4 ms·

Since WW2 most basic research has been funded by governments, but prior to WW2, the industrial revolution happened without state funding. Varoufakis' argument i

Since WW2 most basic research has been funded by governments, but prior to WW2, the industrial revolution happened without state funding. Varoufakis' argument is that since the state has been taxing the productive to fund research, that gives it a moral right to tax the productive some more. Paris Hilton obviously didn't earn her money, but her parents chose to give it to her, and millions of people chose to stay at Hilton hotels. If you assume ordinary citizens have a right to the money they earn, you have to grant Paris the same right to her trust fund. (Which is going to be invested or spent anyway). There's no consistent way to assert the right to violate property rights, without abolishing property altogether.

platz 10y ago
I'm not sure things are as zero-sum as you imply - he's not saying Paris can't have her trust fund. > There's no consistent way to assert the right to violate property rights, without abolishing property altogether. Is this a false dichotomy? It seem like defining it as a 'violation of property rights' that 'abolishes property altogether' renders things completely implausible by pushing it to it's extremes.
shkkmo 10y ago
> Varoufakis' argument is that since the state has been taxing the productive to fund research, that gives it a moral right to tax the productive some more. Regardless of if the research done prior to WW2 was funded privately or publicly, that knowledge is part of our shared culture heritage. The fact is, regardless of how well they run their hotels, the Hiltons could not be where they are without the travelers who pay to stay at their hotels. Without the government regulation, infrastructure and security that makes such travel safe and easy there would not be the market for the Hiltons to have made their money in. The government has a critical responsibility for keeping our shared economy healthy, growing and stable. Taxation to do this is not a moral RIGHT, but a moral RESPONSIBILITY. You sound like you think we'd do OK with no taxes, and thus no government. That is more idealistic and unrealistic than even the most ardently blind arguments for BI.
- platz 10y ago
  one note about Taxation. He's careful about using that word because he doesn't want the money to go federal coffers that the state can spend as they see fit. It almost has to be a side-channel that doesn't use the normal tax machinery - which is the talk of 'dividends' and such.
  - shkkmo 10y ago
    That is a solid point. The institution should definitely be more akin to the Federal Reserve than to the congressional budget process.
- objectivistbrit 10y ago
  The government is needed to enforce the laws. This does not mean the goverment needs to redistribute wealth, regulate business or manage the economy. A government which stuck to this role could be funded by tax rates of about 5-8%. My ideal society would have said funds made by voluntary donations. This is a far-off ideal, but it is achievable - unless you think humans cannot form a society without coercion.
  - noobermin 10y ago
    Often times, experience suggests people are not saints and will do or not do things unless compelled by laws and rules.
    - objectivistbrit 10y ago
      Re-read my post. Laws are needed, government is needed, taxation and coercion are not needed.
  - shkkmo 10y ago
    > This does not mean the goverment needs to redistribute wealth, regulate business or manage the economy. Regulating business, managing the economy, and redistributing wealth are not strictly necessary roles for the government. However, having a government that a good job of doing those roles increases economic efficiency and social well being. We don't HAVE to have public education, but public education dramaticly increases the productive output of a society. We don't HAVE to have the government regulating business, but having government imposed standards that are well thought out increases consumer trust, decreases economic risk, decreases economic friction, and increases economic efficiency. We don't HAVE to have the government distributing a basic income, but I think gradually replacing the minimum wage with a basic income will increase economic efficiency (lower labor costs) without the corresponding deflationary drop in demand. There is obviously a limit to how much we as a society can afford to provide as a UBI. I don't claim know what that limit is (I suspect it is currently well below the poverty line), but we can find it using gradual increases to UBI and decreases to the minimum wage. We want out government to fulfill these roles because it makes our society safer, fairer and more efficient. We could probably get by with 5-8% tax rates, but the society we would live in would be much poorer. > My ideal society would have said funds made by voluntary donations. This is a far-off ideal, but it is achievable - unless you think humans cannot form a society without coercion. Sure, one day that would be great. One day we will have free energy, benevolent AIs, and instantaneous transportation anywhere in the galaxy (i.e. no scarcity). Until then, we will have to depend on coercion like ever other society in human history has.

platz 10y ago

I'm not sure things are as zero-sum as you imply - he's not saying Paris can't have her trust fund. > There's no consistent way to assert the right to violate property rights, without abolishing property altogether. Is this a false dichotomy? It seem like defining it as a 'violation of property rights' that 'abolishes property altogether' renders things completely implausible by pushing it to it's extremes.

shkkmo 10y ago

> Varoufakis' argument is that since the state has been taxing the productive to fund research, that gives it a moral right to tax the productive some more. Regardless of if the research done prior to WW2 was funded privately or publicly, that knowledge is part of our shared culture heritage. The fact is, regardless of how well they run their hotels, the Hiltons could not be where they are without the travelers who pay to stay at their hotels. Without the government regulation, infrastructure and security that makes such travel safe and easy there would not be the market for the Hiltons to have made their money in. The government has a critical responsibility for keeping our shared economy healthy, growing and stable. Taxation to do this is not a moral RIGHT, but a moral RESPONSIBILITY. You sound like you think we'd do OK with no taxes, and thus no government. That is more idealistic and unrealistic than even the most ardently blind arguments for BI.

platz 10y ago
one note about Taxation. He's careful about using that word because he doesn't want the money to go federal coffers that the state can spend as they see fit. It almost has to be a side-channel that doesn't use the normal tax machinery - which is the talk of 'dividends' and such.
- shkkmo 10y ago
  That is a solid point. The institution should definitely be more akin to the Federal Reserve than to the congressional budget process.
objectivistbrit 10y ago
The government is needed to enforce the laws. This does not mean the goverment needs to redistribute wealth, regulate business or manage the economy. A government which stuck to this role could be funded by tax rates of about 5-8%. My ideal society would have said funds made by voluntary donations. This is a far-off ideal, but it is achievable - unless you think humans cannot form a society without coercion.
- noobermin 10y ago
  Often times, experience suggests people are not saints and will do or not do things unless compelled by laws and rules.
  - objectivistbrit 10y ago
    Re-read my post. Laws are needed, government is needed, taxation and coercion are not needed.
- shkkmo 10y ago
  > This does not mean the goverment needs to redistribute wealth, regulate business or manage the economy. Regulating business, managing the economy, and redistributing wealth are not strictly necessary roles for the government. However, having a government that a good job of doing those roles increases economic efficiency and social well being. We don't HAVE to have public education, but public education dramaticly increases the productive output of a society. We don't HAVE to have the government regulating business, but having government imposed standards that are well thought out increases consumer trust, decreases economic risk, decreases economic friction, and increases economic efficiency. We don't HAVE to have the government distributing a basic income, but I think gradually replacing the minimum wage with a basic income will increase economic efficiency (lower labor costs) without the corresponding deflationary drop in demand. There is obviously a limit to how much we as a society can afford to provide as a UBI. I don't claim know what that limit is (I suspect it is currently well below the poverty line), but we can find it using gradual increases to UBI and decreases to the minimum wage. We want out government to fulfill these roles because it makes our society safer, fairer and more efficient. We could probably get by with 5-8% tax rates, but the society we would live in would be much poorer. > My ideal society would have said funds made by voluntary donations. This is a far-off ideal, but it is achievable - unless you think humans cannot form a society without coercion. Sure, one day that would be great. One day we will have free energy, benevolent AIs, and instantaneous transportation anywhere in the galaxy (i.e. no scarcity). Until then, we will have to depend on coercion like ever other society in human history has.