Originally Posted by independent

The tax protester doesn't bring a gun to take your money. The IRS does.

This isn't rocket science.

Exactly the problem; you're making it much simpler than it really is and leaving out all sorts of things that completely change the nature of the situation.

The very simple -- and simplistic -- assertion that the state "brings a gun to take your money" has been thoroughly answered already. The key point is (re)stated in post #1904.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

That's not what I get from a reread. It seems that he was objecting to supporting people who evade taxes, hence the free-rider comment.

Yes. By not paying your taxes, I have to pay for your consumption of state services.

The principal state service is protection of individuals from powerful entities, both state and non-state, who would conquer them and take their wealth.

To give a modern example. Al Qaeda is an fundamentalist Arab, (mostly Saudi) organization. The natural location for this organization would be in Western Arabia. Yet when 911 went down, rich Arabs living in Western Arabia had little fear that an enraged America would invade them and seize their property.

Meanwhile, poor non Arabs experienced only a portion of what America could have done to them. Many were killed, but since they had nothing of value to America, she did not take what they had.

How is it the rich Arabs (from which Osama came) saw no invasion of their land or the loss of their wealth, including the largest oil fields in the whole world?

The Saudi Arabian government banished Osama bin Laden (a Saudi citizen), so when 911 went down, he was not inside Saudi Arabia. Also the Saudi government has, for years, waged a diplomatic effort designed to minimize the American threat. By doing this they prevented the loss of tens of trillions of dollars worth of of Arab property.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

No Bob; it's that I can't understand what the hell you are talking about, and the stuff that I do understand are either strawmen caricatures or rude ad hominem attacks... usually both. You talk about various influences on your perspective. Fine. Looking at historical cycles, what people actually do, etc. are perfectly relevant to any discussion about political philosophy, and they should be included at the table. My point was that without value input, you just have a science of politics, not a way to proceed. (For example, a lot of people tend to look at Austrian economics and dismiss it as libertarian ideological fantasy, but the conclusions are only broadly libertarian if certain values are inputted. It's just a theory of economics.) My idea is that you need to wear the science hat and philosophy hat if you are going to have a coherent discussion about these sort of things.

Brian and I had a similar discussion about what is a legitimate state. He focused on a practical political criteria, the state has to be able to maintain an effective monopoly on use of force. I argued that moral criteria had to be included as well, with respect for human rights being my important example of a requirement for moral legitimacy. The Anarchists are calling for additional moral criteria. The liberals might call for additional practical criteria.

I would really like both. It is easy to propose high moral goals, but if they cannot be implemented the goals do more damage than good. On the other hand, if one limits one's self to only what is practical and achievable in the short term, a truly moral society will not be achieved. Me, I'm looking primarily to what might be done that is both moral and practical in the course of the current crisis, as it is hard to see what society's needs will be in the more distant future.

Part of the inability to communicate seem to be in timing. Liberal values are at the core of the modern perspective. They have been in power or near it for some time, and believe themselves likely to remain so. If they propose to do something, they have to have their homework done. They will be challenged on implementation details, and are expected to have answers. They also tend to be thinking in the short term, within a few years or decades. They have the White House and Congress at the moment. Many want to do something with them while they have them. If they don't, they will lose them.

The anarchists aren't in power, won't be in the near or middle term, are setting far higher goals, though they have no solid plans for achieving these goals. I think the liberals are asking the anarchists for the same standard of planning and proof they would expect to meet themselves. This is reasonable at one level, unreasonable at another.

While I quite agree philosophy has a place at the table, my particular frustration is trying to get evolutionary behavior on the table. I don't know if you have encountered scientists and Christian fundamentalists conversing on the subject of evolution. Many fundamentalists, at the core heart of their world view, must have literal interpretation of the Bible as True. Scientists seek to explain the evidence, to learn from observation and experiment. As there are major conflicts between the scientific evidence and literal interpretation, the two world views are at core incompatible. Each side of the conversation must reject something held dear to the other. Thus, no conversation is really possible. What you get is a failure to communicate.

Your inability to comprehend what I am saying seems at times to be a coming from similar block. It is possible to study how humans behave. I believe what can be solidly learned about human behavior is in basic conflict with how anarchists think humans behave. Thus, whenever I attempt to talk about how humans behave from an evolutionary perspective, it becomes impossible for you to comprehend what I am saying. If you listened, you would have to reevaluate your basic values. This is so hard to do that the usual response is to find excuses not to listen.

While others aren't attempting to bring writers like Grossman, Aubrey, Lorentz into the discussion, they seem to be having the same problem. If they describe how they have observed humans behave in the real world, you will disagree without evidence or counter argument. You provide little to no empirical evidence to support your projection of men behaving like angels in the absence of coercion, and dismiss without real cause the liberal projections that men will continue behaving like men. Thus, the conversation stalls.

Aggression and greed are generally seen as vices. Mercy and charity might be their opposite virtues. Much traditional religious, philosophical and political thought attempts to discourage or punish vices, while encouraging or rewarding virtues.

Your approach seems to reject aggression in any form while emphasizing property rights. One cannot acquire territory or property by aggression, but neither can the state take away property in the interests of providing services or fairly distributing wealth. To me, it seems you are against one traditional vice, aggression, while being in favor of another traditional vice, greed. There is a traditional liberal belief that the ruling elites are greedy, that there needs to be a check on greed. Anarchists seem to oppose limits on greed.

From an evolutionary perspective, aggression and greed can be survival traits. It is in the interests of individuals and groups to compete for resources in order to secure the future of the individual or group. For millennia, individuals and groups who strove for territory and property dominated those who have been unable to compete. Thus, aggression and greed are a basic parts of human nature. Individuals and groups who lack these qualities have been bred out of the gene pool.

On the other hand, aggression and greed are considered vices for good reason. If they are exercised without limit within a community, the result is not to the benefit of the community. Thus, most to all communities have traditions, taboos, customs, laws and basic emotional drives which check aggression and greed. Healthy communities are prepared to answer external threats, and are prepared to restrict criminal acts.

The above few paragraphs reflect my spin on the basic problem of Good and Evil. Man is neither Good nor Evil. He lives in a perpetual pattern of moderated competition. It is man's nature to strive and compete. It is also in his nature to moderate the competition. Excess violence is not healthy to the community or the species, nor is excess greed. Thus, most to all communities have mechanisms to moderate these behaviors.

It seems to me that the anarchists are trying to shine an always on red light to aggression, and an always on green light to greed. Saying aggression is Evil is traditional. Thinking that just declaring aggression to be Evil will cause it to stop is terminally naive. Various traditions have been declaring aspects of aggression Evil for all of human history, and likely before. I'd like to see a lot more thought going into replacing the State's role in suppressing aggression before one seriously thinks about getting rid of the State.

Similarly, the State currently has a role in suppressing greed. I'd like to see a lot more thought given to replacing that function beyond a blanket faith in free markets.

Brian, Mike and others are pushing the details of the necessary roles of the State in checking aggression and greed well enough. There is more to be said from works like On Aggression and On Killing about how men respond to violence and threats. I'm not sure, though, that the anarchists are capable of hearing it. My inclination at the moment is to settle back and watch Brian and Mike for a while.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

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.

That's a weaker claim than I thought you were making, and much less objectionable.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

No it didn't. Growth in the post-1981 period was no better than it had been before the era of high taxes.

I'd like to draw attention to the second graph in your article. In that graph, there are four instances of notable drops in top rates. Looking at the drops, there are two associated with rising rates of credit growth (early 80s, mid 2000s), one associated with no change at all (mid 60s) and one with a decrease (late 80s). This is hardly conclusive. In fact, given that the mid 60s tax cut (which would have tripled the amount of status wealth in private hands) was associated with no change at all, there doesn't seem to be a very strong correlation between tax rates and financial bubbles.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Strength of unions as a factor promoting stronger growth?

In a way, yes. In a weak labor environment, a CEO will have greater latitude to cut costs via layoffs or speedups. Since these practices erode morale and/or diminish the knowledge base of a company they cause long term damage for a short term gain.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

After 50 years without any panics panic, everyone economists agreed that Panics were a thing of the past. So an experiement 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?

The experiment is, alas, non-repeatable, and lacks a control. Also, top tax rates are quite high in Europe and yet, they bubbled as well. In many parts of the developed world the bubble was worse than in the U.S. despite higher top tax rates. It seems far more likely to me that credit market growth might have much more to do with the credit market environment itself.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

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

Sure it did, but as a percentage of GDP it was much lower. Or to put it another way, some government spending adds physical capital and infrastructure that, while not optimal, is less bad for growth than purely consumptive spending. The amount of federal spending (relative to total GDP) was not notably higher in the Unraveling than the High, but the amount of it that was pure consumption did increase. The High saw much more spending (mostly military) that boosted heavy industry.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

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?

Interestingly, this exact argument has been made by Islamic radicals -- that because Western countries are democracies their citizens are morally culpable in the acts of their government and thus all of them are legitimate targets.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I can't necessarily speak for them, but perhaps they see their role here as educational.

Educational, definitely. But, I'm also trying to identify and build upon common ground with modern liberalism.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

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 Kurt Horner

Interestingly, this exact argument has been made by Islamic radicals -- that because Western countries are democracies their citizens are morally culpable in the acts of their government and thus all of them are legitimate targets.

Attempting to morally justify war is tough. How many civilian casualties occurred in Iraq, mostly women and children, during the Iraqi Freedom campaign? I am dubious about any al Qaeda claim attempting to justify terrorism, but I don't know that the United States is in any great shape to cast stones at glass houses.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Interestingly, this exact argument has been made by Islamic radicals -- that because Western countries are democracies their citizens are morally culpable in the acts of their government and thus all of them are legitimate targets.

That is kind of where I got the idea from.

(Matt, I'm sorry if it came across as too random for the general discussion, but it was bugging me)

Educational, definitely. But, I'm also trying to identify and build upon common ground with modern liberalism.

Likewise. As someone who identifies as Left-Libertarian, I'm trying to come at it from a different direction.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

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.

This is very important, too, since it seems that not just Bob, but HM and Matt as well, seem to want to bundle legitimacy with moral right. I'm pretty sure I've done it myself in this thread. Ultimately, they're not linked. Democracy does not make a state more legitimate, it simply provides a means short of civil disturbance for addressing problems of legitimacy.

Democracy is better than despotism because it allows for some political change without violence. Using the franchise to affect public policy is not the only way* to improve one's society, it's just easier and less violent. When voting ceases to produce satisfactory results, civil disturbance will occur instead.


* Nor is it inherently any more or less legitimate than blowing up buildings. If most people support a violent revolution, then that violence is legitimate in exactly the same sense that the state's violence is legitimate. This is what I think you meant (Brian) when you said that consent was collective, not individual.

That's exactly what I meant, Kurt, and I agree with your last post 100%.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

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.

Toffler has over-generalized the Agricultural Age. The percentage of the population in arms varied widely in ancient times. Male Roman citizens worked as soldiers at rates that probably exceed that of even 20th century states. The description above seems to only be true of societies where military equipment was especially expensive (armor and horses) yet also worth the expense.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

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.

I would credit the printing press far more than the gun. Crossbows were just as lethal and required similarly little training and were (initially) more reliable. Yet, the crossbow was successfully banned for use among Christians.

Originally Posted by Odin

I really don't don't like arguments over definitions (What is property? What is Justice? What is Liberty? Etc.), they ultimately degenerate into squabbling over definitions I prefer descriptions of whole social systems. There is no abstract thing labeled "The State" or "Property" or "Rights" or "Liberty" that exists independently of the social system they are embedded in. Redefining "legitimate" property in the modern Western context to, say, exclude absentee owners (like many Left-Libertarians espouse) is just that, redefining. It's, IMO, a bone-headed way of going about the problem. The real solution would be to influence the system in a way that discourages "absentee landlordism"

First you have to establish why such a change would be worthwhile. Proudhon wasn't trying to define certain property out of existence with mere fancy argument -- he was arguing that the language of property helps disguise the justice of the matter by conflating aspects of property that really should be distinguished.

But, in line with Bob and Brian's dispute about legitimacy, the justice of property is not the same as its legitimacy. To change a policy, one must make an argument from a standpoint of justice and that's why you need someone like Proudhon to take a stab at the core nature of the injustice.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

I'd like to draw attention to the second graph in your article. In that graph, there are four instances of notable drops in top rates. Looking at the drops, there are two associated with rising rates of credit growth (early 80s, mid 2000s), one associated with no change at all (mid 60s) and one with a decrease (late 80s).

The late 80's was still a period of rising credit growth. The slowdown was after 1990, right at the time rates rose.

So we have rising credit during three times when rates were cut, and no change when rates were reduced from very high to very high.

Also, top tax rates are quite high in Europe and yet, they bubbled as well.

Top tax rates in Germany, France and Britain are 45%, 40% and 40% respectively, all well below the top rate of 50% for most of Reagan's term. The period when bubbles were suppressed had top rates much higher than those in Europe. Hell, France and Britain's rate are practically the same as those under Clinton when the stock bubble happened.

Tax rates in Europe aren't remotely high enough to suppress bubbles.

The amount of federal spending (relative to total GDP) was not notably higher in the Unraveling than the High, but the amount of it that was pure consumption did increase. The High saw much more spending (mostly military) that boosted heavy industry.

Military investment is less effective in promoting economic growth than other kinds of government investment (e.g. R&D, public infrastructure, education, etc). This is because military assets are intended for non-economic uses and so have terrible ROIs. Compare to the return from government investment in education (i.e. the additional taxes paid by the college-education over those not so education over a workign lifetime).

Most of military spending is consumptive, particularly during wartime. About half of the postwar boom was during wartime. Overall, consumptive military spending has about the same economic impacts as other kinds of consumptive government spending, and since the overall levels did not change, there is no reason to believe that government spending played a significant role in the higher growth then.

The analysis I give in the article is much simpler and fits with things that have been demonstrated. Low interest rates are used to adjust the rate of growth, lower to ramp it up and higher to slow it down.

Given this and the fact that real rates were lower during good times in the postwar period than either before or after, one would expect faster growth during that time--which is what is observed.

Why is this so surprising to you?

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

This is very important, too, since it seems that not just Bob, but HM and Matt as well, seem to want to bundle legitimacy with moral right. I'm pretty sure I've done it myself in this thread. Ultimately, they're not linked. Democracy does not make a state more legitimate, it simply provides a means short of civil disturbance for addressing problems of legitimacy.

Democracy is better than despotism because it allows for some political change without violence. Using the franchise to affect public policy is not the only way* to improve one's society, it's just easier and less violent. When voting ceases to produce satisfactory results, civil disturbance will occur instead.


* Nor is it inherently any more or less legitimate than blowing up buildings. If most people support a violent revolution, then that violence is legitimate in exactly the same sense that the state's violence is legitimate. This is what I think you meant (Brian) when you said that consent was collective, not individual.

This is all true in one sense. I'm just not sure this is the only relevant sense.

The only criteria for being a 'legitimate state' might not want to be an ability to maintain effective monopoly on the use of force. That would be 'might makes right.' Ultimately, this brute force definition of 'legitimate' might be what counts. Perhaps democracy might just be a means to avoid most of the blood, toil, tears and sweat.

However, individuals are going to use 'legitimate' in another sense. The founding fathers would assert that taxation without representation was tyranny. William Lloyd Garrison clearly rejected compromise with slavery. I don't expect Matt to back off the idea that even with representation, taxation is tyranny. I might disagree with him that the idea is plausible in the foreseeable future, but in a way I don't want or expect him to back down...

It might be that new ideas cannot become 'legitimate' in the sense of being fully enforced by the people until one can win revolutions or at least elections. However, there are certain sorts of people who will firmly make claims well ahead of their time, who are going to state the ideas and ideals that at the core of a given high during the awakening that precedes said high. We need that sort of people. Such people will not be shut up merely by defining the word 'legitimate' in such a way as to suggest there ideas aren't.

So long as that is understood, aye, sure, might makes right.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

The only criteria for being a 'legitimate state' might not want to be an ability to maintain effective monopoly on the use of force. That would be 'might makes right.'

"Might makes legitimacy" is not synonymous with "might makes right." It also leaves a link out, because popular support makes both legitimacy and might. A standard of legitimacy that makes a large percentage of today's governments illegitimate doesn't strike me as particularly useful.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Male Roman citizens worked as soldiers at rates that probably exceed that of even 20th century states.

I don't think so. At the height of imperial power in the 2nd century, the Roman regular military numbered about 150,000 with 350,000 in the reserves out of a population of 65 million. That is 0.23% active and 0.77% total. Later the number of active duty troops rose and the population fell, with the fraction of actives approaching 0.5%. I recall from my college history courses the idea that in ancient times standing armies greater than about 0.5% in the ancient world were unsustainable in the long run.

During the Cold War the US easily maintained armed forces in excess of 1.5% of population and the Soviet Union had more. During WW II the number of men under arms in the belligerent nations was far higher than it had ever been before or since.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Not to do is to do. (Although obviously not to do the same thing.) The distinction between action and inaction is artificial in that we are always acting. If I see someone about to attack you, and I choose not to intervene, then my inaction impacts you by permitting you to be attacked. That's on an individual level but the same applies on the collective level via the state. If a majority of the people choose not to have a state (assuming that were even possible, which it's not), then they collective choose not to allow the state to intervene to suppress aggression. As that leaves me more open to being victimized by aggression (and/or to having to defend myself against it), this inaction impacts me by permitting me to be attacked. Thus, it is every bit as much subject to considerations of consent as the state.

That's what I meant. Your original claim was that "the state makes you support these free riders," which is not true. The state does not willingly permit tax evaders, therefore does not make anyone else support them. If they are successful in evading taxes despite the state, then one must support them, true, but it is the tax evader making this happen not the state.

Matt: Brian has nailed my point. In another post I gave an example of what the state provides that wealthy tax-avoiders are free-riding upon. If you have a theoretical response, reply to Brian and I will follow your discussion (no need to add more posts responding to me too). If you cannot see any benefits of living in a state to property holders then respond to me.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Toffler has over-generalized the Agricultural Age. The percentage of the population in arms varied widely in ancient times. Male Roman citizens worked as soldiers at rates that probably exceed that of even 20th century states. The description above seems to only be true of societies where military equipment was especially expensive (armor and horses) yet also worth the expense.

Any time you try to break human history into four basic categories, the result is going to be very generalized. (I generally add the hunter gatherer pattern as a preceding 'wave,' and am suspending judgement on how Toffler's "Information Age" develops. It is too soon to take that really seriously. The book already seems dated.) There will be exceptions and to any such pattern. History was a continuum. The major breaks remain useful, however.

Yes, there were highly militarized states in ancient days where a large number of males were citizen soldiers. The Roman Republic and the Greek city states stand as examples. They also illustrate the idea that if you arm a large fraction of the population, those armed get extra rights and privileges. However, as agriculture was still very manpower intensive, the idea "that every man be armed" did not come true to the extent that it did in the days of English muskets. Thus, the ideas of universal rights, of all having a right to bear arms and universal suffrage never made a full appearance in ancient days, let alone become really dominant.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

I would credit the printing press far more than the gun. Crossbows were just as lethal and required similarly little training and were (initially) more reliable. Yet, the crossbow was successfully banned for use among Christians.

Many technologies and other factors brought the age of Guns, Germs and Steel into full flower. Ocean going sailing ship are neglected in my opinion. The printing press was not a negligible factor, but I don't believe the distinction between crossbows and muskets was much of a turning point. Cannon were important, though, in giving national governments an advantage in the field against castle dwelling feudal lords.

At any rate, there remains a real distinction between an agricultural empire with hereditary privileged nobility and the modern industrial democracy. It is a difference in kind rather than emphasis. Many of the Anglo-American Crises from the Protestant Reformation through the US Civil War can be viewed as wars of transition between one style of society to the other. The period can and perhaps should be viewed as the Anglo Americans figuring out how industrial democracy ought to work. (Edit. Maybe the New Deal early half of the following crisis needs a mention in this too.)

I view Fascism and Communism as attempts to integrate technology into totalitarian cultures without rights and democracy. Thus, the world wars and Cold War have aspects of the same conflict of memes. Fundamentalist Islam with its preference for totalitarian government enforcing ancient religious values can also be viewed as yet another old style culture attempting to adapt to (or resist adapting to) newer technology.

This is not to say that all cultures will inevitably find the same answers as the Anglo-Americans did. Nor does it say that that they will necessarily transition with any less struggle and bloodshed than the Anglo-Americans went through. Values shifts are really really painful. The answers we found are visible enough, but it is not easy to see the utility of things that are alien to one's own values and traditions.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Thus, the ideas of universal rights, of all having a right to bear arms and universal suffrage never made a full appearance in ancient days, let alone become really dominant.

With the Roman Republic and Greek democracy as examples, I'm going to say that the theory that concepts of universal rights flow from widespread armaments is not supported by the facts. Universal male citizen suffrage was the rule in the Republic. (In the Empire, too.) Same in democratic Athens. Roman citizens had certain guaranteed rights under the law. They were not the same rights in all cases as we recognize today, but the concept certainly existed. A Roman citizen had a right to a trial when accused of a crime, with certain provisions mandated in the court's constitution and admissibility of evidence. A Roman citizen could not, in almost all cases, be put to death by a court. The exception was treason, but even for that there were two types of treason and only one (rarely resorted to) carried the death penalty. Conviction for a serious crime normally carried a sentence of exile and/or a fine. Sulla as Dictator infamously "proscribed" his political enemies and various rich businessmen, allowing them to be legally killed by anyone, but a Dictator was above the law; normally no such thing could be done.

I agree with Mike that the printing press counted for more than gunpowder. Rome was an unusually literate society for the ancient world and had an especially strong commercial sector.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

The late 80's was still a period of rising credit growth. The slowdown was after 1990, right at the time rates rose.

I did say rate of credit market growth. The second Reagan-era tax cut was followed by a declining rate of credit market growth which levels out just before the Clinton tax increase. The rate of increase is clearly slower in the latter half of the 80s.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

So we have rising credit during three times when rates were cut, and no change when rates were reduced from very high to very high.

Top tax rates in Germany, France and Britain are 45%, 40% and 40% respectively, all well below the top rate of 50% for most of Reagan's term. The period when bubbles were suppressed had top rates much higher than those in Europe. Hell, France and Britain's rate are practically the same as those under Clinton when the stock bubble happened.

Tax rates in Europe aren't remotely high enough to suppress bubbles.

So bubble suppression begins at rates above 50% but below 70%? That's awfully specific. Shouldn't it matter at what income level those rates kick in? If your top rate starts at 100K, a 70% rate will damage small businesses, but if starts at 250K not so much.

Also, you didn't respond to the observation that Kennedy's cuts would have immediately tripled the amount of available status wealth, yet no bubble appeared. That's odd, and it suggests that while tax policy may correlate with certain monetary policies, that the monetary policies are the actual drivers.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Military investment is less effective in promoting economic growth than other kinds of government investment (e.g. R&D, public infrastructure, education, etc).

All of which were also present during the High. But those aren't the expenditures that grew (except education?). It was entitlements that grew enormously, and entitlements are not investments in the economic sense -- they are consumption.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Given this and the fact that real rates were lower during good times in the postwar period than either before or after, one would expect faster growth during that time--which is what is observed.

Why is this so surprising to you?

That part isn't surprising, nor is your claim about deficits. In fact given the way deficits get funded, those two claims are really more like one claim. It's the tax claim that I find dubious.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I don't think so. At the height of imperial power in the 2nd century, the Roman regular military numbered about 150,000 with 350,000 in the reserves out of a population of 65 million. That is 0.23% active and 0.77% total. Later the number of active duty troops rose and the population fell, with the fraction of actives approaching 0.5%. I recall from my college history courses the idea that in ancient times standing armies greater than about 0.5% in the ancient world were unsustainable in the long run.

During the Cold War the US easily maintained armed forces in excess of 1.5% of population and the Soviet Union had more. During WW II the number of men under arms in the belligerent nations was far higher than it had ever been before or since.

First, Roman auxilia should not be confused with reserve forces in present terminology. These were forces from outside of Italy proper who weren't organized as Legions. But these were still full-time soldiers.

Second, nearly 1% of the population were in arms constantly for 700 years. Comparing a brief peak period in Western history is inappropriate. Presently the number of soldiers in the West is maybe 0.5% of the whole population. This has been true for 60 years now. So, we can say that the Pax Romana maintained a larger standing army than the Pax Americana has. That alone disproves Toffler's blanket description of the agricultural age.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

"Might makes legitimacy" is not synonymous with "might makes right." It also leaves a link out, because popular support makes both legitimacy and might. A standard of legitimacy that makes a large percentage of today's governments illegitimate doesn't strike me as particularly useful.

We seem to be arguing about who might properly use the word 'legitimate.' Once again, I believe there is a need for both pragmatic and moral standards to which we might hold a state or a culture. Both sets of criteria should be part of the conversation. We should not try to exclude moral anarchists from the conversation by insisting on special technical definitions of a word. If we did that, this would legitimize sanction all of their arguments by redefinition.

This doesn't meant that the conversation will be comprehensible if we're both trying to use the same word in different ways. Visiting my Dictionary / Thesaurus, it seems to me that the word 'legitimate' can reasonably imply moral standards have been met. However, your usage is also quite valid. At any rate, it would seem simpler if one of us chose a different word.

I'll try to use the word 'just' in place of 'legitimate' to imply use of moral criteria as opposed to pragmatic criteria such as 'able to maintain monopoly over use of force.' In this usage, the United States in its incorporation of slavery before the Civil War, and in allowing southern Jim Crow laws before the Consciousness Revolution, might reasonably not be considered a just society by my definition. It might be considered legitimate by your standard. Someone else might say Britain before the Revolution, in taxing without representation, might also not be considered just, though it to might well be considered legitimate. Some might say China, in violating human rights, is also not a just society.

This leaves room for Matt and other anarchists to provide other criteria for what it takes for a culture to be just, though my suggestion that he should be allowed to propose such new criteria should not be confused with my endorsing any such criteria.

I'll suggest that 'recognize by lots of other states' might be another possible standard for being considered 'legitimate' in a practical sense.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I don't think so. At the height of imperial power in the 2nd century, the Roman regular military numbered about 150,000 with 350,000 in the reserves out of a population of 65 million. That is 0.23% active and 0.77% total. Later the number of active duty troops rose and the population fell, with the fraction of actives approaching 0.5%. I recall from my college history courses the idea that in ancient times standing armies greater than about 0.5% in the ancient world were unsustainable in the long run.

During the Cold War the US easily maintained armed forces in excess of 1.5% of population and the Soviet Union had more. During WW II the number of men under arms in the belligerent nations was far higher than it had ever been before or since.

Thanks. I thought so, but wasn't sure how to chase down the numbers.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

This is very important, too, since it seems that not just Bob, but HM and Matt as well, seem to want to bundle legitimacy with moral right. I'm pretty sure I've done it myself in this thread. Ultimately, they're not linked.

Err, that's what legitimacy is, provided we're talking about the justice of the State per se. De jure, not de facto.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Aggression and greed are generally seen as vices. Mercy and charity might be their opposite virtues. Much traditional religious, philosophical and political thought attempts to discourage or punish vices, while encouraging or rewarding virtues.

Your approach seems to reject aggression in any form while emphasizing property rights. One cannot acquire territory or property by aggression, but neither can the state take away property in the interests of providing services or fairly distributing wealth. To me, it seems you are against one traditional vice, aggression, while being in favor of another traditional vice, greed. There is a traditional liberal belief that the ruling elites are greedy, that there needs to be a check on greed. Anarchists seem to oppose limits on greed.

Well, there's a moral objection to greed that I have (i.e. it's a vice), and there's a moral and political objection I have to acts of aggression (i.e. it's intolerable). If one acquires an obscene amount of wealth without force and fraud, then my political objection is not with the acquisition. I cannot object to totally free exchange without objecting to individual freedom. Whether there is a moral problem remains to be seen. It's worth noting that most anarchists see natural limits, where the ceiling is much lower, on what can (practically speaking) be acquired in an anarchistic society.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

Well, there's a moral objection to greed that I have (i.e. it's a vice), and there's a moral and political objection I have to acts of aggression (i.e. it's intolerable). If one acquires an obscene amount of wealth without force and fraud, then my political objection is not with the acquisition. I cannot object to totally free exchange without objecting to individual freedom. Whether there is a moral problem remains to be seen. It's worth noting that most anarchists see natural limits, where the ceiling is much lower, on what can (practically speaking) be acquired in an anarchistic society.

This time I'm the one having trouble parsing your statement. Just to confirm...

I would agree that there are natural limits on greed. If Iceland and early Rhode Island are examples of small simple relatively poor stateless societies, I can acknowledge there have been examples of anarchy not producing division of wealth that becomes an obvious moral problem.

The problem is scaling up anarchy. Larger, richer, more complex societies tend to require more formal rules and turn into states. These states often favor the rich, and can sometimes enable and enforce the division of wealth as much or more than they limit it. A liberal would attempt to refine the state so that it empowers the common man rather than the elites. The anarchist would see the state doing more harm than good, and would seek to get rid of the state. (That about right?)

One problem I see is that rules apply to a community. In a small, poor, simple society such as Iceland or early Rhode Island, everyone can easily accept everyone else as part of an intuitive whole. The human instincts that encourage mercy, charity, sharing, restraint and other virtues among a community will kick in. If there is no attempt to build a sense of community, that all are part of a whole that follow the same rules, the instincts which enable the virtues would not necessarily manifest. Rather than neighbors, you might get Others. Rather than a community, you fall into the failed state mode, where it is so easy to resolve differences through force.

I can sympathize with an anarchist desire to reduce coercion. The problem with anarchist rhetoric as often expressed is how to get rid of the state without getting rid of a sense that we are all one, that we should interact through our virtues as well as through our vices. The notion of a social contract is more than a philosophical abstract. Man's natural limits checking our vices depend to a great degree on a feeling that one is dealing with One-Of-Us rather than The Enemy. If others are perceived of as Others, you can easily get ethnic cleansing, genocide, organized rape, political famine and similar undesirable behaviors. The instinctive taboos blocking aggression and greed do not apply to The Enemy.

So, the tricky question that the anarchists might have to answer in the century or two before The Anarchist Revolution is how to get rid of states while still having a sense of community and a common feeling that certain vices are taboo among all anyone is likely to encounter.

In the meanwhile, until the as yet way over the horizon revolution arrives, we liberals might want to push to get government on the side of the common people rather than letting the political elites form common cause with the economic elites. This might be an equally implausible task. Pursuit of status and power is natural too. Vices are as real as virtues.

Neither liberal or anarchist should anticipate paradise spontaneously flowering all over. Toil, tears and sweat might be anticipated. Blood is not out of the question.