Cafe Hayek - Latest Comments in Markets to Americans Are Like Water to a Fish

Re: Markets to Americans Are Like Water to a Fish

Martin Brock — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 23:14:51 -0000

Of course it can. The only difference between your objective and mine is that you want a government that works to maximize utility and I want one that works to maximize liberty.

Maximizing liberty subject to what? When we "maximize" something, we accept a bit less of it than we might have in order to have a bit of something else. In the classically liberal tradition, the something else is property (propriety, what is proper), but "property" has never simply meant forcible possession in this tradition.

When children, wives and husbands were all "property", this usage of the word was not simply equivalent to modern use of "slave" (or modern "property"). Children are not slaves of their parents, more nearly the opposite. Children are their parents responsibility. Classical "property" implies that these people have duties toward one another, not that one owns the others exclusively. The historical uses of the word make this meaning clear.

The whole idea of accepting a bit less liberty so we can have a bit of liberty is simply circular logic. The classical rights of man are life, liberty and property, not life, liberty and liberty. So what is "property"? The answer cannot be "liberty". For Jefferson, it was "the pursuit of happiness", so he essentially was a utilitarian, though I've never seen evidence that Bentham influenced him.

So if we aren't free of any rules imposed on everyone regardless of their consent, then what are these rules and how do we justify them? That's the question, and dancing around it is not properly "libertarian". Dancing around it is the business of "Libertarian" politicians, people disingenuously promising "liberty" without cost.

What we have now, of course, is a government that works to maximize the revenue stream for the political class.

We do, but this statement still makes no sense of the idea that a minarchist state imposes a minimum of forcible rules, systematically limiting personal liberty, for the sake of "liberty". Limiting personal liberty for the sake of "liberty" is rhetorical nonsense, and classical liberalism is not nonsense.

What is property? What are our duties toward one another limiting our liberty to do as we please? You can't be a classical liberal without honestly confronting this question, and the answer cannot be "liberty".

Re: Markets to Americans Are Like Water to a Fish

dg lesvic — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 18:31:27 -0000

Do I detect a consensus here that this is all between Martin and Vid?

If so, could each of you, and any other participants in the disupute, summarize your positions in a few words?

And then I'll step in, tell you who's right and who's wrong, and we can all move on, dog orgs!

Re: Markets to Americans Are Like Water to a Fish

brotio — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 16:37:53 -0000

The beauty of the scroll wheel is that it scrolls pages up or down. It's very easy to scroll to the bottom of a post and see who the author is and either keep going (as I do for 90% of Mierduck's comments), or scroll back up and read the post. Those who dislike the banter between Vidyohs and Martin can scroll right past it, and those like me who are enjoying themselves can continue to do so.

Perhaps it would be easier if the comments could begin rather than end with the author.

Re: Markets to Americans Are Like Water to a Fish

Ray G — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 16:11:56 -0000

Martin and Vid should start their own website. . .

I promise we'll all come and visit every once in a while. Really.

Re: Markets to Americans Are Like Water to a Fish

Sam Grove — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 16:02:56 -0000

One way communication. That seems to be what's going on.

Re: Markets to Americans Are Like Water to a Fish

dg lesvic — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 15:18:27 -0000

Could somebody please tell me what the hell you people are all talking about?

Re: Markets to Americans Are Like Water to a Fish

Randy — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 14:12:49 -0000

P.S. Martin,

What we have now, of course, is a government that works to maximize the revenue stream for the political class. They talk of freedom and utility, but their actions speak louder than their words. The truth is that there has never in recorded history been a government that did anything other than work to maximize its revenue stream, and the odds are good that there never will be.

Re: Markets to Americans Are Like Water to a Fish

Randy — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 13:50:12 -0000

Martin,

The definition of "minimal coercion" cannot involve "liberty"...

Of course it can. The only difference between your objective and mine is that you want a government that works to maximize utility and I want one that works to maximize liberty.

Re: Markets to Americans Are Like Water to a Fish

Seth — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 13:38:55 -0000

Reminds me of seeing Brad Pitt bent on helping out people in poor African countries (while he was wooing Jolie) on a news magazine show a while back asking why America has streets to take us to the corner pharmacy that's filled with medical supplies and treatments for a wide array of conditions for a relatively low price while that stuff (including the streets) isn't available in poorer countries.

I was yelling at the TV, "It's the markets (i.e. freedom to enter into mutally beneficial trades, checks and balances in government, private property rights and human rights)!"

People who don't understand this remind me of someone who complains they can't read the words on the page, but won't bother to learn the alphabet.

Re: Markets to Americans Are Like Water to a Fish

Martin Brock — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 13:22:26 -0000

I'm not telling you anything about that. I'm just trying to alleviate the need you seem to feel to argue with vidyohs about it. There's little point to it.

There's little point in anything we say here, but vid says that Dwight told him that taxes providing his pension, and thus taxes generally, are voluntary, and vid himself says that taxes providing his pension are voluntary, and I say that he says it. The rest you need to discuss with him. I have no idea why you address me.

Re: Markets to Americans Are Like Water to a Fish

Martin Brock — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 13:07:20 -0000

Well said. I advocate minimal coercion...subject to a libertarian analysis of consequences.

The definition of "minimal coercion" cannot involve "liberty", because "liberty" precisely describes freedom subject to the minimal coercion. In the classically liberal context, "minimal coercion" is synonymous with "property", so the classically liberal maxim is "life, liberty and property" or "life and liberty within the bounds of propriety". It isn't "life and liberty within the bounds of liberty", because that's redundant and circular.

Re: Markets to Americans Are Like Water to a Fish

Sam Grove — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 12:37:41 -0000

Many taxpayers support taxation, and concurrently complain about the extent of it or the uses to which much of it is diverted.

I don't know how to call it the case of such.

I do hold that the redistributive state is fraudulent and extortionate in nature.

Sure, taxes may be said to be voluntary, much like handing your wallet over to a thug is voluntary. I had a postal employee tell me that "paying taxes is voluntary...you may have to go to jail...etc."

Are you telling me that this transfer is "voluntary" and thus is not "redistribution"?

I'm not telling you anything about that. I'm just trying to alleviate the need you seem to feel to argue with vidyohs about it. There's little point to it.

He calls things as suits him, I don't see any point in discussing that with him.

Let's just say that he is naturally as he is.

Re: Markets to Americans Are Like Water to a Fish

Randy — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 10:38:01 -0000

Martin,

"I advocate minimal coercion...subject to a utilitarian analysis of consequences."

Well said. I advocate minimal coercion...subject to a libertarian analysis of consequences.

Re: Markets to Americans Are Like Water to a Fish

Martin Brock — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 10:02:02 -0000

For the record, I say that the tax and spend policies of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA are not "voluntary". If I favor compelling your compliance with some standard, I'll certainly own up to it, but I'll also meaningfully declare that I advocate minimal coercion of this kind, subject to a utilitarian analysis of consequences. A self-serving pretense of opposition to force is not a morally superior position in my way of thinking. The "non-force" force of proprietarian politicians doesn't interest me, and neither do vid's "voluntary" taxes.

Re: Markets to Americans Are Like Water to a Fish

Martin Brock — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 09:51:54 -0000

That wasn't the point. A significant portion of the U.S. economy is involved in redistribution.

Vid and I are not discussing "a significant portion of the U.S. economy". This category is like "outrages against human dignity". It's very vague.

We're specifically discussing a transfer directly from taxpayers to the recipients of tax dollars via THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, i.e. state pension benefits. Are you telling me that this transfer is "voluntary" and thus is not "redistribution"?

Vidyohs' involvement with this interpretation is a separate matter from his personality.

I'm not the one using terms like "pompous pontificating humorless and clueless fool" and "piss ants on the kitchen counter", "weevils in the cornmeal", "cockroaches around a stove" and "flies around a dinner plate". If you want to damn attacks on "personalities", you've chosen the wrong comrade.

I say that, as a matter of fact, vid has called taxation "voluntary" and attributed this idea to "Dwight", because he has irrefutably and objectively done so. Review the record. Are you denying that he said it? All I want is a clear understanding of what "voluntary" and "redistribution" mean in this context.

Can we do anything about it?

We can acknowledge that it's happening. We can acknowledge the role we play in it ourselves. Beyond that, I'm not sure what many of us can do. I don't have a state pension to declare "voluntary", but I do have a child in college with two more close behind, so I can't easily imagine dropping out of the tax paying, corporatist economy and becoming a Thoreauvian tax protester, damn the consequences. Does that make me a "voluntary" participant in the corporative state? Are all of us paying taxes in the U.S. "voluntary" participants? Is that your position or not? A one word reply will do.

We have putative referees in this forum who occasionally speak up. I don't want any speech excluded, but a declaration of standard usage seems appropriate here. Are taxes levied by THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA "voluntary" or not? When Don and Russ discuss "redistribution", are they excluding the tax and spend policies of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA or not? It's a simple question and seems a fair one.

Re: Markets to Americans Are Like Water to a Fish

indianajim — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 07:54:43 -0000

"And let us ask whatever powers that be that we not risk any further meddling with this quiet source of our bounty.

Yes Don ask this, and even more let us ask the powers that be to reduce the risks to our bounty that have currently been created by all existing laws, regulations and taxes that reduce net social wealth. There are many such meddlings (as anyone who reads the Cafe Hayek regularly knows that Don attacks vigorously).

Kudos to Don and Russ too for their longstanding and ongoing efforts to expose the consequences of Smith's "invisible hand" to a largely economically illiterate public.

Re: Markets to Americans Are Like Water to a Fish

Sam Grove — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 07:54:12 -0000

Redistribution in the U.S. is a myth.

That wasn't the point. A significant portion of the U.S. economy is involved in redistribution.

The reasons it persists is the usual: ignorance and fear; products of systemic indoctrination.

Much of our experience isn't about facts, but about our interpretation of them.

Vidyohs has involved himself in a particular interpretation of the facts, an interpretation that some number have found some success with.

Vidyohs' involvement with this interpretation is a separate matter from his personality. He does tend to shoot from the hip, and he is satisfied enough with his discovery that he feels no need to comprehend the pertinence of your own revelation.

But then, you haven't had any more success with your presentation of your revelation than he has with his.

We may all be doomed, we may learned to understand the why and how, but the question remains: Can we do anything about it?

Re: Markets to Americans Are Like Water to a Fish

dg lesvic — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 03:21:39 -0000

And a little more modification.

I have no quarrel with the division of intellectual labors in economics, and specialization in particular corners of it.

The quarrel is with a whole community of scholars so immersed in a particular corner that the broader picture has been completely lost sight of.

This is an appeal not for everyone to be working on exactly the same things, but for balance and perspective, for specialties integrated within an overall program rather than substituting for it.

Re: Markets to Americans Are Like Water to a Fish

dg lesvic — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 03:01:39 -0000

Let me modify that last statement a bit.

It was not meant to be a slap at any discussion of the differences between Hayek and Kirzner. There should be a place for them as well. But when it is to the exclusion of much broader concerns, they are no longer a contribution to economics but a refuge from it.

Re: Markets to Americans Are Like Water to a Fish

vidyohs — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 02:56:46 -0000

martin,

I have that hot date today, leaving soon. So, I'll make this quick.

You either can not or will not read what is written and stay with it.

Sam is basically correct except I really do not want to hijack the good professors blog. If you or someone else hijacks it, then I am happy to put in my 120.01 cents worth. If I spur someone to think, great; if I spur you to argue, twist, and dodge then I can deal with that too.

Re: Markets to Americans Are Like Water to a Fish

dg lesvic — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 02:33:28 -0000

One final thanks, on this thanksgiving day, if it isn't too late for it.

For Austrrian School economists more concerned with the differences between Hayek and Krugman than Hayek and Kirzner.

And, yes, that is a slap at that other blog.

Re: Markets to Americans Are Like Water to a Fish

Randy — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 01:55:45 -0000

It is a moral dilemma. How to deal personally with the state's intrusion on our lives.

Is taxation theft? Yes, of course it is. Afterall, even the supporters of taxation know that no one would pay if they weren't forced to pay. They rationalize it because they want it to continue - not because they are unaware of its nature. But the state steals so much that the word theft is no longer applicable - literally, it cannot be applied. There is no way to separate the moral from the immoral, the thieves from the victims of theft, because it is not possible to avoid being a part of it. We pay whether we like it or not. And because we pay so much we are made dependents whether we like it or not.

So on second thought, there is no moral dilemma. There is only rationalization. The state rationalizes its actions and I rationalize my reactions. Is this moral? Of course it is - survival is moral.

Re: Markets to Americans Are Like Water to a Fish

euraussian — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 00:13:36 -0000

I've always been rather cheerless taxpayer and in general my contribution to the common purse felt dsiproportionate to the public (and state-supplied private) goods That i got to consume. Nevertheless it would be interesting to have a more mature discussion of the problems associated with government, even if we all agree that government intervention tends to need strict budget constraints.

Re: Markets to Americans Are Like Water to a Fish

Martin Brock — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 23:34:37 -0000

Don, Thanksgiving is over, and having joined vid and Sam for the moment, I must dispute the misguided sentiments in your post. Redistribution in the U.S. is a myth. It doesn't exist. Any socialism (fascism if we prefer) here is not an interference with the market. It is the market. Please don't bother us further with your obsessive whining about the people's perfectly voluntary organization of themselves.

Re: Markets to Americans Are Like Water to a Fish

Martin Brock — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 23:16:21 -0000

You are a coerced taxpayer, martin.

No, according to you, no U.S. taxpayer is coerced. Since we choose to work for employers withholding income and FICA taxes and don't work entirely in the underground economy, our taxes are voluntary, there is no "redistribution", and Obama's spreading around of the wealth is just fine, Thoreau's night in jail notwithstanding.

We're all perfectly voluntary socialists (fascists if we prefer) in the U.S. dg lesvic and the rest moaning about "redistribution" are simply confused. Anyone receiving our taxes is perfectly entitled to them even by Rothbard's reckoning, in your way of thinking ... possibly except for the gasoline tax and other taxes, which I suppose you still pay. Maybe those taxes are voluntary too. I'm not sure.

I understand you, and I've conceded the mistake, just as you wanted.

I suppose Don and Russ do not use "voluntary" and "redistribution" similarly in their posts, so I suppose your comments in this forum are comprehensible only to persons familiar with this peculiar usage of yours. Glad I could help out with that.