7 ms·

The question people should be asking is not whose income grows and who gains the most. To me, the only relevant question is: did this person stole the money or

by snitko 13y ago

The question people should be asking is not whose income grows and who gains the most. To me, the only relevant question is: did this person stole the money or made it honestly? If he stole it, then he should be in jail. If he didn't, then it's none of anyone else's business how much he has and what he spends it for. And by honestly I mean he didn't force people to pay him and he didn't coerce anyone to pay him. If one can't convince a rich person who made his money honestly to share or help the poor or invest in a project that would supposedly create more jobs, then maybe it's that person's problem that he can't convince.

jahaja 13y ago
But is it fair?
- snitko 13y ago
  And who's to say what's fair? People keep talking about fairness, but the problem is that it's always the other guy or some corporation who's being unfair. It's never me. I'd say it is completely unfair that a government takes a portion of my income away from me and spends for what it considers to be important, while not giving me the slightest chance to spend it on things I consider to be an ultimate good for the world. Are people in the government somehow know the ultimate truth? Are they the ones who only do good, while taxpayers are evil?
  - zrail 13y ago
    But you do have a huge opportunity to send your income to causes you deem worthy. If you're in the US you can generally donate up to 50% of your income to registered charities before paying federal taxes on it[1]. Society isn't free. You still have to contribute to the common good, but you do have a choice as to where a very large chunk of that contribution ends up. [1]: http://www.irs.gov/Charities-%26-Non-Profits/Charitable-Organizations/Charitable-Contribution-Deductions http://www.irs.gov/Charities-%26-Non-Profits/Charitable-Orga...
  - jahaja 13y ago
    Alright, clearly a libertarian or similar with that kind of nose-dive into the problems of taxes while seeing no problem with the privileges of the wealthy. Regarding assumptions; I hope you realise how many assumption you made in your first post. Who's to say what's stealing, honesty, force etc. Do you really want to remove all the social responsibilities (taxes, fair wages etc) but keep all the privileges of the wealthy (private-property)?
    - snitko 13y ago
      Fairness and force are concepts. Stealing is action. I hope you can see why the latter is much easier to define than the former.
      - jahaja 13y ago
        Why is that? For example: a number of libertarians would say that the government is stealing a part of their income. I wouldn't. And on opposite side one could argue that the owner(s) are stealing a part of the workers income.
        snitko 13y ago
        1. When a worker decides to work for an employer, he does so voluntarily. No one forces him to sign the contract. 2. When a government collects taxes, it does so threatening taxpayers with penalties and jail, even though those taxpayers never signed a contract saying they have to give a certain share of their income to the government.
        jahaja 13y ago
        My point was that it's not clearly defined - not necessarily to get your opinion on the two examples. But anyway, that's such black and white view that it's close to dogmatism. I reckon I would be wasting my time if I'd continue to discuss.
        Glide 13y ago
  - sergiosgc 13y ago
    > And who's to say what's fair? People keep talking about fairness, but the problem is that it's always the other guy or some corporation who's being unfair. It's never me. I do. I pay a 50% tax rate, and I like it. I love that my country has virtually zero crime. I like that education is free. I absolutely love that medical care is free. Some tasks are better taken care by the society as a whole, not by individuals. If that society as a whole is the demonized government, so be it. As long as they are not too inneficient.
    - snitko 13y ago
      So if your fellow citizen disagrees with you on what's fair, would you personally visit his house and extract that 50% out of his pocket?
      - scotty79 13y ago
        I think the proper way would be to take force buy his house and land for 50% of the value and transport him to the border of the country. Then kick him out. If you live somewhere you have to observe the rules of the society there. If the rule is 50% tax then that's it. "But I don't wanna." and "It's not fair." are not the valid points. It's not like it was in eastern block countries that you couldn't leave. Humans are social species. The reason you can own things is that people sort of agreed over the years that it's beneficial for the society to allow you to decide about what's to be done with some things. Within reasonable bounds of course. If you decide to slaughter the cow you own and use the remains to create biohazard you can expect to be disowned of some stuff pretty quickly.
        snitko 13y ago
        So there are around 10% of libertarians in the US. Would you say it would be fair to give those libertarians 10% of the land the US owns and let them live there as a separate country? After all, they have no less rights for the land of the country you live in than you, they were born here.
        13y ago
  - jjoonathan 13y ago
    > the problem is that it's always the other guy or some corporation who's being unfair Self-interest doesn't make someone incorrect. Isn't that one of the tenets of libertarianism? Also, it's not like the free market is some kind of objective tie-breaker. Outcomes in a market are highly sensitive to regulatory conditions. Before you suggest doing away with as many regulations as possible, consider that "regulatory conditions" can include things as basic as the definition of property, which is a problem that cannot be dodged in even the most libertarian of societies. Does society have a notion of intellectual property? If not, how do you propose to fund drug development? Can infrastructure be privately owned? If so, how do you stop natural monopolies from destroying competition? Should a company be allowed to buy up property surrounding your house and then ransom travel through their property off for all you are worth plus all you can borrow? The list goes on. > I'd say it is completely unfair that a government takes a portion of my income Whoa, there! You're assuming what you set out to prove: that the government's slice was yours to begin with. The social contract comes as a bundle deal. You "sign away" your tax dollars by being part of a society that provides services to you. Obviously no explicit consent is involved, but that's because it can't be involved. Voting is the best compromise we've been able to come up with. Even in a libertarian society, government provides one very important service that disproportionately benefits the rich: enforcement of property law. > Are people in the government somehow know the ultimate truth? No, the existence of government is a compromise between a free market that has flaws and a system of absolute control that also has flaws. We delegate responsibility for the areas where one system is hopelessly flawed to the other system (which merely has to do a better job, not a flawless job). Adam Smith himself acknowledged that the free market is not suited to provide certain services (police, infrastructure, military, etc). The goverment isn't aware of any "ultimate truth" here, but they aren't going to pull the whole "box you in and take all your money" stunt either.
    - snitko 13y ago
      The are plenty of ideas and solutions that answer your questions. I wouldn't like to repeat them now as it happens in every thread when I mention some libertarian ideas. I think the important thing to understand is that a government is not some magic cure for all the problems you mentioned. If you take a simple idea that a government is a monopoly on almost all of the things that it does, then you can go from here. Monopolies are mostly not good for consumers; and a huge one with an access to an unlimited force is certainly not.
  - Nursie 13y ago
    >> And who's to say what's fair? People keep talking about fairness, but the problem is that it's always the other guy or some corporation who's being unfair. It's never me. Nonsense. Our household is in the top 1% of households for earnings. We have no problem paying taxes. We'd like them to be lower for everyone (less waste) but we earn a lot and we contribute a lot to the world around us. This is a good thing.
gizmo 13y ago
Most people reject this Libertarian framing of the issue. The progressive point of view is that income redistribution is justified if it leads to a "better" or "more just" society; it's not about punishing successful people. They also don't think the world is anywhere close to a meritocracy, therefore the wealth people create is at least to a very large part a function of good fortune so there is no moral issue with wealth redistribution. The US busted unions and fought organised labor in general since the 1970s, and deregulated industry enormously. Also taxation is at a historic low. Those are the causes of the massive wealth presently accumulating at the top -- wealthy people today are not more meritocratic or harder working than wealthy people from the 1950s. But they're much, much wealthier. The reduction in real wages since the 70s has pushed regular people into debt (in an attempt to live a middle class lifestyle) with all the predictable negative consequences. This is even terrible from a libertarian point of view. Because a country without a middle class is a country without consumers.
- snitko 13y ago
  Most people rejected the idea that slavery is a bad thing for the most of human history. The problem with the idea that one's success somehow lies on the shoulders of the rest of the society (and therefore one is forever in debt to it, some may say) is that you can't prove it. You can say it, but you can't prove it. Some people got successful despite the hurdles society put in front of them. When you say taxation is at historic low you have to remember that it is those who are at the top and are in bed with politicians who can afford to pay low taxes. Starting entrepreneurs and mom and pop businesses pay a lot. That's not even mentioning the fact that they have a lot less options to protect their savings from inflation (which is also a tax). If you look at the US govt share in the economy it grew from about 8-10% in the 1930s to more than 50% now. Those who get enormously rich these days are mostly those who are in bed with the government.
  - tks2103 13y ago
    I don't understand what you are trying to say in the first paragraph. You can easily say that no one would be successful without roads or electricity, so there is always some percentage of a person's success derived from society. Society lowers the cost of innovation far more than any perceived hurdles it may place in front of people, in all but the most extreme cases (like Syria maybe?). So, what do you mean?
djrobstep 13y ago
Please do not pollute the discussion with this Orwellian libertarian redefinition of words. > And by honestly I mean he didn't force people to pay him and he didn't coerce anyone to pay him. Every economic transaction takes place within the context of coercion, because property rights are themselves coercion. For instance, people who need to work to pay the rent "choose" to work because they will be evicted from their shelter by law enforcement if they do not pay. Libertarians like to pretend that this sort of force doesn't exist, and only use the term "force" when other people enforce their right to property via taxation. It's totally intellectually dishonest, and I suspect most libertarians are aware of this but continue to use such terminology because it makes it less obvious that they are merely arguing for entrenchment of their own privilege.
- snitko 13y ago
  Government is simply one way to enforce property rights. It's a monopoly on force. If you had 3 or more major players on the market (and working on the same territory) you'd have your property rights enforced alright. The problem with the government is that because it is a monopoly, it is very easy for it to abuse the force it has.
- TruthElixirX 13y ago
  And I suppose the just thing would be "free" shelter for everyone so that humanity is "free" from work?
  - djrobstep 13y ago
    You seem to be erroneously concluding that I'm opposed to the concept of property rights.
  - nzp 13y ago
    Yes. That's exactly what would be just, among other things.
    - snitko 13y ago
      Then you can make it happen. Go, produce something valuable, make billions and spend it all on free shelter for everyone.

by snitko 13y ago

jahaja 13y ago

But is it fair?

snitko 13y ago
And who's to say what's fair? People keep talking about fairness, but the problem is that it's always the other guy or some corporation who's being unfair. It's never me. I'd say it is completely unfair that a government takes a portion of my income away from me and spends for what it considers to be important, while not giving me the slightest chance to spend it on things I consider to be an ultimate good for the world. Are people in the government somehow know the ultimate truth? Are they the ones who only do good, while taxpayers are evil?
- zrail 13y ago
  But you do have a huge opportunity to send your income to causes you deem worthy. If you're in the US you can generally donate up to 50% of your income to registered charities before paying federal taxes on it[1]. Society isn't free. You still have to contribute to the common good, but you do have a choice as to where a very large chunk of that contribution ends up. [1]: http://www.irs.gov/Charities-%26-Non-Profits/Charitable-Organizations/Charitable-Contribution-Deductions http://www.irs.gov/Charities-%26-Non-Profits/Charitable-Orga...
- jahaja 13y ago
  Alright, clearly a libertarian or similar with that kind of nose-dive into the problems of taxes while seeing no problem with the privileges of the wealthy. Regarding assumptions; I hope you realise how many assumption you made in your first post. Who's to say what's stealing, honesty, force etc. Do you really want to remove all the social responsibilities (taxes, fair wages etc) but keep all the privileges of the wealthy (private-property)?
  - snitko 13y ago
    Fairness and force are concepts. Stealing is action. I hope you can see why the latter is much easier to define than the former.
    - jahaja 13y ago
      Why is that? For example: a number of libertarians would say that the government is stealing a part of their income. I wouldn't. And on opposite side one could argue that the owner(s) are stealing a part of the workers income.
      - snitko 13y ago
        1. When a worker decides to work for an employer, he does so voluntarily. No one forces him to sign the contract. 2. When a government collects taxes, it does so threatening taxpayers with penalties and jail, even though those taxpayers never signed a contract saying they have to give a certain share of their income to the government.
        jahaja 13y ago
        My point was that it's not clearly defined - not necessarily to get your opinion on the two examples. But anyway, that's such black and white view that it's close to dogmatism. I reckon I would be wasting my time if I'd continue to discuss.
        Glide 13y ago
- sergiosgc 13y ago
  > And who's to say what's fair? People keep talking about fairness, but the problem is that it's always the other guy or some corporation who's being unfair. It's never me. I do. I pay a 50% tax rate, and I like it. I love that my country has virtually zero crime. I like that education is free. I absolutely love that medical care is free. Some tasks are better taken care by the society as a whole, not by individuals. If that society as a whole is the demonized government, so be it. As long as they are not too inneficient.
  - snitko 13y ago
    So if your fellow citizen disagrees with you on what's fair, would you personally visit his house and extract that 50% out of his pocket?
    - scotty79 13y ago
      I think the proper way would be to take force buy his house and land for 50% of the value and transport him to the border of the country. Then kick him out. If you live somewhere you have to observe the rules of the society there. If the rule is 50% tax then that's it. "But I don't wanna." and "It's not fair." are not the valid points. It's not like it was in eastern block countries that you couldn't leave. Humans are social species. The reason you can own things is that people sort of agreed over the years that it's beneficial for the society to allow you to decide about what's to be done with some things. Within reasonable bounds of course. If you decide to slaughter the cow you own and use the remains to create biohazard you can expect to be disowned of some stuff pretty quickly.
      - snitko 13y ago
        So there are around 10% of libertarians in the US. Would you say it would be fair to give those libertarians 10% of the land the US owns and let them live there as a separate country? After all, they have no less rights for the land of the country you live in than you, they were born here.
        13y ago
- jjoonathan 13y ago
  > the problem is that it's always the other guy or some corporation who's being unfair Self-interest doesn't make someone incorrect. Isn't that one of the tenets of libertarianism? Also, it's not like the free market is some kind of objective tie-breaker. Outcomes in a market are highly sensitive to regulatory conditions. Before you suggest doing away with as many regulations as possible, consider that "regulatory conditions" can include things as basic as the definition of property, which is a problem that cannot be dodged in even the most libertarian of societies. Does society have a notion of intellectual property? If not, how do you propose to fund drug development? Can infrastructure be privately owned? If so, how do you stop natural monopolies from destroying competition? Should a company be allowed to buy up property surrounding your house and then ransom travel through their property off for all you are worth plus all you can borrow? The list goes on. > I'd say it is completely unfair that a government takes a portion of my income Whoa, there! You're assuming what you set out to prove: that the government's slice was yours to begin with. The social contract comes as a bundle deal. You "sign away" your tax dollars by being part of a society that provides services to you. Obviously no explicit consent is involved, but that's because it can't be involved. Voting is the best compromise we've been able to come up with. Even in a libertarian society, government provides one very important service that disproportionately benefits the rich: enforcement of property law. > Are people in the government somehow know the ultimate truth? No, the existence of government is a compromise between a free market that has flaws and a system of absolute control that also has flaws. We delegate responsibility for the areas where one system is hopelessly flawed to the other system (which merely has to do a better job, not a flawless job). Adam Smith himself acknowledged that the free market is not suited to provide certain services (police, infrastructure, military, etc). The goverment isn't aware of any "ultimate truth" here, but they aren't going to pull the whole "box you in and take all your money" stunt either.
  - snitko 13y ago
    The are plenty of ideas and solutions that answer your questions. I wouldn't like to repeat them now as it happens in every thread when I mention some libertarian ideas. I think the important thing to understand is that a government is not some magic cure for all the problems you mentioned. If you take a simple idea that a government is a monopoly on almost all of the things that it does, then you can go from here. Monopolies are mostly not good for consumers; and a huge one with an access to an unlimited force is certainly not.
- Nursie 13y ago
  >> And who's to say what's fair? People keep talking about fairness, but the problem is that it's always the other guy or some corporation who's being unfair. It's never me. Nonsense. Our household is in the top 1% of households for earnings. We have no problem paying taxes. We'd like them to be lower for everyone (less waste) but we earn a lot and we contribute a lot to the world around us. This is a good thing.

gizmo 13y ago

Most people reject this Libertarian framing of the issue. The progressive point of view is that income redistribution is justified if it leads to a "better" or "more just" society; it's not about punishing successful people. They also don't think the world is anywhere close to a meritocracy, therefore the wealth people create is at least to a very large part a function of good fortune so there is no moral issue with wealth redistribution. The US busted unions and fought organised labor in general since the 1970s, and deregulated industry enormously. Also taxation is at a historic low. Those are the causes of the massive wealth presently accumulating at the top -- wealthy people today are not more meritocratic or harder working than wealthy people from the 1950s. But they're much, much wealthier. The reduction in real wages since the 70s has pushed regular people into debt (in an attempt to live a middle class lifestyle) with all the predictable negative consequences. This is even terrible from a libertarian point of view. Because a country without a middle class is a country without consumers.

snitko 13y ago
Most people rejected the idea that slavery is a bad thing for the most of human history. The problem with the idea that one's success somehow lies on the shoulders of the rest of the society (and therefore one is forever in debt to it, some may say) is that you can't prove it. You can say it, but you can't prove it. Some people got successful despite the hurdles society put in front of them. When you say taxation is at historic low you have to remember that it is those who are at the top and are in bed with politicians who can afford to pay low taxes. Starting entrepreneurs and mom and pop businesses pay a lot. That's not even mentioning the fact that they have a lot less options to protect their savings from inflation (which is also a tax). If you look at the US govt share in the economy it grew from about 8-10% in the 1930s to more than 50% now. Those who get enormously rich these days are mostly those who are in bed with the government.
- tks2103 13y ago
  I don't understand what you are trying to say in the first paragraph. You can easily say that no one would be successful without roads or electricity, so there is always some percentage of a person's success derived from society. Society lowers the cost of innovation far more than any perceived hurdles it may place in front of people, in all but the most extreme cases (like Syria maybe?). So, what do you mean?

djrobstep 13y ago

Please do not pollute the discussion with this Orwellian libertarian redefinition of words. > And by honestly I mean he didn't force people to pay him and he didn't coerce anyone to pay him. Every economic transaction takes place within the context of coercion, because property rights are themselves coercion. For instance, people who need to work to pay the rent "choose" to work because they will be evicted from their shelter by law enforcement if they do not pay. Libertarians like to pretend that this sort of force doesn't exist, and only use the term "force" when other people enforce their right to property via taxation. It's totally intellectually dishonest, and I suspect most libertarians are aware of this but continue to use such terminology because it makes it less obvious that they are merely arguing for entrenchment of their own privilege.

snitko 13y ago
Government is simply one way to enforce property rights. It's a monopoly on force. If you had 3 or more major players on the market (and working on the same territory) you'd have your property rights enforced alright. The problem with the government is that because it is a monopoly, it is very easy for it to abuse the force it has.
TruthElixirX 13y ago
And I suppose the just thing would be "free" shelter for everyone so that humanity is "free" from work?
- djrobstep 13y ago
  You seem to be erroneously concluding that I'm opposed to the concept of property rights.
- nzp 13y ago
  Yes. That's exactly what would be just, among other things.
  - snitko 13y ago
    Then you can make it happen. Go, produce something valuable, make billions and spend it all on free shelter for everyone.