Political Theory

Re: An attempt to justify taxation

loftin — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 02:43:07 GMT

filc:

loftin:
why do governments arise in the first place?

A forum buddy, Wilderness, and I have contemplated this over. I am wondering what your take is on it. Read the dialogue between Wilderness and I here.

I did look at some of the comments over there - lots of interesting stuff. I added a couple of my thoughts too. I like you libertarian folks - I mean some (but not all) of the principles I find convincing. There is this book I listened to called Founding Brothers that asserts as its central thesis that it is the tension between honest but rival political camps that is responsible for the continued success of the government we have in the US (the basic form of which has spread elsewhere). I think there is some truth to that thesis. Well, my original interest here was in the wealth tax and I need to focus on some other things now - thanks and best regards.

Re: An attempt to justify taxation

loftin — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 23:05:35 GMT

Jackson LaRose:

loftin:
There are some "rights" that I believe are not superfluous - indeed that are not only inalienable, but that are inescapable (I mean it seems that we cannot avoid having them and the consequences they entail). I'm thinking here about the "right" we have to believe what we want to believe conditional on the information we have at our disposal. We can interpret things pretty much as we like.

I would still say that "right" is only ours because of our ability to make it ours through will. Although it's only fiction, Winston from 1984 would probably contend that assertion after O'Brien was done with him.

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at here (and am not familiar with the particular reference, although I know of the book). I guess I'm claiming that we cannot do other that choose how to deal with what circumstance serves up. We can choose to do what others tell us to do or believe what they tell us to believe, but ultimately we don't have to fight for this "right" since it cannot be otherwise: someone else cannot choose for us. We are independent agents in that sense.

Re: An attempt to justify taxation

Jackson LaRose — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 22:22:34 GMT

loftin:
There are some "rights" that I believe are not superfluous - indeed that are not only inalienable, but that are inescapable (I mean it seems that we cannot avoid having them and the consequences they entail). I'm thinking here about the "right" we have to believe what we want to believe conditional on the information we have at our disposal. We can interpret things pretty much as we like.

I would still say that "right" is only ours because of our ability to make it ours through will. Although it's only fiction, Winston from 1984 would probably contend that assertion after O'Brien was done with him.

Re: An attempt to justify taxation

loftin — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 22:10:25 GMT

Jackson LaRose:

loftin:
Actually, it very much depends on the situation. You've posed a problem in which the resource ("air") can hardly under general circumstances be considered to be scarce. As a consequence, there seems to be little need to speak of rights whatsoever. But in a different situation - e.g. an impaired and sinking submarine where air is scarce and time is of the essence as the passengers await rescue - you can imagine that even breathing becomes a social matter.

But the problem is not of arbitrary right to a resource, it's about reaching a compromise between invested individuals to maximise goals. On an sub you might be able to logically deduce that the air is the captain's since it's his boat, or only taxpayers, because they bought the sub.

This of course, doesn't get you very far, and most individual's hardwired empathy would reach a more egalitarian solution, and if there was one guy driven crazy by fear, or a psychopath, and wanted all the air for himself, it seems very unlikely that he would get his way (unless of course he was the only one with a gun, or very persuasive.)

"Rights" to this or that are totally superfluous.

Yes, there's a difference between effective rights and rights that are conceptual in nature (i.e. idealistic or defined via some principle other than the existing/effective group dynamic). "Compromise" might not be quite the right word here, since it is not uncommon for the group dynamic to embody an outcome that some individual or another represents some form of compulsion - not something that they would ever agree to in the sense of reaching a compromise.

Actually, while I think there are individuals who are hardwired with empathy; I believe that the overwhelmingly more common phenomenon is people who are hardwired for self-interested behavior. People generally must be taught to think of others interests along with their own.

Lastly, I think I pretty much agree with the last statement - or at least what I think you mean by it. There are some "rights" that I believe are not superfluous - indeed that are not only inalienable, but that are inescapable (I mean it seems that we cannot avoid having them and the consequences they entail). I'm thinking here about the "right" we have to believe what we want to believe conditional on the information we have at our disposal. We can interpret things pretty much as we like. The way that we respond to the situations that are presented to us is also largely within our control, again conditional on the circumstances. This "right" can be called moral agency (here's a link for the religiously inclined - or curious http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/101/78#78) . Outside these kinds of internally-defined realms of choice, you're pretty much right that we need not have any effective "right" to other kinds of things; it will in general be determined by the group dynamic. Of course, we are able to influence the group dynamic via our own actions, but there's no guarantee that we will be able to accomplish what we set out to since other individuals have their own ability to choose.

Re: An attempt to justify taxation

Jackson LaRose — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 15:56:13 GMT

loftin:
Actually, it very much depends on the situation. You've posed a problem in which the resource ("air") can hardly under general circumstances be considered to be scarce. As a consequence, there seems to be little need to speak of rights whatsoever. But in a different situation - e.g. an impaired and sinking submarine where air is scarce and time is of the essence as the passengers await rescue - you can imagine that even breathing becomes a social matter.

But the problem is not of arbitrary right to a resource, it's about reaching a compromise between invested individuals to maximise goals. On an sub you might be able to logically deduce that the air is the captain's since it's his boat, or only taxpayers, because they bought the sub.

This of course, doesn't get you very far, and most individual's hardwired empathy would reach a more egalitarian solution, and if there was one guy driven crazy by fear, or a psychopath, and wanted all the air for himself, it seems very unlikely that he would get his way (unless of course he was the only one with a gun, or very persuasive.)

"Rights" to this or that are totally superfluous.

Re: An attempt to justify taxation

filc — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 07:16:53 GMT

loftin:
why do governments arise in the first place?

A forum buddy, Wilderness, and I have contemplated this over. I am wondering what your take is on it. Read the dialogue between Wilderness and I here.

Re: An attempt to justify taxation

loftin — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 07:02:32 GMT

filc:

scineram:

Jackson LaRose:

But is the right to property a societal construct?

Basically, yes.

No more, and no less then the right to drink milk every morning for breakfast. Both rights are best satisfied on the market. If man believes these are rights his actions will reflect and the market will meet that demand.

One who advocstes socialist security/protection must decide whether or not they believe the functionality or ability of markets. On the one hand if the market does work than coercively distributed security is not necessary, the market will provide. On the other hand if the market is broken then all aspects of it should be annexed to the state, not just protection and security. To isolate it to security is arbitrary, if you fundamentally believe the market fails then you must be against capitalism all together. Being in the middle just makes you look confused, and being unable to comprehend the reason why capitalism succeeds. You cannot advocate for free-markets while being in support of coercively distributed protection without sounding self defeating, such a notion is hypocritical and inconsistent in and of itself.

The distinction that security is somehow not a market good is entirely arbitrary. As with all coercively distributed monopolies the state's 'security' has lagged behind and in it's absence the market has filled the gap. This is specifically prevalent in technological forms of security where the state has not had the ability to 'protect and serve'. Primarily because it was incapable of keeping with the times. In its place we have had very succesfull private technology firms to fill the gap, firewall producers, anti-virus producers, and all other forms of network protection, ect...

Filc, I like your commitment to things. I don't agree with you on some things (although I definitely am a fan of markets), but the world needs people who are genuine in their beliefs and willing to do something about them - even if it's "only" trying to convince other people about it. Regarding the above, it seems that we need to be careful not to close out all competing alternatives or to ignore the possibility of "mixed strategies" (e.g. think game theory). I personally find the efficiency (of markets versus government) argument quite convincing; I just wonder whether it really captures all considerations and is universally true (I mean for every conceivable situation). Hopefully it doesn't come off as being confused, but there are things that I am still trying to understand better and am consequently undecided regarding. For example, I actually believe that markets do generally perform better than non-market options; but it's also worth asking: why do governments arise in the first place? It is not as if Martians came down and imposed them on us. Self-interested people, acting (as in the market framework for economic activity) on the information they have available to them almost always appear to find it useful to institute laws, appoint individuals to governing positions (whether democratically or some other way), etc.. Keep the faith.

Re: An attempt to justify taxation

viresh amin — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 06:07:17 GMT

The only Just tax would be a voluntary Tax. It wouldn't be called tax but more of a donation. It's not about taxes, but about the idea of government itself.

Re: An attempt to justify taxation

loftin — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 05:56:11 GMT

filc:

Jackson LaRose:

But is the right to property a societal construct?

I'm not sure I've ever taken it that far. Is the right to breath a societal construct? The right to act a societal construct?

Actually, it very much depends on the situation. You've posed a problem in which the resource ("air") can hardly under general circumstances be considered to be scarce. As a consequence, there seems to be little need to speak of rights whatsoever. But in a different situation - e.g. an impaired and sinking submarine where air is scarce and time is of the essence as the passengers await rescue - you can imagine that even breathing becomes a social matter. Under such conditions you can imagine that a mutual agreement - with mechanisms to "encourage" its enforcement - might very well arise and be strictly better for them all.

Also, regarding the right to act: I already provided a sensible answer to this question. Even the right to use our own physical person is not absolute since it is inherently inconsistent with other people's right to the same. Your neighbor may want to use his physical person to force how you use your physical person (e.g. slavery), but that would necessarily violate the symmetric right that you have to use your physical person in ways that you desire.

Re: An attempt to justify taxation

Jackson LaRose — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 04:15:52 GMT

I'd rather just ignore it.

Re: An attempt to justify taxation

nirgrahamUK — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 04:12:52 GMT

when epistemic error can be kept at bay at least....

Re: An attempt to justify taxation

Jackson LaRose — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 04:10:54 GMT

Isn't learning fun?

Re: An attempt to justify taxation

nirgrahamUK — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 04:02:44 GMT

lovely

Re: An attempt to justify taxation

Jackson LaRose — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 04:01:00 GMT

Ah, the old "hindsight is always 20/20".

How about this:

"ex post, an action may not have been in one's best interest, even though it seemed to be ex ante"

Better?

Re: An attempt to justify taxation

nirgrahamUK — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 03:53:44 GMT

Jackson LaRose:

Enlighten me, padre

Rothbard:

It is convenient to distinguish the two vantage points by which an actor judges his action as ex ante and ex post. Ex ante is his position when he must decide on a course of action; it is the relevant and dominant consideration for human action. It is the actor considering his alternative courses and the consequences of each. Ex postis his recorded observation of the results of his past action. It is the judging of his past actions and their results. Ex ante, then, he will always take the most advantageous course of action, and will always have a psychic profit, with revenue exceeding cost. Ex post, he may have profited or lost from a course of action. Revenue may or may not have exceeded cost, depending on how good an entrepreneur he has been in making his original action. It is clear that his ex postjudgments are mainly useful to him in the weighing of his ex ante considerations for future action.