Libertarianism

[pErvinalia]

Putting aside the fact that I just specifically mentioned I'm not really a socialist (i.e. i'm still a capitalist of sorts), and that you have no idea what a socialist is....

Where you say "the proposition that the individual owes to the collective more by way of labor than is required to compensate the collective for his individual use of the resources and benefits of society."... this is just a feeling, not an objective assessment. Your feeling is that an individual is paying over more than they use/benefit, whereas I and others say that rich people are benefiting way more than they contribute. I suppose we could all go and hunt down a thousand figures to back up our own feelings on this, but I doubt either of us would be able to do a rigorous analysis in any reasonable timeframe. To me it seems a no-brainer that a healthy, stable and lawful society is the enabler of wealth creation in the first place, and things like inheritance and power games (i.e. not real work) are the reasons for much wealth accumulation at the top. You obviously disagree. Not sure we can get past this impasse.

[Cormac]

Well, free-marketeering, like I thought Friedman was an advocate for, would naturally lead to accumulation of capital, and therefore accumulation of power. How do libertarians propose to avoid that situation?

Oh, and by the way, Rothbard and Paul aren't critics of libertarianism. They are liberatarians themselves. They may or may not meet your criteria you just set above, but I don't have any reason to accept your criteria over self-avowed libertarians.

Just for a moment, imagine that I'm a tradesman - a plumber. I was born into a poor family, blighted by unemployment and so on. I managed to get myself trained as a plumber and over the years, I built up a reasonably busy business. At the end of each month, I have a modest excess of income (in other words - after I've paid my taxes and my bills, I have a little left over).

Because I want to provide for my retirement, or for a rainy day, I want to put this "surplus" aside for this purpose. There is no point in putting this money in a bank account - because inflation would strip away any value in the money every year. So I put my money into shares, or bonds, or commodities, or perhaps property - or perhaps I lend it to someone who agrees to pay some interest in addition to the principle in return.

This is accrual of capital. Taxes have been paid all the way along. What is the problem with this?

If I then feel that I would like to give my children a better start than that which I had experienced, and perhaps even my grandchildren - taxes have already been paid on this money - why should I not be able to give them this money?

If I chose instead to invest in an area that the government wishes to develop - and consequently, I enjoy a deferral of taxation. On the liquidation of the investment, I pay taxes and extract my capital and profit. What is the problem with this?

Accrual of Capital is not a bad thing. It is accrued capital that allows investment for the public good in addition to private good.

Capital itself is neutral - all it represents is accrued value/effort.

There's no problem in a general sense with what you describe here. I'm more or less a social democrat, so that makes me still a capitalist of sorts. The question comes down to the level of regulation and redistribution of wealth. I'd be happy for all these things you list to happen, as long as their was appropriate levels of regulation and redistribution. The problem with libertarianism is that it strips regulations away and considers redistribution of wealth an evil/immoral act. So you tend to get widening levels of wealth and income inequality, like we are seeing in the western world since the adoption of neo-liberal economic policies by both sides of the divide in the 80's. That disparity in wealth translates to a power imbalance, which itself is a shackle on the freedom of a large part of the population (the idea behind the 99% vs 1% concept). "Economic freedom" benefits most those with more.

I disagree.

Any power imbalance that exists is primarily because people abdicate their democratic responsibilities through political apathy. This vacuum allows those with money, or ideological agendas to have an undue influence over politics.

Redistribution of wealth is a very poorly defined term. I detest it, because it is so wooly. It can mean anything from a tiny sales tax to a 100% income tax. It also implies that there is no private property and that the state owns everything - and that is something I'd attempt to overthrow a government over.

[Cormac]

Double post.

[Cormac]

Putting aside the fact that I just specifically mentioned I'm not really a socialist (i.e. i'm still a capitalist of sorts), and that you have no idea what a socialist is....

Where you say "the proposition that the individual owes to the collective more by way of labor than is required to compensate the collective for his individual use of the resources and benefits of society."... this is just a feeling, not an objective assessment. Your feeling is that an individual is paying over more than they use/benefit, whereas I and others say that rich people are benefiting way more than they contribute. I suppose we could all go and hunt down a thousand figures to back up our own feelings on this, but I doubt either of us would be able to do a rigorous analysis in any reasonable timeframe. To me it seems a no-brainer that a healthy, stable and lawful society is the enabler of wealth creation in the first place, and things like inheritance and power games (i.e. not real work) are the reasons for much wealth accumulation at the top. You obviously disagree. Not sure we can get past this impasse.

What is "real" work?

What is not "real" work?

[pErvinalia]

actually expending time doing something. Inheriting wealth isn't work. And shifting money to the bank account of some lobbyist or politician isn't work.

[pErvinalia]

Well, free-marketeering, like I thought Friedman was an advocate for, would naturally lead to accumulation of capital, and therefore accumulation of power. How do libertarians propose to avoid that situation?

Oh, and by the way, Rothbard and Paul aren't critics of libertarianism. They are liberatarians themselves. They may or may not meet your criteria you just set above, but I don't have any reason to accept your criteria over self-avowed libertarians.

Just for a moment, imagine that I'm a tradesman - a plumber. I was born into a poor family, blighted by unemployment and so on. I managed to get myself trained as a plumber and over the years, I built up a reasonably busy business. At the end of each month, I have a modest excess of income (in other words - after I've paid my taxes and my bills, I have a little left over).

Because I want to provide for my retirement, or for a rainy day, I want to put this "surplus" aside for this purpose. There is no point in putting this money in a bank account - because inflation would strip away any value in the money every year. So I put my money into shares, or bonds, or commodities, or perhaps property - or perhaps I lend it to someone who agrees to pay some interest in addition to the principle in return.

This is accrual of capital. Taxes have been paid all the way along. What is the problem with this?

If I then feel that I would like to give my children a better start than that which I had experienced, and perhaps even my grandchildren - taxes have already been paid on this money - why should I not be able to give them this money?

If I chose instead to invest in an area that the government wishes to develop - and consequently, I enjoy a deferral of taxation. On the liquidation of the investment, I pay taxes and extract my capital and profit. What is the problem with this?

Accrual of Capital is not a bad thing. It is accrued capital that allows investment for the public good in addition to private good.

Capital itself is neutral - all it represents is accrued value/effort.

There's no problem in a general sense with what you describe here. I'm more or less a social democrat, so that makes me still a capitalist of sorts. The question comes down to the level of regulation and redistribution of wealth. I'd be happy for all these things you list to happen, as long as their was appropriate levels of regulation and redistribution. The problem with libertarianism is that it strips regulations away and considers redistribution of wealth an evil/immoral act. So you tend to get widening levels of wealth and income inequality, like we are seeing in the western world since the adoption of neo-liberal economic policies by both sides of the divide in the 80's. That disparity in wealth translates to a power imbalance, which itself is a shackle on the freedom of a large part of the population (the idea behind the 99% vs 1% concept). "Economic freedom" benefits most those with more.

I disagree.

Any power imbalance that exists is primarily because people abdicate their democratic responsibilities through political apathy. This vacuum allows those with money, or ideological agendas to have an undue influence over politics.

This issue is aside from politics in the sense that I was meaning it. Imbalances of wealth in a free market are imbalances of power.

And anyway, in libertarianism, money is considered speech. And even if it wasn't the right to do what with one's own money is a tenet of libertarianism. I.e. Freedom in the marketplace. Therefore political donation would be unfettered in libertarianism.

Redistribution of wealth is a very poorly defined term. I detest it, because it is so wooly. It can mean anything from a tiny sales tax to a 100% income tax. It also implies that there is no private property and that the state owns everything - and that is something I'd attempt to overthrow a government over.

Well you are going to have some level of redistribution in every system except pure unadulterated lassez-faire. There's very few people getting around who want a system like that. Not even Seth advocates for that.

[Beatsong]

Redistribution of wealth is a very poorly defined term. I detest it, because it is so wooly. It can mean anything from a tiny sales tax to a 100% income tax. It also implies that there is no private property and that the state owns everything.

No it doesn't. Not unless you're incapable of recognising any number between zero and infinity.

[Cormac]

actually expending time doing something. Inheriting wealth isn't work. And shifting money to the bank account of some lobbyist or politician isn't work.

So spending time trying to communicate to politicians about the particular challenges and needs of the unemployed, or cystic fibrosis sufferers, or agricultural workers is not "work" and so noone who engages in this kind of lobbying should ever be paid. Are you sure?

Can you clarify what you mean by "doing something"?

As for inheritance - going back to the hard working plumber example. Every penny that he earned through his working life was taxed. He wants to give his children a better start than he had experienced. As this money was already taxed, why should he not be able to transfer it to his children unencumbered?

[pErvinalia]

I said "inheritance and power games" are not real work. Fighting for cystic fibrosis sufferers is not a "power game".

Regarding your second part about inheritance - well, it depends on how much it was taxed in his life. You have to look at the overall tax burden to compare different distributions of taxation. Anyway, regarding why he possibly shouldn't be able to transfer it unencumbered - because the money might be better spent being reinvested in society. Paris Hilton might miss out on a couple of hundred mil, but she won't have to trip over so many poor beggars on her journey between her front doorstep and her limo.

[MrJonno]

I pay taxes to support people who are poorer than me as it is the humane thing to do.

No, you really don't. You may very well be pleased that your taxes, in part, go to support the less well off. But you pay taxes because you are legally obliged to.

More worried about the general public killing me if I don't pay taxes than the government

Jonno, you are one giant messed up mofo. I'd suggest seeing a psychologist, man.

What do you think happens to the middle classes if the those at the bottom condition gets too bad. They tend to riot and tend to start revolutions , which generally is not good for anyone.

Wealth redistribution is required to stop this happening so we can all live in peace, its protection money, hence if I don't pay my taxes the general public is likely to become a far greater threat to my health

[pErvinalia]

Well you should pay the military to lock them all up if you are only worried about your own welfare.

[MrJonno]

Well you should pay the military to lock them all up if you are only worried about your own welfare.

It's one option for the underclass but its a far more expensive one. the choices I can see are

a) shoot them all, messy expensive dangerous
b) lock them all up, even more expensive, dangerous
c) give them a pittance to keep them quiet

c) is the prefered option in the western world

[Cormac]

Redistribution of wealth is a very poorly defined term. I detest it, because it is so wooly. It can mean anything from a tiny sales tax to a 100% income tax. It also implies that there is no private property and that the state owns everything.

No it doesn't. Not unless you're incapable of recognising any number between zero and infinity.

It means that if property is only held at the absolute whim of the state, then private property is non-existent.

In Ireland, we have compulsory purchase orders, to divest private property. This is how we balance private property rights with the needs of the community.These orders are subject to a strict process and are subject to judicial review. This means that the state does not have control over private assets.

Other countries are not necessarily like this.

Where assets can be arbitrarily removed from private hands, then there is no such thing as private property.

[Cormac]

I said "inheritance and power games" are not real work. Fighting for cystic fibrosis sufferers is not a "power game".

So some lobbyists can be paid and some can't?

I note that your position is that inheritance and "power games" are not real work.

What is a "power game"?

What is "real work"?

Regarding your second part about inheritance - well, it depends on how much it was taxed in his life. You have to look at the overall tax burden to compare different distributions of taxation. Anyway, regarding why he possibly shouldn't be able to transfer it unencumbered - because the money might be better spent being reinvested in society. Paris Hilton might miss out on a couple of hundred mil, but she won't have to trip over so many poor beggars on her journey between her front doorstep and her limo.

Sorry. Can we keep this discussion focussed on the normal cases, and not the rare exceptions like Paris Hilton. Making generally applicable laws based on rare exceptions is a bad idea.

I note also that your assumption here is that the assets in question do not belong to the plumber, but to the state.

Regarding the tax paid - it would have been the tax levied during his working life, as levied by the state.

[Cormac]

I pay taxes to support people who are poorer than me as it is the humane thing to do.

No, you really don't. You may very well be pleased that your taxes, in part, go to support the less well off. But you pay taxes because you are legally obliged to.

More worried about the general public killing me if I don't pay taxes than the government

Jonno, you are one giant messed up mofo. I'd suggest seeing a psychologist, man.

What do you think happens to the middle classes if the those at the bottom condition gets too bad. They tend to riot and tend to start revolutions , which generally is not good for anyone.

Wealth redistribution is required to stop this happening so we can all live in peace, its protection money, hence if I don't pay my taxes the general public is likely to become a far greater threat to my health

I believe in a social safety net. I don't believe that we should see people starve on the side of the road, as happened here during the famine, (an event that had a lot less to do with potatoes than people think).

However, I am concerned at how the needs is measured.

It used to be that poverty was measured by way of a reference to necessities of life.

Today, because noone of sound mind starves in this country (and there are care structures I place for those not of sound mind), and (theoretically at least), noone should be without shelter, poverty is now calculated by reference to earnings of working people.

This means that we will never reach a point in time where poverty can be said to be eradicated. It is why people on welfare have widescreen tvs, several games consoles, foreign holidays, and the latest mobile gadgets.

Furthermore, getting the money from my pocket, to their pocket is extraordinarily costly, because the public derive is extraordinarily inefficient.

We are very far from a revolution by the poor. We are coming close to a revolution by taxpayers.