You say it matters, but then fail to distinguish coercive insurance from other spending for the purpose of defining wealth transfer. If the coercion makes it a wealth transfer, then the same reasoning would apply to the paying of Paul’s salary.
I can think of a number of differences between those. None of those differences, however, involve one of them being a transfer of money from one group to another, since both of those situations involve a transfer of money from one group to another.
Richard: The original contention by RP is that taxes, when used for the transfer of wealth, is theft. Taxes, by definition, are something that only the government can do. Taxes are coerced. Voluntary transactions between private individuals are not.
That is the distinction. Getting hung up on the term “wealth transfer” absent the presence of taxes, is ignoring an essential part of what RP is saying. It’s like arguing that there is a wealth transfer if you and I both voluntarily give each other a $5 bill. I suppose you could say that I transferred $5 of wealth to you and you transferred $5 of wealth to me, but that would be a statement without any meaningful relationship to what would commonly be considered “wealth transfer”. It’s the same for any voluntary transaction between free individuals. Trading value for value is not “wealth transfer”.
Except that RP never said that a theft has occurred whenever money is exchanged between two individuals or groups. I guess I’m having a hard time believing that it’s really that hard to understand the difference between being taxed for something and making a voluntary purchase of something. In one case, you go to jail or pay a fine if you don’t do it, and in the other case… nothing happens if you don’t don it. Do you know which case results in which consequence? If you do, then you know the essential difference.
That coercion/voluntary distinction is understood (obviously). But you are trying to distinguish between different kinds of govt. spending: those that are and are not wealth transfers. So, equally obviously, coercion is not the sole criterion. What are the others?
To the OP. No that does not make him a hypocrite. This is why:
- Dr. Paul says taxes are immoral/theft.
- Dr. Paul never said taking a salary ( that was given to him by a majority of voters in his district) was immoral/theft.
That denies his hypocrisy.
Btw Paul returns unused office funds to the treasury. http://ca.ivn.us/article/2011/04/02/ron-paul-returns-over-140000-his-office-budget-us-treasury
If any other institution coerced money from working individuals and used it as it saw fit would that not be theft/immoral? If they had an employee trying to end what he thought was immoral would he be a hypocrite? Come on now
OK, now we are getting to the point where I am not enough of an RP expert to defend his position. But, if I assume a mainstream Libertarian position and assume that he is talking about how we get from point A to point B, then I think the situation boils to this:
Libertarians don’t like any taxes. Ideally, they would get rid of all taxes. But the most onerous ones are those that are levied to perform functions that are not considered legitimate government functions. In Libertaria, there would be no welfare. Period. And so there should be no taxes to support welfare programs. That’s easy. Eliminate them because the government shouldn’t be doing that stuff in the first place.
However, in Libertaria there would be courts, military, and police. How to fund those legitimate functions of government is a matter of debate. If we have to fund those functions by taxes until there is a better way to do so, then that’s an issue of how the transition is made, and not a debate about what the proper role of government is. From what I understand of Libertarian thought, the courts could be funded by some form of fee paid in order to register a contract with the court system. You are free to not pay the fee, but then you are not able to avail yourself of the court system if you need to litigate the contract. For other legitimate functions of government, like the police and the military, I don’t claim to be enough of an expert on Libertarian philosophy to say what the mainstream position is on how those would be funded, if there even is a mainstream position there.
But on the issue of welfare, or transfers of wealth, there is no real debate. Government doesn’t do that, and so you don’t fund it and you don’t need taxes. How RP would fund other legitimate functions of government is something I can’t say. But however it is funded, paying the government officials to perform those function is not a transfer of wealth, but a trade of value for value. It’s a voluntary exchange that neither party is forced to make. In the same way that you give to charities because it is a value to you that other people do not suffer. If you didn’t value that, then you wouldn’t give to the charity in the first place. Some Libertarians, I believe, would rely on voluntary payments or endowments to perform those functions in the same way that wealthy individuals endowed universities, libraries, hospitals and other public works projects in the past.
Yeah, about that. Skipping the debate about whether or not that was an adequate source before the government stepped in(for now), do you think that there might be a drop in charitable giving from corporations and wealthy individuals if there were no tax deductions for said charitable giving?
That’s a topic for a different thread, as it has nothing to do with the OP. I’ll just say that the amount of charitable giving between our current system and a Libertarian one depends on more variables than just the one you mention.
John, I’m afraid you’re not understanding my question, perhaps because the answer seems to obvious to you or because I’ve been typing from a phone and been too succinct. I’ll try once more:
You (i.e., John Mace speaking for mainstream Libertarianism, not Ron Paul) characterize some government spending, and not other government spending, as “wealth transfer.” So what I’m asking is what makes Social Security benefits a “wealth transfer” and not, say, police protection from robbery. I’m perfectly capable of imagining what might be your distinctions, but I was hoping you could enlighten me about your thinking.
I would say the common definition of the term. If you want to call police protection “wealth transfer”, you’ll have to explain what you mean every time you use that term, because your average person is not going to understand police protection that way. RP is using the term the way the average person would-- to characterize cash payments taken from one group of individuals by the government, through taxes, and given to other groups of individuals. If you get SS, you get a check in the mail every month. If you get police protection, you don’t get a check in the mail ever.
For instance, when you argue for or against measures to alleviate wealth disparity in the US, do you use the amount of wealth poor people have due to availing themselves of police protection when you compare wealth among different income groups? If you want to use the term “wealth transfer” in that way, then you’re going to have to start using it consistently when arguing for public policy positions.
Strictly speaking, though, many Libertarians will argue that there should be no taxes at all. In that case, you avoid the distinction you are trying to make altogether. A Libertarian might propose that communities have a voluntary “tax” to support a police force. If you pay the “tax”, you will get police protection when your house is robbed. If you don’t pay the “tax”, you may or may not get police protection, depending on the largess of the community, and the availability of the police. I’m not sure if RP falls in that category or not, because I don’t listen to him all that much, and when I do, it’s hard to tell if he’s talking about what he would do tomorrow (ie, in a transition stage to Liberteria) or if he is talking about what his end goal is.
It’s not clear to me that the common notion of the term has any logical coherence, which is why I’m questioning you because you seem to think it does. The criteria you’ve adopted so far are (a) it is coerced and (b) it is in cash. Are there additional criteria you want to propose before I demonstrate that these do not coherently describe the set of policies that Libertarians are against as “wealth transfers”?
That’s the second time I’ve responded to something you’ve said, then you responded that it was off-topic. If you don’t want off-topic things to be discussed in this thread, don’t bring them up in the first place.
Nope. We’re talking about whether there is hypocrisy in the Libertarian position of RP. If you want to talk about the practicality or the effectiveness of those positions, start another thread on that subject.
No, I don’t want add any other criteria. I gave you the strict Libertarian position of no taxes. I honestly don’t know what RP’s position is on that issue, and I don’t think we can determine it from the sound bite the OP gave us. If you want to dig into his web site and try to figure out what his fundamental position on taxes is, we can debate that, but I’m not really interested in doing so.
If the OP wants to make the case that hypocrisy abounds, or if you want to do so, go ahead. So far, all I’ve seen is assertions without any argument to back them up.
You’re trying to put this on Ron Paul, but you’re the one making the argument that one can distinguish between “wealth transfers” and other government spending such that Ron Paul is not a hypocrite for supporting one and not the other. If you’re so sure they can be distinguished, you’d think you would have a clear definition of what constitutes a wealth transfer.
I think there is no neutral, logical boundary between what has been labeled a “wealth transfer” and other government spending. The boundary in practice is that wealth transfers are those government activities that benefit poor minorities instead of rich white Texans.
I’m saying that to an average person, there is a clear enough distinction. Whether you consider it a logical distinction is another matter.
Do you care to comment on how we commonly measure “wealth” in debates about public policy? That’s the key word, independent of “transfer”. Do you, Richard Parker, include the value of police protection for the poor when you debate wealth disparity in the US? If not, why not? If you want me to open another thread on that subject, I’d be glad to, as long as you commit to participate in it.
That is factually incorrect. SS benefits both. Do you want to draw the distinction more clearly?
It isn’t “the average person” making this argument, it is you. Do you believe there is a logical distinction or not?
SSDI is indistinguishable from the fire department coming to my house to put out a fire in terms of wealth being transferred. In both cases, I’m getting back a little bit of my money and whole lot of other people’s money to benefit me. The same is true of money spent on education – it is a wealth transfer from people who have no or fewer kids to people who have more kids. The only reason people call one kind of government spending a “wealth transfer” and the other kind just ordinary government spending (regardless of whether it would be government spending that is kept in Libertaria, like the fire department) is because “wealth transfer” has a connotation that is politically useful.
If you want to start a thread on whether “wealth transfer” can be coherently distinguished from other government spending, I’ll participate. But you might start by taking a position in this thread about whether you personally think it is a coherent distinction. You keep appealing to the fact that other people seem to think it is a coherent distinction without stating your own position, even though you’re the one using the term to make an argument.
No, it is not factually incorrect. For various reasons, net, social Security transfers wealth from rich to poor.
ISTM that wealth transfers means “federal spending on things I don’t like.” The idea that a definition hinges on money going to a group or not makes no sense. Do libertarians think that police departments function on free donuts and civic pride? I can assure you that they do not. They actually require money to function.
If the issue is more of “money going to people when there is no direct benefit to me,” that still doesn’t help because most people will get no direct benefit from police, fire, defense or other libertarian tolerated expenditures. Of course, there’s a hell of alot of indirect benefit from these things.
If the issue is really that the libertarian does not appreciate the indirect benefits associated with some activities of the federal government, he is failing to appreciate the benefits of living in a democracy in which people get to vote on issues such as how federal money is spent.
Well that highlights a huge flaw with philosophy then. Public education (k-12, vouchers, financial assistance with college, etc.) would fall under “theft”.
If a kid isn’t born into a family that can afford education. Should the kid remain unschooled?
Nevermind that apparently it’s theft to make sure Americans don’t starve and die from malnourishment.
I thank you for your clarification. It just confirms how evil he is
Richard:
I don’t see why there isn’t a logical distinction between government expenditures which are:
-
A benefit to everyone and not easily quantifiable as to the specific benefit any one person gets (ie, police)
-
A benefit that only certain people get and that is precisely quantifiable (eg, food stamps).
I also don’t see why there isn’t a logical distinction between the definition of the term “wealth”, as commonly used by people and the definition you want to use, one that no one uses in regular speech. If I grab 100 people off the street and ask them how much monetary wealth they have, I can’t imagine that any would include the “police protection” as part of their wealth. (I say “monetary” so we don’t get bogged down in some people wanting to count “love of family and friends” as part of their wealth.)
As for your claim about poor minorities and white Texans, you did in fact qualify your criteria from “benefit” to “net benefit”. That’s an important distinction. And, in fact, almost every government program is a “net benefit” to poor people, so that serves no meaningful purpose when trying to categorize such programs.
Note that Libertarians would oppose tax breaks (or any special financial treatment) for things like Solar Panels added to your home. Are you going to claim that that benefits poor minorities more than white Texans? I don’t live in Texas, but in CA I don’t see many poor minorities being able to avail themselves of such tax credits.
However, those situations are going to be few and far between, as the majority of federal government spending is going to be a “net benefit” to poor people since, aside from FICA, they pay no federal taxes at all. Categorizing government programs by who gets the net benefit doesn’t tell us much of anything at all. Further, it relies on the notion that our current, progressive tax structure is somehow the right one. If we had a society where everyone paid an equal amount in taxes, that would shift the net benefit in the opposite direction, and Libertarians would still oppose taxes.
I am not a Libertarian, but I do hold some (small “l”) libertarian positions, and I oppose tax polices that would benefit me all the time. Do I have to move to Texas to disprove your thesis? Frankly, your statements that Libertarians only use the term “wealth transfer” because it is political expedient is nothing more than an unsubstantiated (and unsubstantiatable), gratuitous swipe at those holding a political position you disagree with.
Tao: Libertaria would not have publicly funded education. Libertarians consider that to be a feature, not a bug.