« Department of non-leading indicators |
Main
| What should Bush do now? »
Note
24 Nov 2008 04:20 pm
If you need to support your preferred wealth distribution model with a threat that, unless we give them money, the beneficiaries will riot and kill the people you want to tax, you are not making a good case for the moral worthiness of the recipients, or the justice of your scheme. Just saying.
I must be missing something. What is this post in reference to?
Bankers and stockbrokers, I presume. Why else, after they've run their companies into the ground, is government bailout money being used to pay them bonuses?
I think there's something very charming and... special about people who figure it's just plain obvious that "your money or your life" is a moral argument.
Seems rather similar morality wise to the argument that if you let certain financial institutions fail your economy will die.
Megan, this is undeniably true. Though I wish you had exercised the same clear-eyed logic when you criticized Israel for closing down its border with Gaza, on the grounds that it would "make them even madder".
Sorry if it seems like I was spamming. I thought I'd provide some comedic relief.
The problem with strawmen is you can't link to them.
Really, what is this a reference to? I have no clue.
I dunno, I'm rather supportive of the justice of such things, if not their efficacy. Just saying.
You mean, like those on the losing side of Proposition 8 in California? (except that they're not really rioting and killing people.....more like throwing temper tantrums.)
more like throwing temper tantrums.
Indeed, much like those awful civil rights people in the 1950s and 60s. What is it about democracy that those underlings not understand, anyway?
The part about voting.
So we should build more Army bases in Saudi Arabia and not worry about planes being flown into skyscrapers?
Just because it's immoral and unjust doesn't make it a bad idea.
That's true, Megan, but I do want to point out that there absolutely is a long historical precedent for large inequalities in material wealth and power resulting in severe civil unrest and violence. And it cuts across cultures, geography, and systems of government.
"Indeed, much like those awful civil rights people in the 1950s and 60s."
TR: They went into the churches of segregationists and threw stuff at them? Shot BB-guns at their windows? Protested because an election didn't go their way? Really?
This post of Megan's is kind of cryptic though, what is she referring to?
Is this why they are stalling on tearing down those illegal Israeli settlements?
Most confusing post ever. Is there a missing hyperlink or something?
A commenter at Yglesias's site makes a good point: try applying this logic to the American Revolution. "If you need to support your preferred political model with a threat that, unless we reduce the tax on tea..."
Yes, people will eventually resort to violence when they feel that they're being screwed and have no other recourse. This is universal. It does not prove that their cause is unjust.
The anti-redistribution side of this argument believes that in a capitalist society, wealth is mostly distributed based on merit. The wealthy deserve their wealth, so redistribution is "giving" money to the undeserving.
The pro-redistribution side believes that the structure of the economy and of society lets the wealthy benefit in excess of their actual contributions. Thus, to them, redistribution is not "theft" or "charity" but "justice" (similar to reducing excessive taxes).
You are assuming that redistribution is a form of charity, not justice. Maybe you see it that way, but its supporters do not. I tend to come down more on the anti-redistribution side, but you aren't going to get anywhere by thinking that your opponents share your factual assumptions.
I dunno, you ever heard of something called the French Revolution?
or for that matter the Boston Tea Party?
(aha, I see someone beat me to it with that reference.
a lot of major events have started with law-breaking behavior in response to an issue of taxation.
Jus sayin'
I, too, am among the confused, but that's not unusual here. But I do know that people who are hungry and have no hope often turn to rioting and killing. It happen, particularly, when income distribution gaps grow to wide, and those with live too much like the French Court, those without like French peasants.
In the American southwest, there's a myth, the story of the twins, out of the Hopi/Zuni/Pima traditions (it's more of a curse, really, the curse of the Corn Sisters) that explains it very well. If we're suffering the curse of the Corn Sisters, we'll suffer for hundreds of years, I fear. We'll suffer until we (meaning the haves, the rich Americans) learn to appreciate and share our blessings every day, instead of squandering and wasting our wealth, our "corn." We'll suffer until we learn that there aren't two Americas, there's only one. There aren't two world's, there's only one.
It's true that arguing for e.g., a tax to fund redistributive payments in order to avoid riots is not an argument of justice. That's because it's meant to appeal to people who don't find justice based arguments for the same policy persuasive.
Also, moral worthiness of recipients?
That is not a strawman she is constructing. I encounter that argument in almost every thread that discusses progressive taxation and income redistribution.
Rudyard Kipling said it very well.
It isn't charity if it is extracted at the point of a gun. If the government points the gun it isn't even Robin Hood. He, after all, took his chances.
Worst of all, the government program established during the emergency won't go away. Those in charge of it will ensure that the emergency is permanent.
I guess I understand what she's talking about, but a link to somebody actually saying this would be nice.
Sure, but deontological arguments arent the only kind of arguments that are useful in policy debates. Consequentialist arguments (e.g. if we don't do this, the peasants will riot, and we need to take that into account when making our decision) are also useful to consider.
Fortunately the real Americans will see through this act and send The Redistributor back to the Senate on November 4.
Unfortunately, you can exactly reverse the statement and have it make as much sense:
If you need to support your preferred wealth distribution model with a threat that, if we ask them to make a fair contribution, the beneficiaries of generations of peace kept by the sacrifice of rich and poor alike, and of infrastructure and knowledge built by rich and poor alike will withhold their talents and the treasure entrusted to them, and destroy an economy already in crisis, you are not making a good case for the moral worthiness of the recipients, or the justice of your scheme. Just saying.
I like it. It's a new departure for Megan, a sort of cranky libertarian aphoristic non sequitur style. It sounds like the kind of insight that's sitting in your brain immediately after you wake up from a complicated dream.
If you need to support your preferred wealth distribution model with a threat...
You mean like a 2 x 4??
John Spragge, you said:
If you need to support your preferred wealth distribution model with a threat that, if we ask them to make a fair contribution, the beneficiaries of generations of peace kept by the sacrifice of rich and poor alike, and of infrastructure and knowledge built by rich and poor alike will withhold their talents and the treasure entrusted to them, and destroy an economy already in crisis, you are not making a good case for the moral worthiness of the recipients, or the justice of your scheme. Just saying.
This is just silly on a number of counts.
First, you are confusing omission with commission. Withholding or reducing ones effort is not the same as shooting someone and burning their house. In order for your analogy to properly hold it would have to read more like:
f you need to support your preferred wealth distribution model with a threat that, if we ask them to make a fair contribution, the beneficiaries of generations of peace kept by the sacrifice of rich and poor alike, and of infrastructure and knowledge built by rich and poor alike willstart shooting poor people and burning their houses...
Because that's the equivalent to Megan's argument. I think we'd all agree it's pretty immoral to suggest that one lower taxes to prevent the rich from killing off the poor who receive the transfer payments.
Second your phrase the beneficiaries of generations of peace kept by the sacrifice of rich and poor alike is hysterical. Are you *really* arguing that it's a sacrifice to not shoot people and burn down their house? Are you really arguing that peaceful behavior is a sacrifice? Is there some natural right to violence against others I missed going by?
Third your phrase and of infrastructure and knowledge built by rich and poor alike is generally equally silly. It's like the senior citizens who believe they deserve ever increasing benefits because 'we built this country'. Yes, you did, thank you, and you were *paid* for your effort in doing so already. Same for the rich and poor alike who built the 'infrastructure and knowledge', they were already paid. I suppose you could argue that the poor where in some fashion coerced into contributing their part, but I've seen no such argument with real meat on it.
Fourth (and I apologize, because this is really just a revisiting argument one with greater specificity) you imply that those threatening to go John Galt are threatening to destroy an economy already in crisis. If I understand you correctly, someone's unwillingness to build me a house is now morally equivalent to burning down my house? If they are unwilling to feed me that is equivalent to stealing my food by force? When did refusing to give become taking exactly? Implicit in your statement is that those people threatening to go John Galt actually *are* the ones building and sustaining the economy... if that's so, why exactly don't they have a right to direct the fruits of their labor again?
Members of a certain religion routinely threaten to riot and kill if they don't get their way. The weak respond to threats like that with capitulation disguised as 'negotiation.' Look at the stories virtually calling for riots if Obama was not elected. Its called: Terrorism. And its in play at every turn now.
Look at the stories virtually calling for riots if Obama was not elected. Its called: Terrorism. And its in play at every turn now.
That's a pretty serious accusation. How about backing that up with some linkable examples, wingy.
Quadrupole,
I was gearing up for a response to John Spragge's ludicrous comment, but I scrolled down and found that you had already written an excellent response. Thank you.
I'm not surprised by his characterization of even higher taxes by the benign phrase "ask them to make a fair contribution". Advocates of ever-higher taxation often call this "a fair contribution", as opposed to a government exaction. But I am surprised by lefties equating a situation where one group steals and riots to take from another group with a situation where the second group stops its work, resulting in less tax money being redistributed to the other group.
Hear hear!!!!
There is nothing so bad about the modern U.S. that makes rioting & killing legitimate. When people raise the "you have to or the poor will riot" argument, they are implying that it really is that bad in the present-day U.S.
Sorry, but it is not that bad. I am unhappy with many of the public policies that have been imposed upon me, but tearing apart the fabric of a mostly fair (relative to human history) society is not legitimate.
larry
Thanks for reminding me about the making a fair contribution bit. I already *make* a fair contribution for things I consume in the free market. So does everyone else who is spending money they earned.
As for making a 'fair contribution' for government services... I have no problem with making a 'fair contribution' for the services I use.
I use roads, which are paid for via the gas tax. I don't mind that at all.
I use police and fire protection that are paid for via local property taxes. I don't mind that at all.
I don't use schools... but I'll spot you those, which are also paid for by local property taxes.
I guess that's a big part of the root of my resentment about federal income taxes... almost all of the services I get from government come from my local (or state) government... all I get from Uncle Sam is a tax bill :(
We already have a wealth redistribution model that favors some groups over others. It exists in many places within the economy and in many degrees. For example, why does a real estate capital gain on raw land get taxed at the capital gains rate when the owner added no value to the property but is simply the recipient of a gift created by others? Why does a real estate developer get the right to depreciate a building over a 25 year period (when the true life of the building may be 100 years or more) and why does he/she not have to pay capital gains on sales when a new property is purchased coincidentally after having paid no taxes on income (due to the depreciation) and none on capital gains?
Why is it that Buffet's famous secretary pays a higher percentage of her income to the government than the richest guy in the world? Megan do you really believe that what you earn is entirely due to your own efforts? Don't you believe that society has played some role in your success/failure?
Joberg
Again with the failure to understand the difference between taking and not giving. When I don't take $100 from you at the barrel of a gun, I am not giving you $100. In the same way, when the government fails to tax $100 away from me they are not giving me $100.
This is hilarious. It's like watching two math majors discuss Finnegan's Wake.
quadupole. I get it....You don't like taxation. But the fact is, we do have taxation. What I'm talking about is fairness in taxation, not whether or not we should be taxed. I think you must be intelligent enough to realize that that is what I was referring to. Your silly rejoinder only proves to show that you do not really think before your write.
Ed: Heavy accusation? Just the truth.
Sorry I won't spoon feed you links, its not my job.
Go do a search. You will find both sides raising the spectre
of riots, you will find stories detailing police departments preparing for "a rough election night" and more.
Perhaps if you paid more attention you would have more knowledge
That you would try to deny such talk existed is pathetic.
As is your little 'wingy' thing. LOL at that
Jorge
You clearly don't get it. Sure, I don't like taxes. But I'm resolved to the fact that we do have taxation, and that I should pay my fair share. What I strongly object to is two things:
1) Characterizing *any* reduction of the tax liability of *anyone* who is already paying a disproportionate share relative to the services they receive as if it's a welfare payment. It isn't.
2) I don't think it's reasonable to characterize as 'fair' requiring someone to pay many many times the cost of the government services they receive. Sit down and do the analysis of the cost of all the government services you receive from the income taxes you pay... it will shock you (because, among other things, you will find that almost none of the government services that benefit you actually are paid for by the federal income tax... they are almost all gas tax, sales tax, or property tax funded).
It just so happens that I dislike 1031 exchanges myself (I think they lead to artificial suboptimal allocation of investment).
As to depreciation... try and see how long a house lasts without any maintenance... I bet it doesn't make it 100 years (having seen houses forclosed on that have been neglected by banks for as little as one year... I bet they don't make it 10 years).