Comments on: Self-Promotion http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/12/26/self-promotion/ The Sweet Release of Reason Tue, 22 May 2012 20:28:45 +0000 hourly 1 By: John T. Kennedy http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/12/26/self-promotion/#comment-3270 John T. Kennedy Sun, 09 Jan 2005 22:04:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=598#comment-3270 "We have a moral claim to the fruits of our labor. Every cent the government takes from us beyond what is strictly necessary to secure our basic rights is a token of injustice." When you and I disagree about how much is "strictly necessary" (and we do), how much may you and your fellows justly take from me? If you are entitled to take anything then you have no principled objection to make when others take for what they consider "necessary". “We have a moral claim to the fruits of our labor. Every cent the government takes from us beyond what is strictly necessary to secure our basic rights is a token of injustice.”

When you and I disagree about how much is “strictly necessary” (and we do), how much may you and your fellows justly take from me? If you are entitled to take anything then you have no principled objection to make when others take for what they consider “necessary”.

]]> By: GilM http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/12/26/self-promotion/#comment-3269 GilM Sat, 01 Jan 2005 17:13:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=598#comment-3269 Good article. Maybe you should use the <a href="http://cato.org/dailys/12-28-04.html" rel="nofollow">Cato Link</a> instead of the Philadelphia Inquirer one that requires registration. Good article.

Maybe you should use the Cato Link instead of the Philadelphia Inquirer one that requires registration.

]]> By: dannarruca http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/12/26/self-promotion/#comment-3268 dannarruca Wed, 29 Dec 2004 14:12:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=598#comment-3268 If you look at the original arguments for capitalism, nobody argues that there is a right to the unlimited acquisition of wealth. Adam Smith argues that the pursuit of gain is beneficial to society, not that there is an inherent right to unlimited gain in the first place. If you look at Smith's opponents, it was the landed gentry. They believed they had an obligation to provide employment and share their wealth. That's why they would build big houses and employ lots of gardeneres and craftsmen. That also meant protecting domestic markets from foreign goods. Smith says: no, you would do better to maximize your wealth, buy trinkets of frivolous utility, instead of following some misguided notions of charity and sharing the wealth. Of course, retrospectively we turn this into an absolute right to unlimited accumulation and forget that the original justification for capitalism is public-spirited. The order of priority is reversed. If you look at the original arguments for capitalism, nobody argues that there is a right to the unlimited acquisition of wealth. Adam Smith argues that the pursuit of gain is beneficial to society, not that there is an inherent right to unlimited gain in the first place. If you look at Smith’s opponents, it was the landed gentry. They believed they had an obligation to provide employment and share their wealth. That’s why they would build big houses and employ lots of gardeneres and craftsmen. That also meant protecting domestic markets from foreign goods. Smith says: no, you would do better to maximize your wealth, buy trinkets of frivolous utility, instead of following some misguided notions of charity and sharing the wealth. Of course, retrospectively we turn this into an absolute right to unlimited accumulation and forget that the original justification for capitalism is public-spirited. The order of priority is reversed.

]]> By: Tom Hanna http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/12/26/self-promotion/#comment-3267 Tom Hanna Mon, 27 Dec 2004 18:01:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=598#comment-3267 There's an intersection of philosophical and economic thought required here and I did note that you said "if further tax cuts would accelerate deficit spending". It goes beyond that though. If tax cuts today produce a higher level of economic growth that would actually mean increased revenue in the future without increasing taxes and you have to remember that economic growth compounds. So if the growth generated is even marginally higher than the cost today, it can be a substantial increase in economic output and revenue ten or twenty years down the road. A tax cut resulting in deficit spending doesn't have to produce enough additional revenue through economic growth to pay for itself quickly; it only has to produce enough additional revenue to pay the interest plus *any amount above zero* and it will actually reduce the need for future tax increases. Bottom line, even in today's situation, there's a presumption in favor of the argument you made in the first paragraph. There’s an intersection of philosophical and economic thought required here and I did note that you said “if further tax cuts would accelerate deficit spending”. It goes beyond that though. If tax cuts today produce a higher level of economic growth that would actually mean increased revenue in the future without increasing taxes and you have to remember that economic growth compounds. So if the growth generated is even marginally higher than the cost today, it can be a substantial increase in economic output and revenue ten or twenty years down the road. A tax cut resulting in deficit spending doesn’t have to produce enough additional revenue through economic growth to pay for itself quickly; it only has to produce enough additional revenue to pay the interest plus *any amount above zero* and it will actually reduce the need for future tax increases. Bottom line, even in today’s situation, there’s a presumption in favor of the argument you made in the first paragraph.

]]> By: Luka Yovetich http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/12/26/self-promotion/#comment-3266 Luka Yovetich Sun, 26 Dec 2004 23:13:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=598#comment-3266 Congrats on the article, Will! Interesting one. And I'm glad to see it published. Congrats on the article, Will! Interesting one. And I’m glad to see it published.

]]> By: monkyboy http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/12/26/self-promotion/#comment-3265 monkyboy Sun, 26 Dec 2004 19:12:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=598#comment-3265 Nice article, until the end. Congrats on getting it published. It's good to see the moral implications of sticking our kids with a huge debt spelled out. You seem to give discretionary spending a pass, even though that's where most of the pork and waste occurs. Then you lump Social Security, which works, in with Medicare, which is broken. It would seem the best way to proceed is cut out all pork first, then fix Medicare, and if things still look bad, work on Social Security. Nice article, until the end. Congrats on getting it published.

It’s good to see the moral implications of sticking our kids with a huge debt spelled out. You seem to give discretionary spending a pass, even though that’s where most of the pork and waste occurs. Then you lump Social Security, which works, in with Medicare, which is broken.

It would seem the best way to proceed is cut out all pork first, then fix Medicare, and if things still look bad, work on Social Security.

]]> By: monkyboy http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/12/26/self-promotion/#comment-3257 monkyboy Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=598#comment-3257 Nice article, until the end. Congrats on getting it published. It's good to see the moral implications of sticking our kids with a huge debt spelled out. You seem to give discretionary spending a pass, even though that's where most of the pork and waste occurs. Then you lump Social Security, which works, in with Medicare, which is broken. It would seem the best way to proceed is cut out all pork first, then fix Medicare, and if things still look bad, work on Social Security. Nice article, until the end. Congrats on getting it published.

It’s good to see the moral implications of sticking our kids with a huge debt spelled out. You seem to give discretionary spending a pass, even though that’s where most of the pork and waste occurs. Then you lump Social Security, which works, in with Medicare, which is broken.

It would seem the best way to proceed is cut out all pork first, then fix Medicare, and if things still look bad, work on Social Security.

]]> By: Luka Yovetich http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/12/26/self-promotion/#comment-3258 Luka Yovetich Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=598#comment-3258 Congrats on the article, Will! Interesting one. And I'm glad to see it published. Congrats on the article, Will! Interesting one. And I’m glad to see it published.

]]> By: Tom Hanna http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/12/26/self-promotion/#comment-3259 Tom Hanna Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=598#comment-3259 There's an intersection of philosophical and economic thought required here and I did note that you said "if further tax cuts would accelerate deficit spending". It goes beyond that though. If tax cuts today produce a higher level of economic growth that would actually mean increased revenue in the future without increasing taxes and you have to remember that economic growth compounds. So if the growth generated is even marginally higher than the cost today, it can be a substantial increase in economic output and revenue ten or twenty years down the road. A tax cut resulting in deficit spending doesn't have to produce enough additional revenue through economic growth to pay for itself quickly; it only has to produce enough additional revenue to pay the interest plus *any amount above zero* and it will actually reduce the need for future tax increases. Bottom line, even in today's situation, there's a presumption in favor of the argument you made in the first paragraph. There’s an intersection of philosophical and economic thought required here and I did note that you said “if further tax cuts would accelerate deficit spending”. It goes beyond that though. If tax cuts today produce a higher level of economic growth that would actually mean increased revenue in the future without increasing taxes and you have to remember that economic growth compounds. So if the growth generated is even marginally higher than the cost today, it can be a substantial increase in economic output and revenue ten or twenty years down the road. A tax cut resulting in deficit spending doesn’t have to produce enough additional revenue through economic growth to pay for itself quickly; it only has to produce enough additional revenue to pay the interest plus *any amount above zero* and it will actually reduce the need for future tax increases. Bottom line, even in today’s situation, there’s a presumption in favor of the argument you made in the first paragraph.

]]> By: dannarruca http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/12/26/self-promotion/#comment-3260 dannarruca Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=598#comment-3260 If you look at the original arguments for capitalism, nobody argues that there is a right to the unlimited acquisition of wealth. Adam Smith argues that the pursuit of gain is beneficial to society, not that there is an inherent right to unlimited gain in the first place. If you look at Smith's opponents, it was the landed gentry. They believed they had an obligation to provide employment and share their wealth. That's why they would build big houses and employ lots of gardeneres and craftsmen. That also meant protecting domestic markets from foreign goods. Smith says: no, you would do better to maximize your wealth, buy trinkets of frivolous utility, instead of following some misguided notions of charity and sharing the wealth. Of course, retrospectively we turn this into an absolute right to unlimited accumulation and forget that the original justification for capitalism is public-spirited. The order of priority is reversed. If you look at the original arguments for capitalism, nobody argues that there is a right to the unlimited acquisition of wealth. Adam Smith argues that the pursuit of gain is beneficial to society, not that there is an inherent right to unlimited gain in the first place. If you look at Smith’s opponents, it was the landed gentry. They believed they had an obligation to provide employment and share their wealth. That’s why they would build big houses and employ lots of gardeneres and craftsmen. That also meant protecting domestic markets from foreign goods. Smith says: no, you would do better to maximize your wealth, buy trinkets of frivolous utility, instead of following some misguided notions of charity and sharing the wealth. Of course, retrospectively we turn this into an absolute right to unlimited accumulation and forget that the original justification for capitalism is public-spirited. The order of priority is reversed.

]]> By: Gil http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/12/26/self-promotion/#comment-3261 Gil Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=598#comment-3261 Good article. Maybe you should use the <a href="http://cato.org/dailys/12-28-04.html" rel="nofollow">Cato Link</a> instead of the Philadelphia Inquirer one that requires registration. Good article.

Maybe you should use the Cato Link instead of the Philadelphia Inquirer one that requires registration.

]]> By: John T. Kennedy http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/12/26/self-promotion/#comment-3262 John T. Kennedy Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=598#comment-3262 "We have a moral claim to the fruits of our labor. Every cent the government takes from us beyond what is strictly necessary to secure our basic rights is a token of injustice." <p>When you and I disagree about how much is "strictly necessary" (and we do), how much may you and your fellows justly take from me? If you are entitled to take anything then you have no principled objection to make when others take for what they consider "necessary".</p> “We have a moral claim to the fruits of our labor. Every cent the government takes from us beyond what is strictly necessary to secure our basic rights is a token of injustice.”

When you and I disagree about how much is “strictly necessary” (and we do), how much may you and your fellows justly take from me? If you are entitled to take anything then you have no principled objection to make when others take for what they consider “necessary”.

]]> By: Tom Rants http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/12/26/self-promotion/#comment-3263 Tom Rants Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=598#comment-3263 <strong>Morality of (further) tax cuts</strong> Will Wilkinson has a good post up at his blog, an excerpt from a piece he wrote for the Philadelphia Enquirer, regarding the moral aspect of tax cuts. The Fly Bottle: Self-Promotion For many libertarians and conservatives, cutting taxes is about m... Morality of (further) tax cuts

Will Wilkinson has a good post up at his blog, an excerpt from a piece he wrote for the Philadelphia Enquirer, regarding the moral aspect of tax cuts.

The Fly Bottle: Self-Promotion
For many libertarians and conservatives, cutting taxes is about m…

]]> By: No Treason http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/12/26/self-promotion/#comment-3264 No Treason Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=598#comment-3264 <strong>Yglesias: Fair Weather Libertarians?</strong> Matthew Yglesias asks why libertarians seem reluctant to criticize publicly funded tsunami relief: Josh Marshall mocks the Ayn Rand Institute's condemnation of US (and other government) aid to help the victims of the Indian Ocean Tsunami. In realit... Yglesias: Fair Weather Libertarians?

Matthew Yglesias asks why libertarians seem reluctant to criticize publicly funded tsunami relief:

Josh Marshall mocks the Ayn Rand Institute’s condemnation of US (and other government) aid to help the victims of the Indian Ocean Tsunami. In realit…

]]>