Widely published status update on facebook and twitter yesterday:
No one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick. If you agree, please post this as your status for the next 24 hours.
Now, the question of whether we should change the current health care system in the U.S. or or how to do so is a completely separate issue from the statement made in the first sentence of the quotation above. Therefore, in my humble opinion, anyone who would disagree with the basic premise of the statement above is pretty much a worthless person completely devoid of all human compassion.
The United Nations has declared health care to be a basic human right (Article 25), as has the United Methodist Church in their Social Principles (¶162.V). We can disagree civilly on how to achieve the ends to the goal of minimal standards of health care for all citizens… but who in good faith can still call themselves a decent human being and yet have the audacity to disagree with the statement that no one should die because they can’t afford health care? I mean really. REALLY? It is well documented that people (yes, even young people) do in fact still die the United States all the time because they cannot afford costly health care procedures. Paying for health care is still the #1 reason for bankruptcies in this country. I have personally been nickel and dimed by insurance companies and I personally know several individuals with their own insurance horror stories. Something’s gotta give.
So back to my original point on basic human compassion… here are a few alternative status updates I also had the misfortune of seeing on facebook and twitter yesterday:
This person thinks no one should [...] post this as your status for the rest of the day
Some people don’t deserve health care, and some people deserve to be broke.
President Obama is using the same tactics as Adolf Hitler. He is trying to pervert the youth of America with his socialistic ideals. Health care is NOT a right. Even our founding fathers knew better than to ty [sic] this. What is wrong with people in this country?
What was even worse than these updates were the comments that followed underneath them. Many of the comments were along he lines of “I hate poor people” and “LOL OMG I SO agree.”
Many of these people dare to call themselves Christians. What happened to feeding the poor and caring for the sick? If anyone in the world is going to know that I’m a Christian, I would rather they know me as someone who takes the gospel message to mean caring for the least of these – working toward social justice and meeting people’s physical needs in this world. Following Christ is not just about praying a prayer and then merely going off to judge others’ immoral lifestyles and condemn things that shouldn’t be done. What about working to change the world for the better? Feeding the poor? Caring for the sick?
Personally, I know that I haven’t spoken up enough to correct the wrongs when I see them being perpetuated. And that’s because I know that when I do speak up I can tend to be a bit of a jackass (ok, so I have been a complete and total sarcastic and condescending jackass. I shoot my mouth off with snarky comments and I have not yet mastered the delicate art of tact.) I know this is a huge personal weakness and I am working on it slowly day by day. It is wrong and I need to change.
Fortunately, my husband has been my biggest inspiration and mentor. He is able to confront people firmly but with tact, logic, and reason, and without resorting to sarcasm and intentional condescension. He would make a fantastic college professor and/or attorney (which are coincidentally the two fields he is pursuing graduate degrees in currently!) Right now I just get angry and I want to be mean for meanness’ sake. Yes, I have pure motives and the good of the world and individuals at heart, but in the heat of the moment I often just shoot off my mouth. And for that I am truly sorry.
What is boils down to is this: We can disagree intensely on how to reach certain political goals. That is to be expected. However, I would like to think that people will hold empathy and compassion first and foremost in all political conversations from here on out. The recent discourse of the past few months, as evidenced in comments like the ones above, has certainly not been shaping up that way.
September 6, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Here’s an amusing variation on that meme that I just saw posted on a friend’s Facebook page:
No one should die because of zombies if they cannot afford a shotgun or a machete. No one should be turned into a vampire or a werewolf if they get bit by one. If you agree with this message, post this as your status for the rest of the day.
September 7, 2009 at 12:07 am
Zombies are just funny no matter how you look at it so I’m not going to fault the posters of that particular variant meme.
I actually saw that same variation a few times today as well.
However, I continue to be appalled by the hate comments I saw earlier this week underneath people’s posts on the original statement about how people shouldn’t die because of lack of ability to pay for health care. I am absolutely sickened and disgusted by people’s lack of empathy and compassion in this country.
November 7, 2009 at 11:18 am
Not everyone is a Christian. Not everyone agrees with your interpretation of what a human right is. You might feel that the poor should all be granted health care, and if you feel so I would encourage you to give as much as you physically and financially can to reach that goal. What you cannot do, however, is pick someone else’s pocket to give health care to another and call it charity. That is theft in the name of equality, which also violates my basic human right to be unmolested by the government, to free enterprise and to allocate my hard earned funds as I see fit. This is a basic American principle far more fundamental than the belief that equality should supersede individual liberty.
November 7, 2009 at 3:16 pm
From everything you said I can infer without any shred of uncertainty that you are a Libertarian… a political stance which I reject with every fiber in my being. Not because I am a Christian, but because I am a compassionate human being. 95+% of the Libertarians I know ARE Christians. And I actually know a lot of Libertarians. I have, unfortunately, been in quite a few debates with them. I am familiar with all the “tax as theft” arguments. I also peruse the Libertarian blogs from time to time and get all the up to the minute Lew Rockwell posts from my friends on fb, so I’m hip to all the Libertarian goings-on and current arguments.
And those who are not Libertarians believe that individual liberty is very important as well. No one, including President Obama, wants to stomp out individual liberty. Straw man argument.
Also, almost all Libertarians I know lack entirely the “empathy and basic human compassion” that I referenced in my original post. Take Ayn Rand for one… Libertarians’ patron saint. I’m sorry Ayn Rand, but referring to the masses as “moochers who steal your product by tears” and writing hero worship diaries about a child serial killer does not exactly demonstrate human compassion. This is not a person whose philosophy I want to have anything to do with.
Not to mention I never spoke a single word about the means to achieve political goals in my original post, which you seemed to try to address in your response. That is not what the post was about. The last paragraph I wrote sums up entirely what I was trying to say. I merely was calling for a change in the rhetoric of how we talk about political change. It’s time to stop yelling at each other with sound bite scare tactic arguments involving Adolf Hitler and the newly spun scare buzzword of socialism and talk things out on a level that actually tries to alleviate human suffering… But do Libertarians even care about alleviating human suffering?
Here is my last paragraph again, for reference:
November 11, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Taxes are, in their most basic form, just a means for citizens to pay for the public services that they use. I have no problem with paying for the services I use or might use, like fire, police, roads, the military, etc.
Taking from the rich and giving to the poor isn’t just a tax, it is a redistribution of wealth. If you want to do that you will need to advance a moral argument for why it is ethical to pick the pocket of one to help another. Keep in mind that your theory will have to account for why the government should not shoot for perfect equality, taking every penny from the rich, middle and working class until the least among us has as much money as the wealthiest among us. Let me know how your economy runs after that.
Secondly, don’t think that you can get away with redistributive rhetoric, accusing anyone who doesn’t hold your view of being a defective human being, unless you are actually proposing that such rhetoric should be implemented in reality. To think otherwise is to do nothing more than discuss meaningless platitudes.
Third, libertarians are not the same as objectivists. Further, libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism are different as well. You would do well to learn the difference.
Fourth, neither libertarians nor anarcho-capitalists are by their nature uncaring, rather they would simply give through private means than via government redistribution.
November 11, 2009 at 8:21 pm
Lol,
How about a real first name for starters?
All taxes are redistribution of wealth. Since you favor some form of taxation (you seem to in your above comments), then you yourself favor redistribution of wealth. So you aren’t opposed to redistribution of wealth. You only say you are because it works better as a rhetorical tactic than the direct authoritarian moves you would like to make of undermining democratic will and asserting instead YOUR particular preference for society, others be damned.
You can’t name a single government expenditure that is universally assented to. Thus, since you favor even a most modest form of taxation, you favor trampling all over the minority of folks who dispute such government spending. On your logic, you are no better off. So either you need to reformulate your argument (I recommend moving away from sound-bytes that play well on Fox News talking head shows), or else you ought to abandon your argument altogether, acknowledging it for the double-edged sword that it is, swiping at you just the same.
There are strong and sophisticated arguments proffered for a graduated tax structure, by many thinkers, most un-associated with marxism or socialism. Indeed, it is the majority view among Americans, a people who collectively despise socialism, that we have a graduated taxation system. It has been the tax law for decades. The rich pay a little more than everyone else and we like it that way. And it works. And nothing like the anarcho-libertarian view has been tested out in the modern, globalized era–it is a radical, sketchy proposal with no supporting data. Hardly conservative.
Some of the arguments for a graduated tax system (or for policy views in support):
1. The rich can afford it.
2. The rich remain rich regardless.
3. Many of the rich are okay with it–indeed, I suppose everyone who doesn’t move out of the United States finds it at least moderately acceptable.
4. The rich are rich because they live in THIS society, along with the rest of us. You can’t become wealthy living on a desert island by yourself. Thus, the rich owe at least part of their success to society, which is the rest of us. They wouldn’t be rich without the rest of us. They are fortunate we are here.
5. Some things absolutely must be paid for. You acknowledge this premise in your above post.
6. Property rights of individuals are not absolute. If you have a background in property and ownership law, there is also a long tradition of property ownership extending back to English law, and still in place today, that does not understand ownership in absolute terms. THIS IS THE CURRENT JURISPRUDENCE and has been for hundreds of years. Have a look at this Property casebook, commonly used in law schools: http://www.amazon.com/Property-James-E-Krier/dp/0735557926/
Property ownership is not placed in one person in the absolute. Property ownership is based upon interest rights. Many people have interest rights in any given property. While those who have the greatest interest right typically have the greatest amount of control and say-so, the interest rights of others are never wholly disregarded. To deny this is to deny a firm foundation of Property law that has been wholeheartedly accepted in this country since its inception, and extending back hundreds of years in the English tradition.
I could go on and on. I wonder if, when you challenge others to give arguments, you have even wrestled with argument from the other side yourself? There are plenty more I haven’t given. I could recommend some books?
As for libertarians being caring folks who would rather give via private means, that is hardly a fair universal characterization. Some do. Some don’t. Those that do are simply mistaken if they believe that government has no role play in social justice. And among those that do not, many openly admit to looking out for their own selfish interests. Many care nothing for others and make no secret of it.
November 11, 2009 at 9:20 pm
Technically any economic dealing is the “redistribution of wealth” in the most simplistic sense; which is to say that any transaction deals with the trading of one good for another.
However, this is obviously not what we mean when we say “redistribution of wealth”. The political connotation of that phrase suggests that one takes a significant sum of money from one person and gives it to another, without the wealthier person receiving anything in return.
The problem with the redistribution of wealth (in the second sense) is that it is immoral. So long as each of us holds that people should be able to keep the fruits of their labor we must hold that taking one person’s riches to give to a poorer person is immoral, unless justified by a greater good which will be accomplished via the taking and redistributing of that money. To claim otherwise is to support the belief that might makes right.
Unfortunately, your reformulation of my argument supporting taxation (to some degree) completely distorts the principle which I use to justify taxes. I claimed that taxation in so far as it pays for services that one uses or may use is morally justifiable (in that it is similar to rent or other services paid in order to live in a given area), but that taxation beyond this level is (at least on its face) wrong because it charges the person for services which they do not receive.
Further, if you think that a multifaceted argument supported with principles and reasons is fodder for Fox News, you haven’t been watching tv lately.
A few other points:
1. I never claimed to be of any political bent, much less anarcho-anything.
2. I do not claim to be conservative, or to support conservative principles.
Now, to rebut a few of the arguments you put forth-
1. The rich can afford it.
The poor could (mostly) afford to lose a kidney. Does this mean that we SHOULD take their kidneys and redistribute them?
2. The rich remain rich regardless.
The poor would still have one fully functional kidney. Again, the question is not WHETHER but WHY.
3. Many of the rich are okay with it–indeed, I suppose everyone who doesn’t move out of the United States finds it at least moderately acceptable.
If the consent of a minority constitutes the consent of a majority there are going to be a lot of available kidneys on the market soon..
4. The rich are rich because they live in THIS society, along with the rest of us. You can’t become wealthy living on a desert island by yourself. Thus, the rich owe at least part of their success to society, which is the rest of us. They wouldn’t be rich without the rest of us. They are fortunate we are here.
This is an undeveloped form of the argument that because capitalists gain their wealth from the labor of workers that they owe their wealth to those workers. This is known as the surplus value argument, as defined by Marx. The argument fails in that the capitalists gain their wealth through transactions with consenting adults, in which both parties agree to mix their resources to produce something greater than they could individually produce. The laborer supplies the labor, and the capitalist supplies the capital, supplies, machines, land, utilities, etc. It can be no other way. If either party could act without the other they certainly would. This means that the laborer has no more claim (after the contract has been negotiated) to the capitalist’s profits than the capitalist does to the worker’s paycheck.
5. Some things absolutely must be paid for. You acknowledge this premise in your above post.
Right. This supports my point.
6. Property rights of individuals are not absolute. If you have a background in property and ownership law, there
No one has an absolute right to the land on which they live or work, as they did not create the land. However, I do have an absolute right to the things and ideas which I craft and can prove ownership of. Whether the law recognizes this or not does not change the morality underlying the issue.
“As for libertarians being caring folks who would rather give via private means, that is hardly a fair universal characterization. Some do. Some don’t. Those that do are simply mistaken if they believe that government has no role play in social justice. And among those that do not, many openly admit to looking out for their own selfish interests. Many care nothing for others and make no secret of it.”
And who are you to criticize them? Charity is by definition an act of volition. The state is not benevolent or charitable when it steals from the rich to give to the poor. Unless the poor have a right to the wealth of the wealthy (again, you will have to provide an argument to prove this; one strong enough to overcome the basic right of ownership) then you have no place to demand that they give. I beg of you to present such an argument. The would would be so much simpler if the poor had a claim the wealth of the rich.
November 11, 2009 at 11:19 pm
So, Mr. or Ms. lol, your statement above begs the question… if you “do not” claim to be a conservative, or to support conservative principles, why comment on here at all? Why have an economic/political discussion at all? Are you really a flaming economic liberal just playing devil’s advocate? Are you practicing your skills as a budding college professor just trying to educate the ignorant masses on the delicate nuances between objectivism (a philosophy), libertarianism, and anarcho-capitalism? Why are you posting at all if you aren’t trying to advance a particular view?
Also, you stated in your first post that “not everyone is a Christian” who defines human rights as I do. Of course I already know that. The world is not 100% homogeneous, nor would I want it to be.
Well, you also never said that you were not a Christian anywhere in this entire exchange, so now I can’t rule that out either. In your flightiness, you have never asserted a single personal opinion in this entire exchange… So I don’t even know who I’m talking to. You could switch the position you’re defending at any given moment.
My original post was simply about trying to change the heated, angry, sound bite-based rhetoric I was observing in the discussion going on at the time (September), especially among the people I knew personally. I had concerns that people I knew (incidentally, all of whom were libertarian and conservative) did not and do not care at all about poor people, as evidenced by their rhetoric – and I still believe that those concerns were valid. The post had nothing to do with hashing out the finer nuances of various economic theories (anarcho-conservatism vs libertarianism, etc), nor did it have to do with putting forth ideas on exactly how to fix the health care system in this country. In fact, at this point, I am so burned out on discussing those issues that I am content to leave it to other posters.
Right now I’m happy to stick to hashing out political and economic issues in grad school (or maybe, just maybe, on my blog when a news story gets me really fired up)
For example, I learned all about various taxation systems and the philosophies underlying them in a course last fall… this semester, I have to read a Thomas Sowell book. I may be done commenting on this post for now, we’ll see… But go ahead and carry on.
November 12, 2009 at 3:10 am
How about a first name, eh?
“The problem with the redistribution of wealth (in the second sense) is that it is immoral.”
What is the meta-ethical basis for your objective moral claim above? On your worldview (whatever that is, given your tactical obfuscation), what is the basis for asserting that something is “immoral”? Is it your intuition? Your personal taste? What you had for dinner last night?
“we must hold that taking one person’s riches to give to a poorer person is immoral, unless justified by a greater good which will be accomplished via the taking and redistributing of that money.”
This is precisely what I believe. Nothing wrong with keeping the fruits of one’s labor, by and large. Occasionally, a tax on some of your fruits for something important or pressing is alright. We seem to agree with the general principle here, where we differ is in the application of it.
Except this isn’t where you began the conversation. Instead of this sensible, qualified principle, you started off with sound bite rhetoric about taxes being theft, but then backtracked to this broad-ass principle that no one disagrees with.
“taxation beyond [services that the taxpayer herself uses or may use] is (at least on its face) wrong because it charges the person for services which they do not receive.”
Does “at least on its face” mean that this principle obtains except when it doesn’t obtain? How is this useful?
Might not the rich use a government health care option? Might not the rich benefit from safety net program were they to become disabled, or bankrupt, or destitute? Apart from something like direct affirmative action programs, which preclude benefits based upon racial profiles (and which are constitutionally banned already), it seems to me that almost every social program libertarians oppose might be used by most any taxpayer, including the rich, so that virtually everything you oppose meets your criteria. Nice work.
“you haven’t been watching tv lately.”
Damn skippy.
“The poor could (mostly) afford to lose a kidney. Does this mean that we SHOULD take their kidneys and redistribute them?”
I’m relying on the cumulative argument for particular government initiatives. So you need to take my 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, (and so on) together, as a whole, rather than abstracting each point for convenient refutation.
So take 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 together. To be analogous, your flaky kidney hypothetical would require 2 prime, 3 prime, 4 prime, and 5 prime, taken together. Which would mean (and don’t blame me for this, this is your hypo, not mine):
5 prime. “Kidneys must absolutely be taken for the greater good.”
It is hard to imagine such a bizarre scenario, but maybe there is some possible world where a significant number of persons must donate kidneys for some overwhelmingly greater outcome that could otherwise not be actualized. It is possible, although ridiculous. It would then, perhaps, be morally permissible to ask folks to give up a kidney, say, in the instance where literal extinction of the human race would otherwise result. Only the kidneys of poor folks can save the world (and maybe Bruce Willis has to deliver them).
It seems like even your own “greater good” exception would allow kidney-taking in this instance. So I’m not sure you have a point to make here. Nor do I care for your outlandish hypo.
“the laborer has no more claim . . . to the capitalist’s profits than the capitalist does to the worker’s paycheck.”
I’m not appealing to Marx, I’m appealing to Locke, et al. I’m appealing to the social contract (And incidentally, Marx’s ultimate eschatology was libertarian in nature). This isn’t about a laborer’s claim to the capitalist’s windfall, it is broader than that. There is no capitalism without a society of people in the first instance. Autonomous individuals cannot achieve society without a other individuals participating as well. Capitalism is made possible only when there is a society of individuals who give up the absolute autonomy found in a pure state of nature. Individuals agree to live together for the betterment of everyone.
Capitalism cannot be abstracted from the social contract. By living in a society, and by enjoying the incredible benefits that communities provide (like the ability to have economies, to make, sell, and create products and services, to do most anything apart from hunting wild beasts and struggling to stay alive), each of us owes to one another some basic responsibilities. We are our brother’s keepers. We are not the radically autonomous individuals libertarians like to think we are. Indeed, take whichever heroic individual you want, pluck her out of society, drop her alone in the Outback, and see how well she does designing products and services and acquiring wealth and power. If the individual can’t even remotely achieve the same thing autonomously, how in the hell are you going to give her 100% of the credit for doing it within a social context robust with opportunity and demand?
This isn’t Marxism, this is common sense. Individuals certainly do great things, but rarely do they do great things without A LOT of help from others. And when others have helped you, you owe them. Period.
Oh yeah, and it seems to me that God would have us love our neighbors as we love ourselves.
“I do have an absolute right to the things and ideas which I craft and can prove ownership of.”
What have you created ex nihilo? What have you fashioned that is so wholly original that you can take virtually all of the credit for? Not too many individual accomplishments that are wholly the product of the individual. We stand on the shoulders of giants who came before us. We borrow from our peers constantly. Everyone plagiarizes. There is no heroic individual in the Randian sense of a true prime mover who deserves all the credit for her creation. There are just better and worse plagiarizers. Why you and others idealize (or idolize?) the individual, I don’t know. I find it naive, honestly. Where individuals have displayed greatness and talent, they have learned much of it from others.
“The state is not benevolent or charitable when it steals from the rich to give to the poor. Unless the poor have a right to the wealth of the wealthy (again, you will have to provide an argument to prove this; one strong enough to overcome the basic right of ownership) then you have no place to demand that they give. I beg of you to present such an argument.”
Fair enough. You asserted earlier that some taxes are moral and just. So why don’t you answer your own question first? Let “X” be whatever it is that you think is a legitimate government expense (since you are not forthcoming of the particulars).
Now, answer me this:
The state is not benevolent or charitable when it steals from taxpayers to do X. Unless the state has a right to taxpayer monies (again, you will have to provide an argument to prove this; one strong enough to overcome the basic right of ownership) then you have no place to demand that they give. I beg of you to present such an argument.
Now go! And remember, whatever your answer is, it has to be so narrowly tailored that your standard precludes any government expenditure or act that extends beyond the government acts that you want, but it can’t be so restrictive that government actions you support are precluded as well. Good luck. I’m sure in the end you will show some objective principle is guiding your preferences, and not just arbitrary whim and personal taste.
November 12, 2009 at 4:17 pm
“So, Mr. or Ms. lol, your statement above begs the question… if you “do not” claim to be a conservative, or to support conservative principles, why comment on here at all? Why have an economic/political discussion at all? Are you really a flaming economic liberal just playing devil’s advocate? Are you practicing your skills as a budding college professor just trying to educate the ignorant masses on the delicate nuances between objectivism (a philosophy), libertarianism, and anarcho-capitalism? Why are you posting at all if you aren’t trying to advance a particular view?”
I need not advance any particular view to assert that the view you have advanced is the wrong one. The truth is a goal in itself, and I need not reach towards any other with a political bent to be an interested party in this discussion.
“Well, you also never said that you were not a Christian anywhere in this entire exchange, so now I can’t rule that out either. In your flightiness, you have never asserted a single personal opinion in this entire exchange… So I don’t even know who I’m talking to. You could switch the position you’re defending at any given moment.”
Whether or not I am a Christian like you does not change the fact that neither of us has the right to force our peculiar religiously based moral beliefs on another (unless of course their supposedly immoral actions do actual harm to another).
“My original post was simply about trying to change the heated, angry, sound bite-based rhetoric I was observing in the discussion going on at the time (September), especially among the people I knew personally. I had concerns that people I knew (incidentally, all of whom were libertarian and conservative) did not and do not care at all about poor people, as evidenced by their rhetoric – and I still believe that those concerns were valid. The post had nothing to do with hashing out the finer nuances of various economic theories (anarcho-conservatism vs libertarianism, etc), nor did it have to do with putting forth ideas on exactly how to fix the health care system in this country. In fact, at this point, I am so burned out on discussing those issues that I am content to leave it to other posters.”
You’re not so innocent as you pretend. In your post you certainly put forth a call for more sympathy for the poor, but in doing so you also asserted that everyone has a RIGHT to health care. Positive rights (like health care) confer duties on others to bring those rights into reality. Thus your claim establishes the belief that the poor have a right to be cared for by doctors, and (in all likelihood, given your rhetoric) for that care to be paid for by the public at large. Whether you intended to or not, you put forth a call for change in public policy which forces one group to work for the betterment of another. If you wish to hold this position you will need to put forth an argument for why robbing the “rich” to give to the poor is ethical.
And to Jared
“What is the meta-ethical basis for your objective moral claim above? On your worldview (whatever that is, given your tactical obfuscation), what is the basis for asserting that something is “immoral”? Is it your intuition? Your personal taste? What you had for dinner last night?”
Did you not bother to read the sentence immediately below that one, or did you get so excited to respond that you immediately began ranting?
Let me state it again: presuming that each of us holds that a person is entitled to the fruits of their labor, redistribution of wealth is on its face wrong. To hold otherwise is to invite the anarchy of “might makes right” into the world, which I doubt either of you wishes to do. You both seem to be interested in justice, and the pure conquest of immoral power seems to be quite opposed to justice.
“This is precisely what I believe. Nothing wrong with keeping the fruits of one’s labor, by and large. Occasionally, a tax on some of your fruits for something important or pressing is alright. We seem to agree with the general principle here, where we differ is in the application of it.”
Are you intentionally muddying the discussion? Again, I stated only that taxes are on their face ethical in so far as they act as a fee for the services that a person uses. Your tremendous fudge: “for something important or pressing” is miles away from my position, and is so broad as to offer no guide to the morality of taxation.
“Except this isn’t where you began the conversation. Instead of this sensible, qualified principle, you started off with sound bite rhetoric about taxes being theft, but then backtracked to this broad-ass principle that no one disagrees with.”
I began with the principle that theft is wrong, even when in the name of making everyone more equal. Once again I invite you to watch a bit of Fox News before you make such asinine comparisons.
“Does “at least on its face” mean that this principle obtains except when it doesn’t obtain? How is this useful?”
It means that you will need a justification that can overcome the basic right of ownership if you hope to rob the rich to feed the poor. You have been tremendously unwilling to do so thus far, which leads me to believe that you have no such justification. Again I would caution you to keep far away from the “because I said so” mentality, which can be used to justify as many abuses as positive interventions, and which has no argumentative force.
“Might not the rich use a government health care option? Might not the rich benefit from safety net program were they to become disabled, or bankrupt, or destitute? Apart from something like direct affirmative action programs, which preclude benefits based upon racial profiles (and which are constitutionally banned already), it seems to me that almost every social program libertarians oppose might be used by most any taxpayer, including the rich, so that virtually everything you oppose meets your criteria. Nice work.”
There is a minuscule chance that a Bill Gates or even just a decently wealthy person will use Medicaid or any other government insurance designed for the poor. There is a far better chance that any one of us will drive on the roads of Wyoming, yet I doubt any of us would argue that paying taxes for those roads is a sensible governmental appropriation of funds.
I actually favor the public option, however. The public option is nothing more than a governmental service which only those who use it will pay for, which is perfectly in line with my ethical view that the only prima facie ethical taxes are those which pay for services that one might actually use.
“Damn skippy.”
You’re proud of making comparisons between someone’s argument and a program which you are ignorant of? How strange.
“I’m relying on the cumulative argument for particular government initiatives. So you need to take my 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, (and so on) together, as a whole, rather than abstracting each point for convenient refutation.”
Ah, the classical philosophical refutation to bolster a weak argument. The problem with your claim is that your points don’t constitute a cohesive argument, but rather a list of distinct points with little connecting them. I will treat them as such.
“5 prime. “Kidneys must absolutely be taken for the greater good.”
It is hard to imagine such a bizarre scenario, but maybe there is some possible world where a significant number of persons must donate kidneys for some overwhelmingly greater outcome that could otherwise not be actualized. It is possible, although ridiculous. It would then, perhaps, be morally permissible to ask folks to give up a kidney, say, in the instance where literal extinction of the human race would otherwise result. Only the kidneys of poor folks can save the world (and maybe Bruce Willis has to deliver them).”
There has always been a perpetual deficit of transplant organs in this country. Literally tens of thousands of people die each year for lack of those organs. Those people would benefit far more from the transplanted organ than the poor would benefit from a better quality of life (saving a life is superior to improving one). Thus on your model we absolutely MUST forcibly take kidneys for the greater good.
How strange that you hold charity to be the method of choice when it comes to the appropriation of organs, but not when it comes to wealth. I wonder if this is because you have more to lose from a mandated organ donation program than you do from high taxes on the fantastically rich. You would do well to consider the empathetic position in this case. It might help you to avoid such inconsistencies.
“It seems like even your own “greater good” exception would allow kidney-taking in this instance. So I’m not sure you have a point to make here. Nor do I care for your outlandish hypo.”
Once again it seems you have missed the point. Taxes which support services that you use are nothing more than the fees that you pay at a dentist, doctor or market, but applied to the government. Because each of them is a consensual contract, each is prima facie (on its face) ethical (for each of us holds that freely taken contracts are ethical). However, there is a possibility that this prima facie can be overcome by another moral argument of greater strength. I have not issued such an argument. You have not either, and I take it that you do not intend to.
“I’m not appealing to Marx, I’m appealing to Locke, et al. I’m appealing to the social contract (And incidentally, Marx’s ultimate eschatology was libertarian in nature). ”
Either you have as little experience with Marx as you do with Fox News, or you don’t know what the word “libertarian” means. I am terribly confused as to how you could believe the radical, violent appropriation of private wealth to be placed in the hands of the state for public distribution and use has ANYTHING to do with libertarian beliefs. The closest you could possibly come is to reference Marx’s ultimate goal of stateless communism, but this is no more libertarian than the beliefs of the Nazis were peaceful (in that they held a world without Jews would be more peaceful and better off).
“This isn’t about a laborer’s claim to the capitalist’s windfall, it is broader than that. There is no capitalism without a society of people in the first instance.”
You’re not talking about the surplus labor justification for stealing the wealth of the wealthy… but then you go on to reiterate that very argument.
“Autonomous individuals cannot achieve society without a other individuals participating as well. Capitalism is made possible only when there is a society of individuals who give up the absolute autonomy found in a pure state of nature. Individuals agree to live together for the betterment of everyone.”
Nothing about this fact is incongruous with the libertarian ideal, and none of it justifies you claim that society has a right to appropriate the wealth of its members at will.
“Capitalism cannot be abstracted from the social contract. By living in a society, and by enjoying the incredible benefits that communities provide (like the ability to have economies, to make, sell, and create products and services, to do most anything apart from hunting wild beasts and struggling to stay alive), each of us owes to one another some basic responsibilities. ”
Right. I have the responsibility not to harm you, to follow the law (in so far as that law is just), and to not harm you property or quality of life through polluting the environment. There is nothing in the social contract about spreading the wealth around. Redistribution of wealth is not necessary to the creation of a functioning republic, as can be seen in the American experience.
“We are our brother’s keepers. We are not the radically autonomous individuals libertarians like to think we are. Indeed, take whichever heroic individual you want, pluck her out of society, drop her alone in the Outback, and see how well she does designing products and services and acquiring wealth and power. If the individual can’t even remotely achieve the same thing autonomously, how in the hell are you going to give her 100% of the credit for doing it within a social context robust with opportunity and demand?”
This is where you go wrong. You make an unjustified jump from “You must follow the social contract to live in society” to “you owe your wealth and life to society, thus you must give it up when asked.”
“This isn’t Marxism, this is common sense. Individuals certainly do great things, but rarely do they do great things without A LOT of help from others.”
And even more rarely do they do great things when that help is forced rather than willing.
“And when others have helped you, you owe them. Period.”
Absolutely so. We have an obligation to abide our just contracts and pay our employees and collaborators the fair wage which we agreed to upon the signing of the contract. However, this can’t be taken to justify the claim that we owe our wealth to people who we have no contracts with (note: we just stated that the social contract involves only a mutual forbearance of harm and an agreement to follow the law. Joining society does not involve promising your wealth over to the collective).
“Oh yeah, and it seems to me that God would have us love our neighbors as we love ourselves.”
It seems to me that your religious beliefs should no more be used to force me to abide by state enforcement of your redistributive policies than should a Muslim’s belief about the nature of pork prevent you from indulging in ham.
“What have you created ex nihilo? What have you fashioned that is so wholly original that you can take virtually all of the credit for? Not too many individual accomplishments that are wholly the product of the individual. We stand on the shoulders of giants who came before us. We borrow from our peers constantly. Everyone plagiarizes. There is no heroic individual in the Randian sense of a true prime mover who deserves all the credit for her creation. There are just better and worse plagiarizers. Why you and others idealize (or idolize?) the individual, I don’t know. I find it naive, honestly. Where individuals have displayed greatness and talent, they have learned much of it from others.”
While it is technically true that there is no new matter in the universe, and that precious few ideas are truly new, the fact that I spent twelve hours crafting a block of wood into a statue or farming a plot of land means that I have a much greater claim to that wood and that land than you do (provided you have no greater claim to the tree that the wood came from or the land, which you have yet to establish).
“Fair enough. You asserted earlier that some taxes are moral and just. So why don’t you answer your own question first? Let “X” be whatever it is that you think is a legitimate government expense (since you are not forthcoming of the particulars).”
And once again you demonstrate that you have fundamentally misunderstood my argument. I invite you to read it through a few more times. My claim is that the only taxes which are prima facie ethical are those which essentially amount to charges for service used (or likely to be used). Taxes which amount to a redistribution of wealth are NOT the same as paying for services used, and thus YOU must provide a strong argument for why such practices are moral.
“The state is not benevolent or charitable when it steals from taxpayers to do X. Unless the state has a right to taxpayer monies (again, you will have to provide an argument to prove this; one strong enough to overcome the basic right of ownership) then you have no place to demand that they give. I beg of you to present such an argument.”
Stealing is wrong. Taxes which amount to theft (the appropriation of money for services not used) are wrong, unless justified by a stronger moral argument. I do not know that such an argument exists, and I do not intend to advance it if it does exist. You also seem incapable of advancing such an argument. Thus, for the time being, I am left with the belief that the only just taxes are those which amount to a fee for services, and that the redistribution of wealth (in the sense of robbing one pocket to fill another) is wrong.
“I’m sure in the end you will show some objective principle is guiding your preferences, and not just arbitrary whim and personal taste.”
No more arbitrary than the basic moral principles that “people have a right to the sweat of their brow”, “just contracts are ethical” and “stealing is wrong”. You’re welcome to deny these, but do so at your peril. You will find that your position quickly devolves into an anarchic mess whereupon those in power decide the fates of those who are not.
It would be fun to go on, but I think I’ve adequately argued my point and refuted your objections. This post took me the better part of an hour, and I’m going to hate myself if I donate any more time to this. I would ask only that you at least consider what I have to say for as long as it took me to write it, without the biasing belief that I am some radical Randian.
If it helps you to abolish such beliefs, I am a libertarian who leans left, reliably votes Democratic, and who hates Rand.
Happy trails.
November 12, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Dear Mr. or Ms. lol, noble pursuer of “truth” for truth’s sake alone! What an admirable service to society you are doing by educating the wretched ignorant masses such as myself!
I have not been a Christian my entire adult life and my beliefs regarding human rights were the same prior to the change in my religious persuasion. I have many atheist and other non-Christian friends who hold the very same views regarding human rights as I do… so your point? I only mentioned my religion in the post as an implication to others (again, people I know personally) who call themselves Christians but do not really care about the physical needs of the poor as evidenced by their comments such as “some people don’t deserve health care.” Also, I fail to see how stating my position regarding rhetoric is “forcing” my moral beliefs on anyone.
If I simply say the words “I am a Christian” or “I believe that all people have the right human right to the bare physical necessities of life such as health care,” is this forcing my religion on you? Ooga booga! I’m clearly not trying to convert anyone. I’m pretty sure if you scan my blog up, down, and backwards, you won’t find a single “if you died right now would you go to heaven or hell?” type statement, or an invitation to pray a salvation prayer anywhere.
Also, using your logic, it seems that you are imposing your moral beliefs on me in all of your libertarian ideological-based arguments, regardless of the motivations behind them. Do religiously-motivated moral beliefs somehow fall into a special class of moral beliefs that can be dismissed with much more haste and indifference, just because you say so?
A pat on the back to you for hating Rand. A pat on the back to me for predicting that you are a libertarian – Though I am extremely confused as to why you would care to enlighten me on the delicate nuances between anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism, unless you claim to be an anarcho-capitalist yourself… AC is really just a more extremist subset of libertarianism, with an emphasis on Austrian economics. ***shudder*** I suppose maybe it’s because you hate this subset of libertarianism that you cared to distinguish between AC and libertarians as a whole. If so, another pat on the back! I am of the opinion that any person who ascribes to a political philosophy containing the word “anarcho-” anywhere in its name actually belongs in a 1970s punk band… They should probably go check on Sid Vicious, I think he might be passed out in an alley somewhere.
Happy trails to you, too. Now go act in your own rational self-interest and create some capital.
November 12, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Sorry.
Just thought of one more thing.
Interesting. I don’t recall pretending to be innocent. Rather, I recall qualifying everything I said with this:
There. I’m a smartass with a limited amount of restraint. I said it. Have you said anything humble or self-deprecating lately? Have you conceded any points? Any, at all? Or are you 100% right and flawless in everything you do and say? Have you given anyone a pat on the back for a good point they made?
Using words such as “robbing” the rich is exactly the kind of loaded emotional rhetoric I was talking about in the original post. How on earth can people have a reasonable conversation when you’re going to frame the discussion in terms of the government coercively “stealing” and only certain, qualified taxes that you choose as “theft”? And no, in my original post I did not intend to call for a public policy change that “forces” (another loaded word) one group to work for the betterment of another. I thought I made that abundantly clear in my original response to you. (See last paragraph of original post. Again).
However, yes, now I am telling you that I do want a change such as you describe (minus the loaded emotional rhetoric), but I am not going to go into a 50 point argument as to why. Much of the reasoning is self-evident. I will give you one point: Are you really so naive to think that all people start out in life on an equal playing field? Do you really think that a child born in a trailer in rural Appalachia will have all the same educational, emotional, and general life opportunities as Ivanka Trump? Not to mention access to basic living essentials such as food, shelter and health care. So no, no I absolutely do not feel the least bit bad about implementing a progressive tax structure to pay for a health care system that will cover health care for all of our citizens, especially the poorest of them. The moral argument is that the rich and the poor do not start on an equal playing field. Most of the poor are generationally poor. I might feel bad about “robbing” the rich (I feel dirty using your dishonest terminology), had everyone started on an equal playing field, but that is not so in this country. At ALL. You say you vote democratic, but this fun picture comes to mind: http://punditkitchen.com/2009/03/01/political-pictures-gop-candidates-republicanism/ (Just replace “republicanism” with “libertarianism.” It fits perfectly.)
Are you against the public education system in the United States as well? You know, if you don’t have children it is a service you will never use, or if you send your children to private school it is also a service you will never use. For consistency’s sake, Mr. or Ms. devil’s advocate, you should be against the public education system as well (but oh wait… most schools are financed by property taxes, which are structured differently than the income tax. I’m sure you have an uber-sophisticated response to that as well).
That was a long single thought. Oops.
November 20, 2009 at 3:28 pm
I doubt that “Lol” will ever come back to finish our discussion, but if she does, here is my short reply. I simply can’t address all the errors from her last comment.
LOL: “I actually favor the public option, however. The public option is nothing more than a governmental service which only those who use it will pay for, which is perfectly in line with my ethical view that the only prima facie ethical taxes are those which pay for services that one might actually use.”
Wrong. The initial cost, at least, of setting up a public option has been estimated at a variety of price tags, Obama’s estimate being 900 billion dollars. Perhaps down the road it may pay for itself, but to get the option off the ground involves a major spending initiative relevant to all taxpayers generally, many of whom will not benefit from the public option. By your own rigid tax principles, you simply cannot support the public option. Period. And probably, there is no way to theoretically launch such a government program without general taxation coming into play for up front costs, so, please, there is no need to back track to some possible world where government health care programs costs nothing to launch.
The upfront cost of the public option is common knowledge, well reported in the media over the last year. Surely you were not ignorant of it? There is no way you can support the public option and maintain your principle of voluntary tax based on use.
This, I think, reveals the absurdity of a “libertarian who leans left.” You simply cannot lean left economically and be a libertarian–these positions are contradictory by definition–except when one gives way to the other, but then you aren’t really both are you?
Either get on board with the fiscal conservatives (and get out there and campaign for Sarah Palin and Ron Paul) or support a progressive income tax system.
LOL:“How strange that you hold charity to be the method of choice when it comes to the appropriation of organs, but not when it comes to wealth.”
You are not seriously asking me to waste my time and yours distinguishing between government’s making exorbitantly wealthy persons pay a little more taxes and government’s making poor people give up a major internal organ?
This is certainly not analogous. The first of a hundred distinguishing factors: forced organ donation involves serious physical risks of death, injury, and long term complications. Forcing, say, a 5% increase in taxes on the wealthy has virtually no sting at all for the wealthy, and in all likelihood will actually serve to lower rates of death, injury, and long term complications (in the context of a government health care option).
Justifying a little higher taxes for the wealthy does not open the door to government taking just anything from anyone for any reason, your slippery slope argument notwithstanding. Nice try though.
And, by the way, if you insist that an involuntary tax system opens wide the door to taking anything for any reason, then you have succeeded, once again, in undermining your own broader political view(unless you are an anarchist, and you’ve stated otherwise). To explain:
Your principle is that every involuntary government taking should be prima facie barred. Your policy argument for this is that it creates a slippery slope wherein next we will be taking organs from folks, or might as well since the justification is for both is the same. You think once we crack the door, the floodgates will open for all sorts of government oppression and authoritarian rule.
But here is your abject failure: you’ve already cracked the door yourself because you believe that the government can force certain things already. Perhaps contract enforcement? Or perhaps law enforcement—say criminalization of murder? I’m sure you agree.
Do tell then, why do you oppose all involuntary taxes (esp. for the wealthy), but you simultaneously prefer government police action, by force, for the deliverance of a murderer into the penal justice system—one who might otherwise voluntarily turn herself in, but you would involuntarily force from her her very freedom, her very life?
So far, your politic doesn’t hang together all that well.
November 12, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Lol,
Do come back when you can, I want to discuss this further. I will respond to your last comment when I can.
Who are you and what is your background? Are you poli-sci or philosophy?