Justice with Michael Sandel

Episode Three

Share this content

Join the Conversation

The spirited classroom debate doesn’t have to end when class is over. Share your thoughts with other viewers from around the world. Join the ongoing discussion or start your own. Ask a question or respond to ours:

Public Discussion Circle

Comments (277)

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 27, September 2009, 6:30 am

The pinto obstacle-
the cost benefit analysis tool is flawed in that it is finite. The ford folks did not contemplate the lawsuit in their model, oh and the marketing image as well-they most likely lost future sales.
Additionally, the ford cost benefit team was flawed- they were biased. Their bias limited their faculty to consider all other factors(also in the Phillip morris study). Perhaps a nonbiased third party panel could assist in the analysis.

2. How much would it cost to make the pinto with a zero human disaster component, including a sadness factor(ie not enough cup holders)? Understandably, At the end of the day, a business decision had to be made.

Ford hopefully learned a lesson
reply

(keddaw) said:

Thursday 1, October 2009, 11:18 am

Ford very much DID include the lawsuits in their model.

They calculated the estimated number of deaths, multiplied it by the estimated legal costs of each death and that number came to less than the cost of recalling and refitting all Pintos.

The calculation became known to the Jury and they reacted with outrage and awarded huge punitive damages against Ford. Had Ford's calculation not come to light then they'd have saved money paying out 6-figure lawsuits, but the 9-figure award obviously changed that!

(msgnet) said:

Saturday 28, November 2009, 11:55 pm

I think the punitive damages against Ford were unjust. The only penalty justified was the loss of future sales inflicted by the free market, from customers who believed Ford cars to be unsafe as a result of the Pinto situation.

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 1, October 2009, 10:10 am

Victoria's example of murder as an actualization of our self ownership is flawed because it suggests that the murderer is asserting ownership of the murdered. From the libertarian view the right to "own" is the right to preserve or destroy a piece of property. To murder is to infringe on the rights of another by destorying an object over which you have no claim. Nozick suggests that the self is an object that is intrinsically un-claimable by any entity besides the self and thus the murdered should only be the only entity able to decide its own destruction.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 4, October 2009, 3:58 pm

The idea of self ownership as used by libertarians implies self creation. Humans are not mere solitary animals but social beings. To make my point short, their development of "self" wasn't all their own doing. Interactions with others in countless ways since their birth contributes greatly to whatever "self" unfolds.

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 30, October 2009, 3:54 am

Victoria's point was not that murdering would grant her ownership of the victim. She merely used the act of murder as an example of an action that she is unable to perform because she lives in a society. Her point is that she doesn't fully own herself because she has sacrificed her ability to murder people in order to be a functional member of our society.

Our society has agreed that there will be consequences to the act of murder and our society has also agreed that there will be consequences to the act of not paying taxes. Therefor, due to coercion, we do not entirely own our ability to decide our own actions without fear of consequence.

While Victoria has a point that we don't totally own our actions if we live in a society, the choice to live in that society is an action itself, and as long as an individual can choose to leave a society, they have self ownership.

Taxation is not equivalent to forced labor because people can choose not to live in society and therefor not pay taxes. Slaves who are performing forced labor cannot simply leave if they do not like the situation.

(msgnet) said:

Saturday 28, November 2009, 11:45 pm

A fundamental principle of libertarianism is that one person has the freedom to do what she wants, provided she does not prevent someone else from doing the same. Murder clearly violates that principle.

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 4, January 2010, 2:56 am

Victoria's example clearly contradicts the principle of self-ownership, and it's disappointing that Michael Sandel didn't point that out himself. One can only rightfully control (including destroy) that which one already OWNS.

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 1, October 2009, 10:23 am

I added my thoughts and typed in the letters and numbers contained in the image and you computer said they were wrong. Why bother with comments if you are not going to receive them?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 1, October 2009, 10:37 am

To say that taxation is slavery is wrong as it includes only the State in the model. If one takes society as the model and the State as being a function of redistribution then it is a different thing. If Bill Gates has a family starving on his estate or several families starving on his estate then he would probably wish to feed them. Eventually he would probably employ somebody to oversee this function. This is what the State does in a democracy.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 4, October 2009, 8:35 pm

First of all, we're a Republic, not a Democracy, not an insignificant point seemingly lost on most, thereby can't help but wonder how most even graduated HS, much less accepted into College at least in this country; the "State" is intentionally limited in authority from encroaching on individual rights. Bill Gates or anyone is free to redistribute their own wealth as they see fit, hiring anyone as they may choose. No valid analogy exists between how one may use or distribute their own resources, and the authority of the state to use or distribute that which are not theirs, majority or otherwise. However it may be argued that Bill Gates in fact derived a majority of his wealth by being improperly allowed to operate a nearly unregulated monopoly, to the determent of the free-market and thereby population; but a little late for corrective action now.

(J. Goldsmith) said:

Tuesday 26, January 2010, 1:46 am

The United States of America is not a democracy. In fact, it is the opposite of a democracy; it is a republic of laws, which protect individual liberty over the will of the majority or democracy!

Obviously, before teaching and debating philosophy, the professor and his students need to be taught the basic law and foundation of our country!

(Jelle NL) said:

Thursday 1, October 2009, 11:17 am

Field observation: In the Netherlands the rich pay 52% income tax. It is not my impression that they live or feel like "slaves" or "do not belong to themselves".
reply

(keddaw) said:

Friday 2, October 2009, 3:08 am

Many slaves felt priviledged on the estates they worked on, feeling lucky to be there with plentiful access to water and food.

Didn't stop them being slaves.

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 4, October 2009, 6:00 pm

I'm first generation Danish-American and my family back in Denmark pay between 50 - 80% in income tax in what is an excellent example of a European Socialist State. The thing is that everything they may need, from cradle to grave is provided through the government and if they're talented enough they can be paid to go to school to become a brain surgeon if they want. The government realizes that they will eventually repay everything it costs through providing society with the benefits of their studies. On top of this over the last thirty years an English University has been naming the "happiest" people in the world and consistently lists Denmark at the top of their list (despite paying some of the highest taxes in the world)

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 16, October 2009, 10:34 pm

Europeans tend to actually get something back in the form of services for the taxes they pay. American tax "revenue" goes almost exclusively toward the ever increasing national debt.

(msgnet) said:

Saturday 28, November 2009, 11:49 pm

Perhaps they have just not yet reached the point at which they are willing to do something about it.

(Elchin) said:

Sunday 29, November 2009, 11:29 am

Cause in Europe people are extremely closed minded to be able to change things. When you impose the law to then, they never question it second time, and they just blindly follow it. This is just the psychology of people. I live in Germany, and I am the witness of that.

(McDuff) said:

Thursday 3, December 2009, 7:16 pm

Elchin

Those are fine fighting words, given that it's the Americans who are pressing for the removal of restrictions on domestic spying, due process and torture. Just one mention of the word "terrorism" and your average right-wing, tax-avoiding hard man suddenly turns into a snivelling baby who goes crying to the daddy government to take all his rights away if he can just be made to feel safe, however falsely.

Europe has its issues, but the last thing we need to help us solve them is posturing neo-macho imbeciles from the colonies come to tell us that we should try and emulate their dysfunctional economies.

How many children in America die because they can't get basic healthcare, again? And how many Americans argue that it should be kept that way because of "costs" and never once think about the vast Pentagon budget?

Attend to the plank in your own eye.

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 1, October 2009, 12:01 pm

According to Hobbes an individual not in a society is in the state of nature: man against man. where the strongest takes what he/she wants becuase he/she can. Individuals form societies (initially under the strongest peron like a king) where a social contract is formed. Individuals agree not to steal each others things, to conform to a certain level of behavior not to murder, rape etc. it is the purpose of the king (which has developed into the government) to see that this is enforced. When individuals 'sign-up' to society (the protection of their goods, safety from murder etc) , they effectively take out a contract with the governement. Contracts can be payed either by money or goods and services aka labour. Taxation is not slavery becuase it is simply a form of payment for the social contract
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 5, December 2009, 9:03 pm

The social contract you write about includes services such as the protection from murder, stealing, rape, etc. which references one member not taking a value from another member of society, i.e., a libertarian leaning perspective. I wonder if the social contract would be just if society took a value from the individual for the redistribution of wealth? Maybe not slavery and certainly not protection from loss (the government isn't protecting my value but taking it) but something in between?

(mannacio) said:

Thursday 1, October 2009, 2:09 pm

In today's lecture about Libertarianism vs.the Utilitarian view an implicit assumption was not challenged. The implicit assumption that a so called "free market economy" can exist, and that it distributes either wealth or earnings in a completely uncoerced contractual relationship between the worker and the employer is fundamentally flawed.

Prior to the existence of unions in the days of Dickens, and later on, the "Robber Barons", it was clear that the very wealthy could easily manipulate wages and the bargaining power of an individual was not in any way equal to the owner of the company that employs him. The result was, and still is (unions notwithstanding), that the so called "free market" coerces labor from people who otherwise have no viable option except starvation.

The objective of the corporation or the owner of a company is to maximize profits without regard to how this is achieved. Therefore, exploiting the weak and coercing work at the lowest possible wage from those who have no other alternative becomes the modus operendi for our economy. Which, we now euphemistically call monopolistic competition. In this context the government has not only a right but an obligation to level the playing field. The worst examples of this exploitation are the "off-shoring" of jobs to third world countries so that we hear that 13 year old girls in Thailand are sold, by the impoverished families, to work for contractors of Nike or other sneaker manufacturers - or that Chinese are producing garments under working conditions which no one, who truly had a choice, would accept.

The "free market" advocates will tell you that's how you can manage to purchase goods so cheaply at WalMart. The "ivory tower" description of this process is called "comparative advantage". They are "better" at producing clothing and we are "better" at producing expensive drugs (for now). This the Libertarians who tacitly accept the "free market" dogma ought to read James Galbraith excellent refutation in his book "The Predator State" or Barbara Ehrenreich's books "Bait and Switch" and Nickle and Dimed". Even if you don't read these excellent books explain, if you can, how CEOs responsible for their companies demise get to walk away with millions if any kind of arms length fair contract existed between stockholders and the companies they "own".

Anyone on the Libertarian team is most specially invited to reply to this (along with any others that share that view).
reply

(keddaw) said:

Friday 2, October 2009, 3:49 am

The 'free' market described by libertarians simply means free of undue government distortion.

It does notmean free of regulation. In fact, the only taxes that libertarians are obliged to pay are for the regulation of markets which come under the maintaining of property rights.

With no regulation there is no obligation for a company to pay for goods or services rendered (including wages) and the whole system collapses.

While it is understandable that you'd focus on the poor treatment of labour in the past (and in currently poor countries) it is the whole system that would be protected, although a minimum wage would be unlikely...

There would also be regulation of pollution and other negative externalities as the state would be forced to take the collective rights of the populace (who couldn't compete against a company individually) and set limits on exactly what type and how much pollution/noise/whatever a company could produce.

In summation, free isn't free as you think it. Expoitation of workers is what every company does (read Marx for more on that) however in a truly free market labour will be fairly rewarded as the market sees fit. Could this lead to people starving in the streets, of course, but then it is up to philanthropists (everyone!) to help those less fortunate. What it should not be left up to is for the state to determine how philanthropic people should be.

Would ANYONE be happy if, rather than take 10% of your salary to pay for (insert welfare scheme here) the government instead made it law that you had to give that 10% to a named charity? In principle they are identical.

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 6, October 2009, 7:23 pm

In Response to Kedaw: Part of my point, which you allude to when you mention Marx, is that I do not think a "truly" free market can exist in the real world. Not that I favor communism but I think the level of regulation allowed by libertarians does not take into account the unequal bargaining positions of the worker and the employer. GM in the 70s notwithstanding.

Given this inequality of bargaining positions there results and unjust distribution of wealth that has nothing to do with merit. Your "Charity" question, in my mind boils down to this: if a person is working and trying to better themselves is it just for them to be starving simply because they were not born with the athletic skills of a Michael Jordan, or the abilities necessary to be a doctor or a lawyer? If the answer is no (and I think it is) there certainly should be a minimum wage in all countries and it should be adequate to meet a descent standard of living with no luxuries. If this means that is equivalent to a 10% contribution to a charity in the form of increased costs at WalMart or taxes that redistribute wealth then so be it. The blind lady that holds the scales of justice did not, I think, intend that only those endowed with special genetic gifts or raised in the best of homes, should have a chance at living decently.

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 25, October 2009, 11:11 pm

IF THE 13 YR OLDS WERE NOT MAKING
NIKE PRODUCTS...THEY WOULD BE STARVING...THEY ARE PART OF
THE FREE MARKET (OR AT LEAST THEIR PARENTS ARE)

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 5, December 2009, 9:26 pm

Let me first give full disclosure. I own five businesses. I would be defined as wealthy by most people. Three of the businesses I have never made a profit. In fact, they have lost money. The "free market" determined that I get paid -42 per hour for the last two years. I am drastically below minimum wage while my employees have continued to get paid. If my earnings were in excess during the good years and therefore unjust than I am assuming that an injustice has occurred when I get paid below a living wage. Who created this injustice? Is a customer such as yourself immoral for exploiting me and not providing me with a living wage?

I don't dispute that what you write about happens but it would help for you to to go out in the real world and experience what the typical business owner in the U.S. experiences such as a 20% five year survival rate. It is very easy to get in your own "ivory tower" and not actually have to figure out how to make payroll without going bankrupt. Yes, exploitation exists but statements such as "The objective of the corporation or the owner of a company is to maximize profits without regard to how this is achieved." is naive and perpetuates a stereotype. You are more than welcome to look at the financials at my businesses and explain if your stereotype fits. I suggest less theory and more practice.

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 1, October 2009, 8:29 pm

What's interesting about libertarianism is that it seems to either A) assume everyone is on equal footing to achieve from birth or B) the unfortunate circumstances that someone may be born into (poverty, for example) is not anyone else's problem but that individual's. We know that A) is wrong, so if that's the basis of Libertarianism, then the theory is fundamentally flawed. But if it's B), then I am concerned about the complete lack of empathy in libertarians. A society cannot be peaceful and prosperous without empathy.

I'm also reminded of Thomas Friedman's wonderful quote, "If you don't go visit the bad neighborhoods, the bad neighborhoods will come visit you." There is an inherent public safety component that makes wealth distribution critical. The greater the gap between classes within a society, the more likely there is to be wide-spread unrest. How does Libertarianism account for this concern?
reply

(ZachT) said:

Friday 2, October 2009, 2:55 am

There is a drastic difference between a society without empathy and a society where charity is extracted. It tends towards the objectivist idea of what do you want out of society. If you want a peaceful society and a happy one a rich man will give freely, however to detract from his happiness to serve the happiness’s of others is neither just nor moral it is a violation of his fundamental rights

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 2, October 2009, 3:07 pm

There is nothing in Libertarian ideology that undermines or denies the value and importance of empathy. It is simply not part of the equation when determining the existence and importance of individual rights and then using those as the legitimate basis for legislation.

It is a complete non-sequitur to implicate that empathy is 'created' when the government creates legislation to tax income on a graduated scale. Re-distribution of wealth is created, not empathy.

Your second paragraph, deals with a completely different premise. The assertion here is that if redistribution of wealth is not forced by the government through some sort of graduated tax system, a public security risk is created. The premise that you are implying is that the possibility of civil unrest caused by unequal distribution of wealth is a more self-evident premise for legislation than individual rights. Therefore the constitutionality or legitimacy of a law (i.e. graduated income tax) should be measured against its likelihood to preserve domestic peace rather than its possible infringement of individual rights.

There, at least I gave your implication a logical premise.

It is not too bad an argument. However, it does create a tautology. That is this: if, by a democratic process, the majority votes on a person or group of people to determine how to best maintain the domestic peace and allows them to do whatever they deem appropriate to insure that, including limiting or denying individual rights(for we have already established that individual rights are not as important as domestic peace), those people in power are then allowed to do whatever they want, including having a legitimate right to deny you the power to vote or conduct any democratic process - if it may have the effect of creating civil unrest.

And so, why should you presume that Libertarianism should account for your concern when your concern is so completely illogical?

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 2, February 2010, 9:52 pm

Free public education is the great equalizer. It extends opportunity to all individuals regardless of wealth or social status. Some consider it a socialist institution but it can be defended on libertarian grounds because the value of education inures to benefit of society at large, not just the individual receiving the education. Any system which extends opportunity to everyone and grants them the freedom to make their own choices and enjoy the fruits of their success is not lacking empathy. I fail to see the empathy in government programs that limit freedoms and encourage dependency instead of self sufficiency and success.

(Christa Avampato) said:

Thursday 1, October 2009, 8:32 pm

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 11, January 2010, 1:19 pm

Very well put. I tried to say this in a post but didn't do nearly as succinct a job as you.

"There is an inherent public safety component that makes wealth distribution critical."

So, it's actually "self interest" of the rich that should drive the distribution of wealth.

As soon as even the strict Libertarians realize this fact, and wake up to its reality, then they should support the concept... no?

(thodelu) said:

Thursday 1, October 2009, 11:16 pm

About libertarianism and its association with inequalities: Libertarianism does not make any claims on the qualities each person is born with. Any assumptions about such qualities being equal or unequal is immaterial to 'justness' of libertarianism. Any quantitative ascertainment of the differences at birth is subjective and probably immoral.

The 'justice' behind libertarianism is only based on - 1. initial holding has to be fair, 2. transaction has to be fair 3. individual owns himself. The inequalities we see therefore can be attributed to either of the above three things.

Initial holdings (1) as suggested in discussion points is contentious. I am a Geolibertarian who believes natural resources belong to everyone and cannot be 'justly' privatized, and almost all of the inequalities arise here. (Refer to Georgism). Any inequalities attributable to (2) can be dealt by law and retribution. The other 'source' of inequalities is (3), attributable to individual abilities - God given or not is immaterial.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 2, October 2009, 12:19 am

I propose that the greater good is served by allowing a free market healthcare to continue because a free market healthcare system enriches the whole world with innovation and new cures. Any philosophy that fails to take count of human nature is a failed philosophy.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 16, October 2009, 11:11 pm

A capitalistic "free market" mainly "enriches" and is "good" for those who are already rich and further impoverishes and is not so good for those who are already poor. History and human nature tend to support that people tend to value personal gain over almost everything else. New "cures" are not needed. There are known and proven "cures" for almost everything already. We aren't told about or allowed to use (most of) them because more money can be made selling us something that does not yet exist.

(Lloyd English) said:

Sunday 7, February 2010, 5:54 pm

So, a little boy in a poor family gets cancer and dies because they cannot afford the necessary treatments.
You are saying that this is all good since it is not about whether or not his parents can afford the treatments needed to save their child's life but is instead that a percentage of the monies that they did pay in hopes of helping him ultimately may have gone toward looking for cures in science labs for other more fortunate people in the future?

I'm sure that this prescription for health care will be little consolation to the parents of a dead child.

What is with this worshipping of the idea of free market anyway, do you honestly think that you actually live within the expression of the philosophical ideal of a free market society. When you pass a homeless person or a food line up or know of people that can't afford health care is this your idea of the expression of "free market"?
I think you would be more comfortable in Hinduism at this point, at least this way you can explain away the suffering of others with bad Karma in a previous life.

Talk about failed philosophy, actually I think your adherence to the failed philosophy of free market (given its collosal failure as a system) would have to be closer to being a member of a religious cult. pass the fruit juice

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 2, October 2009, 3:18 am

1)Well in the status quo the richest 1% pay for most of the services government. To do otherwise wouldn't be very utilitarian going by face value.

2) Forced labor isn't unjust. We force prisoners to work. There has to be a punishment for a crime and that involves confinement and sometimes social work. or community service hours.

3) Also forced altruism is a little different then forced labor. In this case the rich are paying for the publics' right to life.

So categoric and utilitarian interpretations of justice say that progressive taxation is morally right.

Progressive taxation is also not a direct form of wealth redistribution. it's very indirect
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 4, October 2009, 9:05 pm

I can't help but appreciate this line of reasoning here: since prisoners are forced to work, therefore it is ok to force any member of society to work. In other words the same consequences that are meted out to the most destructive members of society should also be applied to constructive members of society - especially to those who are extraordinarily constructive.

Good one.

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 16, October 2009, 11:00 pm

Prison labor is very profitable - enough so to "justify" and result in imprisoning more people (and forcing them to work). Slavery and indentured servitude are also thriving (around the world - and here in the US). This does NOT make forced labor "just" or "morally right".

"Crime" does NOT need to be "punished"; it needs to be prevented and any harm and wrong done "corrected". The US legal system has little to with "justice" (for anyone, let alone for all).

Taxation is almost always unnecessary government extortion - especially on income (and assets). The "fairest" rate, if there is such a thing, would be a "flat" one of no more (or less?) than 10% for anyone. Rich people would pay more than poor people (especially if not allowed all the "loop holes" they have today), but the percentage paid would be the same.

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 2, October 2009, 4:10 am

there is fair exchange in progressive taxation.

the bigger the value the bigger the rate. Not necessarily theft. As long as you don't hit a point where progression is harmed say you make 100 an hour and pay 50 in taxes to making 200 an hour and paying 140 in taxes. Where there wouldn't be much incentive to progress.

so you can be a liberatarian and still kind of get away with the belief of progressive taxation.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 2, October 2009, 4:18 am

Is there a right to life? to property? to self-possession?
What is just punishment for violation of rights?
What are entitlements? Is it the state's job to provide those entitlements and to secure them? How do they go about that?

People deserve disaster relief, but are they entitled to it? If yes then there is a right to life. If the wealthiest 1% own that right to life then one has to extrapolate that right to life to fulfill the state's duty to provide for that right to life.

It's not because of some majority.

On the other hand. Doesn't the 99% of society own something the 1% wants? Couldn't they themselves form a plan to get their money back? Is that not within the realm of possibilities? or is that too impractical?
reply

(eswope) said:

Sunday 4, October 2009, 10:26 pm

" I can't help but appreciate this line of reasoning here: since prisoners are forced to work, therefore it is ok to force any member of society to work. In other words the same consequences that are meted out to the most destructive members of society should also be applied to constructive members of society - especially to those who are extraordinarily constructive.

Good one."

I am frankly durprised that noone has questioned the "forced labor" logic. How exactlt is taxation forced labor?
The individual chooses a piece of work in exchange for a contractually agreed reimbursement.

Said individual also chooses to live in a given society. Taxes are the "membership fee" they pay.

In a free society, that individual could choose not to do that piece of work, and they would not be taxed.
They could choose not to participate in that society, and they would not be taxed.

It is not conscription.
There is no violence, or threat of violence (what is force?)

They are not sent to a labor camp or chain gang.
If one chooses not to "pay dues to society," to contribute to ther social infrastructure, perhaps the most fitting punishment would be extradition, but it isn't.

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 6, October 2009, 12:58 pm

eswope,

I agree. Mine is the cited quote in your reply. I cited the quote not because I am in favor of the forced labor concept but because the original post was making a logical extrapolation so ridiculous that I just couldn't let it lie.

A flat tax is fine. A graduated income tax is the result of the majority exercising illegitimate control over the minority. The majority is thieving from the income of the wealthy by taxing them at a higher rate. I would not call it forced labor, even the Libertarian that I am. I call it robbing. The same principle is violated when gay couples are prohibited by the majority to partake in the privileges of two consenting adults to marry. Their money is not taken but their opportunity is taken. Both scenarios are real in the United States and both are unacceptable.

(Lloyd English) said:

Sunday 7, February 2010, 5:59 pm

Yes, the 99% of society does definitely have at least two things the one percent wants, cheap labour and military protection of their wealth.

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 2, October 2009, 4:47 am

I haven't read about Nozick or Rawls or even Locke since I was in highschool doing ld debate.

you can send me an email james.ornellas@hotmail.com but I did the last few comments.

Thanks for posting a video so that us common folk in Honolulu Hawaii and the rest of the world can experience some of the knowledge Harvard has to offer.
reply

(Jelle NL) said:

Friday 2, October 2009, 7:39 am

Democracy is about a system of government in which power is in the hands of freely elected officials. But does the Statue of Liberty not also stand for a social ideal, that of equality of opportunity? Some redistribution of wealth by progressive taxation might give all children the same chances in life (health care, education), so that nobody suffers from being born poor or being the descendant of slaves.
reply

(Lloyd English) said:

Sunday 7, February 2010, 6:04 pm

Democracy WAS about freedom and equality and opportunity. Democracy became capitalism and capitalism is a psychopath, not an obviously nice person like you.

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 2, October 2009, 7:41 am

I love that this material is being shared and is of such high quality. However, I feel the material has already descended into details without addressing some real fundamental issues. Positions are being debated without really understanding what a legitimate argument looks like. Already there is a discussion of rights and obligations without any framework for justifying them. With the exception of utilitarianism the rest of the debate seems based on personal preference.
It would be refreshing to have a discussion of ethics and morality from a scientific perspective, the most reasonable perspective we can currently hold on these subjects.
From that point of view, we are a species of animal that use social taboos and conventions to improve our chances of survival. In some situations these taboos and conventions are termed ethics and morality, but have no more objective legitimacy than the tendency of rabbits to eat their young when threatened.
The presentation, so far, and I suspect will continue to the end, implies there is 'an answer' or at least determining an answer to the 'right' taboos and conventions is possible or practical. I would like to undermine this position as I think peoples own social taboos and conventions are strengthened by viewing them as potentially 'right' rather than a technology for a species prosperity. This prevents them from reasoning about the issue and means all debates are a tiptoeing through unexamined personal bias. I'd prefer to hear a talk about vaguely viable systems or at least the practical consequences of belief systems, treat morality as a practical technology, without having to constantly accommodate taboos and descend into discussions about whether something is ‘right’ or not. It is much more important to understand the consequences of different belief systems. The libertarian argument highlights this, where an emphasis on unjustified rights has lead those holding that position to advocate a course of action that I suggest goes against their personal feelings. I.e. if they were to experience a loved one suffering through poverty and a loved one being taxed I think a scientific measure of their emotions would show they felt much more strongly about the person in poverty. Yet they have overridden these feelings with a logic which has little rational basis.
reply

(eswope) said:

Sunday 4, October 2009, 10:07 pm

If you are going to argue from a scientific perspective, you'd have a stronger agrumeny proceding from Dawkins (selfish gene) than trusting an individual's feelings. (speaking as a psychologist) we know that there are individuals with no empathy, feelings for other people. They are called psychopaths. There is an interesting logical question here: Are you implying that libertarians are psychopaths?

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 5, October 2009, 4:37 am

Thank you for your interesting reply,
I think there is strong evidence for a selfish underlying motivation in many people, however I think human conventions, like giving up a seat for a pregnant woman, can lead to a stable society that cares for the poor. I'm not saying that that society is necessarily better than a libertarian system, but merely that it is possible. My objection to Libertarianism is that its justification stems from a reasoned argument with axioms that, although emotionally appealing, lead to conclusions that are not (that the poor should suffer). My proposal of a scientific based morality is to propose what system of conventions could be applied to achieve our goals. Of course the goals we pursue are potentially arbitrary and any scientific morality can only describe the most effective means to achieve goals not their relative merit. However, the most important point being that science offers no rational justification for any form of categorical morality. This would incline one to pursue a society in which one was personally happy. If libertarians are indeed quite psychopathic their happy world may indeed include those that suffer, in fact as relative success is a great driver for happiness perhaps it is also emotionally in their self interest. However, this would rely on their relative success in such a system, which could not be guaranteed, especially for their children, which I am presuming they care for. In this way they are advocating a moral system that could lead to their own suffering. In particular they are motivated by a system of reasoning that is convincing to them but not rational for their own self interest.
Western society, especially American society, seems to have been heavily influenced by this morality of self interest (A very interesting perspective on this is in the documentary “The Century Of Self” by Adam Curtis) This position is an effective morality in that it is convincing but not necessarily rational (or reasonably selfish) in that it can lead to a society in which they are less happy.
Of course our concepts of happiness are still being formed, an interesting perspective is that we are motivated by both pleasure and a sense of ‘rightness’. It seems clear that those that are strong libertarians (or indeed strong holders of any moral position) are happy in the sense they feel strong sense of ‘rightness’ for their position and so a rationally disinclined to alter it. I feel the greatest potential of this kind of discussion is to offer people contentment through a strong rational moral philosophy that is sufficiently grounded in a scientific view that it can practically lead to other forms of satisfaction, such as the safety and comfort of ones children and loved ones.
John Bustard

(johnbustard) said:

Tuesday 6, October 2009, 11:44 am

eswope,
Dawkins argues that people are predisposed to prefer to aid family members rather than strangers. However, the fact that we are biologically inclined towards a behaviour does not mean we should encourage that behaviour or view it as 'good'. I am viewing science as a form of philosophy with very high standards for its reasoned arguments. It does contain a small number of very reasonable sounding axioms that it is derived from, in contrast with most moral philosophy which includes many statements that have no justification, for example 'I own myself', these statements lack formal definition and while they may sound convincing have nothing like the same amount of analysis and solidity as boolean logic or the scientific method. I am not proposing more philosophy of science but a science of philosophy, treating the world as consisting of primarily that which is covered by science (no god, no ghosts, no soul etc.) and trying to determine the best culture that an individual can adopt, or encourage others to adopt, so they can have a good life. Some of the 'saner' argument regarding health care is that a state run (or paid for) healthcare service is in some way unfair. Similarly the libertarian argument is often emphasised on what is fair. In both cases it seems clear that some people will suffer enormously without free healthcare or without a state supported by taxes. As someone living in England, American culture often seems cruel to the poor or unlucky. I like to emphasise the importance of strongly analysed reasoned argument, equivalent to the level of scientific statements. If this level of argument were required, a lot of arguments using concepts like fairness, would only have weight in as far as they affected the happiness of the individual and wouldn't hold any objective importance. From this perspective it seems unlikely that most people would have a greater sense of personal happiness as a result of the greater income (i.e. a slightly bigger tv or car), when placed against the chances of a friend or family member having an unexpected medical condition and bankrupting the family or just the basic empathy for the many treatably sick homeless in large american cities. Any anger over concepts of fairness due to taxes really needs to be emphasised for people to feel them strongly, they are much too abstract and remote a concept relative to someone stealing in front of you or any of the other naturally motivated emotional reactions.
John

(Lloyd English) said:

Sunday 7, February 2010, 6:18 pm

Science, morality, ethics, morals, conventions, taboos, libertarian, perspectives, technology, belief systems, objective legitimacy, right, wrong, rabbits, feelings, emotions?

Hey, pick one. I choose bunnies and science.

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 2, October 2009, 8:05 am

The argument that it is slavery to tax Bill Gates(150 dollars a second!) for taxing him surprises me.

It is hard for me to imagine a full libertarian that lives in a third world country, and that does not have the luck of been talented in the things that the current society is willing to pay well.

To defend the property rights of a fraction, say 50 percent of annual income of any millionaire, over the human right to live of children that die of diarrhea, a decease that can be cured with a medicine that costs 0.15 cents, is to me morally indecent, to say the least

Isn't it worse to let inocent children die of preventable diseases than to 'enslave' Bill Gates for a few seconds?

I agree with Richard Rorty when he said that Norway in this sense is a better society than the United States.

Roberto Echeverría
Costa Rica.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 2, October 2009, 3:20 pm

You are simply presenting the least egregious form of an illegitimate premise and trying to use it as leverage to convince people to accept the violation of personal rights as not only moral but you imply that it would be immoral not to do so.

In America, we call this rhetoric. You should consider a career as a politician.

(Roberto Echeverría ) said:

Friday 2, October 2009, 11:46 pm

No. I don't think mine is an illegitimate premise.

I simply think that the personal rights of billionaires are not over the rights of children that are born in third world and die from preventable diseases.

(I know this alone will not solve the problem, of course, but in this case I follow Peter Singer in his classic article when he says that it is right to prevent suffering when you are not 'sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance'.)

I agree with 'strategistk' when he says that 'Bill Gates and Michael Jordan did not 'earn' 100% of their wealth.'

And yes, In Costa Rica, a person that doesn't participate in politics is called an ἰδιώτης.

(keddaw) said:

Monday 5, October 2009, 1:52 pm

It is not immoral for society to defend Bill Gates' wealth from the thieving masses. It IS immoral for Bill Gates to keep his wealth and not help the poor, hence his Bill and Melinda Gates' Fund.

What you are suggesting is that we do a moral harm (take money from the rich) and do a moral good (help sick children). Which is fine, but where do you draw the line? If you keep doing this you end up with everyone being equal and no-one having any incentive to work or progress - economists call this the free-rider problem. AND, more importantly, who are you to say which harm is greater? While choosing an extreme example makes this appear obvious it isn't quite as simple as you think. Should the US tax its wealthiest to help children in Afghanistan (say) knowing full well that some of those children will be indoctrinated into system of hatred where they will then try to kill Americans? That's not quite so simple, is it?

(eswope) said:

Monday 5, October 2009, 2:31 pm

John,
I am not sure that there can not be a categorical scientifically based morality. It seems, ideally, that scientific reasoning, mathematical, political, philosophical would all arrive at the same position, if it were correct (in the abstract). It's too bad that society in general, and acdemia in particular do not seem to properly value philosophy of science.
But, to get back to a more concrete level; Dawkins does argue that there is a prevailing morality based on genetic proximity (which you seem to be suggesting would be something ultimately providing more happiness, but which is overlooked by short-term utilitarian and libertarian thinking). The moral philosophy proceding from genetics/ memetics, evolutionary psychology is that what is good for society is good for oneself, although from the individual perspective, it procedes in terms of proximity; prtotecting and trying to forward the interests of those most closely related: going from first degree relatives to family groups, societies, nationalities...
Where America seems to have gotten it wrong from the perspective of evolutionary psych is that we should place the most value on the young, as they are our future. In the context of the current debate on health care, it is in our (societies') interest to take care of children first, and the elderly last.
I don't think it is science which is devoid of morality ;)

(Roberto Echeverría ) said:

Friday 2, October 2009, 9:14 am

But there is a more fundamental point missing from the discussion:

It is the error of Phales, who amis only at an (more) equal distribution of property, without asking himself how property is related to good functioning and what the right distribution is for. This is not enough: for his proposal does not show a deep enough concern for the totality of the good human life.
More on this: Nussbaum and Sen on Capabilities
(Sen, if I remember correctly, teaches at Harvard, and taught many courses with Robert Nozick... I wonder how that was like.)
reply

(lazar) said:

Friday 2, October 2009, 9:48 am

i think more important questions should be asked.

how come USA military doesn't know where the quarter of its budget money have gone? we are talking about tens of billions of dollars. hmm... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlnQTcLHaMM)

how come *our* (not only money from the rich) are being given to big corporations for projects that are far less important than public health care.

if our society was just, and was using existing tax money appropriately, there wouldn't need to be any redistribution debate! these types of unjust redistributions are needed only in unjust societies. Bill Gates may not have done anything unjust himself, but quite a few rich corporations did. should Bill be a collateral damage? i don't think so, but then again, congress isn't doing its job in more important cases, so can't expect it to do a good job listing exceptions to the redistribution tax law.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 16, October 2009, 11:27 pm

The War (AKA "Defense") Department DOES know where the money went. It's just not going to tell us - especially about "black ops", bribes, and (personal) bank accounts.

Bill Gates owns or controls assets "worth" more than 40% of what the rest of the US population does (combined). Society could take away 90% of what he has and he probably wouldn't even notice any (meaningful) impact on his life - and yet he does not think he has enough! The "little" he gives away tends to be more to reduce his tax liability and to further programs that increase his (and his friends') power and not be what is most needed in the world.

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 2, October 2009, 12:13 pm

I believe it is possible to defend taxation within a Libertarian framework. I accept the Libertarian premise that you own yourself. You also own property that you have justly acquired or have created with your own labor. The collective society (represented by the government) may not compel your labor nor take your property against your consent. You are free to exchange your labor or property for another person's labor or property.

But that's not what most people do. Most people exchange their labor or property for money. Money is something that is created by the government and it comes with the condition (like a deed restriction on a house) that you don't have total ownership of it. The government retains certain rights to your money, subject to a democratic process, and one of those rights is the right of taxation. You consent to taxation when you accept government money for your labor or property.

To use the example from the class, the government may not take the property of Bill Gates or Michael Jordan, nor compel their labor. What the government may do is take some of their money. This is not theft. Bill Gates and Michael Jordan agreed to this when they exchanged their labor or property for government money.
reply

(Jelle NL) said:

Friday 2, October 2009, 3:45 pm

interesting thought: tax as a fee for using money.

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 2, October 2009, 6:28 pm

I'd like to hear from Team Libertarian, do you consent to taxation when you use money?

(Roberto Echeverría ) said:

Friday 2, October 2009, 11:50 pm

Excellent argument. This shows that all private wealth is in a sense 'social'.

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 4, October 2009, 5:01 pm

I think this is a great argument in some respects. It is true that the government provides a service by printing and regulating the supply of money. It is true that a person chooses to use that currency and thereby assume the restrictions and risks that it entails.

Second, the libertarian argument is not against taxes. It is against unequal taxes. What we see today in the U.S. is a progressive income tax. It is important to remember that for most of the world's history it is the poor that have bee taxed most heavily. Libertarianism is equally against this.

Finally, the reason this argument is still not valid is that the tax code of the U.S. is written in such a way that it makes it impossible to evade taxes by simply bartering, gift giving or working in exchange for compensation other than money. The government still requires you to value those things as if they were cash and pay tax on them. Therefore the obligation to pay taxes is not correlated directly to an individuals use of the government's currency.

(keddaw) said:

Monday 5, October 2009, 1:57 pm

I am afraid this fails because when you fill in your tax returns any barter or reciprocal arrangement must be valued and taxed, e.g. If you do neighbour's garden and he repairs your driveway in return then you have to pay tax on that.

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 7, October 2009, 11:37 am

Money is more than paper and coin - it is also a concept, and a social one at that. Any exchange in our society of scarcity relies on this concept; it is only as a consequence that we can measure the exchanges in numerical terms and represent that physically or digitally. It can then be said that taxation is a fee for use of the concept. Note that under anarchy or a situation where resources are infinite there is no need for money.

But of course as stated, libertarians are not against taxation, but rather against unequal taxation. I wonder what gives libertarians a monopoly on the understanding of what exactly is equal taxation? The objection is to the percent to which different income groups are taxed (33% for some, 39% for others, etc). Everything would be fine to the libertarian if we were all taxed exactly X% of our income. This is equal right(?), because each person gives back the same percentage. However, in absolute dollars, it is very unequal. Why don't libertarians argue that everyone should be required to pay $Y in taxes? You can't get more equal than that - short of requiring no taxes of anyone. The reason is that first, absolute taxation is a disaster, some sit in debtors prison while others enjoy a free ride. Second, if we say percentage, then we can preserve the notion of equality while avoiding the disaster.

It is important to note the transition that has been made in the use of the word equal here. Equal absolute dollars is just that, while equal percentage dollars is the equitable application of a formula. Now, the formula for calculating a percentage is a powerful and useful tool, but it is only one among many tools. The use of the percent formula is completely arbitrary though, and is therefore a mere preference of libertarians.

We could devise an exponential formula that calculates taxes owed (the more you make the REALLY much more you owe in absolute dollars) and apply that to everyone. It still passes the test of the equal application of a formula to everyone. Perhaps percentage is preferred because it strikes a balance between the alternatives I suggest. However, this is an illusion created by the low number of examples I provided here, and the relatively low number of examples that I or anyone can imagine in general.

Any "equal" way you calculate taxation is going to be "unequal" according to a different calculation. There is nothing sacred about percentages (well, ok you got me on tithing, but I don't think we have time to go into that). Even if libertarians could point to some evidence of nature that says percentages are favored by the universe, they make the same mistake that you see libertarians make over and over again - trying to derive an "ought" from an "is".

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 13, October 2009, 3:13 pm

Bartered exchanges are subject to the same tax obligations as currency transactions.

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 2, February 2010, 10:10 pm

The government uses coercion to require you to use their money as exclusive legal tender. If they didn’t, other groups and individuals would fill the void. Providing a uniform system of exchange does not justify the confiscation of the value it represents.

(Lloyd English) said:

Sunday 7, February 2010, 6:26 pm

So in your democratic process this "condition" of money not being owned and the right to tax it would have to be passed by an act of government. Please name this act or bill that allows your government to tax your money that you apparently don't own.

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 2, October 2009, 2:45 pm

Two other utilitarian condemnations might take the form of these:
(1) For the modern world, the argument could be "Insufficient Data." Fearful, ignorant, and compliant spectators have not been teased apart from the pupulation who are truly cheering the spectacle. After subtracting these, the "enough" population may be significantly reduced to "not enough" pleasure to warrant the expense of staging the violent spectacle.
(2) For the ancient world's violent spectacle, the argument could be "Self-Preservation." Christianity is known for its life-preserving philosophies. EX: Right-to-Life, Resurrection, and Everlasting Life (immortality). Statistically speaking, if ever a cure for death were discovered, the probability is that it will come from this passionate pro-life population. As the Utilitarians possess a minimalist view of available resources, thereby sharing an un-empathic view towards individual life in the pursuit of such, their admirable contribution to the population's pleasure is "better cost-cutting strategies." It is safe to assume that attaining immortality is worth far more than a balanced check book. A good argument to put forth to Caesar could look like this: "Killing Christians could negatively affect the probabilities of finding a cure for [your] death."
reply

(eswope) said:

Sunday 4, October 2009, 10:36 pm

"Finally, the reason this argument is still not valid is that the tax code of the U.S. is written in such a way that it makes it impossible to evade taxes by simply bartering, gift giving or working in exchange for compensation other than money. The government still requires you to value those things as if they were cash and pay tax on them. Therefore the obligation to pay taxes is not correlated directly to an individuals use of the government's currency."

It follows logically then that libertarians would endorse closing tax loopholes, and offshore corporations (e.g.) which permit a certain priveledged class from avoiding taxes.

(eswope) said:

Monday 5, October 2009, 2:52 pm

"if ever a cure for death were discovered, the probability is that it will come from this passionate pro-life population."

Unlikely, as that population is also anti-science. The highest probability is that a cure for any physical ailment will come from science.

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 6, October 2009, 11:29 am

eswope,

It does follow logically that Libertarians are as much against tax evasion by the rich as they are to over taxing the rich. I believe this argument (generally referring to all the postings here) has ignored that for most of history and still in many countries, it has been the poor who have paid a greater percentage of their income in taxes than the rich (i.e. feudalism). Libertarianism is as strongly against this as it is against taxing the rich at higher levels.

As stated in the lecture, Libertarians are not against taxes. They are against individuals being taxed at different percentages for any reason whatsoever. All individuals should be taxed at the same percentage indifferent of age, gender, income, race, occupation and so on and so forth.

Wealthy individuals will still pay a much larger amount of taxes than less wealthy individuals but they should not have to pay a larger percentage.

(PhantoM4747) said:

Friday 2, October 2009, 6:30 pm

Greetings everyone,

I believe that when we live in a society, we give up certain 'rights' if you want to call them that, in trade for taking advantage of the conveniences, opportunities, and in fact all things 'bad or good' that come with said society, and also that you have a responsibility if any, set by said society, to said society, regardless of your individual liberty or 'right', or will.

However, this is not to say that I believe we for example, would otherwise possess an innate right to kill someone (based on the self-possession model) were we not living in society, but that outside of society, there is nothing to judge such an action one way or another, aside from one's self-possession.

The fundamental flaw I find with all of this though, is the inescapable reality that there is no choice to begin with, regarding whether or not you wish to be part of society, which renders everything beyond it moot. What I mean is, that there is nowhere you could go, nowhere you could live or work where you would not be subject to some society's rules, regulations, moral standpoints, perhaps religious views/laws, norms, taboos, judicial proceeding and otherwise jurisdictions. You are always under someone's law, no matter where you go, drawing the conclusion that perhaps one was never free, or rather offered a choice, to begin with.

Setting this aside, assuming that we have a choice of which society we live in, and based on the choice of living in a so called 'free' and 'democratic' society, it still remains that one has chosen this society and therefore must accept to be subject to whatever restrictions and liberties,(with no exception) that are granted by democratic vote in that particular society. This is all assuming a democracy that actually incorporates every single individual's vote on every issue, not like the 'democracy' we have now where, you basically choose an official to hand over your voice to, regardless of your actual vote/opinion/will.
reply

(strategistk) said:

Friday 2, October 2009, 9:17 pm

I wouldn't call it a forced labor. Rather, I'd call it "forced noblesse oblige".

I believe Bill Gates and Michael Jordan did not 'earn' 100% of their wealth. I believe some of their wealth were also 'given' by the society.

First of all, we don't live in a perfect society where everything is just and fair. There are many flaws in the system and some people are disadvantaged by those flaws and some people are able (or lucky enough) to take advantage of those flaws.

Bill Gates and Michael Jordan are both very talented individuals and they worked very hard to achieve their successes. However, it is the society that allowed or gave them the opportunity or the ways to make billion or million.

Taxing riches more to help the poor may not be just or fair, but that's another flaw in the system that the riches should accept in order to take advantage of other flaws in the system to make millions or billions of dollars.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 6, October 2009, 2:34 pm

One thing I'd like to say in reply is , does it seem fair for American government to tax average citizens at the same rate as wealthy, when as far as protecting personal property from foreign threats, the wealthy have much more (almost all) of the resources an American Army needs to be funded in order to protect while the average citizen pays the same rate but owns much less to protect.

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 2, October 2009, 11:30 pm

I'm surprised how when the question of ownership arises, no one even considers saying: "We are owned by God"! Whether you like it or not, being owned by God is not a new phenomena! and also believed by billions of people around the world. Looking at a lot of these problems through the perspective of being owned by God, will make a huge difference in the discussions.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 3, October 2009, 8:04 am

In a pluralistic society, not everyone is going to agree on a single concept of God, or what God wants. Even if it is true that we are owned by God, then that is directly between us and God, not between us and the society. The government is unqualified to be God's proxy.

(keddaw) said:

Monday 5, October 2009, 2:01 pm

It was all going well until you brought up the G word.

If you choose to say you are owned by God then so be it, but DO NOT dare to speak of me being owned by anyone or anything.

(Greg) said:

Tuesday 6, October 2009, 2:43 pm

The problem with invoking God is that poor people are finding out that the wealthy are more worthy of Gods ownership than are the poor. At least as far as the wealthy are concerned. This is true whether you are speaking with a wealthy evangelist or a wealthy robber baron.

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 7, October 2009, 4:15 am

Keddaw it doesnt matter if I say it or not! No need to get all emotional, you are owned one way or another, in this case it is apparent that you are owned by the thought of owning yourself or "being your own god". If this is true, how can you own yourself when you have relatively no power over yourself, you had no power of becoming alive, nor you have power over yourself in death (don't prove to me that you do by committing suicide plz!). You have no power over staying wealthy, staying healthy ... everything can be taken away from you in a split second. So before asking me to NOT DARE say something, DARE a little and look into yourself. If you own yourself, get to know your whole self a bit better...
Greg if by the wealthy being more worthy of God's ownership you mean they have to have more responsibility in accordance to their wealth and in using it, I think yes, they are.
All these arguments definitely depend on "what purpose we have in life" ultimately. So if someone says to me they don't think that man has a purpose in life, then I guess all these philosophies would work for them...

(keddaw) said:

Thursday 8, October 2009, 7:01 am

I do know myself, intimately. i know that I am but a spec of dust blowing on the winds of time, shaped by systems I can barely understand.

But what I do know is that I am a free, autonomous being with the ability and right to do as I please as long as it harms no other.

"you are owned by the thought of owning yourself " Is this another one of those statements that appear deep on the surface but are actually empty when looked into? Thought so.

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 11, October 2009, 5:33 am

I like how you see yourself humbly keddaw. You have partly answered the questions yourself. Amazingly I feel even specs of dust have a purpose, so both you and I have a purpose which we are free in carrying it out... So we all should look more deeply in ourselves and discover its many secrets.

p.s. Being "owned" by God does not mean you're not free, think about it

(keddaw) said:

Sunday 11, October 2009, 12:47 pm

Slightly unrelated to the topic at hand, but the mention of 'free' meant I had to say something.

Ironically, only religious people can actually claim to be free (while worshipping and all-knowing, all-powerful god!). Everyone else must be a materialist and agree that every action or thought we have is shaped by the state of our brain just before it, which is shaped by the state of our brain just before that ad infinitum.

Thus, an atheist cannot logically think they have free will but a religious person can. If religious people can think logically.

But we do not have a purpose. I suppose if you think you do and it gives you comfort fair enough, but please don't start using the 'higher purpose' as an excuse to shape social policy to whichever fantastical version of mumbo-jumbo you follow.

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 11, October 2009, 1:09 pm

lol keddaw you crack me up! It's sad, but you do! Don't worry I won't make social policies for the united states, you're screwing it up well enough on your own over there! If life has no purpose how can you say you're progressing? When there is no goal, how are you developed! What are you developing towards? more nothingness? If you have no purpose, why even bother answering me here? go and be free my friend, smoke a pot on me, so you will be able to forget more and more...

(wobean) said:

Saturday 3, October 2009, 3:48 am

I hope he discusses anarchism in a later episode, for I see it as the only philosophy that actually follows the self-ownership principle to it's logical conclusion.

PS: Amazing lecture from a brilliant professor. Thank you for sharing this.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 3, October 2009, 11:24 am

What seems to be missing is the understanding of where the original value comes from. It is the combination of labour and the natural gifts of the land/planet. I'm with the libertarians on the notion that tax on effort/labour is theft and makes us as slaves, BUT I think that in a society where we agree to co-operate in some endeavors i.e. Law, Law enforcement, Water provision etc where shared financial resources are needed then a much more equitable place to look for the funding is from the rent derived from the underlying value of the land.

The land and it's resources, minerals, soil, etc are not man made; they are not derived from the efforts of humans i.e. the underlying land, not the crops or the improvements on the land. We should all get to share in that value. People should be allowed to own or claim property, however I think that in an enlightened/loving society the best way to raise shared capital will be from the rental value of land. It will stop wild property speculation bubbles and distribute value fairly (not equally) to all people. If people want to work really hard then they should be able to accumulate as much stuff as they want, but not at the expense of most other people on the planet who are structurally excluded from enjoying the wealth of the planet by those who already own the land or monopolise the resources. Surely even the libertarian free marketeers will understand this eventually.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 13, October 2009, 12:22 pm

Don't count on it. I've been talking George for forty-five years and haven't found more than a few kindred spirits, people who understand what you're saying because it's in their blood. "Economic rent" doesn't sit well with the average land speculator, or aspiring investor.

(zaptruder) said:

Saturday 3, October 2009, 11:31 am

There is a certain beauty and charm to the principled reasoning of libertarianism. It's built on an intuitive premise, and it extends gracefully outwards relatively cleanly.

Unfortunately, despite its charm, it's not a philosophy that has reacted well to the realities that we live in.

Without taxation and redistribution of wealth, we would not have the necessary infrastructure in place to even create the opportunities in which those people were able to create their wealth.

Without roads, we would have little way of accessing the stadiums in which the basketball games of Michael Jordan were held. Without police we would not have people willing to brave the streets to go to the stadium for the basketball games. Without schools we would not have the necessary education system to help us appreciate even the basic principles of basketball.
Without a decent economy which rests on the backbone of the provided infrastructure, we would not have enough people to pay to watch the basketball games and buy the shoes which justify the huge payments that these people collect.

Thought of it a different way, taxation is not force labour; it is the cost of doing business in society. If you don't do business/work/labour, you don't have anything to tax, and you don't have to worry about been forced to do labour. It is abstracted, but at the same point, it's far more efficient that privatizing every element of our lives. Imagine the amount of stress and things we'd have to keep track of if we had to pay for every element of our lives - we'd have to keep on top of our fire protection, our police protection, our national guard protection, we'd have to pay road tolls at most intersections, etc, etc, etc.
Without the necessary state provided education, most people wouldn't even know how these services operate much less know how to manage them with respects to self.

At some point services have to be provided in as transparent and easily accessible manner possible in order to keep an advanced society running. In the future, more services will need to be made transparent; the ones we see as non-essential now, such as the internet, in order for generations of the future to maximize their benefit from the invention.

The other reality that libetarianism fails to properly reflect is the fundamental inequality of people and their situations. It fails to reflect the human condition in essence. Not all people have the faculty to avoid an oncoming car (as is the case of blind people). Not all people have the faculty to make the best decision in their interest to avoid economic pitfall and economic coercion.

Finally the fundamental premise of libetarianism is not bullet proof, despite its initial attractiveness. Phrased as it is... that individuals are owners of themselves, it is a catch-phrase attractive to most people. Fully hashed out, it is something we quickly see logical inconsistencies and rational problems with.
reply

(keddaw) said:

Monday 5, October 2009, 2:54 pm

People want to drive from A to B the government build a road. If the government don't then what happens? Companies decede on the economic viability of the road, build it and charge people for using it. The government also charge a fee for the use of the land (land being a common good). Thus there is no need for a tax to build the road.
The opposite is that if the companies decide the road is economically unviable then it is not in the country's interest for the government to build it, it is a misallocation of resources.

Police/security could be provided in areas by residents/companies to encourage people to come to that area (either to shop or to live).

Schools are a more difficult issue. Either we allow children to go into debt for their schooling or we allow children to be uneducated, or we tax something to make the school pay for itself. Every kid leaving school could have a tax demerit such that they pay for school over their working life, if they choose to work. Or we could have a death tax...

Transaction taxes (sales tax?) would easily pay for a smooth running economy with sufficient regulation to ensure fairness.

As for your smooth running economy - I live in London and we have a system where you swipe your card at barriers and top up automatically through the banking system. WE have road charges but each car is scanned automatically and your bank billed without you having to remember to pay it. Similarly for various types of insurance (house, car etc.) these are all automatically taken off unless you decide to change provider.

National security is the one that would require taxation as it is an all or nothing system. Of course, if you decide not to intervene abroad and simply do business with countries there may be no need for a national security and thus no taxation.

The inequality of people is tough. Some people are born to rich parents, some people are born to good genes. There is nothing we can, or should, do to equalise that. All we can do is to ensure that eeveryone gets a fair chance to succeed.

Libertarianism is not a moral solution, but neither is it immoral, it is amoral. This makes it the best solution because all others enforce sonmeone's morality on the population which cannot possibly be shared by all the people. It is like the US Constitution, it is not for any religion, but neither is it against any religion and thus it is the best solution in a country of mixed religions.

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 6, October 2009, 11:59 am

Really? You see logical inconsistencies with the Libertarian ideology. I'm willing to accept that perhaps on the furthest outliers such as extreme mental disabilities or other irreversible conditions, it could be argued that some individuals can not take care of themselves therefore they either belong to someone or something else or they die. This could be used as an iota of evidence to prove the Libertarian ideology illogical. Otherwise, the only other position you can take is to flat out reject the premise as untrue. Being untrue is not the same thing as being illogical. It may be a logical ideology but not a true ideology.

I argue that Libertarianism is an amoral ideology that it is true but does not prohibit further truth being augmented by a single individual in as much as that further truth only regulates their own existence and does not create forced consequences on the existence of those around them.

If one wants to believe they are owned by God, please do so but it is unacceptable to limit or force another to act in any certain way based on that belief.

If you want to believe that gay marriage is immoral, please do so. But that belief gives you no legitimate right to prohibit gay marriage to someone else no matter how great of a majority you find yourself in.

If you want to increase the federal tax, we can go about it through a democratic process, but we do not expect the poor or the wealthy to pay in greater or lesser percentages. The only logical extrapolation from the stated premise is that each individual should pay the same percentage.

"The other reality that libetarianism fails to properly reflect is the fundamental inequality of people and their situations. It fails to reflect the human condition in essence. Not all people have the faculty to avoid an oncoming car (as is the case of blind people). Not all people have the faculty to make the best decision in their interest to avoid economic pitfall and economic coercion."

No, it does not fail to reflect the human condition. It treats it differently. You are implying that because a blind person assumes more risk than a seeing person when crossing the street, that some other person, group of people or institution has the right, responsibility or duty to prohibit them or limit them in their freedom to assume that risk. You are implying that because a person does not have the ability to make the best decision regarding their financial interests, they ought to be limited, prohibited or regulated in their freedom to make that choice.

Therefore you are first assuming that you or someone or something know better than said individual to what end they are aiming financially. You are assuming that you or someone or something would make a choice that would be better at getting them to that desired end. Finally you are suggesting that they be forced to cede their liberty to make that choice to you or someone or something.

And you criticize Libertarianism for not being bullet proof? This isn't logic. It's a pile of assumptions.

(johnbustard) said:

Wednesday 7, October 2009, 6:07 am

You are currently arguing whether libertarianism is logical or not, however from a purely scientific standpoint it has no inherent legitimacy. The concept of owning oneself is not an unquestionable truth neither is the statement that taxation is equivalent to slavery or that slavery of this kind is necessarily wrong. All moral systems are a set of conventions and taboos that facilitate social interaction. As such they are dependent on the support of their members. It does not matter how elegant the reasoning of a moral position, if that position leads to a society with a large number of people who are suffering then they will be motivated to overturn such a system. America achieves stability despite its large inequalities as a result of the promise that anyone can make a better life for themselves, and in this way those that suffer are doing so because they are 'not trying'. In addition they have made the opposite perspective, that each person should contribute what they can and that everyone’s needs should be satisfied (socialism) a taboo. This system has advantages and disadvantages, one advantage is that the society is dynamic, it encourages people to work hard because they believe they can better themselves. On the other hand it permits very low standards of living for some of its members. It is stable only in as far as it can convincingly make those that suffer believe they have a chance of improving their lives and that those with better lives have them legitimately. If this confidence were to be undermined, then the society would risk a cultural revolution. It is interesting to think that electing a black president does more to support a republican viewpoint than a democratic one, in that it reinforces the perceived fairness of America. Perhaps it is primarily the fluctuations in this belief system that reflect the changing influence of the two parties. From this perspective neither view is more 'correct'. They merely have differing degrees of practicality depending on the mood of the American people, particularly those experiencing a relatively lower standard of living.

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 3, October 2009, 12:15 pm

Katrina - How much money went to real help and how much was truly squandered?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 3, October 2009, 12:24 pm

I am proud to be in this majority. The alternative is IMO to embrace victim mentality!
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 3, October 2009, 12:31 pm

Oh, I meant MINORITY - Just wanted to give you an intelectual reason to show I am wrong! ;)
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 3, October 2009, 1:39 pm

No one is forcing you to work and make money if you want to opt out of taxes stay at the poverty level. Slaves cannot opt out.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 5, December 2009, 10:13 pm

I would suggest you look at the relationship between taxation and median income levels in each country. There is a societal price to pay for individuals opting out of work. Maybe it's not slavery, but the one point that seems to be missing from this discussion is the change in behavior due to high taxation and it's effect on,not just the individual, but society. At some point, it is not worth the risk to start a new company if the tax rate is too high. Creation suffers and capital flows to passive investments.

(strategistk) said:

Saturday 3, October 2009, 2:43 pm

Also, I believe the society (structure, culture, legal system, political correctness, etc.) and the human nature (value system, religious beliefs, family, etc.) have been changed or evolved so much from the days of those 18th or 19th century philosophers that I am really not sure if we can apply their definitions of utilitarianism and libertarianism to today's social structure or human value system.

What would the 19th century libertarians say about today's pro athletes making tens of millions of dollars in a single season and living in a totally different world than most of the working public? What would they say about a single person amassing billions of dollars doing business and trade? Should the original concept of personal property rights safely or automatically apply to today's environment? I am really curious to know.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 3, October 2009, 3:27 pm

My mother-in-law, a French citizen living in France, retired early because she realized that a great percentage of her earnings went to pay taxes. She gave up a high level ministerial job at the age of 52 becasue she felt that it wasn't really "worth it" to work to pay so much in taxes. Even had she changed her joint filing status to single, she would still have paid at least 50% to the government. This might be an example of someone who felt that paying taxes turned her work into forced labor for more than she was willing to accept. Fortunately we don't have such high tax brackets in the USA but there are many in the middle range who must feel that they work a significant part of their week to pay taxes.
reply

(Xorox) said:

Saturday 3, October 2009, 5:01 pm

Excellent series, thus far.
reply

(paperball) said:

Saturday 3, October 2009, 5:34 pm

#2: The government has a legitimate interest in legislating morality insofar as the laws protect others from the consequences of others' bad choices. Legislating seat belt laws or regulating what consenting adults can do in their own homes is not really legitimate because no others come to harm. On the other hand, behaviors like text messaging while driving pose a direct threat to others (or their liberty to live). Sometimes government must decide whose liberty is more important to protect - i.e., the right of charities to set up tent cities in areas where homeowners object based on a decline in property values. In those cases, the decisions of elected representatives are supposed to reflect the consensus of society about the protection of individual liberties. The question gets more complicated if we talk about parents' liberty to let their toddlers ride in a car without a car seat, or not to require their kids to wear seatbelts. In this case, the law protects the kids from the adults' failure to proetect their liberty. (Similarly, I have no problem whatsoever with the government stepping in if a parent is withholding medical care from a child for religious reasons.) If the only person whose liberty is at stake is the "moral outlaw," though, I think the government should stay out of it.
reply

(paperball) said:

Saturday 3, October 2009, 5:44 pm

#1: Ideology aside, it seems to me that libertarians want it both ways - they want to "own themselves" and not be taxed, but at the same time they want others to contribute a greater proportion of their resources to make the world a pleasant place for the rich. Since libertarians believe that taxation for certain functions of government is justified, and they further believe that they should not be taxed in excess because they are wealthy, I am assuming they're for a flat tax rate. Representative government provides that we as a society decide on what basic needs are worthy of taxation. If this cost were divided equally among all workers, the percentage of the burden would not be equal. Bill Gates, for example, can give up 10 seconds of his time and produce 00, but if that's all a family of four earns in a month, Gates is giving up a miniscule percentage of his time and the family is giving 100% of its time. Who, then, is really the slave?

In the lecture, Dr. Sandel mentioned the libertarian correlary that one should respect the right of others to live freely. If adding a tax burden to the wealthy is a precondition for others to live freely, then it is justified on libertarian grounds. The conflict comes in deciding whether the individual right to liberty and the rights of others to liberty are equal, or one's own rights come first. If they're equal, then some taxation is necessary to uphold the libertarian principle of respecting the liberty of others. In that framework, it is possible to have libertarianism and a functioning society. If one's own rights are to be held above others', though, I don't know if society is plausible. Theft, for example, would absolutely be justified, and that's the least of the issues.

The argument that representative government is unfair to let 80% take away from the top 10% to give to the bottom 10% is also flawed even from a libertarian standpoint. If it is a "free choice" for a low-wage worker to agree to his/her poor employment conditions, then it is likewise a free choice for Bill Gates to live in a society that passes laws that may not be to his personal financial liking. Unlike most of the 90%, he can certainly afford to buy his own island and live on it. He can also influence legislators during one of his 60,000 nights in the Lincoln Bedroom or buy oodles of advertising to convince voters to favor his interests. Heck, he could just pay people to vote his way if we were so inclined and the voters consented freely to be bribed. The taxes are the cost of the services he has chosen over absolute liberty. It is a contractual, freely chosen agreement, no less than is an employment agreement.
reply

(Rothbard) said:

Sunday 3, January 2010, 8:51 am

So by your reasoning the Jews consented to be murdered in the holocaust. After all they were living in democratic Germany and had a vote in the elections which brought the Nazi party to power ?

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 4, October 2009, 1:31 am

"In a pluralistic society, not everyone is going to agree on a single concept of God, or what God wants. Even if it is true that we are owned by God, then that is directly between us and God, not between us and the society. The government is unqualified to be God's proxy."

In this society and even in that classroom does everyone agree on a single concept of "anything"?!
These classes feel proud for expressing different views and not having a bias judgment of any, and in the end not coming to a decided conclution or a consensus. Even if there is vote, they are not willing to accept the majority, just the notion that: "ok the majority believes this on this issue".
So in light of all this, why is God such a taboo? It cannot even be discussed as "one" of these philosophical issues.
It is true that there are a lot of differences in believing in God and also what God's role is in a person's life and also the societies but I think a class in such a large scale should at least explore some of the mainstream religious ideas believed by many people out there.
For instance some of the beliefs in Christianity, Islam, Judaism Hinduism,...
Philosophies in these religions have interesting answers to the questions raised in class, or by using for instance the theory of belonging to God and not to yourself, other interesting lines of thought will follow, which will not come to mind if thought otherwise.
reply

(Jelle NL) said:

Sunday 4, October 2009, 3:26 am

It might well be possible that many (most?) participants in this discussion consider themselves to be a religious person. And their comments might have religious roots, but why should they mention the source of their arguments? Is a religious reason a special kind of reason? (Being a member of a religious minority) I am afraid of people - almost always men - who claim to speak on behalf of my Creator; and therefore prefer to take cover behind Jefferson’s “Wall of Separation”.

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 6, October 2009, 12:11 pm

Can you find one long standing theocratic civilization whom you would like to emulate? If you can, do the points that you most desire to emulate in society today require a theocratic form of government or could they be enacted in a secular form of government? Assuming you find a theocratic government whom you would like to emulate and that could only be effectively emulated as a theocracy, what measures do you suggest to build consensus among the populous?

God is not taboo. It is just that anyone suggesting anything theocratic has such a landslide of negative historic precedence to overcome.

Good luck.

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 7, October 2009, 4:24 am

can you find a long standing civilization of anything? Most civilizations believed in God, and believed that God had sent certain rules for them i.e. 10 commandments.
It doesn't need to be a theocracy the way I believe you are assuming it to be. It could be a democracy in which people elect experts like their parliament and they pass laws which are in accordance to the religious beliefs of the majority. Or to oversee in a way that it does not contradict the main religious beliefs.

(johnbustard) said:

Wednesday 7, October 2009, 6:20 am

Many other courses, such as psychology and biology include no consideration of a religious viewpoint and papers containing such views would not be accepted in the more respected journals. To me this reflects the consensus amongst the scientific community that these views are not important in any practical sense in the understanding of those fields. I view scientific understanding as inherently more legitimate than any other due to its rigorous standards of self examination. I feel these standards should be applied to other fields of knowledge as well, in particular the discussion of morality and ethics. Although there have been many attempts to offer rational arguments in support of religious views they remain substantially weaker than those of scientific argument. In that sense I would only support religious arguments to the extent they could be rationally justified. If this were done I suspect that as with the scientific fields it would remain excluded from the debate.

(johnbustard) said:

Wednesday 7, October 2009, 6:37 am

Of course, from a practical viewpoint, religious morality can be used to form relatively stable societies as can be seen from the middle east. In this sense religious discussion is very relevant in terms of how it can be a practical tool for forming societal conventions and taboos. Perhaps Americas conflict with Islamic groups reflects a real conflict of ideas over the best stable societal structure. To a much greater extent than Europe, America evangelises its social structure (as supported by its moral system). The reason these communities are threatening to America is not because of any practical concern but rather an ideological one. It is a new take on the cold war. Russia was a threat not because it might invade and enslave, but because the people of America might decide that socialism was more legitimate. Likewise this would imply that the most effective way to defend current American society is by emphasising the importance of a secular scientific and rational society. Or put another way the greatest threat to American society comes from the religious right.

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 7, October 2009, 7:21 am

johnbustard, If it were true that God is the almighty, the all knowing, ... and if you have at hand certain words by "the all knowing", which would direct you towards a certain path. If you come to this belief, how can you claim that "scientific understanding is inherently more legitimate than any other due to its rigorous standards of self examination"?
So IF GOD IS IN FACT THE ALL KNOWING then there would be no knowledge that would out rank His, and His words or rules or orders would outrank any other, any scientific understanding that is not based on the belief in God and the purpose He has for man.
So the only way for you to easily exclude religious claims is either to say "they are not from God", or that you do not believe in God. Cause if there would be God, and He would be the creator of all things, then it would be most important to see what He wants from us as His creation.
This shows the importance of these ontological debates, and later its implications on other matters.

(johnbustard) said:

Wednesday 7, October 2009, 7:59 am

I completely agree with your statement that if God exists and was omniscient, then his views would be more legitimate. However your reply does immediately reveal one of the strongest weaknesses of any logical religious argument and why they are so frequently excluded from other debates. Regardless of whether God exists or not there is no strong logical argument that you or any other person can legitimately claim to know what they know or what they would want. The rigorous standards of self examination that make science legitimate are not applied to religion as this analysis is threatening to the psychological effectiveness of religion as a source of conventions and taboos. The concept of faith itself creates a taboo on the self examination of the system. This is mirrored in other moral philosophies and in the arguments against philosophical thought in general as it is inherently threatening to any system not grounded in self analysis and reason. A scientific perspective has the advantage that it is inherently robust to debate. Even the act of engaging in debate with reasoned argument subtly legitimises the field as it implies that only reasoned arguments are legitimate. If you quite rationally wish to remain confident in your religious views, which will make you happy (strengthen your sense of personal legitimacy) as has been shown through many psychological studies. I encourage you to emphasise faith as a virtue and minimise your debate on fundamental grounds. Instead I would take a leaf from the cold war book. Don’t argue about the theoretical legitimacy of your position or engage with their attacks on your philosophy, instead talk about the practical consequences of the two views: Scientific thinking leads to destruction of the environment, creation of poisonous drugs etc. legitimacy for holocaust and in contrast emphasise the practical benefits of a religious society, mother Teresa etc. That is a much harder position to debate against.

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 11, October 2009, 1:27 am

dear johnbustard,
This is an issue of naivety and how it is interestingly reflected in different dimensions of human life and understanding it.

"Perhaps Americas conflict with Islamic groups reflects a real conflict of ideas over the best stable societal structure." No, I do not agree. The conflict between US and Muslims is because the US administration and society are derived by greed and blind selfishness and the violent and ugly consequences of such motives are not limited to Muslims only; the US is interfering into lives of all different communities living on earth, Latin Americans are not Muslims and are suffering a lot from the American greed and arrogance, the people in Africa, many non-Muslims are experiencing ugly, oppressive acts of the US in different aspects of their material and spiritual life. It is so naïve to call the conflicts which US is creating all over the world, conflict of ideas; it is about large populations in different parts of the world who want to prevent a minority of greedy robbers who use their "advanced" facilities to steal and use everything for their own material benefit and many of the moral and philosophical systems which they fabricate are to silence the rightful protests which these oppressions may face inside or outside "United States".

And to help you to avoid this naïve assumption and suggestion that arguing for the ontological strength of Divine religions is much less successful and meaningful than defending the benefits of religious views in practical life, I want to ask you one small question regarding this part of your writing: "To me this reflects the consensus amongst the scientific community that these views are not important in any practical sense in the understanding of those fields. I view scientific understanding as inherently more legitimate than any other due to its rigorous standards of self examination." How do you support your idea that the "consensus among the scientific community" and "the rational process of self-examination in western science" is a source of legitimacy? On what basis, you even go further and say these characteristics of the western science make it more legitimate than for example religious knowledge? [This is a naïve and oversimplified claim that even the neo-positivists such as Popper which your sayings seems to be imitating narration of their thoughts has given up in recent decades.] Your still need to answer many powerful and now more dominant alternative views even in the western sphere who criticize what you understand from science and its process of development and legitimating; you will face many of them by reading few pages of the works of people like Kuhn, Feyerabend, Plantinga and many others.

All the spiritual, intellectual and practical problems with the "western world" have their roots in their naïve ontological stance. The rest of this writing may let you to see parts of the whole picture of what is happening in the west and this class at Harvard as a tiny but expressive example of it:
Humanistic philosophy and the gradual process of secularization together with the rise of secular philosophy and science, made tragedy, instead of religion, the exaltation of man. Fear must be purged not by faith in God, but by the banishment of God from the realm of creation; self-pity must be purged not by remembrance of God, but by pride in humanity and defiant acceptance of the human predicament. The causal factor in tragedy is no longer the old Greek Fate nor the God of religion, but social and individual conflicts, biological heredity, the psychology of the unconscious, defeat by frustration, man confronted by the mystery of the universe, the eternal quest of man, and the absurdity of life. Freedom of the will becomes a firm belief because it helps in the perpetual struggle against obstacles that prevent from reaching the goal. But goal itself is evershifting. Can Sysiphus ever be happy in having eternally to push the stone up the hill where at the top it is destined to roll down again?

(APS221) said:

Sunday 4, October 2009, 5:34 am

I've been reading the comments, and I see some have made the point I wanted to make. The point is that we in a society have both rights and responsibilities. We all have a resposibility to maintain our society. These days that means paying taxes and following the laws. In the old days, that also meant being conscripted/drafted for military service. As many other posters have pointed out, we need tax revenue to pay for all the government services necessary for society to run smoothly. I think Libertarians would argue that the taxation must be "fair" or "equal," and propose something like a flax tax. That way, everybody pays the same percentage, no matter how much they make.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 4, October 2009, 6:29 am

To (JELLE NL): It depends. If you feel your religion has a say in this argument why not?
Let me give you an example of the difference it might make believing in belonging to God or to yourself "ultimately":
All Muslims believe that the Quran is the word of God. (It is somewhat similar in Christianity and Judaism with the difference that the bible is not considered as direct words of God, but of Jesus [this is if you believe Jesus is a prophet and not God].
So if for instance there is a Muslim in the crowd they can argue that we belong to God, and are obliged to do as He says. For instance if we own a farm, ultimately the sun, land, rain, grains and everything else which are the fundamental causes of growing crop are God given. then in the Quran it is asked to give "Zakat" which is a kind of tax and it is also said to whom and where this tax is supposed to be spent.
This is just one of many examples of rules that could be derived from a "Holy text".
You can argue that some people believe in that God, and some don't. Or that we could draw different conclusions from "Holy texts".
I would then argue that, this is the same case with every belief, for instance one argues that we alone own ourselves, others argue that society owns us, some take the middle path etc. So the problem that I see here is that why can't an argument based on "Ultimate Ownership of God" from different perspectives also be a relevant topic of discourse?
What makes the other topic relevant and not this one? Is there a 100% consensus on "self ownership"? You, yourself are pointing out that you have religious roots and many others might as well, why wouldn't their religious beliefs and knowledge also be considered relevant?
As I have watched the 3 parts of the class so far, I feel that this aspect is being missed. I'm not suggesting that everyone should believe in God, I'm simply saying that it should not be a taboo, which in this case it seems it is. While if you look at it from a historical perspective, this form of reasoning (leaving any kind of religious belief out) could very well be one of the results of the so called "enlightenment". It seems odd that while religious discourse was dominant in many philosophical debates before modernity, it is again odd that it cannot even be mentioned here. [by: cannot be mentioned I mean that well it's not!]
Also by looking at the libertarian, utilitarian ... belief systems and world views, one could also say that they are pseudo religions! Where in these cases Man has become the absolute!
reply

(Jelle NL) said:

Sunday 4, October 2009, 8:28 am

Thank you for your comment. I agree with you that religious people have an equal right and duty to participate in the public debate; and that Utilitarianism and Libertarianism are also beliefs or worldviews (there is nothing “pseudo” to them).

But since religion often results in prejudice and intolerance, I prefer a debate in which the participants do not mention the source of their arguments. What has the moslim in your example to gain by explaining that his proposals on taxing or not taxing Bill Gates had been derived from the concept of “zakat”? Most of his audience might not recognize that authority. So why would she sell her product under a religious brand. If her product (the conclusion she drew from a particular holy text) is useful or good it will sell itself.

When we dine in a restaurant, it does not matter to us how the chief named his creations, where he bought his ingredients, or how he prepared the food. When we like the result we will return (and tell others). If not, we will not visit that place again. Is it not the same when we try to figure out what is the right thing to do?

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 4, October 2009, 8:48 am

I said pseudo religions not worldviews! If you would call them a religion then my point is made.
What makes libertarianism, communism, utilitarianism, and all these other isms none prejudice and tolerant but makes Islam or other religions intolerant?
If you look at the comments and the course you will see that the professor mentions "sources" of philosophers, scientists, etc. And if we get caught mentioning a word or an idea without citing its source we will be branded as a plagiarizer and disciplined!
I think the results are important as well as the intention or in the case of your example the ingredients, chef...
Would you need to "pay the price" for everything before figuring out if it was good or bad? Don't all these restaurants market saying: "fresh ingredients from the sea! made by 5 star chef Gorden Ramsey!"?!! Because although in some cases it might not make a difference but in a lot of cases it does affect our judgment. Believing or not believing in God affects our judgments (in my opinion). I think most religions are tolerant just like other thoughts and have their prejudices just as other thoughts do, just because some people might have strong feelings towards religion doesn't mean we have to kind of outlaw them.
The problem I see, is that God, whether clearly or even the results of that belief are not mentioned in class. I think the professor obviously being very talented could bring up that subject without arousing any unnecessary frictions. My concern is that religious discourses are Taboo, while they could be discussed just like hundreds of other thoughts, just like they historically were very significant.
thanks for your reply ;-)

(paperball) said:

Sunday 4, October 2009, 8:08 am

I don't think the religious considerations are actually a whole separate line of reasoning. If you own yourself and decide that you want to give yourself to God, or for that matter if you believe God owns you in the first place, then your religious beliefs would naturally govern how you use your liberty and how you view your own rights in relation to the rights of others. Interesting discussion!
reply

(eswope) said:

Sunday 4, October 2009, 10:50 pm

"I said pseudo religions not worldviews! If you would call them a religion then my point is made."
Interesting. I think there is a good deal of misunderstanding based on language' varying uses, subtlties, connotative vs. denotative (nd think there is some confounding going on in the poorly define "self-ownership" and "forced labor". Those phrases are used in ways which allows one to sidestep logic, or assume a point had been made when it hasn't (as their is more implied in the use of terminology than has been demonstrated).
I quoted this passage to explore the linguistic clarification, and what it implies.

The distinction to me is that religions to not admit logical discourse, or challenges. It is a view that is dictated and unswerving, bolstered by belief, not logic or fact. Is that not so?

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 4, October 2009, 11:01 pm

No it definitely is not so! elaboration comes later!

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 4, October 2009, 8:53 am

It is perfectly acceptable in debating these issues to state certain presuppositions about God (you are owned by God, these writing/revelations/insights come from God, etc.) and then argue that IF you accept the presuppositions then certain ethical and moral demands follow. Ones view of God can be highly relevant when devising a personal ethical code for oneself, or in discussions with others who share similar presuppositions about God. But in a pluralistic society, these kinds of presuppositions about God cannot be assumed to be true when deciding public policy that applies to everyone.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 4, October 2009, 9:00 am

Yes, but we're not making public policy here. What if there were a consensus in society on those ethical codes? How can such a thing ever even thought to be reached if it's not even vaguely mentioned in these classes? I'm not here to say that for instance the United States should adopt Islamic, Christian, ... ethics for its society, but I think in an academic forum they should also be discussed and maybe seen as better alternatives at points.

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 4, October 2009, 1:07 pm

I do think that such views can be discussed. But some religious viewpoints are based on presuppositions that are difficult to debate with people who do not accept those presuppositions. For example, if you believe that homosexuality is wrong because certain passages in the Bible say so, and the Bible is the literal word of God, then how do you debate that meaningfully with someone who does not believe the Bible is the literal word of God and those Bible passages are irrelevant?

Such a debate will quickly dead-end at fundamental differences about starting premises. Such a debate might be useful in helping people to understand better the logical consequences of certain starting premises, or to help people understand why others reach conclusions and hold views that are very different than the ones they hold. And those are valuable things in themselves. But unless the debate can reach the basis for the starting premises of the participants, little will be resolved.

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 4, October 2009, 2:06 pm

Yes I agree that's why there will probably not be such a debate with a homosexual! because before discussing the issue about homosexuality, topics such as "self ownership", or "belonging to God" should be discussed!! I know you agreed on that, I'm just emphasizing it again.
And on the ethical issues such as homosexuality or same sex marriage for instance religion can still play a role, because in a democratic society you decide on consensus, religious discourse must be done where for instance a majority might be convinced that following ethical issues in the holy script is better than coming up with one on our own, so it will also influence the decision on allowing same sex marriage or other similar issues. [which I think it already is discussed to some extend]

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 4, October 2009, 3:34 pm

Does a democratic society decide everything on the basis of consensus? What if the consensus is that people of different races should not marry (or date or sleep together)? What if the consensus is that couples should not be allowed to buy or use contraception? (real examples from the not too distant past).

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 4, October 2009, 10:59 pm

No for instance, you have consensus on having libertarian ethics and that you base your ethics on self ownership...
There are other alternatives as well. This is not agreeable in the States but it is used in a lot of countries. Muslims for example can come to a consensus of using their own ethical laws, which prohibits same sex marriage. Or that adultery would be banned, or alcohol is outlawed. To you it might seem like impossible but for the majority of that society it's working and they might prefer it over having these certain "freedoms" in western societies.
I agree that just because there is consensus it doesn't make it right, yes I'm not a utilitarian! But if we have consensus on the constitution to derive the laws, rules and regulations based on certain criteria, (that could also be religious) then it would work.

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 4, October 2009, 10:35 am

It's interesting that so many utilitarians attend an elite, private university that excludes most of society based on tested intelligence, academic achievement, and money, i.e., why is it in the state's interest for anyone to attend Harvard instead of a state university when you could serve state universities through your participation? Or enlist into the military? Or be assigned to work in a manufacturing plant? Why are parents allowed to raise their children at all, instead of being taken at birth and assigned a life of maximum utility for the state?

The answer: because you own yourself, and it is your foremost and fundamental right to explore your finite existence as you see fit, as long as you do not impede that fundamental right in others. Ask Dith Pran about utility. Ask gays in CA about the utility of Prop 8.

Please consider the difference between a democratic republic, where a majority is not entitled to override fundamental rights of minorities, versus pure democracy, aka, mob rule, where the majority is entitled to override the fundamental rights of minorities, especially for perceived utility.
reply

(paperball) said:

Sunday 4, October 2009, 1:03 pm

If I am understanding your post correctly, you are suggesting that a minority should be allowed to override the rights of a majority *in all cases* in the name of protecting an idea of self-ownership (for example, in the case where some of Gates's earnings are used to save Katrina victims). The extreme you described, in which babies are claimed at bith by the government and "utilized" is obviously unacceptable for all sorts of reasons - why do you seem to feel that the other extreme, in which the property rights of a minority are protected over the right to life and health of a majority, is acceptable? or do I misunderstand what you're trying to say? How would you respond to those cases that for some of us fall into a gray area where rights need to be balanced against other rights?

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 4, October 2009, 11:45 am

Does Micheal Jordan deserve a break tax break because his family was victim of a violent crime which he had paid (in taxes) to prevent?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 4, October 2009, 1:58 pm

All complex societies need and have rules and rule enforcement to control interaction of its members with each other, with other societies, and with its environment. Doesn’t the immense complexity of this interaction, given the limitations of human intellect and political ethics, make it nearly impossible to establish a system that is perfectly and completely fair? If this is so, isn’t using a progressive tax system an acceptable and just way to try to minimize the injustice?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 4, October 2009, 5:18 pm

Why is it "obviously unacceptable for all sorts of reasons to take children at birth for service to the state"? Victoria doesn't even think that people own themselves, and lots agree with her. Further, anyone could point to endless examples from history--from today--where it happened/s, based on the same arguments of utility to the majority.

Bill Gates does not owe you anything. In fact, you likely owed him money when you bought your computer, and are now benefiting from him as you surf around and type on this site. Now he owes you back because you bought his product...?

Also, I reject the premise that not surrendering property to the state somehow infringes on the right to life and health of the majority. Wealth is not finite--it can be created. So, go create some. All you have to do is provide a service or product that others will trade money for (money being a representation of performed skills and labor). The majority, since there are so many of them, should make things, or provide services to trade for things via money. Problem solved.

Anyway, shall we discuss the multiple ways that the state failed to maximize utility regarding Katrina? The list is long, longer than you probably realize, and goes back for decades and many billions of dollars, more than even Bill Gates has!

Anyway, I have to go to work. Cheers!
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 4, October 2009, 5:20 pm

Oh, and I hope you all support Prop 8, and the war in Iraq, and all sorts of other tyranny brought about by the majority.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 4, October 2009, 8:07 pm

Well, you can always vote with your feet in this country.

(davoid) said:

Sunday 4, October 2009, 7:40 pm

Victoria's example of murder is wrong as this is NOT self ownership. This violates the other person(s) will to live or die as they see fit or their self ownership. You can only murder yourself. This concept of self ownership must remain to ones self. Note the key word of self ownership IS "self". You must think of self ownership as being in a bubble and the society, corporation, or individuals should not have control of anything inside your bubble, but only with things that two or more do outside of the bubble.
reply

(PhantoM4747) said:

Sunday 4, October 2009, 7:42 pm

See but now you have just veered away from the actual topic onto a tangent that, while perhaps being valid, is not the point of the discussion... We are not discussing the efficiency of the state in the utilization of the taxes, once again, while being a valid argument, is not the premise to which we are discussing, we are in fact discussing the validity of redistribution/taxation to begin with. While you may say 'well what if my opinion is based on how the state handles the money' and while it might be valid, it is fundamentally a different issue, bring that of the validity of the state to begin with. As for 'tyranny brought about by the majority', well, thats a completely different issue where we would have to bring things like the Flynn Effect, and the actual definition of majority, into question.

To reiterate my previous comment, to live in X society and expect to be granted everything offered in said society, you MUST adhere to said society's established provisions. In the example about Bill Gates and how you owed him for purchasing the PC, and now him owing you for buying it. This is precisely true. One is dependent on the other and rather inseparable as it stands. And whether X teacher was paid X dollars to say, train Mr. Gates, or not, who are 'you' (whoever said it, and whoever takes this standpoint) to decide what they may or may not owe society? Who is to say that the salary paid the teacher releases that person in ANY capacity from societal responsibilities? If the weights of the payment/obligation are not 1:1 then this position becomes preposterous rather quickly. If we are to take this position literally then really the only real exemption of responsibility is strictly equal to the dollar value invested, and anything beyond that is up for debate. Example, it cost say ,000,000 to train Mr. Gates, therefore his obligations are negated up to a balance of ,000,000. See the point?
reply

(NC94) said:

Sunday 4, October 2009, 8:23 pm

People who steal a PC are in debt with Bill Gates, people who buy one are ok with Bill Gates, because the PC is extremely useful. So if Bill Gates fortune came from people buying Pc's and a PC is extremely useful, people who buy a PC don't owe anything to Bill Gates and Bill Gates doesn't owe to the people who bought it. Oh... and "train Mr. Gates"... sounds stupid.

(NC94) said:

Sunday 4, October 2009, 8:14 pm

It's simple, people are free in matters that don't violates other people's rights. That's it. Believe or not, if people are free at the end, one way or another, things will happen as they should, and when I say "as they should", I mean Right. Correct, in all ways. Great. Good. All right!!! Perfect. Awesome. Cool. Chill. Calmed. Peacefully. Superb.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 5, October 2009, 4:55 am

Sounds good, but I suggest that there are hardly any actions that don't in some way infringe on another persons rights. Having children, paying for shared services (taxes or whatever alternative is proposed), protection from self harm (e.g. being manipulated into becoming addicted to cigarettes) etc.

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 4, October 2009, 9:04 pm

1.) Imagine if there were no taxes - no way to pay for the military, no police, no schools - every road would be privately owned and a toll assessed on everyone who drove on it. It would be the "law of the jungle" with everyone fending for themselves....
Why is it that the first people banded together and organized in the first place? It was because there was safety in numbers, division of labor, an agreement about rules that everyone must follow and yes there was the an allocation of resources. Suggesting that we should have no taxes is an absurd idea unless you prefer anarchy.

2.) The government's mission is to reflect the will of the majority of the people in all matters of morality. So, yes the government is very much involved and should be (IMO).
reply

(nerdo1948) said:

Monday 5, October 2009, 1:39 am

I would add, and regognize the need for a "Limited Socialism", and a "Regulated Capitalism". I believe that beside the need for the "Sepration of Powers" of the 3 branches of government under our Constitution, there is a need to "Limit" the power of Corporations because of the exact same reason for the "Separtion of Powers" clause, and that reason is simply Human Nature. A system of Checks and Balances helps keep the forces of Anarchy at bay. We should especially be concerned at this time about the Federal government exercising too much control over the 10th Amendment or "States Rights" clause of the Constitution. During the earlier days of the Republic, the Federal government had a much smaller role to play. Read your Constitution--Understand the Checks and Balances in it.

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 5, October 2009, 12:01 am

Is there a difference between a philosophical principle and the implications it embodies in certain real life situations?
Even if one subscribes to Libertarian ideals of taxation, the actual impact of paying those taxes – when paid by people as wealthy as Bill Gates or Michael Jordon – are not noticeable and could therefore be considered having no impact. This non-impact would clearly not qualify as slavery. On the other hand, if the taxation reduces the taxed person's quality of life, then an argument could be made. But in cases of vast fortunes, it is difficult to sustain as I believe there is a difference between the idea and how it actually applies. Context matters.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 12, October 2009, 10:41 pm

Money, I believe, was originally created as an aid to the devision of labor, so that each could develop his talents for the benefit of the whole. Hoarding huge supplies of it has always been problematical for society, creating general insecurity and a perception of scarcity where it doesn't really exist. In fact, it almost seems that political economy, which strives to marry law and economy, arises out of a need to make something natural out of the un-natural fortunes that a few always seem to amass, and how that fact can be reconciled by the many. We accept that the entrepreneur should be rewarded at a rate far greater than the laborer because he creates so much wealth in the society, much more than he amasses personally. But what of the lucky investor, the land speculator, the trust fund kid, where little or no effort accounts for all of their fortune? I don't know, but my feeling is that there is something parasite-like going on there and that is unhealthy for the world.

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 5, October 2009, 12:17 am

Remember Joe and the 100 skateboards? This is the real world scenario. Joe pays his congressman, who is one of the other 99, to get the information that the government (all 100) is going to build new skateboard paths so that all 100 of the people can more easily get from place to place. While the 99 are building the paths for everyone's benefit Joe spends his time buying up all the skateboards.... NO that's not how it happened.

What really happened was Joe bought up all 100 skateboards and THEN payed/bribed his congressman to convince the other 99 that building skateboard paths would be the best form of travel and benefit everyone. Which they did. That is how our "free market" really works.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 6, October 2009, 12:22 pm

No. No. No.

That's how your strong government is able to abuse and sell their power. The stronger the power the more value it has and the more it displaces a 'free market'.

(Greg) said:

Tuesday 6, October 2009, 12:29 pm

You would be right "no no no" but unfortunately we dont live in a utopia and if the free market system of capitalism is left to freewheel, it infects the government such that only the wealthy are served. And social programs become required to prevent widescale tyrranny by the wealthy over the poor as we see in todays financial sector, bailed out by their government crony officials.

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 7, October 2009, 12:52 pm

"And social programs become required to prevent widescale tyrranny by the wealthy over the poor as we see in todays financial sector, bailed out by their government crony officials."

Please write in complete and coherent sentences.

(nerdo1948) said:

Monday 5, October 2009, 12:58 am

Originally, the government wsn't involved t all in health, job safety, child labor laws or minimum wage. Not until Unions began to form, and not until after considerable bloodshed of Union organizers, did the
Government begin to get involved and followed suit enacting the versions of labor laws we know today. Also, during the time of the Robber Barrons, the Government often sided with the Corporate Owners in putting down any Union Organiing with force.
Concerning question (6) in the discussion guide--Should the government tax the rich to pay for public services. In the video segment, the question was raised about Michael Jordan having to pay or not pay a Larger tax share. To this question I would comment, that beyond 80-100 years ago, any sports figures earned a Much Smaller Salary than they do today, and their position in society as sports figures was more in line of just another job, without all the Worship that seems to be lavished on Sports Figures and Hollywood actors today. So iI would conclude the question as to weather Michael Jordan should perhaps pay 1/3 of his salary, would have been a MOOT point back beyond 80 years ago when he would not have had the god like status that is afforded people like him today.
reply

(gcb01) said:

Monday 5, October 2009, 4:17 am

There seems to be an unstated (so far) premise to libertarian philosophy that an individual has a right to appropriate natural resources. Is this correct (does it underlie libertarian philosophy) and is the attitude to this in the USA different to, say, the UK, because of the much lower population density?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 6, October 2009, 12:29 pm

One poster already identified himself as a Geolibertarian, meaning that he does not believe in land ownership but accepts the other logical conclusions inferred from Libertarianism.

I mention that to say that Libertarianism is not quite the monolith it has appeared to be in this conversation.

Pragmatically speaking, private land ownership and a free market in land has worked better and lasted longer than any other system of economics regulating land. Land ownership coupled with correlated property taxes has proved to be quite effective in encouraging economic growth (personal, national and global), personal mobility, and domestic security.

I do not believe that the Libertarian ideology mandates that individuals have the right to own land though I know it would not recognize ownership if it were ill gotten. Landownership is often tied to Libertarianism as a generally accepted practice.

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 12, October 2009, 10:54 pm

"Pragmatically speaking, private land ownership and a free market in land has worked better and lasted longer than any other system of economics regulating land." Regulating land, perhaps, ruining whole economies (Japan, America to name two in recent memory) not withstanding.

(Greg) said:

Monday 5, October 2009, 10:46 am

Now then...there have always been needy probably always will. The needy have nothing to tax. The wealthy have much, all others have from much to little. If taxation is slavery, and a wealthy person who earns ,000,000 a year is taxed at the current rate of about 35% and a rich person who earns 0,000 a year is taxed at about the same rate of 35% and an average citizen who earns ,000 a year is taxed at about the same rate then the we see that the wealthy are left with (1,000,000 - (.35 x 1,000,000))=0,000 after taxation, while the rich person is left with (250,000 - (.35 x 0,000))=2,500 and the average citizen is left with (30,000 - (.35 x 30,000))=,500 after taxation. Please consider the cost of living (food, rent, textiles, credit, car, gas, insurance) in America today wherever one chooses to live.

As a consequence of democracy (a mix of capitalism and socialism), those with the most money to invest have greater control over prices of resources(food, rent, textiles, credit, car, gas, insurance)...so at the same tax rate for everybody, the poor, the average citizen and to some lesser extent the rich are actually slaves of the wealthiest, who after taxation are left with more money and can afford to lobby government, and have more power to set regulations and prices such that all of the lower income persons money is consumed just to survive(true slavery).

So from this we see that according to equal tax rates for all levels of income, the poor actually become slaves of the wealthy such that they spend all their income(plus credit which harkens to early coal monopolies "company store")just to exist in order to labor and be exploited by the wealthiest citizens. And without government social programs to see to the welfare of the average and poor they will indeed be totally reliant upon their wealthy masters.
reply

(Greg) said:

Monday 5, October 2009, 10:59 am

And as a result of the power of the wealthy over the poor, they have managed to cause the extension of the credit rating bureaus to move from decisions about granting credit to what I feel is an unconstitutional limit on civil rights by depriving those who inevitably fail at the capitalist game, of fundamental basic rights like a job and a place to live, as more people are denied work or housing due to bad credit ratings. Therefore the credit rating has essentially become a "blacklist" by which the wealthist are able to terrorize the poor into desperate submission, due to fear of poverty and homelessness. Seems like the old coal company "company store" scheme to get workers into debt and keep them there for the coal company's benefit. Where the coal company is now those wealthy who because of excessive money after taxation are able to create financial and credit institutions that serve to enslave the poorer Americans.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 6, October 2009, 12:37 pm

What is the basis for your assumption that a 'job' is a 'fundamental basic right'?

You are stating that an individual has a fundamental basic right for someone else to think of something productive for them to do for presumably eight hours a day five days a week and profitable enough to give them a salary above the poverty line? I suppose they have a fundamental right to two weeks paid vacation too?

You are implying that someone else has a fundamental duty to create this job for them.

You realize this is totally illogical right? That it is rhetoric. There is no framework set up whereby one may view it as a fundamental right.

(Greg) said:

Tuesday 6, October 2009, 1:15 pm

According to Libertarianism that results from Darwinian (John Locke) thinking...there is free and open competition to aquire resources. And by survival of the fittest, providence is seen to shine on those who end up owning all the resources.

But in a civilized society, such as our "post modern" America where all resources are completely owned and controlled by the wealthy, along with diminishing free enterprise due to regulation, in the absence of social programs and entitlements (which are contrary to conservatism), then those who own and control all resources, have an obligation to create opportunity for others in the society otherwise they have become fascists such that the poor have no choices but to conform to whims of wealthy (powerful).

My point is that the less socialistic a democratic republic then the more dictatorally fascist the structure, and at the other extereme the less capitalistic a democratic republic, the more governmentally communistic the structure. At either extreme, thosein power, because of ther greedy or socilistic need to exert power, must take responsibility for creation of opportunity. We learned that in middle age monarchies who were held responsible.

Therefore a highly capitalistic government is obligated to create and control opportunity. But currently in America we see freewheeling capitalism neither obligated to society nor willing to relenquish the creation of opportunity through progressive taxation and social programs.

In summary as time goes by and more power goes to the wealthy an imbalance exists such that the poor, regardless of motivation are prevented from free enterprise by laws, regulations, rules, and taxes all created and controlled by the wealthy and their equally wealthy politicians in government...this is true since it costs vast money and resourcesto be elected. : )

Respectfully
Gregory Morgan

(Rothbard) said:

Tuesday 5, January 2010, 7:22 am

Well said Unregistered, the idea of having a right to a job, or a home or medical cover or even food is nonsense.

The right to have it given to you by whom?

Men are not parasites.

The classic mistake of non libertarians is assuming that the wealth simply exists and all they have to do is find a "Fair" way to share it out.

If we found a pile of wealth, that would be very reasonable. However wealth is created by the economic activity of individuals and those individuals have a right to the fruits of their labour and not to have their property stolen by others who for whatever reason have been less productive.

Greg appears to be asserting a fundamental right to credit. I.e. the right to borrow somebody else's money even if you have little prospect of paying it back.

Nice idea Greg, can a borrow a few thousand ?

(PhantoM4747) said:

Monday 5, October 2009, 12:50 pm

I like the way you think, Greg. Even if it does shed light on the total crock of BS we call 'free' market.
reply

(Jelle NL) said:

Monday 5, October 2009, 3:06 pm

Question 2: “How involved should government be in legislating morality?”
Answer: Could legislating be something other than legislating morality - is not law “morality written down”? And when a government intends to maximise the freedom of its citizens by a minimal number of laws, is it not still legislating a certain morality (that of libertarianism)?
reply

(Greg) said:

Tuesday 6, October 2009, 11:57 am

Exactly Jelle...capitalism at its extreme is fascism, and socialism at its extreme is communism. For a democratic republic to function for the good of all (wealthy and poor), a balance between the two must be maintained that libertarianism fails to account for. I feel like the wealthy capitalists are better able to afford time and money to forge alliances such as the recent tea parties (which make the upside down claim of taxation without representation, while the poor are too busy surviving to make their voices heard much less have any representatives in government since it takes money to get into government... And the wealthy certainly have an agenda to maintain the status quo. Which in my view agrees with your view that the conservative capitalists (the wealthy) who call for less government are indeed legislating morality of libertarianism

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 6, October 2009, 6:56 am

My own point of view on the matter, taxation is not equivalent to force labor and force labor is not slavery. Is not equivalent, i mean it to present system of democratic state where people should live and follows our laws where we are entrusted to choice our leader and our leader who formulate laws and regulations such as taxation... therefore bill gates and michael jordan cannot invoke their rights thru libetarian but soccumb to redistribution of wealth as member of civilize society.

kingsbury
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 6, October 2009, 9:32 am

Lets be honest! taxes have been paid not by rich people, but by poor one's! Rich knows how not to pay them! Still taking charge of limited and not limeted resources! Their ekologicall foot is to big comparing the price thay pay for that!
Model is totally wrong!
reply

(Greg) said:

Tuesday 6, October 2009, 12:19 pm

An ecological perspective is interesting here...I can add that libertarianism is a product of Darwinian thinking, and assume that the laws of the wild prevail.

Reality is different, and if it were not the poor would revolt(hunt together) and take what they want. But under a society where the laws are created, maintained, and reinforced with money, the argument of libertarianism is seen to be flawed and skewed toward seriving the wealthy and enslaving the poor.

Proof of this lies with the unequal punishments, and levels of perceived suffering inflicted. For example, consider desperate attempts by the poor to feed themselves and families (jail for bread theft), much less to imitate those "now wealthy" who history has revealed to have gained their family's wealth by unlawful, or now illegal means.

So the poor and desperate think why can't I do the same, and are sent to prison for long periods while the status quo who damage society and inflict wide scale suffering through white collar crimes go unpunished (short of money penalties).

(Rothbard) said:

Tuesday 5, January 2010, 7:44 am

Greg, stating something without an argument does not prove a point.

Libertarianism believes in strict property rights, so anyone whose wealth came from illegal means would not own it, it would be given back to its rightful owner(s) according to the principles of justice in acquisition and justice in transfer.

Your world view seems to be that the rich are rich because they are thieves and the poor are poor because of the evil rich.

The reality is that in most cases the rich are rich because they invent, trade, produce and contribute to others in a way that they are rewarded for through voluntary exchanges. Industrialists, surgeons, sports and popular culture stars are often rich, but seldom criminals.

They simply bring a lot of value to other people. (As measured by the amount people will exchange for it)

The poor are poor because their contributions to society are of low value to others. (As measured by the amount people will exchange for it)

(smatikanita) said:

Thursday 14, January 2010, 5:46 pm

I do see Greg's point, as in reality the crimes for which people are punished are mostly small crimes compared to white collar crimes.

If Libertarians are so much in favor of strict property rights and fair markets, then why do they not enforce this on a company level?
Of course not all rich people are thieves, but admittedly I also believe that rich people have often gained their wealth through non-production like inheritance, "bending" market rules, using insider tips or lobbying for laws that favor them. I would guess that poor people have earned a higher percentage of their property through productive labor than rich people.

Maybe I would even like an ideal libertarian society, but I seriously cannot see how the free trading would be enforced. So my concern about libertarianism is that its supporters claim to work for a "fair" society while in the end they create a huge playground for companies with little fairness towards the employees/customers.
I can only smile when I read about your "voluntary exchanges". A great lot of "exchanges" that happen today are not at all voluntary. And our wonderful example Mr. Gates would definitely have to give back a lot of his savings (to who? society?), since he not only stole some intellectual property in his career but also created some highly "unfair" market situations by using his monopoly over years to destroy competitors.

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 6, October 2009, 10:41 am

“No one is forcing you to work and make money if you want to opt out of taxes stay at the poverty level. Slaves cannot opt out.”

It is a reasonable expectation that rational person will work to support themselves and their family, thus, by your argument, we are slaves, because it is unreasonable to expect someone to sit in the corner and starve. In the USA I have the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, among others. Why is it not ok if I work and don’t support utilitarianism, but it is ok if I don’t work and don’t support utilitarianism. What is maximally useful about that? Why can’t you just leave me alone and let me live my life without coveting my stuff? Why don’t you go expend my mind and labor to make some money, then give it all away if that’s what you think is moral? Why are utilitarians so “moral” with other people’s money and labor?

Taxes apply to things other than money. Value must be assessed from services, etc., then taxed, regardless of the exchange of currency. They also tax your land, and what’s on it, even though it’s already paid for, (that process was taxed) and taxed every year. They also tax your estate after death, even though all of that money has already been taxed. All for utility, basically to pay for other people’s kids. You keep having kids, and putting your hand out, and if I don’t like it, I can go sit in the corner in poverty—grow up.

“Well, you can always vote with your feet in this country.”

Ah, the old love-it-or-leave-it-argument, classic! Didn't work too well for lots of East Germans, but I appreciate that we are still talking about the USA. Actually, plenty of people do vote with their feet, e.g., a Uhaul truck this summer from LA to TX cost 00, but the same truck from TX to LA cost 0. How is CA doing these days…? How is TX?

I should not have to leave my country because I don’t accept your tyranny. That’s why certain laws and judgments are found to be unconstitutional and rejected, because as an individual in the USA I have certain explicit inalienable rights, regardless of the whims of the masses.

Of course, if you are poor, you end up trapped in a utilitarian society regardless of whether you want to be there or not, because any extra money you make, they take, for your and everyone's supposed good.

One thing that’s happened here is that the argument has mutated to a statist and big government argument versus a libertarian and small government argument. A libertarian can stop here and argue that supporting civil liberties and free markets creates greater wealth, which can be taxed at a lower rate, but still provide more state income. The state, in all of its utility, may then spend more money on third-world kids with diarrhea. (A smaller slice of a bigger pie is more pie than a bigger slice of a small pie.)

Underlying all of this is the expectation that, since I am forced to participate in society (I cannot opt out of taxes, regardless of whether I agree with how they are used), I expect to be treated equally by my government. A progressive tax system creates different classes of citizens, which is immoral if you believe that all people have the equal right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Best.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 6, October 2009, 11:32 am

I wanted to confirm here, as a business degree holder that everyone understand that "progressive" taxation is where the government taxes the wealthier at progressively higher percentages.
Currently there is little difference between the tax rates for the poor, the wealthy and corporations (less tan 5 to 7 percent difference) which is more akin to the same tax rate for everyone. The result being that the wealthier are left with a fortune after taxation while the poorer are left with little to nothing beyond survival if they are lucky...in an economy created, controlled, and maintained with money.

So my question is...who is taxed without representation...certainly not the wealthy since all government officials are among the wealthy, while there are virtually no poor people in government who understand the economic position of the dwindling middle class and poor.

(Greg) said:

Tuesday 6, October 2009, 12:02 pm

I believe that you are mistaken in that a progressive tax system tends to level the class distinction while a level tax system tends to create class disparities.

(Greg) said:

Tuesday 6, October 2009, 11:37 am

I was not logged in when writing the above post and wanted to be sure I get credit (or blame) lol. Please correct me if I'm wrong about the defenition of progressive taxation
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 6, October 2009, 12:24 pm

Yes, we all know what progressive tax structure is. Please cite the 5-7 % number. Mother Jones? :-)
reply

(Greg) said:

Tuesday 6, October 2009, 12:40 pm

Folks from Denmark and Netherlands mentioned their country's "progressive tax systems" where the wealthiest are taxed from 50% to 80% while the poor are taxed at much lower rates.
Here in the USA the poor are taxed at around 30% to 32% while the wealthiest and corporations are generally taxed between 35% to 38%, accounting for a difference of between 5% to 7%. That is what I'd call a level tax system, and one that further impoverihses poor while leaving the fortunate with a fortune even after taxes.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 6, October 2009, 4:37 pm

Denmark... Corporate... These aren't the droids you're looking for....

Please cite the source of your numbers. Huffington Post, yes? ;-)
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 6, October 2009, 7:52 pm

Libertarians are just Anarchists who hate poor people.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 8, October 2009, 3:14 am

As an anarchist who loves poor people, I entirely agree.

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 7, October 2009, 1:35 am

Well done! Ad hominem non sequiturs make terrific calligraphy wrist and neck tattoos, so go for it! Is there any room left?

Cake once sang, "Authority ain't rebellion, you're drinking what their sellin'." Or was that George Orwell?

The precise purpose of a right is to protect an individual from the majority--why else have rights, if a majority's vote settles all things always?

It's interesting to imagine if there were internet in the 1850s, and we all were sitting in our houses chatting on this site about these things, how many of Harvard's vast utilitarian community would be arguing for slavery. Maximum utility for the majority is the greatest moral good, after all....
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 12, October 2009, 11:17 pm

hmmm..... interesting. Do you get the feeling that Harvard is trying to make up some PR ground here. Setting itself above reproach. Saying something like, "please don't blame us for the MBA's and lawyers who are steeling the country blind. As you can see, we're only teaching them to think for themselves."

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 7, October 2009, 8:22 am

Libertarian ideology would very easily provide for a quick wealth distribution within the requirement of everyone being taxed equally if the tax would be calculated based on the percentage of time needed to acquire income rather than the amount of income itself, i.e. Bill Gates and Michael Jordan contributing equal amount of hours worked towards the tax as does a manual worker in a car factory.

Any libertarian argument against that?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 7, October 2009, 12:37 pm

I love the idea of taxing equal percentages of everyone's time - thanks for that. Of course, the libertarians would probably still argue that everyone is "enslaved." Others might call it sharing the burden of running a country.

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 7, October 2009, 12:42 pm

I believe that tax would actually fall much heavier on the working class since the wealthy do not 'work' for a very significant portion of their income but rely on capital gains instead.

Of course you must realize that this system punishes effectiveness and efficiency and rewards slothfulness and inefficiency.

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 12, October 2009, 7:54 pm

There are many ways to apply this.
We have deductions. If Bill mows my lawn and makes k a year, he'll not pay any tax at all.
But if he earns billion sitting at his desk breathing on top of that k, then that part is taxed to high heaven.

Other ways to identify labor or lack of labor:

Tax capital gains higher after a set amount,
windfall tax (the extreme of no work earnings),
inheritance tax (windfall tax's half brother),
gambling winnings, big bonus due to gov. bailout, etc

Deduct income due to cost in the system:
membership fees for profession, education, transportation,
jury duty earnings, medical cost, etc.

You can still have a libertarian ideology inside our progressive tax system. The key point was tax on labor hence slavery. Well. After k earnings, is it really still labor? Do we have a measure of the value of labor? Yes! Minimum wage.

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 7, October 2009, 10:18 am

We’re still waiting for the source of those imaginary tax rates--Jimmy Cliff lyrics? When (for two consecutive posts) 35-32=5 and 38-30=7, I suppose I should expect some difficulty finding common ground.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 7, October 2009, 10:22 pm

Most enjoyable seminar. Michael Sandel is a gifted teacher. We're also carrying a philosophical discussion on Blogcritics. com

See the following URL, and you're free to join:

Bye-Bye, Miss American Pie, Part I

Roger Nowosielski
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 7, October 2009, 10:28 pm

It should be Blogcritics.org (Politics section)

Roger Nowosielski
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 8, October 2009, 6:22 pm

Wow, This is very interesting, this whole series. My name is Silviu Tulbya and I am a Junior in High school. I love the great arguments and the way the principles come to be introduced.

My Personal Argument? Re-distributive taxation should be implied on those who benefit from it.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 8, October 2009, 10:07 pm

The problem with many arguments presented here is the false premise that living in society is a choice. If I do not pay my taxes I may be put in prison. How is that not force under the threat of violence?

The best role of government is to protect our freedoms to live as we please (obviously without infringing on the rights of others). I think on a small scale, many people would be happy to pay local taxes to their communities where they might be able to hold their government accountable. Unfortunately, the federal and state governments in the United States control every aspect of our lives while we have no way of controlling our own government. The only way to keep government from being corrupted is to limit its power (not by continually allowing it to take your money -- and your rights -- through forced means).
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 9, October 2009, 10:32 am

Yes, the government has a monopoly on the use of force, which they commonly abuse. Broad historical injustices stem from the government’s improper use of force against minorities and individuals at the behest of the majority (especially true for you pure-democracy, aka majority consensus, aka mob rule advocates). Best to explicitly limit government's scope, and therefore government’s authority to use force, even when they purport that extending government control will achieve what a majority consensus might call “good.” It sets a precedent for the improper use of force and further injustices, not for good-doing.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 9, October 2009, 9:19 pm

Most wealthy people do not gain income from their labor. They achieve an income through investments (interest, dividends, capital gains, rent). This form of income can be called unearned or passive income. Other people are working hard to provide a return on the investment. Therefore, it is not coerced to tax this form of income because it does not derive directly from one's labor. I would prefer a substantial tax on passive investment income and little or no income tax on wages.

On another note, Victoria hinted at a serious flaw in the libertarian concept of self-possession. The lone person living independently, autarkically in economic terms, perhaps has the exclusive right to self-possession. An example may be the pioneer living on the frontier, living on his own wits and strength, without even any realistic government protection in the form of law enforcement. However, most of us live in a community or society. By doing so, we implicitly agree to give up some liberties or some degree of self-possession for the greater good of that community or society.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 10, October 2009, 7:56 pm

I agree to nothing. By forming a society around me, you implicitly agree that I am not a member of your community, and have not agreed to give up my self-ownership.

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 11, October 2009, 7:49 am

Boring semantic games....

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 12, October 2009, 3:34 pm

This is an important point which no one got in that lecture hall.
Labor has a cost. Yes. But it does not cost one million dollars. Our system of taxation basically says if you work hard for your money, we'll tax very little of it (the minimum tax). But after that, we'll tax more of it.

Bill Gates could start over and mow my grass for 0 and he'll get tax like anyone else mowing grass for 0. Minimally.

With this, you can still fit the libertarian arguement that we don't tax your labor (leading to slavery) because after X amount of earned money, it's no longer your labor but luck or risk.

Our tax structure has this Value of Labor built in. A blind person earning k is given a higher threshold of labor value (via deduction) than someone not blind earning the same k.

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 9, October 2009, 10:54 pm

I believe the hurricane Katrina (in this episode) is framed in a wrong way... those who live near beaches trade beauty for risk... the risk being that they may suffer damage from natural events... but the benefit is they get to live on the ocean and enjoy that life... less risky people may live inland because they do not want to take that risk... so we should take money from those who did not want to take the risk... and give it to those who did?... that was a choice...

one may argue to this that some people must live on the water to unload cargo from ships for example... and therefore as being part of society, society must help these individuals when disaster strikes... but I would argue they are already helped by higher prices... we pay higher prices for goods that come through ports precisely because individuals are taking risks (as mentioned above) and also paying for higher cost of living, and therefore receive higher wages in compensation.... that help offset that risk...

One needs to see that in fact, we as a nation "passed the hat" so to speak to help people there... and a great deal of relief came from around the country to help... this is really the way it should be done... no force... but people taking the moral stance that it could have been me... and I would want other to pitch in and help me if I were in that situation...

one could also ask in this situation, could they have not provided for their risk in some private way such that a public way need not be imposed... I believe they could have... if we allow those individuals with high risk/high benefit to be (forced) bailed out by those with low risk/low benefit...
why wouldn't all individuals take high risks/high benefits... we lose the balance that risk imposes on an individual..
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 9, October 2009, 11:37 pm

sorry... I just noticed that I needed to register... this comment from g.edward.roberts

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 12, October 2009, 3:21 pm

"A June 2007 report by the American Society of Civil Engineers indicated that two-thirds of the flooding were caused by the multiple failures of the city's floodwalls.[34] Not mentioned were the flood gates that were not closed. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina#Impact

Most of the destruction was caused by levee damage not individuals choosing to live on the coast.
The "inlands" can have droughts and tornadoes. Should a government not intervene in those cases?

Having an area back up and running after a disaster makes even economic sense. How much revenue is lost when a city goes down? If it was New York? Probably the whole financial market.

Morally, I don't know which world free the government from the obligation of helping it's residents in a time of crisis.

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 10, October 2009, 11:39 am

Why must these theories apply generally to every specific situation? It seems they all fail in some part in distinct situations and therefore cannot be held as hard and fast rules. As for libertarians, it seems to me they have neglected to adress the selfish nature of humans. If we take the argument to it's point , what is the result from neglecting to tax? Everyone contributes when they feel like it and society is worse off as a result. Clearly people cannot be left free to do as they please on every account and we recognize this which is why we condone murder,rape,slavery etc. Similarly, property is acquired in capitalists systems and do decide what rights to have one has to consider how it was obtained in the first place. Capitalist systems favour free markets and competition. These aspects
don't tell us anything useful about morality and may perhaps
undermine it when a businessman puts
money and personal gains in front of compassion or fair competition. Thus
, in many cases the methods in which money was
earned is questionable. When no significant harm is done, I value the collective
happinness of millions of people over the dismay of one individual. People need to be taxed because they sometimes don't know what's good for them. Libertarians give people too much credit in making sound decisions for the
selves or the collecive good of others. Paternalistic attitudes are warranted. For example, not wearing seatbelts injures passengers who have to rely on the health system ti heal them. I they don't have money ,this is a problem I'm the US. Even in more socialis health care
systems they are now taking advantage of the genereosity of others while failing do take actions to protect themselves.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 11, October 2009, 7:56 am

Exactly, thank you for being honest with your argument.

I'm a libertarian, and that's precisely why, unlike you, I don't condone murder, rape, slavery, etc. Talking with you communists is like teaching a dog to count to ten, but you're finally starting to articulate your belief system.

(DanielAyer) said:

Tuesday 13, October 2009, 7:24 pm

To answer this question I must argue at the margins of society. I will not consider the super rich. Let us consider a person earning more than they require to exist. In other words, if a person can save money. This person lives within a society which to some degree attempts to guarantee their safety and security from their neighbors. While taxation is a form of coercion, it is far preferable to direct intervention by the neighbor to acquire the same goods through force.
If we are to give up our rights to war upon each other, we must gain some grand benefit. When a law prevents me from committing murder my right to commit murder is revoked by society. However, the gains are so much greater than the loss that I willingly accept this trade off. While some members of society may have provided a good (assuming they acquired their wealth through just means) which society values so much that those people may be able to provide their own security, they were not always in such a position. There have been such systems on Earth whereby those wealthy few have provided for their own security over those of their neighbors. We fought wars on their behalf until we fought wars against them. The benefits of throwing off that kind of society have been immense. Where they are still found we find life comparatively worse for the majority of people.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 16, October 2009, 11:54 pm

Rights to war and murder? These are not rights! They are means to ends (often used by those who want what others have). War, death and destruction are VERY profitable (for some). Greed and the desire for more money, power, and control are the root causes of MOST wars. The US is currently involved in wars that mainly benefit bankers - who consider loss of life well worth the investment.

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 16, October 2009, 10:06 pm

The idea that taking a portion of Bill Gates money to redistribute it to the poor is tantamount to slavery is absurd in so many ways (I should be so lucky to be such a slave).
1)Property rights do not exist in nature. These rights are bestowed upon individuals by society. They are a conceptual creation of human beings.
2)No human being exists absolutely independent of everything else. No one lives in a vacuum. Therefore a portion of an individuals earnings rightly belongs to others.
3)From earnings comes wealth, from wealth comes power, from power comes more wealth (not earnings). Therefore society is taxing wealth which may have nothing to do with earnings or labor.
4)Wealth tends to become concentrated in a few. When this happens the middle class shrinks, the lower class grows, and revolution occurs.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 16, October 2009, 11:45 pm

Rich people seldom work for money; they get their money to work for them. Most money, assets, or wealth that the rich have seldom involves anything to do with THEIR labor. Taking some of their "excess" may not seem "fair" (to them) - and is certainly not an incentive to "work harder" (to accumulate more than is "needed") if it will be taken instead of kept - but doing so rarely forces anyone to work or deprives anyone of the fruits of their ACTUAL labor.

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 17, October 2009, 12:22 am

Not only do property rights not exist except in the human mind but neither does the concept of money. Even before universal use of worthless fiat currency, the only reason people needed money at all was NOT exchange (in place of direct barter) but because most people were deliberately deprived of being able to provide for themselves and had to work for someone else just to eat. The need to work for and exchange money is a form of slavery. Having more money does not make one "free" (or even not have to work) - especially in a society that requires payment for everything. No other creature on earth works for money. Traditional human tribal societies tend to consider all members as extended family - and provide for their needs accordingly. Unlike OUR society which is based on money, work, and consumption, traditional societies emphasize mutual support and obligation. Without fences and government/police interference to prevent "free" access to the earth's abundant resources, money would have little use and give no power.

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 16, October 2009, 11:47 pm

Viva la revolution!
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 19, October 2009, 1:57 pm

Its a question of evolution. Do we want to evolve to help those who need it - even at the cost of personal liberty? Or do we stick with "survival of the fittest" and let those who wish to help through charitable means do the helping. Which direction ultimately makes for the best evolutionary step - that remains to be seen.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 20, October 2009, 10:43 am

As humans, we naturally function in societies, and although I believe that it is wrong to force someone to contribute to society, they should be willing to do it on their own accord.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 20, October 2009, 10:52 am

Victoria is wrong in saying that killing someone who upset her is a libertarian thing to do, because that would be assuming that her needs are greater than her victim's and the act of killing is the taking away of a person's self-ownership (I.e. forcing them to do something, die). If this was not true than a libertarian "society" would not be functionable, because there would be nobody in it.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 20, October 2009, 4:58 pm

Victoria's argument against self-possession doesn't seem to work. In her example, true exercise of self-possession would allow the killing of one person by another. She rejected self-possession in a society.

Where this falls short is that, while the killing of a person represents harm to society, generation of wealth does not. No one in society is harmed because Bill Gates is wealthy. On the contrary, applying "a rising tide lifts all boats" view, many others benefited from Bill Gates' efforts, as did the efforts of the captains of industry from years gone by such as Carnegie, Vanderbilt, Ford, Morgan, and Rockefeller.
reply

(JEQP) said:

Wednesday 21, October 2009, 1:36 am

How far does the Libertarian view extend? They say it's wrong to force someone to help others through taxation, but can they be forced to help others who are closer to them?

Specifically, according to the libertarian viewpoint is it wrong to force people to provide food for their children? If not, why?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 21, October 2009, 9:57 am

No, from a libertarian viewpoint, it is not. Because they don't believe in Bill Gates being forced to help those who are in desperate need of something, why should they believe that a parent should be obligated to help their children, who are in desperate need of nourishment? If you think about it, the parents are paying for the food, which they do with, you guessed it, money. The money comes from their labor, so if they were forced to feed their children, that is equal to forced labor, AKA slavery.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 22, October 2009, 7:50 pm

I stumbled upon this program the other night on PBS and enjoyed it very much. I have not read all these comments. So, I hope I'm not repeating what someone else has already said.
Here is a simple thought experiment question. If you took Bill Gates with all his innate intelligence, capabilities and talents and put him in a country like say Latvia today instead of the USA, would he turn out to be the same billionaire richest man in the world and so on?
A "yes" answer to this question almost seems like an absurdity. A "no" answer would seem to suggest that the origins of (at the very least some portion) of his wealth comes from the society as a whole, and he has just been fortunate and clever enough to position himself to reap a disproportionate share of the wealth created by the society as a whole. The whole is greater than its parts.
Then, the idea of private property cannot be seen as a right that is absolute, but rather a "relationship" between those who own property and the power that comes with it, and those who do not own property. From this, one could argue that it IS morally justifiable for a government, on the part of society as a whole, to tax and redistribute wealth on the basis of social justice.
reply

(elcubano) said:

Sunday 25, October 2009, 9:07 pm

Why do you assume that when the government taxes individuals, infringing in your personal sovereignty, the needy will benefit? Even though to a large degree I support the libertarian perspective, I will argue that progressive taxation should be opposed on Utilitarian grounds. The poor will be the most affected since this taxation inhibits the entrepreneur spirit thereby hindering job creation. Progressive taxation is detrimental to the greater society and should be opposed on Utilitarian grounds.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 26, October 2009, 7:18 pm

To think that Bill Gates created this wealth all by himself, with his own labor alone, is absurd. If there never was a Bill Gates the collective creativity of society as a whole would still have created these technologies and the wealth generated from them. Someone else would have provided his contribution. Yes, an entrepreneur plays an important role, but he/she does not create wealth all alone as some kind of absolute sovereign being. They are only fortunate enough to benefit disproportionately, (because of the laws that legitimize private property) from the creative power of the society as a whole.
Why do you assume progressive taxation can never benefit the poor? I see no reason why not. I could think of endless ways it could benefit the poor.
Why do you assume that only private investment can create jobs and progress? Actually, history has shown us there is great utilitarian value in using public funds for progress. All the great technological advancements of modern society were initially supported with public funds and investment: Railroads, canals, in the 19th century. Aviation, computers(Bill Gates), water resources, hwys, public education and universities in the 20th, just to name a few. From this, one could say that it was redistribution that made it possible for Bill Gates to acquire an immense fortune. So a progressive tax would not be an infringement on his sovereignty at all. I would argue that progressive taxation and redistribution, if applied correctly, can at times free up and "stimulate" the entrepreneurial spirit.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 1, November 2009, 1:36 pm

In the Ford Pinto case, the price of human life is a personal choice. An individual makes the tradeoff between safety, affordability and mobility.

On the other hand, business has to assign a number for human life to make the tradeoff in engineering design. It is better for government to set a number for automobile accident liability.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 1, November 2009, 3:43 pm

The notion of what constitutes a property right is created by legal definition, so whatever inherent benefits and flaws exist in that definition will also ripple throughout the fabric of society as well. Intellectual property rights, for example, are the foundation of the fortunes of many of the most wealthy today, including Bill Gates. Had no legal protection of such rights been available, then Bill Gates would most likely be much poorer today, and probably just an average wage-earner. The law arbitrarily decides the extent of IP rights, and therefore its ultimate value, so by definition, the wealth one earns from such a right is not entirely earned, - it is given by social contract. For libertarians to argue that it is somehow improper to also reduce that wealth by a social contract of another means is myopically self-serving.

This same principle is implicit by degree in other forms of compensated work as well, so the fundamental libertarian reductions I have been hearing here are myopically semantic and absurd.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 1, November 2009, 4:53 pm

You may be the proprietor your work, but you don't set the monetary value of your work. Value is established by others, always. Libertarians always seem to forget that the value of work comes from a marketplace set up by a melange of laws, social rules, and expectations ... something they hypocritically embrace when it profits them, but oppose when it doesn't. As the saying goes, "there are no astheists in foxholes, no libertarians in financial crises."

Since libertarian thought is defined by self-interest over morality, then they can not appeal to morality or moral right to establish it's basis. The philosophy is a joke from head to toe.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 2, February 2010, 10:44 pm

Libertarians support free markets precisely because it’s only through free and fair markets that value can be established. Any other method is arbitrary.

A true libertarian view of self-interest is an enlightened one which understands that pursuit of self-interest without regard for others, extended to its logical conclusion, would entitle others to act in a manner which would not be in one’s own self interest.

(eswope) said:

Monday 2, November 2009, 5:01 pm

I stumbled on a book I had not seen in a long time in a bookstore last week, and came back to ask: why is Rousseau not part of this discussion?

Just curious
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 6, November 2009, 2:07 pm

Robert Nozick's argument of "redistributive taxation is like forced labor" assumes there is a direct link between the person being taxed and an individual benefiting from the tax. In reality the money from many people is being distributed among many people and/or many potential services, etc. So, following Nozick's line of reasoning is to say that the person being taxed is one of many people being forced to work for many other people and/or many potential services. Although, the services may be only for the poor. The money from taxation (in general) goes to services and potentially indirectly to individuals. That general taxation money could very likely go to completely useless services or lining the pockets of the rich, but Nozick wants to make sure that rich people's money doesn't go to poor people that may be starving, sick or even dying from diseases, etc. Any taxation (re)distributes money to
services and/or individuals. So, following Nozick's line of reasoning any taxation forces an individual to work for a service or for another individual even if the money is indirectly (re)distributed.

Of course Nozick assumes other things that are not necessarily true. For
example, if some of the money used to pay the tax is from a gift or gifts. That can't possibly be considered forced labor, since it wasn't earned from labor. If Nozick breaks down the redistribution of the taxed money, then he must also break down the source of that money, since it does not necessarily have to be from labor alone.
reply

(Barbazzo) said:

Friday 6, November 2009, 5:33 pm

With taxation, in general, you can't be sure where your hard earned "labor" money is going. It could wind up going into something idiotic, like a war that should never have happened or to reward idiots who help destroy the economy. How could that be better than helping a "poor" victim of that destroyed economy?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 6, November 2009, 10:07 pm

A person's liberties are in direct competition with the other individuals of the society. If a single person takes a much larger share of society’s benefits, that single member reduces society’s ability to provide for the needs of the other members.

Just as a person agrees to abide by the benefits of a society, a person must agree to compensate society for any harm and injustices that he or she causes. Compensating society for this economic harm is not unjust, but it is upholding the basic moral obligation of justice.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 9, November 2009, 8:59 pm

“No man is an island…” - John Donne

Mankind is interconnected.

If a man obtained his property entirely by himself living on an isolated island with no human interaction, than he should not be taxed.

Gates obtained his personal property by the use of social property and therefore can be fairly taxed. If I use another man’s land to grow my crop, the landowner deserves a share of the profit.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 16, November 2009, 11:21 pm

If Bill Gates was placed on an island with everything he needed to build computers and software, but there were no other people, how much money could he make? The only factor that can not be removed from his prosperity is his reliance on other people. So why is it just for him to depend completely on other people for his prosperity, but wrong for other people to depend on him for their well being.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 23, December 2009, 1:01 pm

There is a subtle but important difference between people making mr. gates prosperious and mr. gates making people prosperious. The difference is this : people collectively decided to make mr. gates rich and prosperious. How ? By buying Microsoft products. People freely chose to do that. They could have bought something else. They could have not bought anything at all. They freely decided to buy Mr gates's things and make him rich. Free choice. Now, if you say, that mr. gates should also make other people happy, then firstly, he has, because lots of people have used his products to create their own personal wealth and happiness and secondly, who are we to force him to do anything ? That is like saying that you MUST give me something, just because I decided to give you something, regardless of if you wanted it or not.

(Kimig) said:

Saturday 21, November 2009, 1:54 pm

No one owns me except my creator God. Even if I was married my husband would become the head of the house but if he did something intentionally to hurt me I would be free to leave him or divorce him. If I was his property then I would not be free to divorce him or to leave him. In Cuba, they act as though they own their citizens like Berlin did before the Wall came down. Prior to that they acted as if their citizens were personal property that is not so!I don't believe that it is theft to pay one's taxes. I believe that it is right and just to have different tax brackets according to per capita and possessions. If one chooses to live in a society and have the benefits of that society that cost money for those entities in the society to exist then one should be expected to pay for those goods and services provided by the society. Likewise the public service members of that society should feel happy to provide the goods and deeds equally without prejudice or partiality to the members of that society. Not that everyone pays the same amount for the services but that everyone sacrifices the same amount. Inheritance tax should still be paid though those funds were taxed before. That was so the other citizen could have their social services met. Now that the funds are in the hands of another they will have to pay taxes per capita for the amount of possessions and funds that they are accountable, responsible for, and required too. It cost more to house three hens then it would to shelter one. The more automobiles you have the more police force will be needed for your safety. Therefore the more you have the more you will need the social services.
reply

(msgnet) said:

Saturday 28, November 2009, 11:42 pm

I was quite disappointed by the performance of the libertarian student representatives. It's very easy to show why majority vote doesn't work - say 51% of people decide to jail the minority, or take all their money, or execute them, or take away their right to vote the next time. The students were stumbling around and gave a poor defense of libertarianism.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 6, December 2009, 11:13 am

Ironic that the folks who "made it" and became wealthy feel that they don't owe this Nation a damn thing. they would have been just as successful if they'd been born in somalia, i guess.

no. the truth is that this Nation breeds crony capitalist pigs. this Nation rewards Greed and white collar crime. this Nation is a great example of Greed out of control crony capitalism and consumerism.

the wealthy are just a product of a sick Nation that brainwashes them into thinking they have no civic responsibility. this is why this Nation will probably fail in the long haul.

back in Truman's day, the wealthy paid up to 90% of their income in taxes, and they still lived very very well.

the Boob Toob teaches americans that money will make you happy and content. watching the news dispels that myth, but most americans believe THEY will be the next millionaire, so they put up with it. like the lottery, they think they'll win someday. if they only knew.............

we have a Plutocracy now, according to the Citigroup memo from 2005 leaked onto the Internet, the last truly democratic medium of communication left in the "greatest country on earth".
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 21, December 2009, 10:11 am

Why does Sandel mention propertarian libertarianism only, and not mention the arguments of non-propertarian libertarianism?

By defining libertarianism based on arguments of propertarian libertarianism, would be like defining democracy under Rebuplican ideologies.
reply

(scamper_22) said:

Sunday 27, December 2009, 3:11 am

What's missing in this discussion is any practicality.

It was mentioned once in the first lecture on the dangers on 'philosophy' as Callicles warns Socretes that philosophizing can be ruin if taken too far.

This is a big problem as many of these issues start dealing with real life issues that carry real social and political consequences.

Ask me philosophically if I think taxing the rich to feed the poor is bad? I say... no. Heck, if I could be guaranteed poverty be eliminated and all it took was a 70% tax, I would do it in a heart beat.

Practically, do I think this is doable? Nope. First off... who would be in charge of distributing all the wealth collected in taxes? Bureaucrats, politicians... how has this worked out so far for people? Seems like the people in government and those in well connected unions and corporations seem to get all the money instead of the poor. And if we haven't gotten such a perfect government to work in thousands of years... something tells me, we'd be insane to keep trying.

Next is, people don't like being victims... so as time move on, more people would gravitate towards contributing less (less people take chances to start a businesses, less take high paying but high stress jobs...) and more gravitate towards being takers (public servants, welfare...). You eventually bleed the rock dry.

Philosophically, communism make sense. I mean, if we all just kept doing what we're doing... and the wealth was redistributed so we all made the same money, we would have communism. The problem comes with getting all the people to keep doing what they're doing. I mean why should I be sent to work the mines in Siberia, while someone else gets to be a research scientists in a nice Moscow office?

What if I choose not to go work in the mines? Aaaaah, then practically, the government sends the military to force me to do it... and next thing you know... millions are killed and the gulags filled... because people don't want to do what the government tells them.

And so while I like this discussion as it relates philosophically, I find it a little disturbing how the questions are posed practically, but all the solutions are purely philosophical.

Maybe that's one of the reasons why many academics seem to be on more 'evil' side of history as they sided with communism and fascism and every other seemingly 'improved system'. They refuse to think through their ideologies in practical terms. No surprise as well as 'youth movements' seem to accompany all of them as well as youth do not have the experience to separate philosophical idealism (lady who questions the very essence of self ownership) with reality.
reply

(Cmramz) said:

Monday 28, December 2009, 6:54 am

In answer to the 3 objections to libertarianism, staring with the poor need the money more, what most people fail to think of is that there is always someone poorer out there. Everyone is quick enough to agree that the rich need share there money with society, in hope that they’ll see some of it handed to them, but they forget their jobless neighbor on welfare next door who is in far greater need of that money; and that neighbor, already thinking of what he could use that money for, is so quick to forget the bum outside the grocery store who is most surely in greater need of money than him. What do you think the poorest of the poor will do with free money? Do you steal from the rich so a bum can have another beer? So your neighbor can get a bigger TV? So you can get a newer car? What gives you the right? What makes you deserving? What if everyone decides you have too much money? How much is too much money? If you can afford 5 cars, is that to much money? Is it if you can afford to buy tomatoes for you sandwiches, is that to much money? If that was the case would you work 14hr days to buy a sandwich for your whole family, or would you want to get them more? Would it be any comfort to you that because you work those 14hr day two jobless families got sandwiches as well? Would you decide to become unemployed in order to get a free sandwich at the expense of some one else’s 14hr work days?

Secondly, we have the argument that taxation with consent of the governed is not coercion. This statement says nothing about the desire of the consenting only that they consented. There is a punishment for those who don’t consent to taxation, they are thrown in jail or there property is seized. The argument most people bring up is; “if you don’t like taxes, you can move to another country” which is the same as saying you can pay or leave. It’s a bribe, a bribe you have to pay in order for you to be allowed to stay where you are for another year. So now think, if you were given the option to be thrown in jail, having your property taken away, moving away to a far away land with people that don’t necessarily speak the say language as you, or paying a fee, which one would you chose? Is that not coercion, is that not a threat? What is the difference between that and a common street thug with a gun at your side saying “give me your money”? Pay me or I will hurt you.

Lastly, in regards the argument that the successful owe a debt to society, why exactly is any debt owed to society? Would you say it’s because society helped make a person successful? Could that person not have become successful without this society? Are the rich all products of society? Are the poor as well? Is everyone a result of society? If so, why do we only apply that logic to the good and well off and not the poor and violent? Why do we claim one and not the other? Why do we blame the violent for something that is our fault? Are they not a result of use? Aren’t we liable for the there actions? If we don’t deserve to be punished for someone else’s violent actions, why should we be rewarded for someone else’s successful actions?
reply

(Arik) said:

Wednesday 30, December 2009, 8:43 am

Nozick's analysis appears to be quite logical in its sense. It is a collection of equations in the form of a=b and b=c and thus a=c.

Secondly, when discussing matters such as "Is it OK to steal bread to feed your family" that's a play on emotions. Personally I believe that emotions should be omitted from any form of law making because they stand in contrast with rationality. To give a crude example of what emotion based lawmaking leads to: "Your talk angers me, therefore I have the right to punch you in the face." - Very crude, I know, hopefully it gets the basic idea across.

Eventually this all boils down to personal gain vs gain for the human species, in my opinion.

Now when you live in a society, you are dependent upon others for your survival. You are dependent upon stores to provide you with goods, doctors to provide you with medical care etc. The alternative of course is living in the woods or in the jungle and surviving on your own. But something tells me that most people won't choose for that option.
It is for that interactivity and cooperation of your fellow humans that you donate a part of your energy (labour/money). You are simply exchanging energy with your environment.

Now it is my belief that any action a human takes can be brought back to the 3 F's, the 3 primal instincts. These are: Feeding, Fighting and 'Reproduction'. All of these are essential for one thing only, survival.

We as humans understand, that as a group we stand a better chance of survival than as individuals. Thus we organized into groups and thus we have societies. The alternative -again- is to go solo and risk your chances.

Here comes the other factor, life forms survive due to rational egoism. Our actions should benefit ourselves and keep us alive, otherwise we don't do them. This means that humans can't care about everybody else. I believe psychologists have conducted a study that showed that we care -on average- about 100 people in our environment.

Institutions were formed as a means to force people to give up a part these fruits of their own labor in order to benefit the collective and thus allow for the socioeconomic base on which we as a species progress.

Your instinct will tell you to keep your food for yourself, because you need that to survive, however your other brain areas tell you that you "have a debt" to society in order for the species to move on. Again the logical trade off is that you go live in the woods, but you don't get the benefits of society, which is the interaction with others who posses qualities that you do not posses.

Now when it comes to wealth distribution, there are basically 2 points of view. From the poor man's perspective and from the rich man's perspective. The poor man will think that he needs the money and he will believe that a part of the money of the rich man can be given to him because the rich guy has more than plenty. The rich man has the luxury of 2 options. One, he can choose for himself to keep all of his money simply because that is most beneficial for his survival (hold on, I know what you're thinking!) or he can choose to give a part of his money willingly to the poor, IN ORDER TO SATISFY HIS OWN RATIONAL EGOISM, TO CONVINCE HIMSELF THAT HE IS DOING THE RIGHT THING and maybe he also understands that such actions will make him popular.

In my opinion, the latter is the smarter option because it seems to benefit your own image as well as the system you are living in.

So that's what Bill Gates essentially does, he has a foundation and that's charity.

Now what about taxes and forced wealth distribution? It is forced...otherwise you go to jail or you are cut off from the collective.

Basically what we have done is that we have created a system (society) that makes sure that the nodes (humans) act in such a way to maintain the system (society). What we are essentially doing, as a collective, is enhancing our chances of survival. Humans live longer these days than they used to 500 years ago.

On the notion of democracy and such, which is a whole different topic on its own. It is my belief that democracy is simply the best system out of the set of systems available. In order to create a system of sorts that can account for the intricacies of the human mind, the psyche, the behavior that comes from all of that and all of the other very complex factors that make up society, a being is needed that surpasses human intelligence. And I don't mean "a really smart guy", I mean something on a whole different scale/dimension etc.

Some people turn to god, or some - as my friend says - turn to Dr. Phil.

In order to understand that you are not a perfect life form, to TRULY understand that, you need to be very self critical. And most people aren't, no matter what they say, because being self critical means that your ego and self confidence take a very big hit. If you can cope with it, then it will eliminate all of your fears...except maybe for death.

The funny thing is that as I wrote the above I had to regather my thoughts a couple of times. I am really stressing my brain here.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 30, December 2009, 4:41 pm

Let me tackle this issue through use of analogy. Human society exists, from an evolutionary standpoint at least, to maximise the chance of inidivudal's within the society capacity to procreate. Therefore by extension, societies exist to maximise the common good. You can see where I'm going with this. I'll digress a little here.

Breaking down to a basic principle. Multicellular organisms, it's theorised, arose from a similar pursuit of exploiting symbiotic relationships to maximise survival. If however cells within the organism violate that relationship (choose to exercise free will, self possession), the result is cancer and the organism dies.

Therefore, from a purely rationale standpoint, the challenges facing us are that of survival, and only survival. Our job is merely to do what we can to survive and procreate. Everything we do is simply a tool that assists in that pursuit. Abandoning the obligation of societal living reduces the capacity of the group to ensure survival.

One fundamental point raised early in the session is that the accumulation of wealth be from a just process invovling free will. One could make the argument that in the case of the Americas and indeed Australia this assertion cannot hold true. This is because all wealth, whilst generated by the work input of the settlers arose from the theft of the natural state from the original inhabitants. Lack of a formal governance of the property rights does not preclude the fundamental rights of these people to that property.

Does benefiting from a theft make you complicit in that theft?

On a side note regarding the specific example of the world's richest man. That wealth was derived from the original success of MS-DOS an operating system software that possessed significant similarity in appearance and software code to that of competitor packages.
reply

(Rothbard) said:

Wednesday 6, January 2010, 5:37 am

I think symbiotic is the wrong analysis, parasitism is better.

The productive effort of one organism is diverted from that organism to sustain another that does not contribute anything to the relationship.

It would seem that if Bill Gates managed to generate huge amounts of wealth from a product that was nothing special he is an even greater entrepreneur than if he had the advantage of a superior product.

He deserves his wealth even more if with only his superior ability to organize resources he managed to create such a successful business with an ordinary product.

(Amarsir) said:

Wednesday 30, December 2009, 9:22 pm

Frequently during these discussions I feel that important issues are not being raised. But "Team Libertarian" did a pretty good job. Yet I want to tackle the 4 critiques myself:

1) Although the poor do "need" the money, no one except the property's owner has the right to decide whether that need amounts to deserving. I don't have the right to demand someone else's wealth for myself, nor to give it away on their behalf. I can appeal to them to do so, but no amount of certainty on my or anyone else's point overrules their inherent rights.

2) In the words sometimes attributed to Ben Franklin, democracy is sometimes like two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. Three people may form a democracy, but that doesn't justify two cannibalizing the third. Or enslaving the third. Or raping the third. Or seizing the property of the third. Democracy is an important right but not the paramount one.

3) When Michael Jordan earned million "from society", he contributed million TO society via his services. And that value is not assigned by myself nor any government - it's decided by the people who chose of their own free will to give him that money. In a free market society, nothing is given without something in return that the giver finds to be worthwhile.

To violate that allows me to agree to pay for a service, and then demand a cut of that back because he has and I don't. Taxation is theft/slavery by nature of being involuntary, and it's also imbalanced because only the money is taxed. We take 33% of Jordan's earnings, but don't collect 33% of the joy of watching a basketball game! Why do we tax one and not the other? Because we can. But that's merely the result of convenience, not morality.

4) Here is where I do slightly depart from the strict Libertarian view, in that luck does play a part. And I would support something like an estate tax (not an income tax) with the proceeds used to correct the imbalance of birth. But even here I would again say that we don't tax uniformly. You may collect my wealth and give it to the poor guy. Do you tax his good looks and give them to me?

Two of the "rebuttals" didn't hold much water, but Anna offered a reasonable case in saying that if society isn't helped one way you'll have to pay for it another. However, firstly that holds all the morality of extortion: pay us or else! And secondly we can make the opposite case of "societal cascade" by saying that when you tax work/property/entrepreneurship you disincentivize it. If everyone gets service from the fire department without paying, then no one will pay and there won't be a fire department! (Odd example though that may be.)

As for the "you owe society and you can leave" argument, that will depend on Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. And since I gather those are coming up next, I'll leave them be.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 3, January 2010, 9:07 am

The first argument is logically the same as

Those with renal failure need the kidneys more so it is legitimate to forcibly remove a kidney from those who have two to give it to those who need one.

Unless everyone has the same then some will always be poorer than others, don't they need the money more and so we must all have the same, irrespective of our contributions.

The second argument is logically the same as:

Murder by consent of the governed is not coerced.

So if a democratic government decides to murder a minority of its population then the minority have agreed to their own murder and it is morally fine. (I think the Jews during the holocaust may have had a different view)

The third objection ignores economics. Any transaction between willing participants requires that each side values what they receive more highly than what they exchange. Everyone who purchases a microsoft product values it more than the money they pay, so they are better off.
If Bill Gates has become rich by engaging in transactions that have made millions of people better off, then he has made society (The collection of people) better off. How can he owe a debt, when everyone has become better off ?

The fourth argument is simply nonsense, it presupposes that unless you deserve something you are not entitled to it. Do any of us deserve our life, should we therefore all be murdered ?

(Mykel) said:

Friday 1, January 2010, 1:58 pm

Taxation is not theft if we give consent, its equal to all (a % and not a $ amount) and only if its going into a system that is used to benefit the society which is paying the taxes. In my opinion.
reply

(Mykel) said:

Friday 1, January 2010, 3:19 pm

I was right! According to Locke at least. I don't even need to read this stuff I will just keep watching videos till you guys are caught up to me.

(Mykel) said:

Friday 1, January 2010, 8:08 pm

I would also like to argue that I consider my "consent" of being taxed as illegitimate. First off there is no choice till the age of 16 and at that point one could say that a person would be coerced to stay in any developed country they grew up in cause of family, friends or maybe just the overall quality of life. Second people don't have all the relevant information to make an informed decision by the time you sign your name to your 1st tax form. Third there really is no other choice. If you live in the US you must pay income taxes or else you can go to jail or move from the country and pay taxes else where.
With that being said, I do agree with paying taxes so w/e.
reply

(greencircle) said:

Saturday 2, January 2010, 4:04 am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaLINFjBRPM
reply

(VladZamfir) said:

Sunday 3, January 2010, 4:56 pm

Wow! That was a really interesting lecture, and the format is great!
Gotta love the Socratic method! Here are some thoughts:

I consider myself a libertarian, although the source of my libertarianism very different than that given by the strong rights theory based in the principle of self-ownership. I think some of you might find it interesting, so here's an account of my consequentialist motivation for libertarianism.

From my (consequentialist) point of view, the ideal society maximizes the production of good consequences. In order for this to occur, every individual's productive capacity must be fully employed, which in turn implies that no productive capacity is wasted. This requires that every individual behave in the most responsible way available. In this case, any coercion will necessarily lead to a less than optimal result. Therefore, no coercion exists in a society where everyone behaves perfectly responsibly, or one that maximizes the production of good consequences.

Slightly less abstractly: There can be no beneficial way to coerce people if they are already acting rightly by their own consent. Of course (because no one will ever consistently have perfect [relevant] information) such a society will never exist, but it is still ideal, as far as I can tell, and is what we should strive for.

On a more practical level, there is also good reason to believe that people are more productive when they are driven towards ends that they believe are good than when they are coerced into acting towards those ends. (For a convincing case, check this out: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/dan_pink_on_motivation.html)

So this was my first post -- and I'm wondering if there is a way to get into smaller discussion circles without starting your own? I don't see anything on the website to this effect, but I'll look more.

Happy new year!
reply

(Roocus) said:

Tuesday 5, January 2010, 7:29 am

Awsome lecture too tired to say too much but i am going to put in a little useless fact to the debate.
I live in Australia, you are entitled to an income from the government providing you look for jobs. so this can go on indefinitely if you "prove" you are job hunting.
Bad side is people cheat the system and live on this entitlement for good, great news is that it is rare to walk past truly homeless people in the street.
second greatest thing is, i am guaranteed a safety blanket if i run out of work. society makes it socially unacceptable to be on this scheme, so for the most part people try HARD for work lol.
reply

(Kybernes) said:

Tuesday 5, January 2010, 2:37 pm

I think Nozick and Friedman used a common trick in their argument. Assumed a man´s property is really the equivalent to his work their argument would be perfectly right. What they don´t say is that Locke didn´t think of a modern C.E.O. or a sharholder. Locke´s about the work only make sense in combination with the natural state he presupposes. In the natural state property emerges from my work (e.g. by carving sth. out of wood I gain property over this item). Let us now take Nozicks simple equation "taxation=taking of earning=forced labor=slavery". There is one importatant condition to that equation (of which Locke was aware and Friedman and Nozick were not): The property has to be an equivalent to the work. If Friedman and Nozick would ever have compare that equation to the processes of the modern capitalist market they either would have become marxists or silent. That is because there equation isn´t satisfied for any modern production. If it was, Bill Gates would have never become as rich as he is. But is Bill Gates a slaveholder because he obviously gains more money from his employee´s work than is necessary to run his own business? How much money gets an employee - who e.g. has built 100 computer chips a day - from the money that is gained with that computerchip by Bill Gates a hundreds or thousands of shareholders? Assumed that Friedman and Nozick were no communists (and I´m quite sure about it) - than they were just wrong.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 6, January 2010, 4:29 am

Kybernes has missed the point entirely and seems to be trying to force marx's labour theory of value into the mouths of Locke, Nozick and Friedman.

The issue of mixing labour with unowned property to give first ownership of a newly created good is one of two ways that just ownership is acquired. It is of virtually no relevance in modern society as there is virtually no unowned property left.

The other method of just ownership is free exchange. The worker in a computer chip factory exchanges his labour for a wage. He is not transforming unowned resources into products for himself, he is voluntarily exchanging his time and skill for money. The output of his labour is owned by the person who pays him.

Labour takes many forms, for a coal miner it is digging in the mine, for a singer it is singing on a stage, for a software developer it may be thinking while staring into space, for the capitalist it is organizing resources to get the best possible return for the investors with the least risk.

In a free market everyone is paid fairly, exactly what their labour is worth to others. The rates are agreed between willing, participants in the market and both payers and receivers are happy with the bargain.

Bill Gates fortune is derived from his labour in building and running the Microsoft business, his customers have paid willingly for his products so whatever he is worth, he has earned it fair and square through his labours. Many people have helped him, but he has paid them what they wanted for that help along the way.

Taxation is simply the enslavement of the productive by the state to buy the votes of the parasitic class that live off the fruits of the slavery.
reply

(Rothbard) said:

Wednesday 6, January 2010, 5:39 am

Sorry wasn't logged in, but the above post was mine

(Kybernes) said:

Wednesday 6, January 2010, 7:55 am

Sorry but I think you misunderstood me. It wasn´t my aim to force marx´s labour theory of value into the mouths of Locke and others.The problem with the liberatarian interpretation of property in general and Locke´s remarks on property is as follows: Locke wanted to give good reasons, why citizens have a non alienable property right. To have (any) property is legitmated by the the work somebody invested in a certain object. This is how property in general emerged from the state of nature. But Locke has a second undesrtanding of work: "Master and servant are names as old as history, but given to those of far different condition; for a free man makes himself a servant to another by selling him for a certain time the service he undertakes to do in exchange for wages he is to receive." (2nd Treatise §85) That leads to the question how both concepts can be valuable. On the one hand you got an individual - may it be a master, a child or a servant who has the ability to work and therefore the non alienable property right, one the other hand there are - and ever have been - individuals which are as member of the household under the iurisdiction of the pater familias.
The problem which is already getting preceptible in Lockes remarks becomes obvious if you transpose it into the capitalistic market as the conflict between labour and capital. Though Locke could not have been aware of the development of capitalism, he thought about the inequality that emerges with the expansion of private property due to the development of monetarism. But for Locke inequality was always an effect of the differnce of those with "honest idustry" and the "idle poor". You don´t have to be a Marxist (I´m not by the way) to see that this doesn´t fit for the history of the working class. It would be as mediocre and symplifying to say that all poor people just have been idle as it was to say that a mans wealth is always just the effect of exploitation and fortune.

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 8, January 2010, 4:46 am

In the theoretical initial state of nature, nobody owns anything but themselves. Each will initially acquire property by mixing their direct labour with natural resources.

At this point there are no capitalists and no working class.

The difference is that a capitalist accumulates property by consuming less than they produce (saving). This can be because they have less consumption desires, or greater productivity.

They may then trade property with others in voluntary exchange. One of these trades may be in the form of hiring labour in return for wages.

The difference is between justice in acquisition, which applies to the first settlers in the state of nature and justice in transfer which is the relationship between the capitalist and the working class.

Inequality is not inherently unjust, people are different. They are unequal in height, weight, looks, intelligence, manual dexterity, strength, ability to sing or paint, etc, etc, etc.

I can never understand why the egalitarians only ever focus on equality of money. Why not equality of sexual opportunity, why should only those people gifted with good looks, charm, etc (Rich in attractiveness) have the majority of sexual encounters with attractive people of the opposite sex. Equality surely demands that sexual opportunities with attractive members of the opposite sex should be equally distributed. Perhaps by compulsory disfigurement (Attractiveness Tax) on those with more than their fair share.

What about equality of intellectual pleasures. Why should those gifted with above average intelligence get more than their fair share of pleasure from philosophy. Perhaps some form of limited labotomy should be applied (Intelligence Tax) to make for a fairer world.

The absurdity of egalitarianism is well exposed in distopian fiction such as

Facial Justice by L.P. Hartley
Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut
Anthem by Ayn Rand
reply

(Rothbard) said:

Friday 8, January 2010, 4:58 am

Logged out while posting, but above is mine

(Kybernes) said:

Saturday 9, January 2010, 8:03 am

Unfortunately you didn´t answer any of my questions or even said something abot what I mentioned. By the way it was never my position that inequality is something bad. Stop arguing against things that not have been mentioned. That gets boring easily.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 11, January 2010, 9:31 pm

Libertarianism is an appealing theory but often falls short in practice. Let's take two typcial hot button areas "moral laws" and insurance. Libertarians say that motorcyclists shouldn't be compelled to wear helmets since its their life that is at risk and no other. They also argue that if someone is young and healthy they shouldn't be compelled to purchase health insurance. These young folks aren't likely to need insurance and they should be free to spend their money on other things.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that once a young libertarian motorcylist with no health insurance gets into an accident, they want to be treated at the local ER - at great cost to the taxpayers. A true libertarian would either:

1) be willing to be left by the side of the road to fend for themselves; or

2) escrow enough money to cover any unforseen medical costs.

Frankly I haven't met too many self professed libertarians willing to truly "own themselves" including the full responsibilities of their decisions.
reply

(Rothbard) said:

Wednesday 13, January 2010, 3:15 am

You are correct, anyone who does not accept the consequences of their free choices is not a Libertarian.

You have now met (at least online) a Libertarian, I have no problem with living with the consequences of my decisions, good or bad and accept that I have no right to call on the resources of others, other than through voluntary exchange.

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 2, February 2010, 10:54 pm

If one wants to be treated after an accident, one should buy insurance or be prepared to pay for the treatment. The treating physician may have a family to feed.

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 26, February 2010, 2:15 pm

The libertarian motorcyclist who neither wears a helmet nor pays taxes burdens society when he needs to be scraped off the pavement, and transported to the hospital.

Rothbard, You may be willing to accept the consequences of your decisions. But you would force society to live with them as well.

There are costs, both foreseeable and unforeseeable associated with living in this society. Even if, the EMT's moved you aside when they saw your "I'm a libertarian, don't treat me" tattoo. Someone has to pay their salaries.

(Steven) said:

Tuesday 12, January 2010, 6:17 am

Bill Gates and Michael Jordan acheived their wealth and status by virtue of being members of particular society. Since their very births, they have benefited from that society through language, education, and opportunity, and it is due to those benefits that they were able to make those acheivements. The light bulb could only have been invented in a society in which all of the elements that go in to making the light bulb as well as the scientific principles are known. Therefore, Bill Gates ande Michael Jordan have a debt to that very society beyond the benefit that society has recieved by virtue of their individual successes.
reply

(Rothbard) said:

Wednesday 13, January 2010, 3:19 am

By that line of reasoning we all owe an equal debt to society as we have all received the benefits of language, education and opportunity.

Why should Bil Gates and Michael Jordan pay back more than anyone else?

(SweetBlackOrchid) said:

Friday 29, January 2010, 11:00 pm

I agree, also they should pay more because they have received more from society (than average).

(APRJustice) said:

Wednesday 13, January 2010, 1:20 pm

Paternalist legislation is totally wrong. People should have the right to make their own decisions. If someone is speeding or not wearing their seatbelt those conditions should not be crimes because there is no harm done. If they were to crash and harm someone else's person or property, then there would be a reason for them to be punished or accept responsibility for the consequences of their action.

Forced labor is not slavery. In Roman times free citizens could be forced to carry the pack of a soldier for one mile without pay. That would be forced labor. But the citizen would still be able to do their own labor throughout the rest of the day. Since the forced labor is only a small portion of the total labor being done, it is not slavery. Slavery would be if all labor being done was forced. So taxation is not slavery unless the labor that is forced is so much that it leaves the person dependant on the entity forcing the labor. If Bill Gates or Michael Jordan were to be taxed to the point where they would need to beg the government for food or housing, then they would be slaves. Since both are still living quite comfortably on their earnings after taxes, they clearly are not slaves to society.

In the video there was much talk about this right to own yourself being given up by chosing to live in a society. I disagree entirely. This is because a person does not choose to live in a society. A person is born into a society, and in the vast majority of cases, there is no option to leave the society. Look at the American Civil War. States in the south thought they were getting a bad deal, so they left the society that was refered to as the United States or the Union. They formed their own society and called it the Confederate States of America. The north forced the Confederacy to rejoin their society by conquering the Confederacy. So there is no choice about which society you live in. If I own a house and I decide I can do without all the services the government provides, and so these taxes that are supposed to help everyone don't help me, I want to leave the United States and make my plot of land a separate country that would not be allowed even though the land is mine, I can't decide to make my own society on it. There is no choice to leave society so living in a society is not a choice. If that isn't a choice, they you aren't chosing to give up your right to own yourself, you are being forced. Since you are forced to not own yourself, now you are a slave.
reply

(Rothbard) said:

Thursday 14, January 2010, 10:57 am

So its Ok to keep slaves, so long as you give them plenty of time off !

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 18, January 2010, 4:39 am

If you don't pay for a police force via taxation, I will come and take 100% of what you have. If you don't pay for health care so hospitals can practice on me, they won't be well trained when your turn comes. Tax payment return for these services, not theft or slavery. History teaches that revolution follows from inequality. So Police, Health etc must to some extent benefit all. Taxation isn't theft, it is a pragmatic solution to realities such as these (As is democracy, freedom of speech and other rights /obligations of western society).
reply

(adl.architetto) said:

Tuesday 19, January 2010, 4:36 pm

Only superficially is the assumption that people make their money "fairly" challenged thus far. The free exchange of goods (or money for service) assumes that all the good were rightfully owned before the exchanged occurred. If they were then the initial condition, a hypothetical situation prior to any exchange, would be that everyone was on equal footing. History does a good job in disproving that. In fact, psychological experiments show clearly that hierarchy (among males) is automatically established; a group would almost always have a leader. If it can be shown that such hierarchy necessarily leads to material inequality then we can say for sure that we cannot escape the condition of inequality as much as we try (and we did try, partially, through failed communism and extreme socialism).
We can then distinguish, at least formally, between two types of inequalities. Material inequality and political inequality (Foucault's concept of power: one's ability to impose his/her will on another). We can safely say, without much of a survey of the current state of global affairs, that neither is escapable, but rather quite desirable.
The consequences of these two inequalities is the complete anihilation of any concept of "fairness". It is perhaps not fair for Michael Jordan and Bill Gates to receive such an amount of material good in exchange for the amount of work they submitted. on the other hand, and this point is never discussed, it is not "wise" for the society to pay so much (usually absent-mindedly) in exchange for those services.
While it is true that value is a subjectively derived mental construct, it seems intuitively wrong for Nike to pay 10$ for the manufacturing and shipping of one of their shoes, and charge 100$. A good portion of that 90$ cannot be mapped onto any actual work on the company's part.
The argument of fairness is rather complex. While self-ownership is an obvious human right, and intuitively indisputable (it is I who think therefore it is I who AM; just to give the argument a twist), whether taxation is a breach of liberty or not can only be answered by after the problem of "fairness" is tackled. One is not taxed directly on his/herself, but rather on the material good that is attributed to him/her. To even have an argument that taxation leads to breach of the right of self-ownership is to first prove that any material good attributed to a person has undisputed legitimacy.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 22, January 2010, 10:39 pm

If one owns oneself and one’s labor, doesn’t one also own their luck and the good fortune which flow from their choices as well as their labors? It is sometimes said that the harder one works the luckier one gets. Why is it that so many seem to recognize a person’s right to the fruits of their labor but apparently stand ready to seize the good fortune of others? Luck may not, strictly speaking, be “earned” but if it was acquired fairly, without violating anyone else’s rights, then it is no less the property of the individual; and society has no more right to it than the fruits of one’s labors.

Bill Gates has been the beneficiary of some significant good luck in his business dealings but his wealth was not bestowed upon him by divine providence or the state. He applied his talents, efforts and labors to put himself in a position to recognize and capitalize on the lucky circumstances he found himself in. Similarly, Michael Jordan was lucky to be born with certain talents which, combined with hard work, were highly valued by the society he lived in. Others who may have had his talent may never have developed it or capitalize on it. Others who would have liked to weren’t born with the talent..

Some of the comments before mine seem to confuse taxation for redistribution with taxation for the common good. Taxation to support roads, sewers, water systems, police, the military and fire protection do not violate Libertarian principles. Even public schools, which provide an education to those who may not be able to afford it, at the expense of others, can be defended based on the benefits that an educated citizenry and workforce provide to the general welfare.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 26, January 2010, 5:38 am

Go Victoria, you show why affirmative action if wrong so well by bungling the simple concepts just explained to you. Try doing the assigned Nozick reading next time.

I guess rights go away when we 'choose to live in a society' and not 'go around killing people' right?

Go back to high school sister, this is Harvard and not East LA.
reply

(SweetBlackOrchid) said:

Friday 29, January 2010, 10:55 pm

A persons labor is not his own. To live one must labor. Labor is your contribution to the universe in return for your existence. The plague and polio were both eraticated by coercing the whole. The service of trash removal is necessary for the whole because if you don't put your trash out and it stacks up causing disease, it is unjust to your immediate neighbor who disposes of his trash properly to avoid the same disease. You have to make a payment to this cause in one way or another. It is a voiolation of my human right to live free of disease and be healthy when because you don't want a vaccination, then I catch from you what I intend to be/am vaccinated against. Also, it has to be called into question the wealth that was not even earned but was inherited. Is it all right to trace back the orgins of an individuals wealth to verify wether it was earned justly or was stolen (through forced labor).
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 30, January 2010, 9:53 am

One problem with the concept of self ownership in a society is one of protection of that ownership. Can a person claim self ownership and demand others protect it? How does a society that function free from foreign coercion and enjoy liberty reconcile the need to have an army to protected it?

Why would someone give there life in defenses of someone else property? Self ownership is a specious argument as defined as a whole. Self ownership is provisional. There has to be a duty to the state beyond a singular definition that mine is mine and nothing is a shared responsibility to the state that protects it.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 2, February 2010, 8:49 pm

There is no such problem. In the absence of society, each individual defends their own rights. Observing that such individual action is inefficient, individuals form a society and enter into a social compact for their mutual benefit and protection. Each individual contributes because each individual receives benefits which are greater than the cost. A person might put their life on the line because they understand that others will do the same for them; and their willingness to do their part, including the payment of taxes, justifies their demand that others do the same. It’s part of the beneficial social compact. There’s no moral or ethical conflict between the concept of self-ownership and society as long as society acts only for the common good. It’s only when society coerces taxes from its members for purposes other than the common good, i.e. transfer payments which benefit some members at the expense of others, that it violates the rights of self ownership of its members.

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 2, February 2010, 9:22 pm

One’s labor is, indeed, their own. To live, one must labor, or enjoy the fruits of some else’s labor. To live does not require that one labor for the benefit of others.

When one receives wealth through inheritance, they are receiving a gift of the fruits of someone else’s labor upon the death of that person. Life isn’t fair. The person receiving the inheritance is luckier than others but that does not give society any greater claim to the fruits of that person’s labor.
reply

(williammurrayhapper) said:

Saturday 27, February 2010, 8:06 am

In arguing against the libertarian point of view, no one in the lecture points to the externality principle. It is only alluded to in that Michael Jordan could be lucky.
The reality is this. Jordan played in Municipal Buildings. The people traveled to those games on public roads or on mass public transportation. Tickets are not cheap, so how many of the people were enabled to buy tickets through free public education? And television broadcasting is protected by Intellectual property laws. Licensing of NBA and Jordan Merchandise is protected by Intellectual property laws. His travel to games is aided by government air traffic controllers, and airports are public. Did Jordan ever visit a Dr. which received a public education. Did his team of lawyers and financial advisers receive public education? Did he start playing basketball in recreation leagues sponsored by municipal governments? Didn't he attend a public high school, which had a basketball team. And UNC (1789) was that a public university? Dean Smith, he was employed by a public institution. Phil Jackson, a student of philosophy, educated at a public university? And the same for his teammates? Let's throw in the fans who have been disciplined enough in their lives to earn the money to buy tickets and merchandise; did any of that discipline come from the benefits of playing sports in public schools. Not to discount his talent and effort, but his earnings have clearly been facilitated by public investment.
Much of the wealth of the country is correlated to public investment in many areas.

So the question might be who benefits more from the state, rich or poor? The military while its primary function should be to keep us free from foreign attack, much of it in reality is to keep markets open. Piracy anyone (Somalia)? People don't realize how much a navy plays a part in their ability to buy affordable goods. And too many politicians used terms like "tax relief." A term which author George Lakeoff opines about. "Relief" = you are sick. Do taxes make you sick? Or do you benefit? Libertarians assume that there must be direct benefits to the individual, but that is not the case. There are too many indirect benefits of government.
reply

(RIR) said:

Saturday 27, February 2010, 9:54 am

By virtue of his Billion in wealth, Gates receives far greater benefit from society than, someone who has 40,000 (me for example) in net worth by a factor of 1 million. Our Police, Our Courts, our Department of Public Works,our Treasury, and our Military all provide an infrastructure and protection for his billion to exist.

Yes, Gates may owe society a debt because he climbed the ladder of opportunity that society built for him. But, the ladder is there for us all to climb.

Gates owes his debt to society than I do, because he reaps far greater benefit from society, and should have to pay for it. Without the context of society and protection of it's institutions, his billion amounts to nothing.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 5, March 2010, 6:35 am

THE CORE OF THE INITIAL SOCIETY IS UNREST.EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO SATISFY HIS OR HER NEED EVEN FROM VIOLENCE.HOWERVER,IT IS THE RESTRAINT OF EVERYONE WHO LOSE THE RIGHT TO DESTROY THAT CONTRIBUTE TO THE CIVILIZATION,FROM WHICH BILL GATES GETS MORE GOOD.THUS,HE SHOULD COMPENSATE FOR OTHERS'COST OF LOSING THEIR RIGHTS
reply

(ladulala) said:

Friday 5, March 2010, 7:54 am

Human are social animal.
We cannot live without the people behind you, which the discussion had ignored. the people providing all the necessaries and safty for your growth.

in my point of view, in the very beginning of your life, the human society (your government, your country) already invest several resources to help your gorwth, basic needs, education and other benifits.
maybe you would say, I don't owe the society, if I must owe somebody, that could be my parents. This kind of thought is narrow and selfish. because, your parents also owe the social system of their lifes.
The tax is the profit of investment, which should return to the goverment. the more you make, the more it takes. Because without this social system, without the services provide by the government, you would not be so success.
In other hand, if bill gates did not make so many money, and he even lost his job or had a bad car accident. Your so called "bandit, theft goverment" will provide money to keep your alive.

life is a web, we all in there.
reply

(ehlondon) said:

Friday 9, April 2010, 4:05 pm

The idea that someone worked so hard to achieve their fortune should be countered by the question of "worked where?"
Unless you made your own money, and gave it value (which would be worthless to anyone else), you are a product of society. I don't go around quoting the bible a lot (not anymore), but Jesus had a very important lesson here.
Whose image do you see on your money? ("Pay back Ceasar's things to Ceasar"!)At the end of the day, after all your hard work, it is still the government that gives value to what you "own" and it's existence and rules are required to maintain that value. If the country collapsed completely (when I say completely, I mean like an end of days collapse), your money would be worth what?
reply

(ned) said:

Thursday 22, April 2010, 7:17 am

where can i watch the movie?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 6, June 2010, 1:10 am

people are born differently ,of course they get paid differently.people are born with no justice.
and i dont think its natural for a human being to learn sth. about law and the whole money system crap.....start with this,ok?
who invented money ,any way
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 6, June 2010, 1:14 am

and just cause i am born in this time of the planet ,i have to know how to use money,and learn about money?i want to catch fish in the river.i dont want to learn the "things" that i have to learn.......
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 6, June 2010, 1:25 am

i heard somebody said that people r exchange things "freely"? so its just?of course no,people are information asymmetry.so how is it just that u cheated someone to give u all his money in his "willingly",and then he found out that u cheated him and he wants his money back,but oops,u wouldnt give him back the money,cause u said that 'u gave me your money "willingly"',is it sound just to u?
well,its not justice,its evil.
reply

(thelna1) said:

Tuesday 8, June 2010, 4:31 pm

Here is what everyone is missing:

You would not be able to have property if not for the Government. Money, property, wealth build up, and freedom of religion are rules given to us by the Government we live in.

That money is not your own, even if you think it is. That house and property that you own, really is not your, even if you think it is. The people many years ago decided to give up individual right to property in order to allow the government to regulate and protect the people.

The wealthy certainly owe a debt, because the government put a value on the commerce. bill gates would either have become a world power, or else would have been killed or his ideas stolen by the strongest.

Perfectly stated: you are assuming thta the money, property and job you have, - is your own. IT IS NOT.
reply

(thelna1) said:

Tuesday 8, June 2010, 4:39 pm

I pose this question:

if you did not redistribute wealth, what would you do with the people living in poverty?

How would you supply their needs: remember, you can't supply jobs for everyone, even if you could, you could not supply well paying jobs for everyone. If you could, that money would have to come from somewhere. Where?

Before you make a response, remember, The United States Is in a recession, heading into a depression, because people have a right to earn as much money as possible, and that money is theirs to do with as they wish. Instead of putting that money into programs that would create jobs and charity, that money was used to create investments which, went belly up.

You really think you don't have to regulate people?
reply

(Carbine) said:

Saturday 12, June 2010, 11:15 am

I'm thinking along the lines of williammurrayhapper and RIR. But it's not just that a rich person has accumulated his (or her, et al) wealth out of the labor of others, but that the richer a person is, the more risk society takes on his behalf. Just look at the recent bailouts -- the idea that a company is "too big to fail." The extra tax is insurance on the rich because fortunes fail, just as youth grows old and weather changes. Eventually, that rich person won't be able to hire all those people and sell all those widgets, or make those goal/baskets anymore. The infrastructure created for the businesses will crumble, the stadiums stand empty. What then?

A rich person needs to contribute a greater share of wealth to the general kitty in the same way that the owner of a Porche pays more for car insurance. The extra tax is a buffer for when that fortunate person eventually loses his riches. If you want, you can call it a "pecuniary depreciation fee." I don't get my premiums refunded to me every year because I haven't had an accident, but I do get a discount if I have proven myself a careful driver. So, give discounts to careful rich persons every year they don't cause a mine to explode or kill off an entire eco-system, or go without doing something moronically incriminating. Let's say two percentage points below a penalty rate of 24%. I've grovelled for that much, so it sounds about fair.

Furthermore, outrageous interest rates and ridiculous bank fees are examples of someone taking your money because you aren't good at keeping track of it. That's a perfectly acceptable and libertarian way to put (gourmet) food on the table. So if I make more money than God (not exaggerating: some people worship the sun, the sun is the basis for timekeeping, and if it wouldn't be worth their time to pick up a hundred dollar bill -- you see my point), would I actually be able to keep track of that much money? If the government wrote up a disclaimer in small enough print and slipped it in my mailbox in a window envelope containing a free gift of puppy-themed personalized return address labels, surely a little extra taxation, er, "pecuniary depreciation fee," would never be noticed.

Which brings me to the megalomaniac factor. I'll assume Mr. Gates has all the angles covered: a nice retirement, some traveling, life insurance for the Mrs., a vacation space station, full college tuition for a couple hundred kids a year -- words like "comfortable" come to mind. But at some point beyond that, a lot of super-rich or powerful people just go berserk. That's not to say that a lot of semi-comfortable people don't also just go berserk, but most of them have totted up and considered their own personal cost-benefit analysis between public sanctions vs. sanctioned pharmaceuticals, and the outcome is compelling enough to keep them well-heeled, so to speak. Not so for those few quasars who are so far removed from the rest of humanity, and so powerful in their reach, that they are no longer governed by any laws commonly experienced. An increased tax for such a person would be like viewing starlight through a telescope - the amount of energy that is regularly cast off and scattered by the source is negligible to the amount collected and focused to good effect.

Come to think of it, what would stop a government from opening up a non-profit boutique for the conspicuous consumer? The revenue from one ludicrously expensive bauble could fund a state park for a month. Gold-plated bicycle? Cloisonne toothbrush? Albino dalmation? Why can't the rich subsidize schools the way Lotto players do it: very willingly, and on account of their own deluded hubris. How very libertarian.
reply

(evatemporal) said:

Wednesday 16, June 2010, 9:17 am

my reading of Locke is stucking with the vague concept that he is giving on 'the state of nature', wonder if anyone can help me out. Here's my question,

The state of nature is the key concept of Locke's argument for person and his inalienable rights, yet in his writing it has never been clearly defined. In his exposition of this concept, Locke is appealing to the supreme being in offering basis for the intrinsic equal standing of every human being toward one and oher, and further assuming that we will somehow automatically figure out what is just and good for all of us in concrete dealing with one and other. This might seem to be the case in the extreme examples he mentioned such as killing and stealing, for which the clear moral judgment is found more easier for those involved. However, how is such automatic mutual agreement going to work out for cases that are less harmful in nature, or even to some extent cultural-specific? For instance, if in my culture it is good for women to veil, it is ok for me to require the same practice among women outside my culture? Or if it is morally incumbent for offsbrings to take care of parents in my community, it is ok for me to blame young people of being negligent because of their unwilling to do so? In other words,if the state of nature includes within itself certain kind of automatic mechanism bonding those involved in a moral situation, how is such mechanism going to work out for cases mentioned above, which are comparatively more resistant for a clear-cut answer?

Further, if as the above cases suggest, that the concept of 'the state of nature' is not as clear as it seems to be in real practice, and is always somehow depedent on the different experience of different individuals, does this imply that Locke's arguement for inalienable rights will always be shaky due to its heavy leaning on experience?
reply

(youwen) said:

Friday 16, July 2010, 10:04 pm

I think,Everyone has their rights to their properties,they can decided what to do with that and noone can force them to do anything with it.
But for taxes,i think,you pay for the service,that's reasonable.Government should do a lot to protect your properties,for example hiring police.And they uses these money to make the society stable,letting you get more money.so,i think we can regard it as a investigation.The more property you have , the government needs to do more for you ,so you but a service,you need to.
reply

(DmitriPisartchik) said:

Wednesday 28, July 2010, 4:42 pm

1. According to philosopher Robert Nozick, when the government takes even a dollar from Bill Gates, a billionaire, and gives it to a poor person, it is like forcing Gates to work for the poor person. Is Nozick right to think that redistributive taxation is like forced labor? Should there be no redistributive taxation whatsoever?
2.How involved should government be in legislating morality?

As to the First Question, I answer that:
Even if we grant the fundamental premise, held so dear by libertarians, of self-ownership, it would not necessarily follow that taxation is morally equivalent to forced labour, or slavery. It must be recognized that claim of self-ownership and claim of property ownership are robustly distinct and a strong argument is needed to justify implying the one from the other. From the fact that I own myself, it does not follow that I own my property. At the least, we have reason to doubt if the ownership of the same kind. It may well be that my right to self-ownership is absolute and inalliable, but it would have to be positively established that my right to own my money is similarly (or even remotely) as absolute or inalliable.
Consider the following argument to the contrary. Suppose there is a right to self-ownership and that there is some tranlation of that right into property rights. By what principle should thsi translation or extenssion be governed? Given that the right of self-ownership is, not to overburden the point, the right to own oneself (or one's self even), we could reasonably hold that this right may reasonably be extended into all that may be necessary to establish, sustain and promote oneself (or, indeed, one's self). Thus, from my right to own myself I may claim a right to own that which is necessary for myself to exist and promote my wellbeing.
Notice, however, that while we have conceded that the right to self-owenership extends into right to property, it does not extend without limit, or, it must be noted, to the limit set by the principles of just aquisition and just transfer of goods. Conceptually, the right extends to those goods, justly acquired and transfered, that may be deemed necessary for survival and wellbeing.
Now, to take the particular case of one Mr. Bill Gates (who is a prolific philanthropist as is), it is hardly contentious to say that a very significant portion of his wealth is not necessary either for his survival (clearly) nor is it necessary for a reasonable level of wellbeing. Indeed, taking some minor though significant portion of his wealth through taxation would not, as our argument now shows, be morally equivalent to forced labour for it would not infringe on his person, as such, in any significant way. Neither his actual person, nor those things that we may hold necessary for his existance and wellbeing would be in any way infringed upon through some minor though significant tax.
Therefore, I concluded that the Libertarian is not justified in proclaiming redistribution of wealth through taxation a form of forced labour without qualification.
reply

(DmitriPisartchik) said:

Wednesday 28, July 2010, 5:00 pm

As to the second question, I answer that:
The only kind of moral scheme that the State may be said to be justified in promoting is that scheme which aims to maximize the number of mutually compatible moral perspectives among its citizenry.
While it seems most intuative to some to claim that the State should wash it's hands from any legislation pertaining morality, this is not possible. Even on the strict libertarian scheme with the minimal Nightwatchman State thete is an effective enforcement of the moral scheme of individual rights and liberties. Since the State cannot be completely free of legislating morals and is, at the same time, under strong moral pressure not to legislate any particular vision of the good life, the best alternative that may be implemented seems to the Liberal State, wherein all compatible moral viewpoints are permitted.

Feel free to respond: dmitri.pisartchik@utoronto.ca

(maxllevy) said:

Saturday 31, July 2010, 2:49 am

I want to respond to the Libertarian Ideal by revisiting a discussion in the debate over health care reform. The individual I was responding to insisted that most people would provide for their own health and/or safety as an extension of their own efforts and that it is theft from those individuals to serve even the basic needs of those who do not “earn” that which they receive.

The initial premise: “I can tell you from personal experience that most ppl who are receiving rent, utilities, healthcare, food, etc. free from the government, currently own flat screen tvs, more of a dvd/blue ray collection than I currently own, along with cable and cell phones for all family members. They choose not to buy health insurance. I have seen it with my own eyes and have lived and watched the fraud taking place with our tax dollars. It is my duty to contribute and give back to this society and I do that. However, it should be my choice as to how I give, not the government's. Eighty-two percent of the world’s research and development in biotechnology medicines that have revolutionized health care is done by U.S. based companies. The biotechnology start-up sector, from which most successful biotech drugs emerge, is dominated by the U.S. with ‘distressingly little contribution from Europe". Price controls depress innovation. Do we really want to depress life saving drugs to the rest of the world by taking the free market out of the equation? Just think for a moment about what the US has done by means of innovation and free market for the rest of the world. Places like Africa, etc. We are doing more good in the world bc of our success. People should not be punished for this reason. The quickest thing you can do to take away ones motivation is to not reward him or her for their accomplishments.”

I think it important to resist the sensibility that says "these are the standards I live by and if other people have neither the courage, moral fortitude, common sense or good luck (you must never forget luck, you were not born into a universe of physical certainty, nor do you live in one, nor will you pass on in one)" then we lose sight of the issue under discussion, that is the strategic importance of the issue itself – the relationship of the survival and prosperity of the individual to the survival and prosperity of the group. (I will not attempt to define prosperity, tho my biases will become apparent as the discussion proceeds.)

Here, I think, is the real issue: we put what we call “social programs” in a different category from say national defense (which really is what I believe we are taking about). This allows us to create a mind set that says “national defense” is necessary, even though it is a terrible burden to us, is host to some of the worst corruption and abuse to be found in government and often enough focuses on the defense needs of the past rather than the future and, by it's nature, supports aggression. On the other hand, we look upon social programs as some sort of forced participation in a fraud wracked and corrupt dole for individuals whom we'd probably be better off without, if we had that choice; our taxes paid doled out for things we do not support or believe in amount to theft and/or involuntary servitude. I remember in my youth being very vocal about my support for student loans and poverty programs as opposed to purchasing aircraft carriers and that I, as the tax-payer/wage earner, ought to have the God-given right to earmark my contribution to the greater good irrespective of the priorities of the society. I still kind of feel that way – it is hard not to be influenced at some level by the emotional indignation of the Libertarian expression – but, I have to accept that the group, of which I am hopefully a participating member, is making collective decisions about public priorities, because I am dependent on the group.

But because we live in a very complex and inefficient moral paradigm which says “well, we can't just take them out and shoot them (which would at least be pro-active),” the rest of the arguments about the poor, the helpless, the sick, the anti-social are as as pointless as the debates over right to life vs. right to choose and illegal aliens This, as with most serious debate about how we human beings are going to survive the moment and create a viable future, is not about morality, nor ethics, nor right and wrong – it is, ultimately about practical utility in the face of an inscrutable universe and our complex and inefficient moral paradigm(s). Individual rights come out of the very best guesses of the group – if the group guesses wrong in the case(s) of some or all of its dependents, c'est la vie (I am a participating member of our collective very complex and inefficient moral paradigm. Any attempt on my part to judge objectively is futile.)

Judgments have to be made, actions have to be taken and there is always a time limit. History is our only real answer and we have to be careful of history because it is human recorded and as full of lies, self-serving promotion and self-delusion as Saturday night at a singles bar. History needs to be parsed dispassionately. That requires significant education in the realities of human systems, significant self awareness, and blinding insights into what makes people tick (which is something philosophers, psychiatrists and used car salesmen study).

I don't know most people. But I do read, fool around on line, watch t.v. I listen to music (all kinds), go to movies; try in all cases to listen closely, see what is there, try and look for patterns, meaning, sense; it seems to me that we are, really, as a society, poorly educated (which is not to say that we don't know “things,” we do, but we seem to use the things we “know” to justify emotional positions we have already pledged our allegiance to and tend to shie away from “things” that challenge what we already believe Self-aware? How about self-absorbed to a point that beggars the imagination (second time I've used that in the last month). Insights? That sort of depends where one finds ones-self in the mystery of the Gestalt. Some gots it, some don't.

So let's assume we got some working tools. We know, or should, something about Athens and Sparta, something about Rome, something about the Eastern Roman Empire, something about Germany, some thing about China, hopefully something about the Islamic world, something about the Anasazi of the Southwest (I've been climbing in and out of pit houses, cliff houses, Kivas for the last three week – I am most pleased that I can use this as part of the discussion – it somehow justifies both the incredible heat and the attendant heat rash – in places unmentionable [dated aside]); something about empires and cultures that flowered and fell.

On a general level, we know that the population of a group is it's primary ballast, the well being and productivity (and luck) of the individuals in the group determine both success and longevity. The larger the group the less impact (generally) a single individual will have. It is always hoped that everyone in the group will be both willing and able to participate. Not always the case. The greater the size of the group, the greater the number of individuals who are not able and/or willing to participate.

Need to make a couple of points here:

The uninsured are not necessarily to be considered as people requiring welfare. In many cases the uninsured are productive, but their capacity to be productive is reduced by the lack of adequate healthcare.

In other cases, people who (many, many) are on welfare as a result of the lack of adequate healthcare. We must all remember that illness, finally, is “disease,” it is catastrophe – damn bad luck -- and the luck of the individual ultimately helps to constitute the luck of the group.

And then there are those waiting to die under bridges. When they get rousted by the local cops, if they are sick enough, they get hauled to the emergency room – very costly, very inefficient. They are going to die in a few days, a few weeks. Should we try and save them? Should we just make them comfortable until the inevitable? Even this costs a bucket load. Should we give them some aspirin and send them back out under the bridge and let the grave diggers, chanting “Bring out your dead! Bring out you dead!” throw them in the back of the cart when they are stumbled upon a few days later and carry the expense of their internment or incineration? We've got to do something with them for our own public/private health reasons.

Then, there are the looters, the sociopaths, those who will scruple at nothing to fill their bellies, fill their minds with bad chemistry to try and counter the bad chemistry that is already there.

Well, ya know, if I was a guy with really bad, painful teeth, with no access to dental care and rickety legs, I might just walk down your block and shoot you in the stomach so I can grab anything of value. I'm not very smart because mom and dad (uncles?) brought home smokes, stokes, and jokes but no milk. Which explains the rickets; and ate the paint that was falling off the walls of all the crappy places we lived because it filled my stomach and I would have eaten it anyway even if I had known about the lead. Like I say, I wasn't smart enough to think it through, but look how it turned out for me – got twenty years, got my teeth fixed, got three hots and a cot and am learning a few things for when they let me out of here if I don't get stabbed or aids. Maybe I'll see you “again” some time, no hard feelings.

So, what is the impact of inadequate healthcare on crime and incarceration in this country? Don't know.

So, what I'm doing here is ringing up prices on a cash register. How many of these people could have been productive and willing participants.

Okay, so fraud and waste in government health care. The only real experience we have in this is medicare and medicaid. Absolutely, waste, fraud, looting, crime, inefficiency.

Inefficiency, you bet. Out of government offices? You bet? Some is just because government is not set up to make a profit. Government really doesn't look at bottom lines. Anybody in government who says they do is lying through their teeth. This most especially applies to the congress. Politicians are essentially scoundrels. They have to be in order to get where they are and to stay there. This is the nature of representative government. Patronage is the fuel on which any kind of government runs and most especially a representative form. “Good” tattooed across the knuckles on one hand, “Evil” across the other.

We don't have a king, we don't have a dictator (though we've had plenty of folks who've aspired to those jobs) – so we don't have a single “narrow-set” moral paradigm. I think through most of our U.S. history we've had loosely based oligarchies of wealth and position (tho Jacksonian democracy might be described as the dictatorship of the mob and it still provides some of our most cherished political traditions). But it is tough to maintain traditional oligarchies in massive populations and generally some kind of inefficient visible utilitarian-mass democratic/dictatorship evolves. We actually do have a kind of democracy that directs our representative government – the democracy of consumerism. What you and I say really doesn't have much impact, but what you and I buy!!! that is another story.

Consumerism (the form of capitalism under which we live) is based on the premise of planned obsolescences. It functions in perhaps two immediate ways either 1) you have a big ticket item under some form of warranty (such warranties are always "limited" excluding certain "expendable" technologies that will create a mid-market of used (previously owned) items that support a secondary service market for the repair, replacement and/or re-sale of the previously owned item creating demand in the first market while supporting the secondary market or 2) market obsolescence in which "trivialities" of style change from season to season or “reduction” technologies both make the item more convenient (convenience accounts for a significant proportion of the gainful employment in the first world) and seemingly more useful (cell phones and Microsoft operating systems are the bell-weather of the health of the useful/convenience "reduction" technology world.). The majority of consumers are also producers as a result of which they are then able to consume, ad infinitum. Without consumers (in our reality), there is no wealth. The greater good is served; thus, the group again provides the opportunity for the individual to survive and prosper.

A functional generalization: We all, as children, were raised into the role of consumers as assiduously as any other religion; in fact some modern (and not so modern) religious communities preach, if not out and out Consumerism, that the promise of Capitalism (wealth) – that you to can be a mover and shaker in the world of Capital and Risk -- is God's will (and it is a promise that is not without merit). But the consumer role in modern Capitalism is at the very bottom of the food chain. You always have options, of course: a Rolex, a fake Rolex, a .00 Timex.

So we are consumers. Doctors know we are consumers. Hospitals know we are consumers. Medical equipment and supply and drug companies know we are consumers. And insurance companies in particular know we are consumers. For those who can afford, we have more medical care than any place else in the world. Some say better or even best. I think in terms of all of us rather than just some of us, we have less medical care and less adequate medical care then those nations with national healthcare. As well, I think that those who can afford to buy more medical care often buy care (tests and what not) that are not needed – excessive consumerism based on the rights of the individual who has the wealth to effort it. I think there was an article in the New England Journal of Medicine this last year (two years ago) that discussed unnecessary medical procedures.

It could be argued that, in a private – non-government – health care system, by making attractive over-expenditure available to those who can afford it we are able to provide something better for those who do pay but can ill-afford it (something akin to the idea of structuring in shop-lifting in retail pricing); but we don't really know pro-actively who can afford excessive consumerism and those who do pay but can ill-afford it.

We know Bill Gates can pay, but how much healthcare is he willing to purchase privately to help finance a private system (Microsoft, of course, will, as a matter of course, have one of the very best "bene" packages in the history of "bene" packages). We know he can and does, contribute to worthy “charities,” but is it “efficient” to allow any one individual to decide the priorities of the group. The individual is both part of the “equipment” used by the group in it's pursuit of survival (and perhaps something about the quality of survival) and the “burden” of the group. Some individuals are more of a burden than others, but in a very primal sense, even the very best hunter in the group has cost and will cost the group something both prior to and after success.

So we are, even now, in something of a two tiered structure; we have government insurance (some of us) and private insurance (I have both). A significant proportion of the inefficiency,waste, and confusion (as well as some out and out double-dealing) comes out of the private sector. It is the insurance companies that make the profits, not the government. Government run programs gain nothing by sharp or crooked practices. Government has no bottom line. Yes there are individual crooks in government service who find ways to rake off some ill-gotten gains. But private companies can and often do (as we've seen so often) institutionalize fraud, deception, sharp practices and out-right thievery. Whenever a finger is pointed, we are assured by insurance companies that it is the government's fault.

So who else is stealing the loot? Those black-hearted welfare medical fraud losers? Ya, probably. But what kind of money are we talking about here? “Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world.” Some old math guy said that, or something like that. So, these scum bums, how much leverage do they actually have? Not very much I'd guess.

The people who have the leverage are the people who send out the bills.

I don't want to deal here with all the other silly shit that has come up in this debate.

What I want to do here is finish running the cash register. Add it all up. How much are we really spending now. How effective all up and down the line is our expenditure. Can employers compelled to provide healthcare really compete in the world market at these prices.

And finally, as our population grows and we become ever more idiotic in our consumerism, and, as a result, ever more sharply defined in our distribution of wealth, there will be more and more human ballast slipping to the stern of our big boat. It will become harder and harder to steer. Soon the bow is lifting and making any headway becomes impossible. Then we start to list. There are a couple of things we can do now. We can throw everyone we consider to be dead weight over the side. Courageous sailor that I am, I stand by the law of the sea – women and children first.

Oops! Too late, all the commies and nazis and pinko skin-heads and right wing anarchists (and all them other names) have broken into the arms locker and are screaming “death to the bourgeois!”

Shipmates, we have no other choice, we must resort to plan “b.” We weren't smart enough to figure out what needed to be done only what made us emotionally comfortable. And of course we forgot we were running out of drinking water. So now our only recourse is to break into the spirits room and drink ourselves to insensibility (the drug of self delusion)!

Argg!!! Let no cask go undrained!!!

Next class we will continue with consumer and surplus populations as exemplified by Imperial Rome; the perfect oligarchy as exemplified by Athens; the domination of society, culture and government by irrational beliefs as exemplified by Sparta; the effect of radicalized minorities on moribund societies characterized by social indifference as exemplified by revolutionary France, revolutionary China and revolutionary Russia; the perfect stratification of social reward and responsibility as exemplified by Victorian Britain; the ideal relationship between political/religious defined moral paradigms, social/economic rewards, social participation and individual achievement as exemplified by Imperial Germany and, finally, societies based on spiritual traditions and popular perceptions (the common wisdom) that provided no rational solutions to catastrophic occurrence as exemplified by the transition cultures of the American Southwest. We will also, by extension, discuss the primal relationship of the individual to the group and the group to the individual.

And please remember that what we are looking for in all of this are solutions with hopefully "predicable" results to the issues facing the Common Weal – there are no simple answers to enormous problems.

We are talking about tough stuff – the fate and futures of millions, billions of us mortals. The sands of time are running out on you, what, if anything, do you want to build? What, if anything, do you want to leave behind?

lindenlevymax@gmail.com
reply

Add Your Thoughts

please enter the letters and or numbers contained in the above image

Post Comment

How to create a sane society. Discussion Circle

Comments (13)

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 3, December 2009, 4:15 pm

Re Libertarianism: Our culture provides a context for commerce, entertainment, education, etc. Neither Michael Jordan nor Michael Jackson could prosper without the context. Stadiums are often built largely with tax money. The context includes progressive taxation.

A fact: Abe Lincoln's father could not sell the excess produce from his farm because there was no distribution system.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 3, January 2010, 6:28 pm

A libertarian wouldn't want tax dollars used for a stadium or any other entertainment purposes.

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 23, January 2010, 8:30 pm

The US experienced 137 years of prosperity, growth, technological advancement and wealth creation and became a magnet for immigrants seeking the opportunity to escape poverty and oppression, before the passage of the 16th Amendment and the introduction of the Federal income tax. A progressive income tax is not a prerequisite for prosperity. It may be an obstacle to it.

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 22, December 2009, 8:22 pm

Here is where the philosophy of today's "contemporary liberals/progressives" falls down. Because, while they can argue that they disagree with libertarianism, they can't deny that the philosophy of John Locke and libertarianism WAS the legacy philosophy of the new republic...as evidenced by the words in the Declaration of Independence...straight out of his works.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 30, December 2009, 11:45 pm

I would answer the question by posing the following question: How is the worth of a person or his work valued; by his educational background, his work experience, his social status, his contribution to the greater good, etc.? Why is an athlete at the national level as in basket ball or foot ball worth multiple million dollars annually whereas a researcher who finds medicine for one of the most deadliest diseases of mankind get a fraction of that? Why is a teacher who is responsible for bringing up well educated, well founded and balanced citizens and will be contributing for the well being of the common good of the nation are not recognized and adequately financed where as a few of the so called famous Hollywood actors make money for a single movie which teachers would never make in their life time? Aren't we, as a society, overlooking things which would benefet us in the long run? Are our priorities really set for our better future, let alone our kids and grand kinds future?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 3, January 2010, 8:17 am

I suggest you study economics 101.

Why are diamonds worth more than water.
Diamonds are a pointless decoration, water is required by every living soul on the planet to live and yet we value a small diamond more than large amounts of water.

The answer -

Prices are set by supply and demand
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 7, January 2010, 1:09 pm

Hmm, interesting...
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 7, January 2010, 3:17 pm

The fundamental flaw is that labor is a choice. It isn't. No matter if you lived alone on a desert island you would still be required some amount of labor to produce at least food and shelter. Societies are a contract (in and of themselves) to aggregate labor and other needs for the overall greater benefit of the population of that society, especially by providing specialized labor or to facilitate trade between societies for unique products and services. The specifics of the social contract of all societies are up to the individual society and subject to change by the various forces that generate and shape that society. The idea that specially talented or educated individuals might receive more is considered fair in most societies but the idea that those who are infirm or incapable should receive support is also considered fair. Generally speaking societies still benefit more by taking some care of the less fortunate while balancing that against the wishes of the most successful.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 13, January 2010, 10:37 am

No, the fundamental flaw of the argument is, in the way it is presented. All questions are asked about the person who has property. All the answers concern people who need property. These are separate issues. Nothing in a persons ownership of property, has anything to do with another persons needs. If taking a persons property is wrong, it is wrong regardless of why it is needed by someone else. Why a person needs something has no place in this argument.
Wayne
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 19, January 2010, 4:31 pm

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 23, January 2010, 8:09 pm

The value to the customer is not related to the cost of production or the labor involved. It is based upon the perceived utility the customer derives from the product or service, considering the alternatives available.

When one produces a product or service which delivers value greater than the cost, they will be rewarded with profits. As long as the customer was not coerced, the rewards are fairly derived. "Excessive" profits attract competition which increases the supply and mitigates the profits.

A slave is someone who has been deprived of their freedom and had the fruits of their labor taxed at 100% and redistributed to others.

The earlier comment that suggested that progressive taxation is a long standing natural part of our culture which provides the context for wealth creation is historically inaccurate. The progressive income tax in the US is a 20th century phenomenon.

The colossal irony of building a society which relies on progressive taxation of the rich to support the poor is that it reduces the numbers and wealth of the rich, while making it more difficult for the poor to overcome poverty. Such a system discourages wealth creation through confiscatory taxation despite having proprietary interest in wealth creation to finance its redistributive policies.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 5, February 2010, 2:20 pm

Why is a flat tax the fairest tax? You have some people paying mere hundreds of dollars while others pay millions of dollars. There's a huge disparity of payment here, which is, by the numbers, terribly unfair.

The fairest tax should be the absolute tax. Everyone gets the same benefits from the government providing public goods like national defense and police, so isn't it fairest to make everyone pay the same amount?

Of course not. An absolute tax disproportionately affects the poor, who would pay a much larger percentage of their income, while many people are already living paycheck to paycheck. While the dollar amount might be equal, taking ,000 from the bottom 20% of earners has a greater impact on them than taking ,000 from the top 20% of earners. Consequently, the flat tax is most just. Taking x% from everyone should impact them all x%, right?

Except money, like everything else, is subject to diminishing returns. The first x dollars you earn has a greater impact than the next x dollars you earn.
Say Adam earns ,000/year, Bob earns ,000/year, and Carl earns ,000/year. Ceteris Paribus, Adam is better off than Bob, and Bob is better off than Carl, but the difference between Adam and Bob isn't as big as the difference between Bob and Carl. More money is better, but not as good as the same amount you already have.

So if you want your taxes to be fair, to impact everyone equally with taxes, to take x% of the value of their income, then you have to tax progressively, because taking half of the income of someone with a ,000,000 salary doesn't affect their quality of life as much as taking half of the income of someone who with a ,000 salary.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 13, February 2010, 6:43 pm

By an "absolute tax" I assume that you are referring to a capitalization or "per head" tax, which, of course, is highly regressive. I agree that a flat tax is the most equitable because, by taxing each unit of labor identically, it treats each individual equally.

Add Your Thoughts

please enter the letters and or numbers contained in the above image

Post Comment

U.S. Courts Library Discussion Circle

Comments (8)

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 3, January 2010, 8:10 am

None of the four arguments presented against libertarianism holds up:

1. The poor need the money more (so it is ok to take it by force)

This is logically the same as:

Those in renal failure need the kidneys more (so it is ok to take them by force)

Those of us with two kidneys clearly do not need both of them as much as somebody who has no kidneys. Presumably it must be OK to strap us down against our will and take one of our kidneys to benefit those who need them more.

2. Taxation by consent of the governed is not coerced.

This is logically the same as:

Murder by consent of the governed is not coerced.

The Nazi's final solution of exterminating the jews was carried out by a democratically elected German government in which the Jewish minority had a vote.

Presumably they had nothing to complain about as they were marched to the gas chambers, because they had "consented" to their own murders ?

3. The rich owe a debt to society

To owe a debt one must have received more than one has given. In a free market every transaction must be a priori considered a benefit to both parties or it would not take place. When a consumer pays his few hundred dollars for a Microsoft Product he is evidencing the fact that he values the product more than the money (Or he wouldn't buy it). Every single transaction that made Bill Gates rich also made the consumer better off. If society is nothing more than the sum of the individuals within it, then society is better off.

The rich get rich by making society richer, how can there be a debt ?

4. Wealth depends partly on luck so isn't deserved (And people have no right to that which is not deserved)

Many things in life are not deserved, good looks depend on genetic luck. Should we therefore take away good looks (perhaps with surgical mutilation) to prevent those who don't deserve them from having them.

Good or bad luck is part of life, we play the hand we are dealt the best we can and as long as what we have is acquired justly then nobody has any right to take it by force.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 13, January 2010, 1:17 pm

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 26, January 2010, 12:57 am

The United States of America is not a democracy. In fact, it is the opposite of a democracy; it is a republic of laws, which protect individual liberty!

Obviously, before teaching and debating philosophy, the professor and his students need to be taught the basic law and foundation of our country!

This is Harvard? Shameful.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 27, January 2010, 1:49 am

There is a problem in the train of thought of everyone who spoke in that class-- they all presupposed that "society" is real. Society is only an abstraction, just as there are only trees, no forests. In the same manner, there are only individual persons and any attempt to lump them into a category is entirely a man-made conception that has been to used by the power hungry to justify theft and redistribution of wealth for thousands of years.

If I rob your house and use the loot to pay for my family member's surgery it is obviously theft.

If a politician can get 51% of the fools to vote for a similar, and more far reaching scheme, and then write the same concept into law, is that theft?

When speaking of justice we must stand on principles!

Theft is theft no matter how many people vote or approve of the stealing.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 10, June 2010, 8:38 am

A man that stands on the principle that the Titanic was unsinkable drowned when it slipped beneath the waves.

Society is not an abstraction - it is the effect of a collection of individuals that operated together. Groups can be tiny (tribe) or massive (a sovereign nation), but they are all societies in their own right.

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 1, February 2010, 11:31 pm

i don't think of taxation as a forced labor. tax money are used to provide the riches them selves with a more secure environment to work and flourish, building roads, providing security, even providing the healthy educated people who work for the riches them selves. so it's understandable that governments would tax them to keep the system going properly.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 6, February 2010, 7:39 pm

victoria is hot!!!
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 27, November 2010, 7:14 pm

ok first think need to sort out few points here:-

1=Whether the US is a democracy or not, is not point of Sandels lecture, those of you who think your smarter than Sandel because he doesn't risk his job by agruing a point outside point of his lecture, should probably learn a bit about law before then start glibly throwing other labels at it to boost own ego's. No I agree it is not a democracy in strict use of word, but chances are, these people are not using strict view of word, mainly because strict view of democracy is one of worst theories man has ever come up with, what on about is democratic right to choose own leaders, which leads onto next point if you must fatalistically give this glib name, give it right one, you don't live in republic ether, you live in elected dictatorship.

Secondly, those calling europeans sheep, how many of you even been to europe as the english students burning down portland building ain't sheep, the Greeks rioting in Athens ain't sheep, the French looting Paris ain't sheep....etc These are very much active protesters, could you be on about the county that allowed its congress to pass the patriot's act despite 20 of those congressmen admitting that never even read the paper....oh wait that was US wasn't it s completely willingly and without any duress, is this just??????? Or was state right to make her give money back???? He was not suffering from mental illness par-say, he was basically just 'simple' and she was just very pervasive, no treats or anything, just cleverly kind words.
Lets take from another standpoint, I am poor because I take no money from my quite rich parents and currently work 3 voluntary jobs as well as working ass off in third year of law degree, because I think right thing to do, however economically I get very little, all my rewards at this time are instrinic happiness and even once I get payed, going to be low pay as rather than going into my strongest area of contract law, which well paying, I am going into my favored area of Human Rights because believe despite low pay better area to work in, however my flatemate gets 20,000 a year from his father, he does nothing but drink and eat and party, no degree because failed 6 times, no job as too lazy and no responability as too scared. Now I accept this is way society is but my point here is not that, but that under liberatian view this is not only way should be, but that this fairest way it is, that someone hard working and in area which greatly helps society is poor because lives by princples because accepts place society gives nothing while someone does nothin is deversing of place as rich because society gives him lot???? Bull he does not deverse anything, however he gets it anyway, but doesn't make it right and that is my point, not everythin fairly gained is fairly given.

-And so this leads back to our state of redistution, where I say simple as this, clear liberalism is fundermentally flawed from very foundations, as we are social and therefore everything society gives us, it can take away with same breath, because no individised and if disagree, then what would rather do, if we take test of no-position gambling where have choice, take risk of libertarianism that going to lucky enough to be rich enough to survive completely off own back inn happy existence but where most likely going to live poor life with poor conditions, verses a society where if rich forced to give little away,that wouldn't know had anyway if was still there but means that if poor going to have some help to make life bearable? Know which I want to live in.

In fact I would go so far as to say anyone who believes the right to life/resources of survival are worth less than right to property really needs to question themselves as person
reply

Add Your Thoughts

please enter the letters and or numbers contained in the above image

Post Comment

Hull CONLAW group Discussion Circle

Comments (16)

(tmacka) said:

Monday 15, February 2010, 5:37 pm

How do you answer the objection that taxing a person’s earnings and giving it to the needy is like forcing that person to work for the needy? Isn’t forced labor unjust?
reply

(mrmanley) said:

Saturday 27, February 2010, 10:57 am

I reject libertarian ideals, but I do not readily embrace utilitarianism. I believe people do have a right to keep the money that they have earned, but I also believe that people who are well off have an obligation to society to give more money so that it can be used for people that really need it. I know that if Mike had his way we would simply practice eugenics and rid ourselves of the poor, but in reality we need the poor to support our country. While many people are making money from sitting around doing nothing, making money off a website they created and now have nothing to do with, other people are making sure that all the jobs that the wealthy feel they are too good for are getting done. Where would our society be without garbage men, sewer plant workers, janitors, manual laborers and other hard or undesireable jobs? We need all of the poor who work incredibly hard and make no money, and what is unjust is that they work harder than many of the people that are wealthy and can still barely survive. The government should absolutely help them in any way possible. In my opinion every job in society is equally as important, and I think everyone deserves to make the same amount of money. In my opinion we should just have a socialist democracy.

(Csmget) said:

Sunday 28, February 2010, 10:52 am

What is the foundation of our society? To survive in any society an individual needs money in order to sustain themselves. In this case individuals are forced to work simply by society's nature. However, simply taxing someone in order to aid someone who needs it is not unjust at all. Since they have the resources to help other within the society they are living in and withholding that money would be out of pure greed and selfishness. Isn't that fundamentally wrong? Is forced labor unjust morally or economically? Forced labor has many economic benefits, based on the fact that you are getting a product essentially "free." Also, if you go back to my first statement, almost everyone in today's modern society is forced to work. Essentially we are slaves to society but there are benefits to well structured and stable society. Sorry anarchy is not for me.

(tmacka) said:

Monday 15, February 2010, 7:49 pm

Discussion Guide, Beginner

Episode 3

Utilitarians think that the right thing to do is whatever produces the greatest amount of happiness. Libertarians disagree. They think that we must never violate anyone’s rights—even if doing so would increase overall happiness.

According to libertarians, the greatest threat to individual rights comes from the government. You should be able to drive without a seat belt if you want. The government has no business giving you a ticket. That’s unacceptably paternalist. And if you want to use drugs or engage in deviant sexual practices, you should be free to do so, provided you don’t violate anyone else’s rights in the process. The government has no business passing moralistic legislation. It shouldn’t tell you how to live your life. Most importantly, the government should never tax for redistributive purposes. Redistributive taxation is theft. Taking your earnings and giving it to other people is like forcing you to work for those people. Libertarians say it’s almost like slavery. Libertarians make strong claims. But are they right about rights?

1.

Is it unjust for the government to require people to wear seat belts and to prohibit them from engaging in other self-endangering activities? What if we know that many more people will die without such legislation? Should people be free to hurt or kill themselves, provided their actions do not violate anyone’s else rights?

2.

Should the government legalize narcotics? After all, some adults want to use drugs privately.

3.

Should the government legalize prostitution? After all, some adults want to buy and sell sex.

4.

Should there be a minimum wage? What if employers want to pay people .25 per hour, and some desperately poor people would work for that wage? Is the government being unjust by requiring employers to pay them at least .25 per hour?

5.

Should the government impose occupational safety standards? What if employers refuse to spend money on safety measures, and some desperately poor people would agree to work in dangerous conditions. Should the government prohibit certain contracts that some workers and employers would be willing to make, and insist on safe working conditions?

6.

Is it just to tax the rich to pay for public services? Should the government tax Bill Gates and other wealthy people and use the money to pay for public schools, hospitals, roads, parks, fire departments, and police departments, or would all of that be unjust?

7.

Is it just to tax the rich to give to the poor? Should the government tax Bill Gates and other wealthy people and use the money to supplement the income of unemployed people, single mothers with low incomes, or other poor people? Should the government tax rich people and loan the money, interest-free, to poor kids so that they can go to college? Would all of that be unjust? Why?
reply

(Csmget) said:

Sunday 28, February 2010, 11:37 am

1. No, I do not think that safety regulations such as seatbelt laws are unjust because the government is protecting the citizens of their state from dieing or getting seriously injured. There are a few motivations to this, one a simple fact that you cannot have a society without people and second, the sheer medical costs that the government would have to eventually pay because of debilitating injuries. People should not be free to kill or hurt themselves. First, the economic loss in society if there was no protection from killing ones self would be debilitating to society. Second, it is most likely the case if they are having thoughts of suicide or hurting themselves they are mentally ill and should be treated medically in order to improve their quality of life.
2. I do not agree that narcotics should be legalized unless in some way they can save someones life. First of all, narcotics obviously have negative effects on people themselves. Without a fully functional brain how can a human be beneficial to society if they are at home high all day. Sure there would be some economic benefits, we would not need the DEA or any police enforcing narcotics laws. However, the people on narcotics will become addicted and soon become useless to society, eventually dieing before their time.
3. Well legalizing prostitution would result in government regulation in that "industry." Don't we all agree that the government does not have any business what happens behind closed doors? Personally, I don't believe that prostitution will become legal here in the United States simply because of moral standards and the threat of government regulation. Not to mention the fact that many women would be abused, hurt, or killed if prostitution becomes even more popular.
4. Yes there should be a minimum wage. Governments have minimum wages in order to keep up with inflation and the standard of living. Logically if there was not a minimum wage employers would pay .01 per hour if they could to maximize profits. However, their employees would likely die, loose their homes, or leave because it would not be worth it.
5. The government should impose occupational safety standards. Employers always want to cut corners in order to again maximize their profits. However, cutting corners can often lead to cut off fingers/limbs or even death in some cases. The government would simply offer up a hefty fine to whatever company refuses to comply with safety standards.
6. Yes it is just for the government to tax the rich for public service. They are also using roads, schools, parks, hospitals etc etc. There is not a difference between taxing the poor or rich for public services because all people in society use them.
7.It is just for the government to tax the rich and give to the poor. Robin Hood anyone? There are an overwhelming number of people in society that need the redistribution of wealth in order to survive. Without it wouldn't they die? In that case wouldn't the rich be committing murder? It is analogous to knowing someone is going to be murdered and not doing anything about it. The government should tax the rich to give to poor kids going to college. The benefit of an education is so integral in todays society that it is becoming a norm to have a college degree. The amount one could benefit society as a whole with an education is almost limitless. This activity is not unjust because you are helping others while a personal possession is taken.

(mrmanley) said:

Saturday 27, February 2010, 10:56 am

1. I don’t believe that it is unjust for the government for the government to try to protect us from ourselves. I think that in the case of wearing seat belts, everyone should wear one as a safety precaution, if some people cannot make the right decision in regards to that I think its fair or the government to intervene and look out for the best interests of the people, and keeping people alive is definitely in our best interest. I don’t think that it matters whether or not people are not violating the rights of others by hurting or killing themselves, the government should still be able to play a limited role in the intervention of that. If someone was suicidal, and their friends and family knew, they would obviously try to intervene and protect the person from themselves, the government should be able to play a similar role, like a parent watching over a child (not like big brother though). Sometimes people don’t necessarily understand what is best for them, and they need somebody, such as the government to make sure that they act accordingly to their best interests.
2. The government should not legalize narcotics because heaving narcotics readily available would detract from the health of society, people’s ability to work, and would increase crime. People may think they are using the narcotics privately, but legalizing narcotics would deteriorate society as a whole.
3. The government should legalize prostitution because it would help the economy. Legal prostitution would allow many people to work and be taxed for the services they provide, this taxation in itself would help the economy, but also the people in the prostitution business would have more money to put back into the economy through consumerism. Prostitution, unlike narcotics, would not deteriorate society.
4. There should be a minimum wage because otherwise employers would make wages as low as possible and people wouldn’t be able to survive in the economy. Wages should be adjusted in accordance with the cost of living. It may not be fair to make the employers pay the employees that much, but its not just to underpay employees.
5. The government should be able to require safety standards, the employees need to be protected. Just because people are poor and desperate enough to work in hazardous conditions doesn’t mean they should have to. The government needs to be protect the poor, libertarianism would obviously disagree, but people have the right to know that when they go to work they are going to come home unharmed.
6. I think it is just to tax people in order to pay for things like public goods. Whether or not they tax Bill Gates he is still going to be disproportionately wealthier than 90% of Americans. People rarely object to taxation when they are benefiting from the uses of their tax money, such as paying for an army to protect our country, but when people don’t feel like they are directly benefiting they are against redistributive taxation. Well, without public schools, hospitals, police, etc. we would be living in the third world country. Therefore, everyone benefits from this redistributive taxation because it makes our society better as a whole.
7. I think that it is just to tax the rich to give to the poor and people with low income. I don’t necessarily think that everybody should be taxed proportionately, as a percentage. That way if you make more money the government is getting more money from you, if you have more money to give than I think that it is fair for the government to tax that money and expect more from you so that there is extra to supplement the poor. I think that it is completely just for the government to loan money to students to go to college, because the more educated people we have in society the more it will move forward. If we followed libertarian ideals, we would be moving backwards in time and the standard of living for 90% of Americans would rapidly decrease while the standard of living for the 10% of the population that is wealthy would increase. That seems more unjust to me than taking some money from the rich, who will barely notice that it is missing, and give it to people that desperately need. I think making sure people don’t starve is much more important than letting some rich person buy a new Aston Martin.
reply

(elhulverson) said:

Sunday 28, February 2010, 4:53 pm

1. No, its not unjust for the government to create laws such as wearing seatbelts that are intended to protect people from themselves. Some people will obviously be upset by the government trying to make them do things like wear seatbelts, but it is impossible to argue that not wearing a seatbelt is safer in any way, so the law makes complete sense. Speaking in terms of rights, a person should be able to hurt themselves without the government intervening. Now obviously our morals will tell us that this should not be able to occur, so people have no problem with the government intervening (generally).
2. No, I don't think the government should legalize narcotics. Even if an adult wants to privately use them, if that is abused it can lead to harm of people other than the one choosing to use them.
3. I don't think prostitution should be legalized basically because of my moral views. If we were to legalize prostitution I feel like it would in some way change the way our society was viewed. It would definitely also change the moral views of many in society. Generally speaking, children are taught that prostitution is bad, but if they were to grow up in a society where it was legal, the views on it would probably be slightly different. However, if we are talking about the economic value to legalizing prostitution morals put aside, it is probably a good idea. If it were legal, the entire business of prostitution would be paying taxes and therefore putting money into the economy and the government.
4. There definitely needs to be a minimum wage. If employers were to pay under minimum wage, there would for sure be someone who was in need enough to work the jobs, but those people would not be making enough money to survive in society, which is what minimum wage allows. Also, those companies that could afford to pay employees less than minimum wage would be able to sell their products for cheaper, and therefore be able to steal the business from the companies that paid their employees more.
5. The government should definitely have safety standards for the workplace. There would without a doubt be people willing to work in unsafe environments if they were desperate enough for a job, and these people would be highly likely to get hurt. The government needs to protect them from the careless employers and require a certain level of workplace safety to be met.
6. The government should tax everyone in order to pay for public services/goods, because everyone can benefit from them. I’m not sure whether this question is asking if the rich should be let off or paying the taxes used towards these public goods, or whether the rich should be the only ones paying taxes for these public goods.
7. No, it is not just to tax the rich to give to the poor. If the rich people fairly earn their money they should be able to keep it. If they want to give money to the poor, or to charities they should obviously be more than welcome to, but they should not be forced.
reply

(MMcCall) said:

Sunday 28, February 2010, 5:50 pm

1. I think a person’s decision to wear a seat belt is entirely their own to make. It is only the individual’s safety at risk, therefore it should only be the individual’s choice, granted that it does not affect the safety of anyone else. To coerce an individual into wearing a seatbelt is stretching the boundaries towards paternalistic government. Mikia stated that government should watch over citizens like a parent guarding a child and I think this is the opposite of what the democracy we believe in stands for. Most Americans would hold that a fundamental ideal of democracy is free will to make your own decisions, to have equal opportunity and to rise to your fullest potential; not to be fed and diapered by a paternal government. Thus, government should have legislation requiring a car to have a seatbelt, but not mandate that a person must wear it, giving the individual both opportunity and choice.

2. Yes the government should legalize narcotics, for the same reason. It is the individual’s safety, so it’s the individual’s choice. In the same light as the previous question, even if you pass a law that says everyone must wear a seatbelt, not everyone will actually follow the law. People are using narcotics, at this moment, even though they are illegal. If you legalize drugs, it’s not like everyone is going to jump up and start shooting heroin. I think if a person wants to sit in their house, do some drugs and not affect anyone then that is their own choice. However, I think that if narcotics were to be legalized, then they should be regulated by the government as if it were any other commodity.

3.Yes we should legalize prostitution. If it’s a free market then the company with the best products will reap the benefits of the capitalistic economy, in this case, sex. As long as prostitutes don’t give clients STD’s or anything to affect them, then it’s perfectly fine.

4.I think the government must require a minimum wage. Like Mikia said, if there wasn’t then employers would begin paying employees unlivable wages

5.I think that as long as the employee knows the danger that they’re engaging in then the government should not step in. If it is a private company, and there are people who are willing to take the job, then safety measures should not be enforced.

6
reply

(tmacka) said:

Monday 1, March 2010, 7:32 pm

Until I read Monica's post I was beginning to think Bentham had had convinced you all that utilitarianism was the way. Isn't the logical outcome of utilitarianism the redistribution of wealth, which equals the greatest happiness?

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 28, February 2010, 9:51 pm

1. I feel that it is unjust for the government to regulate things that singularly affect the person engaging in the activity. As long as they are the only one affected by engaging in the activity, why should the government intervene if nobody else's rights are in question? I know people who would rather not wear seat belts for the sole reason that they feel they need to be able to get out of the car quickly in case of some emergency. Though this logic may decrease their general safety, I feel that it is completely their decision to make.
2. While this is a more extreme example of a person's choice to do things that solely affect them, I still feel that people should be able to engage in any actions that don't violate the rights of other people. And in this specific example, legalizing drugs that are currently illegal and carrying harsh penalties opens up more opportunities for legitimate economic benefit.

3. I think the government should have very little, if any influence in the morality of a person's actions. Like the previous two examples, as long as the willing participants are the only ones being affected and their actions don't break any legitimate laws, I feel people should be able to do what they want, just the same as gay and lesbian people should be able to practice whatever sexual deviation they choose within the scope of the law.

4. There does need to be a minimum wage. The principles of a free market won't always work if you have outliers as drastic as the differences between the rich and the poor. If everyone had less deviant incomes, people would collectively refuse wages as low as .25, forcing employers to raise them to reasonable levels. Because we have people desperate enough to work for miserably low wages, employers will be able to get away with that and further divide the rich and the poor. The government is simply securing basic human rights by instituting a minimum wage.

5. The same principles from question 4 apply here. The government should be responsible to make sure that employers are treating their employees humanely, because here their actions not only affect them, but those who work for them as well. That makes this more than simply an issue of choice to do things that solely affect themselves, because they are involving and affecting the lives and welfare of others around them.

6. Taxes proportionate to someone’s income are completely fair. Everyone is being treated fairly, and contributing equally to what they’ve been given by society. This way, people who are relatively poor are contributing an equal portion of their wealth, same as the wealthiest people.

7. I feel that the government should act in the best interest of society in general, because that is their job as elected officials. If society is best benefited by using some of the money gathered from taxes to support the poorer members of society, then that is the best course of action to take.
reply

(MCondon02) said:

Tuesday 2, March 2010, 11:11 am

1. Although the government passing legislature to force citizens to wear seatbelts it benefits society as a whole. Those who still wish to not wear seatbelts are able to exercise there right but could face a penalty. The real reason why society benefits from more people wearing seatbelts is because it lowers costs of having an accident. Injuries that can be prevented from seatbelts will help the victim and the person who is responsible for the crash from spending money that they don’t have to. Money will be saved on lawyers, doctors, and insurance cost will be less expensive.
2. Drugs in society do not benefit society. People who use narcotics aren’t able to function in society normally. Many crimes that are committed are related to narcotics and therefore using or distributing narcotics cause crimes. People who use narcotics are unable to function and have different set of interest that don’t benefit society.
3. If people want to exercise there ability to sell sex then the government should not be able to intervene. The United States has a capitalist economy and therefore they shouldn’t intervene in business. Like any other venture or business decision there are risk. What two consenting adults want to do in privacy of their bedroom aren’t the governments decision.
4. I believe minimum wage helps our economy and our society. Their are a large number of poor and uneducated people in our society so businesses don’t have to compete for there work. This results in people working long and hard hours for little pay. The pay they receive doesn’t cover their expenses so its bad for the economy. If minimum wage wasn’t in place the rich would be getting richer at a faster pace, which would cause the poorer people to suffer. When there wasn’t a minimum wage our society and economy suffered.
5. The government impose occupational safety standards in order to make sure work is safe for the workers. Just because people are poor enough to risk there health or life to work in an unsafe area doesn’t mean that its just. Business owners and employers who make a profit need to insure the safety of there workers. Fines should also be in place for those who don’t follow these standards.
6. I don’t believe in just taxing the rich. Everyone in America should be taxed because we all use these public services. I do believe that wealthy people should pay a higher percentage of their income to taxes then people who don’t have a lot of disposable income. People who make lower wages need a higher percentage of their income to pay for expenses such as food, shelter, and transportation.
7. I believe that redistributed the wealthy peoples money to poor people is wrong in most cases. Wealthy people work hard and have made good decisions in order to live the lifestyle they have become accustom to. They shouldn’t have to pay money to poor people because someone got pregnant as a teenager or because someone did drugs instead of going to college. Redistribution of wealth should be to help family’s who struggle to overcome unexpecting tragedies like losing a parent and a source of income or having a mentally retarded child that requires more medical attention then other children
reply

(tmacka) said:

Thursday 4, March 2010, 4:45 pm

Your responses to number 6 and 7 appear to contradict each other. How can you reconcile taxing wealthy at higher rates than lower income people with not redistributing that money to poor people?

(ethanh20) said:

Tuesday 2, March 2010, 11:14 am

1. No. It is not unjust for the government to require people to wear seatbelts. I believe this because a seatbelt only can increase the survival rate if someone were to get into an accident. There is no doubt a seat belt can save someone’s life, and the government is imposing a seatbelt rule to protect the citizens, not to control what they do. In terms of being ale to have the freedom of choice, whether you want to be less protected, yes, this would hinder your choice, but protecting yourself from harm is a good thing.
2. No, the government should not legalize narcotics. I believe this because although many might want to use it for personal use, abusing it leads to putting others in harms way because you are not in the right state of mind. Also, legalizing would create a decrease in society because more people would use it freely, which would in turn lead to abuse.
3. I do not think that prostitution should be legalized because of my moral views. Also, the health risks in it put many in harms way as well, for example, the spreading of STDs or other diseases. Also, the government should not be involved in the people’s sexual activities, because it is a private affair.
4. Yes, there should be minimum wage because as Mikia said, if the employers were able to pay a low wage, the employees would be earning a non-livable wage. It would separate the upper-class and lower-class even more.
5. Yes the government should impose occupational safety standards because it protects the workers. The government is put into place for the people, and by the people, so in turn they are looking for the government to protect them, even if they are poor, the are still part of our society and are working. ‘
6. I do not agree with just taxing the rich. I believe everyone should be taxed according to a percentage of his or her earnings. Just because you are successful does not mean you get to be punished.
7. Again, to do not believe in redistribution from wealthy to poor because in most cases, the people who are wealthy have earned that by working hard and making good decisions and coming up on top. There is always going to be winners and losers, and with winning, you get the prizes.
reply

(tmacka) said:

Friday 5, March 2010, 4:58 pm

ETHANH:Aren't you assuming that wealthy people "worked" to get where they are? What about the ones who never worked, but just inherited their wealth? Are you against all taxes? Isn't that what they are? A redistribution of wealth?

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 15, July 2010, 5:35 am

Is not the course open to all world student ?could some kind guy tell me why couldnot i see the episode,thanks
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 13, September 2010, 6:03 am

I'm sorry,but I can speak English a little.
So I write my opinion in Japanese.
問題となるのは、より純粋な問題に切り替えるなら、富の分配は盗み、つまり強要されるべきでないかいなか、ということになる。
しかし、社会が個人に課す行為はその結果を加味して具体的に考えなくてはならないと思う。
なぜなら、個人は社会によって成り立つ、つまり個人の富は社会なしでは得られず、社会の維持が必要であり、またその責任があるともいえる。
実際富の分配をいっさい行わなくなったら社会はどうなるのだろう。
その結果は社会の質に依存するのかもしれない。
小さな孤立した農村において食物を交換し合い分配することはまさしく個人の生存のための必要である。
そこに社会からの強要はないだろう。強いていうならば、環境からの強要だろう。
ではなぜ我々の社会においては異なってくるのだろう。ひとつには労働と富み(ここでは実際に得られる物資およびその可能性としての富み)の間に金が存在するからだろう。また、一定以上の富は個人の必要ではなくなる。本来相互関係にあった分配は違った関係になり始める。
ここで僕は気づいた、本来必要な個人の生存のための富とは足して平均化すればすべての人を満たすはずであるが、満たされていない現実は、誰かしらが奪った故貧困が生ずるのではないか。
勘違いしないでほしいのは、すべての富を足せば全ての必要の合計になるのだといっているわけではない。当然、余分な富というものは少なくなく存在するはずである。つまり富を持つものが必ずしも奪っているとはいえない。
この問題に直面して経済自体に問題があるといっては解決にならない。富が十分にある社会で貧困が生まれるということは、富の流れ、下流まで届かないような構造に問題がある。
富栄養化した湖において、水面近くでは十分な酸素か生み出されるが、そこの方に行くと酸素が不足している。水面下での生物の繁殖は妨げることはできないが、そのままでは魚はお互いの存在のせいで窒息してしまう。やはり水面から水底へ酸素を送り込むポンプが必要になる。
話を戻すと、分配という考え方は、我々の社会おいてこのような貧困を生むシステムがある以上必要とされる。また、分配の供給源とされる余分な富を持った個人にとっても、彼らがそのような個人の富を奪い、いわば権利を迫害するシステムの中にいる以上富を分け与えなければ彼らから奪い取ってるに等しい。ここでは個人と社会との契約というような危なっかしい考え方ではなく、権利主義という最もわかりやすい道徳論の立場に立って矛盾なく説明することができたように思う。
ただ現実として問題になるのは、分配の方法である。労働をしないものに富を分配することが社会の維持には役立たないし、余分に持つものから必要以上に富を回収したはいいが貧困の抹殺に役立つ訳ではなかったりしては意味がない。
十分な富があるこの社会で、皆が窒息死しないためには、富の分配が労働によってなされること（例えば最低賃金の引き上げとか）、また回収された富が再び余分な富とならず必要な富となるような制度が求められる。
reply

Add Your Thoughts

please enter the letters and or numbers contained in the above image

Post Comment

Hull CONLAW group Discussion Circle

Comments (16)

(tmacka) said:

Monday 15, February 2010, 5:37 pm

How do you answer the objection that taxing a person’s earnings and giving it to the needy is like forcing that person to work for the needy? Isn’t forced labor unjust?
reply

(mrmanley) said:

Saturday 27, February 2010, 10:57 am

(Csmget) said:

Sunday 28, February 2010, 10:52 am

(tmacka) said:

Monday 15, February 2010, 7:49 pm

(Csmget) said:

Sunday 28, February 2010, 11:37 am

(mrmanley) said:

Saturday 27, February 2010, 10:56 am

(elhulverson) said:

Sunday 28, February 2010, 4:53 pm

(MMcCall) said:

Sunday 28, February 2010, 5:50 pm

(tmacka) said:

Monday 1, March 2010, 7:32 pm

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 28, February 2010, 9:51 pm

(MCondon02) said:

Tuesday 2, March 2010, 11:11 am

(tmacka) said:

Thursday 4, March 2010, 4:45 pm

Your responses to number 6 and 7 appear to contradict each other. How can you reconcile taxing wealthy at higher rates than lower income people with not redistributing that money to poor people?

(ethanh20) said:

Tuesday 2, March 2010, 11:14 am

(tmacka) said:

Friday 5, March 2010, 4:58 pm

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 15, July 2010, 5:35 am

Is not the course open to all world student ?could some kind guy tell me why couldnot i see the episode,thanks
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 13, September 2010, 6:03 am

Add Your Thoughts

please enter the letters and or numbers contained in the above image

Post Comment

Yuanchao Chi Discussion Circle

Comments (10)

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 10, May 2010, 5:25 pm

1.We can argue that the rich are stealing our common wealth. The rich are disproportionally appropriating our common property (government, policing, military and infrastructure) as a key part of their pursuit of and/or protection of wealth. Replace taxes with fees for use, calculate how much use the rich make of our commonwealth and collect fees. In brief, stop the grand theft committed by the rich.

2. The government has an obligation to conduct itself in a way that increases our common and individual wealth. Limiting the access of the middle class and the poor to the resources needed to properly develop their talents and thereby engage in higher forms of work that contribute more to the common wealth would be a form of theft from the injured individuals and the commonwealth.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 1, June 2010, 1:39 am

a difficult topic
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 6, June 2010, 12:57 am

people are born differently.of course they get paid differently.can u imagine a world everybody is paid the same money,then god wouldnt have creat people,cause thats just too not amusing and challenging.
and in lions world,the bigger one eats full then the small one starts to eat.dont say justice,cause everyone is born with different levels of abilities.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 16, June 2010, 10:31 am

Victoria - yes
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 21, July 2010, 4:30 pm

You know, everyone throws around what to do about the poor people but 2 questions:

1. Has anyone bothered to stop lumping all poor people together? There are 2 types of poor..the entitled poor, who refuse to do anything to help themselves and blame others for their failures and the poor who actually try in spite of whatever failures surround them.

2. Has anyone ever bothered to ask the poor or is everyone standing around saying they care about the poor while THEY decide what the poor "needs"?

I think morality fails when you don't even bother to consult those you supposedly want to help. Coming from a poor background and not an entitled one, the libertarians come closer to having it right. My mother would have preferred to be taught how to fish and thus care for us herself than to have it all handed to her and made to feel as if she was stealing from the hard work of others.

Seems like most of you just want to "feel" like you're doing good as opposed to actually doing good...and where's the morality and charity in that?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 21, July 2010, 4:49 pm

hehe, sorry, responded to the wrong spot...
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 24, July 2010, 9:41 pm

这是一个精彩且发人深省的课题
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 12, August 2010, 3:15 pm

对于那个小男孩的死，我有不同的意见。我觉得这不应该是一个道德的范畴！那三个人为了活命而不得不杀掉那个生病的孩子。这是属于自然界求生法则的范畴，一个群体为了保证大多数人的生存而做出这样的选择。但如果必须面对的不是这样一个问题，而是选择什么人来当校长之类的则可以用人类通用的道德法则。但这是一个生与死的问题，就只能从自然界的角度来选择和判断。所以这个发生在人类社会的问题不能用人类的道德来进行判断.I am sorry.my english is not very good.but I want you to listen a different voice.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 22, September 2010, 2:49 pm

Self-Preservation is the FIRST law of nature....
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 28, September 2010, 2:36 am

Having not read all the comments above, I'm not sure whether this point has been made: I can't defend a total libertarian notion that taxation of the rich to supplement the poor for the very fact that the rich will always need the rest of society to make and keep them rich. They can't do it in isolation. If there was nobody to buy Bill Gates's software, he wouldn't have become that wealthy. Ditto, Michael Jordan - without crowds watching and supporting basketball he would just be someone running around throwing a ball.

Thus, everybody has a certain 'debt' to society - I am a teacher and without schools or students I too would not have an income. The state is the guardian of that society, for good or bad, and thus can demand taxation to ensure the society functions as successfully as possible so that we can keep earning our incomes and enjoying the fruits of our labors.

It should be within reason however - it is not fair to tax rich people 50% simply because they are rich and poorer people 10% say. Unless the rich USE more of society's or the state's resources in which case an aggregate tax may be fair.
reply

Add Your Thoughts

please enter the letters and or numbers contained in the above image

Post Comment

SCCS Philosophy Discussion Circle

Comments (0)

Add Your Thoughts

please enter the letters and or numbers contained in the above image

Post Comment

Canadian pharmacy viagra
cialis online

Join the Conversation

Public Discussion Circle

Add Your Thoughts

How to create a sane society. Discussion Circle

Add Your Thoughts

U.S. Courts Library Discussion Circle

Add Your Thoughts

Hull CONLAW group Discussion Circle

Add Your Thoughts

Hull CONLAW group Discussion Circle

Add Your Thoughts

Yuanchao Chi Discussion Circle

Add Your Thoughts

SCCS Philosophy Discussion Circle

Add Your Thoughts

Synopsis

Voice Your Opinion

Pop Quiz

Discussion Guides

Up Next