5 ms·

I thought the same thing. I think he anticipated our thoughts when he wrote (paraphrased) "it's so egregious, I benefit from it and I want it to end." Maybe, j

I thought the same thing. I think he anticipated our thoughts when he wrote (paraphrased) "it's so egregious, I benefit from it and I want it to end." Maybe, just maybe, I misjudged Arrington a bit.

jacques_chester 14y ago
I believe it's perfectly legal to donate any amount of money to the US government. So if he wants to pay more tax, he can. He may also rearrange his tax affairs to increase his tax liability. Same thing, but with the exciting frisson of potential coercion (gosh!). He doesn't seem to be doing either of these, however. Possibly because that might lower his social status vis-a-vis others of his kind. So actually, he's prepared to make a great personal sacrifice ... if everyone in his class does too. It seems less impressive when you put it that way, but that's human nature.
- arn 14y ago
  It's not as selfish as you try to spin it. There are any number of political and economic policies that you might favor, but that only make sense in aggregate. I might favor more NASA funding, but I'm not going to write a check and donate to NASA. That doesn't make my desire for more NASA funding any less earnest than someone who wants less funding for NASA.
  - jacques_chester 14y ago
    It is exactly as selfish as I spun it. That's what "I won't give you X without receiving Y" means. I'm not judging, I'm exactly the same. I'm much happier if everyone else is beggared at the same time in the same way.
    - arn 14y ago
      Not sure if selfish quite captures it. It's more practical consideration. I'll give you X, if everyone else is also giving you X. Otherwise, my X won't make any difference.
      - jacques_chester 14y ago
        Looking at again: it's a variant of the prisoner's dilemma. If everyone moves, nobody is worse off. If you move on your own, you are worse off. If everyone else moves and you don't, you're best off. Unsurprisingly, the dominant strategy is to write blog posts saying "we really ought to amend the taxation laws" :D
        jdotjdot 14y ago
        I don't find this to be negative, though.
- eli_gottlieb 14y ago
  Oh shut up with this already. Private property is just as coercive as taxation in the first place. You do not have a God-given right to make hundreds of thousands of dollars by investing millions of dollars and pay nothing towards the upkeep of society. Basic freaking social contract theory, and, in fact, basic law: financial instruments and corporations could not exist as they do except by government fiat. Second, yes, he will make the sacrifice if everyone else does it. That's sensible. You don't solve large-scale systemic problems by individual action, not even mass individual action, but only by collective action. Again, this is just how the world works.
  - noarchy 14y ago
    When did anyone ever get asked if they consented to the "social contract"? No one. We need, at the very least, to change the term. Something like "social compulsion", perhaps? The person creating capital may not be someone who is liked, but they often produce jobs, and products/services that people want. Their capital comes about because of voluntary transactions within society. The so-called "social contract", meanwhile, is built on coercion.
    - hythloday 14y ago
      But if I don't consent to the "social contract" called private property rights, then your exercise of the rights that you've claimed that I don't recognize seems equally coercive. I happen to believe (in agreement with you, I think) that private property rights look more useful (in a benefit-to-humanity way) than the rights that most people who use the term "social contract" think of, but I don't believe there's a clear philosophical difference between the two.
    - eli_gottlieb 14y ago
      Private property, financial instruments and corporations are also built on coercion. Literally, they all exist by government fiat. You can tell yourself whatever Rothbardian fables you like, but the only real business you're building without any participation in a modern, "coercive" society is a subsistence farm.

I thought the same thing. I think he anticipated our thoughts when he wrote (paraphrased) "it's so egregious, I benefit from it and I want it to end." Maybe, just maybe, I misjudged Arrington a bit.

jacques_chester 14y ago

I believe it's perfectly legal to donate any amount of money to the US government. So if he wants to pay more tax, he can. He may also rearrange his tax affairs to increase his tax liability. Same thing, but with the exciting frisson of potential coercion (gosh!). He doesn't seem to be doing either of these, however. Possibly because that might lower his social status vis-a-vis others of his kind. So actually, he's prepared to make a great personal sacrifice ... if everyone in his class does too. It seems less impressive when you put it that way, but that's human nature.

arn 14y ago
It's not as selfish as you try to spin it. There are any number of political and economic policies that you might favor, but that only make sense in aggregate. I might favor more NASA funding, but I'm not going to write a check and donate to NASA. That doesn't make my desire for more NASA funding any less earnest than someone who wants less funding for NASA.
- jacques_chester 14y ago
  It is exactly as selfish as I spun it. That's what "I won't give you X without receiving Y" means. I'm not judging, I'm exactly the same. I'm much happier if everyone else is beggared at the same time in the same way.
  - arn 14y ago
    Not sure if selfish quite captures it. It's more practical consideration. I'll give you X, if everyone else is also giving you X. Otherwise, my X won't make any difference.
    - jacques_chester 14y ago
      Looking at again: it's a variant of the prisoner's dilemma. If everyone moves, nobody is worse off. If you move on your own, you are worse off. If everyone else moves and you don't, you're best off. Unsurprisingly, the dominant strategy is to write blog posts saying "we really ought to amend the taxation laws" :D
      - jdotjdot 14y ago
        I don't find this to be negative, though.
eli_gottlieb 14y ago
Oh shut up with this already. Private property is just as coercive as taxation in the first place. You do not have a God-given right to make hundreds of thousands of dollars by investing millions of dollars and pay nothing towards the upkeep of society. Basic freaking social contract theory, and, in fact, basic law: financial instruments and corporations could not exist as they do except by government fiat. Second, yes, he will make the sacrifice if everyone else does it. That's sensible. You don't solve large-scale systemic problems by individual action, not even mass individual action, but only by collective action. Again, this is just how the world works.
- noarchy 14y ago
  When did anyone ever get asked if they consented to the "social contract"? No one. We need, at the very least, to change the term. Something like "social compulsion", perhaps? The person creating capital may not be someone who is liked, but they often produce jobs, and products/services that people want. Their capital comes about because of voluntary transactions within society. The so-called "social contract", meanwhile, is built on coercion.
  - hythloday 14y ago
    But if I don't consent to the "social contract" called private property rights, then your exercise of the rights that you've claimed that I don't recognize seems equally coercive. I happen to believe (in agreement with you, I think) that private property rights look more useful (in a benefit-to-humanity way) than the rights that most people who use the term "social contract" think of, but I don't believe there's a clear philosophical difference between the two.
  - eli_gottlieb 14y ago
    Private property, financial instruments and corporations are also built on coercion. Literally, they all exist by government fiat. You can tell yourself whatever Rothbardian fables you like, but the only real business you're building without any participation in a modern, "coercive" society is a subsistence farm.