@Chrispmini's re: your last post, I more or less agree with your assessement, and though actually did want to add one tidbit: You've said before that poeple have decided they value professional atheletes, or movie stars more than plumbers. But I'm not sure that's quite true. At least on an individual level. I may spend $12 to go see a movie, but when I need a plumber I'll pay him quite a bit more than that. The difference is of course that the plumber can only get that money from a much smaller pool of people, while the movie can get a whole lot more people to pay $12 to see the movie at one time.

I'd say I actually do in fact value a plumber more than I do a movie star, or a professional athlete (which I value very little as i'm not very interested in sports), and I think many people are the same way, the difference is that atheletes or movie stars can "work for" a whole lot more people at any given time than a plumber can.

"You can live somewhere else, or you can choose to live at a simple enough level that you won't have to pay taxes (as some people voluntarily do)."

I can understand say, property tax, but for something as disjointed as say funding a community pool, why should I be forced to leave simply because I don't want to buy the chicken? Not to mention, moving would probably just mean buying the goat. Live at a simple enough level? As soon as you have enough money you have to buy the chicken!

I'll pay taxes, and I expect everyone else to do the same thing. I agree that I owe you money if I eat some of the chicken (which I inevitably will), and I'll voluntarily buy the chicken for the most part, since you tell me the added cost goes toward supplementing those who cannot afford the chicken, but it is still immoral to threaten to beat me up, lock me up, or throw me out of my home because I won't engage in the exchange.

"I'd say I actually do in fact value a plumber more than I do a movie star, or a professional athlete (which I value very little as i'm not very interested in sports), and I think many people are the same way, the difference is that atheletes or movie stars can "work for" a whole lot more people at any given time than a plumber can."

Agreed, but the argument remains the same. The athletes and movie stars provide service to more people, and so get more money. Their service is still more valuable to the collective population.

@Dexter.Morgan: oh I agree, and I think in reality most of us have views that are probably much closer than they would appear in this discussion, we're of course just debating some smaller details, and degree or the philosophical underpinnings of things, more than the larger practical aspects of things. I guess perhaps we've all gotten a little carried away, and misinterpreted each other, and probably misrepresented ourselves, even if just by implication, because of the nature of debates like this.

@Chrispminis - agreed, I just wanted to throw that in there as that's something I thought of but didn't get to express earlier.

"@DrOct, just to clear something up... I do not propose that capitalism is immoral... only that it is amoral. ...and that, unregulated and unchecked can allow immoral behavior in the market to prosper and multiply. (see current banking/investment market for numerous examples) "

We agree on this. I think it's the amount of regulation that we disagree upon. I make allowances for government regulation where there are significant externalities, such as pollution, but I find that the typical fiscal liberal is too ready to put more on the government and over-regulate. eg. Welfare, minimum wage legislation, the FDA, or what have you.

Well you may not want a community pool, but if the community deems that that's how it wants to spend it's money that it got back from it's investment in you, then I don't see how or why that's a problem. Besides you are part of that community and you can campaign against it (at least in democratic societies).

@Chrispminis - perhaps what we really disagree on is how may externalities there are and how much impact they have.

I also still stand by my assertion that there are things that the market is good at and things that a government is better at, and that some things (like the FDA...) are better handled by the government for the benefit of all.

@Crispminis, I agree that making the drug and sex trades legal (and thus potentially transparent) would go a long way to help that situation. I would still posit that situations of uneven power in dealings are numerous in the economy - and in those cases, the opportunity for the party holding more power to abuse the situation is there. There are abusive relationships all the time... abusive bosses, abusive spouses, abusive customers... and granted that the victims play a part in putting up with it in their desperation... but then we all play a part in not coming to their defense. When a worker is wondering how he will put food on the table he will accept darn near any arrangement to make a buck. Employers who exploit that desperation and push the envelope to pay that person the minimum that they will tolerate rather than what the service is worth to the employer are despicable... and these are some of the situations that capitalism, by itself, has no mechanism to deal with. It is interesting to me how many free-market proponents (in the U.S. at least) suggest that employers should be free to do whatever they want - including setting wages across an industry (because that is "the fair market value") - but a labor force organizing into a union (to help set "fair wages") is somehow not playing fair. I am interested what you think of unions. To me unions are no more moral than the bosses... but no less so either. To me having a balance of power is very helpful and healthy.

Yes, that could be the case, though I think another major issue is the idea that it is worth curbing the efficiency of capitalism to promote notions of economic equality. Other than some externalities, the only role government should play in my mind is providing public services that would not be available in the market due to the problem of the commons, in the enforcement of rights and laws, civil and criminal, and to grease the bearings of the free markets.

@Dexter.Morgan - I agree on the union front. I actually feel like unions are a fairly good expression of capitalism in action.

I'm not completely decided on trade unions, but I will say that while they benefit those who are already employed, they do a great disservice to those looking for employment in that industry, and while they might raise wages, they do so at the cost of fewer jobs, and increased unemployment.

"When a worker is wondering how he will put food on the table he will accept darn near any arrangement to make a buck. Employers who exploit that desperation and push the envelope to pay that person the minimum that they will tolerate rather than what the service is worth to the employer are despicable..."

Employers who exploit that desperation will be outbid by employers who are willing to pay more, especially for better workers. Competition greatly reduces the imbalance in power because over the long run, the market will stabilize around an equilibrium point. As long as profit exists in an industry and there are no significant barriers to entry, new firms will enter that industry and create more competition. In classical economics, in which technology is an exogenous variable, stable industries over the long term should have no profits as firms continue to enter while there are profits, lowering profits for existing firms, and will exit when there are losses, increasing profits for existing firms.

@Chrispminis "though I think another major issue is the idea that it is worth curbing the efficiency of capitalism to promote notions of economic equality."

To some degree I agree, but I also think that the efficiencies of capitalism are only useful if they actually help to improve peoples lives. Because lets face it, in the end, human happiness and welfare is really the whole point of just about anything we humans do. I'm not arguing that we need to tax the hell out of everyone and make sure everyone is "equal" (whatever that means), but that I'm ok with "curbing" some of the efficiencies of capitalism if I think the end result will be better for everyone.

To bring things back to the original subject, again thats why I'm all for socialized healthcare, or some sort of universal single payer system. I just don't think the private industry has done anything resembling a good job at providing healthcare coverage in the US. The "efficiencies" are, I think nowhere to be seen, at least in actually providing service to people. They've done a fine job of making money for the owners and upper management of the companies. Healthcare, like education, I see as one of those services that should be reasonably available to everyone so that everyone has the opportunity to advance improve their lives.

@Chrispminis re: Unions etc. That is true in a situation in which there is perfect, or at least near perfect competition. But there isn't always reasonable competition in some industries. If there were, unions wouldn't really be necessary, and would likely have trouble keeping membership/remaining united (and in many industries this is exactly what has or does happen).

“@rlumley, is there any reputable philosopher or tradition that holds that taxes are immoral? Seems to me that across all cultures and times, taxes are an accepted and necessary part of civilization.”

I do not base my morality on what others say or think, but rather what I say or think. Please give me a logical argument as to why taxes ARE moral. I will give my argument as to why they are immoral. And if you are going to use the programs that they fund as justification, please be prepared to argue those programs morality, because ultimately, it will come to this – A question of whether or not man should live for himself or live for the sake of others. I think you know where I stand, and this is why. The fundamental purpose of all living creatures is to continue to exist by whatever means necessary. Thus demanding self sacrifice of any one person for the greater good is evil, because it requires that person to voluntarily harm himself, when his purpose in life is to protect himself from harm.

As for Paris Hilton, she has produced nothing and is therefore worthless. She inherited the vast majority of what she has, so your argument is moot. Britney Spears, a much better example for your purposes, is quite valuable however (Or has been in the past) because many people found enjoyment from her music.

“@rlumley - My point is not that I believe that the bible tells me what is or isn't moral, but that what is says is moral is so small in comparison to what may be moral, that if it says something is moral (or isn't immoral, in this case taxes) then it probably is. But, likewise, if it says something is immoral, it may or may not be, because the church has so deemed everything to be immoral that very little is moral in the church's view.”

That is a good argument, but it assumes a predefined continuum of action A is less moral than action B, which is less moral than action C, etc, and you are assuming that these actions were arranged correctly. What I am telling you is that they have been arranged incorrectly.

“Agreed, but the argument remains the same. The athletes and movie stars provide service to more people, and so get more money. Their service is still more valuable to the collective population.”

QFT

“She isn't actually talking about creating a phrase. It is simply a way of saying that the concept was created by the American people. You don't always have to assume she is making a specious argument, you know.”

QFT

@rlumley "I do not base my morality on what others say or think, but rather what I say or think. Please give me a logical argument as to why taxes ARE moral."

I don't actually think taxes are moral, I simply argue that they are not immoral. I actually think they are pretty much morally neutral in and of themselves. Certainly there can be taxes that are immoral, but I don't think taxes by their very nature are immoral. I simply see them as a return on the investment that the wider society made in you that allowed you to create the wealth you did.

I noticed you argued the Paris Hilton was worthless because she simply inherited her money. While I'm unlikely to agree that anyone is actually "worthless" I do agree that, at least until she got into the entertainment industry, she did little to actually benefit society. Anyway, since you seem to put so little value in inherited wealth, perhaps you would agree that maybe what we should do is eliminate any sort of income tax and replace it with a heavy inheritance tax?

I'm actually somewhat serious about this idea and question. In theory that would allow society to get back it's investment, and it would mean that no one would have to pay it back to society while they were alive (so it wouldn't in any way impact their "ability to exist" or whatever, as they would no longer be alive anyway.).

@Chrispminis, regarding trade unions and unemployment: I'm not sure that there is a correlation, much less a causation. According to U.S. government statistics, annual unemployment rates in the US varied from 2.9% to 5.5% in the 1950's, 3.5% to 6.7% in the '60's, 5.6% to 8.5% in the '70's, 5.3% to 9.7% in the '80's, 4.2% to 7.5% in the '90's, and 4.0% to 6.0% in the years 2000 through 2008, and 8.9% in April 2009. Union membership has been on a pretty steady decline for decades - from a high of about 35% in 1945 to less than 15% now. I don't see a correlation. If anything, the prosperous '50s and '60s had both high union membership and high government investment. Odd, that. (When I say prosperous I don't mean for the richest 5% of the population - clearly they have prospered more for the last 3 decades than the prior 3. I mean in regards to the average wage adjusted for inflation.)

@rlumley, I would echo DrOct in his most recent responses...

Yes, I take some issue with inheritance, but I haven't thought up of a good alternative. =)

I would agree with you if union membership were only a small part of the aggregate factors that cause unemployment. There's also the effect of the normal business cycle and fluctuation on the short term, the major entrance of females into the labour force, and various major events that shaped and shocked the economy. It's because there are such an enormous number of factors that I feel that government and centralized policy is woefully ineffectual and ill-advised. Counter-cyclical policy might work in the short term, but it can have long term consequences that could be less obvious, but equally existent. I would say most of the American prosperity in the past few decades has been artificial and boosted by government policy because expansionary times are seen to be "good". The result is a longer recessionary period.

Sorry, are you saying you have an issue with inheritance as a concept, or with a tax on inheritance? Or something else?

"Anyway, since you seem to put so little value in inherited wealth, perhaps you would agree that maybe what we should do is eliminate any sort of income tax and replace it with a heavy inheritance tax?"

I believe I suggested this earlier in the thread... I'll find it here. Hold on.

...

...

Here we go. "
@ Pete.

Yes. That's what I'm saying. Taxes are immoral, yet required to fund basic functions of the government. For this purpose, we should use economically constructive forms of taxation (eg. the Death tax) and, if possible, donations, as opposed to economically destructive forms of taxation (ie. the Income tax) to whatever extent possible."

@oct: Can you give me an argument as to why taxes are morally neutral? :-P

Oh: And by the way, if anyone is ever thinking of arguing that I simply regurgitate anything Ayn Rand says, Rand HATED the inheritance tax. In fact she thought that the more money that could be passed down through generations the better...

@rlumley, :-) Interesting. Most conservatives are very much against inheritance tax due to concepts of property and gifting... but Rand saw financial success as self-earned and deserved - so for her to support inheritance, which has nothing to do with the individual earning anything, is definitely a contradiction. (point taken about widening my view of you)

@TheGhostmaker - sorry, delayed answer here... some forms of libertarianism borders on anarchism... I think it's called minarchism. Most of the self-described libertarians I've chatted with next to no use for government and see it as mostly an evil... and see the market as all-knowing and wise (invisible hand down their pants and all) :-) - but maybe I need to widen my perspective when someone says libertarian and not assume the most extreme version. Sorry.

Ah, I must have missed that little bit or forgotten it. Glad to see someone else who is in favor of the inheritance tax. that's also interesting about Rand hating it. That's honestly pretty surprising to me!

I"m not sure how exactly to argue that something isn't a moral issue, but as I've said before, numerous times, in this thread, I see taxes as simply a return on the investment society made in you, a paying back if you will, of the resources and services you used to create that wealth, since no one is an island and I doubt very much that almost anyone can truthfully argue that they created all of their wealth with no help from anyone, and without and advantages set up by a stable society around them.

@DrOct Yeah, I was surprised when I read that Rand hated the Inheritance Tax in Answers - she argues that handing down your inheritance is another form of incentive to achieve more, although admittedly, she is vague and almost seems confused on the question.

I would counter your argument by saying that if people saw the return on investment that you claim they have (You may even be right, more on this later) they would be glad to pay taxes.

I might agree with you that they do see a valid return on investment, but only in the security sense. How many of the wealthy see a return on investment beyond that? It is the majority of people that see a return on investment, mainly because that majority invests so little.

As James Bovard said, (I think it was him and I'm too lazy to look it up) "Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner."

Consider in a broad sense the return on investment of simply living in an advanced country with an educated and well fed populace (as opposed to one where they hate you and want to storm the palace and squat your land). I guess that is a security question as well... but it seems to me that there are plenty of places a rich person can live cheaply and basically tax free if that is important to them. It seems that rich people eventually come around to realizing that it's a good thing to give back to society (all those foundations and such) but I guess when they are young (and think that they are immortal and don't have to leave a legacy) they are likely to resent it more.

Democracy is often two sheep deciding that the wolf has no right to eat either of them simply because he wants to and is capable of it... and it is the wolf resenting that imposition on his freedom and crying about the tyranny of the majority.

Democracy is also the row boat with some rowers stronger than others, but, with the oversight of the coxswain (the government), no one slacks off, and they are all going toward a common (agreed upon) goal... but the strongest rower sometimes resents that he/she is doing "more than his share" and rails against the coxswain's immoral imposition on him/her.

;-)

No one slacks off? Are you kidding me?

I am currently wondering why anyone would look at the current financial situation in the US and work hard to keep good credit, stay out of debt, and not over-leverage their house... I am sure many have decided it's not worth it - those are the people that make socialism not work. I am not one of those people though.

As to the whole wolf/sheep thing the point can be taken as the same in both situations. The minority has rights, and those rights must be respected. And property rights are the most fundamental of all rights, because they lay the basis for most of the others. When you don't live in a society that respects property rights, there can be no security against looters, because the caveman with the biggest rock will come and take it from you. It matters not if that caveman is the government and the rock is the military, or if the caveman is a gang and the rock is a host of pistols. Looters are all the same.