YOu guys blew past Cobb without any notice. For shame.

[P]roperty rights are no different than any other rights -- they exist ONLY to the extent they are created and recognized by society as a whole, as a part of a "social contract".

But a "social contract" is a total fiction too. Why does your imaginary "social contract" trump Nieporent's imaginary "fundamental rights"?

And to a libertarian, requiring a restaurant owner to serve the public without regard to race is the equivalent of "stealing" his property.

It's just this sort of One Size Fits All aspect of the libertarian ideology that prevents it from being taken seriously as a political force by many people this side of Idaho.

Yup, that general public is a bunch of deep thinkers.

Although not to libertarians, because the public still can't quite see the connection between public accommodations laws and "stealing."

So, I take it you now agree that people are right to be less likely to vote Obama because of his connection with Wright? After all, that's what a majority said in the Rasmussen polls. So bow down to the wisdom of the populace.

The RCP national poll average now shows Obama with a nearly 5 point lead over McCain and a nearly 8 point lead over Clinton---all this after a steady ten week barrage of YouTube clips of Rev. Wright. I have a lot more faith in the public's eventual weighing of this issue in November that you should have in its coming around to seeing the 1964 Civil Rights Act as a form of "stealing."

But far be it for me to try to discourage Ron Paul or Bob Barr from running against McCain. Let a hundred flowers bloom!

In my life, both personal and professional, I've dealt with a number of very successful people. The vast majority of them did not inherit great wealth. Rather, they tend to work very, very hard. Most people in the top echelons of large corporations are workaholics who put in a tremendous amount of hours and are "on call" virtually 24/7. There are of course exceptions... some are crony/AA hires and are unqualified. Some are at the end of their careers and are essentially retired in place. And some are just plain lazy/inept. But as a general rule, most very successful people I've known, either in my career or my personal life, whether they work for a large corporation or own their own business, worked their ass off. Including the CEOs who come from upper middle class families and attend Ivy league schools.

This only stands to reason, but it's not much of an argument against estate taxes, unless you can say that it's only been since its repeal that such noble hardworking types were predominant within the CEO culture, and that reinstating it would revert them all back into slackjawed yokels.

The RCP national poll average now shows Obama with a nearly 5 point lead over McCain and a nearly 8 point lead over Clinton---all this after a steady ten week barrage of YouTube clips of Rev. Wright.

I believe this argument dovetails with the one made earlier about systemic issues determining elections. People have a very short memory for phenomena not related to sitcoms or pop music, and will probably vote their material conditions over ideals. Thus, bad economy and a bad war have more tangible impact on people than a candidate's friends or confidants.

[P]roperty rights are no different than any other rights -- they exist ONLY to the extent they are created and recognized by society as a whole, as a part of a "social contract".

But a "social contract" is a total fiction too. Why does your imaginary "social contract" trump Nieporent's imaginary "fundamental rights"?

Well, at this point we usually let the political process decide that. And since judges are appointed, it's up to the electorate to determine what sort of judges it wants. Which means that all this is going to be determined much more by elections than by the cleverness of the warring parties' constitutional deconstructionists.

Which is why any talk by either Clintonites or McCain-haters about boycotting the general election shows that in both cases they've got a screw loose somewhere.

Andy, I don't consider it stealing, but I don't consider it freedom, either. Them with the gold makes the rules and them with the guns have their say, too. So if the majority want to tell us all to stand our heads we'll have to. I think you make good points about the potential for harm from evil people and evil corporations. But you also completely ignore the potential for evil from governments, which have always been responsible for the greatest atrocities in the world.

In practical, "real-world" sense, you can't protect someone by law without infringing on the freedom of another. Of course, this applies to all law - if you are to be protected from murder, my freedom to kill is infringed. We all agree (I hope) that this is a good thing. But if your "right" to eat in my restaurant is protected, you have infringed my right to serve who I like. You can't have it both ways. Either the government gets to be involved in the minutest details of every day life or we can say we're free. But not both. You (and most Americans) have decided where you fall on that, which is fine. But don't ##### about it when they tell you to do something you don't like. If the government has an interest in who eats in what restaurant then you have no good logical argument against their favoring any other business (like a large corp). I do definitely agree with you that the modern American government is far too closely tied to major corporations and that this is an inherently un-libertarian operation. Taht the Republicans have become such lackeys of big business does turn me off but not because that is a libertarian leaning of theirs but because it isn't. Big business should be free to operate as they like, but if they pollute my water, they should be held accountable and if they fail to make money, they should go out of business, not be rescued. that is libertarianism.

the 1964 Civil Rights Act as a form of "stealing."


Incidentally, where did this come from? Was it posted by a lib on this site or from a lib website? Or did you make it up?

This only stands to reason, but it's not much of an argument against estate taxes, unless you can say that it's only been since its repeal that such noble hardworking types were predominant within the CEO culture, and that reinstating it would revert them all back into slackjawed yokels

That's sophistry. Nobody's saying that happened or would happen. Society also wouldn't fall apart if we passed a law that required holocaust denial loonies to be sterilized, but that the consequences wouldn't be disastrous does not justify the law.

But hey, if people don't want libertarianism, nobody's forcing them to have it. They can all sign waivers of their rights if they feel like it.

48 to go!

Incidentally, where did this come from? Was it posted by a lib on this site or from a lib website? Or did you make it up?

It was directed at me and I've expressed quite a bit of mixed feelings. Ideally, I wouldn't want the CRA to be in place, but the government caused a great deal of damage towards blacks that I'm not sure how to repair otherwise (and to a lesser extent, women).

But you also completely ignore the potential for evil from governments, which have always been responsible for the greatest atrocities in the world.

You're going to make organized religion cry like that kid with no date to the prom if you keep ignoring it like this.

the 1964 Civil Rights Act as a form of "stealing."

Incidentally, where did this come from? Was it posted by a lib on this site or from a lib website? Or did you make it up?

Don't take it from me. Run a poll of the local libertarians right here and ask them: Are federal public accommodations laws a form of stealing?

And by your own first paragraph, if it's not stealing, then why is it not? And no fudge words, please. It's either stealing or it isn't.

As to the bulk of your argument, only two points:

1. I have never complained when anybody's made arguments like this (about CR laws being "stealing"). In fact, if anything I want to give those arguments the widest circulation possible, since they're such perfect poster boys for the reductionist nature of the hardcore libertarian philosophy, and can only serve as immunizers against more subtle forms of their case.

2. I am well aware of the potential for governments to do evil. I also know how to write and chew gum at the same time. Being aware of that evil potential does not require me to view every proposed regulation with the sort of paranoid suspicion that I see from the hardcore libertarians. It's not much more complicated than that.

Incidentally, where did this come from? Was it posted by a lib on this site or from a lib website? Or did you make it up?

It was directed at me and I've expressed quite a bit of mixed feelings. Ideally, I wouldn't want the CRA to be in place, but the government caused a great deal of damage towards blacks that I'm not sure how to repair otherwise (and to a lesser extent, women).

See, when the real world intrudes on theory, there's going to be a discussion that gets us somewhere. I also agree that in an ideal world there would be no need for such laws.

But you also completely ignore the potential for evil from governments, which have always been responsible for the greatest atrocities in the world.

You're going to make organized religion cry like that kid with no date to the prom if you keep ignoring it like this.

Well, for much of history there was no real difference between the church and state. But your point is taken.

Andy, perhaps my definition of stealing is too narrow. I wouldn't consider it "stealing" if you gave me $1 million for my house (quite a bit more than it is worth). But, if I were forced to accept the offer, I wouldn't consider it a free choice. I guess I don't get your two sentences: in one, you say "form of stealing" but, in another, you say, "it's either stealing, or it's not". Those seem in conflict, to me.

I do think remediation of government racism and sexism is warranted. Those should not interfere with private citizens.

You're going to make organized religion cry like that kid with no date to the prom if you keep ignoring it like this.

Without governments enforcing its will or granting it the property of others, organized religion would have been toothless.

And to a libertarian, requiring a restaurant owner to serve the public without regard to race is the equivalent of "stealing" his property.

To be precise, it's the equivalent of stealing his labor, which is his property. There's a word for forcible labor; I can't think what it is at the moment. Perhaps one of our race-obsessed liberal friends who still think this is 1860 can remind me?

But a "social contract" is a total fiction too. Why does your imaginary "social contract" trump Nieporent's imaginary "fundamental rights"?

Well, at this point we usually let the political process decide that.

No, I don't agree with this either. Minority protection from the majority has to rely on more than just "the political process" because the process belongs to the majority.

This only stands to reason, but it's not much of an argument against estate taxes, unless you can say that it's only been since its repeal that such noble hardworking types were predominant within the CEO culture, and that reinstating it would revert them all back into slackjawed yokels

That's sophistry. Nobody's saying that happened or would happen. Society also wouldn't fall apart if we passed a law that required holocaust denial loonies to be sterilized, but that the consequences wouldn't be disastrous does not justify the law.

Yes.... especially since Andy hasn't presented an argument FOR estate taxes other than, "Rich people shouldn't have so much money." However, the real point of my post was to debunk the idiotic notion that most wealthy people inherited their money. If people here are so consumed with envy that others have more money, have the courage of your convictions and say so, rather than hiding behind cowardly hedges about inherited wealth.

2. I am well aware of the potential for governments to do evil. I also know how to write and chew gum at the same time. Being aware of that evil potential does not require me to view every proposed regulation with the sort of paranoid suspicion that I see from the hardcore libertarians. It's not much more complicated than that.

Based on the number of your posts railing about "evil corporations" (just about all of them) as opposed to "evil government," (zero and counting) it's understandable people would feel the need to point it out.

In my life, both personal and professional, I've dealt with a number of very successful people. The vast majority of them did not inherit great wealth. Rather, they tend to work very, very hard. Most people in the top echelons of large corporations are workaholics who put in a tremendous amount of hours and are "on call" virtually 24/7. There are of course exceptions... some are crony/AA hires and are unqualified. Some are at the end of their careers and are essentially retired in place. And some are just plain lazy/inept. But as a general rule, most very successful people I've known, either in my career or my personal life, whether they work for a large corporation or own their own business, worked their ass off. Including the CEOs who come from upper middle class families and attend Ivy league schools.

I want to echo this. Of course there are some out there whose parents are rich and who never work a day in their lives as a result. But in contrast to earlier eras, most rich work much harder than everyone else. I am not stating that it's as simple as "the poor need to work harder if they want to be rich" -- working smarter is just as important, and a bit of luck wouldn't hurt -- but it's certainly not as simple as "the rich live lives of leisure, sitting around drinking champagne and eating caviar while the poor are toiling away in the sweatshop below," either.

Some liberals have tried to make Paris Hilton the poster girl for the death tax (disregarding the fact that she hasn't inherited anything), but while she might be somewhat decadent, she's not a member of the idle rich.

And to a libertarian, requiring a restaurant owner to serve the public without regard to race is the equivalent of "stealing" his property.

It's just this sort of One Size Fits All aspect of the libertarian ideology that prevents it from being taken seriously as a political force by many people this side of Idaho.

I see Andy is back to his usual utterly bankrupt argument of claiming that the public doesn't agree with something, so it must be wrong. It's a retarded argument when it's about Barry Bonds, and it's just as retarded here. Why Andy is incapable of defending a position on the merits is beyond me -- except that his positions are often indefensible.

Some liberals have tried to make Paris Hilton the poster girl for the death tax (disregarding the fact that she hasn't inherited anything), but while she might be somewhat decadent, she's not a member of the idle rich.

And even if she was, unless she simply stuck her money under her mattress and lived as a hermit, every dollar she spends or invests is giving someone else a job.

And even if she was, unless she simply stuck her money under her mattress and lived as a hermit, every dollar she spends or invests is giving someone else a job.

Well, yes, there is that, too. Honestly, if one listened to liberals, one would think that "the rich" set their money on fire just to spite the poor, as if the money wasn't recirculated.

Andy hasn't presented an argument FOR estate taxes other than, "Rich people shouldn't have so much money."

Andy, I would imagine, can speak for himself :) but I do think that historically, that's precisely the argument for estate taxes, as well as for regulations that prohibit primogeniture and other kinds of entailments that concentrate wealth over the course of several generations. A healthy free economy depends in part, and paradoxically, on continual leveling of the playing field, at least so that theory would go.

Well, yes, there is that, too. Honestly, if one listened to liberals, one would think that "the rich" set their money on fire just to spite the poor, as if the money wasn't recirculated.

Exactly. Second hand money. Pssh...

In my life, both personal and professional, I've dealt with a number of very successful people. The vast majority of them did not inherit great wealth. Rather, they tend to work very, very hard. Most people in the top echelons of large corporations are workaholics who put in a tremendous amount of hours and are "on call" virtually 24/7. There are of course exceptions... some are crony/AA hires and are unqualified.

This is too much. All the very successful people you know work really hard...except those lazy women and minorities who are gifted it, of course. Yeah, I know you went on to name the old and the lazy, too, but that's the point I started LQTM.

I'm sure most very successful people work very hard. I think most manual laborers work very hard, too. And the reason one guy's a landscaper and the other's a lawyer isn't because the latter was willing to be on call and the former was not.

And I don't see why we should limit this to "very successful people." I don't see much reason to think that a middle manager who grew up middle class and went to State U is working any harder than a waiter who grew up poor and had to work after high school.

I think everyone agree that, all else equal, the people who work harder achieve more financial success. But we all know that everything isn't equal, and that inequality has a a lot to do with who ends up achieving relative financial success.

Honestly, if one listened to liberals, one would think that "the rich" set their money on fire just to spite the poor, as if the money wasn't recirculated.

So we should be grateful all those higher-ups (and their lawyers) at Enron, Worldcom, Bear Stearns, etc., ad infinitum are spending their hard-earned money so the rest of us have a chance at a decent existence?

And even if she was, unless she simply stuck her money under her mattress and lived as a hermit, every dollar she spends or invests is giving someone else a job.

Well, yes, there is that, too. Honestly, if one listened to liberals, one would think that "the rich" set their money on fire just to spite the poor, as if the money wasn't recirculated.

First, the rich do save a much higher percentage of their money than the poor do. Second, the idea that the money Paris Hilton spends is equally helpful to the less wealthy as, say, money spent on Medicaid is preposterous.

So we should be grateful all those higher-ups (and their lawyers) at Enron, Worldcom, Bear Stearns, etc., ad infinitum are spending their hard-earned money so the rest of us have a chance at a decent existence?

Where do you think investment capital comes from? Homeless venture capitalists? And when a rich person buys another house or another car or travels, do these things simply materialize out of thin air?

I know my fair share of wealthy people, and agree that they work hard. This is not the French aristocracy. The question is how much of the yields of that work they have a legitimate claim to, and how much of what appears to be their work is actually the work of others. No one labors in isolation- we all work within a structured network of other laborers. Extracting value from the labor of others is a skill, to be sure, but that value can only be extracted because there is a whole other network in place that our hard-working individual had nothing to do with- infrastructure, stable currency, talented pool of labor, ect. No one produces on their own millions of dollars worth of profits- they do it through the organizing and structuring of the work of others. To this extent, part of the yields of that collective work ought to be put back into a system that benefits all of those working within it from the bottom up. Equal opportunity is not just about the income level of the household you were born into- there are many other environmental factors as well (John Roemer makes this argument in Equality of Opportunity). People at the top work very hard, as do many people at the bottom. Managing a McDonald's might not be quite as hard as running the McDonald's corporation, but the guy running the corporation has perks beyond free chicken mcnuggets to help relieve the stress the job puts on him. Plus, past a certain point, the guy running McDonald's isn't worried about surviving, but rather about maintaining an extremely high standard of living- his labor is tied to more than his material well-being; it becomes about successful performance as an end unto itself, whereas for the manager, failure places their ability to exist in question.

Recognizing the sheer amount of wealth that's generated by the collective labor of all those within this network, many liberals including myself argue that some of this wealth should be put aside to maintain minimal standards of living for all those within the system. Recognizing that the system depends on a base rate of non-labor, even those who do not labor should enjoy this standard of living. Libertarians continue to mobilize this mythical place where their wealth does not accrue from the labor of others, but such a place never existed. They set the rules to the game, the parameters of what counts as theirs and not theirs, and then assert that these are not arbitrary and contestable rules at all but natural rights that no one has the legitimacy to call into question. The market mechanism for determining the compensation one gets for their labor is arbitrary, but libertarians want to naturalize this mechanism and claim that any adjustment of that valuation is theft, without recognizing that the original valuation itself is a form of theft.

This is why they come off looking like greedy SOBs.

First, the rich do save a much higher percentage of their money than the poor do.

And where do you think these savings are? A secret magical sack? The money's out there, being loaned by banks for people to start businesses or get houses, cars, or additional education.


Second, the idea that the money Paris Hilton spends is equally helpful to the less wealthy as, say, money spent on Medicaid is preposterous.

Whether it's preposterous or not is irrelevant. It would also be preposterous to suggest that the time my next door neighbor spends mowing his ####### lawn every other evening is equally helpful as him using that time to do volunteer work. It's just that it's none of my business and I have no right to compel him.

So we should be grateful all those higher-ups (and their lawyers) at Enron, Worldcom, Bear Stearns, etc., ad infinitum are spending their hard-earned money so the rest of us have a chance at a decent existence?

Yes.

First, the rich do save a much higher percentage of their money than the poor do.

Saving money is not "setting it on fire." You do understand that putting money in the bank causes it to be recirculated too, right? (Sheesh, you can't win with liberals. They complain about materialism and overconsumption and lack of savings, but then when we talk about the rich, they complain that the rich save more than the poor.)

Second, the idea that the money Paris Hilton spends is equally helpful to the less wealthy as, say, money spent on Medicaid is preposterous.

Yes; it's certainly "preposterous" to argue that giving someone a job is more helpful than giving him welfare.

The question is how much of the yields of that work they have a legitimate claim to,

Everything that people voluntarily give them.

and how much of what appears to be their work is actually the work of others. No one labors in isolation- we all work within a structured network of other laborers.

Right, and those laborers are paid for their labor. Nobody took it from them. (Well, the rich didn't, anyway; the government does take it from people.)

Libertarians continue to mobilize this mythical place where their wealth does not accrue from the labor of others, but such a place never existed.

First, libertarians are not the same as the wealthy. Second, libertarians do no such thing. Libertarians recognize that whatever wealth they have may be the result of the labor of others, but don't see what that has to do with the price of tea in China. Those "others" are paid for their labor. (And, of course, the fact that wealth may be the result of the labor of others has nothing to do with the issue of welfare for people who aren't laboring at all.)

The market mechanism for determining the compensation one gets for their labor is arbitrary, but libertarians want to naturalize this mechanism and claim that any adjustment of that valuation is theft, without recognizing that the original valuation itself is a form of theft.

It is not in the least bit "arbitrary." It is intersection of the amount someone is willing to voluntarily pay for that labor and the amount someone is willing to voluntarily accept for that labor. There's no basis for "adjusting" that "valuation." And taking someone's property by force is not "adjusting valuation." It's theft.

Question for libertarians: Do you really believe that if there were only enough taxes for national defence, police, fire departments, etc. and no redistributive programs like Medicare and Social Security and little regulation of business income inequality would not explode? That many more people would not die from inability to afford healthcare? That businesses would not become more likely to exploit workers or release dangerous products? Or do you believe this all would happen, but it's the price that must be paid for "liberty" or whatever?

I'm not trying to start a fight, i'm just curious as to whether Libertarianism is more about the idea that everything would be better with less government or more about the ideal of "liberty"

Where do you think investment capital comes from?

I'd like to turn the question around on you. Where do you think it comes from? Although I suspect I know the answer already...

And I don't see why we should limit this to "very successful people." I don't see much reason to think that a middle manager who grew up middle class and went to State U is working any harder than a waiter who grew up poor and had to work after high school.

Though you do not say as much, I surmise that you think it is a problem that waiters work hard and earn so little, while managers work hard and earn much more.

If so, that is because you are measuring work by input rather than output. Anybody can wait tables. It is not a difficult job, and it is not a valuable job. This is akin to thinking that a utility infielder should make the same salary as an ace starter, since he works just as hard. The key to making a living is not "working hard," it is "doing work that is valuable to someone." That is good; that is the way it should be. Otherwise, you end up with a society of very hard workers doing nothing of value.

First, the rich do save a much higher percentage of their money than the poor do.

Saving money is not "setting it on fire." You do understand that putting money in the bank causes it to be recirculated too, right? (Sheesh, you can't win with liberals. They complain about materialism and overconsumption and lack of savings, but then when we talk about the rich, they complain that the rich save more than the poor.)

Second, the idea that the money Paris Hilton spends is equally helpful to the less wealthy as, say, money spent on Medicaid is preposterous.

Yes; it's certainly "preposterous" to argue that giving someone a job is more helpful than giving him welfare.

This goes back to what I was saying on the previous page about having more respect for libertarians than conservatives--the libertarians are generally more honest. Conservatives try to make silly arguments like: the poor are better off with the rich having money than they would be having money themselves. Libertarians tend to say: Sorry, dude, but if I want to be my brother's keeper I'll give to charity.

Yes, some of the money Hilton pays for her designer shoes goes to the people who actually make and sell the shoes. Much more of it, however, goes to the people who own the manufacturers and retailers of the shoes. And, yes, some of the money she puts in a bank makes its way to poorer people in the form of loans. But accumulating debt isn't quite as helpful to a person as not having to borrow the money in the first place would be.

I'd like to turn the question around on you. Where do you think it comes from? Although I suspect I know the answer already...

It comes from Democrats farting lollipops that turn into magical rainbows. Is that the answer you'd prefer?

Yes, some of the money Hilton pays for her designer shoes goes to the people who actually make and sell the shoes. Much more of it, however, goes to the people who own the manufacturers and retailers of the shoes.

And, in turn, the manufacturers and retailers of the shoes spend money on things as well.

And, yes, some of the money she puts in a bank makes its way to poorer people in the form of loans. But accumulating debt isn't quite as helpful to a person as not having to borrow the money in the first place would be.

Having to pay for my car instead of getting my car would have been a lot more helpful to me as well. But it would have been stealing.

Though you do not say as much, I surmise that you think it is a problem that waiters work hard and earn so little, while managers work hard and earn much more.

No, that's not my point at all. My point is that the quality of opportunities people have growing up play a large role in determining who becomes the waiter and who becomes the manager. It's not as simple as the people who work harder achieving more success.

Where do you think investment capital comes from?

I think a better question (to which I expect a similar answer) is why do you think any investment capital at all has actual impact on people living in trailer parks in Lockport, Fraser, the outskirts of Fresno, or anywhere else? I'd have to look at the figures, but I would doubt the occupations available to those in those areas have scant relation to the jobs investment capital generally creates.

Andy, perhaps my definition of stealing is too narrow. I wouldn't consider it "stealing" if you gave me $1 million for my house (quite a bit more than it is worth). But, if I were forced to accept the offer, I wouldn't consider it a free choice. I guess I don't get your two sentences: in one, you say "form of stealing" but, in another, you say, "it's either stealing, or it's not". Those seem in conflict, to me.

I do think remediation of government racism and sexism is warranted. Those should not interfere with private citizens.

So then to you the PA act is a form of stealing, since without question it forced Lester Maddox into the position of having to serve blacks or to close his restaurant.

------------

especially since Andy hasn't presented an argument FOR estate taxes other than, "Rich people shouldn't have so much money."

Again, it's a matter of competing interests, which libertarians simply deny. In this case, the interest is the need for government revenue, and the estate tax (which wouldn't, and IMO shouldn't, begin until you pass the $2 million mark) is one of many ways of obtaining that revenue that seems relatively unobjectionable---unless you object to all estate taxes as a matter of principle.

I guess I just don't agree with that principle. Two million bucks is enough to keep anyone out of the poorhouse for awhile, and in the rare case where a family is forced to sell its business to pay the estate taxes, I'd even try to write a provision in the law that would minimize that possibility, which is NOT something I'd want to see under any circumstances.

------------
And to a libertarian, requiring a restaurant owner to serve the public without regard to race is the equivalent of "stealing" his property. It's just this sort of One Size Fits All aspect of the libertarian ideology that prevents it from being taken seriously as a political force by many people this side of Idaho.

I see Andy is back to his usual utterly bankrupt argument of claiming that the public doesn't agree with something, so it must be wrong.

Yes, David, I do agree with testing our theories in the court of public opinion, AKA the electoral process. How radical a concept.

But I'm perfectly willing to defend the CRA on the grounds of competing interests that have to be weighed in the balance: The rights of property owners vs the interest of society in not allowing the weight of social mores to come down in a disproportionately burdensome fashion on a minority of citizens, and in particular on members of a racial minority who were regrettably unable to fill out a choice of skin color on a birth application before they were born.

To you, the "argument" simply consists of saying "yes, but so what?" to the second competing interest. Or, alternately, "Let them open their own restaurants," or "It would have solved itself, given enough time." But we've been down this road before, and there's really no need to do so again.

And it's not as if I've had "the public" on my side for my entire life, or have it on my side in all other questions. But what I do claim is that when the public disagrees with us, it's either up to us to convince the public of the rightness of our beliefs, and get the laws changed, or defy the public (and sometimes the law) and be willing to face the consequences. As in jail time.

It's this attitude that separates the democrat (small "d") from the autocrat, the draft resister from the draft dodger, and the tax resister from the tax evader. These are not minor distinctions. They were certainly well understood by the leaders of the civil rights movement.

------------------

And on the great Paris Hilton question, whatever that is, just let her pay her taxes like anyone else, and leave her alone. Does anyone really care one way or the other about Paris Hilton?

Everything that people voluntarily give them.

We're back to the founding myth, the myth that work does not involve coercion. Were we starting for scratch, from a completely blank slate, this would be true. But that isn't the case at all; some people have very little say in how much they sell their labor for, or whom they sell it to. This notion of a stable and free subject is a fairly recent (bourgeois) invention, and without it, your founding myth falls apart. People are constrained by all sorts of structural factors; pretending they aren't is willfully ignoring and denying reality. And it's also pretending that those at the top don't and won't conspire to keep those at the bottom in their place.

But we've been here before, and you know the lie at the heart of your beliefs. Willfully and voluntarily presume the existence of subjects in states of absolute freedom which have never existed. The advantaged set the rules of the game to maximize their advantage over and against the disadvantaged, and your little story is all part of that game. I'm not going to pretend it violates some transcendent morality, but in exchange I'll ask that you not try to give your argument extra weight by pretending your right to claim the labor of others as your own comes from nature.

I think a better question (to which I expect a similar answer) is why do you think any investment capital at all has any actual impact on people living in trailer parks in Lockport, Fraser, the ourtskirts of Fresno, or anywhere else?

If they have jobs, then those jobs were created by investment in companies and created goods at prices they can afford. It's those investments that have made it possible for 70% of people below the poverty line to afford a car or a truck (with a quarter having two or more), 96% saying they have enough to eat, the majority having air-conditioning, and having more living space, on average, than the average European.

This is too much. All the very successful people you know work really hard...except those lazy women and minorities who are gifted it, of course. Yeah, I know you went on to name the old and the lazy, too, but that's the point I started LQTM.

I notice you skipped over my reference to "cronies," who are often white male beneficiaries of a good ole boy system. But don't let reality stand in the way of your self-righteousness. FWIW, I support AA programs, although I'd like to see them reformed to place more emphasis on economic rather than racial/gender status.

I'm sure most very successful people work very hard. I think most manual laborers work very hard, too. And the reason one guy's a landscaper and the other's a lawyer isn't because the latter was willing to be on call and the former was not.

Most people who are employed work hard. Most manual laborers do not get texts on their blackberry at all hours of the day and night that require their immediate attention. When they're at work, they work. When they're not at work, they don't work. That is not the case for most successful people who own their own businesses or who are at the top of the corporate ladder.

FWIW, I support AA programs, although I'd like to see them reformed to place more emphasis on economic rather than racial/gender status.

I agree with that.

Most people who are employed work hard. Most manual laborers do not get texts on their blackberry at all hours of the day and night that require their immediate attention. When they're at work, they work. When they're not at work, they don't work. That is not the case for most successful people who own their own businesses or who are at the top of the corporate ladder.

But are the manual laborers and CEOs where they are because of their respective willingness to have a blackberry on at all times?

My salary as an English professor is lower than that of many professionals, but it's been worth it just to avoid that #@&$#*%*ing Blackberry.

Though you do not say as much, I surmise that you think it is a problem that waiters work hard and earn so little, while managers work hard and earn much more.

Where I live, waiters at high end restaurants make a bit more than their managers (assuming tips count)...

Question for libertarians: Do you really believe that if there were only enough taxes for national defence, police, fire departments, etc. and no redistributive programs like Medicare and Social Security and little regulation of business income inequality would not explode?

Well, yes I do believe that, but I wouldn't care if it did. Inequality isn't even an interesting topic to me. Bill Gates having lots of money does me no harm. (To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to [get rich]. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.") The economy is not a zero sum game where "inequality" means that the people at the bottom are getting worse off.

Even if people were hurting absolutely rather than relatively, I wouldn't believe that it justified government intervention, but at least it would be a matter of concern. But the mere fact that the relative difference between people is increasing is irrelevant to me.

That many more people would not die from inability to afford healthcare? That businesses would not become more likely to exploit workers or release dangerous products? Or do you believe this all would happen, but it's the price that must be paid for "liberty" or whatever?

I believe both -- that these things won't happen, but that if they did, that would be the price we pay for living in a free society.

I believe both -- that these things won't happen, but that if they did, that would be the price we pay for living in a free society.

If some unseen tragedy hits you and/or your loved ones and you end up subsisting on welfare and government programs, please allow me to remind you of your philosophical satisfaction with this situation.

(EDIT: Bill Gates gives a CRAPLOAD of money to charity. I have a lot of respect for his work in this regard. Even if I do use a Macintosh. :-) )

But in contrast to earlier eras, most rich work much harder than everyone else. I am not stating that it's as simple as "the poor need to work harder if they want to be rich" -- working smarter is just as important, and a bit of luck wouldn't hurt -- but it's certainly not as simple as "the rich live lives of leisure, sitting around drinking champagne and eating caviar while the poor are toiling away in the sweatshop below," either.

I tend to avoid participating in these kinds of discussions, because while it is interesting to hear people's worldviews, I have never seen a lot of value in trying to talk people out of them. In my experience, people alter worldviews on their own steam, based on a combination of intellectual and personal exp. Further, I think it is important to recognize the difference between "personal worldview" and "cost benefit effects of actual legislation." My worldview, and some of the choices I have made as a result of it, is not really "legislatable." It is too leftist, and I wouldn't force it on others. The world is far more complex than any one take on it.

That said, while I am sure a lot of rich people do work very hard, I do know that a lot of people, like me, who are not rich and never will be, work hard as hell, too. Additionally, it is not just a question of "working smarter." Some activities--such as teaching, as I explained on page 14 of this very thread--are simply not translatable to significant personal wealth generation in a capitalist economy. In the case of teaching, this revolves around the fact that it is a soft skills job and the fact that it cannot really be "sold" to millions of people simultaneously, like, say, what Dustin Pedroia does. There are certainly opportunities to make extra money in my field, generally revolving around curriuclum development and textbook publication, but for people who just love to teach (or, say, be nurses or firefighters or cops or carpenters or truck drivers) the generation of massive wealth through vocational activity is not really a possibility.

Within the context of business investment and entrepreneurial activities, it is of course a different calculus, but again based on people I know who have done it, it is not simply a question of working harder or smarter. Variables outside of personal qualities come into play as well.

Yes.... especially since Andy hasn't presented an argument FOR estate taxes other than, "Rich people shouldn't have so much money." However, the real point of my post was to debunk the idiotic notion that most wealthy people inherited their money. If people here are so consumed with envy that others have more money, have the courage of your convictions and say so, rather than hiding behind cowardly hedges about inherited wealth.

I can say without any hesitation that I don't envy the rich. I am sure a lot of people do, but most of the people I deal with enjoy the classroom and their lives. I would also suggest, that if you are going to engage in these kinds of attacks, that you should have "the courage of your convictions" and simply say that you think rich people are better and smarter than poor people, and also better than someone who does what I do and makes the money I make, if that is what you believe. If it is not, please clarify.

We are, ultimately, arguing over a question of balance, in the sense that we are drawing a line as to how much and in what ways the government should be involved in the capitalist economy. It is not that "liberals like government power" as Nieporent often says when he is feeling frisky. It is simply that we don't believe that unchecked capiatlist activity is always the best alternative for the common good, for strengthening the civic estate and socioeconomic infrastructure, and for helping the less fortunate. As Obama said, the Republicans do have better ideas in some areas about business and how to build the economy, but the fact that I don't buy into all of them does not mean that I am "conusmed with envy that others have more money." It means that I think that the free market is not always the best way to help those who have little or nothing.

Yes, David, I do agree with testing our theories in the court of public opinion, AKA the electoral process. How radical a concept.

It is a radical concept. Truth is not a matter of "public opinion." Neither is principle. And I don't believe you, anyway. I don't believe that when someone said, "Segregation is unjust," that you ever replied with one of your snide, "Ha, ha, the public doesn't agree with you, so that's a crazy argument" lines. You only "agree with" that when it happens to agree with you.

But I'm perfectly willing to defend the CRA on the grounds of competing interests that have to be weighed in the balance:

Sure, but I'm not. Rights are not mere "interests" to be balanced against other "interests." (Sure, black slavery was bad, but what about the interests of the white slaveowners? Just think about how they were harmed in having their slaves freed.)

It's this attitude that separates the democrat (small "d") from the autocrat, the draft resister from the draft dodger, and the tax resister from the tax evader. These are not minor distinctions. They were certainly well understood by the leaders of the civil rights movement.

The dichotomy you try to draw is very telling; you only see one possibility: collective decision making. Either the group decides collectively for everyone, or one person decides collectively for everyone. But you're making a category error. A draft dodger was not an "autocrat." He wasn't imposing his will on other people; he was merely resisting having their will imposed on him.

Certainly, public civil disobedience of the sort King and the civil rights movement often engaged in, in an attempt to persuade others of the rightness of their views, was fine. But there was nothing wrong with a black who "dodged" rather than "resisted" -- that is, who secretly evaded Jim Crow laws, and tried to avoid the consequences. That was just as justified, and not a sign of being an "autocrat."

If some unseen tragedy hits you and/or your loved ones and you end up subsisting on welfare and government programs, please allow me to remind you of your philosophical satisfaction with this situation.

Why would David end up subsisting on welfare and government programs? You are presenting a false dilemma. The choices are not A.) Starve to death or B.) Live like a leech off of other people's confiscated wealth. There are always more options.

Great post, RR - said much better than I could have. (Er, my ability is no belwether for your greatness. Heh. But you get what I mean.)

Saving money is not "setting it on fire." You do understand that putting money in the bank causes it to be recirculated too, right? (Sheesh, you can't win with liberals. They complain about materialism and overconsumption and lack of savings, but then when we talk about the rich, they complain that the rich save more than the poor.)

I think your argument is fundamentally sound. There is the criticism that the wealthy tend to "freeze" more money (which investment firms readily admit) by disproportionately holding real estate or commodities. But I understand that even some of this money eventually gets cycled back into the economy in the form of mortgages, other loans, etc.

The fundamental problem is how that wealth is distributed. I know that you understand the relationship between poverty and crime, poverty and education, and the like. We have enough empirical evidence that spending money, investing money, or any other transaction starting with the wealthy does not trickle down to a roughly egalitarian distribution. To an extent, the relative values of different labor outputs are determined in the free market, as flournoy says. To another extent, that value system was determined under several assumptions and associations that are not logically sound (for example- there is a strong argument that teachers are compensated below their market worth because the determination was made when teaching was associated with women, who were presumed to have a second income on which to rely).

Additionally, the argument about opportunity is important. If people could produce a more valuable output, but do not get the opportunity to produce that output because of systemic or institutional biases, the market system has failed.

The question, then, is what type of society we hold in the highest regard. Do we most prefer a society that provides equal opportunity in a vacuum, regardless of institutional history, personal bias, or systemic disadvantage? 18% of Americans do not earn a living wage when we try to account for these biases; and I think that pretending they do not exist will solve the problem. Another option would be to over-correct on an institutional level with more welfare programs, but the structure itself is so bloated with red tape and incompetence that millions fall through the holes. Ideally, I would prefer a system that devolves control to more localized and responsive entities. Even city governments are too inefficient; much more needs to be done within communities, passing responsibility upwards rather than down (not that the federal government should immediately be responsible for all poor people, but communities cannot create economies of scale for manufactured goods, so there needs to be some kind of communication and interaction on the macro-level).

You're all republitards and libtards.

Didn't do it? Damn.

For the record breaker:

Obama '08!

Why would David end up subsisting on welfare and government programs? You are presenting a false dilemma. The choices are not A.) Starve to death or B.) Live like a leech off of other people's confiscated wealth. There are always more options.

I didn't say if some tragedy (savings and 401K wiped out by the next Enron, an infinite number of possible expensive medical conditions, etc.) befell him he would HAVE to subsist on government programs by default. But in those situations, the odds are high it would be one of the more common options. Hence my use of the word "IF" as opposed to "WHEN", eh?

By the way, I appreciate the calling of everyone getting money from government programs and benefits a "leech". My grandmother in her assisted-living Veterans home with all her widowed friends and veterans also appreciate it.


We have enough empirical evidence that spending money, investing money, or any other transaction starting with the wealthy does not trickle down to a roughly egalitarian distribution.

I think this is what David and Dan were specifically disputing. I may be wrong, but I thought their stance pointed to this trickle-down as a given.

I can say without any hesitation that I don't envy the rich. I am sure a lot of people do, but most of the people I deal with enjoy the classroom and their lives. I would also suggest, that if you are going to engage in these kinds of attacks, that you should have "the courage of your convictions" and simply say that you think rich people are better and smarter than poor people, and also better than someone who does what I do and makes the money I make, if that is what you believe. If it is not, please clarify.

I don't think they're better than you (or, more to the point, me (smiley face)). I don't think a person's "goodness" is tied in anyway to their net worth. I think it is admirable and good that you'd choose to make less money doing a job you enjoy and that you believe is important. Does that mean you should do it for free? Does it mean we could all take a vote and decide to cut your salary by half because, after all, you could still live on that?

I suppose I'm not a hardcore lib. I do think there should be some checks on private behavior for the collective good. I just believe those checks should be far less than than they are now (and, in agreement with Andy, distributed differently).


Now we go for Ryan.

But are the manual laborers and CEOs where they are because of their respective willingness to have a blackberry on at all times?

To some degree yes, as Bob's post in #4246 demonstrates.

I don't think anybody is denying that there are inequalities in the world that affect your odds of becoming a CEO vs. a manual laborer. You're probably going to be more successful being born into an intact, upper middle class family as opposed to a broken, impoverished home.

That said, when I look at the most successful (wealth-wise) people I've met, they are invariably the people most committed to achieving monetary success. They work harder, longer and are more willing to make sacrifices in other areas of their life. Are there some manual laborers out there that would gladly make the same tradeoffs if they could get the opportunity? Without question. But most people I know, me included, aren't interested in trying that hard to be rich.

I didn't say if some tragedy (savings and 401K wiped out by the next Enron, an infinite number of possible expensive medical conditions, etc.) befell him he would HAVE to subsist on government programs by default. But in those situations, the odds are high it would be one of the more common options. Hence by use of the word "IF" as opposed to "WHEN", eh?

I can only speak for myself, but I would not participate in such a program unless there truly were no other choice, because of my philosophical convictions. If resigning yourself to that is one of the more common options, that is a sad reflection on society.

By the way, I appreciate the calling of everyone getting money from government programs and benefits a "leech". My grandmother in her assisted-living Veterans home with all her widowed friends and veterans also appreciate it.

I don't recall saying anything about "everyone" who does anything, perhaps you can point me in the right direction. But I'm glad to hear that you and your grandmother appreciate what I didn't say, so let me know if I can be of any more help to you. (I'm charitable like that.)

I don't think a person's "goodness" is tied in anyway to their net worth

.

Precisely, and, that, ultimately on a certain level is the reason why capitalism, while it is a great system in many respects, should not IMO be totally unchecked.

Does that mean you should do it for free? Does it mean we could all take a vote and decide to cut your salary by half because, after all, you could still live on that?

I see this as a false dichotomy, (or trichotomy, given the two questions and the implied choice) in that there are too many structural factors, as formerlydp pointed out, that effect those relative incomes and who has the money that they have to directly compare someone making what I make and doing what I do EDIT: with someone making a couple of million a year as a commodities trader. EDIT: and of course I pay taxes every year now, and would be willing to pay a bit more more if I thought that they would go to the things I believe in. I do not see paying taxes as oppressive or coercive, since while the money is taken without "input from me" as Dan said, it also means that roads are built and cops and soldiers are armed and trained without effort from me. (Unless, as Andy said, one is simply operating on pure principle, which ties to the point I was making about worldview vs. legislation). I think one can argue that the balance is tilted too much towards the govt in some respects, but I do not see estate taxes on huge inherited fortunes, for example, as severely impacting the property rights of the wealthy nor as being damaging to society. Where I think Libertarians should focus their arguments is on actual government pork, which BOTH Demos and Repubs are involved in, not on sticking up for Paris Hilton (or Lee Atwater and Trent Lott for that matter).

I didn't say if some tragedy (savings and 401K wiped out by the next Enron, and infinite number of expensive medical problems) befell him he would HAVE to subsist on government programs by default. But in those situations, the odds are high it would be one of the more common options. Hence by use of the word "IF" as opposed to "WHEN", eh?

First would be family. Second would be friends. Third would be charity. Government need not enter into the equation at all, although it's so big and creates so much deadweight loss that charity finds it hard to get enough oxygen to breathe.

In reference to subsisting on government programs:

The choices are not A.) Starve to death or B.) Live like a leech off of other people's confiscated wealth.

Then:

I don't recall saying anything about "everyone" who does anything, perhaps you can point me in the right direction.

Are people who subsist on government programs living like leeches off other people's confiscated wealth, yes or no? If it's a "maybe" then you can damn well accept your sweeping generalizations when challenged on them.

First would be family. Second would be friends. Third would be charity. Government need not enter into the equation at all, although it's so big and creates so much deadweight loss that charity finds it hard to get enough oxygen to breathe

This makes perfect sense. But that's a narrow scope. When there is no family, your friends are as poor as you, and there is not enough charity to go around?

I really do see your point here David, it's just that life is really not that simple for everyone. I can never get why you don't accept this as it happens around you.

Question for libertarians: Do you really believe that if there were only enough taxes for national defence, police, fire departments, etc. and no redistributive programs like Medicare and Social Security and little regulation of business income inequality would not explode?

Well, yes I do believe that,

Dave you are a smart guy, but if you really believe that...

but I wouldn't care if it did. Inequality isn't even an interesting topic to me.

That I believe you believe, but I believe you are wrong, you WOULD care if income inequality exploded, because that would be extremely socially destabilizing- which would likely effect you personally one way or the other.

. I do not see paying taxes as oppressive or coercive, since while the money is taken without "input from me" as Dan said, it also means that roads are built and cops and soldiers are armed and trained without effort from me.

And the government is also taking your money and your childrens' money from you to make a mess in Iraq. How's that working?

As I've said before, obviously, our society isn't currently equipped to handle some of these changes suddenly, I'm a minarchist, not an anarcho-capitalist. I do feel, however, that libertarian ideas should be applied to current institutions as much as possible in an effort to streamline them and allow as much freedom as can be practically "gotten" at this point.

And I strongly believe that every new government restriction on freedom should be fought aggressively, even if the consequences of that restriction are minimal. Libertarians won't stop the imminent legislation on global warming, but the more resistance there is, the more likely that the eventual legislation will have clearer goals, finite costs, and fewer restrictions on freedom than otherwise.

I want to second what Robin said about not envying the wealthy. I wouldn't mind having more money, but if I wanted it, I could switch careers and get it, or change fields slightly to earn it. My career hasn't really matured yet, but when it does I'll be at a comfortable level. I'm very lucky though- Roemer's argument is that the value placed on higher education in one's family growing up has as much to do with income in how likely it is they'll pursue one, and I knew from age 4 I was expected to get at least a BA, despite the fact that neither of my parents had gone that far. This system has worked very well for me. I have friends who make several times more what I do, and many of them hate the actual work they do, or, even if they like the work, know that the only benefit it has is lining someone else's pockets while they try to line their own. I've had bad things happen to people in my life, and more money wouldn't have stopped them from happening. But at the same time, we had very good health insurance when those bad things happened, disability laws, and a union that fought to insure that the bad things wouldn't cost us our livelihood. A lot of people without those things have had their lives ruined by similar events. So, on a personal level, that's where I'm coming from...

YOu guys blew past Cobb without any notice. For shame.

You also just blew by 4256 and Pete Rose

Dave you are a smart guy, but if you really believe that...


Income inequality requires government to enforce it. Serfdom only ended when governments could no longer prevent people from freely owning and trading the product of their labor. Libertarians also aren't going to give big business special subsidies, dirt-cheap deals for land and infrastructure, or allow businesses to use eminent domain to build condos.

it's just that life is really not that simple for everyone

Indeed.

Government need not enter into the equation at all, although it's so big and creates so much deadweight loss that charity finds it hard to get enough oxygen to breathe

.

Well, I assume this means you think that if people paid far less in taxes that there would be far more collective involvement in charitable endeavors. I find this proposition dubious intuitively and of course very difficult if not impossible to prove.

Again, it is a worldview issue and therefore hard to argue about.

I would also suggest, that if you are going to engage in these kinds of attacks, that you should have "the courage of your convictions" and simply say that you think rich people are better and smarter than poor people, and also better than someone who does what I do and makes the money I make, if that is what you believe. If it is not, please clarify.

I see no need to clarify, since I never said or implied any of the things you're attributing to me. If you really believe children should be raped by male teachers, why don't you just say so outright? And if not, you really should clarify.

Yes, David, I do agree with testing our theories in the court of public opinion, AKA the electoral process. How radical a concept.

It is a radical concept. Truth is not a matter of "public opinion." Neither is principle. And I don't believe you, anyway. I don't believe that when someone said, "Segregation is unjust," that you ever replied with one of your snide, "Ha, ha, the public doesn't agree with you, so that's a crazy argument" lines. You only "agree with" that when it happens to agree with you.

Actually, what I did was to try to convert them with argument, and simultaneously try to change the laws by repeated acts of civil disobedience, in the form of sit-ins at restaurants. It wasn't an either-or thing. But fortuntely for me, and unlike in the case of many of my fellow demonstrators, I didn't have to spend a lifetime waiting for the law to change.

And I might add that we (my fellow demonstrators and I) managed to win over more than a few opponents prior to the passage of the law. They weren't all quite as dogmatic about their libertarianism as some of you all are.

But I'm perfectly willing to defend the CRA on the grounds of competing interests that have to be weighed in the balance:

Sure, but I'm not. Rights are not mere "interests" to be balanced against other "interests." (Sure, black slavery was bad, but what about the interests of the white slaveowners? Just think about how they were harmed in having their slaves freed.)

Again this concept that there's a clear distinction between the sort of interests (or "rights") you're talking about and the sort sort of interests that I've mentioned. It's admittedly tough to counter an argument when the other person gets to set all the ground rules, and only one set of interests (in this case property rights) are accorded full credentials. Works better in the Friendly Confines than it does on the road, as I'm sure you're well aware.

It's this attitude that separates the democrat (small "d") from the autocrat, the draft resister from the draft dodger, and the tax resister from the tax evader. These are not minor distinctions. They were certainly well understood by the leaders of the civil rights movement.

The dichotomy you try to draw is very telling; you only see one possibility: collective decision making. Either the group decides collectively for everyone, or one person decides collectively for everyone. But you're making a category error. A draft dodger was not an "autocrat." He wasn't imposing his will on other people; he was merely resisting having their will imposed on him.

A draft dodger wasn't an autocrat, but the direct comparison here was to the draft resister. And the moral standing of a draft resister, who was openly defiant of the draft law and willing to pay the penalty, was on a higher level than that of the former.

This isn't to say that there weren't often plenty of good reasons for choosing exile over jail, but in terms of confronting public opinion, the existence of ten thousand draft resisters would have had a much better chance of ending the war than ten thousand flights to Canada.

Certainly, public civil disobedience of the sort King and the civil rights movement often engaged in, in an attempt to persuade others of the rightness of their views, was fine. But there was nothing wrong with a black who "dodged" rather than "resisted" -- that is, who secretly evaded Jim Crow laws, and tried to avoid the consequences. That was just as justified, and not a sign of being an "autocrat."

Here you can only be referring to the phenomenon of "passing," as it was kind of tough to "evade" Jim Crow by any other means. And I pointedly omitted making such any such moral comparisons between "passers" and "demonstrators" in the first place. Though even there, the role model of an Anatole Broyard in terms of changing societal mores, as compared to the sit-in demonstrator, was unfortunately only available to those who could "pass" for white in the first place, and was of limited application outside that group.

And with all this scorn for public opinion that you've advertised here for years, I can only wonder why on Earth you've even bothered posting 8904 times on this forum alone. Are you merely doing all this as a way of proving to your wife or your Mom that you're staying out of trouble?

Question for libertarians: Do you really believe that if there were only enough taxes for national defence, police, fire departments, etc. and no redistributive programs like Medicare and Social Security and little regulation of business income inequality would not explode?

If there was a sudden shift from where we are today to the wholesale elimination of every redistributive program, sure. If we had been living under such a system for the last 100 years, I'm not nearly so sure.

Built into such a system is that you take away the bad as well as the good, meaning that subsidies and tax shelters that people and corporations take tremendous advantage of disappear as well.

That many more people would not die from inability to afford healthcare?

This, definitely not. The cost of health care is through the roof in large part because of insurance companies forced to balance risk based on group plans. Take away that requirement and have health care premiums based on actual individual risk, and health care gets much cheaper in general. The expense of health care is why many go uninsured, and the uninsured don't get preventative care.

If you don't have insurance, you don't die in the street. You get sick until you need emergency care, which is much more expensive, and then everyone else pays the bill for you. So insurance is more expensive, and more people end up like you. With substandard preventative care, you die more quickly.

Of course, people aren't worried about others dying on the street because of inability to get medical service, because they know the government won't let it happen. So why would they create their own non-government programs to help people in that position?

</I> That businesses would not become more likely to exploit workers or release dangerous products? </I>

Unions can still exist to protect workers, and there's the legal system as well. Criminal negligence still exists. Tort law still exists.

Businesses can try to protect themselves by offering waivers to prospective employees and consumers, but contract law still protects against unconscionable bargains.

Or do you believe this all would happen, but it's the price that must be paid for "liberty" or whatever?

I think that this would happen a lot less frequently than people assume. Even so, it isn't like this isn't happening right now with this system. People get inadequate health care and die. Workers are exploited and businesses produce dangerous products, hoping they don't get caught and sued. The "solution" isn't addressing the problem.

And the government is also taking your money and your childrens' money from you to make a mess in Iraq. How's that working?

Hey, Dan, take that up with the people who actually voted for W, like your man DMN. ;-

But, like I said in the post, SOME of that money is NOT "being wasted" and I say this as a staunch critic of the war. SOME of it is going to equip and protect the brave folks who volunteered to protect me and my condo and my parents and my girlfriend, just like SOME of the money going to public schools is pissed away and SOME of it goes for good things.

You are arguing I think (although not about the military) that MOST stuff would work itself out better if the govt stayed out of it and people took care of it through independent actors making choices in a free market. In some cases, as Obama suggssted, that is true, particularly in the specific area of "business" (that is kind of a vague term, actually although poele use it a lot). But in some cases, the objectives of capitalism are not compatible with some of what I see as the desirable objectives of the society as a whole.

since I never said or implied any of the things you're attributing to me.

I think you did imply it, by saying this:

If people here are so consumed with envy that others have more money, have the courage of your convictions and say so, rather than hiding behind cowardly hedges about inherited wealth.

..and choosing the terms "cowardly" and "envy" which suggest, to me at least, moral inferiority, and it was directed at the "people here", not at the general population.

If you really believe children should be raped by male teachers, why don't you just say so outright?

I'll be interested to see if Furtado sees this as a post that requires a "civility reminder."

Hey, Dan, take that up with the people who actually voted for W, like your man DMN.

Obviously, we don't agree on everything. But since I don't frame my opposition to the war as OMG BUSH 1S A PSYCH0PATH WAR CRIMES BL00D FOR OIL IMPEACH THE REPUGNICANS! and he doesn't frame his support for the war as ALL YOU HATE AMERICA DUMBOCRAT TRAITORZ WE GOTTA STOP THEM SAND #######, we get along just fine.

Close call - never assume that a word you type will automatically be nannied.

Are people who subsist on government programs living like leeches off other people's confiscated wealth, yes or no? If it's a "maybe" then you can damn well accept your sweeping generalizations when challenged on them.


I reject the phrase "living like leeches" because it serves only to provoke the issue.

People who live on government programs are accepting funds that were taken by force from their fellow citizens. When a person is hungry, homeless, or sick, I don't blame them for doing that. If I was in that situation, I'd take advantage of every opportunity available to me, so I expect others to do the same.

I'm not opposed to government programs because I want people to go without food, shelter, and medical care. I am paid a relatively small amount of money to provide free legal service to poor tenants in housing court, and the salary is a major consideration in whether I can remain in this area of the law. If I wasn't paying a third of my salary in taxes, it would be an easier decision. If I wasn't paying $700+ per month for my medical coverage despite being in excellent health, it would also be an easier decision.

The cost of health care is through the roof in large part because of insurance companies forced to balance risk based on group plans. Take away that requirement and have health care premiums based on actual individual risk, and health care gets much cheaper in general.

Sure, unless you have a "pre-existing condition," in which case you either become completely uninsurable, or your rates soar into the stratosphere. "In general" doesn't do much to address that sticky little issue.

Left to its own devices, the "market" will simply compete for the young and healthy---which makes perfect sense. The problem is that what makes sense for insurance companies doesn't necessarily make sense for society as a whole. And simply proclaiming that "society" is some sort of a four letter word doesn't add much to the discussion, either.

ALL YOU HATE AMERICA DUMBOCRAT TRAITORZ WE GOTTA STOP THEM SAND #######,

Hey, can I use that as my handle?

This makes perfect sense. But that's a narrow scope. When there is no family, your friends are as poor as you, and there is not enough charity to go around?

So your hypothetical is that (1) an unseen tragedy strikes, (2) there is no family, (3) there are no friends who can help, and (4) there are no charities that can help. Then, you argue, people would have to turn to government.

How is this is a useful exercise? You foreclosed all of the viable options that are available to people, and then trumpeted the "utility" of government. "See how important government is? It's the only option available once we pretend all of these other things don't exist."

How is this is a useful exercise?

Because it happens sometimes.

Hey, Dan, take that up with the people who actually voted for W, like your man DMN.

I did no such thing. I reluctantly rhetorically supported him as the lesser of two evils in 2000/2004, but I voted Browne/Badnarik. (And New Jersey has closed primaries, so I couldn't have voted for him to get the nomination even if I had wanted to, which I didn't.)

I did no such thing. I reluctantly rhetorically supported him as the lesser of two evils in 2000/2004, but I voted Browne/Badnarik.

Ok, fair enough. I thought you said you voted for him. Sorry. EDIT: Thinking on it, IIRC, you said you would have if NJ had been in play, but maybe I am misrembering.

In various people's America, this is apparently NOT something that happens, I guess.

I'm not freakin' pretending anything. Good Lord.

As far as this thread is concerned, I'm a lurker whose political sensibilities tend towards indecisive. Posts in this thread have made me think (always a rare and appreciated occurrence).

Is Group X hurt by Private Business A refusing X's members as customers? Certainly, because (to some extent) the ability of members of X to buy that product has been limited to stores not including A. On the other hand, A has deliberately chosen to limit to whom it can sell its product; it may be that it has helped its ability to sell its product (to people who don't want to shop at a store that sells to Group X people), but it has certainly eliminated at least one possible source of revenue.

Can we presume that in the long run some business will sell to members of X? I think we can -- some other Private Business B will recognize an untapped market in Group X and sell to them. And Private Business C, recognizing that B is getting rich off selling both to Xs and non-Xs may also sell to Xs, which will cause prices to drop.

This is the libertarian view of how racism gets "defeated" in private industry without government interference, yes? Sorta kinda like how MLB integrated, with the Dodgers being Business B and some other team (the Giants?) being Group C? And some team like the Red Sox, who were doing just fine in the early years of non-mandated integration, ended up being a fairly weak team in the late 50s and most of the 60s, quite possibly because it took so long to integrate?

What aspect of this do the non-libertarians find objectionable? (One answer: that it took as long as it did for, for instance, the ballclubs to start integrating given that they were not required to do so. That integration could have happened sooner if it had been required. What would libertarians say in response to this objection? And what other objections would non-libertarians make?)

I guess that WRT to civil rights laws, the idea that integration would have happened due to market forces alone shows a remarkable lack of knowledge of both history and the realities of southern racial mores. And the more this gets denied, particularly by people who never experienced these mores in all their splendor, the more this ignorance is demonstrated.

This isn't to say that in some fields, in the long run, the market might have been enough. Professional sports would be an example of that. But OTOH between 1889 and 1947 how many baseball players' potential livelihoods were crippled in the absence of some sort of FEPC?

The objection I would make is that people's non-economic preferences are a lot stronger than that.

The implication is that your "Group X" are blacks. But let's turn it around and say that Group X is companies engaging in strongly unethical (but not illegal) activity. Let's say child labour overseas or something. Most people don't like that. A lot of people are willing to boycott such companies - and not just that, but boycott any companies that do business with such companies. So it's not just that these companies suffer from consumer boycott, but they suffer from finding it very difficult to get deals with suppliers, banks, etc. And so these companies can't operate. And we see this all the time, and you may well say great, that's the wonderful nature of a consumer boycott, and I'd agree.

But then when you turn it back and say "Group X" are in fact blacks, you suddenly see the problem. Because the reason that the Dodgers were able to integrate is that the fans accepted it. If the fans had all boycotted the team on the grounds that they will never support a team with a black player, then the Dodgers would have got rid of Jackie Robinson, or folded.

What's more most businesses are in the business of doing business, not the business of being heroes and martyrs (whatever their PR may tell you). So when extremists threaten a company (and it's suppliers, banks, etc) with violence, they may well stop doing businesss with that company, essentially out of fear. See e.g. Huntingdon Life Sciences.

So I definitely think it's necessary for the government to be willing to step in at times, and try and limit the economic expression of certain preferences.

Actually, what I did was to try to convert them with argument, and simultaneously try to change the laws by repeated acts of civil disobedience, in the form of sit-ins at restaurants. It wasn't an either-or thing. But fortuntely for me, and unlike in the case of many of my fellow demonstrators, I didn't have to spend a lifetime waiting for the law to change.

And I might add that we (my fellow demonstrators and I) managed to win over more than a few opponents prior to the passage of the law. They weren't all quite as dogmatic about their libertarianism as some of you all are.

I didn't say that trying to convince the public was a bad strategy; I said that doing so or not doing so had nothing to do with the merits of the position, and that I know you agree with that.

Robert,
This was supposed to be the logic with disabled rights/access, but the problem is that people with disabilities aren't enough of a market (or aren't perceived to be enough of a market) to justify the cost of changes to the physical layout of businesses (though the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are unfortunately doing a lot to change this). The problem with allowing businesses to decide what changes they need to make to accommodate the disabled is that (in my experience) business owners are very poor judges of what a disabled person needs to have access to their business. So the market has proved grossly inadequate at providing people with disabilities the same level of access that the non-disabled have. From my (admittedly biased) perspective, I want to live in a society that prioritizes equal access for the disabled. I don't want such people denied service simply because they don't represent a market large enough to justify accommodating. If you're going to run a business that profits off the traffic of labor, commodities, customers and currency in this society, then we are going to set base-line standards to who has access to that business. If not, you're free not to run a business in this society and occupy yourself with some other task.

I've met a lot of business owners who as a point of pride provide access to the disabled, and would do so even if it were not law. I've also met many who scoff at ADA regulations as an infringement upon their natural right to set their business up any way they see fit. In those cases, a lot of times it isn't just "give someone else your money, let the infinite wisom of the market work its magic" and be done with it, it's that the next 5 businesses in town all have the same attitude, and there's no restaurant you can get into for a meal. You could say the same about access to any group that is discriminated against, but with the disabled it is a more clear test- access is often structural, so there's a cost to providing it.

I guess that WRT to civil rights laws, the idea that integration would have happened due to market forces alone shows a remarkable lack of knowledge of both history and the realities of southern racial mores. And the more this gets denied, particularly by people who never experienced these mores in all their splendor, the more this ignorance is demonstrated.

The problem is that the "history" you're talking about is intertwined with government intervention. Those "mores" were enforced by the government, either directly (prosecuting those who violated them) or indirectly (refusing to provide equal protection to those who did so, thus allowing mob violence against them). And they needed to be, because there were people who violated those mores.

And that's where your argument falls apart. You're arguing against a strawman -- the notion that if the South continued exactly the way it had, it would have eventually integrated. It might have, but that isn't the libertarian claim. The libertarian claim is that if all Jim Crow laws were abolished, and racial violence was prosecuted, that segregation would have fallen.

This isn't to say that in some fields, in the long run, the market might have been enough. Professional sports would be an example of that. But OTOH between 1889 and 1947 how many baseball players' potential livelihoods were crippled in the absence of some sort of FEPC?

Scores, perhaps hundreds. But just as the fact that the (e.g.) Phillies were bad and needed black talent didn't give the Phillies the right to compel black players to contract with them, the fact that black players needed jobs with the Phillies didn't give them the right to compel the Phillies to contract with them.

One of the key points of libertarianism is that need does not create obligation.

Truth is not a matter of "public opinion." Neither is principle. And I don't believe you, anyway. I don't believe that when someone said, "Segregation is unjust," that you ever replied with one of your snide, "Ha, ha, the public doesn't agree with you, so that's a crazy argument" lines. You only "agree with" that when it happens to agree with you.

Actually, what I did was to try to convert them with argument, and simultaneously try to change the laws by repeated acts of civil disobedience, in the form of sit-ins at restaurants. It wasn't an either-or thing. But fortuntely for me, and unlike in the case of many of my fellow demonstrators, I didn't have to spend a lifetime waiting for the law to change.

And I might add that we (my fellow demonstrators and I) managed to win over more than a few opponents prior to the passage of the law. They weren't all quite as dogmatic about their libertarianism as some of you all are.

I didn't say that trying to convince the public was a bad strategy; I said that doing so or not doing so had nothing to do with the merits of the position, and that I know you agree with that.

Of course it doesn't. But since in the long run it's better to have the public on your side, I can't see the particular advantage to continually expressing contempt for public opinion. You can think that the public is crazy, and sometimes you may be right, but you still have to respect the people making the crazy argument, unless they descend into personal attacks or blatant misrepresentation of your position.