Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Br!n: Libertarian Morality--Up with good King John, down with Robin Hood.

Expand Messages
  • David Hobby
    Trent Shipley wrote: ... Trent-- No, taxes are not theft. They are user fees, imposed for the privilege of being a citizen and/or being in the country. Is
    Message 1 of 9 , Aug 7, 2009
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Trent Shipley wrote:
      ...
      >> The moral principle that "taxes are theft" suffers from a similar
      >> limitation. Logically taxes ARE theft.
      >>
      >>
      >> Newspeak!
      >
      > I stand behind this. When theft is understood as any taking, except as
      > punishment, then taxes are logically a form of theft. It's a logical
      > singularity, but its still logical. It is not reasonable however.

      Trent--

      No, taxes are not theft. They are user fees, imposed for
      the privilege of being a citizen and/or being in the country.

      Is everybody happy now?

      ---David


      _______________________________________________
      http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
    • Matt Grimaldi
      That falls in with IAAMOAC. There are dues to pay when you are a member. -- Matt ... From: David Hobby To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al)
      Message 2 of 9 , Aug 7, 2009
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        That falls in with IAAMOAC. There are dues to pay when you are a member.

        -- Matt






        ----- Original Message ----
        From: David Hobby <hobbyd@...>
        To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion <brin-l@...>
        Sent: Friday, August 7, 2009 5:11:02 PM
        Subject: Re: Br!n: Libertarian Morality--Up with good King John, down with Robin Hood.

        Trent Shipley wrote:
        ...
        >> The moral principle that "taxes are theft" suffers from a similar
        >> limitation. Logically taxes ARE theft.
        >>
        >> Newspeak!
        >
        > I stand behind this. When theft is understood as any taking, except as
        > punishment, then taxes are logically a form of theft. It's a logical
        > singularity, but its still logical. It is not reasonable however.

        Trent--

        No, taxes are not theft. They are user fees, imposed for
        the privilege of being a citizen and/or being in the country.

        Is everybody happy now?

        ---David


        _______________________________________________
        http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

        _______________________________________________
        http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
      • Dan M
          Of course, I knew there was another strain in libertarianism that was based in morality.  This was an ideological commitment to maximize individual
        Message 3 of 9 , Aug 7, 2009
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
           
          Of course, I knew there was another strain in libertarianism that was
          based in morality.  This was an ideological commitment to maximize
          individual freedom.  Basically Aleister Crowley's "Harm no one and do
          what thou wilt", with the "harm no one" clause being
          optional--particularly when doing business.

          >That's not a moral principle.  That's principled amorality, an abandonment
          of social >responsibility.  At best it is mysticism; faith that we don't
          have to do anything for our >neighbors because the universe will take care
          of them (if they deserve it, or whatever). >Morality an antidote, not a
          synonym, for self-centered pragmatism.

          Well, how do you define what a moral principal is? I'd argue it is an axiom
          of a system of ethics. Now, from your arguments, I suspect you and I both
          strongly differ with some of the basic axioms of, say, Objectivistic ethics,
          but that does not keep it from being an ethical system.

          You can't prove or disprove ethical, moral principals. You can either posit
          them explicitly, or implicitly. Personally, I prefer explicit, because the
          principals are out there to be discussed, and the implications of those
          principals can be arrived at logically and more clearly.

          Dan M.



          _______________________________________________
          http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
        • Dan M
          ... I have a question for you Trent....don t libertarians assume that, in a free market, those that create wealth get to keep at least a tenth of a percent of
          Message 4 of 9 , Aug 7, 2009
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            > -----Original Message-----
            > From: brin-l-bounces@... [mailto:brin-l-bounces@...] On
            > Behalf Of Trent Shipley
            > Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 3:23 PM
            > To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
            > Subject: Re: Br!n: Libertarian Morality--Up with good King John, down
            > withRobin Hood.
            >
            > While writing this I tried to imagine how a certain kind of libertarian
            > thought about the world. It is a shallow exercise in participant
            > observation. To appreciate what I wrote you must at least partially
            > empathize with our libertarian subject.

            I have a question for you Trent....don't libertarians assume that, in a free
            market, those that create wealth get to keep at least a tenth of a percent
            of the wealth they create? I've got a trillion dollar counterfactual that
            I've discussed here before for that argument.

            Dan M.


            _______________________________________________
            http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
          • tshipley@deru.com
            Libertarianism is radically individualistic. It sees civilization as a network of social contracts between individuals. Government and taxes are evil. One
            Message 5 of 9 , Aug 10, 2009
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              Libertarianism is radically individualistic. It sees civilization as a network of social contracts between individuals. Government and taxes are evil. One reason, among many, is that taxes burden the individual for the sake of the collective. Maybe an individual should contribute to the collective but it is wrong to coerce that contribution.

              IAAMOAC is not understood by libertarians the way you understand it. A libertarian may even deny IAAMOAC is a valid moral principle since it is not individualistic.
              Sent from my BlackBerry Smartphone provided by Alltel

              -----Original Message-----
              From: Matt Grimaldi <matzebrei@...>

              Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 17:22:29
              To: Killer Bs \(David Brin et al\) Discussion<brin-l@...>
              Subject: Re: Br!n: Libertarian Morality--Up with good King John,
              down with Robin Hood.


              That falls in with IAAMOAC. There are dues to pay when you are a member.

              -- Matt






              ----- Original Message ----
              From: David Hobby <hobbyd@...>
              To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion <brin-l@...>
              Sent: Friday, August 7, 2009 5:11:02 PM
              Subject: Re: Br!n: Libertarian Morality--Up with good King John, down with Robin Hood.

              Trent Shipley wrote:
              ...
              >> The moral principle that "taxes are theft" suffers from a similar
              >> limitation. Logically taxes ARE theft.
              >>
              >> Newspeak!
              >
              > I stand behind this. When theft is understood as any taking, except as
              > punishment, then taxes are logically a form of theft. It's a logical
              > singularity, but its still logical. It is not reasonable however.

              Trent--

              No, taxes are not theft. They are user fees, imposed for
              the privilege of being a citizen and/or being in the country.

              Is everybody happy now?

              ---David


              _______________________________________________
              http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com

              _______________________________________________
              http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com



              _______________________________________________
              http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
            • Trent Shipley
              ... The antecedent for you in this thread isn t clear. I suspect it is not Trent Shipley, but I will provide my input anyway. ... I make a distinction
              Message 6 of 9 , Aug 10, 2009
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                Dan M wrote:
                >
                > Of course, I knew there was another strain in libertarianism that was
                > based in morality. This was an ideological commitment to maximize
                > individual freedom. Basically Aleister Crowley's "Harm no one and do
                > what thou wilt", with the "harm no one" clause being
                > optional--particularly when doing business.
                >
                >> That's not a moral principle. That's principled amorality, an abandonment
                > of social >responsibility. At best it is mysticism; faith that we don't
                > have to do anything for our >neighbors because the universe will take care
                > of them (if they deserve it, or whatever). >Morality an antidote, not a
                > synonym, for self-centered pragmatism.

                The antecedent for "you" in this thread isn't clear. I suspect it is
                not Trent Shipley, but I will provide my input anyway.

                > Well, how do you define what a moral principal is? I'd argue it is an axiom
                > of a system of ethics. Now, from your arguments, I suspect you and I both
                > strongly differ with some of the basic axioms of, say, Objectivistic ethics,
                > but that does not keep it from being an ethical system.

                I make a distinction between moral principles that are often religious
                or more folksy and ethical principles that tend to come from high
                theology or philosophy and are usually more formal.

                <example>

                Given: Slavery is legal.
                Given: You are CEO of a publicly traded company.
                Given: The company will make a lot of money if it uses slaves.

                Then:

                Using slaves is immoral (the CEO commits a sin).

                But not using slaves is unethical because the CEO deprives his
                shareholders of wealth.

                </example>

                Futhermore, there are ethical systems, but morals are never systematic.
                Instead one should talk about an individuals moral collection or a
                group's hegemonic morality.

                > You can't prove or disprove ethical, moral principals.

                Ethical principles are subject to rational and logical dispute. Moral
                principles, on the other hand, are dealt with using apologetics and are
                beyond proof.

                > You can either posit
                > them explicitly, or implicitly. Personally, I prefer explicit, because the
                > principals are out there to be discussed, and the implications of those
                > principals can be arrived at logically and more clearly.
                >
                > Dan M.

                The trick is that moral principles and the relations between them are
                seldom explicit. Discovering moral principles and making them explicit
                requires cultural, linguistic and symbolic analysis. The same applies
                to ethics at one remove where discovering an ethical system's deep
                structure, unstated assumptions, and meta-morality require analysis.

                _______________________________________________
                http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
              • Trent Shipley
                ... I don t know. Personally, I don t assume any per se structure to the income and wealth curves produced under highly libertarian markets. Brin s says that
                Message 7 of 9 , Aug 10, 2009
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dan M wrote:
                  >
                  >> -----Original Message-----
                  >> From: brin-l-bounces@... [mailto:brin-l-bounces@...] On
                  >> Behalf Of Trent Shipley
                  >> Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 3:23 PM
                  >> To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
                  >> Subject: Re: Br!n: Libertarian Morality--Up with good King John, down
                  >> withRobin Hood.
                  >>
                  >> While writing this I tried to imagine how a certain kind of libertarian
                  >> thought about the world. It is a shallow exercise in participant
                  >> observation. To appreciate what I wrote you must at least partially
                  >> empathize with our libertarian subject.
                  >
                  > I have a question for you Trent....don't libertarians assume that, in a free
                  > market, those that create wealth get to keep at least a tenth of a percent
                  > of the wealth they create? I've got a trillion dollar counterfactual that
                  > I've discussed here before for that argument.
                  >
                  > Dan M.

                  I don't know.

                  Personally, I don't assume any per se structure to the income and wealth
                  curves produced under highly libertarian markets. Brin's says that
                  libertarian marketism, let alone fundamentalist marketism, tend to
                  produce aristocracies or oligarchies. I agree with the implication that
                  over time libertarianism is prone to produce pronounced income and
                  wealth curves, and furthermore individuals will be structurally stuck
                  near their originating socio-economic status. That said, one expects
                  there should be some limit to how pronounced the wealth ratio can get,
                  but 1:1000 seems arbitary and low.

                  You also use the term "creators of wealth", this sounds like a gloss for
                  the Marxian term "labor" with labor as the critical input for creating
                  capital. Dan, you know that all Marxian ideas are inadmissible because
                  they are socialist. Labor deserves only what the market apportions to
                  it. Under libertarianism there will be no lumpen proletariat, and the
                  un-lumpen proletariat will be free.

                  You wanted to make a point, however. For the sake of argument I will
                  stipulate that within three standard deviations of the mean individual
                  wealth holding the wealth ratio will not exceed 1:1000.

                  _______________________________________________
                  http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.