Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site unmvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!zehntel!tektronix!hplabs!hao!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!unmvax!cliff From: cliff@unmvax.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: More on justice Message-ID: <573@unmvax.UUCP> Date: Tue, 8-Jan-85 14:50:01 EST Article-I.D.: unmvax.573 Posted: Tue Jan 8 14:50:01 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 12-Jan-85 01:43:09 EST References: <283@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> Organization: Univ. of New Mexico, Albuquerque Lines: 136 > From a recent posting by a libertarian: > > > Taxation is theft.... > > Please give us a break from this type of rhetoric. If you simply mean that > taxation is the transfer of wealth by (the implied threat of) force, no one > can disagree. 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. And thereby hangs another tale.... Taxation is unjust. The money is taken from hard working citizens and is spent by myopic politicians. The majority of benefits of income redistribution are aimed at the middle class, who can easily make do without them ('specially if they don't have to pay the taxes in the first place). A good percentage of the few programs that are directed at the poor establish a dependence on the programs which are available only to the poor and hence create an incentive to stay poor. > In Libertaria, a future libertarian society, Jack inherits $1 zillion. He As opposed to the wealth that is always associated with the ruling class in socialist countries... They *earn* it. Please point out a socialist country where there isn't a ruling class (yes, I know there isn't supposed to be such a thing, but look at them all). > 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. Whenever he gets into legal trouble (e.g., for paternity), he > engages the top legal talents of Gouge & Swindle to get him off the hook. Surprise, since the legal code would be so much easier to understand it would be inconceivable that a lawyer's prowess would enter into the play. Of course if there were sufficient corruption, then the wealthy would still be getting the freebies, but we are talking about a libertarian country with a minimalist government that is non prone to corruption; we are not talking about one of the many socialist governments riddled with graft. > He attends church regularly 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 (Libertaria has been fighting a war against totalitarian > aggressors). If the lack of a draft is so harmful then Libertaria will fall and Jack will be out on his ass and you will be as happy as a clam, so what's eating you there? Could it be that you prefered the Vietnam days draft of the U.S. that allowed people to avoid military service if it could be shown that they would be receiving considerably less pay than they would be making on the outside? > 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, she must rely on the cheapest lawyers in town, Torts-R-Us, to > represent her in her suit against Jack when she contracts cancer from > working in the plant (their record against G&S is zip-500).... This is utter bullshit! How about Jill is constantly employed, since there is no unemployment. Jill doesn't have to worry about inflation and has had enough money to save up for her future years. Her sons both opted not to join the service since there was little incentive (think what the volunteer armed services would be like if there were 100% employment of civilians...). Why can't I write a similar paragraph: Across town lives Jill. She lives in an utter rat hole, since she and the other people in her project do not own the building they do not care for it and it is as poorly maintained as your average ghetto government-funded project. She works 12 hours a day because the socialist society has determined that by doing so she would be optimally benefitting society. The only time she doesn't work is when there are shortages of products essential to her plant. She isn't included on the poverty list because it would not be optimal for the state to admit to the conditions of its workers. One of her sons was drafted and killed in war, the other after seeing the fate of his brother turned to criticizing the government. He was captured, put in an insane asylum, experimented upon and eventually died. She has absolutely no recourse whatsover when she contracts cancer due to the working conditions; the government doesn't allow itself to be criticized much less sued. Oh, but I am being to kind. Maybe a more succint story would be: Jill dies before she is even 10 years old, because the socialist government that she lives under did not allow its citizens to prepare adequately for the drought that has hit her nation. Free market countries with sympathetic citizens rush food that their country has in abundance to her nations aid, but much of it arrives too late. > We see here how Jack's possession of property gives him dominance over Jill, > a situation that a socialist society would be designed to prevent (at least > in my concept of socialism). 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. You already knew that Jack was redistributing his wealth. Every time he buys a Rolls Royce, money is transfered. If his money is sitting in a bank then it is being used by some project that is transferring money. If his money is sitting in gold bars in his basement it is keeping inflation down. > Such a view seems hard to beat for sheer moral turpitude. Is this truly > your idea of a decent society, libertarians? Why of course it is, I wouldn't have typed it in if it weren't. What? I *didn't* type it in? Who did? Oh, then it must be *his* view of a decent society. Duh. > 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. Well, perhaps the > common moral belief of mankind is wrong. I am increasingly intrigued by the > libertarian concept of distributive justice (and so should you be, as > libertarianism is a growing political force in the US). I await with great > interest a libertarian explanation as to why we should accept Nozick's > theory of DJ in preference to any alternative theory. Again, I have stated that I doubt this medium can be used to convince you of the boons of libertarianism. Lets discuss a smaller issue in depth. How about the issue of conscription. I guess you think it is wise for a country to allow slavery. I don't. Shall we volley the issue a few times? > P.S. Will the socialists on the net PLEASE STAND UP AND IDENTIFY > THEMSELVES? I am beginning to feel as lonely as a moderate > Republican....Perhaps they have gone underground, plotting the overthrow of > the American Way of Life.... > > From the foxhole of > Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes --Cliff [Matthews] {purdue, cmcl2, ihnp4}!lanl!unmvax!cliff {csu-cs, pur-ee, convex, gatech, ucbvax}!unmvax!cliff 4744 Trumbull S.E. - Albuquerque NM 87108 - (505) 265-9143