Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Which is better, of those two examples? I'm reasonably sure you and I would come to an agreement in answer to that question, but if we included, say, Fruitcake in our discussion we would have a different opinion expressed.

Right, but the existence of disagreement does not mean there's no means to determine the truth.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I do consider reference to objective reality to be the best approach when what one is trying to answer is an objective question of fact, but at other times subjectivity is also required.

The line between the two is a bit fuzzy, you have to admit. In the case of economics, a lot of "observation" relies on interpretation of the data, which is subject to error.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

But that's not all I was talking about. I was also talking about how the institution of private property came to exist in the first place, and thus constructing an argument about what property consists of, at root.

You're conflating two aspects of that issue though. Why people see the need for property is not precisely the same question as to why property turned out the way it did. That distinction is important. When one has asked the question: "What is property for?" then one can assess the appropriateness of property as it actually is.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

As a matter of proper terminology, and I realize this is picking nits, I'm going to suggest we use the term "value schema" or possibly "ethic" -- actually that might be better -- of property, rather than "theory."

We could distinguish between the ethics of property and the history of property (and avoid the use of theory in either case). So, I guess the better question at this point is what do you think about the ethics of property, rather than its history?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Well, I was presenting a theory, not an ethic, but here again you are presenting a false dilemma: either ethical statements are objective claims of fact, or I am not allowed to object to a collective judgment of the community if I happen to disagree with it.

No, I'm not saying you're not allowed do that. I'm asking on what basis you think a person is capable of doing so? Pure whim is obviously not your answer, so thus, there are objective criteria involved (however difficult it may be for individual people to reference them).

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

But consider that since ethical statements aren't objective claims of fact, there is nothing to say that I'm not allowed to do that. Collective judgments are the result of the interaction of individual judgments, and so depend on individual judgments being made, including in disagreement, so not only am I allowed to disagree, I would say I'm required to express my disagreements as an act of responsible citizenship.

Ah, but isn't that concept of citizenship itself merely a subjective value judgment? Pure subjectivity always ends up in this sort of problem. I fully concede that humans have difficulty comprehending reality, and I'm not pulling in some obnoxious imaginary friend in the sky to provide me with a level of certainty that I would otherwise lack.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

It's more complex than "wouldn't it be nice," of course, but it does in the end come down to a subjective judgment that it's better to protect people from the suffering and loss of dignity that comes from being enslaved, than to allow people the privilege of profiting from their labor. As with all such arguments, there were those at the time who disagreed.

Their disagreement has no bearing on the truth of the matter. I find it hard to construct a consistent ethic of property where slavery is a possibility and I contend that it is probably impossible to do so.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

There are of course objective influences on moral judgments, but they do not determine absolutely. I cannot present those objective factors to someone like Fruitcake and convince him that huge disparities of wealth are any problem, because he doesn't disagree with me that they exist, and that is the only objective fact that applies (other than some economic consequences of wealth disparity which he seems not to understand, but it's not certain whether that would convince him, either).

Maybe, maybe not. People do change their minds on issues. The whole process of argument is about changing minds or influencing minds that are not yet made up.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Answer me this, then (remembering, you were the one who decided to turn this personal).

What at all would be wrong with the person who did that to your friend paying for it with their life?

What is wrong is it is not sustainable. The particular example is was X raped my friend; I kill X. In general, X committed a capital offense against me and so I kill X. What is a capital offense? Whatever I decide it is.

And it doesn't have to be rape. In some American neighborhoods, it's simply, if you dis me, I kill you. This is the same concept expressed in duels. If you issue calumnies against another person, even if completely true, that person can challenge you to a duel and kill you if he is the more skilled. If you decline then your claim is false. The duel system is an explicit example of "might makes right" exercised on the personal level.

Since dueling, like slavery, is not present in legitimate American society today, we tend to think they do not apply. Both would be present in a market anarchist society.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

OK, but the violence itself would not be aggressive, provided it is proportional (or less than) the initial act.

And your qualifier (underlined) is the problem. Who decides what is proportional? You? And what makes you so high and mighty?

It has to be up to the individual. For some people, insult their mom and they'll blow you away (if they can). Others might opt for digression.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Since dueling, like slavery, is not present in legitimate American society today, we tend to think they do not apply. Both would be present in a market anarchist society.

About slavery -- no moreso than what exists in the USA today. And the advantage to the market anarchist paradigm being that no one would argue that slavery is a necessary feature of society (as fruitcake is doing on another thread, to use one example), nor would it be subsidized on the backs of those who found it abhorrent.

As to duels, so what? Duels get fought by two parties both equally dumb enough to agree to them. The rest of society is left absolutely no worse off whatsoever by the loss of one (or, ideally, both) such a member.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

As to duels, so what? Duels get fought by two parties both equally dumb enough to agree to them. The rest of society is left absolutely no worse off whatsoever by the loss of one (or, ideally, both) such a member.

Society might ultimately be better off, should two foolhardy individuals off themselves before they've had the opportunity to reproduce .

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Right, but the existence of disagreement does not mean there's no means to determine the truth.

In this case it does, because the disagreement is not about facts. Or mostly not. I could point out that under our current system, there are people living in phenomenal luxury while children have no medical care and inadequate nutrition. If another person's response is "No they don't," then we have a means to determine the truth, because that's a disagreement of fact. But if the other person says, "That's the way it should be," then we don't, because we're disagreeing not about the facts, but about what attitude we should take towards them. That doesn't mean there's no basis for argument, but basically what it comes down to is persuading enough people to value fairness more than privilege that "that's the way it should be" can be defeated.

The line between the two is a bit fuzzy, you have to admit. In the case of economics, a lot of "observation" relies on interpretation of the data, which is subject to error.

Yes, but the key word there is error. Economics isn't supposed to involve subjective value judgments. (In fact, though, it often does, because it's about a subject so very important to people, and bias is almost inevitable.)

We could distinguish between the ethics of property and the history of property (and avoid the use of theory in either case). So, I guess the better question at this point is what do you think about the ethics of property, rather than its history?

What I think is that we should judge by results, and that there is no shortcut. We want enough inequality to stimulate investment and effort, and also we must recognize that reducing inequality to zero would require too much regulation and control and would be stifling. At the same time, we want to approach equality closely enough that consumer demand is adequate to absorb production, and that great suffering does not result. If the rules of our economic game have that result, we're cool; if not (which they most certainly don't at this time), we need to adjust them.

An idea such as you presented earlier is a shortcut, and I don't think it would work. (We must also recognize how radical a change it would be. Property at this time is certainly not based on work added. That's almost a Marxist notion! Property ownership today has instead a capital-added basis, i.e., it belongs to whoever spends the money for it, not whoever works on it.)

No, I'm not saying you're not allowed do that. I'm asking on what basis you think a person is capable of doing so? Pure whim is obviously not your answer, so thus, there are objective criteria involved (however difficult it may be for individual people to reference them).

It's not that there are no objective criteria involved, but that these are not the only things involved, so that there can be complete agreement about them without resulting in ethical agreement. Debate often resolves around disagreement of facts, but at the core what is in dispute is subjective values instead. For example, with regard to slavery, those defending the institution often believed that black people were inferior to white people, or that slavery was their natural state. These were factual errors. But then, there were also many abolitionists who believed in negro inferiority, too! There again, we have an agreement about the facts (although both sides were wrong), without a resulting agreement on ethics. It was possible to believe that blacks were inferior to whites, and still believe that slavery was wrong. It was also possible to believe that blacks were NOT inferior to whites, and still believe that slavery was NOT wrong. Belief in negro inferiority supported belief in slavery, but it was neither necessary nor sufficient to it.

Consider the abortion debate today. Both sides cite objective facts, but they end up talking past each other, because what's really at issue is not objective facts but subjective values. Pro-lifers talk about an embryo being alive from the moment of conception. Pro-choicers don't deny this, but insist that an organism without a brain can't be considered a human being for purposes of human rights. Pro-lifers don't deny that an embryo at conception has no brain, but posit a mystical/religious basis for human being-hood in terms of which brainlessness is irrelevant. In the end it comes down to a complex of values including feminism, traditional sexual morality, sexual liberation, and a mystical reverence for human life, all at odds with each other. There is no objective way to determine who is right and who is wrong in this debate.

Ah, but isn't that concept of citizenship itself merely a subjective value judgment?

Of course. Do you agree with it or not? One can only argue values from a standpoint where some subjective agreement exists. It's then possible to argue whether a particular position is consistent or inconsistent with those points that are already in agreement, plus whatever objective facts are pertinent. Citizenship, though, is pretty basic. If I'm not mistaken, Justin and I are not in agreement about this fundamental value, and this arises from a difference of temperament and attitude, not over a factual dispute.

I fully concede that humans have difficulty comprehending reality, and I'm not pulling in some obnoxious imaginary friend in the sky to provide me with a level of certainty that I would otherwise lack.

It's really not a question in this case of comprehending reality, but of the nature of the reality to be comprehended. People do make errors about facts, sure, and sometimes hold strong beliefs about facts that are simply incorrect (creationism comes to mind immediately). But value judgments aren't facts in the first place and are not true or false. Justin in his radical individualism is not "wrong" in the sense that a believer in creationism is "wrong." I simply disagree with him, as do most people, about something non-factual: the behavior that one should take toward society.

For what it's worth, I don't think you and I have much disagreement about core values. Our dispute probably is factual for the most part. What I think is that you have a desire to believe that values can be reduced to statements of objective fact, because you hold your own values passionately and want to give them that kind of absolute support, so that those who disagree with you can be proven wrong. In this, I think you are making an error. However, that doesn't mean that we have strong disagreements about the values themselves.

Their disagreement has no bearing on the truth of the matter. I find it hard to construct a consistent ethic of property where slavery is a possibility and I contend that it is probably impossible to do so.

By no means is that impossible. Try this.

1) The purpose of property rights is to protect the privilege of all legitimate holders of property to enjoy its exclusive use.

2) Property is legitimately acquired when its acquisition is made without violating either the law or the social order.

Now this happens to be very close to the property ethic that is enshrined in a traditional capitalist economy. It affords very limited protection to poor people (such property as they have cannot be seized by naked force), while affording enormous protection to rich people (any way they can get richer without violating the law is acceptable). You and I may not like it, but there is nothing inconsistent about it. Today, slavery is not allowed by this ethic because the acquisition of slaves violates the law, but prior to 1865 that was not true in many states. A slave did not have any protection under this ethic because a slave owned no property (except on suffrance by the slave's owner, such property legally belonging to the owner, not the slave) -- although if the owner chose to regard a slave as owning, for example, his own clothing, then the owner's own conscience might afford some property rights to the slave.

Maybe, maybe not. People do change their minds on issues. The whole process of argument is about changing minds or influencing minds that are not yet made up.

This is not impossible. What is impossible is having any sort of objective proof of moral statements. There are two ways to change minds on questions of morality. One way requires an emotional persuasion resulting in a change of heart (rather than mind). The other requires an appeal to subjective values held in common, and a demonstration that some other value is inconsistent with that commonly-held value. But this latter method is not always reliable, since values don't really have to be consistent with each other, as long as they aren't applied simultaneously to the same exact question.

I have heard that one before, as back in the 2T these America: Love it or Leave it billboards were seemingly everywhere. But I truly believe that you can love your country and still believe it can do better in many ways, which I do. It's no different than a parent whose child brings home a report card full of C's when he/she has the potential to get A's or at least B's. But you don't quite loving your child for this reason.

We are the only advanced nation not to have embarked on both a public health care plan and a guaranteed vacation leave law for workers. And yet most likely our annual worker's holiday will once again get by us without a thoughtful discussion on the latter. American workers, those who still have jobs at least, now work more hours than even Japanese, who long had a tradition of workaholism. Perhaps this recession, especially if it escalates to a depression, will force the return of the one-income household. But I don't believe that Millie women, who are so much more educated than were their GI counterparts, will put up with a return to the kitchen. They won't be able to stand the heat for too long.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

That doesn't mean there's no basis for argument, but basically what it comes down to is persuading enough people to value fairness more than privilege that "that's the way it should be" can be defeated.

In practice, though, the way you're going to do that is by asking why people think "that's the way it should be." In the process of answering that, questions of fact will inevitably be referenced and the idea will stand or fall based on its ability to correspond to the facts.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Yes, but the key word there is error. Economics isn't supposed to involve subjective value judgments. (In fact, though, it often does, because it's about a subject so very important to people, and bias is almost inevitable.)

The actual conclusions should be objective, but the subject matter is very subjective (what does person A think good B is worth?). Even when attempting to be objective, I can see errors being common.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

An idea such as you presented earlier is a shortcut, and I don't think it would work. (We must also recognize how radical a change it would be. Property at this time is certainly not based on work added. That's almost a Marxist notion! Property ownership today has instead a capital-added basis, i.e., it belongs to whoever spends the money for it, not whoever works on it.)

I certainly never claimed to be a moderate.

The capital-added basis would be fine too, provided the money paid for it also derived ultimately from the purchaser's effort. In actuality, this frequently does not occur.

As for this sounding Marxist, well, it's hard not to sound Marxist when you mention labor as a standard for economic justice. What I'm really saying is this: the gap between what a buyer is willing to pay and a seller is willing to receive in payment can be quite significant. A process of free competition, with free entry of buyers and sellers will reduce prices toward the lower limit. To the extent that markets are stifled, the prices don't drop and greater wealth accrues to the sellers experiencing insufficient competition. (Also, since this process is indirect, the beneficiaries tend to feel entitled to their gains.)

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Consider the abortion debate today . . . In the end it comes down to a complex of values including feminism, traditional sexual morality, sexual liberation, and a mystical reverence for human life, all at odds with each other. There is no objective way to determine who is right and who is wrong in this debate.

Eventually, though, people end up describing the outcome of a particular policy choice on this issue and that ends up bringing other values into play besides simply what constitutes a "person." And the outcomes of past and present policies on this topic are issues of fact and that provides more means to convince people on this issue.

Not to go into great detail on abortion, but as far as I can tell, the maximal pro-life and pro-choice positions on personhood are the only internally consistent ones. The only way to reach a middle ground stance between infanticide being OK or raped women having to keep the baby is to bring in some other competing value besides personhood.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Of course. Do you agree with it or not? One can only argue values from a standpoint where some subjective agreement exists. It's then possible to argue whether a particular position is consistent or inconsistent with those points that are already in agreement, plus whatever objective facts are pertinent. Citizenship, though, is pretty basic. If I'm not mistaken, Justin and I are not in agreement about this fundamental value, and this arises from a difference of temperament and attitude, not over a factual dispute.

To answer this, I should make reference to the Political Archetypes thread that I started. In that schema, I was defining political stances not as a cluster of issues but as a relative weighting of competing values. I also noted that people take the political stance they do in order to promote a priority that they perceive society to be lacking.

So, when Justin contests the concept of citizenship what he's really saying is that the values that lead to the concept of citizenship are very well represented already and don't need any more promotion. Essentially, what many libertarians hear when you say "citizenship" is citizenship's dark twin -- regimentation. The values may be competing, but they're not wholly absent in anyone (except some of the insane and the retarded).

Because of this, there is a means to introduce facts into the discussion since you can then debate the relative presence of particular values and how strong they are. Yes, there's still plenty of room for obtuseness, self-deception and ignorance but the possibility does exist for actual changes in a person's belief system.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

For what it's worth, I don't think you and I have much disagreement about core values.

No, I don't think so either. From what I can tell, we're at most 90 degrees apart on my political chart, and probably more like 45 degrees (true left versus upper left).

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

By no means is that impossible. Try this.

1) The purpose of property rights is to protect the privilege of all legitimate holders of property to enjoy its exclusive use.

2) Property is legitimately acquired when its acquisition is made without violating either the law or the social order.

Now this happens to be very close to the property ethic that is enshrined in a traditional capitalist economy.

It also begs certain questions about how the law gets made and what constitutes the social order. The problem with this ethic is that the process of change is made external to the social system. How does one argue that a law is unjust? By this schema, the law is inherently just. This ethic is inconsistent because anything currently allowed that previously wasn't (or vice versa) should have been opposed, while it should now be promoted. This is an ethic that requires commitment to slavery prior to 1865 and total opposition afterward without any rationale for the change. Essentially, it's not an ethic at all.

(I've actually encountered this belief, usually from drug war supporters, and find it infuriating. The argument that one shouldn't do something simply because it's illegal is hopelessly stupid.)

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

In practice, though, the way you're going to do that is by asking why people think "that's the way it should be." In the process of answering that, questions of fact will inevitably be referenced

Yes . . .

and the idea will stand or fall based on its ability to correspond to the facts.

No. In practice, when cornered on any error in supporting objective facts, the advocate of a particular moral position will simply switch ground, or go into a verbal loop. That's because, even though the discussion does tend to revolve often around related objective facts, those facts are rarely the real reasons the beliefs are held, so that successfully challenging them actually does nothing to undermine certainty in the belief.

The actual conclusions should be objective, but the subject matter is very subjective (what does person A think good B is worth?). Even when attempting to be objective, I can see errors being common.

That's not really the reason. There's a purely objective test for what A think's B is worth: what is A willing to pay for B? That may be subjective from A's viewpoint, but from an external viewpoint it's quite objective, since in economic terms we're only concerned with the person's purchasing behavior itself, not their subjective reasons for it. What's more, we're usually concerned only with aggregate, not individual purchasing behavior, and that's more objective still.

The unscientific quality in economics arises because of what people want to believe, not the methodology itself, and that's particularly true when you're dealing with economic schools that support the privileges of the rich and powerful.

As for this sounding Marxist, well, it's hard not to sound Marxist when you mention labor as a standard for economic justice. What I'm really saying is this: the gap between what a buyer is willing to pay and a seller is willing to receive in payment can be quite significant. A process of free competition, with free entry of buyers and sellers will reduce prices toward the lower limit. To the extent that markets are stifled, the prices don't drop and greater wealth accrues to the sellers experiencing insufficient competition. (Also, since this process is indirect, the beneficiaries tend to feel entitled to their gains.)

Profits, though, are an inverse function of wages just as much as they are a direct function of prices. In fact, I'd say that's usually the more important factor (exceptions arise in captive markets such as health care, where gouging the consumer actually does affect things more than exploiting the worker). In any case, there are many things that can be done to reduce the flow of wealth upward in a capitalist economy, but regardless as long as it is capitalist the underlying logic of property belonging to the purchaser remains. Work generates nothing in the way of entitlement to ownership. Even a small business owner, who works like a bee in most cases, owns his business solely because of the money he put into it, not because of his labor. It's worth more because of his labor, but that's not why it's his. That's what I meant when I said your concept was radical. It would require a complete restructuring of every rule we have about capital property and who owns it. For example, a labor-added concept of property would require that the profits of a company belong to the workers, not the buyers or investors -- unless the investor IS a worker, and even then he would own it because of his labor, with his investment counting for nothing. (This is an exact inverse of what we see today.)

Because of this, there is a means to introduce facts into the discussion since you can then debate the relative presence of particular values and how strong they are. Yes, there's still plenty of room for obtuseness, self-deception and ignorance but the possibility does exist for actual changes in a person's belief system.

Have you actually seen this happen? If you have, I'd be willing to bet that the person didn't change core values, but only his application of them to specific circumstances.

It also begs certain questions about how the law gets made and what constitutes the social order. The problem with this ethic is that the process of change is made external to the social system. How does one argue that a law is unjust? By this schema, the law is inherently just.

Another point should probably be added: the goal of the economy is to maximize the ability of any one person to accumulate property. If you start with this, and subject the law to the test of whether it accomplishes that goal, then you have a consistent system that avoids this flaw.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

By no means is that impossible. Try this.

1) The purpose of property rights is to protect the privilege of all legitimate holders of property to enjoy its exclusive use.

2) Property is legitimately acquired when its acquisition is made without violating either the law or the social order.

Now this happens to be very close to the property ethic that is enshrined in a traditional capitalist economy.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

It also begs certain questions about how the law gets made and what constitutes the social order. The problem with this ethic is that the process of change is made external to the social system. How does one argue that a law is unjust? By this schema, the law is inherently just. This ethic is inconsistent because anything currently allowed that previously wasn't (or vice versa) should have been opposed, while it should now be promoted. This is an ethic that requires commitment to slavery prior to 1865 and total opposition afterward without any rationale for the change. Essentially, it's not an ethic at all.

(I've actually encountered this belief, usually from drug war supporters, and find it infuriating. The argument that one shouldn't do something simply because it's illegal is hopelessly stupid.)

I've been watching the exchange between Brian and Kurt with interest, and really should know better than to butt into any such...

I see property, rights, laws and other elements of government as sharing at least two
levels of justification.

One might be simply right makes right. In any given era the establishment generally has set up government of the elite, for the elite, by the elite.

Arguments are made for morality and ethics. In any given crises, the establishment has to deal with accusations that the above paragraph is too true, that there is a need for reform. In any set of turnings, I would expect a new set of elites attempting to profit from a new technology will ally with the lower classes to force change. Sometimes it is done with votes, sometimes with violence.

The result is generally incremental improvement. For the United States, the Declaration of Independence, Gettysburg Address, Four Freedoms speech and Dream speech might illustrate how rights are declared and extended in times of change. In general, the whole government is not abolished. A few injustices are cleared, a few of the greatest problems facing the culture are addressed.

I have some sympathy with the anarchists here, but think they are way off in both the scale of their proposed fixes and the timing. New values are proclaimed with the awakening. People talk the new issues to death during the unraveling. During the crisis, when it becomes clear that something needs to be done, the new values proposed are generally well known, explored by decades of discussion.

I do see a need for less coercive government. In a couple of turnings, depending on whether this is the most blatant problem remaining towards the end of the high, perhaps that might become the cornerstone of the next awakening.

But it seems too late in the cycle for anarchy to pop up as the new solution. The process of turning over values takes time. In both this crisis and next, I anticipate addressing the major problems rather than tear it all down and start over.

But, anyway, have fun you two...

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

That's not really the reason. There's a purely objective test for what A think's B is worth: what is A willing to pay for B? That may be subjective from A's viewpoint, but from an external viewpoint it's quite objective, since in economic terms we're only concerned with the person's purchasing behavior itself, not their subjective reasons for it. What's more, we're usually concerned only with aggregate, not individual purchasing behavior, and that's more objective still.

Looking at it in the aggregate doesn't increase the objectivity. If anything, it's likely to lower it since finer information will be lost by rolling all those interactions into an aggregate value.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Work generates nothing in the way of entitlement to ownership. Even a small business owner, who works like a bee in most cases, owns his business solely because of the money he put into it, not because of his labor. It's worth more because of his labor, but that's not why it's his.

I think you've assumed what I'm proposing is a bit more radical than it actually is. There's no reason why someone can't trade the product of their labor for the product of someone else's -- and that would apply to the purchase of a capital good as well. The reason that the economy is so lopsided is because the money put into most businesses isn't the product of the investor's labor or even of trades made with the investor's labor. A lot of that wealth is fractional credit or tax money or profits produced by the aforementioned lack of competition (all of which draws money away from the original laborers without their consent).

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

That's what I meant when I said your concept was radical. It would require a complete restructuring of every rule we have about capital property and who owns it. For example, a labor-added concept of property would require that the profits of a company belong to the workers, not the buyers or investors -- unless the investor IS a worker, and even then he would own it because of his labor, with his investment counting for nothing. (This is an exact inverse of what we see today.)

I see no reason why the product of my labor in one endeavor can't be traded to purchase a share of the proceeds of another. The issue is that we have a huge volume of purchases being made with wealth that wasn't produced by the buyer.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Have you actually seen this happen? If you have, I'd be willing to bet that the person didn't change core values, but only his application of them to specific circumstances.

I've personally experienced it. Just a few years ago I was a fairly standard American libertarian, but the Bush administration consistently assaulted any notion I had that the right was more amenable to liberty than the left. That in turn got me to re-examine the core issue difference between modern and classical liberalism (over economics). Referring to my politics chart, I've moved as much as 45 degrees counter-clockwise in just a few years.

I agree that this experience is probably unusual, but it's certainly possible.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Another point should probably be added: the goal of the economy is to maximize the ability of any one person to accumulate property. If you start with this, and subject the law to the test of whether it accomplishes that goal, then you have a consistent system that avoids this flaw.

Well, if you really maximized the ability of anyone to accumulate property, the results would be egalitarian. But, I realize what you were trying to say here and can't think of a better way to phrase it.

Still, this also falls short. Why exactly would you want to ensure that highest attainable amount of property is maximized? I suppose if a person assumed they were going to be the person with that huge amount of property, this would sound like a good idea. But such a person would have to realize that anyone who didn't get into the big money club would hate this system and struggle to change it. Once they succeeded, according to your second principle that would be OK, but according to this new one it would be bad. So, there's still internal contradiction, and it can't be resolved simply by removing the second principle, since if you did that you'd have "legitimate property" going completely undefined.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

One might be simply right makes right. In any given era the establishment generally has set up government of the elite, for the elite, by the elite.

Arguments are made for morality and ethics. In any given crises, the establishment has to deal with accusations that the above paragraph is too true, that there is a need for reform. In any set of turnings, I would expect a new set of elites attempting to profit from a new technology will ally with the lower classes to force change. Sometimes it is done with votes, sometimes with violence.

I'd say that is a good summary of the process of history.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I have some sympathy with the anarchists here, but think they are way off in both the scale of their proposed fixes and the timing. New values are proclaimed with the awakening. People talk the new issues to death during the unraveling. During the crisis, when it becomes clear that something needs to be done, the new values proposed are generally well known, explored by decades of discussion.

Well, technically, the variety of anarchism that I, and several others here, are sympathetic to did arise during the Awakening. I also take issue with the notion of "the" new values from an Awakening. We remember the lingering ideas that were implemented in past Crises because those are the ones that were implemented. What about all the stuff that didn't make the cut?

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I do see a need for less coercive government. In a couple of turnings, depending on whether this is the most blatant problem remaining towards the end of the high, perhaps that might become the cornerstone of the next awakening.

I consider that likely. I also don't think the changes in this Crisis will be particularly libertarian until the tail end, and even then only a little bit.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Not to go into great detail on abortion, but as far as I can tell, the maximal pro-life and pro-choice positions on personhood are the only internally consistent ones. The only way to reach a middle ground stance between infanticide being OK or raped women having to keep the baby is to bring in some other competing value besides personhood.

Why isn't something like 'not being a parasite' a key consideration regarding personhood?

Originally Posted by Matt1989

Why isn't something like 'not being a parasite' a key consideration regarding personhood?

Because newborns don't fare very well on their own either.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Because newborns don't fare very well on their own either.

Understood, but surely there could be some qualitative difference with regard to what we might call 'fully human' (a person who attains the moral status of personhood) between living inside the physical confines of a human being and living outside of one, no? It's not particularly easy to figure out why this is the case (I have my own ideas, but I won't go into them just yet), but I think there are other considerations besides rationality and potentiality of rationality at play here, and if the pro-choice people are right (and I think they are), then clearly something of significance happens at birth.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

...clearly something of significance happens at birth.

Of course it does. At birth, the child moves from being a parasite necessarily on one specific person to being a parasite which can take on practically any host at all -- or which can even be supported by several hosts (each to a shared degree).

Plus, from the moment of his birth, other people get to start meeting the little bugger. That's probably the single most important thing for a creature whose natural environment is social. Pre-birth, it's not in a person-environment (and therefore, arguably, not a person); post-birth, it is.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I have some sympathy with the anarchists here, but think they are way off in both the scale of their proposed fixes and the timing. New values are proclaimed with the awakening. People talk the new issues to death during the unraveling. During the crisis, when it becomes clear that something needs to be done, the new values proposed are generally well known, explored by decades of discussion.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Well, technically, the variety of anarchism that I, and several others here, are sympathetic to did arise during the Awakening. I also take issue with the notion of "the" new values from an Awakening. We remember the lingering ideas that were implemented in past Crises because those are the ones that were implemented. What about all the stuff that didn't make the cut?

Granted. Certainly, the notion that slavery was wrong was not first created in the transcendental awakening. Nor did the idea that rights limit the king's powers originate with the Great Awakening.

But there is something of a rhythm and inertia involved. The major issues have often been talked to death during the unraveling. The dialectic might often be need change / no change. The catalysts generally demonstrate that no change is not an option. I would expect the regeneracy to be a time of pragmatic implementation, when the no change option has been discarded, rather than one where new values are sold.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I do see a need for less coercive government. In a couple of turnings, depending on whether this is the most blatant problem remaining towards the end of the high, perhaps that might become the cornerstone of the next awakening.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

I consider that likely. I also don't think the changes in this Crisis will be particularly libertarian until the tail end, and even then only a little bit.

That feels plausible. The values of the US Blue awakening might include anti-war, racial equality, gender equality and ecology. The Red awakening seems more reactionary, pushing traditional christian values and attempting to anchor stability in response to too much turmoil and change. These need not be totally in conflict once those who lived through the awakening conflict have faded from the scene, once the degree of acceptance of the blue awakening changes has been settled.

But the issues of the crisis aren't really the same issues as were fought over in the 1960s and 1970s. We now have foreign terrorist threats, peak oil and a quite different set of economic problems. I think part of the awkwardness of the current crisis grows out of a mismatch between the values of the culture wars and the issues of the crisis. There really were a lot of changes in the awakening. New values were brought to the fore, definitely, but there were also distinct policy changes with regards to civil rights, gender rights, pollution and war policy. There is not a lot of need for further action on the issues that have been hacked to death during the unraveling. With technology changing rapidly (notably military and energy technology) the political back and forth from the unraveling years are not really focused on the issues of the crisis.

In short, the world is changing too fast. The values associated with the crisis are not keeping up with the need for change.

As with Marx, the Libertarians might be seeing one of the correct problems, but are focused on the state fading away rather than fixing the state. Government is coercive. It acts too much in the interests of the wealthy. I could get interested in basic changes to the nature of democracy to check the influence of the elites.

But some of the problems are too large to be fixed without government. I also don't like the 'state fading away' myth that was a basic flaw in Marxism. I believe we need stronger checks and balances rather than a notion that man is so inherently good that checks and balances on the power of the elites aren't necessary. I'd be ready to talk about anything from campaign finance reform to direct vote computer networked democracy.

But it is too late in this crisis, perhaps, to talk about networked democracy. The same problem exists there as for anarchy. People need too much time to get used to the idea. Representative democracy would have to fail more spectacularly.

Not that this isn't likely to happen.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

But it is too late in this crisis, perhaps, to talk about networked democracy. The same problem exists there as for anarchy. People need too much time to get used to the idea. Representative democracy would have to fail more spectacularly.

Not that this isn't likely to happen.

Bob, I decided to read over Jefferson's words this morning:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

I don't see Mr. Jefferson advocating anarchy in any shape or form. In fact, he seems to be saying that it is self-evident that governments exist to secure the rights of the people. He perceives that societies evolve and are flexible enough over time to make their necessary changes (even if those changes don't come about quickly).

I think we need to remind ourselves from time to time that government is not some alien, faceless entity, but rather a somewhat delayed reflection of where the people are at a certain point in time.

Sometimes it seems like the institutionalized government is approximately one turning behind the people. Reagan battled Johnson's legacy; Obama is battling the Bush legacy, and so on.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Bob, I decided to read over Jefferson's words this morning:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

I don't see Mr. Jefferson advocating anarchy in any shape or form. In fact, he seems to be saying that it is self-evident that governments exist to secure the rights of the people. He perceives that societies evolve and are flexible enough over time to make their necessary changes (even if those changes don't come about quickly).

I think we need to remind ourselves from time to time that government is not some alien, faceless entity, but rather a somewhat delayed reflection of where the people are at a certain point in time.

Sometimes it seems like the institutionalized government is approximately one turning behind the people. Reagan battled Johnson's legacy; Obama is battling the Bush legacy, and so on.

Oh, yes. I quite agree on your interpretation of Jefferson. Matt has 'recognized' a right not to be coerced and considers taxation as currently implemented to be a form of coercion. While both Matt and Jefferson use 'natural rights' arguments that are somewhat similar, I don't think he would claim Jefferson as promoting a right not to be coerced. I certainly don't.

One major theme of the Revolutionary era was "taxation without representation is tyranny." While I don't know that any modern anarchists are using the following wording, they seem to be proposing that "taxation is tyranny." Jefferson wanted a functional government that could collect taxes to finance defense against tyranny. The modern anarchists... at least some of them... want something quite different. They are trying to destroy what Jefferson created.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Looking at it in the aggregate doesn't increase the objectivity. If anything, it's likely to lower it since finer information will be lost by rolling all those interactions into an aggregate value.

No, that's not true. For one thing, as I tried to explain earlier, we're really not concerned about any individual's subjective judgment here. We're not concerned with what they would answer in response to the question, "What is this worth?" All we're concerned about is the concrete action of parting with their money. We judge after the fact that item A is worth (on the average) $10 because consumers (on the average) pay $10 for it. For another when dealing with a question like that, which has a statistical answer (since some people will pay more for a given item than others will), increasing the numbers improves the accuracy. It's true that "finer information" is lost -- but that's good, not bad, because another word for "finer information" is "noise."

There's no reason why someone can't trade the product of their labor for the product of someone else's

The root of the problem is that what people have to trade is NOT "the product of their labor." It's always what they have in their hands, what they have control over. At no point in the process is that determined by a person's own labor exclusively, and the only way it ever could be (absent a completely radical restructuring of the rules of ownership) is if a person is living in isolation, so that everything he possesses he must make for himself. In any other circumstance, goods are produced by collective effort, and who owns what is determined by some other function than how much a person works for it. Specifically, it is determined by what a person can get his hands on through any means not prohibited by law. Or, more simply put, what you can get, is determined by what you already have.

That's why I suggested that what you're proposing (which I recognize as a common libertarian principle) is utterly radical. Replacing this principle with a labor-based rule of ownership would overturn the entire basis of commerce as our economy currently employs it. It would resemble instead Marx's principle under socialism of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his work." (The more familiar version, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need," is supposed to prevail under communism rather than socialism, but that's not what you're talking about.)

I've personally experienced it. Just a few years ago I was a fairly standard American libertarian, but the Bush administration consistently assaulted any notion I had that the right was more amenable to liberty than the left. That in turn got me to re-examine the core issue difference between modern and classical liberalism (over economics). Referring to my politics chart, I've moved as much as 45 degrees counter-clockwise in just a few years.

I'm going to suggest, though, that this was not a change in core values. It was, instead, a reasoning from those core values based on facts, to a position on specific issues which you formerly thought was inconsistent with your core values and you now realize otherwise. The same thing can work interpersonally provided core values are shared. If core values are not shared, however, that won't work.

Still, this also falls short. Why exactly would you want to ensure that highest attainable amount of property is maximized? I suppose if a person assumed they were going to be the person with that huge amount of property, this would sound like a good idea.

I have found those who don't expect to part of the big money club who still support exactly this idea. There is a notion that those who are wealthy deserve their wealth because of their superior intelligence, aptitude, industry, and self-discipline. Maximizing individual reward is believed to be fairest, in that mode of thinking, and also to encourage individual effort.

But such a person would have to realize that anyone who didn't get into the big money club would hate this system and struggle to change it. Once they succeeded, according to your second principle that would be OK, but according to this new one it would be bad.

Does the phrase "hierarchy of values" answer that objection? I think so; do I need to explain why?

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I also don't like the 'state fading away' myth that was a basic flaw in Marxism. I believe we need stronger checks and balances rather than a notion that man is so inherently good that checks and balances on the power of the elites aren't necessary.

Well, there's a common assumption that any free structure doesn't contain any checks and balances, but that's just not true. Anarchists tend to think that people in a free society will be the checks and balances themselves. In the free marketplace, for example, WE are the market as well as its regulators -- that is, we are the ones who may alter our environment by making use of free information, preference ordering, cooperating, voluntary choice, etc. Personally, I think this is a far more robust conception of checks and balances than that of our current statist system.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Bob, I decided to read over Jefferson's words this morning:

I don't see Mr. Jefferson advocating anarchy in any shape or form. In fact, he seems to be saying that it is self-evident that governments exist to secure the rights of the people. He perceives that societies evolve and are flexible enough over time to make their necessary changes (even if those changes don't come about quickly).

Jefferson was greatly influenced by John Locke, and like Locke, Jefferson takes the anarchist challenge to state legitimacy seriously even if he does wind up rejecting it, which is more than I can say for most. The idea that we derive equal freedom from our creator (this is more in line with the original DOI text than the famous one) is nearly identical to Locke's idea about the anarchic, pre-political "state of nature." So I think it's a mistake to say that he regards the case for the government's legitimacy to secure rights stemming from equal freedom to be "self-evident." The self-evidence has more to do with that equal freedom itself, which prima facie appears to be inconsistent with the State. So he's got some work to do. There's also the notion of individual consent at work here, and for both Locke and (probably) Jefferson circa 1776, it's necessary for the existence of government to be justified.

I think we need to remind ourselves from time to time that government is not some alien, faceless entity, but rather a somewhat delayed reflection of where the people are at a certain point in time.

True, but I also think it works both ways.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

...The middle class pays most of the taxes, because the middle class is large...

Ahem:

http://www.house.gov/jec/press/2000/10-16-0.htm

Percentiles Adjusted Gross Percentage of Federal
Income Personal Income Tax Paid

Top 1% $269,496 34.75%
Top 5% $114,729 53.84 %
Top 10% $83,220 65.04 %
Top 25% $50,607 82.69 %
Top 50% $25,491 95.79 %
Bottom 50%< $25,491 4.21 %

or...

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2007/10/top-1-pay-more-.html

...The new data shows that the top-earning 25% of taxpayers (AGI over $62,068) earned 67.5% of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86%). The top 1% of taxpayers (AGI over $364,657) earned approximately 21.2% of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.4% of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1% of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95% of tax returns.

1) Define "most";

2) Define "middle class";

3) Define "large".

There were no organized police forces, and small standing armies far to small to provide a meaningful defense. What did exist with the militia. Every man was armed and trained. Every man knew what was to be done when trouble surfaced. There was an organized chain of command, so when a response was needed there was coordination and discipline.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

There were no organized police forces, and small standing armies far to small to provide a meaningful defense. What did exist with the militia. Every man was armed and trained. Every man knew what was to be done when trouble surfaced. There was an organized chain of command, so when a response was needed there was coordination and discipline...

-Well, they were supposed to be armed, they were supposed to be trained, there was supposed to be organization & a chain of command, every man was supposed to know what to do. Actual effectiveness varied from time to time, and from community to community.


---

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

WARNING: The poster known as jamesdglick has a history of engaging in fraud. He makes things up out of his own head and attempts to use these blatant lies to score points in his arguments. When you call him on it, he will only lie further. He has such a reputation for doing this that many people here are cowed into silence and will not acknowledge it or confront him on it.

Anyone who attempts to engage with glick will discover this and find out you have wasted your time and energy on an intellectual fraud of the worst sort.

-So cry many Boomers (self-professed Lefties, mostly) whenever they fail to explain their hypocritical self-justifications, their double-standards, and their double-think forays into evil. Perhaps their consciences bother them, perhaps not. Who knows. [/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Justin '77

And the advantage to the market anarchist paradigm being that no one would argue that slavery is a necessary feature of society (as fruitcake is doing on another thread, to use one example), nor would it be subsidized on the backs of those who found it abhorrent.

When was slavery subsidized on the backs of those who found it abhorrent

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

Ahem:

http://www.house.gov/jec/press/2000/10-16-0.htm

Percentiles Adjusted Gross Percentage of Federal
Income Personal Income Tax Paid

Top 1% $269,496 34.75%
Top 5% $114,729 53.84 %
Top 10% $83,220 65.04 %
Top 25% $50,607 82.69 %
Top 50% $25,491 95.79 %
Bottom 50%< $25,491 4.21 %

or...

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2007/10/top-1-pay-more-.html

...The new data shows that the top-earning 25% of taxpayers (AGI over $62,068) earned 67.5% of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86%). The top 1% of taxpayers (AGI over $364,657) earned approximately 21.2% of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.4% of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1% of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95% of tax returns.

The figures you just presented show that 60% of all Federal Income taxes are paid by those in the 50-99% percentiles of income, which roughly comprises the middle classes. Using your figures I can estimate that the middle classes pay about 66% of payroll taxes as well, compared to 9% paid by the rich.

Payroll taxes are about 80% of income taxes. It is the sum of income and payroll taxes that is taken out paychecks and is considered as "taxes" by most Americans.

If we construct a weighted average of the two kinds of taxes we see that the rich pay 23% of taxes compared to 63% for the middle classes. The 23% share paid by the rich is only slightly higher than their 21% income share.

By either definition, the middle classes pay the largest fraction of taxes, Brian is right.