Federation vs. US principles

[Rush Limborg]

Again...it's up to the smart bankers, provided they're allowed to do so, to clean up the mess and re-build.

Consider the Depression of 1920--the depression nobody talks about.

Look it up. The crash of '20--unemployment, interest rates, etc.--was actually worse than that of '29.

And yet...we don't hear about it. We recovered almost immediately! What happened?

Harding and Coolidge happened. These two Conservatives slashed the tax rates by 53 points, and cut the federal budget in half. In short, they got the heck outta the way.

The economy roared back to life, because entrepreneurs and innovators were thus allowed to invest, and pick up the pieces, and build stronger than ever before.

Freedom works.


Now...at this point the Progressives are likely to scream, "The stock market crash of '29!"

The irony is...the crash was due directly to government action.

Hoover came in--a Progressive, mind you. Under his direction, the Federal Reserve kept interest rates arbitrarily low, and poured cheap money into the economy. The markets overloaded--and a bubble was created...a bubble which finally popped.

FDR's "New Deal", contrary to typical sentiment, did not get us out of the Depression. It prolonged it. FDR's own Treasury secretary, Henry Morgenthau--one of the designers of the Deal--eventually admitted this, in 1939:

We are spending more money than we have ever spent before, and it does not work. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. I say after eight years of this administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started and an enormous debt, to boot.

Government intervention/regulation does not work.

 

[Admiral Shran]

I believe that the U.S. foreign policy should be based on "Commerce with all, Alliance with none."

You are writing like Ferengi. They are in love with Profit.

Plantis (BTW--welcome to the BBS! ), to be honest, the Ferengi are not a Capitalist society. Observe the iron fist the FCA Liquidators hold over Ferengi businesses--specifically, all the regulations and "by-laws" Brunt discusses with Quark in "Family Business". I'd hardly consider the FCA capable of existing in a truly free market.

Again, they are the embodiment of Corporatism and "Crony Capitalism" (the straw man the Left constantly attacks as "Capitalism"). For proof of this, see the episodes "The Nagus" and "Profit And Lace".

I was going to say that Rush, but you beat me to it.

And welcome to TrekBBS Plantis.

 

[TheGodBen]

^I'd rather have no tyranny at all. Don't tell me those are the only two choices.

If you came to this country, took charge and tried to cut welfare benefits on ideological grounds, you'd be considered a tyrant. Social welfare is not considered tyranny here, it is a right for all citizens. Some rich people don't like it, so they moved to Switzerland.

As for the stupid bankers...honestly?

Stupid bankers, stupid developers, stupid regulators, and so on. The bankers get the most of the blame as we had to bail them out, while some of the developers were left to fail.

Stupid bankers were getting what was coming to them. Had our governments let the stupid bankers fail, rather than propping them up with bailouts--they would've been weeded out, so that the smart bankers and businessmen could clean up the mess made, and emerge stronger, as a reward for their intelligence.

In theory, I agree with you. In reality, that wouldn't work in this case because all the Irish banks would probably have collapsed were it not for government intervention, and that would have killed off the entire economy. If they all failed that would have been the end of it, we'd have no more money and the euro would have been damaged more than it would if Greece had defaulted on their loans, so the government had to intervene. The story goes that in September 2008 we were literally hours away from one of the banks collapsing and potentially bringing the others with it (because of the way they all loan money to one another), so the government created a guarantee scheme in the middle of the night.

In the end, we came up with a bizarre solution; the government set up a "bad bank" called NAMA that bought all the useless property that the banks now owned well above the current market price. That gets the useless property off all the banks' balance sheets and they can return to some sense of normality. This costs the taxpayer billions, and we'll be paying off the debt for generations, and there's still a chance that it will fail, and we probably should have seized the assets of those that were in charge of the banks just to pay for it all (if only to make ourselves feel better)... but there you are. It's something that shouldn't have been allowed to happen, but it did happen, and hopefully the current government will now be unelectable for a generation for letting it happen.


If it had been an artificial bubble in the baking industry then I'd have no problem with letting those companies fail. But the banking sector is the heart of the economy, it's what pumps all the money around, and if it fails then the economy dies and we all suffer. It is vital that the banking sector be healthy, but it's clear now in my country that it's not stable on its own and it needs to be regulated for the good of the country. It may impact economic growth a bit, but that's a price worth paying for stability, in my opinion.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Ah...GodBen...did the possibility occur to you and the rest that the reason the entire banking industry in Ireland was corrupted so...was because the idiots were all propped up over the years?

With all those crutches, the idiots were not held accountable to the forces of the market. The aristocracy of ability was replaced by the aristocracy of political clout. Favors replaced innovation. And thus...the idiots became Too Big To Fail.

Thus, it was up to the good guys to take up all the slack--and all the burdens. Thus, in this corrupted "Crony Capitalism"...the idiots survived, and the crippled innovators died off.

 

[TheGodBen]

I have never not considered that corruption was involved.

But the banks were making money off of the risky loans being made, and in order to ensure that they were selling their debt to other banks, and both banks would count it as a profit somehow. Nobody was forcing the banks to make or accept these deals with on another, they did it because they thought it was making them money. And it technically was making them money until property prices fell, at which point it all fell apart. Nobody was fired because everyone thought they were making money, and nobody was listening to the economists that were warning about the big picture. Bertie Ahern, the Taoiseach (Prime Minister) at the time, famously quipped that the people worrying about the economy should kill themselves, which just shows you how much denial the guys in charge were in.

 

[Vurok]

If you came to this country, took charge and tried to cut welfare benefits on ideological grounds, you'd be considered a tyrant. Social welfare is not considered tyranny here, it is a right for all citizens. Some rich people don't like it, so they moved to Switzerland.

What is or is not 'considered' tyranny by some people is irrelevant. The definition of tyranny is despotic abuse of authority, absolute power with no respect for individual rights. Only a very warped mind [no pun intended] could consider cuts to welfare benefits to be 'tyranny.'

Tyranny is the following:

we probably should have seized the assets of those that were in charge of the banks just to pay for it all (if only to make ourselves feel better)...

A truly horrifying statement.

In theory, I agree with you. In reality, that wouldn't work in this case because all the Irish banks would probably have collapsed were it not for government intervention, and that would have killed off the entire economy.

The UK certainly did not need the banks to be bailed out, nor did America. I don't know enough about the Irish economy to comment, though I doubt it was as bad as you allege. It would have been difficult, a big shock to the economy, but at the end of it we'd all be the better for it as the economy would be on sound, sensible footing after the necessary pain. Further government intervention may have worked in the short-term masking the problems, a sticking plaster if you will, but it has simply prolonged the problem. It is like when you are ill, you can take medicine to alleviate the symptoms or you can tackle the disease. Sadly, we've only addressed certain symptoms and are in the process of making the disease worse.

If it had been an artificial bubble in the baking industry then I'd have no problem with letting those companies fail. But the banking sector is the heart of the economy, it's what pumps all the money around, and if it fails then the economy dies and we all suffer. It is vital that the banking sector be healthy, but it's clear now in my country that it's not stable on its own and it needs to be regulated for the good of the country. It may impact economic growth a bit, but that's a price worth paying for stability, in my opinion.

Why do you think the regulators are more capable and intelligent that bankers?

If you don't want it to happen again, state categorically that in future the banks are on their own, they can no longer take risks safe in the knowledge that the taxpayer will be there to cover their losses.

Nobody was forcing the banks to make or accept these deals with on another, they did it because they thought it was making them money.

Firstly, in the US they actually WERE forcing banks to take risky loans in low-income areas (see "Community Reinvestment Act"). If you google it, you may find that some people (from government agencies - quelle surprise...) argue that it didn't cause it because some bad loans were also made that were not subject to the CRA, however, they ignore that forcing banks to make these loans led to artificial credit expansion, changing the whole lending climate.

What you need to understand is that government intervention in the economy created an artificial boom (I presume you accept this). This made uneconomic ventures seem profitable, given the conditions of 2006, bankers were making clever business decisions, however, they were operating in an artificially inflated economy, divorced from the underlying economic reality. This was unsustainable, the bubble burst. Though one would hope bankers would be more attuned to economic reality, the problem was the government intervention that created the bubble in the first place.

 

[TheGodBen]

What is or is not 'considered' tyranny by some people is irrelevant. The definition of tyranny is despotic abuse of authority, absolute power with no respect for individual rights. Only a very warped mind [no pun intended] could consider cuts to welfare benefits to be 'tyranny.'

Here, those welfare benefits are considered to be a right by many. You may not see it that way, but that does not invalidate that point of view.

That being said, welfare benefits do need to be cut, because we have a huge deficit for a country of our size and we need to get that sorted out. Raising taxes will put off the recovery, so we have no choice but to cut benefits and public sector wages. I don't like it, but that's the situation we're in.

Tyranny is the following:

we probably should have seized the assets of those that were in charge of the banks just to pay for it all (if only to make ourselves feel better)...

A truly horrifying statement.

They caused the problem, they needed the taxpayer to sort it out, while they're walking away with tens of millions that they didn't really earn because they did a shitty job. If they need us to clean up their mess, then their money should be the first we use to do it.

The UK certainly did not need the banks to be bailed out, nor did America. I don't know enough about the Irish economy to comment, though I doubt it was as bad as you allege. It would have been difficult, a big shock to the economy, but at the end of it we'd all be the better for it as the economy would be on sound, sensible footing after the necessary pain.

We may not have had any economy at all. Whether you want to believe it or not, all the banks were at risk of failing, all of them have billions tied up in toxic loans that were crippling them, and the fear was that if one of them failed, all of them would have failed.

Even after the guarantee scheme was announced in order to boost confidence, the banks had stopped lending money to small business owners and entrepreneurs. These businesses either collapsed or never came into existence at all, which meant that there was less tax revenue being generated and more people drawing the dole. To stop that, the banks had to start lending again, which meant they had to get rid of their toxic assets, which meant setting up NAMA and transferring all the bad loans to one government-owned bank. Financial experts are watching it closely because it hasn't been tried before, and that's because no country was left in a position quite like this before. As you can tell from our drinking, the Irish don't do things in moderation. During the economic boom, we were the best in Europe and one of the best in the world. But when we crashed, we crashed hard.

Further government intervention may have worked in the short-term masking the problems, a sticking plaster if you will, but it has simply prolonged the problem. It is like when you are ill, you can take medicine to alleviate the symptoms or you can tackle the disease. Sadly, we've only addressed certain symptoms and are in the process of making the disease worse.

You're right, we are just treating the symptoms right now and waiting for the disease to go away, much like a really bad case of flu. The thing is, we now know what caused the problem, so we should be able to come up with a vaccination to prevent it from happening in the future.

Why do you think the regulators are more capable and intelligent that bankers?

I don't, but I trust the goals and purpose of the regulators more than those of the bankers.

If you don't want it to happen again, state categorically that in future the banks are on their own, they can no longer take risks safe in the knowledge that the taxpayer will be there to cover their losses.

Something which I don't entirely disagree with, bad business decisions should be punished, and bad businesses should be allowed go out of business. But, much like a building on the brink of collapse, it shouldn't be allowed to happen on its own, it should be done in a controlled way so as not to damage other buildings, infrastructure, pedestrians, or residents.

Banks are particularly tricky, because letting a bank fail will hurt many innocent people. I have been saving my money since I was 12 and because of this I have never needed to take out a loan, I pay off my credit card each month before interest is applied, and I have several thousand euros in my bank account. I was responsible with my money and didn't waste it all during the boom like so many people did. But if my bank had gone under, I would have lost it all, and all those years of saving for a rainy day would have been worthless. It wouldn't have been my fault, I did nearly everything right, it would have been the fault of the people in the bank that were using my money on risky loans. Why should I have lost everything because of their mistakes?

It's all very well to say that we should let the banks fail, but by doing that a lot of good people, the people that were acting in the manner that everyone should, would have been destroyed by it. I don't think a good government should let that happen just to satisfy their ideological position. Let the bank fail, but do it in a way that doesn't punish savers and reward those that took out the bad loans.

Firstly, in the US they actually WERE forcing banks to take risky loans in low-income areas (see "Community Reinvestment Act"). If you google it, you may find that some people (from government agencies - quelle surprise...) argue that it didn't cause it because some bad loans were also made that were not subject to the CRA, however, they ignore that forcing banks to make these loans led to artificial credit expansion, changing the whole lending climate.

I've heard of this many times, and the graphs sometimes look very convincing, but you forget one vital fact: it did not apply to the other western countries that experienced a similar property price bubble over the same time period; Ireland, Britain and Spain being examples. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

What you need to understand is that government intervention in the economy created an artificial boom (I presume you accept this).

No. I accept that in the US, government intervention may have assisted the problem, but I don't believe it is the root cause, and I certainly don't believe it excuses the bankers for their part in what happened. Even if the government did create an artificial bubble, which is debatable, the bankers should have known better than to gamble their money on the highly improbable eventuality that property prices would not come down again. They always come down, and the banks should have been better prepared.

 

[Vurok]

Here, those welfare benefits are considered to be a right by many. You may not see it that way, but that does not invalidate that point of view.

Rights are not determined by feelings or majority vote, they are determined by our nature. There is no right to the product of another man's labour, except through voluntary exchange.

They caused the problem, they needed the taxpayer to sort it out, while they're walking away with tens of millions that they didn't really earn because they did a shitty job. If they need us to clean up their mess, then their money should be the first we use to do it.

As I said, despite it being the fashionable opinion, it was not really the fault of the banks, but unwise government intervention that caused the problem. However, I agree that - assuming government is going to prop up the banks - they should have made it contingent upon the termination of the contract of the Chief Executive etc with no financial benefit whatsoever - but due to their incompetence, they did not. Perhaps this is what you meant, but preventing unwarranted future earnings is not the same as seizing their assets.

We may not have had any economy at all. Whether you want to believe it or not, all the banks were at risk of failing, all of them have billions tied up in toxic loans that were crippling them, and the fear was that if one of them failed, all of them would have failed.

As I said, I don't know enough about the Irish situation to comment. The UK and US did not need the intervention. Also, there were other potential methods of recapitalisation.

Even after the guarantee scheme was announced in order to boost confidence, the banks had stopped lending money to small business owners and entrepreneurs. These businesses either collapsed or never came into existence at all, which meant that there was less tax revenue being generated and more people drawing the dole. To stop that, the banks had to start lending again, which meant they had to get rid of their toxic assets, which meant setting up NAMA and transferring all the bad loans to one government-owned bank.

Banks stopped lending to those they perceived to be medium to high risk. This was an over-reaction, but only a short-term problem. Further, you can't have it both ways, either banks lend too readily or not readily enough, you cannot criticise them for lax lending then continue to criticise them when they tighten borrowing requirements.

During the economic boom, we were the best in Europe and one of the best in the world. But when we crashed, we crashed hard.

You were not the 'best', your economy was artificially inflated by low interest-rates set in Europe (totally unsuitable for your economic conditions).

You're right, we are just treating the symptoms right now and waiting for the disease to go away, much like a really bad case of flu. The thing is, we now know what caused the problem, so we should be able to come up with a vaccination to prevent it from happening in the future.

Surely this experience tells you that we are unable to manage and control the spontaneous interactions of hundreds of millions of people? Politicians seem to want more of the disease! How we suffer for their conceited delusions of control.

After severe economic problems in the sixties and seventies, caused by Keynesian economics, monetarism offered a partial solution, rather than trying a command economy, government could just try to direct the economy, manage it, influence it, but this approach has also failed, because we simply cannot manage or control the economy, it is too complex to manipulate without creating unintended consequences / moral hazards etc. Also, governments used monetarism to generate a boom, because that is good for them politically. I fail to see why you would trust government not to meddle in the economy for their own benefit.

The economy is like a liquid, it moves and flows, it can not really be controlled. If you put something in its path, the course diverts or it overflows, or it builds up a dam and then bursts it down. Forgive me, this is an insufficient analogy, but it will have to do for now.

I wish some of our politicians had the wisdom and humility of King Canute who upon proving that he could not turn back the tide, stated - "Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings. For there is none worthy of the name but God, whom heaven, earth and sea obey".

Banks are particularly tricky, because letting a bank fail will hurt many innocent people. I have been saving my money since I was 12
...
I was responsible with my money and didn't waste it all during the boom like so many people did. But if my bank had gone under, I would have lost it all, and all those years of saving for a rainy day would have been worthless.

Good for you. But your doomsday scenario is inaccurate. If your bank collapsed, your money would be protected (upto around £50,000 anyway).

It wouldn't have been my fault, I did nearly everything right, it would have been the fault of the people in the bank that were using my money on risky loans. Why should I have lost everything because of their mistakes?

Because you chose to put your money into an organisation that practices fractional reserve banking with a fiat currency.

Sometimes life is unfair, no amount of government intervention can change that.

I've heard of this many times, and the graphs sometimes look very convincing, but you forget one vital fact: it did not apply to the other western countries that experienced a similar property price bubble over the same time period; Ireland, Britain and Spain being examples.

The property market is not directly relevant to the recession. The UK property market was over-hyped due to government intervention in the market, meddling with interest rates, keeping them artificially low - but this situation could have continued for a few more years before the economic reality hit. The reason the recession hit the UK is because some British banks were heavily exposed to American sub-prime mortgages. What happens in the US affects the UK.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Not when it was predicted prior to the problem The Austrian school of economics predicted the recession both in theory and in practice.

I accept that in the US, government intervention may have assisted the problem, but I don't believe it is the root cause, and I certainly don't believe it excuses the bankers for their part in what happened.

What, in your opinion, is the root cause?
And what did the bankers do wrong?
Please be specific.

Even if the government did create an artificial bubble, which is debatable, the bankers should have known better than to gamble their money on the highly improbable eventuality that property prices would not come down again. They always come down, and the banks should have been better prepared.

I don't disagree that the banks should have been better prepared. I have been arguing against fractional reserve banking and artificial credit expansion since 2002. They should have been allowed to go to the wall, if they did I can guarantee that other banks would swiftly learn the lesson.

However, I don't accept that they were culpable as they were led up the garden path by government, they naively believed government could control the economy to maintain a perpetual boom because this is what they were told.

However, the most perverse aspect of this government meddling was that those bankers who saw it coming, who realised how stupid our economic policy was could not avert or prevent it. If you reverted to safe, sensible bear-trading in the government bubble induced bull market, you would be losing money whilst others went headlong into destruction making huge profits. Some banks to their credit were not so exposed to this irrationality - HSBC for instance.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Finally, you did--although, your word of condemnation at the end was quite unneccesary.

Still...you do articulate your POV quite well--when pressed to do so, of course--in a manner more impressive than some others I have clashed with.

My compliments.

Well, thank you. I guess.

Furthermore, my presence would be equal compensation to you.

Yes, but it's not really a free exchange. I though that was your point. My only choice is to accept your presence in exchange from mine. And only one choice is no choice at all.

Secondly, you are offering that protection freely - or rather it is a positive externality of us living closely.

I think this is the crux of the issue. There are positive externalities (nice way of putting it, btw) of living in a community. There are also responsibilities. You can't have one without the other.

Never considered seriously? Fallacy of widespread belief.

Call it lack of historical examples, then. Or there is such a thing as a fallacy of practical application? "Political issues should be considered only in a theoretical way, never considering whether they are practically applicable." In that case, Marxism is awesome.

It is true to say that the political consequences of Objectivism have never been fully explored, however, some of its principles have find some degree of expression through history to great success

I think you have it backwards: Objectivism is the (extremist) offspring of Capitalism and Individualism, not the other way around.

I presume you accept the superiority of capitalism as an economic system.

I'm not sure what parameters you use to define "superiority", but I agree that capitalism seems to work better.

How can emotions lead to a rational outcome?

Because I thought we agreed that emotions are not necessarily irrational. They belong to a different category from reason and logic. As Nietzsche would have said: What is done out of love always takes place beyond logic and illogic.

All taxes are theft (paraphrased)

Well, let's just say that I rather strongly disagree with that.

Why?

I will collate this with the next answer.

Not at all, I backed up the claim that taxation is theft with proof, based on mans' rights to his own life and by extension the product of his own labour.

That's not proof, it's an ideological position. It's a legitimate ideological position, obviously, even if I don't agree with it. But it's not logic. Or, better: it's not the only logical inference you could make.

I would say that it's logical, since you are part of a community, that you should share the burdens of such endeavour, and enjoy the privileges it bestows on you. You may not like it, but once you live in a society, you implicitly agree to abide to the norms (both rights and duties) of that society (the social contract). You can't opt out on some duties (and even on some rights) just because you don't agree with them. Sure, you still have two options: leave for another society more conductive to your values (if one exists), or stage a revolution, like the American Colonies did, or like the Russian Bolsheviks did, and let history be the judge. But don't be surprised if you find yourself in jail, or worse.

Going back at the issue of individual rights vs. communal needs, there are things that are best dealt with in a communal manner: government, police, military, firefighters, roads, street lights, whatever. Sure, you probably could engineer a system where you pay for every single commodity you use, but the bureaucracy and intrusiveness of such a system would negate its usefulness. Are you willing to drop a dime in every single street light you pass by? And how are you going to prevent your light from shining on other people's steps? But such services cost money, and taxes are the best, most efficient way to raise them, as demonstrated again and again by history and common sense. I understand that you disagree with that. This is not my point. But you can't argue that this isn't logical: just that you don't like it.

Taking something that belongs to someone else that is not given freely is theft.

The crux of the issue here is the concept of "belong". As they say, a man's "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" are inherent rights. I disagree that propriety is a necessary consequence of that. Propriety, far away from being "theft" as Marxists say, is however a social construct. You can be alive on your own. You can be free on your own. You can be happy on your own. But you can't be wealthy on your own, because wealth means something only if you live in a society. It's a relative concept. Is a man alone in Antarctica rich or poor? The question is meaningless.

I see the right to propriety is the same vein as the right to free speech. In theory, I should be able to say whatever I want. In practice, I can't incite a mob to violence, or shout "Fire!" is a crowded theatre. Are those limitations on my right? Yes. However, allowing unlimited free speech in those case is a danger to social cohesion and public safety, and society as a whole decided that it should not be allowed. So I fully accept that society, acting through its appointed representatives, has the right to limit and redefine the latitude of my wealth.

Now, we might disagree on what are the limits of taxation, but you understand why I think it's illogical to argue that all taxes are theft.

 

[Vurok]

I thought we agreed that emotions are not necessarily irrational. They belong to a different category from reason and logic.

Not at all. I thought we had agreed they are a pre-rational, primitive system that guided humanity towards positive behaviours (those that encouraged continued existence). Emotions are not somehow plugged into a mystical vortex that guides our thinking. If we followed our emotions, we would be in a very bad position. Fighting for social position, constantly sleeping around, grossly overweight... it is our rational faculty that allows us to control our emotions (to varying degrees). - I've never heard of a logical rollercoaster...

I would say that it's logical, since you are part of a community, that you should share the burdens of such endeavour, and enjoy the privileges it bestows on you.

I don't dispute that your position is logical, I don't necessarily oppose sharing burdens etc, however, I reject your implicit assumption that this somehow justifies government intervention and taxation. You have evaded the point at which force and coercion enter your argument - how can you justify this?

You may not like it, but once you live in a society, you implicitly agree to abide to the norms (both rights and duties) of that society.

I abide by the norms, e.g. paying taxes, otherwise I'd be in jail.

Going back at the issue of individual rights vs. communal needs...

Community is the aggregate of individuals. There is no such thing as a communal needs, only individual needs.

I see the right to propriety is the same vein as the right to free speech. In theory, I should be able to say whatever I want. In practice, I can't incite a mob to violence, or shout "Fire!" is a crowded theatre. Are those limitations on my right? Yes. However, allowing unlimited free speech in those case is a danger to social cohesion and public safety, and society as a whole decided that it should not be allowed. So I fully accept that society, acting through its appointed representatives, has the right to limit and redefine the latitude of my wealth.

You accept that 'society' via 'appointed representatives' has the right to limit your wealth? Does 'society' have a right to 90% of your earnings - if that is what the representatives determine? Do they have a right to force you into a labour camp?

Limits on speech should be determined by the courts, based solely on the individual rights of other people - in the case of shouting 'fire' their right not to be physically harmed which is the likely consequence of a crush to get out. Limits should not be determined by a political legislature deciding to limit speech on the basis of the whim of special interest groups - sexuality, religion, ethnicity etc. Similarly, limits on property should be determined by the courts on the sole basis of the rights of other property owners - e.g. you can build a house on your plot of land, but not a series of skyscrapers that blocks out all sunlight from my farm.


I wrote a detailed response to all of the other points you raised, but I deleted it because it was largely unnecessary and everything is getting cluttered. There are four main questions you need to answer:

What are my responsibilities to society?
How do you infer these logically?

Why do they have to be imposed by force?
How can you justify this?

 

[iguana_tonante]

Late reply, but I have a real-life job, too.

I thought we agreed that emotions are not necessarily irrational. They belong to a different category from reason and logic.

Not at all. I thought we had agreed they are a pre-rational, primitive system that guided humanity towards positive behaviours (those that encouraged continued existence). Emotions are not somehow plugged into a mystical vortex that guides our thinking.

I'm with you on this.

If we followed our emotions, we would be in a very bad position. Fighting for social position, constantly sleeping around, grossly overweight... it is our rational faculty that allows us to control our emotions (to varying degrees).

I disagree (somehow). Emotions can lead to positive or negative actions. Rationality allows us to control negative emotions, but it also make us cold and callous. For every cruel or self-desctructive act performed due to emotions, there is a generous or self-sacrificing actions performed in the name of the same. That's not to say that we don't have to use logic to reign in our emotions. But I don't think it's wise (or healthy) to live on logic alone. To quote: "Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end".

I don't dispute that your position is logical, I don't necessarily oppose sharing burdens etc, however, I reject your implicit assumption that this somehow justifies government intervention and taxation.

Since "government", in general terms, is the system by which society is run and taxation is the simplest, most efficient, and (in my opinion) fairer method to get resources for government to function, I think it's a reasonable justification for it.

You have evaded the point at which force and coercion enter your argument - how can you justify this?

In the same vein I justify it for every other law and social rule. Treat other poorly? Be shunned by society. Phisically attack someone? Get locked up. Cheat your taxes? Be fined. Appropriate punishments for antisocial behaviours.

Going back at the issue of individual rights vs. communal needs...

Community is the aggregate of individuals. There is no such thing as a communal needs, only individual needs.

Well, this might be something we disagree on a fundamental level, as I think that society exists just like the individuals exist. Just like an organism exists even if it's composed by individual cells.

You accept that 'society' via 'appointed representatives' has the right to limit your wealth? Does 'society' have a right to 90% of your earnings - if that is what the representatives determine? Do they have a right to force you into a labour camp?

For the latter, obviously not, since it would be a limit to my inalinable rights (freedom of movement and security from harm). On the other hand, I don't consider wealth an inalienable right. As for extraordinally high taxes: if the society I live in provide me with services that justify that level of taxation (total and excellent healthcare, housing, transportation, etc) I don't see the problem. Obviously, I would be opposed to it in practice, since no society currently manages to do that, but it's a matter of practicality, not principle.

Limits on speech should be determined by the courts, based solely on the individual rights of other people - in the case of shouting 'fire' their right not to be physically harmed which is the likely consequence of a crush to get out. Limits should not be determined by a political legislature deciding to limit speech on the basis of the whim of special interest groups - sexuality, religion, ethnicity etc. Similarly, limits on property should be determined by the courts on the sole basis of the rights of other property owners - e.g. you can build a house on your plot of land, but not a series of skyscrapers that blocks out all sunlight from my farm.

Courts may settle disputes, but it's legislatures that create laws, and judges are bound by those. Maybe it's also a matter of different legal system, as in Italy judges have less latitude when it comes to interpreting laws, and their rulings do not set precedents.

What are my responsibilities to society?

Well call me Karl and slap my socialist ass, but I think that your responsibility to society is to contribute according to your ability.

How do you infer these logically?

Because, if these responsibilities are not upheld by all members of society, society breaks down. If wealth is concentrated into the hands of a few barons, society is unstable and prone to uprisings. It generally leads to much killings and general unpleasantness, so I consider it a bad thing. When it comes to society's organization, I am ultimately a practical thinker.

Also, I see current examples. Citizens of liberal democracies with a higher level of taxation (most of Western Europe, Canada, Australia, etc) enjoy a higher quality of life than citizens of liberal democracies with lower level of taxation. This is also the reason why, while a social democrat (or a democratic socialist, as you prefer), I don't consider myself a communist. Communism didn't work: gotta learn from experience and go forward with what actually works.

Why do they have to be imposed by force?
How can you justify this?

Because, ultimately, the threat of force is what keeps people from doing bad things. Everybody knows that killing is bad, yet we have murders. Because of that, society has laws against killing, and is willing to use force to apply them. Using your logic, if harming people is bad, how do you justify harming people to prevent it? It's a circular argument. The only way out is to assume that the use of "violence" is justified to prevent a greater use of "violence", and work from that. If everybody were willing to limit their own consumption to help their fellow man in times of need and freely give money for the function of government, you won't need taxation. But since people won't do that, you need laws for that, and the threat of force to apply them.

Right now, I'm not trying to convince you. As I said, I think your position might be constructed as logical, even if in my opinion it's completely inapplicable to reality, and I think historical examples support that. But I hope you might see the logic of my position, even if you disagree with it.