From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Individualism & the Common Weal
Date: 13 Nov 92 04:36:31 GMT
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA


 I'm trying to wind this discussion down because in a fit
of air-headedness I feel like being whimsical rather than
confrontational. But since Gene insists...

In article <1992Nov12.181712.3035@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>, gsmith@clio.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
> In article <1992Nov11.214348.2986@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com
> (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
> >  This, of course, depends on where a just government derives its
> >power. 
> 
> I like the social contract school, which leads to the idea that
> government derives whatever justice it has from the fact (if it is a
> fact) that you are better off with it than without it.  Since those
> with more property benefit more, they have the least claim to complain
> that the government is oppressively looting them.  Someone in a slum,
> without effective protection or much in the way of any benefit has the
> most right to complain that the government isn't fulfilling its side
> of the implicit bargain.  This would also be true in another way for
> groups such as gays and lesbians, to the extent that the government
> discriminates against or oppresses them (as, for instance, by sodomy
> laws.)  This violates the social contract and hence tends to remove
> the legitimacy of governmental power.

  Oh yes, I have heard of this school. One question, where/when did
I sign this contract? 
 
> >  I believe the former. Governments are instituted among people
> >to secure individual liberties from invaders, foreign and domestic.
> 
> Among other things.

  What "other things"?
 
> >Rights and property are not doled out by government, they are
> >independent of its (non)existence.
> 
> Nonsense.  Right, as an abstract moral thing, is indeed something you
> can consider apart from government.  Aside from personal items you are
> willing to carry around, it is hardly possible to consider property
> aside from a social order, which we have embodied in a government.

  On the contrary, property would exist even if no one were there
were no one take it. You probably wouldn't think of it in those
terms but it would exist none the less. I am actually surprised to
see that you can think of rights independent of government though.
Most Social Contract folks see them as being an artifact of 
governments as well.

> >  As far as force and property goes, where is the force involved in
> >the *act* of owning property? The only time force becomes an issue
> >is when one party tries to *take* a piece of property from another
> >person. 
  [deletions]
> Suppose a bunch of American Indians take over Alcatraz island.  They
> claim they never gave up title to the land, and therefore still own it.
> How do you know who really owns the land?  By whoever ends up (by force)
> in actual possession.

  This one intrigues me. Is the fact that we stole, by brute force,
Alcatraz (or whatever) from the Indians the last thing to be said?
Is brute force the bottom line in all social settings, or is there
a principle beyond that which, in the abstract, says that it was
wrong to confiscate their land?
 
> The bottom line is, force is what *defines* ownership.  The one on whose
> behalf the government is willing to exert force is the one who owns
> the property.

  Ugh. I hope this isn't the answer to the question above. Might
Makes Right, lovely.

> >Property is just a realization of the fact that nature does not 
> >deliver every desirable thing to you at any whim. As such some 
> >things are going to be scarce and an allocation scheme must be 
> >decided upon. 
> 
> By whom?  And on what basis?  That is the point.  The above is 
> compatible with just about any view of property, and so doesn't
> help at all.

  Actually, I was completely aware of that when I wrote it. It
was more of an illustration that property rights are natural 
consequence of man's existence. Like rights, man cannot exist
without *some* definition of property (if he is going to live
with other men, assumedly).

> >  Ceasars come much later in the scheme of property rights. 
> 
> What does that mean?

  Oh, it was an obscure reference to Ceasars just being a form of
a protection racket. I believe this is pretty much the way that
governments in the past have evolved. Note that you need to 
have something to be protected *before* the protection racket
can muscle in.

> >  Why? Because you say so? 
> 
> Didn't you read my article?  I've been giving reasons, you have
> been giving statements.

  Actually, I don't think you addressed that in your previous article
though your "social contract" comment above is sufficient for me
to understand where you are coming from.

> Anyway, what does this have to do with the fact that the manufacturing
> sector of the German economy is much healthier than its US equivalent,
> despite a higher tax rate?  Which was the point.

  Not that Germany is really germane to this discussion, I am not
convinced that the manufacturing sector of the German economy is
much healthier than its US equivalent. Generally, when I see comparisons
wrt Germany they are made against other EC states, most of which
are basket cases.
  Also, Germany doesn't pay for its own defense, which is a drain
not only monetarily, but "brainswise" as well. It would be very
difficult to make good comparisons since the economic differences
between the US and Germany are not so stunning that you could just 
ignore other considerations.

> >  I don't think you can even say that though. What evidence do
> >we have that high taxes produce a better standard of living? 
> 
> I was asking *you* what evidence it didn't, and citing Germany.  But
> you can make the same argument Laffer made with his infamous curve.
> If no taxes and confiscation both lead to a terrible standard of
> living, then something in between must be better.  In any case, it
> probably depends *at least* as much on what you spend the money on as
> how much you take.

  I'm not really interested in a war on my-tax-system-is-gets-
more-bang-for-the-buck-than-your's. There is *much* more than
taxes which effect an economy. Regulation is probably just as
important as overall tax rate -- and that skirts the issues of
inflation, borrowing, corruption, and plain old stupidity as well. 

> >We are still left with relatively high taxes in both systems
> >producing relatively small differences in productivity. 
> 
> We know what is higher and what is lower.  How do we know both
> rates are "high"?  Compared to what?

  Yes, but see above. This part of the argument is useless
unless we look at all of those factors. I'm honestly not up
to that though.
 
> >  The closest that we have in history wrt to productivity and
> >low taxes is the US, and perhaps on a smaller scale Singapore and
> >Hong Kong. These, I will submit, produced spectacular gains
> >in productivity -- far above the relatively high taxed states.
> 
> At this point I suppose I should introduce a red herring to the 
> effect that neither place has as many civil rights as they could.

  You are speaking of Hong Kong and Singapore I assume. No question
about that, they are quite repressive on social issues from my
understanding. If anything, they are probably more in the mold of
Germany in that respect.

> >  Jahowl! I didn't say that all government is bad. I'm not an
> >anarchist (for the third time).
> 
> Jahowl?  I like this word!

  Pthbbbt. It was the best I could remember from a Calvin cartoon :-)
How is it spelled? 
 
> But why are taxes "looting"?  Make up your mind!

  Actually, I think I explained my position in the last article.
Whether taxation, qua taxation, is looting in *all* cases I have
not decided. Taxes which support a just government might be OK
since this obviously eliminates the free rider problem. But it
is not clear to me that the free rider problem would be particularly
onerous in a minimalist government; thus taxes may not be necessary.
As such, I would take a (gasp) pragmatic view and see how things
were panning out.
  Taxes which go to support functions which are not related to
the defense of individual liberties are looting though.
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)