tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post922505805320953303..comments2024-02-29T03:34:23.190-05:00Comments on Who Were the Sea Peoples?: A Summing Upgcallahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-70628200100246798532010-01-17T19:18:18.725-05:002010-01-17T19:18:18.725-05:00Well, I don't recall conscription, but Skinner...Well, I don't recall conscription, but Skinner knows his stuff, so I defer to him!<br /><br />"But the reason he gave was that you could die as a result. But what happens when you continue to refuse to pay taxes?"<br /><br />Yes, well, Hobbes didn't mean you could violate the Sovereign with impunity, but I think he would have said that once you were condemned to execution, you had every right to try to escape or get off some other way.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-434666102852601282010-01-17T14:50:04.355-05:002010-01-17T14:50:04.355-05:00In fact, he states,
". . although in the cov...In fact, he states,<br /><br />". . although in the covenant you give the sovereign the power of life and death, you cannot give the sovereign the uncontested right to execute you, because that actually ends your life. Now the only reason you’ve entered into the state is to preserve your life."<br /><br />http://nigelwarburton.typepad.com/philosophy_bites/2007/10/transcript-of-q.htmlSkye Stewarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04430355111917961355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-37972839320790872282010-01-17T14:38:16.910-05:002010-01-17T14:38:16.910-05:00"The only serious injustice Levaiathan can co..."The only serious injustice Levaiathan can commit is to try to murder the subjects, since that breaks the founding covenant"<br /><br />I recall Prof. Quentin Skinner saying there was also another exemption; conscription. <br /><br />But the reason he gave was that you could die as a result. But what happens when you continue to refuse to pay taxes?<br /><br />http://nigelwarburton.typepad.com/philosophy_bites/2007/10/quentin-skinner.htmlSkye Stewarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04430355111917961355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-24882902728875099792010-01-15T16:56:09.381-05:002010-01-15T16:56:09.381-05:00Brian, it's not so much that you're wrong,...Brian, it's not so much that you're wrong, but that your questions are not aligning with my interest in bringing the topic up. The general ancap claim is "taxes are theft <em>simpliciter</em>," not "this high level of taxes is theft" -- and I'm interested in examining the former claim, not (right now) the latter -- not that it's not a valid topic!<br /><br />As far as Hobbes goes, I think he'd say, "Whatever level of taxes Leviathan needs, you'd better pay up!" The only serious injustice Levaiathan can commit is to try to murder the subjects, since that breaks the founding covenant.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-83304881199106573312010-01-15T13:28:45.065-05:002010-01-15T13:28:45.065-05:00"I used Hobbes because his a an easy-to-under..."I used Hobbes because his a an easy-to-understand case for the State against which a slogan like "Taxes are theft!" has no force. I didn't say Hobbes was righ; I said you can't prove him wrong that way."<br /><br />You have repeated exactly why it seems to me my question is as relevant as could be to this discussion. On which point am I wrong: that Hobbes' theory of why taxes aren't theft (it has been at least 15 years since I've had my nose in Hobbes) depends on the idea that they are necessary to prevent war or all against all? That the actual taxes taken by actual states go far beyond this level? That if the previous is true, then libertarian arguments that "taxation is theft" are at least partially if not mostly true, and thus couldn't be fairly said to have "no force"?Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00762531666318117072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-16599295713543450602010-01-15T12:04:36.439-05:002010-01-15T12:04:36.439-05:00Brian, I haven't addressed this because it has...Brian, I haven't addressed this because it has nothing to do with the intent of the thread, which is to ask whether a couple of typical libertarian rhetorical moves "work."<br /><br />ANd I did not bring Hobbes up to claim he was a "wise man," I used Hobbes because his a an easy-to-understand case for the State against which a slogan like "Taxes are theft!" has no force. I didn't say Hobbes was righ; I said you can't prove him wrong <em>that</em> way.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-66637222285244962682010-01-15T10:09:09.547-05:002010-01-15T10:09:09.547-05:00"Whether we call it theft or not is important..."Whether we call it theft or not is important, I think, because to call something "theft" means it is unjustified."<br /><br />Ok then it's not theft and Bob's post proved nothing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-80790000202268462412010-01-15T09:45:05.573-05:002010-01-15T09:45:05.573-05:00The Blackadder Says:
If, as Gene says, Hobbes wo...The Blackadder Says: <br /><br /><i>If, as Gene says, Hobbes would say you have no right to withhold the proportion of property needed to maintain social order," and if we are in fact taking Hobbes as wise on this issue, are we not admitting that the ACTUAL amounts that any ACTUAL state is taking via taxation goes far beyond the amounts that Hobbes would agree "you have no right to withhold," and thus that libertarian objections to ACTUAL taxation on the grounds that it is partly/mostly unjustified theft, actually do have some merit?</i><br /><br />How much would you be willing to pay for the services the government provides to you (roads, police, fire, etc.)? Now, how much do you actually pay in taxes? <br /><br />My guess is that for most people in the United States the first number is greater than the second (here's an argument in support of this guess: if it were not so, people would leave the country, or at least stop paying taxes).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-79542500525366749812010-01-15T09:32:59.704-05:002010-01-15T09:32:59.704-05:00The Blackadder Says:
Yes, if you asked someone p...The Blackadder Says: <br /><br /><i>Yes, if you asked someone point black, "Is taxation theft?" he would say, "Of course not!" But then if you said, "Oh, because the government really owns everyone's income?" he would say, "Huh? This isn't about property rights, there are other things too, like social justice."</i><br /><br />If someone denies that taxation is theft, is he really committed to the view that the government owns everyone's income? I don't think it's theft that my phone company takes money out of my bank account each month (I have an auto payment thing set up). Does that mean I should think the phone company owns my income?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-47025865588621928872010-01-15T09:27:50.908-05:002010-01-15T09:27:50.908-05:00Sorry if repeating this point over and over is rud...Sorry if repeating this point over and over is rude, but it still seems vital to me and it still seems it hasn't really been addressed. If, as Gene says, Hobbes would say you have no right to withhold the proportion of property needed to maintain social order," and if we are in fact taking Hobbes as wise on this issue, are we not admitting that the ACTUAL amounts that any ACTUAL state is taking via taxation goes far beyond the amounts that Hobbes would agree "you have no right to withhold," and thus that libertarian objections to ACTUAL taxation on the grounds that it is partly/mostly unjustified theft, actually do have some merit? If not, why not?Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00762531666318117072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-31366141509246225252010-01-15T09:19:22.583-05:002010-01-15T09:19:22.583-05:00Whether we call it theft or not is important, I th...Whether we call it theft or not is important, I think, because to call something "theft" <em>means</em> it is unjustified.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-62591872829279227012010-01-15T09:15:09.130-05:002010-01-15T09:15:09.130-05:00"Gene, let's not forget the Anon in this ..."Gene, let's not forget the Anon in this very thread, who couldn't believe I was using the notion of "stealing" to describe taxpayer funds helping starving people. And then note well his comeback--he didn't say, "It's not stealing" as you and Blackadder predicted, but on the contrary he said a little theft is worth it to feed starving people, and that most Americans would agree with him.<br /><br />I think he is more right than you are, in terms of how most Americans would think. Yes, if you asked someone point black, "Is taxation theft?" he would say, "Of course not!" But then if you said, "Oh, because the government really owns everyone's income?" he would say, "Huh? This isn't about property rights, there are other things too, like social justice"<br /><br />Who gives a crap if it's called theft or not? <br /><br />It's justified and that's what matters... Of course, does it make any sense to called it theft if it can be justified? I don't know. I daresay Gene would say that it isn't. <br /><br />But that's quite besides the point. What matters is that most sane people not just in America but in the whole world will agree with me that if you have to take a little bit of somebody's earnings to feed the starving guy on the street, then so be it.<br /><br />if you really want to start playing with definitions to get your way fine. but i think it makes sense to say that the homeless guy bleeding to death on the street has had something taken from him when he's stepped over. the same applies for the black man who applies for a summer fellowship at the Lvmi but it rejected for the color of his skin.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-9028692848672089482010-01-15T08:28:40.930-05:002010-01-15T08:28:40.930-05:00GENE;
"So, for example, when Aquinas said th...GENE;<br /><br />"So, for example, when Aquinas said that it was OK to take food for your family if they were starving, he didn't say "It's OK to steal sometimes." He said, "This doesn't count as stealing.""<br /><br />There are several issues here. I think there is reason to believe that in most cases, this is mere semantics. If you're arguing something is "justified", or permissable in a given emergency scenario or "lifeboat" situation you'll of course use terminology borrowed from or conducive to the vocabulary of justification, ie., NOT "stealing" or "robbery".<br /><br />Just as someone would not say they were "assaulting" someone after the person refused to quiet down (after you politely asked them) but rather "i told him if he didn't I would hit him!" is stated with an air of justification. And it doesn't necessarily assume a disingenuousness on their part to do so. <br /><br />But it could be argued that "principles" of ethics (deon., conseq. or virtue) could be invoked to clarify whether his actions were correct or not, and whether the words he used were in fact the most appropriate ones.<br /><br />Secondly, in this scenario of a poor desperate man "stealing" from someone, the libertarian would insist this does not constitute nullification of his right to restitution. Therefore, it arguably doesn't invalidate the ethic of libertarian property. <br /><br />Long takes up this issue in his Seminar on Libertarian Foundations. If he is correct, then this example of "stealing" is a straw man.Skye Stewarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04430355111917961355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-81420671035684629102010-01-15T08:24:38.558-05:002010-01-15T08:24:38.558-05:00No, no, no, utter consistency is my watchword!
1)...No, no, no, utter consistency is my watchword!<br /><br />1) The fact that the guy came to use "stealing" was a concession to you -- "all right, if you're going to insist on calling it stealing, well, fine..."<br /><br />2) "Sure Bob, but that principle is empty unless they know what the property rights are."<br /><br />Exactly. And for most people, those rights are not absolute. That does not mean it's OK to violate those rights sometimes. Instead, it means such-and-such does not count as a rights violation.<br /><br />So, for example, when Aquinas said that it was OK to take food for your family if they were starving, he didn't say "It's OK to steal sometimes." He said, "This doesn't count as stealing."<br /><br />And similarly, I don't think Hobbes would say that it's OK for the State to violate your property rights for revenue because the State is so important, he would say you have no right to withhold the proportion of property needed to maintain social order.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-43644389194239326322010-01-15T00:53:27.875-05:002010-01-15T00:53:27.875-05:00I know I said I was done, but Gene has just slippe...I know I said I was done, but Gene has just slipped up completely. It was only a matter of time...<br /><br />Gene said:<br /><i>(Sure, Stephan says he's met some people in discussions who advocate unjust aggression, but I mean serious thinkers.)</i><br /><br />Gene, let's not forget the Anon in this very thread, who couldn't believe I was using the notion of "stealing" to describe taxpayer funds helping starving people. And then note well his comeback--he didn't say, "It's not stealing" as you and Blackadder predicted, but on the contrary he said a little theft is worth it to feed starving people, and that most Americans would agree with him.<br /><br />I think he is more right than you are, in terms of how most Americans would think. Yes, if you asked someone point black, "Is taxation theft?" he would say, "Of course not!" But then if you said, "Oh, because the government really owns everyone's income?" he would say, "Huh? This isn't about property rights, there are other things too, like social justice."<br /><br />You yourself slipped up and gave away the whole game when you just said:<br /><br /><i>What's doing all the work in libertarian theory is the absolute property rights.</i><br /><br />See? A naive reader up till now would have thought your position was simply, "Bob and Stephan, other people disagree over what property rights people actually have."<br /><br />In response, Stephan and I have been going hoarse saying, "No that's not really it, Gene. Most statists don't think property rights trump other considerations. You pay your property taxes because it's necessary for civil order etc., not because the government really owns all the land."<br /><br />And you just admitted that yourself, in the above. You conceded this isn't about the specific content of property rights, it's about libertarians making property rights key, whereas other people don't.<br /><br />Just to make sure you see why I think you've been denying this (at least in portions of your remarks), when I asked you if you tell your kids not to steal, you did NOT say, "Sure Bob, but I also teach them other things like, it's okay to take a guy's car to get your pregnant wife to the hospital, even if it's against his will."<br /><br />No, you didn't say that, you simply said (not exact quote), "Sure Bob, but that principle is empty unless they know what the property rights are."<br /><br />I concede that maybe I'm bouncing around myself, and you think I'm a moving target, but for sure YOU are bouncing around in this debate.Bob Murphyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04001108408649311528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-51013902841295746092010-01-15T00:38:23.305-05:002010-01-15T00:38:23.305-05:00"1) Assume no libertarian theory of rights
2)..."1) Assume no libertarian theory of rights<br />2) You get a non-libertarian polity!<br /><br />Gene, what a brilliant alternative!"<br /><br />You know, I would have responded to this if I had had the least idea what you were getting at.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-18619370839158048972010-01-15T00:36:38.487-05:002010-01-15T00:36:38.487-05:00The reason I asked "And you're aware that...The reason I asked "And you're aware that no actually existing legal system has ever embodied an absolute theory of property rights, correct?" is that you seemed to be implying that if ownership isn't absolute it's not ownership at all.<br /><br /><br />"can the NAP be at all convincing to someone."<br /><br />Brian, my point is the opposite: the NAP is so convincing to everyone that it's empty of any real bite. (Sure, Stephan says he's met some people in discussions who advocate unjust aggression, but I mean serious thinkers.) Just go ask some Marxist professor if he's against aggression, and he'll let you know that's why he's anti-capitalist. What's doing all the work in libertarian theory is the absolute property rights. (And we really shouldn't call them "Lockean" since Locke's property rights weren't absolute, and his thoery was a muddle anyway.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-62764654190213463982010-01-15T00:22:36.919-05:002010-01-15T00:22:36.919-05:00What is the theory that rigorously explains what a...What is the theory that rigorously explains what amount is justified? And what are one's duties/obligations in a real world in which the amount that the state takes is not justified? Has there ever been a state that DID only take exactly the justified amount? If not, then are any libertarianoids who chose to mindlessly and foolishly shout "taxation is theft" not at least partly right all of the time? Is that question preceding the previous question any more meaningful than the question "And you're aware that no actually existing legal system has ever embodied an absolute theory of property rights, correct?"<br />Gene, you know, and I know you know, that libertarians advocate a set of political beliefs that they are fully and acutely aware every second of the day that most of the world doesn't agree with and has never fully practiced, so the cute "are you really that dumb?" questions are unnecessary.<br />I was using "steps from Lockean property rights to NAP" in the same sense I took you to be using in this original post---that only with a built-in dedication to Lockean property rights (combined with some notion that built into "property rights" is the idea that one is wrong to agress against someone's property, plus the idea that the body can be seen as the property of the human bearing the body, so to speak), can the NAP be at all convincing to someone. I thought that's what this whole discussion was about, colloquially speaking of course and never once using the word "derive...." in any technical sense.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00762531666318117072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-66135380119647124632010-01-14T20:32:34.357-05:002010-01-14T20:32:34.357-05:00Of course, Brian, a theory that tries to show that...Of course, Brian, a theory that tries to show that <em>some</em> taxation is justified is not committed to the notion that any amount whatsoever is justified. And you are aware that Locke himself moved from Lockean property rights to a justification for the State, and that his theory of property rights held them to be limited, not absolute, right? And you're aware that no actually existing legal system has ever embodied an absolute theory of property rights, correct?<br /><br />But I don't understand what you mean by a move from Lockean property rights to the NAP, since no one I was aware of derives the NAP from from Lockean property rights.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-89847723054221426932010-01-14T20:11:01.000-05:002010-01-14T20:11:01.000-05:00And what does a theory of "taxes aren't t...And what does a theory of "taxes aren't theft" have to assume? More than just a justificatory theory of property, though of course it needs one of those too, I think. (Unless, and this is perfectly respectable, it's purely Realist--it's your property if you ACTUALLY get to decide what happens with it, so if someone acting under the rubric "the state" takes if from you or cajoles or threatens you into handing it over, it ain't yours.) It seems to me it also needs a theory of state legitimacy--that is, what people under what circumstances (it's always people, by the way, let's not let institutional language blind us) are legitimately allowed to take things from others (let's leave "property" out of it...) and for what purposes. As I gather but may be wrong since the non-libts in these threads seem reluctant to make a clear positive case for their political ethics, that it's the Hobbes idea of "need to take certain things to prevent war of all against all." Which means, it seems, that the great majority of what actual taxes in the real world are taken to do are NOT legitimate. So it also, even more complicatedly, needs some airtight theory of HOW MUCH taxes can be taken; sounds like it has a lot more highly questionable steps than those from Lockean property rights to NAP.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00762531666318117072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-61771752600330754342010-01-14T19:45:23.371-05:002010-01-14T19:45:23.371-05:00"I rest my case Gene. Libertarians talk like ..."I rest my case Gene. Libertarians talk like that because of people like Anonymous."<br /><br />Sorry, Bob, your case for taxes being theft already assumes a libertarian notion of absolute property rights.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-65701644078877527782010-01-14T14:26:18.077-05:002010-01-14T14:26:18.077-05:00A utilitarian might take the NAP in the way that y...A utilitarian might take the NAP in the way that you suggest; but the question is what, if anything, does the NAP add to a libertarian theory of rights? Someone who accept a libertarian theory of rights can't take "aggression" as a free standing term but must interpret in accord with this theory of rights. If you now say, "if he does that, what does the NAP add that isn't already given in the theory of rights?", the answer is that the theory of rights leaves it open whether you can violate rights to minimize total rights violations. The NAP rules this out.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15048385218047191192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-76169924569337269662010-01-14T12:58:34.601-05:002010-01-14T12:58:34.601-05:00Yes, Blackadder, you'd think this is obvious, ...Yes, Blackadder, you'd think this is obvious, but some people can't seem to get this through their noggins.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-65716917638829289452010-01-14T12:56:33.687-05:002010-01-14T12:56:33.687-05:00David, interesting, but I don't think the NAP ...David, interesting, but I don't think the NAP helps there -- all the utlitarian who accepts it has to say is, "Taking property in order to increase utility is not aggression but beneficence.'gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-44668701870205813072010-01-14T12:52:36.165-05:002010-01-14T12:52:36.165-05:00The Blackadder Says:
People who write letters to...The Blackadder Says: <br /><br /><i>People who write letters to the editor or who are talking heads on CNN would say "stealing is wrong," but in the next breath they support taxes.</i><br /><br />Maybe this is because they don't view taxes as stealing?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com