5 ms·
Comment from economist Tyler Cowen when the same group of journalists released the Panama papers: Was it wrong to hack and leak the Panama Papers? Let’s say a
by haaen 9y ago
Comment from economist Tyler Cowen when the same group of journalists released the Panama papers:
Was it wrong to hack and leak the Panama Papers?
Let’s say a group of criminal defense lawyers kept a database of their confidential conversations with their clients. That would include clients charged with murder, robbery, DUI, drug abuse, and so on. In turn, a hacker would break into that database and post the information from those conversations on Wikileaks. Of course a lot of those conversations would appear to be incriminating because — let’s face it — most of the people who require defense attorneys on criminal charges are in fact guilty. When asked why the hack was committed, the hacker would say “Most of those people are guilty. I want to make sure they do not escape punishment.”
How many of us would approve of that behavior? Keep in mind the hacker is spreading the information not only to prosecutors but to the entire world, and outside of any process sanctioned by the rule of law. The hacker is not backed by the serving of any criminal charges or judge-served warrants.
Yet somehow many of us approve when the victims are wealthy and higher status, as is the case with the Panama Papers. Furthermore most of those individuals probably did nothing illegal, but rather they were trying to minimize their tax burden through (mostly) legal shell corporations. Admittedly, very often the underlying tax laws should be changed, just as we should repeal the deduction for mortgage interest too. But in the meantime we are not justified in stealing information about those people, even if some of them are evil and powerful, as is indeed the case for homeowners too.
Once again, politics isn’t about policy, it is about which groups should rise and fall in relative status. And many people believe the wealthy should fall in status, and so they will entertain the morality of all crimes and threats against them. These revelations will of course lead to some subsequent cases of blackmail, against Chinese officials for one group.
I had tweeted “Are your views on privacy and #PanamaPapers consistent? Just asking…” and my goodness what a response, positive and negative. Most interesting of all, many people had never pondered the question before. Somehow “good things” such as “privacy” and “transparency” cannot stand in such conflict because all good things, like all bad things, must come together.
(...)
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/04/the-morality-of-panama-papers.html http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/04/the...
- natural219 9y agoExcuse me while a shed a single tear for the world's uberrich.
- SOLAR_FIELDS 9y agoI would say this is a false equivocation to the extent that the "database" that the author referenced in beginning of the metaphor should not include victimless crimes such as "drug abuse". The author also assumes that there would be a de-facto backlash against the "hacker"'s behavior. I don't think so. If the justice system is "innocent until proven guilty", and these people are proven guilty in a court of law by evidence (even if such evidence is blasted to the world by this 'hacker'), there is no difference between whether they make $10 or $10 million per year. This does invoke a bit of a quandary as referenced earlier over whether certain victimless crimes should actually be classified as crimes, but I believe that is orthogonal to the conversation to some extent. The stronger argument was mentioned below: Do you as a citizen strive to minimize your tax burden to the most extent it makes sense and is legal? If yes, then why should it be any different whether you make $10 or $10 million in a year? Is there some sort of arbitrary monetary amount where you are supposed to make this moral decision "oh I made enough money now, it's time to pay more taxes than I am legally required to". If so, when is it? If not, then the tax code and subsequently the government are the systems you need to look at if legal lowering of the rich man's tax burden is something you find reprehensible.
- toyg 9y ago> Do you as a citizen strive to minimize your tax burden to the most extent it makes sense and is legal? The problem is that regular citizens do not have access to means of minimizing their taxes to the extent that the wealthy have. It's been shown over and over again that corporations and wealthy individuals can shrink their tax rates to be as low as 2%. Nobody else can get that low. That is the fundamental problem: that in practice there is a law for the rich and one for everybody else. This is not unlike the sort of privileges European aristocracy used to enjoy up to the XVIII century. It took a number of violent uprising to change that state of things, let's hope it won't be necessary this time.