Bob:

Whether a government uses terror is irrelevant to whether it has popular support. It cannot successfully use terror against its entire population, or usually even against a majority of it. (That might be possible under a few circumstances, such as if the opposition is divided and support from a LARGE minority is very solid.) It can successfully use terror to suppress a dissident minority.

The nature of the government is also irrelevant to whether it has popular support. "A tyrant, disregarding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, blatantly using state sponsored terror" can have popular support. Hitler did, after all. If he does not, the use of terror will not keep him in power.

Unless he has sufficient support from an outside power stronger than his own people. But this has nothing to do with whether or not he has popular support; rather, it has to do with whether he will be able to stay in power if he doesn't.

Matt:

I think you're using idiosynchratic definitions again. In normal usage, "approval" is actually a stronger term than "consent." If a government has its people's approval, then it has their consent; the reverse, however, may not be true. For example, last year most Democrats consented to the administration of George W. Bush, even though they did not approve of it.

I think you need to define your terms, as you obviously don't mean them in the standard way.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Matt:

I think you're using idiosynchratic definitions again. In normal usage, "approval" is actually a stronger term than "consent." If a government has its people's approval, then it has their consent; the reverse, however, may not be true. For example, last year most Democrats consented to the administration of George W. Bush, even though they did not approve of it.

I don't think so, and I don't think approval is stronger (or less strong) than consent. They're different. Consent doesn't require approval; approval doesn't require consent. After all, consent is an interpersonal thing, while approval is a matter of opinion. Again, I don't think most Democrats consented to the administration of George W. Bush; given the opportunity, they might have, but the State isn't an association, and as such, you don't get that opportunity. (This is essential to consent, but not approval.) Did they approve of his administration? Well, that depends on what you mean, as most Democrats probably felt that he deserved to be in power after winning the election. Most of them also felt that the U.S. gov't was a legitimate one under his rule, which is more along the lines of what I meant by approving of the government, as opposed to supporting the character of an administration.

P.S. I still haven't forgotten about your miscreant argument.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The one exception to the rule that a government cannot survive without the consent of the governed is if it is being propped up by an outside power, or imposed on the people by a stronger foreign people. Thus the government of Communist Poland, which probably did not have popular support, could survive because it did have the support of the Soviet Union. The Soviet government, on the other hand, did have popular support.

All that really does is delay the inevitable. Communist Poland in particular is an example of that.

As for Saddam, he had the majority because Ba'athist ideology was Arab nationalism, not Sunni sectarianism.

Matt:

Please define what you mean by "consent" and "approval." You ARE using these terms in a non-standard fashion. What you just posted was, apparently, nonsense. But you don't post nonsense, therefore this was meaningful once one understands what the terms mean.

Thanks.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

A tyrant, disregarding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, blatantly using state sponsored terror, so long as the terror successfully suppresses revolt, has achieved the consent of the people?

It may be useful to use the word consent for the stronger standard of freely choosing ones polity and to use the word assent for the weaker standard of merely accepting one's government. Governments require the general assent of the populace to survive.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Matt:

Please define what you mean by "consent" and "approval." You ARE using these terms in a non-standard fashion. What you just posted was, apparently, nonsense. But you don't post nonsense, therefore this was meaningful once one understands what the terms mean.

Thanks.

Brian, I've been explicitly postulating consent as a public thing, and I think this is in line with the more common usage of consent then whatever you're thinking. For example, we usually talk about consent with regard to sexual matters or in interactions with police or doctors. When we say something like, "Did she consent to your sexual advances?" we're not asking about the woman's mere opinion (this would indeed be problematic -- not being inside peoples' heads and all), but whether clear indication was given to proceed. It is given to an individual or an entity through communicatory means.

Now, if we're treating consent as a serious matter that might be relevant to political/moral legitimacy, this is the only sort of definition that can really be applicable. (Again, it appears to me that this is the common definition, and unless I'm always hanging around in circles where only serious matters are discussed -- I don't -- this is what I should expect to be understood when talking about consent.) With this, under what conditions can consent NOT be given? Well, I'd assume when one is under duress, any seeming expression of consent (verbal or implied) cannot be treated as genuine. That is, if someone says "take my wallet" to a man with a gun (or to make it clearer, substitute rape via threat of grave physical violence), they are not consenting to the man's taking of their wallet. That's what I mean by consent, and I don't think that's non-standard.

My point is that the State doesn't offer the people the ability to decline their rule by virtue of being a monopoly force. And if the State really doesn't ask for our consent, but rather rules us and makes demands of us, no meaningful expression of individual consent can be made. That is, you can I say, I approve of your making this command of me, but you cannot say I consent to your demands, because consent is fundamentally incompatible with command.

This is GROUNDHOG DAY again and again.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Matt:

Please define what you mean by "consent" and "approval." You ARE using these terms in a non-standard fashion. What you just posted was, apparently, nonsense. But you don't post nonsense, therefore this was meaningful once one understands what the terms mean.

Thanks.

You mean to tell me that someone on here other than Virgil Saari is using terms in a non-standard fashion?

Ah, now I understand.

In that case, Matt, I simply disagree. You seem to be assuming that most people are in the same position you are -- that they accept the state's governance only because it has the power. This is not true. Most people accept the state's governance because they know that government is necessary. The features of the U.S. government -- the vote, checks and balances, guarantees of civil liberties, etc. -- are seen, not in contrast to the idea of no state (which they know is a pipe dream that can't work) but in contrast to some other sort of state.

Most Americans do consent to being governed by the U.S. government. I believe most Chinese also consent to being governed by the Chinese government. I believe that a government whose people don't consent to its rule will be overthrown. I see many examples in history of exactly that happening. However, in all cases the overthrown state was replaced by another state -- which goes a long way to disproving your assertion right there.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Bob:

Whether a government uses terror is irrelevant to whether it has popular support. It cannot successfully use terror against its entire population, or usually even against a majority of it. (That might be possible under a few circumstances, such as if the opposition is divided and support from a LARGE minority is very solid.) It can successfully use terror to suppress a dissident minority.

The nature of the government is also irrelevant to whether it has popular support. "A tyrant, disregarding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, blatantly using state sponsored terror" can have popular support. Hitler did, after all. If he does not, the use of terror will not keep him in power.

Unless he has sufficient support from an outside power stronger than his own people. But this has nothing to do with whether or not he has popular support; rather, it has to do with whether he will be able to stay in power if he doesn't.

A while ago the question was the difference between a legitimate government and a non-legitimate government. Different people have different ideas about what 'legitimate' might properly mean. I still like a three criteria system. Able to maintain monopoly of use of force. Respects human rights. Not swamped under continual protest. I don't pretend that these things can be black and white. Even the most civilized of civilizations will slip here and there. Still, I think the criteria is reasonable for a idealistic philosophical discussion where some are looking for the end of all aggression and coercion. Without a massive program of genetic engineering, I don't see that last happening.

You seem to be looking for another standard of 'legitimate' set considerably lower. It is a perfectly reasonable standard. It is a practical standard that might be close to what many nations apply when deciding whether to give formal recognition to another state.

To me, it has an undesirable taint of 'might makes right.' If a state uses terror to the point that the people don't dare dissent, that seems to be 'consent.' This is a pragmatic standard in settling real world policy decisions, but distasteful to me in terms of saying the state is morally justified and thus legitimate. Perhaps this is a values thing, but I think that 'no coercion through terror' is a legitimate standard for legitimacy.

There is a real world question of fact also in the air. Can local governments without external support use terror to maintain power against any but small minority groups? I believe Iraq of 2002 provides a good counter example. Just off the top of my head, there don't seem to be a heck of a lot of counter examples.

While the ideals of the Ba'ath Party might have been pan-arab, in practice the Sunni dominated the Shiites and Kurds. The Shiites didn't like it. Terror was used to suppress Shiite unrest. I'm not comfortable accepting that terror doesn't exist if a state's propaganda professes ideals which aren't followed.

Still, this would be unusual. I don't know that it is central to the greater discussion of anarchy. I don't see much reason to push the point.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Matt:

I think you're using idiosyncratic definitions again. In normal usage, "approval" is actually a stronger term than "consent." If a government has its people's approval, then it has their consent; the reverse, however, may not be true. For example, last year most Democrats consented to the administration of George W. Bush, even though they did not approve of it.

I think you need to define your terms, as you obviously don't mean them in the standard way.

I think both of you are making valid distinctions important to your respective world views. I think both of you are sincerely trying to find the best words to use. Unfortunately, the use of these words is getting technical, a bit outside of vanilla dictionary common usage. The meanings of the various words are similar enough that no matter what usage might be decided on as proper, the result will be hard to read posts. Lots of folks are not going to be able to remember which word was associated with which subtly different usage.

Y'all might want to use phrases rather than words to clarify the meaning being used. I find I have to differentiate between utopian anarchy and failed state anarchy.

I am with Matt, I think, if he is saying that states do not ask for consent from individuals before issuing orders, and do not much care if individuals within their territories actively dissent. There is an assumption that legitimate governments can enforce laws, and individuals do not have an option of ignoring the law just by saying 'no'. If Jefferson's "consent of the government" was ever intended as individual consent, I'd like to see examples from his era of it ever been implemented. The major example I can think of is conscientious objection to mandated military service. This is an old idea and something of a special case.

Thus, consent is collective. Alas, collective consent seems to be uncomfortably close to being 'might makes right.' If a people cannot revolt or dares not revolt, this is consent? As the shooting had already started when the Declaration of Independence was written, that standard might plausibly be Jefferson's meaning.

There was that line from Shogun, claiming that there is only one thing that justifies revolt against one's ruler. One has to win the revolt. This is true in the practical sense, but in a philosophical discussion isn't entirely satisfactory.

I have been unhappy with various anarcho libertarian posters with their need to redefine common words in order to get their ideas across. I'd prefer that they do it less. However, there are often no old words for new ideas. I think they get themselves into trouble communicating. If a reader isn't fluent in the anarcho libertarian language, posts can come across as meaningless gibberish. There also seem to be occasional times when because they have redefined a word they seemingly try to forbid their opposition from using it in common use.

Anyway, if clarity is desired, instead of defining what one means by 'consent' in a post that will soon be buried and forgotten, one might have to spell out phrases like 'collective terror induced consent' to spell out just what one is saying.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

A while ago the question was the difference between a legitimate government and a non-legitimate government. Different people have different ideas about what 'legitimate' might properly mean. I still like a three criteria system. Able to maintain monopoly of use of force. Respects human rights. Not swamped under continual protest.

To quote Sesame Street: "One of these things is not like the other . . ."

Able to main monopoly of use of force, and not swamped under continual protests, are objective, value-free criteria. Respects human rights is a personal judgment of what is desirable; further, it implies an underlying judgment of what rights people have that government ought to respect. I think you are confusing two different questions here: what does a government HAVE to be, versus what, in your judgment, SHOULD a government be.

A government must be supported by its own people, unless it's propped up by an outside force, and as Kurt pointed out that latter may be self-defeating, since all empires come to an end. It must give its people what they want from government. What exactly that is -- well, that's up to them. People have supported governments in the past that I, personally, deplore. Nazi Germany comes to mind. Even before the Holocaust began, even before World War II started, the Nazi government was despicable in its contempt for human rights and civil liberties -- yet the German people supported it. Enthusiastically, even. So it was "legitimate" in that basic sense, and also in the sense that it was recognized by foreign governments, which did not break off diplomatic relations when Hitler seized dictatorial powers, and also in the sense that Hitler's dicatorial powers were gained legally through action of the Weimar constitution.

Yet I don't think those last two are determinative. If a government has the support of its own people, it will be stable, and eventually will be recognized by foreign countries, as happened with Revolutionary France once Napoleon stabilized it, and with the Soviet Union and People's Republic of China once enough time had gone by to prove that those governments weren't going to disappear any time soon. And a government can be accepted by the people without being legitimately derived from prior law, as the U.S. government is (since the method of ratifying the Constitution violated the stated means of amending the Articles of Confederation).

All that really matters is that a government have the support of its own people. If it does, then its legitimate. If I don't approve of what that government does, that factors into legitimacy only if I happen to live under it. And even then it might not be determinative, if enough people disagree with me.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

I agree that most libertarians are not a fish out of water. But some here with very strong convictions seem to fit that description. I believe in their freedom also. And that includes the freedom to live their lives as they see fit to live them. Sadly for them, that is not the agenda here.

I can't necessarily speak for them, but perhaps they see their role here as educational. As far as I'm concerned, they've succeeded.

For instance, I used to be on the fence with regard to the War on Drugs. Now I believe that these drugs should be legalized, and the money we spend on interdiction should be used for education and treatment.

I'm also much more likely to second-guess the government when it wages offensive military action.

It's also clear to me that we need a major reform of copyright and patent law.

Where the anarcho-libertarians haven't reached me are regarding their objections to taxation and the idea of "smashing the state." LOL -- back in my day it was all about "smashing" the KKK and apartheid. You'll have to forgive me if I am skeptical about smashing anything.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

My point is that the State doesn't offer the people the ability to decline their rule by virtue of being a monopoly force. And if the State really doesn't ask for our consent, but rather rules us and makes demands of us, no meaningful expression of individual consent can be made. That is, you can I say, I approve of your making this command of me, but you cannot say I consent to your demands, because consent is fundamentally incompatible with command.

Matt, I don't think I like where this seems to be going.

If I disagree with the policies of the elected administration (say, Bush 43), but yet make no overt move to overthrow the government, does it follow that some outside entity (say, al-Qaeda) has a right to attack or arrest me because I am somehow insufficiently in opposition? Does my tacit approval make me a legitimate target?

Originally Posted by Matt1989

That isn't anything like what I said. My idea was that the pro-tax person needs to establish why the State has a claim to what you nominally own. It doesn't follow from the State's legitimacy the justification for taxation.

In our system the state provides the legal framework that defines private property rights. Private rights do not include sovereign rights, and so the state's laws, including tax laws hold on private property. The state has a legal right to tax.

Whether or not the law is morally right does depend on legitimacy. As a radical libertarian, you do not accept the legitmacy of the state, and so you do not accept the legitimacy of its laws. But if one accepts the legitimacy of the state that means he accepts its laws.

I don't know what this definition means. When I say the State is illegitimate, I mean its existence is unjustified by moral law.

Who's moral law? Yours?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

To quote Sesame Street: "One of these things is not like the other . . ."

Able to main monopoly of use of force, and not swamped under continual protests, are objective, value-free criteria. Respects human rights is a personal judgment of what is desirable; further, it implies an underlying judgment of what rights people have that government ought to respect. I think you are confusing two different questions here: what does a government HAVE to be, versus what, in your judgment, SHOULD a government be...

All that really matters is that a government have the support of its own people. If it does, then its legitimate. If I don't approve of what that government does, that factors into legitimacy only if I happen to live under it. And even then it might not be determinative, if enough people disagree with me.

I am not confusing have to be with should be. I have asserted that the two standards proposed should both be part of the conversation. Yes, my triple criteria are a proposal for what should be. Your criteria is for what has to be. I know the difference. I accept that your idea is relevant and important. In a conversation that is often in the high philosophical realm, I believe a discussion of what should be is also legitimate.

One of my perspectives on history is Toffler's Waves of Civilization. There is a distinction between what sort of society is natural in Agricultural Empires and the Industrial Age. The key transition technologies were gunpowder weapons, the printing press and the steam engine. As these technologies took hold, much changed in society and government.

During the Agricultural Age, armor and muscle powered weapons were expensive and required extensive training to master. A very small ruling class dominated militarily and polticially. They owned the primary means of production, agricultural land. The vast majority of the population was required to work this land. In most cultures, they were denied weapons and any political influence. The values and laws of the time were set up where this division of wealth and power was justified.

Gunpowder weapons and improved agriculture allowed massive armies that didn't require a long time to learn how to fight effectively. With lots of people carrying weapons, the ruling class had to acknowledge human rights and democracy. The printing press enabled the spreading of ideas that opposed the rule of the old nobility.

In short, lots of stuff changed. There were massive shifts in human values. It didn't happen all at once. In fact, it is still a work in progress. I see the Nazis as an example of a culture that was still working Agricultural Age values. The Islamic Fundamentalists, in pushing for totalitarian government enforcing an ancient moral code, are also resisting the sorts of change that typically happen after Industrial Age technology becomes common.

One of the basic differences is that Agricultural Age peasants in revolt were equipped with sticks and stones. Modern insurgents are generally equipped with AK 47s. Given proxy war strategy, no matter how poor and oppressed a people might be, there will be someone or another who will arm whomever wants to be armed. This does make a difference. You are assuming that a government cannot oppress a people without their consent. This might perhaps be true today, but if so it is a fairly recent development. Priviledge and monopoply of force by a small minority were the norm over a large stretch of human history. There are many cultures and many governments that still run by the old world views, values and laws. The notion of collective consent of the governed is a modern western notion. There are cultures where said values are alien, where the traditions and history reject revolution as futile, dangerous and stupid. Tyrants rule as tyrants have always ruled. Force is used against the people because force has always been used against the people.

The other difference (or is it the same difference?) is human rights. If Matt can insist on a brand new right to not be aggressed against as the center of his argument, can't I invoke a document that has been ratified by most of the nations on Earth? I'm not saying that the Universal Declaration is perfect or the last word, that it never will be and ought never be modified. It does, however, reflect a major difference between the old normal and the new. I'm not inventing my own standards of what ought to be, but tying myself to the UN's legal (if inadequately enforced) standard.

If your working definition of 'legitimate' is 'might makes right,' sure, you can try to insist that yours is the only possible meaning of the word. I would like to be able to distinguish between tyranny and democracy. I would like to have an argument that what the Nazis did was not legitimate. I would consider this to be a feature, not a bug.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I am not confusing have to be with should be. I have asserted that the two standards proposed should both be part of the conversation.

Fine, but you do realize that's a very vague statement, right? "Part of the conversation" -- hell, we can talk about whatever we want.

I think we also need to determine what we mean by "legitimacy," and that's a separate question from what determines legitimacy and needs to be answered first. Do we mean that an "illegitimate" government should not be recognized by other governments? Or do we mean simply that we don't like it and/or wouldn't want to live under it? Obviously those are different questions calling for different answers in many circumstances.

Yes, my triple criteria are a proposal for what should be.

If we are talking about what should be, then only one of your criteria is relevant: the one that isn't relevant to what a government must be. To say that a government should respect human rights is in a different category from saying that it should be able to maintain itself. I'm not just picking nits here, because this sort of thing is a cause for enormous confusion and misunderstanding, and I feel it's very important to keep those two questions separate.

The second question is really the important one in the context of this thread: what should a government be. Libertarians and anarchists have the same idea you expressed, that a government should respect/guarantee "rights." Libertarians think that's possible but that it's not being done. Anarchists don't think it's possible and believe that the state should be abolished. Both have a list of "rights" which they believe the government should respect. I have a different approach: I see the task of government as that of maximizing, as much as practical, the well-being of its citizens, and that includes, but is not limited to, their liberty. A lot follows from this.

But at the same time, I feel it's crucial to insert realism into the whole process, because the greatest flaw in libertarianism and anarchism, as I see it, is a lack of realism. And so when I see those two categories of question being mixed together as if they were feeding into the same larger question, I want to point out that they aren't.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

In that instance, yes. But what about in future instances? If you don't know the principles behind the results you're getting, then future success cannot be relied upon. This is especially true because, in the case of economics, a "better outcome" is contested ground.

Future success cannot be relied upon in virtually all areas of human endeavor. The production process that is successful now probably won't be in the future. The marriage that is successful now might not be in the future, particularly if you don't change.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. There are numerous explanations for the post-War boom, only one of of which is high top marginal tax rates.

I didn't say that high tax rates caused the good times. But it is clear that high tax rates don't prevent good times, as many conservatives try to argue.

The economy also went into a long boom after top marginal tax cuts in the early 80s.

No it didn't. Growth in the post-1981 period was no better than it had been before the era of high taxes. Long term growth in output per worker has run at about 1.5% over the long stretch, except for the period between the New Deal and the early 1970's, when it ran 50% higher.

But tax rates were not the sole difference between those eras.

That is true (the article of mine I cite gives a couple more).

There are all sorts of distinctions that could be drawn (strength of unions,

Strength of unions as a factor promoting stronger growth?

monetary discipline

One of the factors I discuss in the article.

oil export versus import,

The US exported very little oil. In fact the US did not engage in trade to anywhere near the extent of today. This strong growth was largely achieved by internal growth for internal markets.

the regulatory environment,

High taxes are themselves a a very stringent form of financial regulation. If the investing class has much less money, as was the case in the high tax era, they simply lack the wherewith to bid assets up to the levels that trigger financial panics. Because of this, no financial panics occurred during this entire period. Had the previous pattern of major financial panics occurring every 20 years or so continued, there would have been two panics that wuld have occurred oveer this period.

After 50 years without any panics panic, everyone economists agreed that Panics were a thing of the past. So an experiemnt was run in the 1980's. If tax rates were reduced to levels similar to those in the pre-New Year era, would Panics recur?

Top taxes were reduced from 70% to 50% in 1981 and then to 28% in 1986. Add the historical 20 year interval needed to build the financial bubbles that create financial panic and we should see panic-inducing bubbles appear in the period around 2001-2006. Most observers agree that the tech wreck of 2002 would have induced a panic had not the Fed blown up a counter bubble in real estate. In any case the real estate bubble did gives us the Panic of 2008, 75 years after the last one.

military spending

Military spending did not continue after 1981? The Reagan buildup and three wars don't count?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Fine, but you do realize that's a very vague statement, right? "Part of the conversation" -- hell, we can talk about whatever we want.

Yep. Vague. However, you seemed to be asserting that my conception of legitimacy was wrong, as if I should not be using it. I felt a need to defend it to the point where you would talk about it.

I made a point to Matt a bit back that he had a self consistent argument and a plausible set of values, but he was rejecting other people's self consistent arguments with plausible values purely on the basis that they were inconsistent with his own. He was using his values to reject other people's values without first proving his own values True in any unique objective sense.

I was getting the feeling that you were doing the same thing. Your own view of 'legitimacy' was the only one you seemed willing to talk about. Thanks for opening up a bit.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I think we also need to determine what we mean by "legitimacy," and that's a separate question from what determines legitimacy and needs to be answered first....

Perhaps we need a distinction between pragmatic or practical legitimacy, and moral legitimacy. My triple standard had two pragmatic criteria... able to maintain monopoly on use of force, and not under siege by protesters. It also included one moral criteria... respect for human rights (with the Universal Declaration providing a proposed third party definition of what 'human rights' might mean). Matt might ask for additional moral criteria: lack of coercion, a greater degree of consent than is the current norm, more extensive property rights than is the current norm, etc...

It seems that Matt is looking for a society that is moral, but is not necessarily pragmatic. He doesn't see his flavor of anarchy happening in the foreseeable future. A lot of us think his set of rights can never be made pragmatic short of massive genetic engineering to change the basic nature of Man.

You seem highly interested in what is pragmatic, but have not been exactly welcoming moral criteria as part of your definition of 'legitimate.'

I'm not content with one or the other. I'd like both. It is not a matter of practical or moral, pick one, having both is not an allowable choice. If you can't get both, one hasn't solved the problem. Leaving one type of criteria or the other off of one's list of goals seems unacceptable. I want a moral society in the real world.

One might propose that any moral want-to-have that cannot be implemented shouldn't be on the list of what makes a culture or state legitimate. A moral society is a good thing, but if you can't make it happen it would not be pragmatic.

I would add that moral want-to-haves are important as propaganda points. They win one votes. They strengthen the number and morale of those who are in the field carrying guns. Blatantly rejecting morality is often not pragmatic. Advocating tyranny might put one on the wrong side of history.

This might be the context for merging the two lists.

***

In terms of one state formally recognizing another, I think both practical and moral standards are and should be part of the picture. The US is apt to recognize most states that have achived stability, that are pragmatically legitimate, that have achieved monopoly on force without major protests.

But states that haven't met moral standards might not get most-favored trading status. The US might twist arms to nudge a less-than-moral state in directions they might not have otherwise gone.

Europe plays it slightly differently, if Turkey might be used as an example. Europe told Turkey that if it wants to join the EU, there would be a bunch of changes that would have to be made to laws and to some extent culture. There were things like honor killings and women's equality that were important to Europe. However, if Turkey had no desire to join the EU, the EU wasn't going to use any form of coercion. Turkey committed to make the required changes.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

I didn't say they weren't before, just that this policy tends to reinforce a perception among the upper middle class that they are more like the wealthy than the poor.

If this is true, then the upper middle class would NOT have been aligned with the very wealthy in the 1920's (when this policy was not in force) but would be aligned in the 1950's (when it was). That is not the case and so you statement is not supported by the evidence.

Policies intended to combat intense income inequality need to drive a wedge between these groups, not unite them.

There is no evidence that these policies unite them.

Why is a wedge needed? As I noted before the upper middle was aligned with the rich before, during and after these policies were implemented, yet they got implemented anyway. The upper middle are still enormously outnumbered by the lower orders.

Now, a very sharply progressive income tax might do that, but it won't generate comparable revenue, so it can't be implemented without first changing what the government spends money on.

I was thinking of two new brackets, a 60% rate on income in the $0.75-1.5 million range and 90% on income above $1.5 million. Over 99.5% of the electorate would be completely unaffected.

The purpose of the high taxes is not to generate revenue. The purpose is to reduce top incomes. Why pay a CEO $9 million if $7.5 million of that is subject to 90% taxation? The solution enacted would be to pay CEO's $1.5 million, or about 50 times what average workers make, which would be close to what was the norm before 1981. Would CEOs be hurt by this? No. The purpose of high salaries to to prove that you are the best. A CEO cannot afford to make anything less than top dollar lest he be thought of as inferior to the guy with a bigger paycheck. If taxes cap incomes then a compensation ceases to be a measure of success. Other criteria, like, say, company performance would have to be used. It's harder to measure than salary, but so what?

Ultimately, the state's policies matter more than its funding.

Taxes are policy. What I am talking about is policy. Revenue is secondary. The response to high taxes would be a reduction in income for the rich, that is, the rich would get poorer. This would have little impact on their enjoyment of their money because they still would have excess over what they need to enjoy the good life and because everyone else would have less, the score would be unchanged.

Having less money, the rich would contribute a smaller fraction of of revenue than they do now, which was the case during the high tax era. Hiking taxes on the rich is not a revenue-enhancing strategy, except for the the initial period before incomes have adjusted. Thus, in the short run, such a tax increase could be used to prevent national default. Since politics is all about the short run, it is likely that is how such policies will be introduced during this 4T.

It's important that the economy did this before the Reagan-era tax cuts. Perhaps some of those other factors I listed above were more important?

Taxes are only part of it. If you read my article you will see more. Pro-growth economic policy requires three things: (1) low interest rates (2) balanced budgets (3) high taxes on the rich. In the 1970's #2 was violated and the result was inflation. In the 1980's #1 was violated to address inflation. Policy changed to violate #2 and #3. In the 1990's policy was changed to fix #2 and to some degree #1. The results were a fairly decent stretch, which was brought down by financial bubbles arising from the failure to address #3.

If the balancing act is accomplished, as it was for 30 years, then the Fed can maintain the low interest rates (this is the key) without spurring inflation or bubbles.

Also needed, but not discussed in that article are new leading sectors, the raw material for growth. But we had some decent new sectors in the post-1981 period. We had the IT and telecommunications revolution and the advent of biotechnology. But the anti-growth policies introduced around 1980 and after (low taxes, high real interest rates and large budget deficits) squandered them.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

If, however, social evolution mitigates those harms as it appears to

To what are you referring?

Originally Posted by Justin '77

I'm not sure how retaliation and aggression get themselves conflated in peoples' minds.

Oh I suspect you can understand it. I read a news article the other day. Teens set another teen of fire. Seems a bunch of kids dumped alcohol on a 15 year old and lit him up. He's going to spend 2-3 months in the hospital. Most everyone would consider that aggression.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

Well, I'd assume when one is under duress, any seeming expression of consent cannot be treated as genuine.

One of our suppliers had been selling us and our competitors a raw material for $6 per kg. When the time came for a new contract, we bargained hard for a lower price since they had no one else to sell to and we had a five year supply of an similar material that could potentially be used as raw material (which they knew we had). They agreed on $3.50 instead of $6 for a seven year contract. Basically we had them over a barrel and they knew it.

Three years the demand for this material rose and our competitors were paying this supplier $8. The supplier was losing $4.50 on every kg they sold to us and not to others, but they had contracted to sell most of their supply to us. Boy did they hate that

How is their decision to give us their property for less different than the anarchist's decision to remain under a government which he believes to be illegitimate? After all, the supplier could have decided to not sell to us at all just as the anarchist could decide to leave. Both require some loss which neither wanted to make. The desire to avoid this loss is a form of coercion.

Why is one decision considered consent and the other not?

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

You seem highly interested in what is pragmatic, but have not been exactly welcoming moral criteria as part of your definition of 'legitimate.'

That's correct; I have no interest in merging the two. They can interact, but we should always be conscious of the distinction. The thing is, ability to maintain monopoly of force, which is dependent on ability to satisfy the demands of its own people as well as ability to defend its territory from foreign aggressors -- and really on nothing else -- is an objective standard. It's a matter of fact, not judgment. How do we know that China has the support of its people? Most of them aren't rebelling, and those that do are easily crushed. How do we know that the Soviet Union, in the end, did not? Its people DID rebel, and overthrew it. Reference to the facts can resolve the matter entirely.

Whether a government defends or upholds certain liberties which we choose to recognize as "rights" is more nebulous. That these liberties are "rights" is not a fact but a judgment. I may, personally, agree with that judgment (I probably do, since we're all Americans involved in this discussion). But that doesn't mean the people living under a government will agree. What about a land where most of the people are fervent, devout believers in a religion, and the most important thing for them is to have a government that complies with that religion's laws and enforces them? This is the rationale behind the Islamic republic: it is a public enactment of Shari'a, and that, not defense of rights, is what the people want from government; a government organized along the secular principles of the Enlightenment would not be successful in such a society. It would not give the people what they want, and they would overthrow it. Such a government is similarly unsuccessful among devout evangelical Christians in this country, although luckily they represent only a minority of the people, and so cannot overthrow the state.

We can discuss meaningfully what type of government WE want, in THIS country. But it's really none of our business what kind of government other people in other countries choose for themselves, except insofar as it impacts us or our friends, which it might if for instance that government attacks us miilitarily or supports terrorists who do. If we wish to discuss the basis for a global government, then that's yet a third subject. In that case, values must certainly enter the discussion. But as always, we must recognize the distinction between the two sorts of question.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

We can discuss meaningfully what type of government WE want, in THIS country. But it's really none of our business what kind of government other people in other countries choose for themselves, except insofar as it impacts us or our friends, which it might if for instance that government attacks us militarily or supports terrorists who do. If we wish to discuss the basis for a global government, then that's yet a third subject. In that case, values must certainly enter the discussion. But as always, we must recognize the distinction between the two sorts of question.

I might propose that each culture might have different moral standards. If the government does not meet said code, the people might first protest and perhaps eventually rebel. The moral code in the United States would involve human rights and democracy. The rights in another part of the world might involve Shari'a. There would be other sets of moral expectations elsewhere.

Whatever the standard, state sponsored terror can be used to suppress the moral standard. The moral standard will exist for each culture. The government might wish to do things which are not consistent with the moral standard, or might fail to enforce the moral standard. The people get unhappy. The more unhappy the people, the greater the degree of coercion or force the government might have to use. Perhaps the more force the government has to apply, the less moral legitimacy it might have.

I might argue that a state in the current era that does not support human rights might be living on borrowed time. If modern technology isn't brought into the country, they will have poverty and unhappy people. Eventually a demand for a better life style might become large enough to overcome government terror. If modern technology is brought in, a demand for human rights has tended to follow. This would be a long slow uphill climb that has been a work in progress since the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution. It is not complete. It also isn't necessarily inevitable. Things are just tending that way.

This is a basic extension of a progressive way of looking at things. The people will make demands on their government. In time the government might be unable to suppress expectations.

North Korea might stand as a counter example. If a tyranny is ready to use coercion and terror on its own people, the desires of the people can be thwarted to a very considerable degree.

China would be a lesser counter example. They are trying to accept capitalism and industry without democracy. I am dubious. Democracy is a check on corruption and inefficiency. I don't know that the resistance to democracy and human rights will be able to stand in the long term. We shall see. A decade ago I sort of expected big changes in China during the crisis, but thus far the rumblings don't seem to be escalating. The Peasants are unhappy with land grabs, pollution and unresponsive government. The urban educated might want a freer life style, but are thus far content with the life style improvements. The situation seems stable in the short term, but I don't know that China can remain as it is indefinitely.

This leaves Matt out in the cold, though. He seems to believe in a universal moral code.... his own. As no populations share his values, no population is apt to protest or rebel to achieve them. He does not seem to be acknowledging that different peoples want different things. I don't think that he'll acknowledge that government terror can legitimately trump his moral code.

On the other hand, he doesn't seem to be stockpiling weapons or throwing bombs. As such he would be mostly harmless?

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

II might argue that a state in the current era that does not support human rights might be living on borrowed time.

All states are living on borrowed time, the question being how much time they have on account. There are certain criteria for liberal democracy being accepted by the people. The people must have a high level of education: most of them must be literate, they must be accustomed to thinking for themselves, and they must have some awareness of the world around them beyond the confines of their own village. Before these measures reach a certain critical mass, a liberal democracy will never have popular support; once it does, that is the only government that will.

I believe that's why the French Revolution failed initially. Most of the French people were still peasants at the turn of the 19th century; it hadn't been all that long since they were serfs. They didn't want radical change and a voice in the government wasn't important to them, they just wanted the nobility out of their faces and an end to the oppression they felt in their daily lives. (More than anything else, they wanted food. That's how bad things had gotten.) Napoleon was very popular, proving that what they wanted wasn't a republic but a good king to replace a bad king. Like Caesar, Napoleon was never called a king, but like Caesar, he governed as if he was one. By the end of the 19th century, though, French society had changed enough that a genuine republic was possible and one emerged.

As a society changes, the government that is called for also changes. Our own governing structure has radically changed in each of the past three Crisis eras. We are in another such period of change now. It's conceivable that future 4Ts (although I think not this one) will see the end of liberal democracy. For example, what if through human genetic engineering we breed a line of natural superior leaders? These would be people under whose leadership everyone would benefit, leading happier lives, with more freedom, opportunity, and security. Would it not make sense to give power to those who are bred and engineered for the task? What sense would democracy make in that case, or if it still did, would it not consist only of a popular choice among the natural leaders? Wouldn't permanent dictatorship make perfect sense if we could somehow ensure that every dictator would be a Caesar or a Napoleon (minus the warmongering), and not an Idi Amin or a Saddam Hussein? The biggest problem with monarchy, after all, is that the son of King John the Genius might well be King William the Wastrel or King Thomas the Tyrant.

Material change mandates a change in government. That's the problem with trying to come up with a formula for good government that will stand the test of time.