3 ms·

It's still a totally inaccurate bait and switch title, which annoys me and makes me like his column a little less. If I click through to an article called "Bit

It's still a totally inaccurate bait and switch title, which annoys me and makes me like his column a little less. If I click through to an article called "Bitcoin is Evil", maybe I actually want to read about how a Bitcoin-dominated world is going to making exploiting the poor trivially easy. I'm not convinced yet, but it's a plausible (if normative) argument someone could make, so there's no sense in making a joke out of it. Especially if - like Krugman - you already support redistributionist taxation and the welfare state.

username223 13y ago
"...making exploiting the poor trivially easy.... you already support redistributionist taxation and the welfare state." Judging by the clichés you use, exploiting the poor is probably a good thing in your Libertarian utopia.
- etjossem 13y ago
  I'm not a libertarian. I am using the correct terms that apply to those policies. I don't think of the phrase "welfare state" as pejorative, nor was it originally intended to be so. A combination of redistributionist tax code and generous healthcare/education/benefits are working out really well for Scandinavia right now, and in my opinion we could learn quite a bit from what we're seeing in those countries. In my experience, strong libertarians prefer to avoid even mentioning that the poor exist.
  - gnaritas 13y ago
    > I don't think of the phrase "welfare state" as pejorative But since many others do, then it is. It is not the speaker which decides whether insult was intended, but the listener.
    - etjossem 13y ago
      I'm sorry if I offended you in some way. "Welfare state" is a widely accepted academic term, and I was using it in that context. I could just as easily have said "states with very progressive tax systems that offer substantial benefits to all citizens, rather than only those who pay." It would have gone over better with those of us who feel strongly about a US transfer payment system ("welfare"), but it didn't really roll off the tongue. Can we talk about the merits of the policy now?
      - gnaritas 13y ago
        I wasn't offended, I was merely pointing out that saying you don't think of it that way isn't really what matters in these matters; what others think is. But sure, talk about the policy, though I didn't disagree with anything you said policy related.
  - username223 13y ago
    My bad. Also, in my experience, strong libertarians believe that the way things are is the way they ought to be -- if you're poor, it's your fault.
nhaehnle 13y ago
Judging from a follow-up discussion, I believe you're using the word "redistribution" in a way that is meaningless and/or needlessly gives ground to a libertarian framing of the situation. In a nutshell, if you say "redistribution", you must have some baseline in mind. Many people are fooled into accepting an "everyday libertarian" distribution of resources as a baseline, but this is both philosophically problematic and politically foolish if you are not a libertarian yourself. Taxes are part of the distributive system of society, as are other parts of the legal code such as patents and copyright law. There is no reason to label one part of the law "redistributive" while you call other parts merely "distributive". Matt Bruenig makes the argument better than I could, e.g. http://mattbruenig.com/2012/09/20/there-is-no-such-thing-as-redistribution/ http://mattbruenig.com/2012/09/20/there-is-no-such-thing-as-... or http://mattbruenig.com/2013/11/14/one-last-note-on-redistribution/ http://mattbruenig.com/2013/11/14/one-last-note-on-redistrib...
- etjossem 13y ago
  Interesting read from Bruenig! While it's true that the term "redistribution" (as opposed to "distribution") implies a default where everyone gets back exactly as much value as they paid into the system, it's also common parlance for progressive taxation and equal benefits. That was the sense in which I used the term.

username223 13y ago

"...making exploiting the poor trivially easy.... you already support redistributionist taxation and the welfare state." Judging by the clichés you use, exploiting the poor is probably a good thing in your Libertarian utopia.

etjossem 13y ago
I'm not a libertarian. I am using the correct terms that apply to those policies. I don't think of the phrase "welfare state" as pejorative, nor was it originally intended to be so. A combination of redistributionist tax code and generous healthcare/education/benefits are working out really well for Scandinavia right now, and in my opinion we could learn quite a bit from what we're seeing in those countries. In my experience, strong libertarians prefer to avoid even mentioning that the poor exist.
- gnaritas 13y ago
  > I don't think of the phrase "welfare state" as pejorative But since many others do, then it is. It is not the speaker which decides whether insult was intended, but the listener.
  - etjossem 13y ago
    I'm sorry if I offended you in some way. "Welfare state" is a widely accepted academic term, and I was using it in that context. I could just as easily have said "states with very progressive tax systems that offer substantial benefits to all citizens, rather than only those who pay." It would have gone over better with those of us who feel strongly about a US transfer payment system ("welfare"), but it didn't really roll off the tongue. Can we talk about the merits of the policy now?
    - gnaritas 13y ago
      I wasn't offended, I was merely pointing out that saying you don't think of it that way isn't really what matters in these matters; what others think is. But sure, talk about the policy, though I didn't disagree with anything you said policy related.
- username223 13y ago
  My bad. Also, in my experience, strong libertarians believe that the way things are is the way they ought to be -- if you're poor, it's your fault.

nhaehnle 13y ago

Judging from a follow-up discussion, I believe you're using the word "redistribution" in a way that is meaningless and/or needlessly gives ground to a libertarian framing of the situation. In a nutshell, if you say "redistribution", you must have some baseline in mind. Many people are fooled into accepting an "everyday libertarian" distribution of resources as a baseline, but this is both philosophically problematic and politically foolish if you are not a libertarian yourself. Taxes are part of the distributive system of society, as are other parts of the legal code such as patents and copyright law. There is no reason to label one part of the law "redistributive" while you call other parts merely "distributive". Matt Bruenig makes the argument better than I could, e.g. http://mattbruenig.com/2012/09/20/there-is-no-such-thing-as-redistribution/ http://mattbruenig.com/2012/09/20/there-is-no-such-thing-as-... or http://mattbruenig.com/2013/11/14/one-last-note-on-redistribution/ http://mattbruenig.com/2013/11/14/one-last-note-on-redistrib...

etjossem 13y ago
Interesting read from Bruenig! While it's true that the term "redistribution" (as opposed to "distribution") implies a default where everyone gets back exactly as much value as they paid into the system, it's also common parlance for progressive taxation and equal benefits. That was the sense in which I used the term.