Freedom Infringing Freedom

[Beth]

No; I just don't understand why someone would stay with a woefully inefficient system that sucks tax money out of the economy instead of trying a system that she herself admits would be no less efficient, may even work better, and, if nothing else, would greatly reduce taxes leaving that money in the hands of those who made it to stimulate the economy.

But I'm funny that way...

Well, you're speaking in rather sweeping generalities here. There are a good many areas the government is involved in that I wouldn't object to either greatly reducing their involvement or getting them completely out of the business. But I'm not willing to give a blanket endorsement that the government should get out of absolutely everything as completely as libertarians, such as yourself, obviously feel they should. I prefer to make that assessment on a case by case basis. But I'm funny that way....

What you actually said was, "Harm? Not especially," meaning that if there is any harm it would most likely be negligible.

Correct. I don't know of any particular reason that pollution would be any worse. In other words, I don't see it as an argument for the other side (not to privatize government functions) on that basis either.

But pollution was brought up (I don't remember by whom, and I don't feel like reviewing the thread right now) as one specific reason why we shouldn't implement Libertarianism. So that's what we're discussing.

Perhaps if you stated explicitly what you believe those inherent problems to be?

Basically boils down to prisoner's dilemna type situations. Sorry. Gotta go. Bye.

Beth

 

[shanek]

Well, you're speaking in rather sweeping generalities here. There are a good many areas the government is involved in that I wouldn't object to either greatly reducing their involvement or getting them completely out of the business. But I'm not willing to give a blanket endorsement that the government should get out of absolutely everything as completely as libertarians, such as yourself, obviously feel they should. I prefer to make that assessment on a case by case basis. But I'm funny that way....

There's something I think you're overlooking: giving government the power to intervene in areas where you think it's okay or maybe even necessary gives them the power to intervene in areas that you don't like. Remember, you won't be the one making the decisions. Giving a good politician the power to do good also gives a bad politician the power to do bad. So you pretty much have to see it as a general problem, not something you can evaluate on a case-by-case basis.

Here's what you really have to ask yourself: would you give up your favorite government program if it meant that nobody ever had to pay income tax again and the government could not intruide in areas where you think they shouldn't be?

Correct. I don't know of any particular reason that pollution would be any worse. In other words, I don't see it as an argument for the other side (not to privatize government functions) on that basis either.

You don't think it's worth a shot, especially if it means eliminating the Income Tax and getting the government out of the areas where you think it doesn't belong?

Basically boils down to prisoner's dilemna type situations. Sorry. Gotta go. Bye.

As the prisoner's dilemma involves an authority threatening the use of force, I fail to see how it's relevant to what we're talking about. I hope you can elucidate when you have more time.

 

[Mercutio]

As the prisoner's dilemma involves an authority threatening the use of force, I fail to see how it's relevant to what we're talking about. I hope you can elucidate when you have more time.

Perhaps Beth meant a more general category of situations, of which the prisoner's dilemma is but one example. The other famous example is, of course, the tragedy of the commons, and the general situation is called a "social trap". It boils down to the observation that in certain situations (like grazing livestock on a common pasture, or fishing in a particular area, or harvesting shellfish, or old-growth lumber, or....even merging traffic lanes in Boston...or rushing in to festival seating for a Who concert (1979) or rushing to leave a crowded nightclub when a fire ignites...), a group of individuals, each acting in their own personal best interest, work to the detriment of everyone as a whole. If the economic or safety or time rewards go to the person who puts his or her own interests above those of the group, the incentive is to act in those self-interests. Rather than Adam Smith's "invisible hand", in which the pursuit of self interest also promotes the best interest of society, Social Traps illustrate how self-interest can be detrimental to society.

Now, it is absolutely true that it is in each individual's long-term best interest for everybody to walk, not run, out of the burning theatre...but the problem is that immediate reinforcers tend to be much more effective at controlling our behavior than delayed reinforcers, even when the delayed are larger. Imposing a decision early, when both the short-term and long-term rewards are still delayed, makes self-control much more likely. That is what regulation does.

 

[Beth]

There's something I think you're overlooking: giving government the power to intervene in areas where you think it's okay or maybe even necessary gives them the power to intervene in areas that you don't like. Remember, you won't be the one making the decisions. Giving a good politician the power to do good also gives a bad politician the power to do bad. So you pretty much have to see it as a general problem, not something you can evaluate on a case-by-case basis.

No, such a general approach would be appropriate if we were starting a new government from scratch or deciding whether or not the government should start up a new concern. We're not. We're discussing whether or not our government should stop doing something they are already doing. In such a case, I consider not just the philosophical aspects of whether or not the government ought to be involved, but also the practical considerations of what would be expected to occur if government were to stop being involved. Since that varies wildly depending on the particulars, I feel a case-by-case approach is best.

Here's what you really have to ask yourself: would you give up your favorite government program if it meant that nobody ever had to pay income tax again and the government could not intruide in areas where you think they shouldn't be?You don't think it's worth a shot, especially if it means eliminating the Income Tax and getting the government out of the areas where you think it doesn't belong?

This was an interesting question. I had to think a while before I could come up with a favorite government program. But once I did, the answer was NO. Further, you're not really wanting to simply get rid of one program, but ALL government funded programs. The sort of social upheaval that would follow such a massive change in our current society is likely to be quite unpleasant.

As the prisoner's dilemma involves an authority threatening the use of force, I fail to see how it's relevant to what we're talking about. I hope you can elucidate when you have more time.

I'm sorry, I got called away from my computer unexpectedly and didn't have time to give a more complete answer. However, I see that Mercutio has done so for me and better than I could have done it. Thanks Mercutio.

Beth

 

[shanek]

Perhaps Beth meant a more general category of situations, of which the prisoner's dilemma is but one example.

Perhaps...but as I said, I'm going to let her explain that.

The other famous example is, of course, the tragedy of the commons, and the general situation is called a "social trap".

And again, Libertarianism is set up as a counter to these, so again I'm left wondering what related sort of situation would arise under Libertarianism.

It boils down to the observation that in certain situations (like grazing livestock on a common pasture, or fishing in a particular area, or harvesting shellfish, or old-growth lumber, or....even merging traffic lanes in Boston...or rushing in to festival seating for a Who concert (1979) or rushing to leave a crowded nightclub when a fire ignites...), a group of individuals, each acting in their own personal best interest, work to the detriment of everyone as a whole.

Again, private property rights can deal with all of those situations. There would be a distinct owner of the pasture (even if it's just a board of trustees) who would set the rules; shellfish could only be harvested at the behest of the person who owned that section of water, the lumber based on who owned the forest, of course the Boston roads are all government roads, and I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a rock venue these days with festival seating pretty much for that reason.

Imposing a decision early, when both the short-term and long-term rewards are still delayed, makes self-control much more likely. That is what regulation does.

I'd love to see an example of regulation actually achieving this. Like your traffic example: a government monopoly on roads and tons of traffic regulations don't seem to have alleviated the problem, which actually stems from having a greater number of miles driven at one time in an area than miles of road. Would a private company not have an incentive to upgrade the roads in such a case?

 

[Beerina]

Your objection to examining the ownership of the air as being irrelevant would seem to make all laws regarding air pollution invalid.

Any shared resource such as air or water is relevant if it can be shown that one's use of the shared resource is being unduly harmed by another without any right to do so.

One uses up oxygen of "your air", if nothing else. This "affects" the "shared resource".

It's perfectly fine, and has been long standing, that legislation specify how much pollution of the "common resource" is allowable. Smoke stacks, river pollution, etc. all fall under this. Heck, even farms "stinking up the neighborhood" receive protection in most states to prevent people from moving next to a farm, then shutting it down because of stench pollution from sh*tting the fields in spring.

 

[shanek]

No, such a general approach would be appropriate if we were starting a new government from scratch or deciding whether or not the government should start up a new concern. We're not. We're discussing whether or not our government should stop doing something they are already doing. In such a case, I consider not just the philosophical aspects of whether or not the government ought to be involved, but also the practical considerations of what would be expected to occur if government were to stop being involved. Since that varies wildly depending on the particulars, I feel a case-by-case approach is best.

Ah. So, would you have felt the same way about slavery when it was supported by the government? "Yeah, sure, lots of people helping slaves to escape are being incarcerated...but we have to look to the practical considerations of what would be expected to occur if government were to stop supporting slavery. Where would these people, who were former slaves, live? Whose jobs would they take? How would they function in society without education or the other benefits of upbringing the rest of us have had?"

There were a lot of people who made this very argument. Would you have been one of them?

This was an interesting question. I had to think a while before I could come up with a favorite government program.

That alone should tell you something. Out of curiosity, what did you come up with?

But once I did, the answer was NO.

Why?

Further, you're not really wanting to simply get rid of one program, but ALL government funded programs.

But that's the idea. Getting rid of them all is the only way to ensure that the government doesn't grab the power you don't think it should have, and it's also the only way to get rid of the Income Tax and get the other taxes down.

The sort of social upheaval that would follow such a massive change in our current society is likely to be quite unpleasant.

There would be no social upheaval at all. If anything it's the government programs themselves that are causing the social unrest in this country.

I'm sorry, I got called away from my computer unexpectedly and didn't have time to give a more complete answer. However, I see that Mercutio has done so for me and better than I could have done it. Thanks Mercutio.

But again, none of those examples were consistent with Libertarianism. Can you provide an example of something like this that would occur if the Libertarian platform were adopted as policy?

 

[Beth]

Ah. So, would you have felt the same way about slavery when it was supported by the government? "Yeah, sure, lots of people helping slaves to escape are being incarcerated...but we have to look to the practical considerations of what would be expected to occur if government were to stop supporting slavery. Where would these people, who were former slaves, live? Whose jobs would they take? How would they function in society without education or the other benefits of upbringing the rest of us have had?"

There were a lot of people who made this very argument. Would you have been one of them?

Possibly. Hard to say. If I had been raised in that society, my values, my background, my culture would all have been so substantially different, it's difficult for me to say with certainty what arguments I would have supported.

Interestingly, I've heard such arguments come up on other issues as well, though usually promoting government intervention. Some things that have occurred to me over the years are a) the reason for the civil war was actually succession rights, not slavery and I am not convinced that the Union was justified in going to war for that reason and b) was the civil war, one of the bloodiest in our history, really necessary to eliminate slavery from our society? Would it have been possible to do so with less violence and bloodshed?

That alone should tell you something. Out of curiosity, what did you come up with?

Our State University system, including junior colleges, that support education for everyone by keeping tuition rates low. I also support the NSF and NASA. I would not want to see any of those privatized completely.

But that's the idea. Getting rid of them all is the only way to ensure that the government doesn't grab the power you don't think it should have, and it's also the only way to get rid of the Income Tax and get the other taxes down.

There would be no social upheaval at all. If anything it's the government programs themselves that are causing the social unrest in this country.

Getting rid of all the myriad government programs currently in place would leave a power vacuum and I'm not convinced that the changeover would be orderly, non-violent, and leave us with a better system in place. In fact, I tend to think just the opposite would occur.

But again, none of those examples were consistent with Libertarianism. Can you provide an example of something like this that would occur if the Libertarian platform were adopted as policy?

Well, there is the problem of pollution that we've been discussing at length. It's in the short term best interest of individuals and corporations to ignore the problem rather than deal with it, but such an approach is not in the long term best interest of the general public as a whole. I have yet to hear the libertarians propose a reasonable plan to deal with the problems of pollution. The government solutions, while ineffective, are at least an attempt to deal with the problem. The libertarians seem intent on eliminating all governmental controls and regulations without providing any other method of addressing the problem.

 

[shanek]

Possibly. Hard to say. If I had been raised in that society, my values, my background, my culture would all have been so substantially different, it's difficult for me to say with certainty what arguments I would have supported.

Let's assume you have the same background, culture, etc. as you do today, and are essentially the same person as you are today. Would you buy their arguments then?

Interestingly, I've heard such arguments come up on other issues as well, though usually promoting government intervention. Some things that have occurred to me over the years are a) the reason for the civil war was actually succession rights, not slavery and I am not convinced that the Union was justified in going to war for that reason and b) was the civil war, one of the bloodiest in our history, really necessary to eliminate slavery from our society? Would it have been possible to do so with less violence and bloodshed?

Please note that I didn't mention the Civil War. We've had discussions like that on this forum before, and none of them have been pretty. So let's just stick to the question I'm asking.

Our State University system, including junior colleges, that support education for everyone by keeping tuition rates low.

Well, we were speaking about Federal funding, or at least i was. Your state can do whatever it likes.

I also support the NSF and NASA. I would not want to see any of those privatized completely.

Again, even if it results in all of the other things I mentioned?

Getting rid of all the myriad government programs currently in place would leave a power vacuum

No, it wouldn't. These are things that shouldn't be power issues in the first place. The problems stem from the fact that people have made them power issues.

Well, there is the problem of pollution that we've been discussing at length. It's in the short term best interest of individuals and corporations to ignore the problem rather than deal with it,

a) You have not shown this, and b) corporations think long-term all the time.

The government solutions, while ineffective, are at least an attempt to deal with the problem.

So, it is better, then, to make the attempt to solve the problem even if you just end up making things worse?

The libertarians seem intent on eliminating all governmental controls and regulations without providing any other method of addressing the problem.

Incorrect. There are ways of solving the problem without using government, you know.

 

[Beth]

Let's assume you have the same background, culture, etc. as you do today, and are essentially the same person as you are today. Would you buy their arguments then?

Hmmm, let me see, you asked: would you have felt the same way about slavery when it was supported by the government? "Yeah, sure, lots of people helping slaves to escape are being incarcerated...but we have to look to the practical considerations of what would be expected to occur if government were to stop supporting slavery. Where would these people, who were former slaves, live? Whose jobs would they take? How would they function in society without education or the other benefits of upbringing the rest of us have had?"

I think those would be legimate questions to ask oneself in that situation. Does that mean I 'buy the argument'. I guess so, if 'buying the argument' means being willing to give it some consideration. I can't really say more than that.

Well, we were speaking about Federal funding, or at least i was. Your state can do whatever it likes.

We were speaking of tax funding, specifically income taxes. I was including State government in my thoughts.

Again, even if it results in all of the other things I mentioned?

You've mentioned a lot of things resulting from such support. I don't buy the argument that one is a consequence of the other. I am more inclined to believe that both are a consequence of societal trends.

No, it wouldn't. These are things that shouldn't be power issues in the first place. The problems stem from the fact that people have made them power issues.

Whether that's how things ought or ought not be isn't crucial to whether or not I support such changes. It's how I expect things to actually fall out. I expect there to be unpleasant consequences to the sort of massive change in government structure you're advocating, particularly if it were to happen quickly and simultaneously. That makes me disinclined to support any more than some of the moderate changes that I happen to like. I'd prefer to get a feel for how such transistions are made in our society before plunging into the sweeeping and irreversible changes you want.

So, it is better, then, to make the attempt to solve the problem even if you just end up making things worse?

Whoa! Who said there were making things worse? I said I thought they were ineffective. Not the same to me. And, yes, when I'm trying to accomplish something, I'd rather make an attempt and fail than not make any attempt at all. One way I only have a chance of failure, the other way failure is guaranteed.

Incorrect. There are ways of solving the problem without using government, you know.

Yes, I love to see that happen.

 

[shanek]

I think those would be legimate questions to ask oneself in that situation. Does that mean I 'buy the argument'. I guess so, if 'buying the argument' means being willing to give it some consideration. I can't really say more than that.

So, then, you are willing to sacrifice human rights for the sake of practicality?

Whether that's how things ought or ought not be isn't crucial to whether or not I support such changes.

If the problem is that they're power issues, when they're not inherently so (like, for example, the police), then why would you be against dismantling the very authority that gives them that power to begin with? Where would the "power vacuum" be?

It's how I expect things to actually fall out.

Why?

I expect there to be unpleasant consequences to the sort of massive change in government structure you're advocating, particularly if it were to happen quickly and simultaneously.

Whoever said quickly? There would have to be a transitional period. Harry Browne in his book The Great Libertarian Offer proposed a plan to do it in five years. Doing it faster than that is problematic, not because of any "power vacuum," but because of the shock to the economy.

Whoa! Who said there were making things worse?

Well, I've made that argument several times here.

I said I thought they were ineffective.

Okay, so they're ineffective...and they take away valuable capital which could be used to alleviate the problem in the private sector. Isn't that making it worse?

Yes, I love to see that happen.

I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not.

 

[a_unique_person]

You still haven't given any references, that I can see, about the US government being the biggest polluter, or even what that means.

 

[Beth]

So, then, you are willing to sacrifice human rights for the sake of practicality?

Hmmm, you get that out of the fact that I'm willing to consider the practical aspects of a situation before committing to a course of action? I think you're being a tad inflamatory here.

Okay, so they're ineffective...and they take away valuable capital which could be used to alleviate the problem in the private sector. Isn't that making it worse?

Only if those resources would have been used more effectively to the same end in the private sector. I'm not convinced that that would occur. In the meantime, I'm glad to have people and resources allocated to finding solutions.

I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not.

It's not.

 

[shanek]

Hmmm, you get that out of the fact that I'm willing to consider the practical aspects of a situation before committing to a course of action?

Yes...because while you're considering, people are still held in slavery.

Only if those resources would have been used more effectively to the same end in the private sector. I'm not convinced that that would occur. In the meantime, I'm glad to have people and resources allocated to finding solutions.

Oh? What solutions have been found so far?

It's not.

Okay.

 

[kimiko]

Even though you may never have to use them. If you're just going to define the point away every time I use another example, then there's no point in trying to have a conversation with you.

There's no point having a conversation with you when you provide so little in sources and give blatantly absurd definitions for real things.

Safety features have a purpose. It is to keep people safe. They are not needed or used every time a car is driven, they become useful only when needed. You seem to be implying that they are useful for making people feel safe even when they aren't doing their designed job. There is no reason to think this without assuming first that people have some inherent need to feel safe that can be satisfied by safety features. Like insurance, fire departments, etc, they do nothing unless they do what they are for.

 

[kimiko]

Why should those parents be forced to pay for school twice while everyone else only has to pay once?

Again, I'm a parent of a special needs child and I can tell you that this is patently false. Besides, wouldn't more parents be able to afford a private school education if they got their education tax refunded?

Parents do not "pay twice" for their child's education while they are in private school. They pay one full price for the private education, and they pay property taxes or whatever is used to fund public education. There is no direct correlation between how many educable children a taxpayer has and how much they pay in taxes for schools. They paid those taxes before their child was in school and will when they are out.

Please stop using anecdotes to try to refute statistics.

 

[kimiko]

That's not what kimiko said. The exact claim was: "The cost of each special needs kid alone is $16,000+." (emphases mine) In other words, if you have a special needs child, you're going to pay at least $16,000 a year more. Balderdash.

The $16,000 figure was based on a statistic I supplied from earlier in the thread; I thought you would recognize it. That was the total average expediture for special needs education in the US, as opposed to whatever for regular children.

Your experience is not representative of all parents of disabled children.

 

[kimiko]

Regarding "special needs", we need to know a few things.

First, how do those NEA statistics operationally define "special needs"? I hope they don't use state classifications, because my personal experience leads me to believe that the classification system in at least one state (Ohio) is subjective. I have both Asperger's Syndrome and a vision loss, and the state refused to classify me as special needs so I could get services for my major social skills deficits. Their response to my parents was "He's working above grade level in every subject. A special needs classification is not justified". It seems at least in Ohio, this classification is biased toward those with intellectual deficits and catastrophic medical conditions. Of course, these are just the types that would inflate the cost figure the most, leading to the high average quoted.

Second, are all types of support services (public and private) being considered? The government is so wasteful that I don't trust that they are allowing private companies to provide on-site support services, despite the fact that the cost might be lower and the results superior.

Third, are the uneducable being cut off? By "uneducable", I mean people who fall into one of two categories:

1. "Developmentally Handicapped" persons (IQ < 80)

We throw an outrageous amount of money at the intellectually disadantaged (>90% of the Federal education budget, according to The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life), yet these people are basically untrainable, as evidenced by their inability to master basic concepts. If we insist on having a public education system, we should turn these untrainables loose, in order to free up funds for the average and gifted students who can actually profit from them.

2. Dangerous Persons

Unbelievably, some people who commit violent crimes against other students or school personnel aren't permanently expelled from school (though this is changing in the wake of Zero Tolerance policies) . Anyone who commits a violent crime has demonstrated that they don't want an education. Thus, we shouldn't give them one.

If these two groups aren't being removed, then the figures are invalid, as far as I'm concerned.

The definitions for special needs is very precise. If you met their definition of having a social skills deficit, they should have given you services. But, that depends on how they defined it, and they do tend towards definitions requiring inability/underability to perform necessary functions (according to their definitions, again). Without having their regulations, it is hard to tell whether they treated you improperly, but I wouldn't put it beyond them.

I do disagree with your definition of uneducable. Just because someone is retarded doesn't mean they can't be trained. Much of their education involves training of basic skills and many can go on to perform jobs that are simple and structured, with clear directions. For the children who are too retarded to do even this, they benefit greatly from the socialization and structure. I would cringe to see what turning the untrainables loose would do to their quality of life.

Violent students currently get sent to programs for problem children, but we'd have to look at the social costs of setting them loose before thinking we'd be saving money by doing so.

 

[kimiko]

First of all, let's ignore the bogus poverty values as they're placed artificially high to allow the government to hand out more boondoggles. The percentage of children in poverty by any criteria that really matters is much lower. The average of $4,689 will be too high, because lower income families will not be very likely to put their children into high-dollar schools. Giving USA reported $241 billion given in charity in 2003, so 13.1% of that is about $31.6 billion, and 25% of this is for lower education, making the total about $7.9 billion.

Now, Giving USA has consistently found that people give the same proportion of their take-home pay regardless of how that fluctuates; over half of the National Income is taken in taxes, most of which Libertarians would eliminate. So that additional income would mean over $15 billion would be given to charities funding lower education. Even if we consider the too-high average, this would pay for the entire tuition of 3.1 million American children. But not all of them would need the entire tuition covered. Someone working full-time basically needs $2.34/hr of their pay devoted to the child's education.

Now, let's consider two parents with a child. The Census Bureau in 2003 calculated the poverty level for this type of family at $14,810, or $7.40/hr full-time. (The National Center for Children in Poverty says that most children in low-income families have at least one parent who works full-time, year-round.) Subtract the $2.34 above and you get $5.06/hr, comparable to the modern Minimum Wage. So they could pay for the average private school and still live on Minimum Wage, which would go a lot further now that they don't have to pay taxes. So a lot of people paying at the poverty level could afford even the average private school, much more so one of the cheaper ones.

Families below the poverty line, of course, would need more charitable help. But we've got $15 billion to put to it now. If a family at the poverty level can pay for the education themselves, then we can probably assume that the average poor family can pay for half of the tuition. So now, our $15 billion can educate 6.2 million children instead of just 3.1.

And all of this is with figures for a too-high poverty rate and a too-high tuition value. Reduce those to more sane values and you'll see that there should be plenty of money to cover everyone.

Yes, let's look at the math more closely. $7.9 billion in charitable contributions go to lower education now. Currently, private schools make up 27% of the nation's schools but only 11% of the nation's students(NEA). So we have now, not in an imaginary world, 7.9 billion in aid going to whatever proportion of 11% who need it. But since in our make-believe libertarian world the income was doubled from taxes being eliminated, let's say the current giving levels cover twice as many students, so 22%. Then the charitable giving is doubled, so we double it again to 44% of students being educated privately.

Your example with the minimum wage parents doesn't work, because they won't be realizing significant savings from lack of taxes as they would be recieving money back from the government every year under the present system. You could add 15% for payroll, and whatever they otherwise would spend in sales taxes. Subtract their Earned Income Credits and Child Credits, and then you can start talking about what they can afford as far as schooling. Also, only 23% of all households are married couples with children (Census Bureau) so the two worker model isn't representative. You saw the numbers that most poverty level children have at least one full-time working parent, but did you notice that most of them only have one?

And you've asked before why parents shouldn't get their private school tuition refunded through tax credits or whatever. Well, people with children already recieve Child Credits. Single and childless people subsidize other people's decision to have children as it is.

 

[shanek]

Parents do not "pay twice" for their child's education while they are in private school. They pay one full price for the private education, and they pay property taxes or whatever is used to fund public education.

Uh, that's paying twice.

Please stop using anecdotes to try to refute statistics.

I've refuted the statistics you've shown. And this "anecdote" proves that your claim is wrong; I only needed to show one.