tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post111865519317735748..comments2023-10-29T10:32:36.914-04:00Comments on Philosophy, et cetera: A Reasonable ResolutionRichard Y Chappellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-73460847697791889782007-08-08T20:08:00.000-04:002007-08-08T20:08:00.000-04:00"Certainly government could be much smaller than t..."<I>Certainly government could be much smaller than the current total of American federal, state, and local governments and still provide everyone with a bear minimum to meet their basic needs.</I>"<BR/><BR/>Yes, I agree. (But note that the present argument merely establishes the <I>minimum</I> level of redistribution that is morally required; whether it is also right to redistribute beyond the 'basic need' level is a further question.)<BR/><BR/>I think your first remark is bringing in a morally loaded sense of the term 'liberty'. That's not how I'm using the term. On my use, poor people are currently not at liberty to take surplus goods from the rich, and criminals are not at liberty to leave jail. These are both restrictions on <I>liberty</I>; whether they're justified is a separate question. (As you say, "the assertion that they have such a right [to the liberty in question] is debatable" -- which is precisely why I am debating it, after all! The present post argues, pretty compellingly I think, that the poor in fact <I>do</I> have such a right in certain circumstances.)Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-47170149692841080992007-08-08T14:14:00.000-04:002007-08-08T14:14:00.000-04:00There is no "liberty of the poor to not to be inte...There is no "liberty of the poor to not to be interfered with in taking from the rich what they require to meet their basic needs."<BR/><BR/> Even if you argue that they should have a right to do so, its not properly termed liberty, and the assertion that they have such a right is debatable, and if you do assume such a right than it can be met (at least in a wealthy society) within a relatively libertarian structure of laws, regulation, and taxation. Certainly government could be much smaller than the current total of American federal, state, and local governments and still provide everyone with a bear minimum to meet their basic needs.<BR/><BR/>The problem here is that "poverty" and "basic needs" keep getting defined upwards, or to look at it in another way they get defined in relative terms. As people become more wealthy poverty is defined as a fraction of that average wealth. As society is becomes wealthier "basic needs" gets defined to include more and better things (rather than say a a cot to sleep in and gruel three times a day)<BR/><BR/> - TimAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-91602714675171275142007-05-13T21:51:00.000-04:002007-05-13T21:51:00.000-04:00Cxx, I agree that traditional (conditional or "mea...Cxx, I agree that traditional (conditional or "means-tested") welfare schemes may be counterproductive -- that's why I favour <A HREF="http://pixnaps.blogspot.com/2005/06/universal-basic-income.html" REL="nofollow">unconditional basic income</A>, to complement the free market, as Milton Friedman proposed.<BR/><BR/>But the main post above isn't suggesting that in actual fact we should set up our institutions so that type-#1 <I>ad hoc</I> redistribution is the norm. That would be most impractical! However, given that type-#1 redistribution would be justified in principle, given the background conditions described, it clearly becomes imperative that we set up our institutions in such a way as to avoid such background conditions!<BR/><BR/>In other words, what the argument shows is that there is no absolute "natural right" to property. If set up wrongly, then so-called "theft" might -- in some cases -- be morally right. So we (society) must instead take care to <A HREF="http://pixnaps.blogspot.com/2006/06/constructing-rightful-property.html#115043982638421375" REL="nofollow">construct <I>rightful</I> property</A> -- a precondition of which is that no-one is in a position to reasonably demand a type-#1 redistribution. This requires <I>some</I> form of welfare rights; the question remaining is how best to implement this in practice. My suggestion, of course, is a UBI.Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-34788025491506351322007-05-13T20:02:00.000-04:002007-05-13T20:02:00.000-04:00"Redistribution of wealth", socialist style, does ...<I><BR/>"Redistribution of wealth", socialist style, does not in fact or in principle achieve this but rather aims at maintaining them on a drip feed with supportive care. <BR/></I><BR/>I refer to this drip feed as "hospice for the well". It kills the pain of poverty, and any incentive to leave the state of poverty. Of course some people will never escape poverty (for example, the severely mentally retarded or physically disabled) such people are what they are through no fault of their own and should be helped by private people and organizations. Then there are the pathologically lazy. I am not particularly concerned with what happens to those who can produce, and choose not to.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12394415060461643626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-70086698454954804802007-05-13T19:51:00.000-04:002007-05-13T19:51:00.000-04:00There is a problem with this thinking, unless what...There is a problem with this thinking, unless what you are talking about is purely land. Except for land, anything of value exists because somebody created it. Somebody made the decision, made the arrangements, provided the materials (which he could have consumed, instead of investing), and did the rest of the work, or paid others to do the rest of the work. To say that after this the creator does not have the right to consume his product, but any random person who has not bothered to do any of the above (including being among those paid to do the work) does strikes me as absurd.<BR/><BR/>There is another issue here. It may well be that one feels that he has a moral responsibility to help those less fortunate or even those who are just lazier. It does not follow from this that he has a right to force others to help others less fortunate. <BR/><BR/>Had I been alive and of age on Dec 8, 1941, I would have considered it a moral imperative to join the army and fight the Japanese and the Germans. This does <B>not</B> imply that I would have supported the draft. It is one thing to say that I feel that I am morally required to take this action. It is another to say that it is morally permissible for me to force another to take this action, regardless of their convictions.<BR/><BR/>Libertarians do not oppose charity. We oppose charity at gunpoint, which is theft, not charity. One practical problem with charity at gunpoint is that it is very easy for the person receiving it. There is no doubt that it will be coming. This invites free riders who could produce, but do not bother, to accumulate. Like any parasite, they will, as they accumulate, create more and more strain on the system they feed off of (but to which they contribute nothing) until eventually, the system collapses. This is what will have happened when the American government goes bankrupt in about 30 years (or sooner). We will have just accumulated more parasites then we can safely indulge. Because we have provided these people with the false security of cradle to grave freedom from responsibility, they will be in a position where they could not work if they wanted to. Note that freedom from responsibility is not the same thing as freedom of choice. One is a right, the other is a dangerous illusion.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12394415060461643626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1119867157297933532005-06-27T06:12:00.000-04:002005-06-27T06:12:00.000-04:00If you take the underlying thinking of, say, distr...If you take the underlying thinking of, say, distributism into account, you see that it aims at promoting the poor out of poverty so that "the poor" becomse the empty set. There need be no conflict between the principles once one recognises that it can be resolved by eliminating the defective cases, renormalising as it were. "Redistribution of wealth", socialist style, does <I>not</I> in fact or in principle achieve this but rather aims at maintaining them on a drip feed with supportive care. See the articles on my publications page like http://member.netlink.com.au/~peterl/publicns.html#NWKART1 for some constructive proposals. You should view those as the first stages of a transition of course; they would require the state to startAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com