Cafe Hayek - Latest Comments in The Declaration of Dependence

Re: The Declaration of Dependence

Mezzanine — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:37:07 -0000

That's the question, isn't it. Personally, I'm not so easily frightened. And I'm pretty sure that good neighbors with well stocked gun cabinets and a few feet of rope would solve most of the problems you mentions at far lower cost.

Posted by: Randy | Jan 23, 2009 1:57:18 PM

There is a difference between active patrolling of the streets and a defensive posture inside one's neighborhood when the guns are locked away. You don't always have time to:

a) recognize the threat

b) retrieve weapons and be effective

That's why we have police patrolling in good neighborhoods, because perps are always on the offensive.

Re: The Declaration of Dependence

Randy — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:16:58 -0000

John Dewey,

"That has already been decided long ago."

So what? For centuries the princes of Moscow paid tribute to the Mongols. History isn't over.

Re: The Declaration of Dependence

John Dewey — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:03:49 -0000

Randy: "All I'm saying is that if they want it they can pay for it."

Paying taxes is not voluntary in this nation under this constitution. Never has been. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense"

You can argue all you wish about what is meant by "provide for the common defense". That has already been decided long ago.

Re: The Declaration of Dependence

Randy — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 11:36:50 -0000

Martin,

"Can't someone belong to both classes at the same time?"

Yes, it would be possible, even ideal, for the political class to be productive, its just that they can't prove that what they do has value while they are using force to collect the revenue. In fact, the use of force is strong evidence that what they do has no value.

"Doesn't practically everyone belong to both?"

In our highly politicized world, its hard not to engage in political behavior on occasion, but productive or political behavior is still a moral choice.

"...we simply find every entitlement labeled "productive".

To the productive class, an entitlement is earned by fullfillment of the terms of an agreement. That is, a real agreement - not some bullshit social contract.

"is a mother "productive" insofar as she raises a productive child?"

Yes. And even if she raises an unproductive child. She is producing something of value - even though it is not necessarily a value for which she will be compensated.

"Is government coercion protecting a yield of her productivity legitimate?"

Sorry, not following. Do you mean is it legitimate for the government to protect the child from parental exploitation? Or do you mean is it legitimate for the government to exploit the child?

"If you say "no", aren't you just another politician constructing entitlements to exploit the productive class?"

Assuming you mean the latter above, no, because neither the government nor the parents have a right to exploit the child. Certainly there are moral codes (propaganda) that preach otherwise, but there are moral codes (propaganda) that preach the validity of all kinds of exploitation.

Re: The Declaration of Dependence

John Dewey — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 11:30:12 -0000

sam grove: "Gangs usually exist due to enforcement of certain laws, such as in the case of drug prohibition."

I disagree:

"Historians know that gangs have been part of civic life at least since the Roman Empire when the capital city was often racked by violence between groups of mostly poor citizens fighting for turf, food or in support of political factions within the Senate."

Gangs date to the Roman Empire

"The word thug dates back to India in the year 1200 AD and it refers to a gang of criminals (Thugz) that roamed the country pillaging towns in their course. These Thugz had their own symbols, hand signs, rituals and slang."

Natural Gang History

PAOLO VACCARELLI (aka Paul Kelly) formed the Five Points Gang in Manhattan long before alcohol and drug prohibition laws.

The Monk Eastman Gang, composed of low income Jews, was likewise formed before such laws.

You may wish to argue that all of these gangs resulted from governmental restrictions on their "liberty". Fine. But please know that the criminal mind has a very different definition of the word "liberty" than you have.

Please do not be naive, Sam, about the tendency of humans to ignore the rights of property and rights of life of other humans.

Re: The Declaration of Dependence

John Dewey — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 11:09:43 -0000

sam grove: "2. Serial killers are exceedingly rare, but quite newsworthy."

Victims of serial killers are quite rare precisely because we have law enforcement professionals who remove those serial killers.

Re: The Declaration of Dependence

John Dewey — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 11:08:06 -0000

sam grove: ""terrorists" Please, terrorism is always a response to some government policy"

Please! back at you.

We rarely disagree, Sam. But I think you're not being practical in this case.

In the 19th century North American fronteir, and in countless parts of the globe before, civilized peoples were terrorized. Perhaps the Native Americans had cause for the lives they took and the property they destroyed. Perhaps their actions were in response to some government policy. Regardless, their actions clearly meet the definition of "terrorism". Settlers on the fronteir gladly engaged the services of law enforcement to reduce the threat of such terrorism.

Re: The Declaration of Dependence

Martin Brock — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 10:42:35 -0000

Randy,

The political class exists only because the productive class exists.

So what is the boundary between the political class and the productive class? How do I know who belongs to which class? Can't someone belong to both classes at the same time? Doesn't practically everyone belong to both?

Government coercion is legitimate to the extent that it is a method of production - to defend the productive class.

In this formulation of the "proper role of government", we simply find every entitlement labeled "productive".

Government coercion is illegitimate to the extent that it exploits the productive class.

So is a mother "productive" insofar as she raises a productive child? Is government coercion protecting a yield of her productivity legitimate? If you say "no", aren't you just another politician constructing entitlements to exploit the productive class?

Re: The Declaration of Dependence

Sam Grove — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 09:54:41 -0000

Are you certain your life and your health are not being protected by police and military? If police had not reduced the threat of serial killers, drunk drivers, terrorists, gangs, sexual predators, and bullies, can you be certain your life would be unchanged?

1. The police also enforce laws that limit our ability to protect ourselves.

2. Serial killers are exceedingly rare, but quite newsworthy. also, see #1

3. Gangs usually exist due to enforcement of certain laws, such as in the case of drug prohibition.

4. "terrorists" Please, terrorism is always a response to some government policy; in our case, bases in other countries and covert actions such as the CIA prompted installation of the hugely unpopular Shah of Iran.

etc.

Re: The Declaration of Dependence

Randy — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 09:53:56 -0000

John Dewey,

I have no problem with taking up a voluntary collection and hiring a marshall and a few deputies. I might or might not contribute. It would be a cost/benefit analysis. I don't personally have a whole lot to protect, and nothing that an insurance policy wouldn't cover. And if we had to hunt down some scoundrel I could sign up for the posse. I don't shoot as straight as I used to, but I can still hit center of mass.

"I'm confident you will find very little support among U.S. citizens..."

I'm sure you're right about that. After a century or so of progressive propaganda to create a culture of dependency, not a whole lot of rugged individualist sentiment remains. All I'm saying is that if they want it they can pay for it.

Re: The Declaration of Dependence

Jesse Rouse — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 09:52:02 -0000

Randy,

I agree with you completely. I was trying to reason with Trumpit(which is a dumb idea) that making "the rich" pay for everything is bad idea if he wants everyone to pay their "fair share". However, I should have been more specific. In my last paragraph I was trying to show how subsidizing and taxing externalities often goes too far. I think it is important to sometimes strive for marginal victories in arguing our points (even though it will never happen with the trolls on this board).

Re: The Declaration of Dependence

John Dewey — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 09:37:20 -0000

Randy: "I'm pretty sure that good neighbors with well stocked gun cabinets and a few feet of rope would solve most of the problems you mentions at far lower cost."

Perhaps you are sure of that. I am not willing to entrust the safety of my family to untrained neighborhood watches and vigilantes.

The good citizens of Texas possessed firearms and rope when they settled here in the early 19th century. Based on what I've read, I'd say they were as independent as any population anywhere. Yet they quickly agreed to pay for law enforcement protection after settling here.

I'm confident you will find very little support among U.S. citizens for your position that publicly-funded law enforcement is not needed.

Re: The Declaration of Dependence

Randy — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 08:57:18 -0000

John Dewey,

"Are you certain..."

Re: The Declaration of Dependence

Lee Kelly — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 08:29:51 -0000

Let us be thankful that government does not work, because if it did none of us would have any freedom at all.

Re: The Declaration of Dependence

John Dewey — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 07:38:22 -0000

Quotes from U.S. Presidents who seemed to get it:

George Washington: “Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

Thomas Jefferson: “"That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves"

James Madison: “"The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted."

Woodrow Wilson: “The history of liberty is a history of the limitation of governmental power, not the increase of it."

John Kennedy: “"And so, my fellow americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.”

Ronald Reagan, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.’”

Ronald Reagan: “No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!”

Bill Clinton, January 27, 1996: “The era of big government is over”

And the quote from our current president, who has almost zero experience:

Barack Obama: “"The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works"

God help us.

Re: The Declaration of Dependence

John Dewey — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 07:35:47 -0000

Randy,

Re: The Declaration of Dependence

Randy — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 06:58:53 -0000

Jesse Rouse,

"Say I'm super wealthy and have my own private police force. Shouldn't I not have to pay taxes for police any more??"

No, you shouldn't. And the other end of the spectrum applies as well. If I had a choice, I wouldn't pay for police protection from the government. Because they don't protect me. What protects me is that I don't have much to protect, and that I have insurance on the few things that might be worth stealing. In fact, the only people who actually do steal from me are the very people I'm forced to pay the protection money to.

"Shouldn't I (or the government through a transfer) be able to tax my free riding neighbors??"

The idea of a free rider problem is propaganda. The whole point of political activity is to exploit, that is, to create a selective group of free riders. The idea of the political class saying they do what they do to avoid free riders is sublimely absurd.

Re: The Declaration of Dependence

Jesse Rouse — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 05:36:39 -0000

sTrUmPiT wrote:

"To think that the rich are protected by the police who don't make a particularly good salary and risk their lives every day is absurd. To think that their enormous quantity of property is protected by a miltary whose members make a junky salary and may lose a limb or worse is outrageous."

Shouldn't the rich only have to pay their "fair share" ie the same proportional amount of wealth as everyone else. If I $40,000 in property, someone else has $10,000,000, and the cost of defense and police is 10% of GDP. I should pay $4,000 and he should pay $1,000,000. But you argue for a progressive tax where it really should be proportional.

But should it be proportional, could it be regressive? I doubt the I value my life proportionally less than a wealthy person values his life. No one wants to be killed, invaded, raped, or enslaved. So let's say every life is worth the same amount (which I assume is something you agree with.) If a life is worth $10,000,000 then the rich person (10+10=20 million) should only pay about twice as much for police and defense as me (10 mil + 40k = ~10mil.)

One step farther. Say I'm super wealthy and have my own private police force. Shouldn't I not have to pay taxes for police any more?? What if I have my own missile defense system. Shouldn't I (or the government through a transfer) be able to tax my free riding neighbors??

Re: The Declaration of Dependence

geoih — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 03:32:20 -0000

Quote from Mezzanine: "Maybe it's just me, but honestly I wish the trolls be gone so that he rest of us could discuss the finer point of Hayekian economics. With them here, our entire focus gets diverted to their nonsense."

I guess it depends on what you really want from this blog. Is it to be an echo chamber or preaching to the choir, or a principled discussion of different points of view based on facts with logical reasoning? I think I would be more interested in the latter.

Unfortunately, I agree that several posters seem quite incapable of doing anything more than spout political rhetoric and attacks wholey supported by opinion and anecdote.

While I think discussions with these people is a waste of time (you can't defeat emotion and feeling with logic and reason), I think its illustrative of the long road ahead and the tremendous obstacles that are in the way.

Re: The Declaration of Dependence

michaelsmith — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 02:54:54 -0000

Trumpit asserts:

I have no problem with small government if that is what the people want. I just want the rich to pay for it no matter what size it is.

And what will you do after you've looted the rich of all their earnings or after they've fled to another country where looters such as you can't get to them? What's your economic game plan for the day after the rich are no longer around?

Re: The Declaration of Dependence

Randy — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 02:29:47 -0000

Oh Hio,

"To claim that capitalism exists free of coercion is untrue..."

I disagree (changing the terms on you, but the concept follows). The political class exists only because the productive class exists. Without production there is nothing to steal and nothing to defend. Government coercion is legitimate to the extent that it is a method of production - to defend the productive class. Government coercion is illegitimate to the extent that it exploits the productive class. To this definition, the form of government is irrelevent. A Democracy that exploits the productive is no different than a tyranny that exploits the productive.

Re: The Declaration of Dependence

Randy — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 02:02:25 -0000

Mezzanine,

I'm with dg lesvic on this one. I think the "finer detail" posts are awesome too, but I've noticed that the trolls don't hit those as hard. What really brings them out is when Don or Russ post anything approaching an expression of freedom or individualism. It brings them out because they have been subjected to intense propaganda by a political class that is threatened by any true expression of freedom or individualism. The enemy is the propaganda and the propagandists - and if you think that these will be swayed from their objective by truth and reason, then you don't understand their nature. I say fight fire with fire.

Re: The Declaration of Dependence

dg lesvic — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 00:44:39 -0000

Mezzanine,

Since our fight is not with Hayek's finer points but with the nonsense of which you speak, it is not the nonsense but those finer points that are the diversion.

Re: The Declaration of Dependence

Mezzanine — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 22:58:40 -0000

Maybe it's just me, but honestly I wish the trolls be gone so that he rest of us could discuss the finer point of Hayekian economics. With them here, our entire focus gets diverted to their nonsense. If anyone agrees, please say so!

Re: The Declaration of Dependence

dg lesvic — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 22:23:43 -0000

First, Trumpet,

To put it simply, you want to take from the rich to give to the poor, presumably to make the poor richer.

But that won't make them richer; it will make them poorer.

Ohio,

You wrote:

"...I believe that governments should reduce as much as possible the amount of coercion they carry out..."

Does that include "coercion" against our "terrorist" enemies and other criminals?

If so, by how much do you think our "government" ought to reduce the amount of "coercion" it carries out against our deadly enemies?

Are the "coercion" that a criminal exerts upon you and that which you exert upon him in self-defense fundamentally the same act; are they both crimes, for which you should both go to jail?

If not, if they are fundamentally different, why confuse them, why use the same term for both?