The Myth of Redistribution

[albert nelmapius]

I am currently of the opinion that it is:

1. Impossible to tax the rich without impacting the poor.
   
2. Impossible to enrich the poor by giving them money
   

So firstly, the government decides in their wisdom to confiscate 35% from a millionaire. So for every million Rubles he had, now he only has 650,000. Where did he keep that money before? Most likely the first few Rubles he made took care of the cars, the mortgages on the houses, the staff, food, education etc.- basic essentials. Then being the filthy rich capitalist he was, he probably had profits left over after paying those expenses, so he could save and invest. Stocks, bonds, retirement accounts, savings accounts and collectibles, maybe even provide venture capital directly to promising businesses (Which at the end of the day is what all the other forms of investing and saving do too.) And if he is even more greedy of a blood sucking capitalist, he will still have money left to blow in frivolous vacations, casinos,race cars, yachts and jets. The "redistributionists" say that because of the marginal utility of money, the last Ruble he owns is worth less to him than the first few he needs for basic survival, but it might be worth more to a poor person.

But I ask myself this: when is the last time you saw a millionaire vacuum the floors at a resort casino, or work in the shipyard making yachts or jets? Even the money he has sitting in saving accounts and investments; It is used to be reinvested in new businesses, in capital improvements to the economy, in millions of small businesses getting loans to fund millions of small business improvements, expansions and salaries.

If his last few dollars are redistributed away from him, it hurts the little guy where he would normally have spent his money. You are actually taxing his employees and his vendors' employees. Sure on day one, you tax the rich guy, but on day two and day three you hurt a mechanic or a hotel worker or a parking lot attendant somewhere.

2. So now your bleeding heart takes these 350,000 Rubles to the most hungry, the most needy, the most impoverished, and you redistribute it to them. Sure you feed them for a day, but where do they spend it? It pretty much goes to the local grocery store which is owned by a rich guy, who gives some of it to a farmer and manufacturer, who are rich guys. Some of it goes to buying or fixing a house -  by a rich contractor. Even if he is Mr. do-it-yourself, he runs down to the hardware store to buy nails and cement from the rich guy.Some of it goes to buying the kids a n X box or whatever- it goes back to owners of valuable businesses. So you are redistributing from one rich guy to another.

Unless you nationalize the whole country(surely not too many people advocate that anymore), the money is re-redistributed back to the guy who provides the best products and services. It has no long lasting effect on the poverty level because the misunderstanding is that wealth is the possession of money and not the possession of skills and the willingness to take risk and the access to capital goods to increase efficiency. None of this is addressed in the "wealth redistribution" philosophy.

I really have no confidence in statistics and Gini coefficients proving anything, but isn't that why re-distributions make no difference in the long run, other that making rich people smarter at tax evasion?

Where am I wrong??

[Liberty Libpartysa]

I am mildly amused by all these very serious discussions of redistribution, equality and the like. We fall into the trap of debating the terms of our injustices, instead of rejecting the injustices continuously and unequivocally. The liberals, lefties and socialists think inequality is a crime and redistribution is the cure.  We do not. We think theft is a crime, and tax is theft. It may be interesting in an anthropological sense to observe that rich people are resented by poor people, in the same way that short people resent tall people. But it is NOT our responsibility or business to attempt to correct either condition. It IS our business to try to stop the theft.

Trevor Watkins - Libertarian Party of South Africa
ad...@libpartysa.com  083 44 11 721 - 042 293 1405 - (fax)0866 532 363
PO Box 3302, Jeffreys Bay, 6330
www.libpartysa.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/libsa.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Stephen vJ]

Ok, but my original point was that the so-called correction was making the problem worse. You can't make the shorter people taller by putting rocks on the heads of the taller ones - you will simply end up with a shorter population on the whole. But if the short ones resent the tall ones so much that they resort to killing and bloody revolt, then simply explaining this is not good enough.

When we sit with the solution to making the short ones taller faster, then that needs to be the focus, not the futility of the revolt or the counterproductive nature of shortening the whole population or the immorality of putting rocks on heads. Those may all be valid arguments, but they do not tell the short how to become tall. That is the important part of the message and the one that prevents the short from anger and revolt.

However, I now understand Leon to say that the resentment itself is a myth and that the short admire and revere the tall. They place them on a pedestal even. If that is so, and I'm starting to think it is, then my argument may well be worthless... but not invalid.

S.

Sent from an electronic device.

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

For those who never saw my Business day debate and my subsequent column:

• www.bdlive.co.za/opinion/2013/09/30/the-big-issue-do-we-need-more-state-less-state-or-a-better-state
  
  
• www.bdlive.co.za/opinion/columnists/2013/10/02/why-south-africas-terrible-triplets-are-unrelated
  

A few basics to keep in mind:

• There is a distribution of wealth when it is a noun, such as the distribution of age, height and IQ amongst teens.
• There is no distribution of wealth when wealth is a verb, in that wealth has not been "distributed" the way SAB distributes (verb) beer or the government doesn't distribute school books. Wealth, in the economy, is not distributed in that sense, it is earned, stolen, inherited or whatever.
• Since wealth is not distributed in the first place it cannot be "redistributed".  However, since "redistribution" has been used in this originally erroneous way so persistently, it has probably become correct (Hayekian) English.
• Coercive transfer ("redistribution") by governments is one of the ways wealth is passed around. That looting by people called "government" is as or more reprehensible than people called "private" does not prevent it being a means whereby some benefit (mostly politicians and officials) and others lose (almost everyone else).
• Preference for a different distribution of wealth, like preference for a different distribution of IQ, is a matter of innate psychology rather than logic or economics.

Leon Louw

work:  +27-11-884-0270

mobile:  +27-84-618-0348

www.freemarketfoundation.com

In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of.
In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of.
Confucious

[Jaco Strauss]

The short folk would admire, even perhaps deify, the tall folk, but that doesn't mean that the obvious differences could not be milked for all their worth by some opportunistic populist fraudster...

I can just hear him cry out: "I will see to it that you are all taller in no time by simply preventing the tall guys from keeping you so short..." 

For some of the short guys that promise might just be too exciting to ignore!  

2013/12/3 Stephen vJ <sjaar...@gmail.com>

--

Jaco Strauss
Kaapstad

[Stephen vJ]

Exactly. And so the totally illogical and misguided policy of placing rocks on heads in the name of redistributing tallness is enacted into law. Anyone who objects to this atrocity against the tall, are called anti-short, right-wingers.

S.

Sent from an electronic device.

[Garth Zietsman]

Trevor it is nice when everything seems so clear and simple.  As you state things I can hardly disagree but I do think your premises are unduely simple or not quite fully examined.  

When is something a crime?  Taking someone's property without their permission is defined as a crime and so theft is a crime - all very straightforward.  But things get complicated when you try to specify what it is that makes something someone's property?  

If I don't recognise your property rights in something - is it still your property?  Is it enough for you to declare it your property - even if everyone else (or just many people) disagrees? I doubt it would be enough because then I could just declare it my property too and take it without it clearly being theft.  It seems obvious to me that some kind of authority needs to establish your your property rights before we can talk about theft in any unambiguous way. This authority need not grant you property rights for everything in your possession. 

No doubt most of you will argue for some kind of natural rights framework or objective morality here, to which the authority itself is subject whether it recognizes this or not.  The contents of such natural rights or objective ethics is by no means universally agreed upon i.e. even those who think in those terms will still be stuck with disputes they cannot handle from within their system of rights and morals.  A large proportion of legal, political and moral philosophers don't think such systems can really be defended or justified - even if there were universal agreement on the content. In my view appeals to the authority of natural rights or objective morals are as no more solid or convincing than appeals to the authority of some social institution charged with confering property rights.  At the very least no rights system is worth a damn unless there is widespread bye-in to it.

 

What about 'tax is theft' then? That depends on 'the authority' agreeing that the total of your compensation for your labor or business is yours.  The same applies to natural rights. If only the after tax portion is declared to be yours then it isn't clear that tax is theft, or a crime of any sort, anymore.  You could argue that such a decision would be improperly made, but it is hard to see why if it is within the accepted rights of the institution and there is widespread support to the decision.  Alternatively it is hard to say it is improper if that's how the society in which you live wants things to be.

You could also argue that full compensation is your just dessert.  That too could be contested.  For example if some portion of your earning is due to luck - like it is for stock analysts - then how can you say you deserve it all?  If you can't say you truly deserve it all why should it be declared your private property? [Dessert could be contested on many other grounds too - the next point is but one of many others.]

The authority may also argue that they provide a service on which your income depends i.e. you would be earning a lot less if it weren't for what they were doing for you e.g. providing the institution of property rights, infrastructure, rule of law, etc, so you do in fact owe them something.  [I know I know libertarians will contest this passionately - including me - but the vast majority of people think this account is valid and don't see it as a protection racket either.]

This is hardly the last word on the matter but it should be apparent that things aren't clear and simple even when you build upon a few very clear and basic principles.  In highly abstract terms Godel's theorem states that even if a system is built upon incontestable axioms some aspects of (or truths within) the system cannot be justified from within the system.  In other words some of our most obvious principles are neither all that obvious or that easy to justify (even to ourselves).

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

Whilst not wading into this discourse, I simply want to declare myself firmly opposed to the nation of "natural rights". Like Garth, I expect it to arise as if declaring a right to be 'natural" somehow validates it. I've spent much time in my life on the notion -- because my paradigm is within the natural rights tradition -- and never encountered a plausible case for it. 

Rights are subjective concepts and preferences. Everything in our brains is subjective. That's the meaning of the word. Rights don't exist "out there" as nature does; they cannot be objective, which means outside the mind. They are "natural" only in the unhelpful sense that all existence is natural.

We are being "objective" when our subjective thoughts coincide with reality, but that does not make them any less subjective -- all thought, whether right or wrong, is subjective.

The closest I've seen natural rights theory getting to anything defensible is the proposition that what's pro-life (in the Randian sense) is "natural", so that the right to life is natural. The obvious problem with this line of defense is that it applies equally to animals, plants and rocks. not hitting a rock with a hammer is pro-rock, which would render rock rights natural rights.

That some right is a subjectively good idea, such as the right to trade or the right to enjoy sunsets, can be called "natural" if you wish, but doing so adds nothing of value.

[SACVET]

Garth,
You are correct. The philosophical argument for property rights is ongoing. That is why I prefer discussing economics over philosophy because there is not a way to judge wrong from right, just opinions and arguments. David Friedman wrote his version called A Positive Account of Property rights.

But back to this discussion.
.
I contend that it is impossible to enrich, benefit , empower, improve wealth or reduce poverty by taxing the rich and giving to the poor.
Then the argument turned to the legality of taxes. On another blog page we can discuss whether or not the government deserves to be paid for what you call infrastructure and rule of law or not.
.

But given a system that has some agreed upon definition of property rights, is it effective for the state to take from the rich and give to the poor firstly?
And regardless of how you define property rights, how can the state that you say supposedly protects your property rights,  justify forcing you to provide charity with your own property? (forced redistribution of money is slightly different than taxing for administration costs)

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

You make a crucial point. The philosophical basis, if there is one, for property rights is an entirely different matter from enquiry into the economics or politics of property rights, and the issues you raise. 

My guess is that the only way to rescue this exchange will be to separate to issues, failing which it will be like trying to debate how to tune an engine in an exchange about the best route to work.

I also agree with you that it may be impossible for plunder to increase general welfare. My suggestion is to address the matter by demystifying "the state" and "government". They are just people. There would be greater clarity if the question is whether criminals (in the common law sense, and by whatever name) can make things better generally.

Perhaps. It is conceivable that crime syndicates in the form of "protection rackets" may have net benefits, depending on what one defines as benefits. Their name derives from the protection services they provide, which could be pro-rule of law on balance. 

One of the preconditions for coercion scoring increased welfare is usually to attach no value to liberty. More material wealth, peace, stability or whatever may be associated with some forms of plunder and redistribution. But there is likely to be less liberty. For people like Mugabe and Malema who neither understand nor attach value to liberty, there is zero cost. 

[Garth Zietsman]

On the resentment of the lower classes.  I think Leon is saying that the lower classes don't only resent the upper classes but also admire them.  He isn't saying that resentment doesn't exist - at least I don't think so.

An interesting comparison is the issue of fairness in compensation.  There is the view that fair compensation should be meritocratic.  The extreme sort of this view says compensation is unfair to ask for more than your marginal product in compensation - you clearly don't deserve it.  In contrast is the view that it is unfair to compensate people differently - call this the egalitarian view.  Now virtually everyone accepts the meritocratic view to some extent and many accept the egalitarian view.  I was curious as to the relative weights given to these two conceptions of fairness in our society.  I did a little econometric calculation that suggests the average employed person in the US puts it at 70% agalitarian and 30% meritocratic.  I was surprised meritocracy was given such a low weight.  This says to me that there is the potential for resentment to become a serious phenomenon even in countries that sing the praises of meritocracy.  

I also found - from the General Social Survey - that the average US adult would prefer to see greater equality than they think exists and also that they overestimate (by a large margin) how much equality there is.  So most Americans would prefer a much lower Gini than they have.  BTW this trend was equally apparent among the upper and lower classes. This support for greater equality doesn't mean that any 'cure' is acceptable.  The idea of redistribution of income or wealth is hugely unpopular (and is also stupid according to my Smart Vote.)  In other words they want the poor to be a lot closer to the rich but they want it to happen via increasing the productivity of those at the bottom rather than taking from those at the top.

[Garth Zietsman]

As the resident empiricist (if I may claim that) I would say that a transfer will definitely increase the consumption and welfare of the poor in the short term.  I have also argued in favor of temporary Keynesian measures during demand driven recessions (those where inflation is low or negaitive).  Nonetheless the evidence is very clear that if such transfers become permanent the consumption and welfare of the poor drops down to and often below pre-transfer levels.  Furthermore the evidence that such transfers do nothing to improve human capital i.e make the poor more productive, of the recipients or their descendents.  Other side effects include family breakdowns via divorce and increased births into single parent environments.

In short it doesn't look at all like redistribution can solve poverty - just as you a priori types are saying.

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

That's right, Garth. And I'm saying generalisations are generally a bad idea (which is a generalisation).

My guess is that most people spend very little time, if any, thinking about the material endowment of others. I see no reason for thinking others differ from ourselves. On what account might it be suggested that my gardener spends more time than me having feelings (positive or negative) about Johan Rupert's wealth. Or that he feels better or worse about it than me. The relative difference between us and Rupert is, for practical purposes, identical. 

The conspicuus exception to the rule is left intellectuals who are as obsessed about "the rich" as they are unconcerned about the absolute conditions of "the proor". To them "the rich" are not society's wealtheist people by assets or highest income earners, but business people as opposed to politicians, entertainers, sports stars or fashion icons. 

On what account might an electrician feel differently than a labourer about the higher income of the company secretary? Do poorer people (like my gardener) experience more distress or pleasure than richer people (like me) in salubrious suburbs? Are other people's pretty gardens and handsome houses a positive or negative externality? Do poorer people experience differing externalities when they see pretty gardens as opposed to pretty women or sunsets? 

I am unaware of any justification for the presumption that "the poor" generally resent "the rich" or that the poorer you are the more resentful you are likely to be on some imaginary sliding scale or resentment index.

The only case I'm aware of for expecting that to be the case is your extremely thought-provoking idea, Garth, that we may have Darwinian programming according to which lower pecking order people/animals resent higher pecking order specimins. Even that seems unlikley. I am unaware of anything in nature suggesting that vanquished anumals resent victorious animals. They get on with their lives as if all is well until the mating season which entails a few stressful hours before reverting to harmonious living. 

[Garth Zietsman]

I hadn't considered that pretty gardens could be either a positive or a negative externality.  It's a thought provoking example.

I do think we have a Darwinian programming to care about our relative position as well as our absolute position.  However this is not to say 'caring about' means resenting those above you.  It could instead mean that you invest more resources into things that affect your relative status - maybe at the cost of your absolute welfare - such as when we spend a lot on a fancy car to keep one's place in the pecking order but end up eating worse or going into debt.

I think it far more likely that if you do resent someone for having more than you its far more likely to be someone who is likely to be a close competitor - someone in your local pub say rather than the likes of Warren Buffet who is more likely to be an admired fantasy figure than an object of resentment.

Also we also have a lot of other programming some of which can counter resentment, and the net effect uncertain.

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

That's right, Garth. And I'm saying generalisations are generally a bad idea (which is a generalisation).

My guess is that most people spend very little time, if any, thinking about the material endowment of others. I see no reason for thinking others differ from ourselves. On what account might it be suggested that my gardener spends more time than me having feelings (positive or negative) about Johan Rupert's wealth. Or that he feels better or worse about it than me. The relative difference between us and Rupert is, for practical purposes, identical. 

The conspicuous exception to the rule is left intellectuals who are as obsessed about "the rich" as they are unconcerned about the absolute conditions of "the poor". To them "the rich" are not society's wealthiest people by assets or highest income earners, but business people as opposed to politicians, entertainers, sports stars or fashion icons. 

On what account might an electrician feel differently than a labourer about the higher income of the company secretary? Do poorer people (like my gardener) experience more distress or pleasure than richer people (like me) in salubrious suburbs? Are other people's pretty gardens and handsome houses a positive or negative externality? Do poorer people experience differing externalities when they see pretty gardens as opposed to pretty women or sunsets? 

I am unaware of any justification for the presumption that "the poor" generally resent "the rich" or that the poorer you are the more resentful you are likely to be on some imaginary sliding scale or resentment index.

The only case I'm aware of for expecting that to be the case is your extremely thought-provoking idea, Garth, that we may have Darwinian programming according to which lower pecking order people/animals resent higher pecking order specimens. Even that seems unlikely. I am unaware of anything in nature suggesting that vanquished animals resent victorious ones. They get on with their lives as if all is well until the mating season which entails a few stressful hours before reverting to harmonious living. 

On 3 December 2013 18:51, Garth Zietsman <garth.z...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Stephen vJ]

Having recently spent some time in China, I learnt some reading of Chinese symbols. It is fascinating and surprisingly efficient to read - much more so than the western alphabet or phonetic systems. It is not phonetic at all.

China is 中国 - the first symbol being a square representing earth or land (land is square, heaven is round) with a line down the middle... so, land in the middle. The second symbol consists of rock, three horizontal lines and one vertical, but not just any rock - Jade, as indicated by an extra little dash on the bottom horizontal 玉 - Jade. In "China" the Jade is in a square, so thus "land of Jade". Thus China is the land in the middle, land with Jade, or 中国.

On the topic below, the Chinese symbol for "garden" is 园 or money (yuan) in a square (land). Literally, the symbol for "garden" is "land where you feel wealthy".

S.

Sent from an electronic device.

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

How delightful, Stephen! Thanks.

This really takes us well beyond this thread, but you're to blame for starting it, so here goes.

You reminded me of seeing Michael O'Dowd, the most brilliant person I've known personally, sitting with a book on his lap sub-vocalising as he read. When asked as we alighted what he was reading, he said he was learning Chinese. 

"Why" I asked.

"So that I can check Chomsky's assertion that Chinese language gives Chinese people concepts not known or knowable to others."

When he'd learnt to speak and write Chinese, and immersed himself in Chinese culture, for no other reason than intellectual curiosity -- never visited the place; couldn't then -- he concluded Chomsky was wrong, and moved on to do such things as inventing an entirely new hypothetical society, culture, polity and language with 40,000 words to see if the kind of society hypothesised in The Hobbit is plausible, and concluded it is, though extremely unlikely.

http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2006/03/another-sad-day-for-liberalism.html

[Stephen vJ]

Right. I too concluded that Chomsky was wrong and Pinker correct, or at least more correct. For those who read the posts below, let me demonstrate, now that it has had some hours to sink in. Don't scroll down, just look at this:

中国园

There, you just read "China garden" in three characters... but that is the poor translation. The more proper one, which you would have read in these three glyphs is something more like:

Land in the middle, place of special rock - Jade i.e. China and place on earth, not heaven, where you feel wealthy i.e. a garden. All that information into your brain in split seconds. Less if you practiced a bit.

The interesting bit is that you can read Chinese without being able to speak it. I propose that children stop learning languages as quickly and easily as before around the age of 7, not because something changes physiologically at that age, but rather that they learn to read and write at that age.

From then on, the process by which language is taught becomes inextricably linked to reading and writing, which is completely the wrong way to learn a language. The 3 year old does not care for spelling or grammar rules and that is what allows him to learn a new language - in line with Pinker's model.

Language developed before and separately from reading and writing. I suspect that even an adult can learn a new language fluently and quickly so long as he stays away from anything written or rule-based (at least at first, until he has it well grasped), in the way language developed in primitive man.

We learn new words, terminology and ways of speaking all the time. We don't pronounce "cell phone" any differently from teenagers just because the word came into use after we turned 7. Why should any other word be any different ?

S.

Sent from an electronic device.

[Stephen vJ]

What would be really interesting, would be to see if illiterate people pick up languages more easily than literate people, if one could account for any variation in general intellect,  training conditions and so on.

S.

Sent from an electronic device.

[Jaco Strauss]

Hi Garth, you make the following claim:
 

I also found - from the General Social Survey - that the average US adult would prefer to see greater equality than they think exists and also that they overestimate (by a large margin) how much equality there is.  So most Americans would prefer a much lower Gini than they have.  

I don't think that is a valid conclusion. The vast majority of Americans favours "lower government spending" but a similar vast majority do not want to see their own "welfare benefits" cut.  

So asked whether they would favour a more "equal society" the answer (not surprisingly) would be "yes". The more interesting question, however, would be why so many of them (or their forebears) emigrated from a more egalitarian Eastern Europe with (I assume) lower Gini coefficients, to a country with a higher one?

"Would you like to see more equality in the world?" must be one of the most meaningless questions you could ask anybody anywhere. Probably right up there with "Are you in favour of World Peace?"

J

[Jaco Strauss]

Very interesting Stephen

Kids also don't mind making mistakes and repeat things simply as they hear it. And they also seem to "hear" things in more detail because they are not stymied like us who already have sounds and words pre associated. 

I saw it for example with my own kids when they were still very young and I taught them the lullaby of "Daar onder in die vlei stap 'n mannetjie" At one point the mannetjie's name is given as "Jan Casper de Compaan". My middle daughter Janka, wanted to know why her name is in the song and I realised "Jan Casper" sounds like "Janka - spir". I never made the association, but a few years later my youngest daughter did the same thing, asking why I sang about Janka and the Spur!

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that they have to rely on only the sounds at that stage, while we generally concentrate on how something is spelled and pronounced..... 

J

2013/12/4 Stephen vJ <sjaar...@gmail.com>

--

Jaco Strauss
Kaapstad

[Garth Zietsman]

Yes Jaco I think you make a very valid point.  It's not rediculous to maintain contradictory wishes but it is silly to forget that there are tradeoffs.  On the other hand the General Social Survey question is not totally silly.  After all by no means everyone expressed a preference for greater equality.  If I remember correctly about 10-20% preferred less equality so it's not quiet as silly as asking people if they would prefer to be richer or happier than they are now.  Nonetheless I take your point.

A better question would be 'What would your preferred level of equality be when everyone has optimized their utility function?'  I don't know if any attempt has been made to address that question.  In principle a people who remain free to choose will evolve an answer but there are always questions about whether the freedom to choose exists.

My econometric calculation on the weights given to meritocratic and equalitarian concepts of fairness is much more of a real answer than the General Social Survey.

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

Such questions and surveys are as meaningless as asking if people prefer Bentleys or bakkies, only to find they have more bakkies than Bentleys. Why? Because TANSTAAFL (no free lunches). 

Would you prefer more equality in the world? Quite apart from the fact that no one can even define hypothetical equality, most will say yes. Why? Because you the question entailed an implicit and malicious lie by concealing the cost -- you never added that it would entail lowering ("redistributing") their living standards to that of the average human, or that global standards would have to plumet to achieve more "equality".

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

Garth, I have argued that equality of circumstances cannot be defined let alone imagined. You seem to think it can. If so, please define and describe it.

I suggested that there are senses in which the word is apt, such as there being an equal number of days in March and May, or 2+2 being equal to 4.

The Gini, on the other hand, is deceptively paraded as measuring "equality". It does nothing of the kind. It's an estimate of a very specific (albeit interesting) type of average. There are countless other averages of greater significance to quality of life. Saying that Gini measures equality in any real world sense is like saying (reductio ad absurdum) that a consumer in Woolworths and a Tibetan monk are equal when both have a R1000 Woolies shopping voucher.

[Jaco Strauss]

Precisely! I just love that bakkie-driving Bentley-loving analogy LOL

That is why I would much rather like to see the unwashed masses confronted by relevant questions* such as:

"By how much are you prepared to voluntarily drop your income in order to achieve more 'equality' in the world?"

or 

"What percentage would you request to be taxed more, in order to facilitate a more egalitarian society?"

or 

"What additional percentage of GDP should be allocated to foreign aid programs in an effort to make the world a more equitable place?"

Of course you have to make sure that you have the necessary legally binding forms ready so that all the bleeding hearts could sign their wealth / income / future income away on the spot. Let us see how many of them would put their actual money where their theoretical mouths are!

I suspect most would make a quick break for that bakkie and drive off...

J

* Disclaimer - I do not believe any of these propositions would actually have the desired result claimed, but "the average US adult" answering in the affirmative that they "would prefer to see greater equality than they think exists" would probably buy that baloney, so this little test would be quite a valid one...

2013/12/4 Leon Louw (gmail) <leon...@gmail.com>

--

Jaco Strauss
Kaapstad

[Stephen vJ]

Exactly. If you read Pinker's book, I think it is "The language instinct", then it makes perfect sense. Forget reading and writing and anyone can become fluent in any language within weeks. Add reading, writing and grammar and it takes for ever. Language is a sound-based medium and should be learned that way. Reading and writing can come later. Grammar is completely ridiculous to learn at all, because you have the mechanism already built into your brain. It is mechanical. You don't parse a thousand rules before blurting out a sentence - you construct it and then feel it to be right or wrong and then modify what feels wrong, if need be. That feeling is a chemical process triggered by a sequence of sound, not the violation of logic or learnt rules.

S.

Sent from an electronic device.

[Garth Zietsman]

Leon I cannot define equality of circumstances.

I am aware of your objection to that sort of survey question and that it is by no means the only objection that can be aimed at surveys.  To some extent some objections can be minimized but there remain problems and I agree with you and Jaco on this.

I would like to say however that the economist's concept of revealed preferences, to which you appeal, does not really deal with most of these objections either.

The Gini is but one measure of inequality among very many.  Often it isn't the appropriate one to use but sometimes it is fairly meaningful and useful.  One has to know what such statistics were developed to measure and what their technical pros and cons are.  It's similar to the issue of averages.  There are three kinds of average and the usual arithmetic mean is often not the one you want to use.  But it's not a good idea to dismiss the arithmetic mean as a useful statistic simply because it is misleading in some circumstances e.g. as a measure of the typical person's income (because a then most people will have incomes substantially below average due to a few billionairs).

[Stephen vJ]

Help me out here. I concede the equality of circumstances point made by Leon, I have myself explained on numerous occasions the impossibility of complete equality as well as how increased wellbeing of everyone in a society will result in a wider distribution of wealth. I also appreciate Thomas Sowell's points about statistical categories not being the same as actual people and that the poor of today are hardly ever the poor of 5 years later. And so on.

With that background, imagine a society with 1000 people so profoundly bad off that some die of hunger and few reach the age of 35. We are not talking about preferences or subjective value. That same society has 10 people who have huge estates, many cars, plenty to eat and loads of luxuries. Let's say they achieved their wealth by trade outside of the community and that the poverty was largely the result of socialist policies applied by a previous regime of which no members remain - those who are now rich moved in after the fact on account of the mild weather.

Now, let's say there is an instigator of trouble amongst the poor lot named Julius Guevara, who has gotten it into his head that taking from the rich and giving to the poor is ethical, seeing as the poor are in fact dying and the rich are just standing by, like people watching a baby drown.

Surely there is no denying in this case that there is a level of inequality which is putting the whole society at risk ? I concede that this may never actually have been the case in real life as liberals would have us believe the death of Mary Antoinette was caused, but let's think about this as a quasi Crusoe example.

S.

Sent from an electronic device.

[SACVET]

Yes there is a level of inequality. There is always a level of inequality, Always has been and always will be.


The argument is not that no inequality ever exists, just that you cannot give a standard definition that fits everybody. Also your definition cannot define how long it needs to exist to qualify
.
The inequality is not "putting the society at risk" where do you get that? It is the burning incentive for every person in the society to find a better way to survive and hence change the inequality.

Of course no matter what the circumstances, there will always be anti capitalist instigators creating jealousy, no matter what you do. Yes you can call it inequality of circumstances, but so what.
It would still be inequality of circumstances after the poor get rich and live to be a100. there will always be somebody richer, prettier, smarter, stronger!


OK I love your quasi Crusoe example.
You have to do like Sowell does though and refuse to start the argument in the middle. (Like the plane is already on fire so should we jump out on the left side or the right side? Rather find out how not to let another plane catch fire.)

So how long ago did a socialist government cause this poverty? Did they leave yesterday, a year ago or 10 years ago and why does the poverty still exist? This is an example of a transient inequality.

Even if the rich guys did not exist, why does a person with food not contract with these starving people to work in exchange for food? There has to be anti market forces for the inequality to persist unchanged.

Who pumps gas for the 10 Rich Guys? (lets call them 10RGs)
Who cleans the mansions? Who works the plantations and mows the lawns, cleans the pools, vacuums the floor or takes the garbage out?
Do these 10RGs do anything off their estates? Maybe they build a country-club, a yacht club and a golf course- who works there?
Do they fix their own cars and air conditioners and pool pumps or do they hire someone?
Maybe they don't want to fly to a hospital in the next country so they bring in some doctors and nurses and build their own hospital. When none of the 10 RGs are sick, what do these doctors do all day? Who pumps their gas and mows their lawns and bakes them pizza  on Saturday.?
Do they burn candles or do they build a power plant that employees 100 people?
It is practically impossible for the poor to stay that way, unless the socialist government is still there. So why do you want to define the nature of such inequality.

BTW this is the same argument that anti capitalists have about free markets... "well if it is unfettered a few rich guys will own everything on earth and we won't be able to compete"... only rich guys hate cleaning toilets and working in the hot sun. The rich NEVER stand idly  by "watching the baby drown" economically. They don't hoard their cash in the mattress either, they earn it because they want to spend it (Says law)



The tendency is towards inequality lessening if you remove socialism so what the inequality was defined as a week or a generation ago becomes irrelevant..

[Janette]

 

 

To digress:

While waiting for a plane in China last year I had an interesting time `speaking’ to a Chinese man who couldn’t speak English.

I asked him what the meaning was of a symbol I often saw. He said it was “Ma” and after much laughter and gestures I gathered it could mean a person or mother.

To demonstrate this to took me to introduce me to his mother and family. More gaiety. Then he put two people together and wrote the symbol for two people and a crowd of people.

Without speaking any English he taught me quite a few symbols and we were both delighted at my progress. We were disappointed when our flight was eventually called.

This site shows the fun way of remembering some Chinese symbols.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/bruceupbin/2013/04/25/learn-to-read-chinese-in-eight-minutes/

 

 

 

--

Jaco Strauss
Kaapstad

[Stephen vJ]

Even though your arguments are all true, they don't effectively counter the argument of the pro-redistribution instigator. You start to touch on the fact that capitalism will solve the problem better than socialism will, but only after denying that there is a problem... and that is the problem I pointed out at the beginning.

S.

Sent from an electronic device.

[Stephen vJ]

Excellent. In a hundred years we might still be speaking English, but if we are not writing it in Chinese characters, I would be rather disappointed.

S.

Sent from an electronic device.

[Liberty Libpartysa]

Actually, Garth, my premises are simple because they have been quite fully examined. Complexity arises from a failure to understand, not an excess of understanding. I am sure E=Mc**2 could be stated with much greater complexity.

I have spent considerable time and energy thinking about the issue of human cooperation. I have developed the Consent Axiom (see libsa.wordpress.com or libparty.blogspot.com), I have written a book with this as its main theme (Consent to LIFE), and I have had this exact same conversation with you several times.

In a consent-based society, a crime occurs when action is taken against a person without their consent. Yep, that's pretty simple. Of course the terms need qualification and explanation, the grey areas need to be addressed and resolved, but most 4 year olds are capable of understanding most of the implications of that simple statement - Don't hit Johnny, don't take his stuff without asking.

Your property is the stuff you acquire by effort, inheritance or gift. Property is not acquired by theft or violence. Of course there are grey areas - that is what the jury system I describe is there to help resolve. It does not require state intervention, or taxation to work - but it does require committment from the members of a consenting society.

Now I enjoy a good debate on my favourite topic, the Consent Axiom.  When somebody says "As you state things I can hardly disagree", normally the debate is at least half won. 

So, debate the issue and refrain from the debating tricks.

1.Ad hominem - "your premises are unduely simple or not quite fully examined"

2. Straw man - " I could just declare it my property too and take it without it clearly being theft."

3. Leading the jury - " It seems obvious to me that some kind of authority needs to establish your property rights"

4. Appeal to authority - "A large proportion of legal, political and moral philosophers don't think such systems can really be defended"

I could go on, but I think you get the point.

On Tuesday, December 3, 2013, Garth Zietsman wrote:

Trevor it is nice when everything seems so clear and simple.  As you state things I can hardly disagree but I do think your premises are unduely simple or not quite fully examined.  

When is something a crime?  Taking someone's property without their permission is defined as a crime and so theft is a crime - all very straightforward.  But things get complicated when you try to specify what it is that makes something someone's property?  

If I don't recognise your property rights in something - is it still your property?  Is it enough for you to declare it your property - even if everyone else (or just many people) disagrees? I doubt it would be enough because then I could just declare it my property too and take it without it clearly being theft.  It seems obvious to me that some kind of authority needs to establish your your property rights before we can talk about theft in any unambiguous way. This authority need not grant you property rights for everything in your possession. 

No doubt most of you will argue for some kind of natural rights framework or objective morality here, to which the authority itself is subject whether it recognizes this or not.  The contents of such natural rights or objective ethics is by no means universally agreed upon i.e. even those who think in those terms will still be stuck with disputes they cannot handle from within their system of rights and morals.  A large proportion of legal, political and moral philosophers don't think such systems can really be defended or justified - even if there were universal agreement on the content. In my view appeals to the authority of natural rights or objective morals are as no more solid or convincing than appeals to the authority of some social institution charged with confering property rights.  At the very least no rights system is worth a damn unless there is widespread bye-in to it.

 

What about 'tax is theft' then? That depends on 'the authority' agreeing that the total of your compensation for your labor or business is yours.  The same applies to natural rights. If only the after tax portion is declared to be yours then it isn't clear that tax is theft, or a crime of any sort, anymore.  You could argue that such a decision would be improperly made, but it is hard to see why if it is within the accepted rights of the institution and there is widespread support to the decision.  Alternatively it is hard to say it is improper if that's how the society in which you live wants things to be.

You could also argue that full compensation is your just dessert.  That too could be contested.  For example if some portion of your earning is due to luck - like it is for stock analysts - then how can you say you deserve it all?  If you can't say you truly deserve it all why should it be declared your private property? [Dessert could be contested on many other grounds too - the next point is but one of many others.]

The authority may also argue that they provide a service on which your income depends i.e. you would be earning a lot less if it weren't for what they were doing for you e.g. providing the institution of property rights, infrastructure, rule of law, etc, so you do in fact owe them something.  [I know I know libertarians will contest this passionately - including me - but the vast majority of people think this account is valid and don't see it as a protection racket either.]

This is hardly the last word on the matter but it should be apparent that things aren't clear and simple even when you build upon a few very clear and basic principles.  In highly abstract terms Godel's theorem states that even if a system is built

--

[Garth Zietsman]

Trevor I like the Consent Axiom a lot but I don't think it ad hominem when I find "Don't take his stuff without asking" insufficient.  It is only unobjectionable as a principle when we have already settled the issue of 'is it really his stuff'.  

It is not setting up a straw man to ask 'when is it his stuff?'.  In fact my objection is precisely that you consider my asking the question to be setting up a straw man.  The idea of theft is implicit in defining something as 'your stuff' so the nature of the definition is crucial.

How is it leading the jury to say that I think 'juries' are necessary to the justification of property rights?

In appealing to authority I am simply pointing to a body of thought on the issue.  BTW when you say 'property is acquired by effort' you are also quoting an authority - Rothbard.  I am simply saying 'that principle has been questioned but unpacking those objections would take too long, so please look them up for yourself' and I pointed out where I think it profitable to look i.e. political, legal or ethical philosophers.  

I for one don't think that 'acquired by effort' makes something your property if the people among whom you live - or your juries - don't buy into it.  A right, no matter how real you think it is, is indistinguishable from a fantasy in such circumstances. The statement assumes a natural rights perspective that isn't convincing to me.  Such a perspective will assert that rights exist even if they aren't recognized or respected by anyone else.  I have asked why that is so and have come to the conclusion it can't be justified and hence is nonsense.  So if you make statements such require a nature rights underpining you absolutely do need to justify natural rights.  It isn't enough to simply assume the validity of natural rights in a world where their denial exists among thoughtful good faith people.  Why should these others accept what you say otherwise?

Even if they did buy into it there would be further principles defining what qualifies as effort e.g. do we count the effort of hired laborers or only that of capital, acquired and even stuff e.g do ideas count as stuff?

Property via gift or inheritance depends on the giver being legitimate property owners themselves (I hope you agree) so doesn't really answer the question as to when something is property.  Is it theft if an American Indian were to occupy white land legitimately inherited and bought from those who acquired it by violently displacing the original occupants?  Since pretty much all land around the world today was acquired through violence at some point in the chain of ownership, one has to doubt whether any of it can be property by your definition.  When serfdom was abolished whose properties were the estates?  Do those who inherit them have legitimate property rights?  In a debate I had with Neil Emerick he asserted that they did, but by your principles I cannot see how, since the aristocrats during serfdom can not have acquired the land (and serfs) in any way you would have regarded as legitimate.  

My definition on the other hand has no problems with this state of affairs.  Property is decided by our accepted social institutions and general buy in (for whatever reason).  These institutions at the time could have decided to grant ownership in a variety of ways e.g. to the aristocrats, to the serfs instead, to the state, to those who are regarded as most able to use the land to maximize overall value, to some weighted combination of serfs and aristocrats, or to leave them partially with the aristocrats and partially with the state i.e. tax it.  It isn't clear which of these solutions is best, but if you accept that rights are created by social institutions there is no principle (outside of utilitarianism) I am aware of that says the tax option was worse, or less legitimate, than any of the alternatives.  At best you can argue that a non-tax option 'works' better.  But since no one (and this has to include ourselves) can know enough to truly say what the effect of any of the alternatives is, it is legitimate, and not stupid, to question that assertion too.

As an aside it isn't at all clear why acquisition via luck makes something, or should be recognized as, property.  Behind the idea of legitimate property seems to be the notion of just dessert - clearly 'acquired by effort' implies it.  But how is lucky acquisition deserved?  Since no one deserves more luck than another why shouldn't lucky acquisitions be regarded as common property?  If luck is a significant factor in acquisition then I do not see any obvious objection to the luck portion   

being taken from you and shared - other than the very real problem of calculating the luck proportion. Some on this forum have argued that taking such undeserved acquisitions would involve violating the person's liberty.  Maybe I'm dense but I really don't see how that works.  All that would be happening is that stuff that isn't yours (by your own admission since you are assuming it is undeserved) is being accessed, which in no way violates your liberty. How does your liberty depend on whether you pick 10c or R1 million in the street?  Surely taxing your windfall is the equivalent to you having found the lesser amount?  Taxing your luck is merely a form of bad luck and not a violation of your liberty    

In short one can (in my view) maintain - even as a believer in liberty and the consent axiom - that tax (or some other institutional taking of a portion of 'your stuff') is not necessarily a violation of your liberty, or even bad in some utilitarian sense.  It depends crucially on what makes it is your stuff and/or whether a certain way of assigning property rights just 'works' best.

Oh yes it is true that states must threaten force to collect tax because few would voluntarily cough it up even if they did consider it legitimate by the reasoning above.  However that in itself doesn't necessarily invalidate tax collection since the same threat of force is itself justified by the justice of the aim e.g to stop people killing each other.  It is not the threat of force which invalidates tax collection but the injustice of collecting tax that makes the threat of force unjust.  In other words I am saying it is not the means but the aim that makes something just or unjust. 

Finally it will be asked of me "Why do you want to raise these issues?" as if it must mean I 'really' want tax or dislike liberty. The answer is I love reason as much as I love liberty/freedom.  In some ways, like Leon, I envy those who have no doubts but I regarded it of supreme importance to know and understand and to have my convictions rest on solid grounds.  To really examine one's beliefs sincerely entails an honest examination of the alternatives and to really push one's own convictions to the limit i.e. to deliberately falsify them.  This habit has however always made the cocksure regard me as morally suspect. To be frank I see nothing virtuous about that attitude and rest assured I am suspicious of them in turn.  Hopefully I will never be asked to drink hemlock.

Where am I then?  So far I have retained my love of liberty/freedom, (unlike the values and convictions of my previous political waystops) but the floor beneath has proved difficult to nail down.  I have found it harder to say that different convictions on values, theories and facts are wrong.  I am left with "I just happen to love liberty and freedom" but I feel myself far less able to specify the best (or even a good) path in service of liberty/freedom and even say what the effect of liberty/freedom on anything else will be. 

I would appreciate thoughtful comments. 

[Liberty Libpartysa]

Come now, Garth, you are being coy. If I said to you that your premises were not fully examined, would you not take that just a little personally? You are questioning ME in that statement, not my premises, and that is ad hominem.

No one has suggested that your property is whatever you declare it to be. When you say " I could just declare it my property too and take it", you are setting up a straw man, a proposition that nobody has suggested.

I am sure you have seen enough court room dramas to know that a statement such as " It seems obvious to me" would draw an immediate objection. It begs the question as to whether you are an expert in the matter, and stresses that your opinion cannot be considered as fact. Unless it is a proven fact in evidence, prefix all statements with "In MY opinion".

There is a profound difference between referring to an authority and appealing to an authority. "Almost all qualified lawyers would agree with me" is an appeal to authority. "Here are 3 references from qualified lawyers which support what I say" is a reference to authority.

Subsequent remarks in red in text below.

On Friday, December 6, 2013, Garth Zietsman wrote:

Trevor I like the Consent Axiom a lot but I don't think it ad hominem when I find "Don't take his stuff without asking" insufficient.  It is only unobjectionable as a principle when we have already settled the issue of 'is it really his stuff'.  

It is not setting up a straw man to ask 'when is it his stuff?'.  In fact my objection is precisely that you consider my asking the question to be setting up a straw man.  The idea of theft is implicit in defining something as 'your stuff' so the nature of the definition is crucial.

How is it leading the jury to say that I think 'juries' are necessary to the justification of property rights?

In appealing to authority I am simply pointing to a body of thought on the issue.  BTW when you say 'property is acquired by effort' you are also quoting an authority - Rothbard.  I am simply saying 'that principle has been questioned but unpacking those objections would take too long, so please look them up for yourself' and I pointed out where I think it profitable to look i.e. political, legal or ethical philosophers.  

I for one don't think that 'acquired by effort' makes something your property if the people among whom you live - or your juries - don't buy into it. As I said, all of my remarks refer to people living in a consenting society. They have agreed up front to abide by the terms of the consent axiom.   A right, no matter how real you think it is, is indistinguishable from a fantasy in such circumstances. The statement assumes a natural rights perspective that isn't convincing to me.  Such a perspective will assert that rights exist even if they aren't recognized or respected by anyone else see previous remark..  I have asked why that is so and have come to the conclusion it can't be justified and hence is nonsense.  So if you make statements such require a nature rights underpining you absolutely do need to justify natural rights.  It isn't enough to simply assume the validity of natural rights in a world where their denial exists among thoughtful good faith people.  Why should these others accept what you say otherwise? Because they have agreed to, because they think it is in their best interest, because they, like me, think this is the best available set of rules for peaceful coexistence.

Even if they did buy into it there would be further principles defining what qualifies as effort e.g. do we count the effort of hired laborers or only that of capital, acquired and even stuff e.g do ideas count as stuff? Although the concept of compensation for effort is well and widely defined, I concede there will always be grey areas. That is why you have a jury of reasonable men and women.

Property via gift or inheritance depends on the giver being legitimate property owners themselves (I hope you agree) so doesn't really answer the question as to when something is property.  Is it theft if an American Indian were to occupy white land legitimately inherited and bought from those who acquired it by violently displacing the original occupants?  Since pretty much all land around the world today was acquired through violence at some point in the chain of ownership, one has to doubt whether any of it can be property by your definition.  When serfdom was abolished whose properties were the estates?  Do those who inherit them have legitimate property rights?  In a debate I had with Neil Emerick he asserted that they did, but by your principles I cannot see how, since the aristocrats during serfdom can not have acquired the land (and serfs) in any way you would have regarded as legitimate.  If the ownership of property (or anything else) is in dispute, then the parties to the dispute will take it to a jury. (Selection details, etc are described in my essay (Have you read it yet?)) If 3 different juries reach an identical conclusion, then that conclusion becomes a precedent for that dispute, making future appeals to juries highly unlikely to be successful. The juries will decide on the basis of facts put to them what the final disposition of the property will be.

My definition on the other hand has no problems with this state of affairs.  Property is decided by our accepted social institutions and general buy in (for whatever reason)Ah, so we have no aboriginal property right disputes in our current setup????.  These institutions at the time could have decided to grant ownership in a variety of ways e.g. to the aristocrats, to the serfs instead, to the state, to those who are regarded as most able to use the land to maximize overall value, to some weighted combination of serfs and aristocrats, or to leave them partially with the aristocrats and partially with the state i.e. tax it.  It isn't clear which of these solutions is best, but if you accept that rights are created by social institutions there is no principle (outside of utilitarianism) I am aware of that says the tax option was worse, or less legitimate, than any of the alternatives How about the principle of prohibition of theft (taking what is not owned by force). If confused, ask Johnny.  At best you can argue that a non-tax option 'works' better.  But since no one (and this has to include ourselves) can know enough to truly say what the effect of any of the alternatives is, it is legitimate, and not stupid, to question that assertion too. Like any axiom, the consent axiom makes some (very few) statements that are not justified by evidence - they must simply be accepted. No action without consent. No theft. No murder. No fraud. Thats about it.

As an aside it isn't at all clear why acquisition via luck makes something, or should be recognized as, property.  Behind the idea of legitimate property seems to be the notion of just dessert - clearly 'acquired by effort' implies it.  But how is lucky acquisition deserved?  Since no one deserves more luck than another why shouldn't lucky acquisitions be regarded as common property?  If luck is a significant factor in acquisition then I do not see any obvious objection to the luck portion   

being taken from you and shared - other than the very real problem of calculating the luck proportion. Some on this forum have argued that taking such undeserved acquisitions would involve violating the person's liberty.  Maybe I'm dense but I really don't see how that works.  All that would be happening is that stuff that isn't yours (by your own admission since you are assuming it is undeserved) is being accessed, which in no way violates your liberty. How does your liberty depend on whether you pick 10c or R1 million in the street?  Surely taxing your windfall is the equivalent to you having found the lesser amount?  Taxing your luck is merely a form of bad luck and not a violation of your liberty    The more I practice, the luckier I get. I guess its just luck that Michael Jordan's shots keep going in the basket. Why should he get rich on that luck? This is just naked envy, socialist redistribution. In most cases the recipients of the blessings of luck are clear and uncontested, and they are entitled to their winnings without taxation. Where there is a dispute (2 people find a gold nugget simultaneously, for example, and refuse to share), then call a jury.

In short one can (in my view) maintain - even as a believer in liberty and the consent axiom - that tax (or some other institutional taking of a portion of 'your stuff') is not necessarily a violation of your liberty, or even bad in some utilitarian sense.  It depends crucially on what makes it is your stuff and/or whether a certain way of assigning property rights just 'works' best. I simply reject utilitarianism as an unprincipled and worthless philosophy.

Oh yes it is true that states must threaten force to collect tax because few would voluntarily cough it up even if they did consider it legitimate by the reasoning above.  However that in itself doesn't necessarily invalidate tax collection since the same threat of force is itself justified by the justice of the aim e.g to stop people killing each other.  It is not the threat of force which invalidates tax collection but the injustice of collecting tax that makes the threat of force unjust Huh?.  In other words I am saying it is not the means but the aim that makes something just or unjust.  I simply reject "the end justifies the means" as an unprincipled and worthless philosophy. A consistent and sensible philosophy does not sanction murder to stop murders. It does not sanction theft to stop thieving.

Finally it will be asked of me "Why do you want to raise these issues?" as if it must mean I 'really' want tax or dislike liberty. The answer is I love reason as much as I love liberty/freedom.  In some ways, like Leon, I envy those who have no doubts but I regarded it of supreme importance to know and understand and to have my convictions rest on solid grounds.  To really examine one's beliefs sincerely entails an honest examination of the alternatives and to really push one's own convictions to the limit i.e. to deliberately falsify them.  This habit has however always made the cocksure regard me as morally suspect. To be frank I see nothing virtuous about that attitude and rest assured I am suspicious of them in turn.  Hopefully I will never be asked to drink hemlock. I totally agree with you. I believe the truth is always approached from at least 2 directions. I appreciate and value (as I think we all do (appeal to authority,leading statement:-)) your thoughtful and challenging contributions to these debates. That does not mean I won't criticise your ideas and statements with vigour.

Where am I then?  So far I have retained my love of liberty/freedom, (unlike the values and convictions of my previous political waystops) but the floor beneath has proved difficult to nail down.  I have found it harder to say that different convictions on values, theories and facts are wrong.  I am left with "I just happen to love liberty and freedom" but I feel myself far less able to specify the best (or even a good) path in service of liberty/freedom and even say what the effect of liberty/freedom on anything else will be. Well, faced with precisely that dilemma, and assisted by Leon and many others, I wrote down the consent axioms mostly to give myself a consistent and persistent point of reference.

I would appreciate thoughtful comments. Hope you got a few?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/libsa.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[SACVET]

Garth,
I love philosophy but I hate arguing philosophy because it is like a
room full of people talking in their own language and not one
understanding the other. Unless there are some common ground of agreed
upon facts, there is no point to continue the argument..
So I am trying to understand where you are coming from and where the
argument begins.
.
So you say you can only say you retain your love of liberty/freedom
thats all
but you do not recognize property rights- then liberty will be impossible
if you do not own the right to live unless the community agrees, you are
not free
You will need permission from everyone else on earth to continue
breathing, to put on your clothes in the morning and to eat your coconut
for breakfast.

And if the "community" has to agree to your property rights and they
agree that you have none or only1% of what you earn and they can tax the
rest- you are a slave.
.

[Garth Zietsman]

Trevor I sincerely did not mean to be ad hominem.  I accept that I was in fact ad hominem and for that I apologize.

I remember one time when I wrote Jim an email and he told me that a certain statement of mine as written had only one reasonable interpretation.  The interpretation he advanced did not accord with my intention so I took a close look at it.  I honestly tried to see it his way but in the end his interpretation made no sense to me.  I disagreed with him, told him no reasonable person could possibly see it his way and insisted that my intended meaning was the reasonable way to interpret the statement.  Naturally we went back and forth and never settled on what were the possible, never mind reasonable, meanings of what should have been a straightforward statement.  At other times he and I had major differences in what we thought was intuitively obvious.  One example had to do with free will.  I found this fascinating (and irritating I have to say) since he and I had a very similar outlook on what we regarded as obvious nonsense or basic truths.  I don't think our differences could be attributed to differences in facility with logic or even knowledge.  No doubt some very subtle differences in implicit assumptions about life were to blame.  My impression is that a lot of that is going on here.

Thanks for your input on the points I made.

[Garth Zietsman]

Unfortunately I am not able to put a name to SACVET so I don't know how to address you.

.
So you say you can only say you retain your love of liberty/freedom thats all
but you do not recognize property rights- then liberty will be impossible
if you do not own the right to live unless the community agrees, you are not free
You will need permission from everyone else on earth to continue breathing, to put on your clothes in the morning and to eat your coconut for breakfast.

But I do recognize private property rights.  I think they are a jolly good idea and do make things 'work' a great deal better than they would without them.  I also think that liberty and freedom are to a large extent dependent on such rights being recognized and protected.  My problem is only with how they are defined.  I do not think they are sacred or absolute categories from heaven.  I consider property rights to be a man made or cultural concept.  As such I think they can be legitimately defined in a way that makes tax something other than theft.  This is not to say I think tax would in that case be a good idea - I don't - only that it wouldn't be theft.

Yes liberty would be extremely difficult - if not impossible - if no one else recognizes your right to it. Fortunately most people want liberty themselves and hence it isn't so difficult to get enough support for the notion.  We are far from the level of acceptance we would like to see but the world has made huge progress so far in getting buy in to granting individual liberty and gains continue to be made - with occasional set backs here and there.  Achieving liberty will always be a struggle to persuade those we live with that it is a value worth respecting - even if we ever reach libertarian like levels of it.  It's not like the battle can be won once and forever.  Yes sometimes that persuasion may involve saying "I blow your brains away if you don't" but more probably will involve the development over time of legal, social and cultural institutions, norms and traditions that support it.  I do not think insisting that this is an absolute natural right whether or not it is recognized will be the means by which liberty is achieved. 

And if the "community" has to agree to your property rights and they agree that you have none or only1% of what you earn and they can tax the rest- you are a slave.

I guess it would because it just isn't plausable that you only deserve 1% of the value you created or that luck accounted for that high a proportion.  I believe a reasonable man test or some econometrics would never produce such a figure and will in fact point to acceptable tax rates well below existing rates.  There is a study saying that the 'optimum' top marginal tax rate is 70% but that means optimum in terms of maximizing government revenue and is not optimum for anything else.  Tax rates that are consistent with various notions of portions of "your property not being really yours" will almost certainly be low - even for the very rich. Unreasonable rates - like the 'optimum' mentioned above - would be slavery.  I suppose I am saying that I don't accept that any degree of taxation at all is the moral equivalent of slavery but I certainly agree that above a certain vague level it is.

[SACVET]

Sorry I thought my e mail automatically identifies me.
sacvet=albert
.
OK we cannot get to the tax argument yet until we resolve property rights. For instance you bring in the reasonable man argument that 1% of your earnings would be unjust. But your previous argument was not whether it passed the reasonable man test, only that it is decreed by the majority of society. (which could be and often is made up of a group of dominant VERY unreasonable men) so we have not yet a definition we can use.
.
I personally don't think you need to convince anybody that liberty is worth respecting. I just think people have to know that they have property rights. When people own a few things (even more so when they own a lot of things) they start seeing the benefits of respecting others property rights out of sheer self preservation not moral grounds. If I steal his, they can come steal mine. If I don't own anything I work for then I might as well steal.
.
And I don't think you need to specify whether the property rights are from above or granted by men. People do not have to understand Aristotle to instinctively know, if I plant a crop or catch a rabbit, I am entitled to the benefits (whether the god I believe in agrees or not)

So lets try a caveman game.
A tribe of cavemen live in a cave. One of them is the supers-athlete, several of them are reasonable good hunters and a few are mere weaklings gathering nuts and berries.
So super-athlete gets by force the best or (even all) the women he can control. He gets the best bed, the best food, the best weapon, the best hunting grounds.
But he cannot sleep at night without keeping one eye open for fear of being murdered.
He also finds out that it takes him all day by foot to hunt down an antelope while a group of other guys can herd many antelope into a trap and have way more food than him. They just don't bring it home, they eat it elsewhere.So he has to choose between investing a day to follow them and spy on them or to hunt food for himself.
Better idea they trade. He pays somebody (maybe a weakling that is not good at hunting) to guard him at night and to protect his possessions from humans and animals, he pays somebody to spy for him, he pays somebody to teach him how to catch with a net and he pays someone to give him the best spears (maybe a weakling or a woman who developed their skill to cut sharp sticks into spears). There is no need for a moral or religious justification. It is a contract. The small guys have to be convinced that he means it that what he gives them is theirs to keep irrevocably. If he gives it to them in exchange for cooperation and then takes it back, cooperation stops and everybody is back to subsistence living.

 He needs to believe that they value his lifelong contribution to the tribe as protector or food provider more than his current bribe, or they will take his payment and kill him anyway.. but then they have to fight off the dinosaurs themselves

Of course there will be the occasional crazy caveman that does not see the logic or the shifty caveman that steals when nobody is watching.. The tribe finds ways to control these. But none of them understand God or Libertarianism yet

This is called division of labor and is how civilization develops from barbarism.
So an understanding of property rights has to be assumed in society -regardless of how you define it.
(until unfortunately their children go to a socialist university and learn that society owes them- then property rights become fuzzy again and we need philosophers and priests and policeman and courts to redefine it and thrash out the grey areas we'll discuss that later.)
Are we agreed so far?
Albert Nelmapius

[Garth Zietsman]

OK we cannot get to the tax argument yet until we resolve property rights. For instance you bring in the reasonable man argument that 1% of your earnings would be unjust. But your previous argument was not whether it passed the reasonable man test, only that it is decreed by the majority of society. (which could be and often is made up of a group of dominant VERY unreasonable men) so we have not yet a definition we can use.

You raise some challenging points.  The reasonable man test is not a necessary part of what make something a right.  Something becomes a right only when they are recognized as such and are respected.  This recognition and the rights are no doubt more likely to evolve slowly (as per your example below) where it might start as two people deciding to recognize such rights between them in order to trade, or recognition of the super-athlete's rights could be imposed by him by force, etc. In principle any form of property rights could evolve - from zero to absolute - but whatever form it takes would be your rights.  Any form of taking outside those accepted rights would not be theft but something else (probably also negative).  Although in principle property rights could be anything in practice the outcome will be constrained by many things - one of which is reasonableness.  The context would be another.  Reasonableness is not what defines something as a property right - recognition and respect is - but reasonableness will affect the likeliness of what emerges. 

Now it occurs to me that you have raised another issue - what makes something slavery?  I will need to think about that a lot more but off the cuff I'd say slavery is defined relative to property rights.  Slavery presupposes property rights of some kind.  It implies the slave is a private belonging and also that slavery falls fully within that part of stuff regarded as your property.  So if property rights have evolved so that property rights are limited to 1% of value created (plus whatever is shared out) whether someone is a slave or not would depend on whether than the remaining non-property portion falls under the defined property portion of an other(s).  Since it is being shared out to the property portion of others this is necessarily the case.  An exception would be if your non-property portion isn't shared out but simply destroyed - but lets ignore that.  So my conclusion is that people are slaves in proportion to whatever is defined as non-property for them.  Maybe people end up defining what to recognize as property in part according to how much slavery bothers them, or alternatively how much they value liberty.    

.
I personally don't think you need to convince anybody that liberty is worth respecting. I just think people have to know that they have property rights. When people own a few things (even more so when they own a lot of things) they start seeing the benefits of respecting others property rights out of sheer self preservation not moral grounds. If I steal his, they can come steal mine. If I don't own anything I work for then I might as well steal.

I agree.  None of the development of rights (or affection for them) is likely to be top down or particularly deliberate - instead they kind of evolve. Recognizing property rights is both liberty in its own right and aids the cause of liberty in other ways.

.
And I don't think you need to specify whether the property rights are from above or granted by men. People do not have to understand Aristotle to instinctively know, if I plant a crop or catch a rabbit, I am entitled to the benefits (whether the god I believe in agrees or not)

I don't know if I agree with this.  What people consider the basis of their entitlements and rights will affect their behavior and attitudes.  This very argument is about whether tax is theft or not.  Surely the answer to this question will have implications for how we respond to taxation? I do however agree that the sophistication of understanding doesn't matter nearly as much as the content. 

So lets try a caveman game.
A tribe of cavemen live in a cave. One of them is the supers-athlete, several of them are reasonable good hunters and a few are mere weaklings gathering nuts and berries.
So super-athlete gets by force the best or (even all) the women he can control. He gets the best bed, the best food, the best weapon, the best hunting grounds.
But he cannot sleep at night without keeping one eye open for fear of being murdered.
He also finds out that it takes him all day by foot to hunt down an antelope while a group of other guys can herd many antelope into a trap and have way more food than him. They just don't bring it home, they eat it elsewhere.So he has to choose between investing a day to follow them and spy on them or to hunt food for himself.
Better idea they trade. He pays somebody (maybe a weakling that is not good at hunting) to guard him at night and to protect his possessions from humans and animals, he pays somebody to spy for him, he pays somebody to teach him how to catch with a net and he pays someone to give him the best spears (maybe a weakling or a woman who developed their skill to cut sharp sticks into spears). There is no need for a moral or religious justification. It is a contract. The small guys have to be convinced that he means it that what he gives them is theirs to keep irrevocably. If he gives it to them in exchange for cooperation and then takes it back, cooperation stops and everybody is back to subsistence living.

 He needs to believe that they value his lifelong contribution to the tribe as protector or food provider more than his current bribe, or they will take his payment and kill him anyway.. but then they have to fight off the dinosaurs themselves

Of course there will be the occasional crazy caveman that does not see the logic or the shifty caveman that steals when nobody is watching.. The tribe finds ways to control these. But none of them understand God or Libertarianism yet

This is called division of labor and is how civilization develops from barbarism.
So an understanding of property rights has to be assumed in society -regardless of how you define it.
(until unfortunately their children go to a socialist university and learn that society owes them- then property rights become fuzzy again and we need philosophers and priests and policeman and courts to redefine it and thrash out the grey areas we'll discuss that later.)
Are we agreed so far?

Ah yes I like all this.

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

Modest proposal: specify to whom we refer in responses -- it's often unclear.

[Stephen vJ]

I was responding to Albert, but your original post also applies Leon. I get what you are saying about equality being a nonsensical concept in any real economy or where there is free choice. However, should a democracy exist where there is a huge divide between a section of the population who are poor to the point of starvation while another portion is much wealthier, then surely the argument must change as per my quasi-Crusoe example below.

S.

Sent from an electronic device.

[SACVET]

Garth,
Good we agree that property rights exist instinctively.
It could just be agreed on. Even if it is just assumed by one strong man and protected by force,even so he will soon need it to trade which forces him to respect it in others. If such property is taken away without permission, it is not yet slavery but clearly theft.

So such people would instinctively agree on what they own, and clearly the rest of the world out there is not owned by them, nor could it be.
(Even in animal kingdom property, food and territorial rights are assumed by some although they have no concept of morality, but because they do not trade, they have to protect by force.BTW even slavery exists in the animal kingdom- to them it is just survival instinct)
Water, sand, air etc. is too abundant (non scarce in economic terms) and in the beginning there is no need to claim ownership. It cannot be stolen until some person eventually figures how to own it.

So, on to slavery. The opposite of property rights. If another person claims you (against your will) as his property including what you own or what you produce, you are a slave. Even if he allows you to keep some of it for personal use.
Some factors are required for this statement to be true.
It is involuntary. You did not trade or sell or barter away such rights. You do not have the ability to cancel the contract unilaterally.
You do not determine or control  how much of your property you keep and how much goes to the slave owner. Even if today he only expects 1% from you, he and only he has the right to change that to 99% at will.
Pretty much this slavery condition can only survive through force

Yes reasonableness and immorality and quiet acceptance by your neighbors play a role in the viability, but for many thousands of years slavery was the norm and certain classes of humans were considered subhuman- therefore could be claimed as property. Morality by group standards does not make for a good guideline of what defines property. Only very recently is it almost universally accepted that humans own themselves and can never be owned by another legally. Of course it is still practiced illegally for example in some forms of involuntary prostitution today.
So the philosophical or religious belief of such a pimp is not relevant to the illegality of slavery.
Are we still on the same page? He may know he is a sinner or he may believe he is a high priest of something and he believes he is within his rights- irrelevant- his beliefs are not binding on others especially others he wishes to subordinate.
Albert Nelmapius

[SACVET]

Stephen,
Of course you will be able to describe various scenarios where inequality exists. I don't think any of us deny that possibility.
What I think you are implying further is that it would be possible to define or measure some form of "equality" that would be more acceptable to you.
That is when we say that such definitions are nonsensical and the solution is not in giving better or worse definitions that can be used by some instigator to advocate for state intervention.
What is more important is to debate what caused such inequality and if it is caused by outside interference creating unequal access to wealth(freedom), such obstacles should be removed (as opposed to enforced by a state)
You seem to think that the argument of inequality needs to change- I say liberty is all that needs to change
Albert Nelmapius

[Garth Zietsman]

So the philosophical or religious belief of such a pimp is not relevant to the illegality of slavery.
Are we still on the same page? He may know he is a sinner or he may believe he is a high priest of something and he believes he is within his rights- irrelevant- his beliefs are not binding on others especially others he wishes to subordinate.

Yes I'd say we are on the same page.  Certainly once property rights have the status of law that have a reasonably solid reality and the pimp would be in trouble.

I thought of another way of explaining what I mean.  There were no real property rights in caveman days but they have gradually gained ground everywhere.  To me that means they are a man made cultural construct (perhaps contingent) and not a Platonic form (or inevitable).  The form they have at any place and time depends ...   

[Stephen vJ]

I don't think the cause is relevant, at least not for my point. I specifically excluded cause from my earlier example. In fact I can see my point did not come out clearly at all, so let me try another example to better illustrate the same point.

Harry Browne finds himself on a life raft with 9 other people, none of whom are crew members from the ship they were on. The ship sank during the night, so the 9 others are mostly in thin pajamas and last ate something at dinner yesterday. Harry was out on deck having a smoke when the ship sank, so by a stroke of luck he has a thick coat, a small packet of biscuits, shoes, a pack of smokes and a lighter. Everyone else has only what he was sleeping in when they abandoned ship.

My point is, what can Harry say in order to get a good night's sleep and wake up with his packet of cookies still in his pocket the next morning ? The answer may well be nothing, but this is an interesting dilemma because there are a number of alternatives, few of which seem very Libertarian.

Resorting to democracy will clearly result in a forced distribution of cookies between all aboard. Not equally, because even though you can dish out equal portions, people don't value cookies equally (Leon's point, if I understood correctly).

This is what the EFF would like to see happen though. I think it is immoral, but if Harry argues for morality and property rights, that might work for the first night and possibly even the second, but sooner or later someone is going to say that dying of hunger trumps Harry's property rights and will simply take his stash by force.

From our 2011 debate on this forum, I get how a utilitarian argument is not helpful in this situation, but the moral one does not seem sufficient either.

S.

Sent from an electronic device.

[Stephen vJ]

Ok, actually this example is too extreme now. My point was that the focus on Harry's right to keep his property is sometimes not strong enough, especially if there is another argument which will serve the retention of his property better by arguing it indirectly.

So, if the 9 had some means of creating / catching / collecting / generating food and water, then arguing for THEIR property rights and the benefit to them of greater freedom, would be a much stronger case for Harry's property rights than just the argument of Harry's property rights. The benefit to them, in fact, becomes the only relevant argument.

S.

Sent from an electronic device.

[sacvet]

Garth,

I see where we diverge.  I think they exist anyway, even before the caveman. You are going to hold out a caveat that at some other place the definition will be more elastic.

They (property rights) exist in the mind of the actor, regardless of how he justifies it. People tend to believe things and then in their minds make up multiple justifications. I believe that those that own property are more likely to feel nobody may infringe and those that do not have anything will try and argue that the accumulated property of the first tribe does not belong to them. 

That too is also an instinctive knee jerk reaction (pro survival but anti logic) because invariably when these actors or protest groups or unions eventually get their share of the loot, they immediately want their property rights restored. They never run down the street to share their  gains with even more disadvantaged... so often they actually do believe in this instinctive property rights. 

You are going to argue that another clan has different morals and different beliefs and do not recognize the first tribes property rights on some moral argument. Ideny that. People and even some animals just know that something is theirs.

So now you can have the floor and tell me how tax enters the picture. The usual atguments is that a group of people get together and decide to pool money (property) for communal services or roads or something. Or sometimes they say people agree on some kind of membership fee to belong to a club. How would you describe the appearance of taxes?

Albert

Sent from Samsung tablet

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/libsa.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/libsa.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[sacvet]

Stephen,

It seems you are struggling with what to say to a hungry crowd. That is a philosophical, moral dilemma. But it has nothing to do with the definition of equality. In real life there is nothing you can say to a hungry person that will make the hunger go away.

In real life, property rights exist. By the virtue of one person owning something and another person not, inequality will arise. At any one time, some people will like that, some people will not. There will never be a time that everybody on earth is equally satisfied.

To the degree that property rights are enforced, civilization survives .... and vica versa.

If you have one remaining funtional kidney, and there is somebody else who has none, his right to your kidney is not higher than yours. Even if there are 10 or 20 people that need your kidney, that is a dillemna, but has no impact on your property rights. Also if you took the precaution to protect both your kidneys, or if you have taken the precaution of storing 10 or 20 spare kidneys on ice, the number (degree of inequality) has no actual bearing on property rights. My consciousness allows me to sleep easy with that definition.

Now how you are going to describe that effectively to a jealous crowd, I cannot help you there.

Albert Nelmapius

Sent from Samsung tablet

-------- Original message --------
From: Stephen vJ <sjaar...@gmail.com>
Date: 12/07/2013 2:06 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: li...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Libsa] The Myth of Redistribution

>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this                                                           group and stop receiving                                                           emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
>>>>>>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
>>>>>>>>>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/libsa.
>>>>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> You received this message                                                           because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
>>>>>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
>>>>>>>>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/libsa.
>>>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed                                                           to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
>>>>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
>>>>>>>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/libsa.
>>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Leon Louw
>>>>>>>> work:  +27-11-884-0270
>>>>>>>> mobile:  +27-84-618-0348
>>>>>>>> www.freemarketfoundation.com
>>>>>>>> In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of.
>>>>>>>> In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of.
>>>>>>>> Confucious

>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
>>>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
>>>>>>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/libsa.
>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
>>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
>>>>>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/libsa.
>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
>>>>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/libsa.
>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>

>>>>> --
>>>>> Leon Louw
>>>>> work:  +27-11-884-0270
>>>>> mobile:  +27-84-618-0348
>>>>> www.freemarketfoundation.com
>>>>> In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of.
>>>>> In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of.
>>>>> Confucious
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Leon Louw
>>>> work:  +27-11-884-0270
>>>> mobile:  +27-84-618-0348
>>>> www.freemarketfoundation.com
>>>> In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of.
>>>> In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of.
>>>> Confucious

> Leon Louw
> work:  +27-11-884-0270
> mobile:  +27-84-618-0348
> www.freemarketfoundation.com
> In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of.
> In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of.
> Confucious

[Stephen vJ]

No, that's not what I meant either and I am not struggling with anything... accept getting my point across. It is possible to extrapolate this situation to a larger group, even a nation. Under threat, your resorting to property rights is not going to be enough. Just like a gun helps you a lot more in the first 5 minutes of a burglary than any police force ever will. In extraordinary circumstances, the rules change. I am clear on how they change in cases of extraordinary inequality and I am trying to point this out. That's all.

S.

Sent from an electronic device.

[Garth Zietsman]

Ah we are no longer on the same page.  I categorically deny that there is anything like a property instinct.  Your, or an animal's, 'intuition' that something is yours has been taught or learned in some other way.  Neither do such 'intuitions' inevitably arise, their appearance is contingent on other factors that may or may not happen.  I also deny that there is such a thing as the one true property right that we are gradually discovering.  I maintain that humans are inventing it and that it's invention was by no means inevitable.

I also affirm what you deny about different tribes and morality.  From what I've read the content of morality can, and has been, just about anything from the literal "thou shalt not kill" of Jainists to thou shalt torture and commit mass killing for your country. The morals of different religions are often mutually exclusive e.g. in is a sin or evil not to be a Christian or it is a sin or evil not to be a Muslim.  History is full of 'differences of opinion' on who deserves to be free or have property or even if they count as fully human or not.  I don't for a moment think those who denied the liberty and property rights of those they conquered or enslaved were being hypocrites.  From what I've read they simply didn't think about such things as applying to their victims, much as we don't really consider the property rights of animals or whether they can have any rights at all.  Similarly not too long ago the notion of the common man voting for those who would have authority over them instead of just accepting the divine right of kings to rule was absurd and even more recently the notion that women too could have the vote was preposterous. 

If you know anything about the philosophy of mathematics it appears that you are a Platonist and I am not.   

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

I'm inclined towards your views, Garth, but not so sure about your binary absolutism regarding the supposedly complete absence of a "property instinct". It seems to me it depends on what one means by instinct (innate) and property.

Animals have instincts, including complex and massively varying property relations, from strong to zero.

There is also a difference between wanting one's own property to be respected and respecting the property of others. Many, most or perhaps all wars are about property, both, it seems, being "natural". As Michael O'Dowd used to point out, even extreme criminals who do not respect the property of others, cherish their property and want it respected.

Dogs and cats have clear property instincts. They protect their property fiercely (growling and hissing, fighting if necessary) and tend to respect each other's property. Even a manifestly bigger and stronger cat or dog tends to back-off when growled/hissed at by weaker ones with property (or, more accurately, possessions).

Some wild animals are similar; others differ.

Where do humans fit in? You're right about a massive range of human behaviors (which may differ from innate values, if there are such things). The only thing natural rights mythology has going for it is that societies with certain institutions out-perform ones without them. "Productive" institutions as Sowell calls them include property rights along with eg freedom of contract, due process, rule of law, prohibition of "crime" (rape, murder, assault, arson etc). In that these are productive for human animals, they are "natural" to the extent that they are consistent with human "nature".

Since you have a young child you have probably observed instinct at work, much of which well researched and documented, such as facial recognition (which differs between girls and boys), teat sucking, falling reflex, response to nurturing, crawling, crying, vocalising et al. One of the first words humans learn is "mine", and one of the first things they do is regard property as theirs, at first all property and soon, theirs as opposed to that of others.

Are you denying that these are innate dispositions of human nature?

It's one thing to argue that our western conception of property rights is learned, but quite another to say that there is no property instinct at all.

It is conceivable that kids could be raised not to regard anything as anyone's -- assuming that's conceivable -- but that's a far cry from saying they have no innate disposition.

[Stephen vJ]

I hope that Garth has not observed the falling reflex.

S.

Sent from an electronic device.

[sacvet]

Garth

So we arrive at property rights from different angles. 

Lets see if it takes us in different directions with the tax argument.

Do we both agree that the definition of property supposes that you can transfer your property rights by trading, selling, bartering, gifting, but any other form of taking it away from me is theft?

So how do you want to introduce tax into our scenario? Trough the "pooled resources for common needs" model, or through "club membership dues" or another way?

[Garth Zietsman]

Leon

I don't deny the existence of instincts (even in humans) or that certain cultures may be more natural than others to the extent that they are consistent with human nature (another thing I think clearly exists).  Although my last few posts may make it seem otherwise I am very anti the blank slate view of humanity.  I am strongly of the opinion that much of human attitudes, behavior and abilities (and the differences in these among humans) are strongly (if not mostly) genetically based.  It also seems that the environmental sources of variance are not those that make one family different from another but rather what makes one sibling different from another.  We have very little idea what these intra-family environmental forces are - some may be biological in nature e.g. pre-birth influences, poisons, a bang on the head, parasites, etc.

What I deny is that instincts like territoriality or defense of possessions amount to the recognition of rights.  I think these are recognition of possession and awareness of the costs of contesting those.

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

Thanks for clarifying.

We could proceed to a discourse on what's meant by "rights". I suspect that it would dwarf what's preceded it.

Fearing that I might unleash a monster, I observe that "rights", by any standard definition, are subjective concepts. They are concepts -- as such inherently subjective -- and exist only to the extent that humans conceive of and recognise them. That extent might be what's in issue here. Are "rights" so ubiquitously subjective as to render them "natural"? If so which "rights"? Are "animal rights" more or less subjectively conceived and upheld than "property rights" or the "right to life"?

I cited O'Dowd before to the effect that there's a difference between believing in rights in theory and honoring them in practice, and wanting them for oneself and for others.

Popper explained why there cannot be precise definitions of anything along a spectrum from close to being definable to being remotely so. "Property" and "rights" are amongst the majority of concepts at the amorphous end.

Mindful of the inherently subjective nature of rights and liberty I have been careful to describe libertarianism as what ought to be rather than what is, including property rights. Whether they exist as a inherent aspect of human nature is not an absolute yes or no, but a matter of degree. In other words, the unasked question to which participants have been seeking answers ought not to be "Are property rights natural or instinctive?" but "To what extent are property rights natural or instinctive?"

As an aside, I probably lean more towards nature rather than nurture than you, Garth. My impression is that it shifts in that direction with age and experience!

[Garth Zietsman]

Leon as far as I understand you I am on the same subjective page as yourself.  I don't know if you differ on the following point - which is that a very wide range of subjective concepts and cultures are fully consistent with human nature and instinct.  One could argue that even those that seem to go against the stream of human nature are natural in the sense that it seems rare not to desire to subordinate our natural inclinations (or more accurately those of others) to some externally imposed principles - be those religious, political, legal or institutionally normative e.g. the scientific method, rules controlling how the legal or medical profession does things, etc. 

This conversation has become far more abstract and philosophical than I intended.  My original point is that the rules for declaring something private property permit exceptions.  It isn't the case that "everything you possess is yours".  How it came to be in your possession is seen as relevant and in many cases we judge that possession is undeserved or otherwise invalid.  Insofar as some portion of the money a person comes to possess is deemed undeserved.  Taking that portion away may nevertheless be bad by some other reasoning but I find it hard to regard it as theft.  

On the other hand suppose all the money that you come to possess is regarded as legitimately and deservedly yours.  If the state can show that you earned more through their actions than you would have without then they can argue that you owe them some of it, that tax is merely an invoice and they may feel entitled to collect if you fail to pay.  The big issue here is that it seems to be an involuntary 'contract'.  Perhaps but I don't know. If you decided to obtain your money under the state system you did use their services.  Jim used to argue that the act of buying a book that had conditions of sale on the cover e.g. that you agree to abide by copyright, did not mean he had agreed.  I thought that the seller only agreed to the sale on condition Jim had agreed.  I think it reasonable to assume the conditions of both parties must be met if there is to be a legitimate sale.  In other words you aren't entitled to use whatever conditions or services the state provides if you can't be assumed to agree you will pay for them.  Much depends on the bit I've emphasized above.  I think different people can in good faith deny or accept whether the state can claim this.

Then there are also some of the reasons raised by Albert e.g. cost of belonging to the club etc.

In short there are many reasons why it needn't be obvious to anyone with half a brain and sound morality that tax is theft. I still think it reasonable to argue that it is theft (because you don't think the state can claim any benefit) but the empirical evidence being as fuzzy as it is I can't say it is absurd to think it isn't theft.

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

Yes indeed, Garth. One of the features of "higher" animals is that they can adapt and learn, and we are probably nature's exemplars. I see it as a matter of degree, with nature all the way down to single atoms showing more adaptability as things get higher up the Darwinian ladder -- assuming we say, for present purposes, that we are at the top. An alien visitor might conclude that other animals, such as far more socialised/efficient ants are the most evolved, but that's another matter. (I commend Edward Wilson's remarkable book, Social Conquest of Earth, to anyone wanting to know more about the issue.)

I often ponder how far we are from being 100% nature to 100% nurture. It's been a subject of considerable interest, almost obsession, for Frances and me during recent years. I think we're not nearly as far as people presume. Humans, like many other animals, are (innately) delusional about themselves. You, Jim, Neil, others and I explored the "free will" aspect of human delusion intensively. I see us as being no more than 15% from nature to nurture.

I agree fully that people who go against the norm a la Johnathan Livingston Seagull are natural. For me that's inherent in the fact that everything that exists is natural, including outliers.

My take on your original proposition is inherent in my view of rights as subjective. I distinguish between what's desirable (strict property rights) and undesirable (diluted property rights). In my paradigm that amounts to saying I'm for persuading "society" to adopt a very strict classical liberal property regime.

Yes, people called "the state" can argue that I owe them some of the wealth I have thanks the whatever they might have done. As a libertarian anarchist, my view is that their mere existence impoverishes me and most people, so I don't buy the premise. But let's assume Angel Gabriel convinces me against the odds that the crime syndicate called "the state" benefited me on balance; maybe I'm enriched by massive patronage grants, protection and contracts. I don't see those people as being any different from other people. If Trevor facilitates a deal between you and me, gives us money, looks after us and so on in ways that enrich us, he should not be (as opposed to is not) free to appropriate some of our wealth coercively. He can ask, and apply moral and social suasion, and we can share our riches with him as a token of thanks or as a self-inflicted obligation. I do not see the mere fact that people called government enrich someone as justification for plundering their wealth coercively.

This may be our real difference, and though others haven't put it my way, I suspect that's really what would emerge were they pressed hard enough and were they to accept my unorthodox premises..

There are important ways in which people called "government" can and do generate real benefits, even if not net benefits. That governments make almost everything less ideal than it would have been is not the same as saying they do no good. Sometimes what they do is even a net good! Schools, for instance, educate, and that's good. Eustace argues compellingly in Unchain the Child that kids would learn more without government schools, but even then learning the little that kids learn in government schools is good, though probably not on balance. 

Government courts are amongst the few things people called government do that may generate net benefits. Without debating the thorny issue, let's assume that after searching hard and far we find an improbable net government-generated benefit. That alone does not justify coercive tax. As it happens courts used to be user funded by user-pays court fees, with welfare for the indigent. In other words, even in something as fundamental as justice services, what's needed at most is welfare (private or government).

[SACVET]

Leon and Garth,
So the reason I wanted to nail down a somewhat acceptable definition of
property is so we can decide if the definition of tax comes before or
after that.
Obama likes to say that if you got rich you got there by using the
state, as if the state came before citizens and that the citizens are
granted their rights by the state .

In the days of serfdom, the king owned the land and all it produced. He
may not have claimed to own the people but he had the so called "right "
to their life in warfare or in starvation. I am sure his pitch was he
was protecting the kingdom and the citizens and therefore they owed him.
(They are only alive because of the protection provided by him. In those
days there was no model of free citizens taking care of themselves, so
his version was reluctantly accepted. This can hardly be called a
contract because it was unilaterally enforced, not bilaterally chosen.
But at the end of the day, they were no more than slaves and the concept
of taxing them or confiscating anything they own cannot be held up under
modern scrutiny as justified.

So then later in history, the private rights of citizens became better
defined, kingdoms and their colonies were violently overthrown or forced
to liberalize. Citizens could not only own property but expect
protection of their rights by police and courts. Some of these were
private, some of these were elected and some of these were appointed. So
there is an argument that they deserve to be funded.

It seems that all of us agree that nowadays we own what we earned first.
(property rights come first, then taxes come later as a claim on part of
that property) Then we may or may not owe some of that for services
rendered. (If we fall back on the definition that first everything
belongs to the state then you earn your portion of it- whatever the
state allows you to keep, then we have to go back to defining property
rights better.)

OK seems like the argument is that you owe the government something for
their services. Granted that sometimes the government provides something
of value for somebody (but never does the government provide value for
everybody without cost to anybody) - so does the mafia. Did the state
leave you any choice and nurture free market competition for their
services? (we know the Mafia does not, so do we owe the Mafia because
they provided "protection" without a voluntary contract from you?) Who
is going to determine the cost of the state providing that benefit? How
can you calculate what your costs would have been on the free market had
the state not forced you to be their customer through monopoly and
crowding out of competition? (Mises' argument that the state cannot
calculate costs)
Albert

[Garth Zietsman]

I don't find anything you said here unreasonable Leon.  I think it fair enough if you presume the governments don't or cannot produce net benefits that cannot be provided without government.  I also think it reasonable that you think that governments are always formed as criminal syndicates.  I don't so much disagree as I am not at all sure of either position.  I would like to think anarchism is possible but am as yet unpersuaded.  I think it very plausible (though I'm not at all sure) that free markets could not exist without government enablement or protection.  I am quite convinced that basic science is one of those obviously necessary enterprises which it cannot be in the interest of private enterprise to fund sufficiently.

One must object if a criminal syndicate extorts money from you.  But is government really always a criminal syndicate, a protection racket?  Sure to date most governments have been e.g. all aristocratic systems, dictatorships,etc, but was the government adopted after the American Revolution?  That government was instituted by free men to replace a criminal syndicate they overthrew - it wasn't imposed on them - and the plausibility of no government at all doesn't appear to have occurred to anyone ( it is after all quite a radical idea).  Did anyone involved see it as an unwanted protection racket?  Maybe it was a criminal racket anyway - even if nobody saw it that way.  If so I don't get it.  Someone will have to explain it to me.

On the issue of the coerciveness of tax in the case where a net benefit has been provided.  In private contracts where one party fails to pay is it unacceptable to coerce payment - via courts say?  Isn't that part of rule of law?  If it is acceptable in such cases why is government collecting a fee justly due to it any different?  Is it perhaps that the collector and the injured party are the same?

I reiterate I would very much like it if the "government is unnecessary and always criminal" position were both solid and obvious to me.  So far it just doesn't look that way.  Neither I might add is the view that government is legitimate and may coerce tax.  I just don't know.

[Garth Zietsman]

So the reason I wanted to nail down a somewhat acceptable definition of property is so we can decide if the definition of tax comes before or after that.
Obama likes to say that if you got rich you got there by using the state, as if the state came before citizens and that the citizens are granted their rights by the state .

That's roughly how I'm seeing it.  My view is that rights aren't already there being squashed by evil monarchs to pop up when governments go away.  I'm saying rights were created by governments.  I think you see it as the reverse - that rights are prior to governments and all that governments can do is interfere or not.

The wealth of hedge funds, Apple, Microsoft depend quite a lot on rules such as intellectual property rights put in place by government (I am opposed to those BTW.)   Much of the wealth also depends on infrastructure that business didn't put there (although they could have.)

In the days of serfdom, the king owned the land and all it produced. He may not have claimed to own the people but he had the so called "right " to their life in warfare or in starvation. I am sure his pitch was he was protecting the kingdom and the citizens and therefore they owed him.

I think the issue is did he in fact protect the citizens or did he bring the threat onto them in the first place?  Did it have to be him that did the protecting or were there alternatives he actively prevented the citizens from accessing? Did the citizens actually put him in place to do the collecting? A just state (with the right to expect payment for services) must have decent answers to these questions.  I accept that in practice they don't but I wonder if that is the case in principle.

 

(They are only alive because of the protection provided by him. In those days there was no model of free citizens taking care of themselves, so his version was reluctantly accepted. This can hardly be called a contract because it was unilaterally enforced, not bilaterally chosen. But at the end of the day, they were no more than slaves and the concept of taxing them or confiscating anything they own cannot be held up under modern scrutiny as justified.

I agree. 

So then later in history, the private rights of citizens became better defined, kingdoms and their colonies were violently overthrown or forced to liberalize. Citizens could not only own property but expect protection of their rights by police and courts. Some of these were private, some of these were elected and some of these were appointed. So there is an argument that they deserve to be funded.

I am maintaining that these rights were created when the states were liberalized and did not exist immediately before.  Any rights they had before serfdom developed were lost - ceased to exist - because as I have said rights are made by recognition.     

It seems that all of us agree that nowadays we own what we earned first. (property rights come first, then taxes come later as a claim on part of that property) Then we may or may not owe some of that for services rendered.

Yes I agree but what we classify as earned would be up for debate.

 

(If we fall back on the definition that first everything belongs to the state then you earn your portion of it- whatever the state allows you to keep, then we have to go back to defining property rights better.)

Jeez I certainly don't go with the idea that first everything belongs to the state.  OK some states do say that and I guess that's what property rights mean over there but all of us know much better property rights exist elsewhere. 

OK seems like the argument is that you owe the government something for their services. Granted that sometimes the government provides something of value for somebody (but never does the government provide value for everybody without cost to anybody)  - so does the mafia. Did the state leave you any choice and nurture free market competition for their services? (we know the Mafia does not, so do we owe the Mafia because they provided "protection"  without a voluntary contract from you?)

Whether that is possible for governments to provide a net value to everyone (and better value than any alternative) is one of the points of contention.  You need to defend your claim of never.  The rule of law is often floated as an example of such a service.  Like Rand I have suggested the functions of policing a free market cannot be part of the same market or the rules of the game cannot be part of the game itself if you want to maintain the nature of the game i.e. a free market.

I also don't think the Mafia analogy is apt.  It's not as though free people decided to set up a Mafia system.  It's not as though the Mafia are bound by a constitution and any laws they make, and they didn't divided themselves into separate powers and functions to watch themselves.  It's not as though one can vote out a particular Mafia family and expect them to abide by that vote.  In other words I don't see how a modern liberal democratic state can be considered a form of Mafia.

 

Who is going to determine the cost of the state providing that benefit? How can you calculate what your costs would have been on the free market had the state not forced you to be their customer through monopoly and crowding out of competition? (Mises' argument that the state cannot calculate costs)

I don't know but I imagine prices can be set by the connection with the market e.g. one works for the state if they pay rates that are an incentive relative to those in the free market and those rates will then determine revenue needs (the price of government.)  It may only become a problem if the state is a large proportion of the economy but I don't know.

[Stephen vJ]

With a book, I can decide not to buy it because of the conditions on the cover. There is no opt out with government - it is imposed on you wether you agree or not. That is force and they can't legitimately invoice me afterwards for something I would never have agreed to had I been given the choice up front.

S.

Sent from an electronic device.

[Garth Zietsman]

Stephen I am assuming you can opt out by a) leaving the country b) not involving any governmental services or functions in the course of obtaining money.  I admit the latter (and maybe the former) is difficult and that if you succeed the government will demand tax anyway.  If they do then they should not do so on the grounds of having supplied a service.

[SACVET]

OK Garth,  a few rules of argument.
I do not yet want you to admit that all taxation is theft- we need to find where the fuzziness crosses the line and then you can work out your personal way of solving it yourself.

You like to bring up the "endgame is not possible" as an argument, while I am slowly, piece by piece, trying to get what we can agree on and then debate possible endgames later.
I am not yet (for now) saying the government is exactly like Mafia - just that they both claim they protect somebody:
so proving that it is or is not, is not necessary for this discussion so far.
I am not yet claiming that you should concede that anarchy is possible or even desirable (even though I do) in order to admit that taxation is a shaky process. So bringing up that you do not think free markets can exist without the state at this stage is an opinion not an argument.
I am not yet claiming that the original US government was at the onset a criminal organization- we have to discuss other precursors first.
I am not yet saying that the state cannot calculate anything, they can calculate for instance what they think the price of a stamp should be. What they could not calculate is the lost opportunity cost, because no formula can calculate when e-mail would gave arrived on a free market if the state monopoly post office did not exist.
If we agree on definition of property and definition of theft then we can examine where or if tax becomes theft.


So a sticking point is; you think rights are created by governments, not preceded by them.
You say:

"I am maintaining that these rights were created when the states were liberalized and did not exist immediately before.  Any rights they had before serfdom developed were lost - ceased to exist - because as I have said rights are made by recognition."   

Lets go there, it is important to hash this out before we go further.
You seem to conclude "recognition" means only the state. You seem to imply that the state is us and without the state we do not exist or we cannot recognize any rights. Is that because the state was formed by 100% unanimous vote or just 1% majority? Even if an overwhelming majority chooses the state , what about the minority rights NOT recognized by the majority- like Jews in Germany?
Are you saying that the caveman has no right to the meat he hunted or the blanket he made until he elects a government?
Are you saying that because the king decreed the serf should commit suicide on order, or give up the grain he planted even though it means his kids starve- the serf has no rights just because the state hasn't granted it?
Are you saying that the states would have just liberalized themselves out of benevolence if citizens did not revolt or threaten to revolt? How many dictatorships in history ever liberalized by themselves?

You refer to the American Revolutionary war. Did the citizens of America need the king to grant them property rights before they could secede? Why did they not submit to " taxation without representation" as decreed by the king and his governors. They insisted on the same rights of NO taxation without representation as applied to the citizens of England- a right that the English citizenry forced into law by revolution and uprising and the threat of death to the Royals, not granted by kings out of benevolence.

These people had rights before, during and after seceding. All people do, they just might find it convenient or inconvenient to assert those rights at any monument. We may argue about HOW they protect those rights but not whether they exist, or do you disagree still?

You keep bringing up that certain structures like rules and law and infrastructure (supplied by the state) are necessary for freedom. I don't necessarily disagree (except for the provided by state part)
So without conceding that anarchy is the only end result- would you say that if those structures were provided from elsewhere, freedom can exist?

The Americans did not need law to be enforced by the king. They just took that away from him. They could have chosen to provide that by appointing a Sheriff like in the west, or by using the Priest as a judge as in Spanish areas, or by using jury trails, or by having cities or states provide it (yes they are still states but in the minarchist view the closer to the problem and furthest away from central government the better), or they could have chosen anarchy, with an unwritten agreement that should outsiders or outlaws encroach the citizens may create a voluntary army called a "posse" to enforce their rights as they saw them. Whatever, there could be competing suppliers and a semi free market in providing different versions of services.
I do not need you to concede that any of these versions are the ultimate solution, only that solutions outside a central government are conceivable.
Of course you will think of exceptions and we can discuss those.
Albert

[SACVET]

By that argument, the South African economy is serving everybody greatly because the 50% unemployed  "can just leave"
or the Apartheid government was justified because anybody that felt oppressed could "just leave"

I admit I did not look up the quote first but I seem to remember Schumpeter saying that just because a conscripted sailor does not immediately commit suicide by jumping overboard, does not mean he consented.

[Stephen vJ]

That's like saying I must buy the book with the given conditions and I am welcome to decline the offer, provided I sell my house and relocate to somewhere closer to a mall which sells the book with different conditions. Note, if I don't move, I don't have a choice - I must buy the book. Even if I move, I still have to buy the book, it might just be missing less pages. I can't choose not to buy the book without serious... can't even call it inconvenience, because it is way more than that. Be away from my family ? Rather cut off my right arm. That is how government works.

Secondly, anyone who thinks that government taxes people in order to provide services, is mistaken and misguided, at least in South Africa. Gwede Mantashe made it very clear in 2009 that ANC policy is not service provision, but redistribution. Where government does provide services, it must be services to the poor paid for by the rich. He said it in so many words - the rich, and by that he meant everyone with Internet access and thus everyone on this forum, should not expect to get anything in return for their tax money except to be surrounded by a slightly less poor population. I can dig up his speech if you'd like to read it.

S.

Sent from an electronic device.

[Stephen vJ]

In other words, when you say; "If they do then they should not do so on the grounds of having supplied a service.", that is exactly what they are doing.

S.

Sent from an electronic device.

[Colin Bower]

The government taxes you R100 and -  if you're lucky - gives you back R10 in goods or services you may not want, but you may use simply because it's the easiest thing to do. Having used this service, you're now blackmailed into a life of permanent taxation on the income you earn on the grounds that you produced this income with the help of a government service. You mean to say that we libertarians are actually debating the cogency of this proposition?

Colin B.

[Trevor Watkins]

Many years ago Charl and I watched a coercive majority government arise before our eyes in the rich white semi-rural area of Chartwell, near Fourways. It was during the extended drought of the 1990's. Many Chartwell plots had run out of borehole water. The only solution was to privately fund and build a very expensive pipeline from Roodepoort. A public meeting was called to debate the pipeline. 

A very vociferous group insisted that if the pipeline was built, EVERYONE owning property in Chartwell must be OBLIGED to contribute a large sum to the pipeline, whether they drew water from it or not. This, they insisted, was the only viable way for the project to succeed. They used a curious phrase, "In for 1, in for 6" to describe this. The objections from several elderly pensioners with adequate current water supplies were simply ignored.

My objections to this approach were met with outright hostility. Finally a majority of the meeting voted to proceed with the pipeline on the basis of a levy on all property owners. Objectors were advised to sell up and leave.

Then the rains came, the urgency diminished and as far as I know the pipeline was never built, at least not privately.

Most libertarians (and other fair-minded people) would agree that the rights of the minority in this case were ignored and trampled. What rights? Why, the right to have no action taken against you without your consent. This more "natural" right was superseded by the far less reasonable right of a majority to force their will upon a minority.  The question is always - who will enforce the "natural" and sensible rights of individuals against the coercion of groups?

Trevor

--
Trevor Watkins - Base Software
bas...@gmail.com 083 44 11 721 - 042 293 1405 - (fax)0866 532 363

[Stephen vJ]

Who will enforce the right to consent or dissent ? The right to bear arms, of course.

S.

Sent from an electronic device.

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

This actually reminds me of three related incidents. The first what around 2004 when we were the first people to move into a new property development in Pretoria. Because there was nobody else living in it yet and law requires a body corporate to be established within a specific period of time after registration, the developer and I had a meeting at which I got elected chairman of the interim body corporate. I did not like the default rules provided for by the law in cases where the body corporate do not create their own rules, so I wrote what is probably the most Libertarian set of rules in Pretoria. I believe my rules, essentially the consent axiom with a few practical examples of how it should be applied within a housing development, are still in place for that little piece of land. It worked so well, that even after others moved in and elected a proper body corporate and even after we left, they chose to keep that "set of rules" in place unchanged. Lesson #1 - Libertarianism works better than authoritarianism.

Around 2006, a property developer painted the complex we moved to with very low quality paint. Only a year after it was constructed, paint started chipping off walls and the place started looking rather neglected. The complex management looked into claiming repairs from the developer, but concluded after some legal consultation that this was not feasible in our particular situation. The management then decided to contract with the supplier of the best of three quotes to paint the entire place over at a cost which would result in a tripling of our levies. Their argument was disturbingly Marxist - we really NEED the paint. Based on that NEED, everyone was obliged to suck it up and as elected representatives the management had full right to oppress us... I mean to decide on our behalf as per their given mandate. I used my organizational and motivation skills to gather a large mob... in fact, a majority of residents. We marched up to the chairman's unit and made it clear that the committee was about to change their minds or find the local equivalent of a horse head in the bed. More practical solutions appeared magically that night. Lesson #2 - threats and force are sometimes necessary in self-defense or the defense of liberty.

Some time after, I think it was 2009, the management of the place where we now live, decided that the entire wall around the estate needed to be re-built and security upgraded at a cost of something like R 14 million. It is a good 8 km of wall and the cost is spread across many residents, but it still meant a doubling of an already fairly substantial levy. I did not sign up for that when we moved in and could not afford to have a cost that big imposed on me. They were effectively proposing to evict me and many of the other residents who could not afford this upgrade. At least this time, they had the sense to put the proposed expense to a vote. The residents voted against it. The chairman was livid. Many residents were angry, because they wanted the wall to be re-built and security upgraded, but the majority said no. Then I made a mistake akin to Milton Friendman's suggestion to withhold tax at the point of employment. I suggested that they put a number of options on the ballot - R14m, R12m, R9m, R5m and nil. The residents passed the R12m option with a 70% majority and my levy practically doubled. Lesson #3 - don't be a wise ass & keep your mouth when your winning.

Actually, this last one is the sticky bit, which I think was the point you were trying to make below Trevor. How can an individual or even a minority defend itself against the majority ? It seems there is a point up to which violation is not worth fighting. Beyond that point, you have to weigh up the cost against available alternatives and possibly go for the least unpleasant alternative. If the alternatives are below the threshold of tolerability and the violation exceeds the point up to which it can be tolerated, then self-defense must follow. Set your thresholds too low and you might defend yourself alone. Set it too high and you get abused. Set it in line with those around you and you might be able to get a militia mobilized against the oppressors. And that seems to be sort of the nature of things, even in the absence of deep thought on the subject. A sort of spontaneous order, I guess.

S.

[SACVET]

Calling Garth, calling Garth,
So we went to great lengths to explore the basis and definitions of property rights and slavery and theft. You did not answer me last time.
Now show us how it is possible to introduce the concept of taxation and be fair and equal and representative and efficient.
Albert Nelmapius

On 12/9/2013 10:42, Garth Zietsman wrote:

[Garth Zietsman]

You are quite right Colin.  The truth about liberty and freedom is comprehensively known to those on this site and nobody sees any good coming from debating what they already know to be nonsense with those who have false consciousness. The purpose of this site is not to give a platform to a different theology but rather to help members to live its own theology, to feel comfort and security within its walls and to spread the gospel.  

People on this forum have been kind to me and have tolerantly indulged my heresies. I have been a troll and have abused friendships.  Some, in moments of exasperation, have asked me not to presume to talk liberty with them.  I should have listened. I have been threatening the only real friendships I think I have.  One way or another I will have to cease questioning you all so I may as well start now while we are still friends.

Albert if you are wondering why I haven't continued the debate it is because my wife's maternity leave has ended and I now have my days full tending a rather demanding infant while also trying (and failing) to do paying work.  If you wish to continue the debate by email, knowing that I am delusionally not totally happy with the standard account of liberty, I will be happy to continue.  This invitation is open to all.

Lots of untaxed luck to you all.  With that, very sadly, I am outa here. 

[SACVET]

Nooo Garth never stop questioning!
I would love to continue talking on here or by e mail whichever you prefer.
Albert

[Colin Bower]

Garth ... please stick with the community ... after all, we are all truth seekers.

Colin B.

[Liberty Libpartysa]

Rev/Dr/Prof/Mr Zietsman, 

as the Supreme Administrator of this official site, I am instructing you to continue your submissions to this site as a public duty. Failure to do so constitutes a criminal offense and you may incur a fine of up to R10,000 or 10 years in jail. You have derived benefits from this site in the past, you did not achieve your intelligence alone but as part of a supportive community, so you now owe a debt to all those involved which you are obliged to pay.

You may apply for a maternity benefit on forms Cra-ZY2bu and N-UTSrUs2. This may take up to 18 years to process, but you will be entitled to a monthly stipend of R323.44 once approved, which our maternal-procreating experts have calculated to be all that is required to raise a child. 

We are always at your service.

Trevor Watkins - Libertarian Party of South Africa
ad...@libpartysa.com  083 44 11 721 - 042 293 1405 - (fax)0866 532 363

PO Box 3302, Jeffreys Bay, 6330

www.libpartysa.com

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

What exactly is the debate on liberty, Garth. I assume there's no debate about:

1. what it is (consent).
   
2. the value people attach to it (non-debatable subjective disposition).
3. its efficacy (liberty is associated with better scores on most indices).

That leaves room for meaningful disagreement about specifics. Examples that come to mind are whether due process increases (anti-liberty) crime because of the rights it affords criminals, whether coercive courts have net benefits exceeding those of voluntional dispute resolution, whether contagious disease can be combated effectively without coercion, or whether private nuclear and dirty bombs should be allowed.

But, since you've opted out, I also assume you won't tell us. You've advanced your case for (coercive) tax, which is indistinguishable to me from the case for protection money collected coercively by (non-government) crime syndicates. That's fine. But you opinion neither impugns disagreement nor justifies ad hominem anti-liberty fundamentalism? Does the denouncing libertarianism view as "theology" and the right to impugn the intellect and/or virtue of those who disagree go only one way (anti-libertarian)?

Since you've opted out, we'll never know.

I think it unfortunate that you assume libertarians have not thought things through, are incapable of doing so, and do not question their "theology". I see it differently: most of us, if not all, got to where we are precisely by virtue of how open-minded we are and how readily we question and jettisoned what doesn't stand up to empirical or rational scrutiny. Most us us migrate slowly and painstakingly towards preferring and comprehending liberty.