Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ut-ngp.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!teddy!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm From: kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: More on justice Message-ID: <1175@ut-ngp.UUCP> Date: Thu, 10-Jan-85 20:58:06 EST Article-I.D.: ut-ngp.1175 Posted: Thu Jan 10 20:58:06 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 13-Jan-85 06:52:19 EST References: <283@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> Organization: U.Texas Computation Center, Austin, Texas Lines: 164 [Disclaimer: I am not a member of the Libertarian party; nor may any statements I make be construed to represent the viewpoints of *anyone* besides myself.] >From: carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) > >From a recent posting by a libertarian: > >> Taxation is theft.... > >Please give us a break from this type of rhetoric. Your cute little story below is far worse than the above quotation, for being pure rhetoric. > If you simply mean that >taxation is the transfer of wealth by (the implied threat of) force, no one >can disagree. Then how can you even admit the possibility that taxation might be just? Am I to understand that you consider the use of force to be justified? > If you mean that taxation is UNJUST, you must present >arguments in support of a theory of distributive justice on which such an >assertion must be based. Not necessarily. I appear to have missed the "distributive justice" discussion; however, there is a very simple reason why taxation is immoral: it is the enforced payment of a non-contractual pseudo- obligation. The key word is *non-contractual*. Taxpayers never (at least in this country) entered into an agreement with the government whereby the government would provide each of them with well-defined services for well-defined costs. (And even if one set of taxpayers did enter into such an agreement, that would be ethically binding neither on their descenants nor on their contemporaries.) > And thereby hangs another tale.... > >In Libertaria, a future libertarian society, Jack inherits $1 zillion. He >spends his days playing tennis and polo, driving his Rolls, and sipping >Courvoisier by the poolside with the many women who wish to share his >wealth. Note that we immediately have loaded rhetoric here: Jack is put up to be a prime example of a wealthy person; the claim is then made that the average person of wealth is a wastrel. But what Mr. Carnes declines to recognize explicitly is that wealth does not exist in a vacuum -- it must be *produced*. Even $1 zillion (whatever that is) will not last forever unless it is somehow maintained. Thus it is that Jack (as seen below) owns a factory. Jack's method of producing wealth is to make it possible for others to produce goods in his factory. If this factory didn't exist, people like Jill might have no way to support themselves at all. > Whenever he gets into legal trouble (e.g., for paternity), The story continues to be loaded against Jack. I wonder why Mr. Carnes chose to pick on sexual morality here. It appears to have the same relevance to the rest of the example as the comment about Jack's church attendance below. > he >engages the top legal talents of Gouge & Swindle to get him off the hook. As I understand libertarian principles, such as society would not even have lawyers -- the legal system would not be sufficiently complex to require such specialists to help people defend their rights. >He attends church regularly This is irrelevant. Religion has nothing to do with anything else except when used as a basis for coercion of others. But Jack is not engaged in any discernible coercion. > to give thanks that he lives in a society where >freedom prevails and he is not forced to sacrifice his values for the >benefit of others, whether through paying taxes or compulsory military >service It is reasonable to be happy about a good situation. > (Libertaria has been fighting a war against totalitarian >aggressors). Note that even Mr. Carnes admits the existence of totalitarian agression. But he does not establish the relevance of Jack's non-sacrifice. > >Across town lives Jill. She works 12 hours a day, except when she's been >laid off, in the Acme Asbestos plant which Jack owns. She never gets very >far ahead of poverty; her sons were killed in the war. Since there is no >OSHA or EPA, Maybe not, but there would almost certainly be unions... > she must rely on the cheapest lawyers in town, Torts-R-Us, to >represent her Once again, no lawyers needed, so none to be hired. > in her suit against Jack when she contracts cancer from >working in the plant (their record against G&S is zip-500).... The story continues to be loaded, protraying the typical employer (Jack) to be unethically unconcerned with potential dangers to his employees. > >We see here how Jack's possession of property gives him dominance over Jill, I don't. I think you're twisting the meaning of the word "dominance" here. My roommate's dictionary defines it as "control or authority". The fact that Jack has more money than Jill does not, per se, give Jack control or authority over Jill. >a situation that a socialist society would be designed to prevent (at least >in my concept of socialism). You wish to prevent something which does not exist? > Libertarians say that if Jack's heart bleeds >for Jill, he is free to donate some of his wealth to her or perhaps marry >her. This is true, but entirely beside the point: libertarians believe >that the distribution of wealth is just, WHETHER OR NOT Jack gives away any >of his bucks. The ONLY criterion for justice, say they, is whether the >distribution of wealth is the result of free-market transactions in the >absence of force or fraud. > >Such a view seems hard to beat for sheer moral turpitude. Is this truly >your idea of a decent society, libertarians? The common moral sense of >mankind holds that, in some sense, people should get what they deserve and >deserve what they get. Not so, say (all, most, some) libertarians: >considerations of desert are irrelevant to justice. Why does someone deserve other that what he/she can get through free trade of value for value? I think your apparent view, that Jack is obligated to give away something in return for nothing, is "hard to beat for sheer moral turpitude". > ... > >From the foxhole of >Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes It appears that Mr. Carnes has no rational basis for his argument, merely a blind hatred of wealth. I gather from this article that he would level wealth distribution, thus reducing everyone to a common level of misery: under such a system there is a counter- incentive against production, since most of the values any one person produces are immediately taken from him/her (by force if necessary), and distributed to those who did not produce it. Is this your idea of a "decent" society, Mr. Carnes? -- The above viewpoints are mine. They are unrelated to those of anyone else, including my cats and my employer. Ken Montgomery "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" ...!{ihnp4,allegra,seismo!ut-sally}!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA [for Arpanauts only]