carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (02/20/85)
Tim Maroney writes: >Is there anyone else out there who finds it more than a little suspicious >that the main preoccupation of most Libertarians seems to be finding reasons >they don't have to pay taxes? By "suspicious" I mean casting doubt on the >idea that Libertarianism proceeds from well-defined premises to conclusions >unobvious from those premises, and suggesting that perhaps a significant >number of Libertarians are motivated by a desire to increase their personal >wealth regardless of social consequences. As a confessed socialist, I don't believe that most libertarians are motivated primarily by a desire to increase their personal wealth, although this might be the practical effect of libertarian policies. Rather, the motivation is to justify the existing order of society, characterized by class domination. The power of government to tax is a threat to this social order, since it threatens its basis, the "rights" (really privileges) of property. Hence libertarians attempt to establish property rights as sacred and absolute, and from this it follows that taxation is an unjust violation of property rights, or "theft." This also answers Wayne's question as to why coercion, or more precisely the initiation of coercion, is an absolute evil for libertarians, since this principle also defends property. It ignores the fact that the existing distribution of wealth was arrived at via a colossal amount of coercion in the past, and assumes that there is some way of knowing what counts as an "initiation" of coercion. Another way of seeing the ideological character of libertarianism is to consider the fact that libertarians nowhere give a clear demarcation of the proper limits of legitimate state action. The closest Nozick comes, as far as I know, is to say that the state is properly limited "to the functions of protecting all its citizens against violence, theft, and fraud, and to the enforcement of contracts, and so on." But a mere list followed by "and so on" does not give us a principle by which we can determine if a given action by the state is justifiable. Many libertarians say that national defense, the protection of national security, is one of the few legitimate functions of the state. Sounds good until you try to determine whether a given policy fits under the heading of "national defense." For example, libertarians like to say that roads should be privately owned -- are they not aware that the Interstate Highway System was established by the National Defense Highway Act? There is hardly any activity or industry that is not somehow related to national security. In particular, I think that welfare state policies and government regulation of business may promote our national security in at least one way, by giving the lower classes a stake in the protection of our society. If I'm not mistaken, such policies have been justified in wartime on these grounds. But I think libertarians would draw the line at promoting the welfare state in order to protect national security. And this shows why they have to fudge when it comes to defining the proper limits of state action: the real principle to which they adhere is a hidden one, namely, the actions which are forbidden to the state are THOSE TAKEN IN THE NAME OF SOCIAL JUSTICE. I would describe libertarians as well-intentioned but naive. One of the appeals of libertarianism is that it is basically a simple philosophy, hence ideal for simple minds. Once libertarianism is accepted, you do not have to think very hard about the tough questions of society and politics. Look at the Libertarian Party platform. Whatever the social problem, the solution is the same: the government should stop trying to solve it, and everything will be fine. Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (02/23/85)
Carnes writes, regarding the motives of libertarians: > Rather, the motivation is to justify the existing order of society, > characterized by class domination. The power of government to tax is > a threat to this social order, since it threatens its basis, the > "rights" (really privileges) of property. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that Socialists believed that the Government was a tool of the capitalists (a recent quote from Kolko, the socialist historian, supports this view). The power to tax is the central supporting feature of the fascist state. Please note that by Carnes' definition of Socialist, namely a state that was once capitalist and is halfway to being communist, the US is socialist to a T. > Hence libertarians attempt > to establish property rights as sacred and absolute, and from this it > follows that taxation is an unjust violation of property rights, or > "theft." You have grasped the essence of it. > This also answers Wayne's question as to why coercion, or more > precisely the initiation of coercion, is an absolute evil for > libertarians, since this principle also defends property. Not necessarily right as far as the "since" is concerned. Some libertarians tend to be more concerned about the coercion in the first place. > It ignores > the fact that the existing distribution of wealth was arrived at via > a colossal amount of coercion in the past, and assumes that there is > some way of knowing what counts as an "initiation" of coercion. From this am I to assume that a socialist is merely a libertarian who wants everything divided out evenly in the first place? Libertarians are perfectly aware that there has been a lot of coercion in the past distribution of worldly goods--much of the coercion was done by socialists. > Another way of seeing the ideological character of libertarianism is > to consider the fact that libertarians nowhere give a clear > demarcation of the proper limits of legitimate state action. Wrong. Many libertarians and others with similar philosophies have given quite clear demarcations. Study the various libertarians more closely. A good place to start is "Libertarianism" by Hospers. > Many libertarians say that national > defense, the protection of national security, is one of the few > legitimate functions of the state. Sounds good until you try to > determine whether a given policy fits under the heading of "national > defense." This is a red herring. Most of the libertarians who have addressed the issue seriously have put forth reasonably concrete proposals. The fact that they are not all the same proposal is no good reason not to study them. The question of "what is justifiable to spend on the national defense" is not easy--but it would have to be answered by *any* government, not just a libertarian one. > In particular, I think that welfare state > policies and government regulation of business may promote our > national security in at least one way, by giving the lower classes a > stake in the protection of our society. Our welfare state policies make the poor an underclass by institutionalizing the patronizing sneer of "here, take this, you're not good enough to make it on your own." Our welfare state policies keep the poor poor by paying them not to work and save. Our welfare state policies make the poor expect a free ride, and unlikely to pay the ultimate price for freedom. > the real principle to which they adhere is a hidden one, namely, the > actions which are forbidden to the state are THOSE TAKEN IN THE NAME > OF SOCIAL JUSTICE. In the *name* of social justice? "The Final Solution" was taken in the *name* of social justice. The name of "Social Justice" is taken in vain often enough to qualify as a deity. I can well admit that most of the tyrannies that libertarians object to are taken in the *name* of social justice. When it comes to *actual* social justice, however, you (and all socialists) don't have the faintest idea what the term means. Justice is a matter of people getting their just deserts--it *does* *not* mean everyone getting the same thing. If we threw everyone in jail for for six months, regardless of whether they had committed a crime, would that be justice? No. We throw people in jail who have committed a crime, and those who haven't, go free. Wouldn't it be more egalitarian to throw everybody in for the average amount of time? Sure; but it would be a grave injustice. > Look at the Libertarian Party > platform. Whatever the social problem, the solution is the same: > the government should stop trying to solve it, and everything will be > fine. > Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes The LP platform, to my knowlege, only addresses those problems in the first place which were caused or exacerbated by government meddling. The libertarian point of view, of which you appear to be ignorant, is that problems are solved by *people*. A government could only solve problems, if it did, by facilitating their solution by individuals. In the real world, governments do not primarily attract people interested in solving social problems; they attract people interested in obtaining power. Socialists live in a dream world because they ignore this simple fact. --JoSH
cliff@unmvax.UUCP (02/23/85)
> Tim Maroney writes: > >Is there anyone else out there who finds it more than a little suspicious > >that the main preoccupation of most Libertarians seems to be finding reasons > >they don't have to pay taxes? On this net, when a libertarian addresses an issue that is not about taxes, it gets swept under the rug (i.e. drug laws). When it is about taxes there is heavy debate--hence libertarians appear to be preoccupied with finding reasons we don't have to pay taxes. Personally I would not remove taxation until it was obvious to most people (including everyone on this net) that it was un- necessary. Eliminating the victimless crime laws would do much more to straighten out this country and prove the point that well intentioned gov't. meddling tends to increase the problem trying to be eased. > I would describe libertarians as well-intentioned but naive. I appreciate the "well-intentioned" comment and take the naive comment with the realization of the poster advocates a political system that emperically does less poorly than the alternatives. > One of > the appeals of libertarianism is that it is basically a simple > philosophy, hence ideal for simple minds. And of course simple theories are always wrong...take this "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" crap--I could explain the same effects with a morass of special cases and twisted observations. > Once libertarianism is > accepted, you do not have to think very hard about the tough > questions of society and politics. Yes, that is right--we're "well-intentioned", naive and unthinking. On with the persecution of the poor! Let's put more of them in jail! Why stop at the drug laws? Let's start enforcing some of the ancient laws against {pre,extra}-marital sex! That will really let us put some of those deviants away! --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
jlg@lanl.ARPA (02/26/85)
> On this net, when a libertarian addresses an issue that is not about taxes, it > gets swept under the rug (i.e. drug laws). When it is about taxes there is > heavy debate--hence libertarians appear to be preoccupied with finding reasons > we don't have to pay taxes. Personally I would not remove taxation until it > was obvious to most people (including everyone on this net) that it was un- > necessary. Eliminating the victimless crime laws would do much more to > straighten out this country and prove the point that well intentioned gov't. > meddling tends to increase the problem trying to be eased. I wouldn't mind it if all drugs were legalized, I think of it as evolution in action. That is, as long as those people who try to sell drugs to my underaged children or those who drive while stoned can be shot on sight (or at least SOME very severe penalty). It's not others, killing themselves with drugs that bothers me, it's the damage they do to the rest of us while they're on the drugs. Some of these 'victimless' crimes aren't. J. Giles
fagin@ucbvax.ARPA (Barry Steven Fagin) (03/07/85)
In article <342@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: > >... the motivation [of libertarians] is to justify the existing order >of society, Richard, if we're so interested in justifying the existing order of society, why do libertarians advocate (among other things): The legalization of prostitution? The legalization of narcotics consumption by adults? The abolition of all government subsidies to industry? The repeal of Social Security? USA withdrawal from NATO? The privatization of government services? The abolition of the Federal Reserve Board? These and numerous other reforms proposed by libertarians would mean deep, painful changes in our society; hardly the sort of thing consistent with your perception of us. >characterized by class domination. The power of government to tax is >a threat to this social order, since it threatens its basis, the >"rights" (really privileges) of property. Why is property a "privilege", but free speech and freedom of thought a right? The state (or the people, or society) does not bestow upon its citizens the "privilege" of prperty any more than it bestows upon them the "privilege" of ownership of their minds and bodies. What's the difference? To the libertarian, none. >Hence libertarians attempt >to establish property rights as sacred and absolute, and from this it >follows that taxation is an unjust violation of property rights, or >"theft." > >This also answers Wayne's question as to why coercion, or more >precisely the initiation of coercion, is an absolute evil for >libertarians, since this principle also defends property. It also defends the rights of human beings to express themselves, to think independently, to worship in any manner of their own choosing, to be free ... it is the backbone of all principles of justice that place any value on the individual. >It ignores >the fact that the existing distribution of wealth was arrived at via >a colossal amount of coercion in the past ... No it does not! Libertarians have cited numerous examples of unjustly acquired wealth, and claim that such distribution should be rectified. >Another way of seeing the ideological character of libertarianism is >to consider the fact that libertarians nowhere give a clear >demarcation of the proper limits of legitimate state action. The >closest Nozick comes, as far as I know, is to say that the state is >properly limited "to the functions of protecting all its citizens >against violence, theft, and fraud, and to the enforcement of >contracts, and so on." But a mere list followed by "and so on" does >not give us a principle by which we can determine if a given action >by the state is justifiable. In other words, just because we can't write a program that can tell exactly which actions by the state are justifiable and which are not, we're hiding something. Such a program does not exist. I still claim that libertarians have a pretty good idea of what the state should and should not do. As a matter of fact, libertarian demarcation of state action is much more clear-cut than socialist demarcation, who justify state action in the name of "social justice". Which phrase is more ambiguous: "the initiation of force", or "social justice"? Seems obvious to me. >Many libertarians say that national >defense, the protection of national security, is one of the few >legitimate functions of the state. Sounds good until you try to >determine whether a given policy fits under the heading of "national >defense." Libertarians often point out how stupid claims of "national security" are. A December Reason piece chewed out the shoe industry for claiming that cheap imported shoes were rendering it impossible for our armed forces to be shod with American footwear. The shipbuilding industry also justifies its multibillion dollar subsidy in the name of national security, a claim that the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank in D.C., refuted in a recent study. >... And this shows why they have >to fudge when it comes to defining the proper limits of state action: >the real principle to which they adhere is a hidden one, namely, the >actions which are forbidden to the state are THOSE TAKEN IN THE NAME >OF SOCIAL JUSTICE. >Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes Wrong, Richard, but you'll just have to take my word for it. The reason I may make this somewhat unscientific claim is that I am a libertarian and you are not; I am better acquainted with how I think than you are. Of course, I could be lying. I might actually be thinking just the way you say, and am covering up to put on a good front so that the truth about libertarians will never be known. I will leave it to our audience to decide that for themselves. I'm apalled at the arrogance of someone who attempts to explain to others why a group of people think the way they do. I do not attempt to explain to other people why Richard thinks the way he does; I simply take his word for it as an honest man and ask him to explain his thoughts, so that I may better understand and refute them. Why does Richard refuse to extend the same respect to me? --Barry -- Barry Fagin @ University of California, Berkeley
carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (03/08/85)
[Sorry about the length of this article; just long enough to cover the subject, however.] Barry Fagin writes: >Richard, if we're so interested in justifying the existing order of >society, why do libertarians advocate (among other things): > The legalization of prostitution? > The legalization of narcotics consumption by adults? > The abolition of all government subsidies to industry? > The repeal of Social Security? [etc.] By "the existing order of society," I don't mean every social arrangement, but rather the existing structure of dominance. What bothers me about libertarians is this: They proclaim the ideals of individual freedom and justice -- great; I applaud. So what do libertarians propose to do about the greatest obstacle to that freedom and justice in our society, the dominance of capital (the power it gives an individual who has it to command a wide range of other goods, simply because he possesses it) and its monopolistic control by one segment of the population? They propose to reinforce it, for that is precisely the effect of their insistence on the capitalist form of property "rights" as an absolute principle. Libertarians also reinforce class dominance by opposing on principle any government redistribution of income or wealth. That is why I called libertarianism a form of capitalist ideology, since "ideology" means an unconscious justification of an existing social order of domination. Now perhaps I'm wrong, but that's the way I see it and that's why I oppose libertarianism. >> The power of government to tax is >>a threat to this social order, since it threatens its basis, the >>"rights" (really privileges) of property. > >Why is property a "privilege", but free speech and freedom of thought a >right? I did not call property a privilege, but spoke of the "privileges of property." In capitalist society the ownership of the means of production gives one the "right" to control the process of production and gives one arbitrary power over the lives of others (the workers). JoSH writes: >Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that Socialists believed that >the Government was a tool of the capitalists....Please note that by >Carnes' definition of Socialist, namely a state that was once >capitalist and is halfway to being communist, the US is socialist to >a T. Only stupid socialists think that the state is *just* a tool of the capitalists. And the US, although it has some socialist features, is not socialist by the Marxist definition because the capitalist mode of production is still the underlying structure of the society. Again from JoSH: >Justice is a matter of people getting their just deserts -- it >*does not* mean everyone getting the same thing. Nor does any socialist I know of claim that it does. Social justice in my view is a very complex matter without a simple and elegant specification. But a good principle on which to base it is the following (from Michael Walzer): No social good X should be distributed to men and women who possess some other good Y merely because they possess Y and without regard to the meaning of X. To quote Walzer: "This is the effect of the rule: different goods to different companies of men and women for different reasons and in accordance with different procedures. And to get all this right, or to get it roughly right, is to map out the entire social world." Here's a story from Walzer, about the relation between property and political power. It's somewhat long, but well worth pondering. ________________ George Pullman was one of the most successful entrepreneurs of late nineteenth century America....When he decided to build a new set of factories and a town around [his company and fortune], he insisted that this was only another business venture. But he clearly had larger hopes: he dreamed of a community without political or economic unrest -- happy workers and a strike-free plant.... [So he built Pullman, Illinois, just south of Chicago.] ...in short, a model town, a planned community. And every bit of it belonged to him....There was no municipal government. Asked by a visiting journalist how he "governed" the people of Pullman, Pullman replied, "We govern them in the same way a man governs his house, his store, or his workshop...." Government was, in his conception, a property right; and despite the editorial "we," this was a right singly held and singly exercised. In his town, Pullman was an autocrat. He had a firm sense of how its inhabitants should live, and he never doubted his right to give that sense practical force. His concern, I should stress, was with the appearance and the behavior of the people, not with their beliefs.... I have stressed Pullman's autocracy; I could also stress his benevolence....But the crucial point is that all decisions, benevolent or not, rested with a man, governor as well as owner, who had not been chosen by the people he governed....The men and women of Pullman were entirely free to come and go. They were also free to live outside the town and commute to work in its factories....These tenants are best regarded as the subjects of a capitalist enterprise that has simply extended itself from manufacturing to real estate and duplicated in the town the discipline of the shop. What's wrong with that? I mean the question to be rhetorical, but it is perhaps worthwhile spelling out the answer. The inhabitants of Pullman were guest workers, and that is not a status compatible with democratic politics. George Pullman hired himself a metic population in a political community where self-respect was closely tied to citizen ship and where decisions about destinations and risks, even (or especially) local destinations and risks, were supposed to be shared. He was, then, more like a dictator than a feudal lord; he ruled by force.... But when [the townspeople] did strike [in 1894], it was as much against his factory power as against his town power. Indeed, Pullman's foremen were even more tyrannical than his agents and inspectors. It seems odd to study the duplicated discipline of the model town and condemn only one half of it. Yet this was the conventional understanding of the time.... It is true that the struggle for rights in the factory was a newer struggle, if only because factories were newer institutions than cities and towns. I want to argue, however, that with regard to political power democratic distributions can't stop at the factory gates. The deep principles are the same for both sorts of institutions. This identity is the moral basis of the labor movement....It doesn't follow from these demands that factories can't be owned; nor did opponents of feudalism say that land couldn't be owned....The issue in all these cases is not the existence but the entailments of property. What democracy requires is that property should have no political currency, that it shouldn't convert into anything like sovereignty, authoritative command, sustained control over men and women. After 1894, at least, most observers seem to have agreed that Pullman's ownership of the town was undemocratic. But was his ownership of the company any different? The unusual juxtaposition of the two makes for a nice comparison. They are not different because of the entrepreneurial vision, energy, inventiveness, and so on that went into the making of Pullman sleepers, diners, and parlor cars. For these same qualities went into the making of the town.... Nor are the two different because of the investment of private capital in the company. Pullman invested in the town, too, without thereby acquiring the right to govern its inhabitants. The case is the same with men and women who buy municipal bonds: they don't come to own the municipality.... Finally, the factory and the town are not different because men and women come willingly to work in the factory with full knowledge of its rules and regulations. They also come willingly to live in the town, and in neither case do they have full knowledge of the rules until they have some experience of them. Anyway, residence does not constitute an agreement to despotic rules even if the rules are known in advance; nor is prompt departure the only way of expressing opposition.... Is it enough if residents rule themselves while only workers are submitted to the power of property, if the residents are citizens and the workers metics?...[But the political community] is also a common enterprise, a public place where we argue together over the public interest, where we decide on goals and debate acceptable risks. All this was missing in Pullman's model town, until the American Railway Union provided a forum for workers and residents alike. From this perspective, an economic enterprise seems very much like a town, even though -- or, in part, because -- it is so unlike a home....It is a place not of withdrawal but of decision. If landlords possessing political power are likely to be intrusive on families, so owners possessing political power are likely to be coercive of individuals....Intrusion and coercion are alike made possible by a deeper reality -- the usurpation of a common enterprise, the displacement of collective decision making, by the power of property. And for this, none of the standard justifications seems adequate. Pullman exposed their weaknesses by claiming to rule the town he owned exactly as he ruled the factories he owned. Indeed, the two sorts of rule are similar to one another, and both of them resemble what we commonly understand as authoritarian politics. The right to impose fines does the work of taxation....Rules are issued and enforced without public debate by appointed rather than by elected officials. There are no established judicial procedures, no legitimate forms of opposition, no channels for participation or even for protest. If this sort of thing is wrong for towns, then it is wrong for companies and factories, too. Imagine now a decision by Pullman or his heirs to relocate their factory/town....The decision, they claim, is theirs alone since the factory/town is theirs alone; neither the inhabitants nor the workers have anything to say. But how can this be right? Surely to uproot a community, to require large-scale migration, to deprive people of homes they have lived in for many years; these are political acts, and acts of a rather extreme sort. The decision is an exercise of power; and were the townspeople simply to submit, we would think they were not self-respecting citizens. What about the workers? ....Today, there are many men and women who preside over enterprises in which hundreds and thousands of their fellow citizens are involved, who direct and control the working lives of their fellows, and who explain themselves exactly as George Pullman did. I govern these people, they say, in the same way a man governs the things he owns. People who talk this way are wrong. They misunderstand the prerogatives of ownership (and of foundation, investment, and risk taking). They claim a kind of power to which they have no right. To say this is not to deny the importance of entrepreneurial activity. In both companies and towns, one looks for people like Pullman, full of energy and ideas, willing to innovate and take risks, capable of organizing large projects. It would be foolish to create a system that did not bring them forward....But there is nothing they do that gives them a right to rule over the rest of us, unless they can win our agreement. At a certain point in the development of an enterprise, then, it must pass out of entrepreneurial control; it must be organized or reorganized in some political way, according to the prevailing (democratic) conception of how power ought to be distributed. It is often said that economic entrepreneurs won't come forward if they cannot hope to own the companies they found. But this is like saying that no one would seek divine grace or knowledge who did not hope to come into hereditary possession of a church or "holy commonwealth," or that no one would found new hospitals or experimental schools who did not intend to pass them on to his children, or that no one would sponsor political innovation and reform unless it were possible to own the state. But ownership is not the goal of political or religious life, and there are still attractive and even compelling goals. Indeed, had Pullman founded a better town, he might have earned for himself the sort of public honor that men and women have sometimes taken as the highest end of human action. If he wanted power as well, he should have run for mayor. [Michael Walzer, *Spheres of Justice*] ___________________ Richard Carnes
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (03/09/85)
>>characterized by class domination. The power of government to tax is >>a threat to this social order, since it threatens its basis, the >>"rights" (really privileges) of property. > >Why is property a "privilege", but free speech and freedom of thought a >right? The state (or the people, or society) does not bestow upon its >citizens the "privilege" of prperty any more than it bestows upon them >the "privilege" of ownership of their minds and bodies. What's the >difference? To the libertarian, none. JoSH once distinguished between "libertarian" and "propertarian". I think here we have a "propertarian" talking. If you can't see the difference between ownership of one's mind and body and ownership of other things, it is going to be hard to discuss anything having an ethical basis. Most libertarians seem able to make the distinction, the distinction you say doesn't exist. To me, there are many admirable things about libertarian objectives and ideals, but I find the "Grab,grab,hold,hold" ideology to be almost obscene. My objections to libertarianism are largely (as I conceive them) practical, in that I think the ideas would never work in practice. My objections to propertarianism are fundamental and deep. I abhore and abjure the philosophy that you have any inalienable right to refuse other people the use of anything other than your person. Some things are more reasonably held by one person or a particular group, some are not; which things come under which classification depends on circumstances (including culture). It is of practical benefit that people should control much of the fruits of their labour. It is more practical that they be given a token in exchange for those fruits, a token that they can exchange for something else they want. It is more practical because that way the labour of many people can be combined effectively and substantial things produced that could not be produced by individuals. But never could these things be done without the assistance, visible or ignored, of a huge range of other people (society). You take the benefit of their labour whether you want to or not. You have no right to keep for yourself all the benefits of your labour, and if you are so selfish as to wish to do so, society has the right to trample you until you squeal. That, too, is practical. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (03/09/85)
Barry Fagin posted a very long article defending libertarians from the following charge: > In article <342@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: > > > >... the motivation [of libertarians] is to justify the existing order > >of society, > Barry's article went on to cite various reforms to the existing society which libertarians generally support. I think that Barry is right in saying that libertarians are not primarily motivated by a desire to justify the existing order. I think the motivation for libertarians is primarily ideological. But the question is, what is the source of their ideology? Libertarian ideology is simply taking to the extreme the arguments that have been couched in favor of the status quo by business interests. Libertarians have heard so often since their childhood in our society about the wonders and magic of the "free market" that they have taken these pronouncements as articles of faith. It seems to me that many libertarians do not really understand the economic theory that was used by Adam Smith, Ricardo, and Marshall to justify Capitalism. But they do know that the "invisible hand" which solves all problems at a stroke sounds very appealing. And of course it is a viewpoint which easily finds favor and $$$$ from the businessmen who do benefit disproportionately from the current distribution of wealth and income. Since the libertarians on the net have been pressed to justify inequalities in wealth and income which have nothing to do with a person's own labor they have hedged by trying to find some criteria to legitimize wealth. By doing so they have sacrificed their original principles that property is sacred. The reason some of the libertarians have been willing to do this is that in all likelihood they had never really considered the problem. It has forced them to think about issues that they had never previously considered. Yet there are still many problems with assuming that the free market will solve all problems that they have generally refused to consider. They refuse to admit to any problem with monopoly or oligopoly power. They refuse to admit that the cobweb effect could actually occur or wish it away by contradicting the very fundamental assumptions of the free market. They refuse to see the free rider problem- that there *are* certain public goods which can only be sustained by the public or else no individual will be willing to pay the resources that should optimally be allocated to such goods. These are not *Marxist* problems with free markets under certain conditions: they are problems pointed out by Capitalist economists themselves. While I support democratic socialism that does not mean I am blind to its potential problems or paradoxes. I only wish that libertarians could be as critical of their own blind ideology. tim sevener whuxl!orb
mwm@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA (03/10/85)
In article <360@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: >Anyway, residence does not >constitute an agreement to despotic rules even if the rules are known >in advance; nor is prompt departure the only way of expressing >opposition.... Richard, if you keep posting things like that, people are going to mistake you for a libertarian. <mike
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (03/14/85)
> mmt: > JoSH once distinguished between "libertarian" and "propertarian". > > I think here we have a "propertarian" talking. If you can't see the > difference between ownership of one's mind and body and ownership of > other things, it is going to be hard to discuss anything having an > ethical basis. This looks like it's worth talking about... First, let's make clear that there are innumerable differences which can be drawn between owning one's own body and anything else (or in general between owning any two different kinds of things). However, being able to distinguish does not necessarily make one of the things distinguished wrong, per se. So let's not assume that because someone claims that a particular distinction makes no moral difference, that they are blind, stupid, etc. In the libertarian (or propertarian) schemes of things, owning oneself is usually considered a special case: one is not the fruit of one's own labor (at least originally); one did not exchange fruits of one's labor for oneself with one's original rightful owner in voluntary trade. > > To me, there are many admirable things about libertarian objectives > and ideals, but I find the "Grab,grab,hold,hold" ideology to be almost > obscene. Here we have a basic difference. Libertarians generally assume that people have a built-in tendency to greed (among many other things), and that all else being equal things will work better in a system that allows for it at the outset. My understanding of socialists is that they condemn greed in people, and wish to change their basic natures, by force if necessary. I personally consider this "I'm a god, you're clay for my molding" attitude considerably more "obscene" than one which accepts people as they are. > My objections to propertarianism are fundamental and deep. > I abhore and abjure the philosophy that you have any inalienable right > to refuse other people the use of anything other than your person. I have a finely crafted table that I spent hundreds of hours carving, sanding, and polishing, because I enjoy what I consider the finer things in life and am willing to spend the effort to obtain them. You want to build a bonfire at the homecoming game higher than last year. You have put in every weekend for the last year working on your scale-model B-29 getting every last detail right--it's your pride and joy. I want to fill it with firecrackers and celebrate July 4 in a big way. I ate peanut butter sandwiches for five years saving to buy a house. you had lobster every night. Now you feel you have an equal right to the house. You spent the last five years writing the perfect operating system. I take a copy, remove your name, put mine on, and distribute it to everyone I know with a smug air of accomplishment. > ... But never could these things > be done without the assistance, visible or ignored, of a huge range of > other people (society). You take the benefit of their labour whether > you want to or not. This is in some sense true, but it seems to be quite orthogonal to the idea of property rights. If someone builds a store nearby, I am benefitted even if I never go in; I may not have to stockpile some emergency supplies to achieve the same level of security, for example. However, this does give him the right to take anything of mine by force--and I've never seen any serious arguments from anybody to the contrary. Indeed, all the socialist argument I've seen has as its burden that we must be forced to give to people who *haven't* benefitted society at all, but "deserve" the fruits of others' labor by virtue of their need. > You have no right to keep for yourself all the > benefits of your labour, and if you are so selfish as to wish to do > so, society has the right to trample you until you squeal. > Martin Taylor This is, to coin a phrase (:^)), obscene. I fail to understand how it's so great for everybody to help everybody else, but so horrible for everybody to help themselves. If you take the overall view, it's coming from the same everybody, and going to the same everybody. Looked at from an individual point of view, someone who produces something, deserves it; someone who doesn't, doesn't. --JoSH
nrh@inmet.UUCP (03/16/85)
>***** inmet:net.politics.t / dciem!mmt / 5:40 am Mar 13, 1985 > >It is of practical benefit that people should control much of the fruits >of their labour. It is more practical that they be given a token in >exchange for those fruits, a token that they can exchange for something >else they want. It is more practical because that way the labour of >many people can be combined effectively and substantial things produced >that could not be produced by individuals. But never could these things >be done without the assistance, visible or ignored, of a huge range of >other people (society). You take the benefit of their labour whether >you want to or not. You have no right to keep for yourself all the >benefits of your labour, and if you are so selfish as to wish to do >so, society has the right to trample you until you squeal. That, too, >is practical. >-- > >Martin Taylor Personally, I find the "trample you until you squeal" philosophy more objectionable than the "grab, grab, hold, hold" philosophy that Martin dislikes. Like many socialists, Martin seems to me to be looking at the world in a rather static way. Of the benefits I receive from "society", only a few result from people who particularly wanted to benefit me. THEY thought they were in business for themselves -- to sell food, to make compilers, to amuse, whatever. There are, to be sure, people (parents and friends) who try to benefit me directly, and I do not minimize their contribution. I merely point out that it is given VOLUNTARILY, and that any obligation I feel to them is a personal matter, not for the State or "society" to adjudicate. Now we come to the assertion about "static" viewpoints. Consider: Just as those people selling meat, building compilers, and trying to amuse and inform, were not trying to benefit me, but themselves, so will I (and JoSH) wind up benefiting people who I do not particularly wish to benefit. "Society" would indeed trample you if you tried, somehow, not to benefit others (if, for example, you refused to pay for your food at the marketplace), but it would be silly for you to do this -- you get more benefit from paying than from not paying. In other words, to treat the accumulated benefits of the past as a fixed lump that JoSH will not contribute to in the future (and therefore "owes" something to) is a static sort of view, ignoring as it does the unintended contributions JoSH has made and will make to the welfare of others. Further, the logic seems to me suspect because it ignores the variation between people's contributions to "society". In particular, if JoSH were a tremendous contributor (say he found a way to make it impossible to torture people) would that mean that his right to property was absolute? Closer to absolute than before? Suppose he were a person society had trampled on for no good reason (such as a concentration camp victim) Would that make his right to property absolute? Why not? What would he owe to "society"? We commonly treat criminals as having lost some of their rights, I agree, but what about downtrodden, law-abiding citizens? "Society" is not the same as "government". Questions about what "society" should be owed probably belong here, but they should be carefully delineated from "government" should be owed, or, if one believes they are the same thing, this should be stated explicitly. Martin points out (rightly, as I see it), that one benefits greatly from society, and many take this as a signal that government may therefore collect on the debt. Perhaps, (that's another debate) but the two words are not synonyms.
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (03/17/85)
>> My objections to propertarianism are fundamental and deep. >> I abhore and abjure the philosophy that you have any inalienable right >> to refuse other people the use of anything other than your person. > >I have a finely crafted table that I spent hundreds of hours carving, >sanding, and polishing, because I enjoy what I consider the finer things >in life and am willing to spend the effort to obtain them. You want to >build a bonfire at the homecoming game higher than last year. > >You have put in every weekend for the last year working on your >scale-model B-29 getting every last detail right--it's your pride >and joy. I want to fill it with firecrackers and celebrate July 4 in >a big way. > >I ate peanut butter sandwiches for five years saving to buy a house. >you had lobster every night. Now you feel you have an equal right to >the house. > >You spent the last five years writing the perfect operating system. >I take a copy, remove your name, put mine on, and distribute it to >everyone I know with a smug air of accomplishment. > >> You have no right to keep for yourself all the >> benefits of your labour, and if you are so selfish as to wish to do >> so, society has the right to trample you until you squeal. >> Martin Taylor > >This is, to coin a phrase (:^)), obscene. I fail to understand >how it's so great for everybody to help everybody else, but so >horrible for everybody to help themselves. If you take the overall >view, it's coming from the same everybody, and going to the same >everybody. Looked at from an individual point of view, someone who >produces something, deserves it; someone who doesn't, doesn't. > >--JoSH The problem is one of extremism. I believe my article from which JoSH quoted extracts said that ownership of property was a practical thing. I object to the notion that you have a right to exclude others form ANY use of ANY of your gains. JoSH counters with examples of property that most people (certainly me) would agree are reasonable things you would wish to keep in good condition: my burning of JoSH's table would deprive him of its use, as would his filling my model airplane with firecrackers. He might well have a practical right to deny me the use of the table on which he lavished so much care; I might damage it, and he can't use it while I have borrowed it. As for the sandwiches versus lobsters example, I can't see anyone taking that seriously. Who argued that people who take different amounts of care, who do different things, who work hard or are lazy, should all "have" the same benefits? I don't think that's the socialist ideal, and it certainly isn't mine. But I don't want to feed JoSH while he is putting in all his time on his table, either. Perhaps he doesn't want me to, but it comes across that way. To take a less obvious example, I don't want to go to the trouble of fencing off his driveway because he doesn't pay taxes for street upkeep. And I don't want him claiming a beauty spot or natural resource just because he decided he wanted it and no-one else had been so selfish before. That's what the "grab,grab" part of my earlier posting referred to. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
nrh@inmet.UUCP (03/17/85)
>***** inmet:net.politics.t / whuxl!orb / 5:41 am Mar 13, 1985 >Barry Fagin posted a very long article defending libertarians from >the following charge: >> In article <342@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: >> > >> >... the motivation [of libertarians] is to justify the existing order >> >of society, >> > >Barry's article went on to cite various reforms to the existing society >which libertarians generally support. >I think that Barry is right in saying that libertarians are not primarily >motivated by a desire to justify the existing order. I think the motivation >for libertarians is primarily ideological. But the question is, what is >the source of their ideology? Libertarian ideology is simply taking to >the extreme the arguments that have been couched in favor of the status >quo by business interests. SOME fat-cat business types use our rhetoric to support their positions, but they ask for tariffs and special treatment from government often in the same sentences. That rhetoric is abused by power-seeking people is no indication of the underlying philosophy's worth is a thing that I think every socialist who does not like the Soviet Government's practices should agree with, no? >Libertarians have heard so often since their >childhood in our society about the wonders and magic of the "free market" >that they have taken these pronouncements as articles of faith. Ah, we simple, child-like libertarians. Steeped in unquestioned catechism since childhood, we cling blindly to the notions that only children would accept uncritically. Is that the picture you wish to paint? Yet, those same children are told that it's good for government to support the public schools, that it's just for people to tax themselves (even if some don't agree) and that the President of the United States is a Good and Important man. >It seems to me that many libertarians do not really understand the economic >theory that was used by Adam Smith, Ricardo, and Marshall to justify >Capitalism. That's OK, Tim. You'd be surprised at how many socialists are unaware of the virtual absence of non-state-supported, long-lived monopolies, and yet they blithely argue onward as if this were a serious flaw in the free market. >But they do know that the "invisible hand" which solves all >problems at a stroke sounds very appealing. It certainly does! Where may I find this "hand"? Surely, you aren't referring to the one Adam Smith talked about? I don't recall hearing any person present the idea that it "solves all problems at a stroke" from anyone except you. Could this be Tim Sevener up in the barn playing with the straw? If not, please post a reference. >And of course it is a viewpoint >which easily finds favor and $$$$ from the businessmen who do benefit >disproportionately from the current distribution of wealth and income. Now this is really a remarkable assertion. Here I am in Massachusetts with a letter on my desk from the LP pointing out that, without more money, they can't afford such services as sending membership renewal notices out. We're really going to have to stop dropping all the favor and $$$$ on the floor around here..... In case you didn't notice, the republican and democratic parties, which favor taxation and welfare, seem to be much better off financially than the libertarians. >Since the libertarians on the net have been pressed to justify inequalities >in wealth and income which have nothing to do with a person's own labor >they have hedged by trying to find some criteria to legitimize wealth. Interesting connotations in those words. People have certainly "pressed" us in the sense of "asking", but I don't recall any serious objection to our answers, which, as I recall, read something like: "the outcome of fair games freely entered into is fair". I don't think that this is "hedging" so much as answering from a different philosophical position than the socialists. >By doing so they have sacrificed their original principles that property >is sacred. Remarkable. References please.... >The reason some of the libertarians have been willing to do this >is that in all likelihood they had never really considered the problem. >It has forced them to think about issues that they had never previously >considered. Again, references, PLEASE -- with quotes in context, if possible. >Yet there are still many problems with assuming that the free market >will solve all problems that they have generally refused to consider. I wouldn't worry about it too much -- nobody (besides you) has ever (to my knowledge) advanced the position that the free market will solve all problems. >They refuse to admit to any problem with monopoly or oligopoly power. After being ROUNDLY slammed on the matter of monopolies by Daniel McK., and to a lesser degree by my "find the monopoly challenge", the fashion is to talk about "monopolies or oligopolies". The nice thing, from the point of view of those who wish to View oligopolies With Alarm, is that they're not all that well defined. The definition in my dictionary does not give any way of testing whether a given market situation is an oligopoly or not -- it merely refers to a "small" number of firms. To those who wish to challenge the free market's desirability with respect to oligopolies, I ask, "how small is small"? It is a little like asserting the undesirability of free access to books because people might study up on "evil" without defining "evil". So, Tim: How small is "small"? >They refuse to admit that the cobweb effect could actually occur or wish >it away by contradicting the very fundamental assumptions of the free market. Daniel McK., who appears (from my humble viewpoint) to know considerably more about the subject of economics than you pointed out the unlikelyhood of the "cobweb effect" given farmers who can be made aware of what's going on. No doubt you dislike thinking that farmers can be made aware of what's going on, because without their ignorance, the effect is lost, but that seems small reason to insult the farmers.... >They refuse to see the free rider problem- that there *are* certain >public goods which can only be sustained by the public or else no >individual will be willing to pay the resources that should optimally >be allocated to such goods. Au Contraire! Take a look at "The Machinery of Freedom", and then consider one other interesting aspect of this question: Our government, and governments in general (socialist ones in particular) seem ALSO unable to provide the "optimal" amount of public goods -- they depend upon political methods and charity to do so. The charitable methods are quite valid -- charities have a difficult time raising money for obviously bad purposes ("This is 'Muffy', a terminally preppie child. Save her. Send your money today" wouldn't exactly garner lots of funds), but government, well, government does pretty much as it pleases, particularly in socialist nations. >These are not *Marxist* problems with free markets under certain conditions: >they are problems pointed out by Capitalist economists themselves. >While I support democratic socialism that does not mean I am blind >to its potential problems or paradoxes. >I only wish that libertarians could be as critical of their own blind >ideology. Shame on you! Calling our ideology "blind". Boy, now I'm mad :-). How many times have I written "we aren't promising Utopia", "naturally apparent property rights are not absolute -- they might conflict", "the way to get off of property surrounded by property owned by someone else with 'no trespassing' signs on it is to disobey the signs and take the consequences"? We're WELL aware of problems with a libertarian society. This is, of course, always a sore point with socialists because of the problems experienced by societies claiming to be based on socialist ideas. Let's set fire to a few of the recurring straw men. Speaking for myself, as a libertarian: K 1. I don't think the "free market solves all problems". 2. I do take a PROFOUND interest in the economic/social problems faced by a hypothetical libertarian society due to externalities. 3. I do not ignore or gloss over the possibility of monopolies or oligopolies. I find little historical evidence to support the notion that monopolies would be a problem, and see a problem with definition with the oligopoly complaint. I'm certainly willing to believe that oligopolies would exist, but I challenge you to come up with one that isn't subject to the same pressures that doom monopolies.
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (03/19/85)
nrh@imnet says: >Like many socialists, Martin seems to me to be looking at the world >in a rather static way. Of the benefits I receive from "society", only >a few result from people who particularly wanted to benefit me. >THEY thought they were in business for themselves -- to sell food, >to make compilers, to amuse, whatever. There are, to be sure, >people (parents and friends) who try to benefit me directly, and >I do not minimize their contribution. I merely point out that it >is given VOLUNTARILY, and that any obligation I feel to them is >a personal matter, not for the State or "society" to adjudicate. > >... > >"Society" is not the same as "government". Questions about what >"society" should be owed probably belong here, but they should be >carefully delineated from "government" should be owed, or, if one >believes they are the same thing, this should be stated explicitly. >Martin points out (rightly, as I see it), that one benefits greatly from >society, and many take this as a signal that government may therefore >collect on the debt. Perhaps, (that's another debate) but the two words >are not synonyms. Nat makes the common mistake of confusing the benefits received from society with the benefits received from people in the society. I think this failure of distinction may well lie at the root of the philosophical differences between libertarians and the people libertarians like to call "socialists." Libertarians seem to regard society as the sum of its people, whereas "socialists" recognize that the *organization* of society itself contributes very strongly to the benefits people get from society. It is to this organization -- the infrastructure, if you prefer -- that everyone owes what Nat calls a debt. Agreed, society and Government are not synonymous. Society covers a much wider range of organizations than just government -- friendship groups, clubs, local governments ... But "Government", as a term, is a good word for the organized superstructure that provides Value Added over and above the value of the individuals. That Value Added is subject to a Value Added Tax (a tax owed by virtue of benefiting from the organization of society by Governments). Other organizations also add value to your life, but they are not as pervasive, and do not structure the fabric of your society. You *can* choose to belong or not to belong to most of them, but you can't choose to do without the benefits of belonging to an organized society. As to what tax is most appropriate and fair: I think that the only tax should be income tax. Taxes on static property are totally unfair because they must be paid out of income that may not exist because of property paid for with money already taxed. Taxes on goods or on corporations are taken in equal measure from rich and poor, which strikes me as unfair because the poor need a much larger proportion of their income just to stay alive. Income tax seems totally fair, easy to administer, and just. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
mwm@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA (03/20/85)
[Enter parody mode.] In article <1467@dciem.UUCP> mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) writes: >Nat makes the common mistake of confusing the benefits received >from society with the benefits received from people in the society. Martin makes the common mistake of confusing a collection of people with an entity that can act on its own. In this case, Nat was pointing out that most people do not act to benefit Nat, so Martin is claiming that those actions aren't the ones that Nat owes society for. Martin, would you be so kind as to point out actions which benefit Nat which were not undertaken by a person? >I think this failure of distinction may well lie at the root of >the philosophical differences between libertarians and the people >libertarians like to call "socialists." Libertarians seem to regard >society as the sum of its people, whereas "socialists" recognize that >the *organization* of society itself contributes very strongly to the >benefits people get from society. I think this illusion of distinction may well lie at the root of the philosophical differences between socialists and the people socialists like to call "libertarians." Socialists seem to regard society as an active entity, whereas "libertarians" recognize that the people and their interactions constitute the sum total of society. [Exit parody mode.] >It is to this organization -- the >infrastructure, if you prefer -- that everyone owes what Nat calls >a debt. Two responses: First, fine - and I repay the debt by participating in society. If I don't participate, then I don't owe a debt, and if I do, then the debt is de-facto paid. Second, should I concede that I owe money to "society", will you provide a mailing address where I can send the check :-)? >As to what tax is most appropriate and fair: I think that the only >tax should be income tax. Taxes on static property are totally unfair >because they must be paid out of income that may not exist because of >property paid for with money already taxed. Taxes on goods or on >corporations are taken in equal measure from rich and poor, which >strikes me as unfair because the poor need a much larger proportion >of their income just to stay alive. Income tax seems totally fair, >easy to administer, and just. The above statements only apply if the income tax is flat. A little thought will show that any graduated tax is always unfair to people acting in concert, one way or another. Loopholes are only loopholes for other people - for you they are "legitimate deductions." The list of problems just goes on and on. My personal favorite (if we absolutely must have a tax) is sales tax, excluding staple foods and rent/upkeep on a single domicile. If you let people post prices with "sales tax included," it can even be made as invisible as income tax. And of course, it seems "totally fair, easy to administer, and just." <mike
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (03/21/85)
> In article <1467@dciem.UUCP> mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) writes: > >I think this failure of distinction may well lie at the root of > >the philosophical differences between libertarians and the people > >libertarians like to call "socialists." Libertarians seem to regard > >society as the sum of its people, whereas "socialists" recognize that > >the *organization* of society itself contributes very strongly to the > >benefits people get from society. <mike replies: > Martin makes the common mistake of confusing a collection of people with an > entity that can act on its own. (1) point of trivia: The preferred libertarian term of derision is not "socialist" but "statist", of which socialists are seen as but a subset. (2) A contention I have seen in libertarian writings is the one which appears to the be the subject of this discussion; namely, that there is no such thing as a "society", but only people. I find that I must disagree with this statement, at least in so simple a form. The problem is one of levels of description, and is a fairly common phenomenon in science (or indeed religion or any other realm of discourse). Example: I have a collection of transistors, capacitors, and so forth, on the table in front of me. I can describe it in terms of each component and its relationship to each of the others; or I can describe it as a radio. It is obviously false to say, "there is no such thing as a radio"; "radio" is a perfectly valid term to refer to a subset of all the possible arrangements of electronic doohickeys. The question of interest, however, is not "do radios exist?" but "does the description of all the parts and their relationships completely explain the radio?" The answer is yes-- *on the level of components, voltages, frequencies, etc*. We could even go down a level further and give a full--and complete--description of what is going on at the quantum mechanical level (albeit a godawfully complex one). The point is that there is no effect or phenomenon which can be described at the electronics level, say, which can be understood by a description of the radio at the household appliance level better than by the (complete) description at the electronics level. Indeed, usually when you go "up" a level (ie a level which takes aggregates of the one "below" as units) you *lose* descriptive power (to gain conciseness). Similarly, a description of society as a whole or in terms of aggregates is a perfectly valid way of talking. And aggregate social entities do, *at this level of description*, "act on their own". However, there is nothing in an aggregate description of "society" that is not *better* explained by descriptions of individual actions, motivations, and relationships. --JoSH
ncg@ukc.UUCP (N.C.Gale) (03/22/85)
In article <834@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA> mwm@ucbtopaz.UUCP (Praiser of Bob) writes: > >My personal favorite (if we absolutely must have a tax) is sales tax, >excluding staple foods and rent/upkeep on a single domicile. If you let >people post prices with "sales tax included," it can even be made as >invisible as income tax. And of course, it seems "totally fair, easy to >administer, and just." > I beg to differ. Someone with twenty times as much income as someone else will not necessarily spend it all on taxed items. (S)He is quite likely, in fact, to invest it in attaining a larger income (do stocks and shares get sales taxed?) So pleb X gets taxed so much, and rich pleb Y gets taxed not much more. This will discourage people from spending money (horror). Mind you, income tax falls apart fairly quickly, too. Why should married couples (or even unmarried couples) be penalised? But if you state that everyone, married or not, should be taxed on the same scale - doesn't a housewife whose husband is raking in X0,000 per annum become entitled to social security? Not if you have a means test, I suppose - but people regard this as degrading. Should housewives be entitled to a minimum wage? If so, who pays her? If the husband, what if he doesn't earn enough? No taxation system is ideal, same as there being no perfect political doctrine. What we have at the moment is pretty good, all things considered, and I can't see anything being solved by fantastic political experimentation. Restructuring society would be very expensive, and with very little chance of success. -Nigel Gale (another middleoftheroad extremist rebelling against change)
neal@denelcor.UUCP (Neal Weidenhofer) (03/23/85)
************************************************************************** > As to what tax is most appropriate and fair: I think that the only > tax should be income tax. Taxes on static property are totally unfair > because they must be paid out of income that may not exist because of > property paid for with money already taxed. Taxes on goods or on > corporations are taken in equal measure from rich and poor, which > strikes me as unfair because the poor need a much larger proportion > of their income just to stay alive. Income tax seems totally fair, > easy to administer, and just. > -- > > Martin Taylor > {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt > {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt I can't help but be struck by the essentailly "socialistic" or "Marxist" definition of "fair" that you are using. (Cf. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".) As a capitalist and a libertarian, I maintain that for a tax or any other required "payment" to be "fair" it should be proportional to the benefit you are getting or expecting to get from whatever it is you are paying for. Regards, Neal Weidenhofer "The law is for protection Denelcor, Inc. of the people" <hao|csu-cs|brl-bmd>!denelcor!neal
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (03/25/85)
>[Enter parody mode.] > >In article <1467@dciem.UUCP> mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) writes: >>Nat makes the common mistake of confusing the benefits received >>from society with the benefits received from people in the society. > >Martin makes the common mistake of confusing a collection of people with an >entity that can act on its own. In this case, Nat was pointing out that >most people do not act to benefit Nat, so Martin is claiming that those >actions aren't the ones that Nat owes society for. Martin, would you be so >kind as to point out actions which benefit Nat which were not undertaken by >a person? > >>I think this failure of distinction may well lie at the root of >>the philosophical differences between libertarians and the people >>libertarians like to call "socialists." Libertarians seem to regard >>society as the sum of its people, whereas "socialists" recognize that >>the *organization* of society itself contributes very strongly to the >>benefits people get from society. > >I think this illusion of distinction may well lie at the root of the >philosophical differences between socialists and the people socialists like >to call "libertarians." Socialists seem to regard society as an active >entity, whereas "libertarians" recognize that the people and their >interactions constitute the sum total of society. > >[Exit parody mode.] "Parody mode" is the easiest way of avoiding an argument, isn't it? You miss the point entirely. It is true only in a very restricted sense that "the people and their interactions constitute the sum total of society." JoSH made a very good analogy with a radio. Sure, it consists only of its transistors, resistors, etc. and their interconnections, but it is a radio, not a collection of parts, simply because the connections have a specific organization that works as a radio. Similarly, it is the *organization* of society that determines how you live, not the simple fact that there are interacting people. I reiterate: [Libertarians] makes the common mistake of confusing the benefits received from society with the benefits received from people in the society. If you still can't see the distinction, think some more about the radio. As to the proper recipient of the cheque (unquoted part of the article) anyone duly authorized to collect it on behalf of society will do. All organization needs external support, and money is one way to provide it. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
brian@digi-g.UUCP (Brian Westley) (03/25/85)
In article <1024@topaz.ARPA> josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) writes: >...Example: I have a collection of transistors, capacitors, and so forth, >on the table in front of me. I can describe it in terms of each component >and its relationship to each of the others; or I can describe it as a >radio.... > >--JoSH This from someone who describes ANY society that kills > 10,000,000 of it's own people as socialist?? (Gee, I guess any group < 10,000,000 CAN'T be socialist). I guess he calls any collection of transistors, capacitors, etc, a radio, too. (I am currently typing on a TeleVideo Radio). B'goSH, JoSH, your arguments would be more convincing if you used proper definitions, instead of just making it up as you go along... Merlyn Leroy "...a dimension between stupidity and substance, between science and superficiality, a place we call...The Usenet Zone"
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (03/27/85)
I suggested that income tax was the only fair tax, because all other taxes can or must fall more heavily on the poor, who need all their income to live. Neal Wiedenhofer replied: > I can't help but be struck by the essentailly "socialistic" or >"Marxist" definition of "fair" that you are using. (Cf. "From each >according to his ability, to each according to his need".) As a >capitalist and a libertarian, I maintain that for a tax or any other >required "payment" to be "fair" it should be proportional to the benefit >you are getting or expecting to get from whatever it is you are paying >for. I'm not sure why my idea is socialistic or Marxist. I would have thought it more fair to tax away something that isn't giving you great benefit (such as your second million of income this year) rather than something on which you depend to live (your second thousand this year). The greatest benefit you can get from something is that it lets you stay alive. This is what you want to tax most heavily, and call "fair"? I doubt that many "capitalists and libertarians" would agree with you, even though they probably wouldn't agree with me, either. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (03/27/85)
Why is it fair to tax *anybody*, *anything*. We still haven't dealt with that one. It seems pointless to argue whether it income tax is fairer than property tax unless one already agrees that taxation is in some cases ``fair''. Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
mwm@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA (03/27/85)
In article <1477@dciem.UUCP> mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) writes: >"Parody mode" is the easiest way of avoiding an argument, isn't it? No, "parody mode" is an easy way to show that an argument consists of empty hand-waving that makes equal sense no matter what words you plug into it. >You miss the point entirely. It is true only in a very restricted >sense that "the people and their interactions constitute the sum >total of society." JoSH made a very good analogy with a radio. Sure, >it consists only of its transistors, resistors, etc. and their >interconnections, but it is a radio, not a collection of parts, >simply because the connections have a specific organization that works >as a radio. That analogy is broken for many reasons (see below), but to push it even farther, the parts of the radio don't have to make any effort beyond doing their job. The mere fact that they work, and remain in contact with other components, is enough to maintain the radio as a radio. Or (from yet more of my unquoted text) my being part of society, and interacting with it pays my debt to society in full. Now, on why that analogy is broken from the word go. First, a radio was constructed by an intelligent being. Society wasn't, and if you want to argue about that one, do it in net.religion. The radio has a purpose, over and above being a collection of parts. Society is a collection of people, each with their own purpose. The parts of a radio cannot change their role in the radio, whereas people can change their role in society. Nuts - if a single component in a radio dies, the radio looses quality, and probably stops being a radio. If a person dies, society just keeps rolling along. Want more? >I reiterate: [Libertarians] makes the common mistake of confusing the >benefits received from society with the benefits received from >people in the society. I'll reiterate too: [Socialists] make the common mistake of confusing a collection of people and their interactions with an entity that takes on a will of its own. >Similarly, it is the *organization* of society that determines how you >live, not the simple fact that there are interacting people. Aha! Something that I can't use parody mode on. I'll even agree, to an extent. In a totalitarian society (or a radio :-), the organization does indeed determine how you live. In a free society, the organization excludes some manners of living, by excluding certain classes of interaction. Other than that, you determine how live - including the creation of totally new ways of living. >As to the proper recipient of the cheque (unquoted part of the article) >anyone duly authorized to collect it on behalf of society will do. All >organization needs external support, and money is one way to provide it. Ok, how do I recognize a "duly authorized" person? Since you admit that the government (another collection of individuals that people like to give a life of it's own) is not isomorphic to society, government authorization isn't sufficient. <mike
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (03/29/85)
In article <518@digi-g.UUCP> brian@digi-g.UUCP (brian) writes: >In article <1024@topaz.ARPA> josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) writes: >>...Example: I have a collection of transistors, capacitors, and so forth, >>on the table in front of me. I can describe it in terms of each component >>and its relationship to each of the others; or I can describe it as a >>radio.... >> >>--JoSH > >This from someone who describes ANY society that kills > 10,000,000 of >it's own people as socialist?? (Gee, I guess any group < 10,000,000 CAN'T >be socialist). I guess he calls any collection of transistors, capacitors, >etc, a radio, too. (I am currently typing on a TeleVideo Radio). >B'goSH, JoSH, your arguments would be more convincing if you used proper >definitions, instead of just making it up as you go along... > >Merlyn Leroy To anyone other than the ingenuous Mr. Leroy, my saying that I can describe a collection of components as a radio is tantamount to an assertion that it is a radio (and not, for example, a terminal). Furthermore, Mr Leroy has misquoted me, and emphasised the very word which makes his attribution a lie: I said that if a nation kills 10M of its people *there is a good chance* it's socialist. Whatever the actual flaws of the contention (dealing mostly with the definition of "socialist"), nothing at all is said about nations which do not kill 10M. It's as if I had said, "any place north of Juneau, Alaska is cold in January" and Mr Leroy had replied "Gee, I guess Bangor, Maine CAN'T be cold in January". --JoSH