Libertarian Ron Paul says that taxation is theft and immoral

[Richard_Parker]

@John_Mace

Richard:

I don’t see why there isn’t a logical distinction between government expenditures which are:

1. A benefit to everyone and not easily quantifiable as to the specific benefit any one person gets (ie, police)

2. A benefit that only certain people get and that is precisely quantifiable (eg, food stamps).

Ok, so you’ve proposed two new potential criteria: whether the benefit is precisely quantifiable, and whether everyone receives at least a little of it.

The first proposed criterion is ad hoc, solely to make the definition more closely match the categories of spending that some conservative libertarians find objectionable. But what does specificity of benefit actually have to do with whether wealth is being transferred? Nothing. What does it have to do with what is objectionable under Libertarianism? Nothing.

The second proposed criterion fails to draw any lines for two reasons. First, it ignores indirect benefits for no reason. And second, ex ante, you don’t know which group you may be in. Food stamps only go to poor people, but poor is not an immutable characteristic. It’s called a social safety net because you cannot be sure when you might fall of the wire.

Just so we’re clear, I’m not saying you cannot identify a set of things and label them wealth transfers, I’m saying that this category is not logically distinct from other federal spending in whether it transfers wealth.

@John Mace

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.)

Wealth is the cumulative total of the valuable things you own. That can be a candy bar, a $5, an insurance policy, or the right to cross your neighbor’s lawn to get to the pond. Food debit cards aren’t cash, does that make them not wealth? Medicaid pays for medical care, but doesn’t dole out money, is it a wealth transfer?

@John Mace

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.

That’s highly doubtful, and irrelevant in any case since my point is about how people use “wealth transfer” to single out redistribution they don’t like while ignoring redistribution they do like, regardless of the proportions of each.

@John Mace

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.

You’re making my point for me here, which suggests to me that maybe you don’t understand it. My point is that Libertarians tends to call those things “wealth transfers” that benefit poor minorities instead of rich white Texans. Thus, solar panel subsidies are not called a “wealth transfer” while SNAP benefits are.

@John Mace

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.

No. I’m very sympathetic to Libertarianism. I’m not at all sympathetic to those people who are fair weather Libertarians who focus on “wealth transfers,” which is code for programs that benefit the poor instead of the myriad programs that benefit the rich and middle class.

It’s an accurate criticism of the politicized use of a meaningless term. I’m sorry if that offends you.

[John_Mace]

Richard: Before I respond point for point, let me just say that you dead wrong in saying that Libertarians wouldn’t consider tax credits for solar panels to be “wealth transfer”. I certainly do. And I can guarantee you that RP would, too, on precisely those grounds.

[Richard_Parker]

There’s no need to go point-by-point. Let’s recall the bigger picture.

Ron Paul says he objects to all taxing that is used to “transfer wealth from one group to another.” In response to the criticism that this category includes essentially all government spending, you contend that it only identifies a subset of federal spending to which Libertarians object.

My contention is that “wealth transfer” doesn’t actually identify a subset of government spending. It only begins to identify a subset when you add some arbitrary, ad hoc criteria which are designed to single out programs for the poor but which have no relationship to whether wealth is being transferred.

A sub-question is whether Ron Paul et al. are consistent in the application of even their arbitrary criteria – which are that the wealth redistribution is discretely quantifiable and it directly benefits some group that is identifiable ex ante. You say he is. I’m not convinced, but its largely beside the main point.

[The_Tao_s_Revenge]

@John_Mace

Tao: Libertaria would not have publicly funded education. Libertarians consider that to be a feature, not a bug.

I get that. So in Libertaria what happens to children who’s parents won’t or can’t provide them tuition money?

How about single parent households where one parent is too busy working?

[John_Mace]

@Richard_Parker

There’s no need to go point-by-point. Let’s recall the bigger picture.

OK

Ron Paul says he objects to all taxing that is used to “transfer wealth from one group to another.” In response to the criticism that this category includes essentially all government spending, you contend that it only identifies a subset of federal spending to which Libertarians object.

Not really. My contention is that if you actually want to understand the issue, as opposed to nit picking a sound bite, that you start with the source of the political philosophy that advises his position. That philosophy is Libertarianism. My contention is that you not judge his positions based on your own axioms to find hypocrisy, but that you look at the axioms he starts with and judge his actions and positions accordingly.

My contention is that “wealth transfer” doesn’t actually identify a subset of government spending. It only begins to identify a subset when you add some arbitrary, ad hoc criteria which are designed to single out programs for the poor but which have no relationship to whether wealth is being transferred.

And my contention is that it is neither ad hoc nor arbitrary.

What you are calling fair weather Libertarians are just plain ol’ conservatives. I don’t see any reason to lump them in with a political philosophy that they neither claim to be their own, nor adhere to in any consistent manner.

Tao: Charity. But it really doesn’t matter. Libertarians believe that the ends do not justify the means, and that while it is a noble goal to ensure all children are educated, it does not justify stealing for others to make it happen. You are free to make it happen voluntarily, but you are not free to force others to do so just because you think it’s a good thing to do.

[The_Tao_s_Revenge]

@John_Mace

Tao: Charity. But it really doesn’t matter. Libertarians believe that the ends do not justify the means, and that while it is a noble goal to ensure all children are educated, it does not justify stealing for others to make it happen. You are free to make it happen voluntarily, but you are not free to force others to do so just because you think it’s a good thing to do.

So to libertarians someone starving to death is a lesser evil than taxes. A child dieing of treatable illness is a lesser evil than taxes.
I know my circumstance. In liberteria I would have had no hope but to turn to crime. School was where I learned how to think, to explore my interests, and basic skills for life. In America I was given an education, medical care, food, and now I’m a productive law abiding citizen.

Without that step up, why live by society’s rules when it’s a boot stamping on your face?

In liberteria I’m not even sure I’d survive my appendix rupturing when I was 15. Mi familia no tiene mucho dinero. No money for medical care.

[John_Mace]

@The_Tao_s_Revenge

So to libertarians someone starving to death is a lesser evil than taxes.

If you lived in Libertaria, you would be perfectly free to feed that child. If you didn’t, then perhaps it wasn’t so important to you after all. “You”, being the generic you.

I know my circumstance. In liberteria I would have had no hope but to turn to crime. School was where I learned how to think, to explore my interests, and basic skills for life. In America I was given an education, medical care, food, and now I’m a productive law abiding citizen.

Without that step up, why live by society’s rules when it’s a boot stamping on your face?

In liberteria I’m not even sure I’d survive my appendix rupturing when I was 15. Mi familia no tiene mucho dinero. No money for medical care.

I can’t state that it is a certainty that charitable giving would make up for all government welfare, but you are making the assumption that a radical change in the amount of government funds available for the poor would not produce a corresponding amount of private funds available for the poor. And I mean that in both senses of the term “availability”. Government policy, or the lack thereof, does indeed have an impact on the actions of private individuals.

[The_Tao_s_Revenge]

@John_Mace

If you lived in Libertaria, you would be perfectly free to feed that child. If you didn’t, then perhaps it wasn’t so important to you after all. “You”, being the generic you.

That does not change the the fact that if charity isn’t up the task libertarians would choose agonizing death for the vulnerable over taxes.

They prefer human suffering to taxes. Evil sick fucks.

Food programs work. Public education works. Charity, may or may not work.

I can’t state that it is a certainty that charitable giving would make up for all government welfare, but you are making the assumption that a radical change in the amount of government funds available for the poor would not produce a corresponding amount of private funds available for the poor. And I mean that in both senses of the term “availability”. Government policy, or the lack thereof, does indeed have an impact on the actions of private individuals.

How did charity work out in the Great Depression? Did it keep everyone fed? Did it keep a roof over their heads? Would it be up to the task of paying Social Security level expenditures for the elderly?

[John_Mace]

@The_Tao_s_Revenge

That does not change the the fact that if charity isn’t up the task libertarians would choose agonizing death for the vulnerable over taxes.

They prefer human suffering to taxes. Evil sick fucks.

Food programs work. Public education works. Charity, may or may not work.

You can focus your cries of “evil” at people, not the system. People are free to feed the hungry. If they don’t, you can consider them evil.

How did charity work out in the Great Depression? Did it keep everyone fed? Did it keep a roof over their heads? Would it be up to the task of paying Social Security level expenditures for the elderly?

Actually, soup kitchens were mainly private during the Depression, run by churches and other charities (not to mention Al Capone). The government was late to get into the game. People were not dying in the streets before The New Deal.

At any rate, there are usually threads about the efficacy or the goodness/badness of Libertarian philosophy on this MB, so I would suggest taking your argument there. There is one ongoing now. This one is about another aspect of Libertarianism.

[The_Tao_s_Revenge]

@John_Mace

You can focus your cries of “evil” at people, not the system. People are free to feed the hungry. If they don’t, you can consider them evil.

You’re trying shift the blame. The Libertarian system explicitly prohibits setting up a safety net.

Public Education, Food Assistance, etc. works. Our country is proof of that.

If you (generic you) define the system to explicitly prohibit something known to work, aren’t you to blame if the alternative fails?

If your rules block food programs, which can feed everyone. Then you’re at fault if your alternative (charity) fails.

Actually, soup kitchens were mainly private during the Depression, run by churches and other charities (not to mention Al Capone). The government was late to get into the game. People were not dying in the streets before The New Deal.

At any rate, there are usually threads about the efficacy or the goodness/badness of Libertarian philosophy on this MB, so I would suggest taking your argument there. There is one ongoing now. This one is about another aspect of Libertarianism.

Did charity provide tuition for school, support for college, healthcare? Further you ever talked to someone who lived through the poverty of the Great Depression?
It was hairy. If the soup line ran out, you didn’t eat. We have food assistance programs as a direct result of charity’s failure to adequately feed everyone.

[monstro]

Not to mention that charities didn’t touch folks in rural areas, where people really were close to starving. And they also discriminated more than the government did.

[Rand_Rover]

@The_Tao_s_Revenge

Public Education, Food Assistance, etc. works. Our country is proof of that.

Please define “works” and make an actual argument for your position that our country is proof that public education and food assistance “works.”