Political Compass #11: From each according to his ability, to each according to need.

[pervert]

@RickJay

An agent’s actions taken to maximize utility can change dramatically with collective action, and can often INCREASE utility, not decrease it.

While this is certainly true, it does not prove that private charity is incapable of handling some particular need.

The classic thought exercise here is the classroom of 50 smokers with sensitive eyes; …

The problem with this thought experiment is that it ignores two choices. First of all the individuals could choose not to go into a room with so many smokers. Secondly, they could simply ask each other not to smoke in such a confined space. Collective coercerive action is not required to maximize utility.

It’s simply not true that collective action on “charity” necessarily means everyone is not getting the amount of charity they desire.

I aslo agree with this. However I should point out that applying the forceful apperatus of the state to charitable collections removes some of the feedback mechanisms which could adjust those collections to the level each person desires.

since the marginal value of choosing not to donate in the absence of collective action is positive, everyone will choose not to donate, even though the result of everyone making the same choice might be worse for everyone than collective action would have been.

But this is not born out by the facts of reality. This assertion calims that private charity does not exist. This is clearly not true. If I am not mistaken, private charity existed even before the tax benifits were so widely used.

To use a really obvious example, imagine what would happen if, instead of making charity voluntary, you made military spending voluntary.

To some extent this was done. Do you remember the bond drives from WWII and I? There were other similar drives to gather resources to help the war effort. Certainly we had taxes too, so this does not prove that voluntary funding works perfectly.

1. Rational decisions made by free agents in a collective context can be completely different from equally rational decisions made in absence of collective decisions.

2. The collective decisions can work better than non-collective ones (and vice-versa, of course.)

These two things I agree with. But I don’t think these assertions alone prove what you want to prove. Namely that coercive tax collection is a better way to fund assistance to those in genuine need.

[pervert]

@SentientMeat

IBut this is to wander from the point, and even if you could show that involuntary, coerced taxation is such an evil, I would still think that scrapping them would leave millions more in genuine, immediate, physical need. To believe that voluntary contributions will ever even approach the levels required to run an adequate justice system, military, police force, or school network let alone a functioning Medicare or social safety net is utterly naive.

Well, your right that this goes far beyond the scope of the OP, so I’ll leave you with this idea.

A voluntary tax does not necessarily mean PBS drives or asking for charitable donations. For instance I think a good case can be made that simply imposing a fee on enforceable contracts could pay for much of the normal govenrment activities (defence and justice). Specifically, this would impose a fee of a few percent on every contract between parties which involved a delay between the transfer of goods and the honoring of payment. But it could be made voluntary simply by allowing individuals to enter into any contracts they want without paying the fee. These contracts, however, would not be enforceable in courts.

Now, your right, that such a system could not fund massive welfare spending. However, if you think that you cannot convince enough people to voluntary give to such a system, how can you claim that taking funds for it is democratic? Unless you are simply saying that it is democratic to vote in favor of taking money from others. That is, voting for welfare spending is not so much supporting welfare spending as it is supporting forcing others to support it. If you can see the distinction.

[pervert]

@SentientMeat

I Charity is far wider than giving someone food. It is educating a stranger. It is paying a policeman or soldier to stop people hurting others, physically or financially. Taxation is charity.

No it is Not.

Taxation: the imposition of taxes; the practice of the government in levying taxes on the subjects of a state.

Charity: the voluntary provision of money, materials, or help to people in need.

Now there is certainly some overlap. Tax money could, for instance be used for charitable services. However, they are most certainly not identical.

You seem to be having difficulty discerning the difference between defence and justice from the welfare state. The difference has to do with the application of force. Not in the manner that they are paid for, but in the purpose of those activities. Defence and justice require the use of force. Therefore, we constitute governments to be the arbitrators of such force. We create institutions such that we can control to as great a degree as possible how such force is used. The idea being that we use force where it is necessary and allow individuals to be free from force as much as possible.

Meanwhile, the welfare of the needy does not in and of itself require force. Therefore, it is not a “legitimate” function of government in the same way that defence and the justice system are.

Please note I am not saying that charitable works cannot or should not be done through government althoug I certainly believe that. This post is specifically aimed at the notion that spending on police and armies is identical to charitable spending.

Also note that I have not introduce the idea of incidental benifits. That spending money on police may in fact benifit others is an incidental fact to the fact that I need police force and am willing to spend money on it. A welfare state cannot make the same claim without constructing some sort of trust fund / insurance structure which I’m sure you would also find repugnant.

[RickJay]

@pervert

While this is certainly true, it does not prove that private charity is incapable of handling some particular need.

I never suggested it did.

The problem with this thought experiment is that it ignores two choices. First of all the individuals could choose not to go into a room with so many smokers. Secondly, they could simply ask each other not to smoke in such a confined space. Collective coercerive action is not required to maximize utility.

Well, the problem here is you’re taking a simple economic theory a little too far than the example is intended to explain. Sure, you could not go to class. That analogy breaks down, however, when we’re discussing national affairs; it’s not realistic to think everyone dissatisifed with the condition of the country can just pack up and leave. My only point was to illustrate that utility CAN BE maximized through collective action, not that it ALWAYS will be.

These two things I agree with. But I don’t think these assertions alone prove what you want to prove. Namely that coercive tax collection is a better way to fund assistance to those in genuine need.

??? When did I suggest I was “proving” this?

[pervert]

Fair enough. I suppose I over reacted to this: “everyone will choose not to donate” (Emphasis added). My bad.

But if all you wanted to suggest is that collective action could result in optimal activity, then I’m not sure how that disproves the statement made by John Mace which prompted your post.

[SentientMeat]

John:I never said “police and educate” thru charity. I was addressing physical suffering, especially hunger.

Does meeting these needs through government mandate, but not others even more basic, not strike you as perverse? Surely physical needs outweigh the need for eg. education?

It’s funny how advocates of government action never apply those standards to government programs.

Are you, like Debaser, suggesting that government action which addresses suffering can result in more suffering? More “dependency” or more “inefficiency”, or even some general appeal to “less happiness” I could understand (though disagree). But do you honestly think that suffering is an accurate term here?

But voluntary charity would eliminate precisely as much “genuine need” as the citizens of the country actually desired to eliminate.

So you accept that some genuine need would go unmet; said citizens would simply ignore it? How is this justified in a country of plenty where so much goes to waste?

We’ll probably never know the answer to that.

What makes you think that private charity can meet genuine physical need if it can’t meet the need for education or protection from crime or foreign invasion?

Those charities shown to be inefficient or ineffective would die.

As might those whose genuine need is not met due to the shortfall.

pervert:if you think that you cannot convince enough people to voluntary give to such a system, how can you claim that taking funds for it is democratic?

Because democracy elects a government whose taxation and spending plans we all agree to abide by for four years - if enough people want less or no taxes we all agree to abide by their majority vote. Otherwise how can you claim that taking funds for education, policing or military spending is democratic? Surely you are contending that “voting for education/police/military spending is not so much supporting education/police/military spending as it is supporting forcing others to support it”? I cannot see the distinction between this and pure anarchism.

You seem to be having difficulty discerning the difference between defence and justice from the welfare state. The difference has to do with the application of force.

(Herring colour mine)
Why cannot the application of force be funded voluntarily?

[hildea]

Political Compass reading: -6.something on both axes (I think one of them was -7.something, but can’t remember which)
Strongly agree

This debate has made me realise that I answered the questions on the PC with the underlying assumption that they’d apply to a country more or less like mine, ie. a democratic country with a free press. It could be interesting to try again while imagining that I lived in a dicatorship. I’d hit “strongly disagree” on statements like “my country right or wrong” a lot faster if “my country” was, say, North Korea or Saudi Arabia.

So, my “strongly agree” to this statement is based on it being implemented in a democracy. I’m reasonably comfortable about the government defining “need” and “ability” if, and only if, I can vote the bastards out of office if they do so in a way I find abusive.

I should, perhaps, reserve my “strongly agree” for a modified statement: “A minimum contribution from each according to his/her ability, a minimum contribution to each according to need is a fundamentally good idea.” I’d hate living in a society where everything - work and rewards - was distributed completely equally. You (generic you) may want to work hard to be able to afford a big house, a new car, and a home cinema system. I want to work less, live in a smaller house, bike to work and have no TV. Both of us would probably hate it if we were forced to contribute and receive equally much.

I wouldn’t have a problem with “need” being defined a lot wider than simply “not suffering”, if society can afford it. To take one example: Most Norwegian children (including my own) get an obscene amount of Christmas gifts. If the politicians decided to fork over, say 100-200$ every year in toys or sports equipment to each child in the small minority of poor Norwegian families, I’d say that’s a legitimate extension of “need”. (I might or might not agree with this specific use of my tax money, but that’s another debate. My tax money is spent in lots of ways I dislike - that’s one of the costs of living in a democracy.) So, “need” is whatever society (or, in this case, democratially elected politicians) decide it is. Preferably that should at least include the basic necessities of life, but it can be wider.

I find it a lot more difficult to get a good handle on the “ability” part. If I win a huge pile of money, quit work, and spend the rest of my life posting on message boards, reading science fiction, and playing board games, my contribution to society will be pretty far below my ability. Sure, I’ll pay taxes, so I’ll contribute more than nothing, but I’ll still be lazying around while others are working hard to keep the wheels of society spinning. Is that OK? Despite my gut feeling (“That’s unfair!”) I’ll have to say yes. It’s difficult to imagine palatable ways of enforcing a minimum contribution from everyone, so I’ll have to accept that in some cases the “minimum contribution” can be close to zero. But if the need is vital enough, I support society’s right to use force to get the neccessary contributions. Compulsory military service (with an alternative for pacifists and similar) is one possible example.

I find it interesting (and slightly surreal) that there’s so much discussion here about taxes. Sure, it’s an example of enforced contributions, but it’s hard to imagine a milder, less intrusive, and less restrictive way to enforce contributions. “From each according to ability and inclination” would inevitably lead to “to each according to what’s available”. “What’s available” might be enough, but then again, it might not. And if it isn’t - if your needs aren’t met through whatever you can provide yourself plus privately funded charity - you’re out of luck, unless there’s a security net, someone or something which has to provide for your needs if you show up on its doorstep broke, hungry, and nine months pregnant. That “someone or something” needs money. If there’s a more certain and more fair way to get those money than through taxes, I don’t see it.

[pervert]

@SentientMeat

Otherwise how can you claim that taking funds for education, policing or military spending is democratic?

Well, to be specific, I did not claim that forcible taxes was democratic. I think you did and conjectured that I would agree. I’m not sure, exactly, that I did.

Surely you are contending that “voting for education/police/military spending is not so much supporting education/police/military spending as it is supporting forcing others to support it”?

Well, again, I’m not sure at all that I am saying this. But if we stick to police and military, I might be able to grapple with your question. No, I don’t think that voting to support the police and military is the same as voting to support other pay for it. Specifically because everyone uses them. Even if you are never attacked nor ever violated criminally, these things are necessary. Besides which, I do in fact support changing the funding scheme to something much more voluntary. So, again, I’m not sure when I ever said that I support coerced funding of even these basic programs.

I cannot see the distinction between this and pure anarchism.

I’m not sure at all which two things you are talking about. Are you talking about voluntary funding of government?

(Herring colour mine)
Why cannot the application of force be funded voluntarily?

Can it not? I’m not sure I agreed to that. Have you proven it?

But more to the point, the point I was trying to make was that governments are instituted to mediate the use of force. Between ourselves and other nations, and between individual citizens. By that standard, there are many things wich governments should not do. Regardless of the funding method, governments simply are not social engineering tools. If you want to build a society which cares more for its poorer members, then convince more of societies members to do so. Why is it necessary to limit your challenge to convincing a majority of the voting public (not the society at large) that everyone else should be forced to transfer money to those poorer members? <Here I’m trying to make the point that voting outcomes do not necessarily equal the will of the people>. But perhaps we should retire this part of the discussion to another thread on the proper role of governments.