I know most people here are from Europe, and I am certainly outnumbered, however I'm posting this for those who have a conservative/libertarian outlook on economic issues. I know many here have a good understanding of economics, and are able to debate leftists on the merits of free markets vs socialism, and low, flat rate taxes versus higher and progressive (Marxist) tax systems. Unfortunately I've noticed that many of these arguments against socialism rest on practical arguments. I often hear "It goes against human nature." or "It just doesn't work in the real world." statements...rather than the necessary MORAL arguments against socialism.

As the article points out, arguing the science and practicality of these issues is a huge mistake. Doing so concedes the moral high ground to the authoritarian left. Once you do this, you have accepted their assumptions and are working backwards, trying to find different methods to accomplish THEIR GOALS! It is time we stop doing this, and start questioning the bedrock principles they believe in. Is equality (of outcome) really a GOOD thing? Should we really be striving for it using government force and the threat of VIOLENCE for those who resist? Forget the fact that socialism doesn't work for a moment...The question should be: Is this the MORAL thing to do to a country?
Is equality really more valuable than freedom?

After reading this article, I hope you will conclude, absolutely NOT!

In Defense of Diversity

Last edited by Capitalizt on Mar-14-2005 at 22:03

My oh my, where to begin?

That article is, from start to finish, a snowballing strawman that seems to be attacking a socio-economic philosophy far more extreme than even that of Marxism. How, for instance, did the author conflate egalitarianism with some totalitarianistic desire to enforce homogeneousness across all facets of society? Not even those to the furthest extremes of the totalitarian left would consider the doomsday scenario depicted at the end as being moral, much less necessary. Like most aspects of the objectivst "philosophy" (and I hesitate to use the word "philosophy" when discussing objectivism) this interpretation of Leftist economic ideals is nothing but a hyperbolic, paranoid delusion.

Secondly, the author seems to be using the blanket term "the Left" when - in actual fact - he appears to be referring to, as I said, a rather extreme interpretation of communism. Very, very few members of this rather mythical "the Left", for instance, would advocate the introduction of absolute economic equality, much less push for an absolutely homogeneous society. The egalitarianism of the socialists / liberals is of a far more moderate strain, that doesn't seek economic equality (or, to use a favourite phrase of the right, "wealth redistribution") it seeks only to ensure that even the poorest of those in our society have access to the most basic privileges available modern life (unemployment benefits, health coverage, education etc.). Now the author of the article - if he were able to stop jerking off to Atlas Shrugged for long enough to speak to us - would doubtless find reason to criticise the moral basis for such a perspective: "But providing access to these things would necessitate stealing from those who have earnt their money through hard work and initiative", he would say between strokes, "and this is a direct breach of their inherent right to accumulate wealth without obstacle. By breaching their inherent rights, you are impacting on their freedom and individualism and are on the slippery slope to a society of faceless men with hearing aids. It is a severe breach of man's inherent right to personal freedom to give his money away to another individual." Now I don't know much about these sorts of people, but I'd imagine that there I've captured the gist of what such an objectivist would would say.

The first problem with such a perspective - and this is something that many objectivists / libertarians / laissez-faire capitalists fail to understand - is that every "individual" exists within a "society". The concepts of individualism and functioning society, in this case, are not mutually exclusive, rather they are perfectly compatible. If, in the spirit of objectivism, one were to believe that nothing should be provided free of charge, then every individual who benefits from existing in a society has a moral and econonic responsibility to provide something back to it. Even the wealthiest men in the world would be paupers without that which society provides them, from the freedom to sell their products to the other individuals to the roads that take them to work every morning. These men didn't "earn" these privileges, they were provided them by the society functioning around them. The taxes they pay to the government can be seen as fees for existing within this beneficial framework and if you benefit more from society than the next man, then why should you have to complain about paying greater taxes? What, you think you're entitled to something at a proportionally lower cost than everyone else?

The apportionment of taxes to the government allows it the finances to perform its primary role - and what do you think that is? To build essential infrastructure? But why does it need to do that? To ensure economic growth and opportunity? An important responsibility, but why do we need a strong economy? To ensure a wealthy, prosperous citezenry? But why is that important? To ensure that people are able to satisfy their needs and wants? Bingo. Now step back a bit further and consider the primary function of the government that ties all its roles - from economic management, to defense, to a strong legal system - together: put bluntly, the role of the government is to protect the wellbeing of its citizenry. We need a strong economy to ensure we can feed ourselves, we need a strong defense to protect us from other people and we need a strong legal system to protect us from ourselves. Thus, if we look at it from this perspective, it is a key role of the government to ensure that each of us are safe from the ravages of malnutrition and starvation (hence unemployment benefits), ill-health (hence health care coverage) and chronic poverty (hence access to education). Each preventable death from these causes is every bit as reprehnsible, in a society that can afford it, as a preventable death at the hands of terrorists. If 100 people died due to government inaction with regards to the funding implementable and affordable security measures then there'd be an uproar, so why should the uproar be any less when deaths occur due to government inaction with regards to the funding of implementable welfare, health care and education measures?

I know what you're going to say - we can't afford to fund these things and to a degree you are right. Especially with the imminent ageing of the post-war population glut, we simply may not be able to afford to provide the level of coverage we'd otherwise like to be able to provide. This, however, does not absolve the government from the responsibility to do what it can to protect the lives of its citizens from all identifiable threats be it poverty, war or terrorism. The fact that we cannot protect everyone from the ravages of these elements does not mean that we shouldn't make the effort to protect as many as possible.

Anyway, Individualism vs Society arguments aside, it's the moral haughtiness of the article that frustrates me the most. The notion that the "ethical" egoism proffered by objectivists is inherently more moral than the moderate egalitarianism offered by socialists and liberals flies in the face of the actual nature of morality. The fact is that morality only concerns groups of people, not individuals. An action committed by an individual that affects no-one else is neither moral nor immoral - it's inherently amoral by virtue of the fact that it cannot infringe on the rights of any other individual and if it cannot do this, then it - by definition - cannot be judged in a moral sense. Therefore, any morality that bases itself on the presumption that all ethical issues stem primarily from the natural right of the individual to act freely are essentially flawed - it is, afterall, those affected by an action (or inaction) that judge its moral worth, not the individual committing it. An individual acting independently, in a vacuum, cannot commit an action that is either moral or immoral. There is no morality of absolute individualism. An individual acting within a society, however, can and does commit actions that are moral and immoral but it is not he that is able to judge the morality of his actions, it's those affected by them that do - am I making any sense here?

Let's try a practical example:

Let me ask - is it right for a man to be able to dance? Self-evidently, yes. A man should be free to dance and no-one has the right to stop him. However, is it right for a man to dance wildly in a crowded room? In this case, probably not - if the load music hurts the ears of others and the man's flamboyant style results in the injuries of many more, how can his action still be said to be right? In the first instance, dancing on his own he is affecting no-one, the issue of morality is impertinent and he is free to make his own choice. The second his actions impact on others, however, then he may be judged for the actions he commits.

Say a man chooses not to act, however (afterall, inaction is as much a choice of action as any action is). Say a man chooses to stand around with his hands in his pockets, gazing vacantly into the distance. Again, there is nothing inherently moral or immoral about this action. This man is ultimately free to choose how he acts, or - in this case - doesn't act. However, let us say then that this man (still with his hands in his pockets, gazing vacantly into the distance) is standing on the side of a boat, watching as a young man drowns in the water in front of him. Is it still moral for this man to not act when he could easily throw a rope down to save the young man drowning? I would suggest not. Choosing to allow a man to die when you have the power to save him is every bit as immoral as pushing him into the water in the first place.

Now let's tie this all back to the matter at hand: both you, Capitalizt, and the author of the article contend that egalitarianism is immoral becauses it compromises the essential freedom of every individual to choose as he pleases. My argument, however, is that is far less immoral to compel an individual, unwillingly, to help a man in need than it is for the individual to not help the man in the first place. Furthermore, I contend that it is the responsibility (if you want to learn some real philosophy I suggest you look into Sartre's writings on the correlation between individual freedom and individual responsibility) of those who exist in a society to repay back to it but a small fraction of that which they have gained from living within it. If you can find any reason why either of these perspectives run contrary to what could be said to be "the MORAL thing to do to a country" then I'd like to hear them.

(Note: I'm not a liberal - in the morern American sense at least - or a socialist, so don't bother attempting another strawman approach.)

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

Although I cannot disagree that the above article is an obvious straw man, I’m afraid that your critique of “laissez-faire” economics is, at best, in need of further development.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade The first problem with such a perspective - and this is something that many objectivists / libertarians / laissez-faire capitalists fail to understand - is that every "individual" exists within a "society". The concepts of individualism and functioning society, in this case, are not mutually exclusive, rather they are perfectly compatible. If, in the spirit of objectivism, one were to believe that nothing should be provided free of charge, then every individual who benefits from existing in a society has a moral and econonic responsibility to provide something back to it. Even the wealthiest men in the world would be paupers without that which society provides them, from the freedom to sell their products to the other individuals to the roads that take them to work every morning. These men didn't "earn" these privileges, they were provided them by the society functioning around them. The taxes they pay to the government can be seen as fees for existing within this beneficial framework and if you benefit more from society than the next man, then why should you have to complain about paying greater taxes? What, you think you're entitled to something at a proportionally lower cost than everyone else?

Taxes are paid to support a government, not a society – you seem to equivocate the two. An anarchistic society is still a society. It does not follow that one should pay for a greater proportion of the costs of one object based on one’s greater proportion of the benefits from another object. If this reasoning were to be properly carried out, then one would have to know how much each individual benefits from the government (not from society) in order to determine what proportion they ought to owe to support it. The costs of society, however, are not currency: they are organization, resources, labor, and ingenuity. It so happens that those individuals who contribute the most to the costs of society are in fact typically those who also receive the largest share of its benefits.

quote:

The apportionment of taxes to the government allows it the finances to perform its primary role - and what do you think that is? To build essential infrastructure? But why does it need to do that? To ensure economic growth and opportunity? An important responsibility, but why do we need a strong economy? To ensure a wealthy, prosperous citezenry? But why is that important? To ensure that people are able to satisfy their needs and wants? Bingo.

I’m afraid that I must disagree entirely. In order to correctly ascertain the primary role of government one should look no farther than to the problem it was created to solve. In other words: what was wrong with our anarchistic society such that the existence of government is desirable? It is not to build essential infrastructure – infrastructure would still be constructed by those with the resources to create it who also stood to benefit from it: an individual or organization in need of a road would construct one if they had sufficient resources, for example. On the contrary, the function of government is to prevent the accumulation of wealth and resources by means of immoral means, such as violence or deception which contribute nothing to society. Such practices harm, rather than benefit society, and therefore it is desirable to eliminate them, even if some cost must be incurred in order to pay for the government which (theoretically) prevents them.

Government doesn’t (and cannot) “ensure that people are able to satisfy their needs and wants.” This is because no matter what a person has, there will always be something else that they want. And if they are able to obtain that as well, there will be something else. No matter what, there will always be some unsatisfied desire. Furthermore, the accumulation of wealth amongst the citizenry fails to genuinely address the most profound and important desires that people have. What can the government or any amount of wealth do for the gay boy who wishes for nothing more than his father’s acceptance, but will never receive it? Or for the young woman who would gladly sell her soul to be the next big pop singer, but simply does not have the aptitude? Or for the millions of broken hearts young and old who just want another chance to do things right, but can never erase the mistakes of their past? I suppose there is no need for me to belabor the point: the proposed role of government cannot be its actual role, since it is a function that government cannot perform. I submit that my description of government as a tool to enforce order and preserve society’s natural efficacy is a more accurate description of the primary role of government.

It strikes me that it would be pointless for me to address your post any further until we’ve had the chance to further explore the more fundamental disagreements I’ve addressed in this post. If you can find the time, I would be glad to hear you explain your point of view more thoroughly.

First, thanks for the reply Renegade. I disagree with almost everything you said but at least you don't emote like most lefties, who just seem to "feel" their way through the issues rather than thinking clearly. You have logically backed up your positions so you deserve credit for that.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade My oh my, where to begin? That article is, from start to finish, a snowballing strawman that seems to be attacking a socio-economic philosophy far more extreme than even that of Marxism. How, for instance, did the author conflate egalitarianism with some totalitarianistic desire to enforce homogeneousness across all facets of society? Not even those to the furthest extremes of the totalitarian left would consider the doomsday scenario depicted at the end as being moral, much less necessary.

Of course the author went a bit extreme to get his point across, but sometimes that is necessary to highlight the disturbing nature of where the desire for forced equality ultimately leads. Of course, nobody on the left has proposed something outrageous like physically disfiguring the beautiful to bring them down to a "normal" level of beauty, but I have seen time and time again, both on these forums and elsewhere, the desire of the left to HURT people financially...with quotes like "Oooh I'd like to see them lose everything they have, so they can see what it is to be poor.". You may be able to sympathize with this attitude but I can not. To me, this is an evil belief...a desire to see someone destroyed...to have the fruits of their labor confiscated by force. When one doesn't have the right to earn property and dispose of it as they please, by definition, they are a SLAVE...and for people on the left to demand higher and higher tax burdens on a certain class of people is to demand they be ENSLAVED for an ever longer portion of the year they work. This belief...the desire to harm another, I find disgusting, and nearly on the same level as the desire to disfigure someone because they are too beautiful.

quote:

If, in the spirit of objectivism, one were to believe that nothing should be provided free of charge, then every individual who benefits from existing in a society has a moral and econonic responsibility to provide something back to it. Even the wealthiest men in the world would be paupers without that which society provides them, from the freedom to sell their products to the other individuals to the roads that take them to work every morning. These men didn't "earn" these privileges, they were provided them by the society functioning around them. The taxes they pay to the government can be seen as fees for existing within this beneficial framework and if you benefit more from society than the next man, then why should you have to complain about paying greater taxes? What, you think you're entitled to something at a proportionally lower cost than everyone else?

I don't believe the wealthy should be forced to pay a "proportionally lower" cost than anyone else. The moral thing to do would be to impose an equal burden on everyone who contributes to society, with a flat rate tax on every dollar earned above the poverty level. Millionaires would still pay millions in taxes, while someone making $20k would pay only a few hundred dollars. When you look at it, the system would still be "progressive", but flat at the same time so not to discourage productive activity at the top. The fact that millionaires are millionaires at all says something about the amount they have "contributed" to society already. Through their actions, and through VOLUNTARY transactions with other individuals in the free market, businessmen in the private sector create more wealth and more jobs each year than our government has since it's inception. By virtue of making money, they have already given society more than the most compassionate socialist government could ever hope to achieve. These people should not be singled out for a greater punishment because of their success...They should not be scorned and punished for it, nor should they be rewarded. They should be forced to pay an equal burden...a flat percentage of their earnings to the government.


As for the other issues you brought up (health care, food stamps, etc etc.). I do not disagree with you on those goals. It is the MEANS to the ends that I have a problem with. The poverty rate today stands exactly where it stood in 1960, after more than 40 years and $7 trillion spent on the war on poverty. Using direct transfer payments and welfare programs, we have tried fighting it the left's way for four decades. And instead of lifting people out of poverty, we have institutionalized it...creating entire generations of families dependent on these payments for survival. We have also created a massive bureaucratic class who's survival depends on finding new ways to EXPAND the welfare state. The intentions of these programs were good...I don't deny the sincerity of those who started them...but the practical results of this method have been disasterous. The fact is, the government took on an unachievable goal, and only made a bad situation worse.

Not only is it worse for the average welfare recepient (who is actually penalized for seeking productive work), but society as a whole has lost it's common bond with the poor. We no longer feel connected to our neighbors, or our elderly parents because "the government" takes care of them now. We feel no obligation to personally help the poor because "thats what our taxes are for". When you work five months of the year to pay your taxes, you feel (perhaps justifiably) that you've "done your part" for the poor and needy, and that you need to take no personal interest in their well-being. In the most generous welfare states in Europe, private charity is the lowest per capita in the world. I believe this says something profound about socialism. It crushes the human spirit.

This discussion reminds me of a quote:

"Government does not grow by seizing our freedoms, but by assuming our responsibilities." – Michael Cloud

In America, we have tried helping people the left's way for 70 years now...Our government has grown massively, and has assumed more and more of our responsibilities each year, making our society worse for it. It is time for a radical approach. We need a leader that truly believes in the power of liberty (unlike George W.) who will radically reduce the size, scope, and BURDEN of government across the board. With people free to enjoy the vast majority of their earnings, buying essentials like food and medicine will be much easier. Those who fall through the cracks will have access to abundant charity from their fellow citizens, who now realize it is not the government's role to care for us...but it is our role to care for each other.

quote:

Say a man chooses not to act, however (afterall, inaction is as much a choice of action as any action is). Say a man chooses to stand around with his hands in his pockets, gazing vacantly into the distance. Again, there is nothing inherently moral or immoral about this action. This man is ultimately free to choose how he acts, or - in this case - doesn't act. However, let us say then that this man (still with his hands in his pockets, gazing vacantly into the distance) is standing on the side of a boat, watching as a young man drowns in the water in front of him. Is it still moral for this man to not act when he could easily throw a rope down to save the young man drowning?

If the act of saving the man will cause him to be pulled over as well, then yes it is a moral decision. Chances are however, if a rope is present, anyone would do their best to save the drowning man. This becomes immoral under any circumstances however when I point a gun at your head and demand that you save him or DIE. This is what everything we've been talking about boils down to...voluntary action (markets) vs coercion and the threat of violence (government).

quote:

My argument, however, is that is far less immoral to compel an individual, unwillingly, to help a man in need than it is for the individual to not help the man in the first place.

I believe anyone able to help who denies assistance to the man should be condemned. It is immoral to let an innocent person die. I disagree with you however because it is ALSO immoral to threaten violence, prison, or death against those who refuse to help...and the only entity on this planet that can threaten those punishments is the state. Two wrongs don't make a right. The reality is...Individuals, no matter how rich...and corporations, no matter how large, can NEVER use the threat of jail, violence, or death against another person for disobeying orders like this. That privilege belongs exclusively to the government. For this reason alone, you (and every leftist) should be questioning your government's power, rather than the power gained by individuals acting as equals, through voluntarily exchange on the free market.

Last edited by Capitalizt on Mar-16-2005 at 22:47

Great debate that will go on until the end of time, or until a socialist system arises that actually works and I don't like the odds of the later ever being a reality.

I agree with the vast majority of what Capitalizt is saying, so I won't reiterate what he has said so well. However, I do disaggree with him on the situation of welfare in the United States.

quote:

instead of lifting people out of poverty, we have institutionalized it...creating entire generations of families dependent on these payments for survival. We have also created a massive bureaucratic class who's survival depends on finding new ways to EXPAND the welfare state.

As I am sure you know Congress reformed the welfare system in 1996 to change what they felt (correctly and as you pointed out) was a system that was not working. TANF (Temporary Aid for Needy Families) arose, placing time limits of no more than 2 consecutive years of recieving aid, and no more than 5 total years in a lifetime. Therefore, because of these very short time restrictions a family could not possibly base their survival on government food stamps, etc.

One of the dysfunctions of our capitalist society is that groups of people tend to get stuck in certain positions. Wealthy Americans ( I don't mean to take anything away from the hard work that is required to maintain their status) are "stuck" in their high social position, especially as we move further into a postindustrial economy. More and more service jobs will arise in the postindustrial economy that will require more skill. While it is not impossible for a poor person to become skilled at say computer programming, it is far more easy for a wealthy person, brought up with good schooling and money to invest in training and university level education. Yes, the wealthy people need to be motivated to become skilled, but it is our capitalist system, and all social systems, that provide sufficient motivation to do the job (whether in the forms of rewards, capitalism, or in norms, socialism).

As for those living in poverty, it would be unrational to think that a family that is in poverty could have both parents in the work force, as they obviously need. Poor families cannot afford childcare, therefore who is going to look after the family's children if both parents need to go out and work. This goes without saying that the vast majority of families that are below the poverty line in our country are headed by a single mother. In addition, even as these single mothers work to support their family they are brought down further by our system, as women earn less than men. Clearly, this system is a vicious cycle as 70% of people living in poverty are women.

Now, you may be thinking I am leaning towards the left here, but in fact I am not. The flaws in our capitalist system arise not from capitalism, but from norms that our society has held. Using my explanation of the plight of poor women above, its not surprising to realize that for a long time in our society and in almost all societies women have been marginalized by men. The norm for a long time was that men work, because they are best suited for work, while women raise the family, because they are best suited for nurturing. However, it is our capitalism that broke down these norms, always in search of whatever edge can be had to turn a larger profit. To exemplify my point; Alan Greenspan used to head a financial firm in the 70s, at that time women were just begining to truly enter the workforce. Greenspan saw that women were completely capable of doing the same jobs (in the finance industry) that men were. Therefore, he began hiring large numbers of women to work at his firm, and although he did pay them less (hence giving him an edge) he did open up opportunities to them. Overtime, as women become highly skilled, the gap between earnings of men and women will increasingly shrink, as capitalists seek out the most skilled person for the job.

In a socialist system, however it is my opinion that inequalities generated by society are upheld. I was getting at earlier the idea of motivation to work. Everyone needs motivation to work, and in the socialist system motivation needs to be provided in the form of norms. Socialism cannot provide rewards for work, because this would require different levels of rewards, for if you have the same level of rewards why would one man like to pick up trash while one man writes articles if they both recieve the same reward. If he does it is only because it is his role to, and these roles arise from the norms that are created by society. Norms naturally create inequality, however, as they group people into specific roles and regulations that they may or may not be suited for. In a socialist system you would probably want the strongest members of your society as the ones who do manual labor. However, not all strong people are best suited for manual labor. There can be strong people with highly developed creative minds, which would obviously be best used for entertainment or other form of culture creation. And hence the inequality. Although the whole benefits and the stability of society is maintained, people cannot fulfill their true potential. This inequality is rigidly enforced, however, because the system is based on norms, and unlike the capitalist system based on rewards, if you norms are changed or thrown out all together, society is thrown out of balance, is no longer stable, and can no longer function.

I apologize that I wrote a lot, if I had more time... I hope this discussion will continue.

Sorry for the late response. I've spent most of the past few days either drunk, recovering from being drunk or at work.

Anyway:

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Although I cannot disagree that the above article is an obvious straw man, I’m afraid that your critique of “laissez-faire” economics is, at best, in need of further development.

Although I consider the laissez-faire conception of capitalism to be intrinsically flawed (for reasons that I may or may not get into later on depending on the direction this post takes), my above post was not a critique of laissez-faire capitalism per-se, but rather a critique of the Randian notion that such an economic system is the most "moral" available to us. My point is that absolute egoism is, by definition, inherently amoral and no degree of objectivist apologetics or runaway strawman arguments (such as those employed by the author of the original article) can change that.

quote:

Taxes are paid to support a government, not a society – you seem to equivocate the two. An anarchistic society is still a society.

But what is the government, in a democratic society, other than officials elected by the society to govern its finances and affairs? I understand that this is a fairly idealistic portrayal of the role of government (and I do, for this reason, wholeheartedly support restrictions on the size and scope of government, both in economic and civil affairs), but even an anarchic society requires some form of organisation to be classed as a "society" rather than as a mere "loose collection of individuals living in close geographic proximity". Whether you wish to call this organisation "government" or something else entirely, essentially every society requires some form of governance to function. While the flaws in our respective democracies are indeed glaring, in theory at least, those responsible for administering society (and - in this case - the taxes it pays) are chosen from the society and by the society. As imperfect a system as it may be, a democratic society does support itself, only through the proxy of organised government. Aside from bureaucratic protocol, the lines between society and the government are indeed far less well defined than you contend.

quote:

It does not follow that one should pay for a greater proportion of the costs of one object based on one’s greater proportion of the benefits from another object.

In a moral sense, why would it not follow? If you want access to society's resources and you benefit from and utilise them more readily than the next man, why shouldn't you pay a higher fee for their employment?

It all comes back to social contract theory. Every man is born with nothing (in a state of financial tabla rasa if you like) and unless you can provide a moral defense of the a priori right of man to free or disproportionately cheap employment of a society's resources, then I'm afraid it does follow that every man who benefits from the employment of society's resources recompensates it proportionally. Moral arguments aside, even from an egoistic perspective, I would have thought it to be in that man's interests to fund the sustainment and progress of the society that has allowed him to amass such wealth in the first place.

quote:

If this reasoning were to be properly carried out, then one would have to know how much each individual benefits from the government (not from society) in order to determine what proportion they ought to owe to support it.

As I said, the government and society in a truly democratic society (which rules Australia and America out I guess ) should be largely indistiguishable. If this is not the case, then it's a failure of society, not of the government or the rationale.

Thus, if we argue that the government is merely the bureaucratic organisation that society elects to govern itself, then the system you're talking about is already in place. Declaration of income on tax statements, if what I'm saying is accurate, is a numerical figure signifying the degree of one's indebtedness to the society one inhabits and thus signifies the degree of indebtedness owed by one to the government elected by the society to manage such affairs.

quote:

The costs of society, however, are not currency: they are organization, resources, labor, and ingenuity.

Society provides resources and infrastructure, man provides labour and ingenuity. Man amasses wealth by exchanging his labour and ingenuity in exchange for currency, part of which is then reinvested back into society in exchange for the resources and infrastructure it has provided to allow man to utilise his labour and ingenuity for currency in the first place. Labour and ingenuity are man's gifts to society and he should rightly profit from them. Man, however, has absolutely no a priori right to profit from the gifts provided to him by the society around him, hence the necessity of proportional taxation. In a system of proportional taxation, the millionaire that has worked hard and invested in good ideas will still be allowed to amass a wealth far greater than those unwilling to work hard or to develop and invest in ideas, but the taxes he pays are representative of costs incurred by society to allow him to freely amass this wealth in the first place (primarily access to resources and infrastructure).

quote:

It so happens that those individuals who contribute the most to the costs of society are in fact typically those who also receive the largest share of its benefits.

Perhaps, but how many of the hardest workers (I'm thinking single mothers working two jobs just to keep their family alive here) are amongst the most poor in our respective societies? How many of the laziest people (I'm thinking George Bush jnr here) are amongst the wealthiest?

There is a fine line between aristocracy and capitalism and the laissez-faire approach, I fear, crosses it. Capitalism is only moral if everyone has access to a certain standard of opportunities and this necessitates - through taxation - investment into public welfare, education and health care. How can capitalism be morally defensible if some people are provided opportunities on a silver platter, where others struggle to feed themselves, gain access to a quality education or stay healthy enough to see out that education?

Man should be rewarded for the labour and ingenuity he invests, of this there should be no argument. Man, however, does not have an automatic entitlement to the gifts provided to him by society. He should pay for these in accordance with the degree to which he has benfitted from them: the rich, in all cases, have utilised more of society's gifts than the poor, hence the necessity of proportional taxation.

quote:

I’m afraid that I must disagree entirely. In order to correctly ascertain the primary role of government one should look no farther than to the problem it was created to solve. In other words: what was wrong with our anarchistic society such that the existence of government is desirable?

As I said, every role of government - even in it's most minimal "necessary evil" form - can be traced back to one essential "goal", through differing degrees of directness: the protection of the interests of its citizens. Any instance of government that acts beyond this essential goal is an instance of government that has grown too large and that is acting beyond its ideal scope. Find me an instance of government acting as a "necessary evil" and an instance of a government acting as an "unnecessary evil" and I can guarantee you that it can be tied back to, alternatively, either fulfillment or transcendence of this single, all-encompassing goal.

quote:

It is not to build essential infrastructure – infrastructure would still be constructed by those with the resources to create it who also stood to benefit from it: an individual or organization in need of a road would construct one if they had sufficient resources, for example.

Roads can cost up to hundreds of millions of dollars to build: no single individual and very few corporations would have the resources or the inclination to fund such a project. In the event that the responsibility for all infrastructure construction were in the hands of the private sector, we would end up with one of two scenarios.

The first is that the infrastructure would be constructed with a profit-motive in mind: that is, the infrastructure would be created for the express purpose of charging the user for its use. In the case of roads, this would make the transportation of good prohibitively expensive to all but the biggest of companies. Smaller companies simply couldn't afford to utilise the infrastructure and still make a profit.

The second is that the infrastructure is created with only private use in mind: that is, only the companies that build the infrastructure would be permitted to use it. In the case of roads, this would mean that the transportation of goods would be restricted to the companies already large enough to afford to build roads. Smaller companies simply would not be able to afford to build the infrastructure and still make a profit.

In either case, both are instances of capitalism tending towards monopoly. Just as there is a fine line, on a social level, between the notions of capitalism and aristocracy, so to there is a fine line on a commercial level between the notions of capitalism and monopoly / oligarchy. Aristocracy and monopoly are inherently antithetical to the mechanics necessary to allow capitalistic societies to function, but these are the directions to which increasingly laissez-faire capitalist economies must tend.

It is in the best interests of the capitalistic doctrine, then, for each member of society to provide, proportionally, to the centralised development of infrastructure (which each citizen, then, has access to in order to maximise the return from the employment of their own labour and ingenuity) than it is to leave it to the private sector, where only a select few can benefit from it. Ultimately, while I don't want to go off topic, I feel that this is the best one of the best practial arguments there is against the form of libertarian economics you seem to subscribe to.

quote:

On the contrary, the function of government is to prevent the accumulation of wealth and resources by means of immoral means, such as violence or deception which contribute nothing to society. Such practices harm, rather than benefit society, and therefore it is desirable to eliminate them, even if some cost must be incurred in order to pay for the government which (theoretically) prevents them.

No, that's merely one of the roles of government covered under the blanket philosophy I stated above: namely, the protection of the interests of the citizens of the society it governs.

quote:

Government doesn’t (and cannot) “ensure that people are able to satisfy their needs and wants.” This is because no matter what a person has, there will always be something else that they want. And if they are able to obtain that as well, there will be something else. No matter what, there will always be some unsatisfied desire.

Perfectly true, my wording was clumsy there. What I should have said was:

quote:

To ensure that people are able to maximise their ability to satisfy their needs and wants? Bingo.

The first rule of economics is that needs and wants are infinite where resources are not. Economics in any form would not exist without this golden rule and I should have made it more clear that I understand this point. Ultimately, the government is not responsible for satisfying all the needs and wants of its citizenry as this is, by definition, impossible. It is, however, responsible for creating the framework that would allow the maximum possible number of needs and wants to be satisfied within a society.

quote:

Furthermore, the accumulation of wealth amongst the citizenry fails to genuinely address the most profound and important desires that people have. What can the government or any amount of wealth do for the gay boy who wishes for nothing more than his father’s acceptance, but will never receive it? Or for the young woman who would gladly sell her soul to be the next big pop singer, but simply does not have the aptitude? Or for the millions of broken hearts young and old who just want another chance to do things right, but can never erase the mistakes of their past? I suppose there is no need for me to belabor the point: the proposed role of government cannot be its actual role, since it is a function that government cannot perform. I submit that my description of government as a tool to enforce order and preserve society’s natural efficacy is a more accurate description of the primary role of government.

Again, you're absolutely right here, but I'm not sure what all this has to do with the economic argument at hand (namely the proposed morality of the objectivist / libertarian / laissez-faire philosophy). It is the government's role to ensure that the homosexuals, the untalented females and the broken-hearted have the same essential rights as every other human being, but it is not the government's role to intrude on the human psyche, nor should it be. I would see no harm in the funding of counselling programs to assist such people through their mental anguish (mental health is, afterall, as important as physical health) but the government, ultimately, has no right to intrude on the internal lives of any of its citizens, functional or disfunctional as they may be.

quote:

It strikes me that it would be pointless for me to address your post any further until we’ve had the chance to further explore the more fundamental disagreements I’ve addressed in this post. If you can find the time, I would be glad to hear you explain your point of view more thoroughly.

Hope I've succeeded in this regard. Sorry for the quote / reply format of the post, but it was the easiest way of keeping my still poisoned mind on track... :-/

EDIT: Sorry, Capitalizt. I'll try to respond to your post in about 6 hours after I've had some sleep.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

Last edited by Renegade on Mar-20-2005 at 15:33

this is going to take about an hour to read. sighh. guess ill get started

___________________

On your post above, I see what you are saying, but we have a fundamental disagreement on what constitutes "proportional" taxation. To me, a flat tax imposed on anyone above the poverty line is truly proportional (It is in fact, the definition of proportional).

Anything other than a flat rate would be unfair and oppressive. This is just a fundamental disagreement between our two sides, and I'm certain that no amount of debate can resolve it.

Last edited by Capitalizt on Mar-23-2005 at 22:08

i think we have a few presidents on TA ...

jebus..

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Octanesyco Greetings. My name is Casey. You can call me Moose. -Moose

quote:

Originally posted by Massive84 i think we have a few presidents on TA ... jebus..

this is a forum rivalling that of ancient athens.

___________________

HA yeah there are good topics covered in here, but not nearly enough. Keep posting responses, this is a great topic.