Comments on: The Wealth Will Be Spread, Joe http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/10/22/the-wealth-will-be-spread-joe/ The Sweet Release of Reason Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:11:50 +0000 hourly 1 By: Mike http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/10/22/the-wealth-will-be-spread-joe/#comment-18261 Mike Sat, 25 Oct 2008 12:45:53 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=2056#comment-18261 I think this is the most sensible thing I have ever heard or read from Will. But libertarianism is anti-redistribution, or am I mistaken? If it is, where does this put libertarianism in relation to "democratic politics"? Is it possible that Will believes libertarianism is/should be a preference that recognizes other legitimate values and priorities in public decision-making, rather than a hard and fast principle that suffers betrayal when not followed in total obeisance? And if it is that, does this not open the tent of libertarianism up to many who have been excluded thus far due to a demonstrated lack of fealty, despite their temperamental sympathy, because they in general see the world as one with competing positive and negative values, and have seen no reason to deny all but one just for acceptance into the ranks of the faithful? I think this is the most sensible thing I have ever heard or read from Will. But libertarianism is anti-redistribution, or am I mistaken? If it is, where does this put libertarianism in relation to “democratic politics”? Is it possible that Will believes libertarianism is/should be a preference that recognizes other legitimate values and priorities in public decision-making, rather than a hard and fast principle that suffers betrayal when not followed in total obeisance? And if it is that, does this not open the tent of libertarianism up to many who have been excluded thus far due to a demonstrated lack of fealty, despite their temperamental sympathy, because they in general see the world as one with competing positive and negative values, and have seen no reason to deny all but one just for acceptance into the ranks of the faithful?

]]> By: Mike http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/10/22/the-wealth-will-be-spread-joe/#comment-18260 Mike Sat, 25 Oct 2008 05:45:53 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=2056#comment-18260 I think this is the most sensible thing I have ever heard or read from Will. But libertarianism is anti-redistribution, or am I mistaken? If it is, where does this put libertarianism in relation to "democratic politics"? Is it possible that Will believes libertarianism is/should be a preference that recognizes other legitimate values and priorities in public decision-making, rather than a hard and fast principle that suffers betrayal when not followed in total obeisance? And if it is that, does this not open the tent of libertarianism up to many who have been excluded thus far due to a demonstrated lack of fealty, despite their temperamental sympathy, because they in general see the world as one with competing positive and negative values, and have seen no reason to deny all but one just for acceptance into the ranks of the faithful? I think this is the most sensible thing I have ever heard or read from Will. But libertarianism is anti-redistribution, or am I mistaken? If it is, where does this put libertarianism in relation to “democratic politics”? Is it possible that Will believes libertarianism is/should be a preference that recognizes other legitimate values and priorities in public decision-making, rather than a hard and fast principle that suffers betrayal when not followed in total obeisance? And if it is that, does this not open the tent of libertarianism up to many who have been excluded thus far due to a demonstrated lack of fealty, despite their temperamental sympathy, because they in general see the world as one with competing positive and negative values, and have seen no reason to deny all but one just for acceptance into the ranks of the faithful?

]]> By: Daniel Reeves http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/10/22/the-wealth-will-be-spread-joe/#comment-18259 Daniel Reeves Fri, 24 Oct 2008 19:42:44 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=2056#comment-18259 I was mostly making a roundabout pitch for Henry George / Fred Foldvary's proposal of melding libertarian principles with public ownership of all natural resources, land in particular. Instead of the socially inefficient and perhaps morally problematic practice of expropriating a fraction of wealth people create, let the government charge people fair market value for the natural resources they use. <br><br>I don't understand why this idea isn't talked about more by people like Will. I was mostly making a roundabout pitch for Henry George / Fred Foldvary's proposal of melding libertarian principles with public ownership of all natural resources, land in particular. Instead of the socially inefficient and perhaps morally problematic practice of expropriating a fraction of wealth people create, let the government charge people fair market value for the natural resources they use.

I don't understand why this idea isn't talked about more by people like Will.

]]> By: pedro http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/10/22/the-wealth-will-be-spread-joe/#comment-18258 pedro Thu, 23 Oct 2008 01:41:30 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=2056#comment-18258 So equal incomes (adjusting for need) is the moral result then?<br>If not equal incomes then implicitly you are recognising the earner has a higher claim to the money than others. So equal incomes (adjusting for need) is the moral result then?
If not equal incomes then implicitly you are recognising the earner has a higher claim to the money than others.

]]> By: pedro http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/10/22/the-wealth-will-be-spread-joe/#comment-18257 pedro Thu, 23 Oct 2008 01:39:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=2056#comment-18257 If I go to work why isn't the money paid for my services mine? What has state of nature got to do with it at all?<br>If you say the money is not mine then you are saying it is everyones, but why would that follow. And does it mean everyone in you city, state, country, continent or the world? If I go to work why isn't the money paid for my services mine? What has state of nature got to do with it at all?
If you say the money is not mine then you are saying it is everyones, but why would that follow. And does it mean everyone in you city, state, country, continent or the world?

]]> By: DMonteith http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/10/22/the-wealth-will-be-spread-joe/#comment-18256 DMonteith Thu, 23 Oct 2008 00:44:06 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=2056#comment-18256 Hmmm. I don't think I've ever seen a refutation of Marx that relies on the labor theory of value. Good times! Hmmm. I don't think I've ever seen a refutation of Marx that relies on the labor theory of value. Good times!

]]> By: ryan yin http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/10/22/the-wealth-will-be-spread-joe/#comment-18255 ryan yin Wed, 22 Oct 2008 22:51:23 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=2056#comment-18255 Daniel,<br>I'm a bit confused as to what the public good is here. I can see how if the state owns something and provides it to residents (or sells it and gives residents the money), that might fit (more or less) the technical definition of "public good". But to me, it seems like "public good" is a useful concept only when we're talking about goods where it's inherently difficult to exclude (as opposed to where they just happen not to exclude). It seems like the point of the concept is to point to places where it's hard for the market to exist and so state action is required; talking about places where the state's action per se causes the market absence seems to obscure the issue. <br><br>Am I just misunderstanding? Daniel,
I'm a bit confused as to what the public good is here. I can see how if the state owns something and provides it to residents (or sells it and gives residents the money), that might fit (more or less) the technical definition of “public good”. But to me, it seems like “public good” is a useful concept only when we're talking about goods where it's inherently difficult to exclude (as opposed to where they just happen not to exclude). It seems like the point of the concept is to point to places where it's hard for the market to exist and so state action is required; talking about places where the state's action per se causes the market absence seems to obscure the issue.

Am I just misunderstanding?

]]> By: Pablo http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/10/22/the-wealth-will-be-spread-joe/#comment-18254 Pablo Wed, 22 Oct 2008 22:11:43 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=2056#comment-18254 GU, your talk about "taking money from people" made me assume that you, like most libertarians, believed that people have moral rights over themselves and (bits of) the world, and that wealth redistribution is objectionable because it deprives people of goods to which they are morally entitled. But regardless of whether I was right in making this assumption, the objection I raised retains its force: why do you assign any moral significance to pre-tax as opposed to post-tax income? What makes this particular accounting figure so special? GU, your talk about “taking money from people” made me assume that you, like most libertarians, believed that people have moral rights over themselves and (bits of) the world, and that wealth redistribution is objectionable because it deprives people of goods to which they are morally entitled. But regardless of whether I was right in making this assumption, the objection I raised retains its force: why do you assign any moral significance to pre-tax as opposed to post-tax income? What makes this particular accounting figure so special?

]]> By: GU http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/10/22/the-wealth-will-be-spread-joe/#comment-18253 GU Wed, 22 Oct 2008 21:49:19 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=2056#comment-18253 Pablo, your reply is a puzzling. My point was that much of the stuff that the federal government spends money on is a waste--it is neutral or detrimental to welfare. This was a consequentialist point about: (1) the government wasting taxpayer's money and (2) how we can expect more waste when only a small percentage of the electorate pays for the government's spending. Nowhere did I invoke any sort of first-principle musings about the nature of property rights. I don't really know how else to respond to your question. Pablo, your reply is a puzzling. My point was that much of the stuff that the federal government spends money on is a waste–it is neutral or detrimental to welfare. This was a consequentialist point about: (1) the government wasting taxpayer's money and (2) how we can expect more waste when only a small percentage of the electorate pays for the government's spending. Nowhere did I invoke any sort of first-principle musings about the nature of property rights. I don't really know how else to respond to your question.

]]> By: GU http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/10/22/the-wealth-will-be-spread-joe/#comment-18252 GU Wed, 22 Oct 2008 21:41:04 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=2056#comment-18252 I said: <br><blockquote>"...so that government can waste it on spending that <i>usually</i> reduces liberty or redistributes it from the general citizenry to the politically-connected or both" & "...taking money from A and giving it to B, <i>for no good reason</i>, really does suck." (emphasis added)</blockquote><br><br>I was implying that most of the stuff the <i>federal</i> government spends money on is a waste of money. Notice this is not the same as "all government redistribution is illegitimate." The leap from "corporate welfare & needless military spending sucks" to "WE SHOULDN'T HAVE STATE FUNDED FIRE DEPARTEMENTS!!!11!" is huge, and nothing about my carefully worded retort implied such a leap. I said:
“…so that government can waste it on spending that usually reduces liberty or redistributes it from the general citizenry to the politically-connected or both” & “…taking money from A and giving it to B, for no good reason, really does suck.” (emphasis added)

I was implying that most of the stuff the federal government spends money on is a waste of money. Notice this is not the same as “all government redistribution is illegitimate.” The leap from “corporate welfare & needless military spending sucks” to “WE SHOULDN'T HAVE STATE FUNDED FIRE DEPARTEMENTS!!!11!” is huge, and nothing about my carefully worded retort implied such a leap.

]]>