carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (02/07/85)
JoSH says: > The libertarian points out that taxation is theft in order to make the > point that something that is wrong for one person to do, is wrong for a > group to do. If it is indeed "natural justice" for the government to do > it, then what you're saying is that it should be OK for anyone to do it. Libertarian, n. A person who has great difficulty distinguishing between a lexicographic question and a question of political philosophy. Theft, n. A transfer of wealth which is against the law. Taxation, n. A [particular kind of] transfer of wealth which is enforced by law. So much for the lexicographic question; now for political philosophy. The question: Is taxation necessarily unjust? JoSH gives the standard libertarian response here, the retreat into dogmatism: taxation is always unjust because I firmly believe it is, and furthermore I am pounding the table when I say it. However, if you wish to persuade anyone of your views, you must present rational arguments in their support. In this case, since the claim is being made that a certain class of actions is unjust, these arguments, taken together, are called a "theory of distributive justice." (By everyone except our friend nrh, that is--to him, "a theory of distributive justice" means a specification of who gets how much. To the rest of us, the term means an explanation of the nature of "justice" in the distribution of wealth and other social goods.) Would libertarians be so good as to provide this explanation. Would they also please note that the denial that taxation is always unjust does not imply that taxation is always just. > In our own society, as in medieval England and ancient Israel, it is the > government which is rich and the people who are poor. This will be news to the Treasury Dept. Last I heard the federal government owed about $1 trillion and was sinking fast with no relief in sight. Or were you referring to all the millionaires in Congress and the Reagan Administration? It is true that the government owns a lot of real estate. For the most part this is accessible for public use or is used for public purposes. Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
jlg@lanl.ARPA (02/07/85)
This is an answer to several different articles at once. > The libertarian points out that taxation is theft in order to make > the point that something that is wrong for one person to do, > is wrong for a group to do. It's not wrong for a person to take money from himself. Why would it be wrong for a group to take money from itself? That's how taxes work out for a democracy anyway. > This is a classic example of the fallacy of composition. If A has a property, > then a group including A may or may not have that property. With the present laws: If A owns some property, then a group including A DOES NOT own that property :-). > [...] Robin Hood was an outlaw, remember; > the duly constituted Sheriff of Nottingham and the King (John) > wanted to kill him in the worst way. Not at all. They wanted to hang him. That's not the worst way to kill someone. > In our own society, as in mediaeval England and ancient Israel, > it is the government which is rich and the people who are poor. You haven't been reading about the deficit, have you? > Any land I might come to own will be paid for by the fruits of > my labor. I therefore find your distinction between land and > other kinds of property to be nugatory. At some point in the past someone came out to your land, pounded some stakes in the ground, and said 'this is my land'. His ownership of the land didn't come from any 'fruits of labor', he just claimed the land. The reason he could get away with this behaviour (and later sell the land, burn it, leave it to his heirs, build on it, etc.) is that the legal system and the government allowed him to. This is the same legal system that your property taxes help to support. Without it, you have no rights to you land at all (or, at least, no rights unless you can defend them with strength at arms). > Statement of belief: Manipulation of the economy via manipulation > of taxation is improper. Fine. But in what way is legitimate tax, that helps to support your right to own land, to be considered 'manipulation'. > [...] I believe that our National Parks should be in private > hands, but that would be hard to do if the homesteading laws allowed someone > to claim the grand canyon. I disagree. The basis of my disagreement is not human nature or mistrust, but direct observation: National Parks are, in general, much more fun to visit than privately held land, in general. This is assuming that the private land holder allows me on his property at all. I'm willing to part with a few tax dollars and some mineral wealth to maintain these places. Fortunately, enough others in this democracy feel the same. If you disagree, you can always vote for your view - James Watt appeared to be on your side. J. Giles
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (02/07/85)
Over to Richard Carnes: Any organisation with a hell of a lot of money has a hell of a lot of power. Any organisation that gets to make all the rules has a hell of a lot of power. When you look at a large, bureaucratic government you see an organisation with both of these properties. There is no guarantee that the government is going to be benevolent, either. The mechanism called ``voting'' is supposed to keep the government in some way ``fair'' or ``benevolent'' or ``reflecting the will of the people''. In practice, it doesn't work. The problem is that a lot of the power in a government is held by civil servants who can't be voted out, and, even worse, that in selecting a government you are faced with a package deal -- do you vote for the government that is trying to increase the social welfare programs that you seriously believe are contributing to *keeping people poor* or do you vote for the government that is already building more nuclear arms than you want to have around? Both governments are expensive and do things that you hate... The problem with all redistributive schemes is that you take things away from one person and give them to another person - and it is the morality of such taking away that needs to be examined. Even if it is decided that the taking away is moral, though, it bodes well to not give the money *to the government*, since the government already has a lot of power. Now, the only times I can see where it is moral to take things away from one person and give them to another is when the first person is not entitled to them and the second person is. So we are back to: when is somebody entitled to somebody else's things? Well, the first case is where the first person has stolen the original thing from the second. The second is where the two parties had a contract whereby the first was supposed to give something to the second, and then refused to do so. The third is where the first person has infringed upon the rights of the second and can be ordered to pay something in compensation. Now, unless you can prove that the ``rich'' (hereby defined as the ones you want to take something away from) in some way by their very existence have either entered into a contract to provide for the ``poor'' (hereby defined as the people you want to give the something to) or have, again by their very existence, have infringed upon the rights of ``the poor'', then you are out of luck in trying to use these arguments as justification for taxation. Some libertarians believe that by living in a certain area one, by one's continued existence there, have agreed to support the minimal state. They use this argument to say that a head tax to pay for the upkeep of the government defence and judicial system is just. These arguments are not the ones that are usually used to justify most of the ``taking from ``the rich'' to give to ``the poor''''. The argument that is used is that ``the poor'', by being so badly off, *deserve* more and that the force of this deserving is sufficient to take things away from ``the rich''. A lot of people profess to believe this. Now, I see nothing wrong with believing this. I suggest that all the people who believe this should give to charities. I recognise, though, that there are some people who do not believe this at all. From my perspective, they are behaving less than ideally. I think that they are short on enlightenment. This is a problem. I do not think that the solution is to take their money away from them because they are (in my opinion) wrong to not support the people who I consider ``poor''. Just because they are wrong in this, does not give me the right to force them to behave as I would behave. Given this perspective, the notion of national taxation for redistribution of wealth seems flawed. I propose an experiment. Make such payments voluntary. The one of two things will happen. Either people will pay them, or they will not. If most people pay them then there is no need to worry about ``the poor'' -- they will be getting a lot of money, and, since everybody (anybody disagree? maybe Martin Taylor, hmmm...) complains that the current programs are transferring money from the middle class to the middle class and from ``the rich'' to ``the rich'' and from the middle class to the rich (and sometimes even ``the poor'' to ``the rich'') it seems clear that ``the poor'' could do with substantially less money *if they got all of it*. The other thing that could happen is that people would not pay it. Assume that they do not give money to private charities, but really and truly decide that they want ``the poor'' to have no more money at their expense. I think that this would be sad, but it would demonstrate that the notion that the current government does ``the will of the people'' is wrong. Instead, the government will be caught doing ``what some people think that the people ought to be doing'' which is hardly the same thing. How could this scheme fail? Well, if you tried in in a place where most people were poor, you could claim that the will of ``the people'' was identical to the will of ``the poor'' and that ``the rich'' are only a tiny and insignificant fraction. This does not seem to be the case in North America. The other way that this scheme could fail is if people all sent in no money, but then, after seeing the effects this had on ``the poor'' regrettted their action. I think that with massive belt-tightening they would be able to contribute to any of the numerous organisations which would spring up to deal with the crisis, though. So, Richard Carnes -- have I left any holes? When do you say that taxation is justified? Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (02/09/85)
In article <utzoo.5031> laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) writes: >These arguments are not the ones that are usually used to justify most >of the ``taking from ``the rich'' to give to ``the poor''''. The argument that >is used is that ``the poor'', by being so badly off, *deserve* more and that >the force of this deserving is sufficient to take things away from ``the >rich''. A lot of people profess to believe this. I don't know how many people profess to believe it, but it is surely a classic "straw man". The reason for redistribution is that it makes *everybody* better off, including those from whom wealth was *apparently* taken. This is the main argument, for example, in the Brandt report, and I think you will find it an argument more people "profess to believe" than the one you quote. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (02/09/85)
About the ``everybody being better off'' proposition: I have yet to hear *anybody* say that ``the rich'' would be better off if you took money away from them. I have heard it said that ``they have so much that it doesn't matter to them whether you take it away from them'' and that ``it only hurts them a little, and there are few of them, and so many people who would benefit so that *overall* we are all better off'', but the logic of the second proposition rests on concluding that ``the greatest good for the greatest number'' is an ethical way to decide ones actions. And, following that, it does follow that one thinks that ``the poor'' deserve more money -- they deserve it because it would be ``the greatest good for the greatest number'' which is how one who strictly followed this formula of utilitarianism would determine who deserved what. Laura VCreighton utzoo!laura
carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (02/11/85)
J. Giles writes: >Except for the U.S. and certain modern democracies I can't think of any >nations in all of history which had even a small part of the tax revenue >diverted to Robin Hood type activities. Certainly this view of taxation >hasn't much historical justification. I can't think of any societies in history which did *not* redistribute wealth, often through taxation (although the redistribution was not always from rich to poor!) Can anyone supply an counterexample? (Perhaps Max Weber can help out with this.) Imperial Rome distributed free grain (the dole), and the Athens of Socrates also redistributed wealth. The "welfare state" (although not in its modern Western form) seems to be at least as old as history. Giles is of course correct to point out that tax revenues are used for many other purposes as well. Richard Carnes
carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (02/12/85)
Laura Creighton writes: >About the ``everybody being better off'' proposition: > >I have yet to hear *anybody* say that ``the rich'' would be better >off if you took money away from them. But Laura, haven't you suggested that in a libertarian society, the rich would voluntarily donate to charities, and if they didn't, you would try to persuade them to share their wealth voluntarily? If you are so certain that the rich would be made worse off by someone's taking money away from them, how on earth do you expect to persuade them to give away money voluntarily? Do you plan to lie to them or invent fallacious arguments? Why do the rich in fact give money away, if they themselves do not think they are made better off by doing so? Perhaps they take seriously that passage in the Bible about a camel going through the eye of a needle, perhaps it gives them satisfaction to do some good in the world, perhaps they are appeasing a guilty conscience, perhaps they <gasp> actually CARE about their fellow human beings. But however you explain it, the fact remains that many rich people think they are better off with less money. Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
geoff@burl.UUCP (geoff) (02/12/85)
> Laura Creighton writes: > >About the ``everybody being better off'' proposition: > > > >I have yet to hear *anybody* say that ``the rich'' would be better > >off if you took money away from them. > > Richard Carnes replies: > But however you explain it, the fact > remains that many rich people think they are better off with less money. > Richard Carnes argues that since the rich often do give away large sums of money to charities (and they do) that they are better off with less money and therefore taxing them to remove some of their surplus cash is in fact beneficial to them. The key here is that VOLUNTARILY giving money away is CHARITY. It makes people feel good that they can do something to help otheres. Taking money away INVOLUNTARILY is very close to THEFT and makes people loath the leeches. Personally, I do not like taxes. I think that they are necessary to run a government and, since I like *some* of the things government provides, I do not oppose it on principle. However, considering the sheer volume of money that is taken I oppose it as it stands. I would hazard a guess that if taxes took a small part of income and were spent *very* frugally (instead of always asking whether the govt can do any given task, asking why the market can't) and so forth, the taxation issue would become a non-issue (a little of my blood from time to time is acceptable, but don't come asking for gallons). I do think that a court system is a good idea (but get rid of most of the petty laws!!). Roads are a good idea, and, um, people shouldn't starve (a little hungry gives incentive though -- seeing people buy steaks in front of me in the grocery store with food stamps while I was in buying hamburger <student days> did kind of piss me off). geoff sherwood
jlg@lanl.ARPA (02/14/85)
already resided. People do this sort of thing all the time. There are numerous organizations, clubs, political parties, lodges, etc. in existance all the time. NONE of them can vote to extract payment from members or non-members against that person's will. The victim of such a transaction has legal recourse to those governmental bodies which superceed the organizations in question. J. Giles
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (02/14/85)
Richard, There is an important distinction to be made here. There is a world of difference between giving money to someone, and having money taken from you. If all that mattered was the money, and if ``richness'' and ``poverty'' are viewed as both being wrong, then it would not matter *how* the transfer occurred. Given that it is the human beings, and not the money that matters, how the transfer occurs is very important. Note that it may be that the ``rich'' are better off with less money *only* *if* they give the money away voluntarily. Otherwise the accrued resentment agaisnt the ``poor'' and against the tax collectors may outweigh any benefits they might receive. Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) (02/15/85)
> I have yet to hear *anybody* say that ``the rich'' would be better > off if you took money away from them. I have heard it said that > ``they have so much that it doesn't matter to them whether you take > it away from them'' and that ``it only hurts them a little, and there > are few of them, and so many people who would benefit so that *overall* > we are all better off'', but the logic of the second proposition rests on > concluding that ``the greatest good for the greatest number'' is an > ethical way to decide ones actions. And, following that, it does follow > that one thinks that ``the poor'' deserve more money -- they deserve it > because it would be ``the greatest good for the greatest number'' which > is how one who strictly followed this formula of utilitarianism would > determine who deserved what. > > Laura VCreighton > utzoo!laura If I can remember correctly, the arguments from my economics courses were basically like this: 1. Private charity can not create an adequate social net. (I'm not going to argue this one with anybody; I believe it!) 2. Without the social net, people would have no alternative but to get goods and services in any way they can. (Criminal acts enter here) 3. Criminal acts are going to be directed at those that have goods and services. (The rich certainly have the goods) So what the rich have to gain from the redistribution of wealth is their lives. That may seem far-fetched, but there are plenty of incidents from history that show it can happen. *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) (02/15/85)
> > People do this sort of thing all the time. There are numerous organizations, > clubs, political parties, lodges, etc. in existance all the time. NONE of > them can vote to extract payment from members or non-members against that > person's will. The victim of such a transaction has legal recourse to those > governmental bodies which superceed the organizations in question. > > J. Giles My undersatnding of many of these types of organizations is that they have a set of by-laws (sp?) that can be ammended through different processes. This would usually be done by a vote of a certain percentage of members or officers. There is no reason why they couldn't institute any non-discriminatory (as defined by state and federal law) act or law upon the membership. The "victim" has no recourse except leaving the organization. BTW, even if your statement was true (which I obviously don't think it is) what about the organizational type you left out that DOES do this, trade unions? *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (02/18/85)
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. Obviously not all Libertarians have that as their motivation, but the pre-eminent role of "reasons I don't have to pay taxes" in their discussions sure makes you wonder.... -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University Computation Center ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!" "Remember all ye that existence is pure joy; that all the sorrows are but as shadows; they pass & are done; but there is that which remains." Liber AL, II:9.
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (02/18/85)
> 1. Private charity can not create an adequate social net. (I'm not going > to argue this one with anybody; I believe it!) > 2. Without the social net, people would have no alternative but to get > goods and services in any way they can. (Criminal acts enter here) > 3. Criminal acts are going to be directed at those that have goods and > services. (The rich certainly have the goods) > So what the rich have to gain from the redistribution of wealth is their > lives. That may seem far-fetched, but there are plenty of incidents from > history that show it can happen. You have a good point, but the question is, what sort of safety net are we talking about? The present system of unemployment insurance, medicare, social security, etc is too much. What I would like to see is a system where the government provides housing, food, and medical care for people who don't have any money, but at a very basic level. People who are getting these benefits should have to do at least a token amount of work, unless they are too old or otherwise incapable of working. Something like that would be more of a real "safety net" than what we have now, which provides too much support to some and too little to others. Wayne
tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (02/19/85)
Josh, while we are in complete agreement that the law is too big and too complicated, I feel your comparison with a rental contract is specious. Every such contract I have ever signed has contained clauses which the courts would throw out as unconstitutionally vague if the document were a bill of law. In particular, they have all contained a clause forbidding the use of the premises for any "immoral purpose". A law would have to spell out what that meant in detail, which might well take tens of thousands of words. -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University Computation Center ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!" "Remember all ye that existence is pure joy; that all the sorrows are but as shadows; they pass & are done; but there is that which remains." Liber AL, II:9.
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (02/19/85)
> Every such contract I have ever signed has contained clauses which the > courts would throw out as unconstitutionally vague if the document were a > bill of law. In particular, they have all contained a clause forbidding the > use of the premises for any "immoral purpose". A law would have to spell > out what that meant in detail, which might well take tens of thousands of > words. > Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University Computation Center Hmm. A contract might just have a few vague phrases in it, like "general welfare", "probable cause", "interstate commerce"... Check it out, I think you'll find the law is a lot vaguer than you thought. What do you think keeps the lawyers in business? --JoSH
jlg@lanl.ARPA (02/20/85)
> > People do this sort of thing all the time. There are numerous organizations, > > clubs, political parties, lodges, etc. in existance all the time. NONE of > > them can vote to extract payment from members or non-members against that > > person's will. > My undersatnding of many of these types of organizations is that they have a > set of by-laws (sp?) that can be ammended through different processes. > There is no reason why they couldn't institute any non-discriminatory (as > defined by state and federal law) act or law upon the membership. The organizations can pass no laws, rules, or regulations which violate the laws of the state which superceeds them. Once again, stick to the original scenario: being robbed on the train by a group larger than your own. Even if this group constituted a mini-government, it can pass no regulations which are in contradiction to the laws of the federal, state, and local governments which have jurisdiction over the train. Of course, a casual collection of people DOES NOT constitute a mini-government anyway. > The "victim" > has no recourse except leaving the organization. > > BTW, even if your statement was true (which I obviously don't think it is) > what about the organizational type you left out that DOES do this, trade > unions? Membership in a trade union is voluntary. Even in those brain-damaged places that don't have right-to-work laws, you can leave a trade union by changing professions. Even so, trade unions can force members to surrender dues only because the government lets them (closed shop laws). If the government outlawed this (right-to-work laws), the unions would only be able to collect dues from those people who volunteered to join. J. Giles
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (02/27/85)
In article <21651@lanl.ARPA> jlg@lanl.ARPA writes: > > already resided. > >People do this sort of thing all the time. There are numerous organizations, >clubs, political parties, lodges, etc. in existance all the time. NONE of >them can vote to extract payment from members or non-members against that >person's will. The victim of such a transaction has legal recourse to those >governmental bodies which superceed the organizations in question. > >J. Giles Wrong, ever hear of a "closed shop" labor union? This is the employee is coerced into paying union dues regardless of personal desires. And don't say he can always quit, I know of very few "blue collar" workers who can afford to be out of work(or at least not without getting unemployment comensation - a tax supported program). -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
al@ames.UUCP (Al Globus) (03/01/85)
>These arguments are not the ones that are usually used to justify most >of the ``taking from ``the rich'' to give to ``the poor''''. The argument that >is used is that ``the poor'', by being so badly off, *deserve* more and that >the force of this deserving is sufficient to take things away from ``the >rich''. A lot of people profess to believe this. Some of "the poor" are kids. If you don't get fed when you're young you tend to come out stupid. That's bad for all of us. Present U.S. policies have significantly increased hunger in this country, even though there is a surplus of food. The harvest will be lower IQ's for the next seven decades.
jlg@lanl.ARPA (03/05/85)
> >People do this sort of thing all the time. There are numerous organizations, > >clubs, political parties, lodges, etc. in existance all the time. NONE of > >them can vote to extract payment from members or non-members against that > >person's will. The victim of such a transaction has legal recourse to those > >governmental bodies which superceed the organizations in question. > > > >J. Giles > > Wrong, ever hear of a "closed shop" labor union? This is > the employee is coerced into paying union dues regardless of personal > desires. And don't say he can always quit, I know of very few "blue > collar" workers who can afford to be out of work(or at least not > without getting unemployment comensation - a tax supported program). > Sarima (Stanley Friesen) Please read the context and followup of discussions before firing off a response like this. If you had, you would have known that the discussion was about whether a collected body (people in train) could vote to force some member to part with his money. I claimed that this would not be permitted since the laws governing the jurisdiction through which the train was passing would prohibit it. As for 'closed shop' labor unions - they exist only where the are allowed to exist by the local or state governments. 'Right to work' laws would settle the problem admirably. But then, I said all of this in a follow-up already. J. Giles