A thought experiment for Libertarians

[stevea]

I would be curious to know who these people are. To the best of my knowledge the only people who are net tax recipients are those either on SSL or Social Security.

Nonsense - ppl recieve all sorts of benefits - ADC, and SNAP(food stamps) that exceed their tax burden.

Here:
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2012/07/progressivity-of-taxes-and-transfers.html
GO back and examine the CBO figures link as well.

Where does this magical place exist? I pay sales tax when I make a purchase, taxes when I pay my phone bill, taxes when I pay my utility bill, property taxes, and license plate taxes. There are taxes for gasoline, taxes for airline tickets, and taxes for hotel rooms. For any job that you work, you pay payroll taxes.

My statement should have said "NET taxes". Welcome to the "top" 50%. Now you are "the man"., the evil greedy person who doesn't need their money, according to the mob. Fees are not literally taxes - but no great matter.

Who isn't paying taxes?

A shockingly high percentage of the adult population pays no NET taxes.

Now, if your argument is so silly that you are only counting Federal Income Taxes then you would have to explain why the largest corporations in the US pay no taxes.

It would NOT be silly to only consider only Federal taxes for the purpose of exposing a massive transfer of payments schema.

However, the CBO/Mankiw figure INCLUDES state & local taxes. But if you want to get into details then we should exclude payrole tax since you are basically paying into your own medical & retirement system (by force).

Non-sequiteur; This discussion is in no way related to corporate taxes.

 

[balrog666]

I stated that no (meaning "almost no") libertarians think that a government mandated retirement system like Social Security or a health system like ACA is a valid function of government. The primary objection is that the action of government is definitionally force, and this force is applied in an act of aggression (to make you do things that you prefer not to do). That's generally objectionable.

I think many of the non-anarcho-cap libertarians would accept the notion of public criminal courts and perhaps police, and a defensive military, and taxing for these sorts of common good features is perhaps the upper bound intrusiveness that should be accepted. This relates to the US Constutional issue of "general welfare". The term means activities that benefit all similarly (not necessarily equally), as opposed to activities that benefit individuals or select groups. So draining the swamp to eliminate malaria mosquitos is a general good. Treating the group that has already contracted malaria is a specific benefit, not general. Improving roads benefit even those who never travel - a general good; subsidizing fuel ethanol production and not say clean coal or others is not a general good.



It doesn't matter at all whether it benefits me or not. The government takes my money by taxation(force) and then uses the money for things that I don't choose. Who gives then the right ? Where does this government get the right to interfere with my property and my choices ? It's a violation of the social contract.

Consider social security taxes. The do-gooders BELEIVE that's in my best interest. But say I could use my own money to start/expand a business or further my education and therefore be more productive and not need this socialistic system ? Or say I use the money to buy jelly donuts and a bigger screen TV - and then I can act as a object lessor for others of how not to live. Or say I know that my family history or chronic diseases mean that I am unlikely to ever collect social security.

Applying a one-size-fits-all policy by force necessarily creates lower economic efficiency than 300million ppl making their own choices. I have no objection at all to someone creating a PRIVATE social-security type system, and I might even pay the dues to join myself, but it's truly obnoxious for others to dictate how I must live when I am not causing any harm. They aggress against me without cause.


I'm in favor of personal charity which is a transfer of weath to those who didn't earn it.
But "deserve" is a weasel-word you'll need to define carefully before I'll address that.



Economically it IS provable inefficient (a losing value proposition); that's not even a serious question.

I'm not suggestion you are going there but a lot of Lib/Progressives who can't offer a serious economic counter-argument spew a form of denigration/ad-hom fallacy along the lines "anyone who doesn't agree with my redistributionist idea wants to kick the crutch out from Tiny Tim". No it's not "adapt or die", except within the limited domain of economic competition where we should all rationally want efficient markets and efficient use of resources.


The libertarian objection is that schemes like social security or ACA is an application of government FORCE as they expropriate personal property for ends that are not the preference of the individual (violates the non-aggression principle). The Constitutional objections are that these programs are not in the "general good" but designed toward the specific good; perhaps others.

The economic objections are manifold. / Any "central planning" program is necessarily inefficient for several reasons; the unified plan&policy can't apply well to the needs of a diverse population. Further the diverse population does not have a single unified "goal" wrt health or retirement. Few people are getting what they prefer; and few people prefer what they get. / For some reason that isn't exactly clear (probably relates to the size of the nation, the diverse population and therefore lack of altruism across groups), the US government programs generally have very high overhead and losses to fraud, abuse and waste. / Because the government is involved crony capitalism often results. We can easily see this in DoD companies, but it applies to insurers and health care & service providers as well. / Because this is US government there is little financial responsibility in the programs. Social Security pays out more than is actuarial sound. No private insurer - not even a charitable non-profit with donated overhead could run social security as it is currently run (the SS tax is too low), BUT no politician is willing to correct this massive flaw. IOW the fiscal decisions are based on politics and pandering to voters or donors - not rational consideration.

The impact of any redistribution program (and that includes SS & ACA) is to reduce the marginal advantage of working&producing. So on the edges some ppl are induced to retire or take disability rather than work, or to work less to qualify for ACA subsidies.

---

My moral objections are also manifold.

These plans are forced on me despite my will and preferences. It's slavery to take the product of my work for ends that I don't prefer.

These plans are an imposition on individual choice by creating terrible motivations to interfere in the lives of others. Let's say the government experts declare that saturated fats and excess salt in your diet are bad (as they did). The existence of a central health system should cause central planners to want to reduce systemic costs by imposing taxes (or other forms of force) against consumption saturate fats and salt. However recent finding (see the "Cochare Review" for details) show that saturated fats and salt aren't bad as previously thought. We are all forced into acceding to the decisions of a central planner - even if we disagree, even if we prefer otherwise, even if these decisions ultimately harm us. It's a massive inducement for totalitarian thinking and losses of personal liberty.

I suggest you examine the war on fatties that the Left is 'genning up. It's become an afterthought in news articles to include words about how much extra HC is needed by the obese. If people want to over-eat of be obese - it's their personal choice and business. At least it should be their personal business, except that we are forced into a public health scheme that we all pay for - thus creating a motive to tell others how to live (which I find obnoxious).

This sort of tyranny of the majority government now extends into the most intimate parts of life - where government has no valid business.

Nicely said.

 

[psionl0]

Nicely said.

Of course, everybody says, "the government is too intrusive in my life" but few care about what the government does to anybody else.

Other than that, the main sentiment seems to be, "we should just let the poor, sick and needy die of starvation because it is cheaper than buying bullets".

 

[Beelzebuddy]

I stated that no (meaning "almost no") libertarians think that a government mandated retirement system like Social Security or a health system like ACA is a valid function of government. The primary objection is that the action of government is definitionally force, and this force is applied in an act of aggression (to make you do things that you prefer not to do). That's generally objectionable.

I think many of the non-anarcho-cap libertarians would accept the notion of public criminal courts and perhaps police, and a defensive military, and taxing for these sorts of common good features is perhaps the upper bound intrusiveness that should be accepted. This relates to the US Constutional issue of "general welfare". The term means activities that benefit all similarly (not necessarily equally), as opposed to activities that benefit individuals or select groups. So draining the swamp to eliminate malaria mosquitos is a general good. Treating the group that has already contracted malaria is a specific benefit, not general. Improving roads benefit even those who never travel - a general good; subsidizing fuel ethanol production and not say clean coal or others is not a general good.



It doesn't matter at all whether it benefits me or not. The government takes my money by taxation(force) and then uses the money for things that I don't choose. Who gives then the right ? Where does this government get the right to interfere with my property and my choices ? It's a violation of the social contract.

Consider social security taxes. The do-gooders BELEIVE that's in my best interest. But say I could use my own money to start/expand a business or further my education and therefore be more productive and not need this socialistic system ? Or say I use the money to buy jelly donuts and a bigger screen TV - and then I can act as a object lessor for others of how not to live. Or say I know that my family history or chronic diseases mean that I am unlikely to ever collect social security.

Applying a one-size-fits-all policy by force necessarily creates lower economic efficiency than 300million ppl making their own choices. I have no objection at all to someone creating a PRIVATE social-security type system, and I might even pay the dues to join myself, but it's truly obnoxious for others to dictate how I must live when I am not causing any harm. They aggress against me without cause.


I'm in favor of personal charity which is a transfer of weath to those who didn't earn it.
But "deserve" is a weasel-word you'll need to define carefully before I'll address that.



Economically it IS provable inefficient (a losing value proposition); that's not even a serious question.

I'm not suggestion you are going there but a lot of Lib/Progressives who can't offer a serious economic counter-argument spew a form of denigration/ad-hom fallacy along the lines "anyone who doesn't agree with my redistributionist idea wants to kick the crutch out from Tiny Tim". No it's not "adapt or die", except within the limited domain of economic competition where we should all rationally want efficient markets and efficient use of resources.


The libertarian objection is that schemes like social security or ACA is an application of government FORCE as they expropriate personal property for ends that are not the preference of the individual (violates the non-aggression principle). The Constitutional objections are that these programs are not in the "general good" but designed toward the specific good; perhaps others.

The economic objections are manifold. / Any "central planning" program is necessarily inefficient for several reasons; the unified plan&policy can't apply well to the needs of a diverse population. Further the diverse population does not have a single unified "goal" wrt health or retirement. Few people are getting what they prefer; and few people prefer what they get. / For some reason that isn't exactly clear (probably relates to the size of the nation, the diverse population and therefore lack of altruism across groups), the US government programs generally have very high overhead and losses to fraud, abuse and waste. / Because the government is involved crony capitalism often results. We can easily see this in DoD companies, but it applies to insurers and health care & service providers as well. / Because this is US government there is little financial responsibility in the programs. Social Security pays out more than is actuarial sound. No private insurer - not even a charitable non-profit with donated overhead could run social security as it is currently run (the SS tax is too low), BUT no politician is willing to correct this massive flaw. IOW the fiscal decisions are based on politics and pandering to voters or donors - not rational consideration.

The impact of any redistribution program (and that includes SS & ACA) is to reduce the marginal advantage of working&producing. So on the edges some ppl are induced to retire or take disability rather than work, or to work less to qualify for ACA subsidies.

---

My moral objections are also manifold.

These plans are forced on me despite my will and preferences. It's slavery to take the product of my work for ends that I don't prefer.

These plans are an imposition on individual choice by creating terrible motivations to interfere in the lives of others. Let's say the government experts declare that saturated fats and excess salt in your diet are bad (as they did). The existence of a central health system should cause central planners to want to reduce systemic costs by imposing taxes (or other forms of force) against consumption saturate fats and salt. However recent finding (see the "Cochare Review" for details) show that saturated fats and salt aren't bad as previously thought. We are all forced into acceding to the decisions of a central planner - even if we disagree, even if we prefer otherwise, even if these decisions ultimately harm us. It's a massive inducement for totalitarian thinking and losses of personal liberty.

I suggest you examine the war on fatties that the Left is 'genning up. It's become an afterthought in news articles to include words about how much extra HC is needed by the obese. If people want to over-eat of be obese - it's their personal choice and business. At least it should be their personal business, except that we are forced into a public health scheme that we all pay for - thus creating a motive to tell others how to live (which I find obnoxious).

This sort of tyranny of the majority government now extends into the most intimate parts of life - where government has no valid business.

This is an interesting perspective, thank you for it, although I see a few contradictions in your logic.

Critically, I don't think that the issue of "general" vs "specific" benefits, as you've defined them here, is clear enough to adequately distinguish between the two in determining which actions which should be permissible. Any action, no matter how general, will still be applied to specific indviduals, and no matter how specific, will still have general ramifications. To invert your examples: if you do not live near the swamp, or if you earn your living from the swamp, you do not benefit "similarly" from its draining. And the entire economy benefits "similarly" from treatment of the affected population, who are now able to positively contribute instead of dying off.

Without an adequate distinction between the terms, your post boils down to my first suggestion: you are upset that money is being taken from you and put toward something that does not directly benefit you. If you benefit from it, it's a "general" benefit, and the use of government coercion is justified. If you don't, it's "specific," and it's SLAVERY to FORCE you to help out someone else.

 

[stevea]

Of course, everybody says, "the government is too intrusive in my life" but few care about what the government does to anybody else.

Other than that, the main sentiment seems to be, "we should just let the poor, sick and needy die of starvation because it is cheaper than buying bullets".

Pure strawman fallacy. Point to any text where I said anything even vaguely suggesting that sentiment. Be specific - point to the text (you seem incapable of this in most threads) You are reading from a distorted POV and have mis-characterized my position. Perhaps you subscribe to the "only government can [fill in the blank]" intellectual malady.

You need to consider that government institutional welfare and failed, unmeasured, unionized (monopoly) government schools (more like human warehouses) are the primary CAUSE of poverty and ignorance in the US. The poor are poor b/c this ridiculous system of socialistic motivations made them poor and pays them just enough to stay poor & dependent on government. It's horrific the human tragedy this has caused, and it's idiotic to blame anything except these silly socialistic systems for causing it. I did propose a solution but you fail to read with open eyes.

The US medical system suffers from massive government interference - crony capitalism toward the AMA, hospitals, insurers, a regulatory hindering approach to innoation fostered by the FDA that is effectively crony capitalism for big pharma, then subsidized payment schemes that drive prices vastly higher - more inflation than any other sector. So befrore we talk about the travails of the sick, let's point the finger for the high costs and relative ineffectiveness of treatments directly at the source - government interference in markets.

Yes there are people who through no fault of their own will unable to produce enough to survive decently. I do not suggest that we distort markets or force others to pay but rely on charity. Voluntary giving - not coercion. This has a positive effect of increasing reliance on community, empathy, and altruism - something nearly lost in the liberal socialist world of enslaving Peter to pay Paul. A slave feels no empathy toward his democratically elected slave-owner, but instead wants to overthrow the system, violently if necessary.

 

[stevea]

This is an interesting perspective, thank you for it, although I see a few contradictions in your logic.

I sincerely appreciate the politelness in your response. However as a rule it is useless to say "there are contradictions in your logic" without citing any contradictions at all. You may as well say "I disagree" and not cite the reasons.

Let me try to address your comments.

Critically, I don't think that the issue of "general" vs "specific" benefits, as you've defined them here, is clear enough to adequately distinguish between the two in determining which actions which should be permissible. Any action, no matter how general, will still be applied to specific indviduals, and no matter how specific, will still have general ramifications. To invert your examples: if you do not live near the swamp, or if you earn your living from the swamp, you do not benefit "similarly" from its draining. And the entire economy benefits "similarly" from treatment of the affected population, who are now able to positively contribute instead of dying off.

I disagree that this is a contradiction.

I totally agree that there are always "special interests" for example those making a living from the swamp, but that doesn't change the fact that even these swamp-workers are subject to malaria, as are all others. So they do benefit similarly from the eradication of a source of disease. Yes they are economically harmed but no one has special rights to use of a commons [and this example is predicated on the swamp being public land, not privately owned].

No, the individuals of society do not similarly benefit from "treatment of the [infected]affected population". The treated individuals are the primary beneficiaries of the treatment. When you say ... "positively contribute instead of dying off". you imply that the primary benefit of these individuals lives belongs to similarly to all members of society, when in fact that's extremely unlikely, perhaps impossible.

Charitable treatment of the infected is important, but I still have problems with forcible taking of some peoples work product to benefit others. We cannot know the needs or dreams of those from whom we steal.

To recap
yes - draining the swamp provide a similar benefit of removing the source of disease for all, even swamp workers.
no - treatment of the ill individuals does not provide a similar benefit to all, but a particular benefit to the treated individual.
--

On the Constitutional interpretation - the enumerated powers section of the Constitution include a list of well defined *limited* powers ceded by states to the Federal government, and includes the language:

To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

So to interpret this use of "general welfare" to mean "whatever you think would benefit some" seems silly. Why would they carefully make a list of limited power for the new FedGov and then include a massive escape clause like, "or whatever tickles your fancy" in the text ? It's a nonsensical reading based on context. Originally "general welfare" in this case means to the similar benefit of all 13 states. This was a 'contract' between independent states, not between citizens.

The 'Story" interpretation,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Welfare_clause#United_States
is that here "general welfare" was a necessary qualification for taxation. They could only tax states for things that generally benefited all states and not for example a bill that only benefited NY & NJ. John Marshall and Madison were also aligned with a narrower view of the term. Only much later in 1936 was the term expanded to imply Congress could tax for whatever it pleased. A silly interpretation.

Without an adequate distinction between the terms, your post boils down to my first suggestion: you are upset that money is being taken from you and put toward something that does not directly benefit you.

Nope - Wrong. That term was only part of my argument related to Constitutionality. Even if you successfully rebutted it (and I don't think you have) you can't dismiss the economic, moral, libertarian political views, social contract arguments with a hand-wave. You didn;t address the motivations toward totalitarianism issue. None of those are dependent on "general welfare".

To directly rebut this claim - I specifically said -

It doesn't matter at all whether it benefits me or not.

For example if I crack your savings account and steal money and use it to buy you a new car, this is using force to take your money and then using it for your benefit. Every rational human would consider this action by an individual a crime.

Why do you imagine this is one iota more moral or lawful when the government (a mob of 50.1%) swipes parts of your paycheck and uses it for ....
- ridiculous warfare (supposedly for your benefit!)
- a failing retirement system you don't want
- to gen' up a police state the kills citizens by drone using only executive fiat as a means of justice (thus protecting you for your benefit) ?
It's still a crime. It's still immoral. It's mostly unConstitutional to the extent these things are not within the FedGov's limited powers and properly executed.

If you benefit from it, it's a "general" benefit, and the use of government coercion is justified. If you don't, it's "specific," and it's SLAVERY to FORCE you to help out someone else.

Nope. You are trying to paint my comments as selfish or self-interested only. This is a variant of the "kick the crutch out from under TinyTim" ad hominem fallacy. Nothing I said implies this in any way. Further you are trying to personalize this rather than addressing the actual issue as presented.

Let me suggest first that charity, voluntarily reaching into ones own pocket or giving ones own time is the only selfless act here. Your notion of selflessness is to vote to steal from Peter to give to Paul. To reach into someone else's pocket is not selfless or charitable at all. It is arrogant in the extreme to assume you have some right to tell others what to pay for, or what is the best use of their assets. Further it's immoral.

Perhaps your erroneous view is due to your unwillingness to accept that government is not the only way to address issues. This is a closed-minded view. There is a place for government but primarily wrt crime and national defense, but it's not to tell others how to live, nor to force YOUR views on others, nor to "democratically" choose how to dispose of their property.

You still persist in the claim that this actually helps in the long run - how exactly ?
By creating a paternalistic government that tells ppl how to live (according to government dictates) ?
By infantilizing ppl who should be able to shift for themselves, making them weak and dependent and subject to demagoguery instead of independent and self-realized ?
By creating massively inefficient central planned economic systems instead of neutrally enforcing free market regulation ?
By constructing a massive government that shreds the Constitution in order to "protect us" ?
By creating a Cass Sunsteinian propaganda machine that attempts "nudge" citizens to do that the central planners prefer ?


I see nothing desirable in this notion of big central socialized government. The consequences for economics, personal liberty and community are terrible.

 

[psionl0]

Point to any text where I said anything even vaguely suggesting that sentiment. Be specific - point to the text (you seem incapable of this in most threads)

This very post contains such an example:

Yes there are people who through no fault of their own will unable to produce enough to survive decently. I do not suggest that we distort markets or force others to pay but rely on charity. Voluntary giving - not coercion.

A classic "not my concern" type response. You don't say what should happen if this "charity" is insufficient and presumably don't care as long as it doesn't affect your wallet.

I don't advocate welfare in its current form. It is a top-heavy bureaucratic system that is riddled with poverty traps and other work dis-incentives.

A single "negative income tax" as proposed by Milton Friedman could conceivably replace almost every type of welfare payment, eliminate the need for "minimum wage" legislation and eliminate the burden of a social security system that has heavy future payments placed on it due to an imminent retiree explosion.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

I sincerely appreciate the politelness in your response. However as a rule it is useless to say "there are contradictions in your logic" without citing any contradictions at all. You may as well say "I disagree" and not cite the reasons.

Let me try to address your comments.



I disagree that this is a contradiction.

I totally agree that there are always "special interests" for example those making a living from the swamp, but that doesn't change the fact that even these swamp-workers are subject to malaria, as are all others. So they do benefit similarly from the eradication of a source of disease. Yes they are economically harmed but no one has special rights to use of a commons [and this example is predicated on the swamp being public land, not privately owned].

No, the individuals of society do not similarly benefit from "treatment of the [infected]affected population". The treated individuals are the primary beneficiaries of the treatment. When you say ... "positively contribute instead of dying off". you imply that the primary benefit of these individuals lives belongs to similarly to all members of society, when in fact that's extremely unlikely, perhaps impossible.

Charitable treatment of the infected is important, but I still have problems with forcible taking of some peoples work product to benefit others. We cannot know the needs or dreams of those from whom we steal.

To recap
yes - draining the swamp provide a similar benefit of removing the source of disease for all, even swamp workers.
no - treatment of the ill individuals does not provide a similar benefit to all, but a particular benefit to the treated individual.
--

On the Constitutional interpretation - the enumerated powers section of the Constitution include a list of well defined *limited* powers ceded by states to the Federal government, and includes the language:

So to interpret this use of "general welfare" to mean "whatever you think would benefit some" seems silly. Why would they carefully make a list of limited power for the new FedGov and then include a massive escape clause like, "or whatever tickles your fancy" in the text ? It's a nonsensical reading based on context. Originally "general welfare" in this case means to the similar benefit of all 13 states. This was a 'contract' between independent states, not between citizens.

The 'Story" interpretation,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Welfare_clause#United_States
is that here "general welfare" was a necessary qualification for taxation. They could only tax states for things that generally benefited all states and not for example a bill that only benefited NY & NJ. John Marshall and Madison were also aligned with a narrower view of the term. Only much later in 1936 was the term expanded to imply Congress could tax for whatever it pleased. A silly interpretation.




Nope - Wrong. That term was only part of my argument related to Constitutionality. Even if you successfully rebutted it (and I don't think you have) you can't dismiss the economic, moral, libertarian political views, social contract arguments with a hand-wave. You didn;t address the motivations toward totalitarianism issue. None of those are dependent on "general welfare".

To directly rebut this claim - I specifically said -
For example if I crack your savings account and steal money and use it to buy you a new car, this is using force to take your money and then using it for your benefit. Every rational human would consider this action by an individual a crime.

Why do you imagine this is one iota more moral or lawful when the government (a mob of 50.1%) swipes parts of your paycheck and uses it for ....
- ridiculous warfare (supposedly for your benefit!)
- a failing retirement system you don't want
- to gen' up a police state the kills citizens by drone using only executive fiat as a means of justice (thus protecting you for your benefit) ?
It's still a crime. It's still immoral. It's mostly unConstitutional to the extent these things are not within the FedGov's limited powers and properly executed.




Nope. You are trying to paint my comments as selfish or self-interested only. This is a variant of the "kick the crutch out from under TinyTim" ad hominem fallacy. Nothing I said implies this in any way. Further you are trying to personalize this rather than addressing the actual issue as presented.

Let me suggest first that charity, voluntarily reaching into ones own pocket or giving ones own time is the only selfless act here. Your notion of selflessness is to vote to steal from Peter to give to Paul. To reach into someone else's pocket is not selfless or charitable at all. It is arrogant in the extreme to assume you have some right to tell others what to pay for, or what is the best use of their assets. Further it's immoral.

Perhaps your erroneous view is due to your unwillingness to accept that government is not the only way to address issues. This is a closed-minded view. There is a place for government but primarily wrt crime and national defense, but it's not to tell others how to live, nor to force YOUR views on others, nor to "democratically" choose how to dispose of their property.

You still persist in the claim that this actually helps in the long run - how exactly ?
By creating a paternalistic government that tells ppl how to live (according to government dictates) ?
By infantilizing ppl who should be able to shift for themselves, making them weak and dependent and subject to demagoguery instead of independent and self-realized ?
By creating massively inefficient central planned economic systems instead of neutrally enforcing free market regulation ?
By constructing a massive government that shreds the Constitution in order to "protect us" ?
By creating a Cass Sunsteinian propaganda machine that attempts "nudge" citizens to do that the central planners prefer ?


I see nothing desirable in this notion of big central socialized government. The consequences for economics, personal liberty and community are terrible.

Since this post is kind of... all over the place, I've hilited some statements to address. Let me know if I've missed a key point somewhere between them.

From the top:

"General vs specific": If draining the swamp is an action that promotes the general welfare because anyone can get malaria, then treating anyone who got malaria from the undrained swamp surely must be as well. It's literally the same motivation, just with a different tense. To make even that the same: if the incidence of malaria is low, such that it would be cheaper not to drain the swamp but to put that money aside to treat the people who do get malaria, would that suddenly be verboten?

Constitutional arguments: I thought you were making a philosophical argument for government, not a Constitutional one? The Constitution is not Libertarian, the people who drafted it were not Libertarians, and the things it allows and forbids are not implicitly moral and immoral, respectively, despite how some tend to enshrine their particular reading of it. Or am I wrong, and you've been making a Constitutional argument this whole time? In which case, why are you calling yourself a Libertarian and not a Constitutionalist?

"To directly rebut this claim, I specifically said": I know you did. But all of the other stuff you said says otherwise. All of the examples you list of the actual things the government does just so happen to be wasteful, of no benefit, or benefit anyone but you. Can you think of some government actions, which specifically were or would be a net benefit for you, responsible individual though you may be, which you morally object to? Not someone else, but you.

"You still persist in the claim": I don't think I've claimed anything yet. I'm still trying to understand where you're coming from. If I don't know that, how can I hope to address what really matters to you? All we'd be able to do is sling rhetoric past each other's noses.

I can make some claims, if you'd like something to chew on in the meantime:

• I think that governmental solutions to problems are always expensive and usually wasteful, but sometimes justified despite it, because private industry is often all of that and criminally negligent as well.
• I think that if corporations want to be people, they should be held personally responsible for crimes they commit, by being nationalized for a period of whatever the usual jail time is - more than anything else, to flush ALL of their books and backdoor dealings into the open. I'm not unreasonable, though; they'd get to apply for early parole if they can demonstrate rehabilitation.
• I think the government has a moral responsibility to foster an even playing field, not for this generation, but for the next. If it does its job right, it shouldn't much matter whether your dad was a banker or a bum, your success or failure would be more or less yours alone.

 

[stevea]

From the top:

"General vs specific": If draining the swamp is an action that promotes the general welfare because anyone can get malaria, then treating anyone who got malaria from the undrained swamp surely must be as well. It's literally the same motivation, just with a different tense.

It's not about "motivation"; It's about equitability. In my example everyone has a risk of contracting disease but only select individuals do contract it. Removing risk benefits all comparably; treating the sick is not of comparable benefit to all. This was just a top of the head example, let's not get carried away.

The point is this - the US Constitution permits taxation of the states only for "pay Debts, common Defen[c]e and general welfare", and by general welfare they did not mean "anything nice" but rather the enumerated powers as applied comparable for all. A national highway might benefit all states somewhat equitably, but a highway that directly benefits NY,NJ&PA is not "general welfare" even if it marginally improves the status of other states.

In the modern era we try to use a Constitution, drafted as an agreement between states, as a form of agreement between the Federal system and individuals - and that's a bit silly. Still if we are to apply "general welfare" taxation as intended, then Congress cannot tax Peter to pay Paul. It cannot tax for medical care while Christian Scientists reject care and get no benefit. I argue that programs like ACA and Social Security(SS) taxes do not benefit all comparably, so the taxation is unconstitutional.

Constitutional arguments: I thought you were making a philosophical argument for government, not a Constitutional one?

Please re-read my post #200. I clearly laid out several objections from separate POVs - economic, Constitutional, moral, social-contract, libertarian.

The Constitution is not Libertarian, the people who drafted it were not Libertarians,

Locke and Jefferson were classical liberals - which is libertarianism except in the 1880s-1920s social liberals staked out the "liberal" term. The US Constitution has many libertarian aspects, but is not fundamentally a libertarian document. I was not making that argument however.

and the things it allows and forbids are not implicitly moral and immoral, respectively, despite how some tend to enshrine their particular reading of it.

I agree- but that was never my argument.

Or am I wrong, and you've been making a Constitutional argument this whole time? In which case, why are you calling yourself a Libertarian and not a Constitutionalist?

No! I argued from several PoVs separately (post #200) , to recap:

My objections to programs like ACA and SS are ....
/ Constitutional: Violates enumerated powers and general welfare clause.
/ Economic: Centrally planned schemes are necessarily inefficient. Government is corrupt and distorts markets.
/ Libertarian: Implementing these requires the use of force & theft and violates the non-aggression principle. Government takes my labor to provide benefits I don't choose.
/ Moral: Again requires force, and creates financial motives to dictate how others live. Loss of personal liberty & property. Motivates totalitarian actions.
/ Social Contract: Government has no business in these intimate parts of our lives. It exceeds the legitimate role of state.
--

"To directly rebut this claim, I specifically said": I know you did. But all of the other stuff you said says otherwise. All of the examples you list of the actual things the government does just so happen to be wasteful, of no benefit, or benefit anyone but you. Can you think of some government actions, which specifically were or would be a net benefit for you, responsible individual though you may be, which you morally object to? Not someone else, but you.

Yes, many examples.

I benefited personally from government backed college loans long ago, but I can see now that a private system would be better in every respect. It's unconstitutional, morally wrong & anti-libertarian for government to forcibly take the money of others for my education.

I've used the civil court system a handful of times in my business career, suing, being party to a suit, resolving contract differences. The civil courts in the US are free of charge aside from some minor paperwork fees; I'm not paying the judge or bailiff or clerks or paying for the space; it's massively subsidized by taxpayers. It is a violation of libertarian principles to force others to pay by taxation (force, immoral) for this personal benefit. We should have private CIVIL courts or adjudication when Apple sues Samsung or you sue your plumber. [criminal courts are a different matter].

My wife receives SS disability (she has some pretty severe medical problems) and this benefits our family. Despite this I believe that the taxing for SS, forcing ppl into the program is morally objectionable, wrong.

I have a business in a highly regulated industry. The reasons for almost all of the regulation silly, old and out of date. Still these government regulations prevent a lot of ppl from competing in this field. So I benefit from these nonsense hurdles that create inefficient markets and cost consumers. I find such regulations morally objectionable, as they harm to consumers.

I can make some claims, if you'd like something to chew on in the meantime:

• I think that governmental solutions to problems are always expensive and usually wasteful, but sometimes justified despite it, because private industry is often all of that and criminally negligent as well.

• 
  
  I don't see that. Most corporations are scared to death of getting sued for negligence. It's one of those things that can destroy a company in short order. GM would be on the chopping block today if the government didn't have their fingers all over the problems, but it's not common in my experience.
  
  

  [*] I think that if corporations want to be people, they should be held personally responsible for crimes they commit, by being nationalized for a period of whatever the usual jail time is - more than anything else, to flush ALL of their books and backdoor dealings into the open. I'm not unreasonable, though; they'd get to apply for early parole if they can demonstrate rehabilitation.

  
  Corporation don't "want to be ppl". The law treats corps as ppl st they have standing to bring lawsuits and to be sued. Corporations can't vote, or drink or drive a car or get a passport. They are not generally treated as people. Corporations are just associations of owners (shareholders) who collectively own the assets, and can be sued as an entity but not individually for the corporations actions.
  
  The charter of corporations disallow criminal activities, so most crimes are committed by individual actors acting against the corporation's interests.and not the corporations per se. I suggest that we generally hold the specific humans criminally responsible. There are special cases of criminal organizations - (gangs, mafia ...) but these aren't corporations.
  
  Maybe you can provide an example of what you are considering.
  
  

  [*] I think the government has a moral responsibility to foster an even playing field, not for this generation, but for the next. If it does its job right, it shouldn't much matter whether your dad was a banker or a bum, your success or failure would be more or less yours alone.

  
  Government & corporations do not have moral agency - they can't choose between right and wrong. They do not have morals nor moral responsibility - only humans do. Governments and corps can influence moral agents (humans) but that's a different thing. I accept that we humans (including members of government and corporations) have moral responsibilities toward others, but creating a government "even playing field" program seems a kilter. Why government ? Is that the only way to address every issues ? Hammer ... nail ??
  
  Defining "even playing field" is a main problem. Do you mean similar opportunity or similar outcomes ? Do you mean that if your parents work hard and save they can't use the money to give you an edge ? Do you mean special breaks for poor performers ? Do you think public education helps or hurts toward your "even playing field" goals ?