of state and local goverments, plus public lands (like Central Park in NYC or Boston Commons). I do not know wheter the "taxation is theft" argument belongs to net.politics.invectives or net.politics.slogans, but surely not in net.politics.theory. If you want to have a minimal state, provide arguments (I could think of efficiency, soundness of checks and balances etc.) examples, case studies but do not call all others habitual thiefs. The purpose of your letter is to express your emotions. The purpose of theory is study facts, generalize and predict. *************************************************************** * * * In a fit of pessimism I envisioned Rick muttering: * * I found out that you sleal, I generalize that you are * * a thief and I predict that you will be a thief. * * * ***************************************************************
doc@cxsea.UUCP (Documentation ) (08/29/85)
> This is an interesting notion. Taxation is theft, and > income redistribution is the distribution of stolen goods. > Never before have I heard that the receiver of stolen > property enjoys any property right in those goods, > especially when, as in this case, the receivers are in > fact conspirators before and during the act of theft. > As a practical matter, you are correct: people who receive > welfare, and those who receive the non-welfare transfer > payments which are subsidies to the middle class (Social > Security, Student Loans and subsidized services such as > public universities) perceive a property right therein and > will not countenance their removal. It is this obduracy > and illusion which underlies many of our current domestic > problems, from the deficit through the various agonies of > public education. Informed discussions, however, require > clear reasoning and moral accuracy. One has no property > right in goods stolen from others, it is not social > engineering to demand that the social engineers stop > tinkering, and it is hardly a radical reform to ask that > those who engage in systematic theft please stop. Now, > if we demanded that the last socialist be hung from the > entrails of the last tax collector --- well, now that > would be a radical, if beneficial, reform. -- Rick. Well, Rick, that's all fine and good....but, first of all, you're confusing legal norms with political rhetoric. For one thing, taxation is not theft. Any society has certain communal functions, paid for by the group (such as defense). You enjoy mutual reciprocal benefits from this arrangement (i.e. you don't have to defend your vital American interests down in Nicaragua - somebody else is paid for that ;-)). Now, I suppose if you're shouting to a crowd on a street corner that "Taxation is theft", you can expect some rousing cheers, and such, but that doesn't make it so. Your further assertion that people cannot have property rights in stolen goods is equally simplistic. However YOU choose define concepts like "property", "stolen goods", "theft", etc., the fact remains that these concepts have been evolving and developing for 2000 years or so into their present form - hence, the current political reality is that Libertaria is gonna piss off an awful lot of folks. Now then, your comments quoted above were a response to someone else, who only raised the question of how do you deal with current political realities, other than through force. The only suggestion I saw in your response is that we non-libertarians have only to wake-up, and put aside the illusions and lies. Well, shucks, I can't do that, not until I see something more concrete than street-corner slogans like "Taxation is theft!". To put it another way, try convincing me, instead of yelling at me. I'm much easier to persuade that way. Joel Gilman @Motorola/Computer X, Inc. Seattle
mcgeer@ucbvax.ARPA (Rick McGeer) (08/30/85)
In article <1751@psuvax1.UUCP> berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) writes: > Saying that taxation is theft has as much sence as saying that property >s theft. A man walks up to you with a loaded gun and demands that you give him some large percentage of your paycheque, after first revealing to him as many details of your life as he cares to know. If you refuse, he locks you in a cell for a long time. Is this theft? No, of course not. It's extortion. >Both statement state opposition to historically evolved social >institutions. The notion of property is by no means absolute. The only >absolute value is survival. All others are aquired by humans in the >process of societal development (as opposed to biological evolution). >Thus property, liberty, marriage, parental duties etc. are meaningful >only in the context of a given society. This is the usual blather of a statist justifying outrages upon any or all of the institutions of property, marriage or liberty, or at least upon the enjoyment of those institutions by somebody else. Bull. "Man is endowed with certain Rights by his Creator..." Some of us still believe that. > Historically, taxation was earlier then property in capitalistic sence. >Of course, earlier does not imply better. It does not imply worse either. Come off it. When our mutual ancient ancestor first swacked a peer over the antelope he'd bagged, that was property. If you're claiming that the state's right to tax precedes a human's right to property, well, I'm not really prepared to accept that. >I can listen to arguments that taxation should be minimal, as to maximize >the scope of self-regulatory market mechanism. I do not agree with that, >but this is a matter of some rational argument + rational value judgments. Uh-uh, that it is not. I have yet to see any example in history where the state outperformed the market in any field save the destruction of wealth. > However a claim that taxation is theft is beyond the scope of rationality. >Even "nigth watchman" state requires some taxes to supports its necessary >functions. For some period the only federal taxes in USA were customs, >which is a form of sales tax. Still, there were internal revenues supporting >necessary functions of state and local goverments, plus public lands (like >Central Park in NYC or Boston Commons). Fortunately for your argument, both the Boston Common and Central Park are well-policed, wholesome, clean, crime-free areas. More seriously, the great thing about local and state taxes is that you don't have to put up with them. You can leave. Market forces then nail the localities that insist upon gouging their citizens for nitwit federal programs. Southeastern Pennsylvania is now crowded with people that work in Delaware. New York City paid for its high-tax socialist folly by going bankrupt in the '70s. But Washington? They can gouge us forever. > I do not know wheter the "taxation is theft" argument belongs to >net.politics.invectives or net.politics.slogans, but surely not in >net.politics.theory. If you want to have a minimal state, provide >arguments (I could think of efficiency, soundness of checks and balances etc.) >examples, case studies but do not call all others habitual thiefs. >The purpose of your letter is to express your emotions. The purpose of >theory is study facts, generalize and predict. If the socialists ever looked at the facts, socialism would have died its well-deserved death 30 years ago, after Atlee's Labour government had succeeded in impoverishing Britain despite the Marshall Plan. Instead, my daily newspaper and this newgroup are filled with the mindless rantings of those who crucify the fact of socialism's abysmal failings on the same cross they have reserved for human liberty. Socialism delenda est, -- Rick. >*************************************************************** >* * >* In a fit of pessimism I envisioned Rick muttering: * >* I found out that you sleal, I generalize that you are * >* a thief and I predict that you will be a thief. * >* * >*************************************************************** No. I found out that you believe in socialism, I generalize that you believe in other fantasies as well and I predict that I can sell you a bridge.
bob@pedsgd.UUCP (Robert A. Weiler) (09/03/85)
Organization : Perkin-Elmer DSG, Tinton Falls NJ Keywords: In article <10235@ucbvax.ARPA> mcgeer@ucbvax.UUCP (Rick McGeer) writes: >Uh-uh, that it is not. I have yet to see any example in history where the > state outperformed the market in any field save the destruction of wealth. > The good old US of A, from 1946-1985. The most properous nation in recorded history, even AFTER FDR dont ya know. Course this little thing called WW II had somethin to do with it. Bob Weiler.
josh@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (J Storrs Hall) (09/04/85)
In article <256@pedsgd.UUCP> bob@pedsgd.UUCP (Robert A. Weiler) writes: >In article <10235@ucbvax.ARPA> mcgeer@ucbvax.UUCP (Rick McGeer) writes: >>Uh-uh, that it is not. I have yet to see any example in history where the >> state outperformed the market in any field save the destruction of wealth. >> >The good old US of A, from 1946-1985. The most properous nation in recorded >history, even AFTER FDR dont ya know. Course this little thing called WW II >had somethin to do with it. > >Bob Weiler. My God, a Ken Arndt clone. With about 3% the IQ of the original. --JoSH
dlo@drutx.UUCP (OlsonDL) (09/05/85)
From: gabor@qantel.UUCP (Gabor Fencsik@ex2642) >One quick and obvious comment on JoSH's critique of socialist thought using >the extended metaphor of the social engineer operating on society 'from the >outside', adjusting or discarding parts of the machinery. The metaphor is >apt and I won't argue with it but it sounds strange coming from a libertarian >who is proposing radical reforms which would mean adjusting and discarding >a great deal and walking over a great many people. [I am not talking about >Libertaria now but the means of getting there from here.] > >Take the dismantling of the welfare state, for example. Your starting point is >a society in which around one third of all households receive a part of their >income from government sources. As a matter of political reality, such >payments represent a form of property right no less real than the income >from bonds inherited from a rich uncle. "political reality" Isn't that an oxymoron? :-) Besides, government is not a source of wealth. Unlike uncles, government cannot generate wealth; it can give only what it takes from people who produce. >This political reality will not >disappear through rational argument about legitimacy, force and fraud - >or by convincing the deluded owners of these phantom property rights >that they are bound to be better off when the experiment is finished. >You can only make it disappear through the very same process of social >engineering that you find so abhorrent in socialists. Such social engineering >would have to be underpinned by systemic arguments treating society as >a whole, just as the dreaded socialist doctrines do. > >So if systemic thinking and a propensity for social surgery are inadmissible >then socialists and libertarians are equally guilty of thought-crime. That is almost like saying that since they both use a knife to cut open people, there is no difference between Jack the Ripper and a heart surgeon. >Gabor Fencsik {ihnp4,dual,hplabs,intelca}!qantel!gabor These opinions belong to anyone who wants to claim them. David Olson ..!ihnp4!drutx!dlo "To laugh at men of sense is the privilege of fools". -- Jean de la Bruyere
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (09/11/85)
>"political reality" Isn't that an oxymoron? :-) Besides, government is not >a source of wealth. Unlike uncles, government cannot generate wealth; it can >give only what it takes from people who produce. That is false. Wealth is created by the re-organization of things (the reduction of entropy, if you like). Government most definitely can aid in such organization. Whether it is the most efficient way of doing so is a different story, but to regard government as only a transfer medium for existing wealth is like seeing a painting as a transfer medium for oil and pigment. >>So if systemic thinking and a propensity for social surgery are inadmissible >>then socialists and libertarians are equally guilty of thought-crime. > >That is almost like saying that since they both use a knife to cut open people, >there is no difference between Jack the Ripper and a heart surgeon. A good analogy. Jack the Ripper was certainly individualistic in his approach to surgery, in the fine libertarian tradition. Surgeons cut open people under tightly controlled norms and regulations, in the socialist tradition. > >David Olson -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
mcgeer@ucbvax.ARPA (Rick McGeer) (09/19/85)
In article <1674@dciem.UUCP> mmt@dciem.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: > >>"political reality" Isn't that an oxymoron? :-) Besides, government is not >>a source of wealth. Unlike uncles, government cannot generate wealth; it can >>give only what it takes from people who produce. > >That is false. Wealth is created by the re-organization of things >(the reduction of entropy, if you like). ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ When I took physics, I was taught that entropy always increased. When I took economics, I was taught that the only way to increase wealth was to produce: and that generally takes labor. Oh, economists will argue that one can get some factors to produce more than they did before, but the way to do this is to remove artificial barriers to production. Hint: what is the most prominent barrier to production or exchange? >Government most definitely >can aid in such organization. A Canadian says this? After 15 years of Trudeau? TO see how government -- your government, formerly mine -- "aids" such a reorganization, read "The Sorcerer's Apprentice", or how Trudeau and Jack Austin together bankrupted Calgary in the midst of an oil boom. >Whether it is the most efficient way >of doing so is a different story, but to regard government as only >a transfer medium for existing wealth is like seeing a painting as >a transfer medium for oil and pigment. No one regards government as a transfer medium for existing wealth, unless you think of a black hole as a "transfer medium". Socialism Delenda Est, Rick.
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (09/21/85)
>>>"political reality" Isn't that an oxymoron? :-) Besides, government is not >>>a source of wealth. Unlike uncles, government cannot generate wealth; it can >>>give only what it takes from people who produce. >> >>That is false. Wealth is created by the re-organization of things >>(the reduction of entropy, if you like). >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >When I took physics, I was taught that entropy always increased. Then you misunderstood your physics. Entropy increases over a closed system. Here we are talking about a system fueled by energy mostly obtained from the sun (yes, a "free lunch"). In the presence of energy flows, entropy in a subsystem can and often does decrease (organization increases). That's what life is all about, whether of biological or social orgainisms. >When I took >economics, I was taught that the only way to increase wealth was to produce: >and that generally takes labor. Oh, economists will argue that one can get >some factors to produce more than they did before, but the way to do this is >to remove artificial barriers to production. Hint: what is the most prominent >barrier to production or exchange? "Production" is the organization of raw materials or smaller parts into a coherent entity (entropy reduction). It is only the development of such organization that creates wealth, and the organization that forms "production" is often aided by social orgainization, whether private or public. The most prominent barrier to production or exchange is lack of mutually agreed information. I think both "libertarians" and "socialists" will agree on this one, but thanks for bringing it up. > >>Government most definitely >>can aid in such organization. > >A Canadian says this? After 15 years of Trudeau? TO see how government -- >your government, formerly mine -- "aids" such a reorganization, read "The >Sorcerer's Apprentice", or how Trudeau and Jack Austin together bankrupted >Calgary in the midst of an oil boom. I do agree to some extent about Trudeau. His governmental style became increasingly capitalistic, and depressing to the economy. I confess to having become quite annoyed with his policies from time to time, because of it. But now I look back on those times with some nostalgia. At least Trudeau had a set of principles to guide him, and a reasonably well developed knowledge of the world and its interactions. He certainly put effort into an unpopular but essential cause -- the North-South dialogue, and attempts to improve the prosperity of the Third World, without which Northern prosperity will be hard pressed to endure. > >>Whether it is the most efficient way >>of doing so is a different story, but to regard government as only >>a transfer medium for existing wealth is like seeing a painting as >>a transfer medium for oil and pigment. > >No one regards government as a transfer medium for existing wealth, unless >you think of a black hole as a "transfer medium". > > Socialism Delenda Est, > Rick. This is unclear, unless you think that civil servants dump their paychecks into the sewers -- no, that wouldn't do it, because it would reduce only the money, not the wealth. Perhaps it must be that people don't buy things with money passed through taxes? No, that hardly seems right. I give up. What DO you mean? -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
dlo@drutx.UUCP (OlsonDL) (09/25/85)
> and >>> = Martin Taylor >> = Rick >>> >>>Wealth is created by the re-organization of things >>>(the reduction of entropy, if you like). >>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> >>When I took physics, I was taught that entropy always increased. >Then you misunderstood your physics. Entropy increases over a closed >system. Here we are talking about a system fueled by energy mostly obtained >from the sun (yes, a "free lunch"). In the presence of energy flows, >entropy in a subsystem can and often does decrease (organization increases). >That's what life is all about, whether of biological or social orgainisms. What you are describing is funny fysics (phunny physics?) ;-). If the sun fuels a system, then the sun is a part of the system. This energy comes at the expense of the sun (still no "free lunch", so there! That you are using energy that left the sun anyway doesn't change the fact that the sun has less energy now than it did before), so entropy still increases. Like electricity, wealth must be generated; it cannot be merely claimed. Some people generate more than others, and are, therefore, richer than others. Some people become rich through some dastrdly deed, but that doesn't the fact that for wealth to exist requires people free enough to generate it themselves; government intervention only hinders that process. It all must come at the expense of something or somebody (either you or somebody else). >> >>>Whether it is the most efficient way >>>of doing so is a different story, but to regard government as only >>>a transfer medium for existing wealth is like seeing a painting as >>>a transfer medium for oil and pigment. Willian F. Buckley Jr. once said, "If a man sitting next to you ceases to blow cigarette smoke into your face, he is not providing you with clean air -- but, merely reducing the pollution of it". >> >>No one regards government as a transfer medium for existing wealth, unless >>you think of a black hole as a "transfer medium". >> >> Socialism Delenda Est, >> Rick. >This is unclear, unless you think that civil servants dump their paychecks >into the sewers -- no, that wouldn't do it, because it would reduce only >the money, not the wealth. Perhaps it must be that people don't buy things >with money passed through taxes? No, that hardly seems right. I give up. >What DO you mean? > >Martin Taylor If civil servants (or anybody else for that matter) do not generate wealth equivalent to the value in their paychecks, you bet the wealth that went into that paycheck went right down the hole! These opinions belong to anyone who wants to claim them. David Olson ..!ihnp4!drutx!dlo "To laugh at men of sense is the privilege of fools". -- Jean de la Bruyere
baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (09/28/85)
> Whoa! Let's have some historical examples please, of a government that > CREATED wealth. [Nat Howard] Well, today marks the 50th anniversary of the completion of the Hoover Dam, which provides flood control, electricity, and fresh water for much of the the arid American Southwest. It was planned, paid for, and is still managed by the U.S government. The wages for the (otherwise unemployed) workers and payment for the materials may only have been a localized redistribution of tax monies, but the fact of the matter is that they produced something that continues to materially benefit hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people. Why isn't that wealth? Baba
abgamble@water.UUCP (abgamble) (10/04/85)
> > Your conception of wealth (value, money) does not make any sense. > If I produce something of value, but get paid for it, does that mean I didn't > create any wealth, since I merely transferred the salary I got paid into > the product I made? Of course not. Similarly, if the govt. gets paid (thru > taxes) for the products it creates (thru organizing people into large projects > for instance), it is still creating wealth. [Larry Kolodney] > NO. These are *not* similar. In the first case the purchaser values the product or service more than the money paid, while the seller values the the money more, otherwise the transaction would not have been made. Thus *both* parties profit and wealth is created. In the latter case the govt. extorts money from the taxpayers and then spends it as it sees fit. Mr. Kolodney calls this payment for the products "created" by government which ignores the fact that a taxpayer may receive little or nothing in return for his "payments". This is wealth creation? > > POINT: No economic system has ever existed in a vacuum. It is always the > result of certain power relations within a society. > > There has never in history been anything like your mythical free market. > To create one, using the power of the state, would be just as arbitrary and > coercive and creating any other system. The relations of power in society > today have an historical basis in govt. interference. To withdraw the role of > the govt. now would simply institutionalize certain arbitrary inequalities that > exist today. > Let me try to understand this. If we were to create a state which enforced property rights and voluntary contracts, and stayed out of our lives otherwise, that this would be just as coercive as creating any other system? The logic is lost on me. > > Sport Death, > Larry Kolodney > (USENET) ...decvax!genrad!teddy!lkk > (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc.arpa > -- Bruce Gamble - abgamble@water.UUCP