September 18, 2008
Patriotic Taxpayer Biden!
But, Senator, I thought Dissent was patriotic?
AP: Biden calls paying higher taxes a patriotic act
WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden says that paying higher taxes is the patriotic thing to do for wealthier Americans.Biden says he and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama want to "take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people."
Under the Democrats' economic plan, people earning more than $250,000 a year would pay more in taxes while those earning less — the vast majority of American taxpayers — would receive a tax cut.
Biden told ABC's "Good Morning America" on Thursday that, in his words, "it's time to be patriotic ... time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut."
Hat-Tip: Insty. Who also links to Michael Silence:
You mean like this?2008 Posted by jk at September 18, 2008 6:08 PMBiden gave average of $369 to charity a year
Boy, talk about reinforcing the "stereotype" of spending someone else's money.
Check out this alternate version of the same AP story wherein the author, Douglass K. Daniel, writes: "...the ad features the image of a shadow slowly covering a sleeping baby as a narrator misstates the reach of the Obama tax proposal." (2nd to last paragraph) Misstates?
Isn't it amazing that "journalists" don't even TRY to appear objective any longer? That was just such an old-fashioned notion anyway, wasn't it?
Posted by: johngalt at September 18, 2008 7:13 PMGiving your money to the government as a show of loyalty. Boy, if THAT doesn't smack of socialism.
Then again, Biden's got a track record of plagiarism. Maybe he was reading 1984 before he made that statement?
Posted by: TrekMedic251 at September 18, 2008 9:10 PMHeh. I think I will take the dissenting view here: Biden has got the right idea- or at least, in principal he does. Sacrificing your prosperity for the sake of your country is a patriotic thing to do.
Yet I don't think Biden, Obama et al. truly understand the concept. If they did, their rhetoric would be quite different. A sample speech might go like this:
"At this moment in history, the United States of America is engaged in two wars. Now, as commander-in-chief I will be committed to an American victory on both fronts. BUT, if America wants to leave Afghanistan and Iraq better than we found them, if we want to protect our soldiers and marines from fanatics, and if we wish to ensure that terrorists do not get a hold of weapons of mass destruction, then Americans need to make sacrifices..."
But this is not how Obama, et al. frame it, or for that matter, think about it. Their attitude is a little more like this:
"In America, there are privileged people and not so privileged people.... And I want everyone to be privileged... so I will take money away from the privileged and give it to the unprivileged, and that will make America stronger!"
I would be willing to except tax raises for the first; taxes raises for the second do little more than disgust me.
~T. Greer
Posted by: T. Greer at September 18, 2008 11:12 PMNo, it is *not* patriotism. What you are talking about is *nationalism*.
Also, you're falling for the fallacy that the state can take your property to give to others. *You* can "volunteer" all you want, but *I* do not, and it is flatly immoral for you to force me.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at September 19, 2008 9:43 AMI dunno, tg, you cannot tie your payment to certain aspects of government (although my wife champions a plan to do so -- she says she'd like to send her money to the military and let her sisters send their money in for more welfare).
The fact is, our representative republican government is funded by a coercive tax system, thanks to the 16th Amendment. That's fine, that's the law and I am cooler with it than most around here.
But I cannot for a second agree that it is an example of patriotism to tolerate a tax increase for a wasteful, moderately-corrupt, and clearly supra-Constitutional federal government.
Fly the flag or send a care package to Iraq if you're feeling patriotic, As individuals we are free to protect our private property and hire the best accountants to pay the least legal taxes. (Even less if we're the head of the House Ways and Means Committee -- no I don't think we'll go there this morning....)
Posted by: jk at September 19, 2008 11:32 AM@Perry:
See, under normal circumstances, I would agree with you. I should not be able to force you to sacrifice anything for your fellow countrymen, even if it is the moral thing to do. It is wrong to force you to give your money to the poor, to the sick, or to those affected by natural disasters. Simply put, it is not the government's job to play Robin Hood.
But then again, I am not suggesting that the government play Robin Hood with your money. I am suggesting that the government has the right to have you pay for the services that they provide to America, as a whole.
You know, like the U.S. Military. When the government takes your money to pay salaries to our soldiers, or to build armor for our tanks, it is not taking away your property and giving to others- it is making you pay for a service rendered.
@JK:
We cannot choose where our money goes, but we can choose to elect leaders who will spend our money in the right places.
Now let me be clear- I do not think we need a tax hike. As you said, giving money to a corrupt, supra-constitutional government is a bad idea. Yet if the President were to give a speech tomorrow requesting money from the citizens of America for the purpose of victory in our current struggles, and then had a way to ensure that the money would go directly to DoS or DoD, I would have a hard time not supporting such a call.
~T. Greer, pretty sure that the said scenario won't be happening anytime soon.
Posted by: T. Greer at September 19, 2008 2:16 PM"But then again, I am not suggesting that the government play Robin Hood with your money. I am suggesting that the government has the right to have you pay for the services that they provide to America, as a whole."
Baloney. Your assertion is that the government has the power to force me to give up money that is given to others. You can point out one or a few things *I* like, but it never stops there.
How can you, in a nation of 4 million in 1787 or 300 million in 2008, set up a tax system that takes tax money from Joe to only an extent that it pays for Joe's share of things he wants and likes, and similarly takes money from Sue? You *can't*. It's *impossible*, not through taxes. It's possible only through a free market of purely voluntary trade. The only possibility via government is that it forcibly takes taxes from the minority to redistribute to the voting majority.
Do you understand? It's about the *principle* of the thing, not the specific. (I'm starting to talk like Billy Beck now! But he's absolutely right.)
"You know, like the U.S. Military. When the government takes your money to pay salaries to our soldiers, or to build armor for our tanks, it is not taking away your property and giving to others- it is making you pay for a service rendered."
This is a combination of two fallacies: "social compact" theory and "the military is a public good."
How can you not see it was immoral to take people's tax money to give to war efforts they opposed, no matter why they opposed them or if they were right/wrong to oppose?
"We cannot choose where our money goes, but we can choose to elect leaders who will spend our money in the right places."
More baloney. This is the fallacy of democracy, that the majority's decision is inherently correct. All a "majority" means is that they were the most numerous to decide how to spend the money.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at September 19, 2008 4:00 PM@Perry:
A few thoughts...
I think you may be misreading a few of my statements. First off, I never said that the government should have, "the power to force me to give up money that is given to others." Rather, I said it should have the power to pay for the services that it renders to all Americans equally. (I.E. highways, military, patent offices, ect.)
Furthermore, I never said that the majority is inherently correct in all it does. I did say that we - as voters - have the power to vote in someone who will make ethical decisions.
Yet you might be in the minority, and you might just disagree with the "ethical" decisions of the majority and the people they vote into power. Yet once you cast your vote you have signed the social contract; you have agreed to stick to the decision of the majority- even if it is wrong headed.
Of course, the easiest way around this is to simply not vote. But if one refuses to vote, one has no claim to either the protection or the services provided by the elected government to its citizens.
In this sense, I do not think it is immoral to take away a citizen's money for the sake of a war they oppose; the minute the citizen checked his ballot, he decided to cede his power to the majority.
Now, I might have committed a logical fallacy or two in explaining my thoughts. As such, I invite you to feel free to poke holes in the arguments stated above. My only request is that you qualify the statements you make.
While it might be obvious to some just how fallacious the "military as a public good" is, I can't help but admit that I find your statement perplexing. Perhaps you can explain this with a bit more depth?
Thanks,
~T. Greer
Posted by: T. Greer at September 19, 2008 9:41 PM"I think you may be misreading a few of my statements. First off, I never said that the government should have, "the power to force me to give up money that is given to others." Rather, I said it should have the power to pay for the services that it renders to all Americans equally. (I.E. highways, military, patent offices, ect.)"
Are you so completely blind to the consequences of what you propose? If government is to have the power to fund its projects, and if ONE person objects but must still pay into it, then government necessarily must have some sort of power to *force* taxes from that person.
Since you can't see the plain fact, let me point out right here that to take a dollar from me to pay for military use is to give money to others. It's giving it to military personnel, contractors, manufacturers, et al. Whether I support or oppose the Iraq war, or any war, is irrelevant. We're talking about principles here, and specifics are not the basis of reasoning but are to explain the general.
"Furthermore, I never said that the majority is inherently correct in all it does. I did say that we - as voters - have the power to vote in someone who will make ethical decisions."
Again, you're so blind to the consequences of what you say. The very power of voting is *implicitly* about the majority asserting its will over the minority.
Do you have any idea who originated the term "mobocracy" and why the idea of majority rule was so repugnant to them?
"Yet you might be in the minority, and you might just disagree with the "ethical" decisions of the majority and the people they vote into power. Yet once you cast your vote you have signed the social contract; you have agreed to stick to the decision of the majority- even if it is wrong headed."
Spare us the "social contract" hogwash, all right? By invoking that fallacy, you reveal yourself as no better than the socialists who have flatly told me that by opening a store somewhere, Wal-Mart
What if I have no desire to participate? What if all I desire is for you to leave me alone, and I'll leave you alone, except for *purely* *voluntary* *contact* where all exchanges are done because both sides freely wanted them? To you, that doesn't matter: you and the rest of the voting majority make me lose by default, whether or not I "vote."
To paraphrase Walter Williams, how about you pay for only the goods and services that you want, and I'll pay for only the goods and services I want?
"Of course, the easiest way around this is to simply not vote. But if one refuses to vote, one has no claim to either the protection or the services provided by the elected government to its citizens."
That's a load of horse manure, as I pointed out just above.
Living in a . I have *zero* chance of effecting anything toward liberty
"In this sense, I do not think it is immoral to take away a citizen's money for the sake of a war they oppose; the minute the citizen checked his ballot, he decided to cede his power to the majority."
More hogwash. I *never* give up anything by voting against the majority or not voting at all, but the majority that opposes me has the luxury of claiming that I do. What about two of my friends who are so principled that they don't vote at all? All they want is for others to not deprive them of their rights, including not "taxing" them.
How can you be so blind to the fact that you're implicitly saying the majority is right? And if the majority is not inherently correct, then why are you saying "tough luck" to the minority?
You should read this: http://eidelblog.blogspot.com/2008/07/in-end-its-force-that-suppresses-rights.html. I suspect you think voting is "peaceful," so pay attention to my explanation of why it is *not*.
"Now, I might have committed a logical fallacy or two in explaining my thoughts."
That's putting it mildly.
"As such, I invite you to feel free to poke holes in the arguments stated above. My only request is that you qualify the statements you make."
Ask and ye shall receive.
"While it might be obvious to some just how fallacious the "military as a public good" is, I can't help but admit that I find your statement perplexing. Perhaps you can explain this with a bit more depth?"
This is not an introductory economics or political science class, and I have no time to explain such a simple concept that you can look up yourself. If you want to argue with the big boys, then you really ought to inform yourself first.
BTW, you've just been Eidelfisked. Have a nice day.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at September 21, 2008 11:19 PMI'll join Perry in skepticism of "majority rule;" pure unfettered democracy is not a friend of liberty. Jonah Goldberg says it best, if unappetizingly, in "letting the 51% percent vote to pee in the Corn Flakes of the 49%" (hope you guys aren't reading this at breakfast.)
He and I have crossed swords before over Anarcho-Capitalism and the benefits of "Pax Americana." I cite Deepak Lal's Liberal International Economic Order and claim the investment of a little nationalistic adventurism to be worthwhile for freedom and prosperity. It should be tempered and reasonable men can disagree (someday we might even find reasonable men around ThreeSources). I'd run away from the phrase "public good" on general principals, that's a phrase Senator Clinton and her ilk are too comfortable with.
I don't want to pile-on a new commenter but I'd point out that you, tg, have to twist yourself into a lot of qualifications and caveats to defend your defense of Senator Biden (though I appreciate the contrarianism). My first principles' stance of taxation as an unfortunate evil completely untethered to patriotism takes no qualification at all. I will pay my legal tax and not a penny more. There is a facility to "donate" extra revenue to the government if Senator Joe's personal patriotism overwhelms him. Coercion, however, is not a patriotic virtue. Hey, that last one would fit on a bumper sticker!
Posted by: jk at September 22, 2008 11:00 AM"I will pay my legal tax and not a penny more."
But there's another problem, my friend. All the government needs to do is declare something "legal," and you're on the hook for it. It will stay "legal" until a majority of your voting neighbors keep electing public representatives to keep it "legal."
Every tax I pay is "legal." Bloomberg wants to restore the "commuter tax," which would hit me quite "legally."
Remember that exchange from Episode I? "Is that...legal?" "I will make it...legal."
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at September 22, 2008 3:36 PM*sigh* Lets take this bit by bit, shall we?
Perry said:“Are you so completely blind to the consequences of what you propose? If government is to have the power to fund its projects, and if ONE person objects but must still pay into it, then government necessarily must have some sort of power to *force* taxes from that person.”
Well, I did consider this, and I did come up with the contingency plan for he who does not wish to be a citizen:
T. Greer said: “Of course, the easiest way around this is to simply not vote. But if one refuses to vote, one has no claim to either the protection or the services provided by the elected government to its citizens.”
As long as we are talking about principles, and staying away from the specifics of reality, this works perfectly well. You don’t vote, you don’t get the benefits provided by the government (save those that are non-excludable), and the government cannot force you to do anything. On the other hand, if you do vote, you get the benefits provided by collective action, and submit to the authority of the majority.
Perry said: Again, you're so blind to the consequences of what you say. The very power of voting is *implicitly* about the majority asserting its will over the minority…
What if I have no desire to participate? What if all I desire is for you to leave me alone, and I'll leave you alone, except for *purely* *voluntary* *contact* where all exchanges are done because both sides freely wanted them? To you, that doesn't matter: you and the rest of the voting majority make me lose by default, whether or not I "vote."
To paraphrase Walter Williams, how about you pay for only the goods and services that you want, and I'll pay for only the goods and services I want?
…
I *never* give up anything by voting against the majority or not voting at all, but the majority that opposes me has the luxury of claiming that I do. What about two of my friends who are so principled that they don't vote at all? All they want is for others to not deprive them of their rights, including not "taxing" them.
See my last statement for my response to all of the quoted statements.
Perry Said: While I hate to repeat myself, I will say it again. I don’t think the majority is inherently right. I do think that when a group of people choose their actions by way of vote, they are ceding their authority to that of the majority.
Perry SaidYou should read this: http://eidelblog.blogspot.com/2008/07/in-end-its-force-that-suppresses-rights.html. I suspect you think voting is "peaceful," so pay attention to my explanation of why it is *not*.
Sorry mate, your link is broken.
Perry Said: This is not an introductory economics or political science class, and I have no time to explain such a simple concept that you can look up yourself. If you want to argue with the big boys, then you really ought to inform yourself first.
If you can’t qualify your statement, then you have no right to decry any I have made- particularly if I can qualify mine.
I have yet to come across a single source which has disproven the fact that the military is a public good. Let me take one of the most obvious examples to prove my point: nuclear weapons. Because the United States has several thousand nuclear weapons and the ability to deploy those weapons anywhere in the world, no nation state will launch attack the United States with nuclear weapons, for fear of retaliation. It doesn’t matter who you are or what you have done- if you are occupying space in the North American you are benefitting from this deterrence. Furthermore, the fact that someone in Seattle is being protected by this deterrence does not lessen its utility to someone in New York, or Chicago, or anywhere else in the nation. This combination of non-rivalness and non-excludability is the definition of a public good.
~T. Greer, still open to holes being poked in his argument.
Posted by: T. Greer at September 22, 2008 4:06 PM"Well, I did consider this, and I did come up with the contingency plan for he who does not wish to be a citizen:
T. Greer said: "Of course, the easiest way around this is to simply not vote. But if one refuses to vote, one has no claim to either the protection or the services provided by the elected government to its citizens."
Still a load of manure. You know that it isn't going to happen, don't you? The whole idea of "American democracy" is for a majority to laugh in my face when I say "Leave me alone," because they need *my* taxes for their lives.
I *don't* want government to protect me from myself by taking money supposedly for my retirement, supposedly so it can bail me out later. I'd have no problem with paying minimal taxes so I'd have basic police and fire department services, perhaps public roads. But that isn't going to happen while there's a majority that votes, backed by the threat of violence, to seize my property to fund whatever they want.
"As long as we are talking about principles, and staying away from the specifics of reality, this works perfectly well. You don’t vote, you don’t get the benefits provided by the government (save those that are non-excludable), and the government cannot force you to do anything."
"Reality" is that democracy comes down to two wolves and a lamb deciding on lunch. *I* want my neighbors to leave me alone, but *they* won't leave me alone.
"On the other hand, if you do vote, you get the benefits provided by collective action, and submit to the authority of the majority."
Wrong. Voting against a collectivist official is an expression of my opposition, and in no way implies "submission." Or perhaps you'd like to suggest some way that I can refrain from voting and thus be left alone by my neighbors?
You're simply so blind to consequences. Do you have any idea what "collective action" truly represents?
"While I hate to repeat myself, I will say it again. I don’t think the majority is inherently right. I do think that when a group of people choose their actions by way of vote, they are ceding their authority to that of the majority."
What will it take for a state-worshipper like you to realize that going by majority decision is *implicitly* saying that the majority is correct? Such is the very fallacy of "democracy."
It's not my fault if you can't see that two plus two equal four, regardless of the language or units used.
http://eidelblog.blogspot.com/2008/07/in-end-its-force-that-suppresses-rights.html
Try copying and pasting the link, without the period at the end. I can't do it for you or hold your hand.
"If you can’t qualify your statement, then you have no right to decry any I have made- particularly if I can qualify mine."
Like I said, this is not an introductory class. What I expressed was such a simple concept, despite the fact that you have never encountered it, that anyone more than a simpleton can research it easily.
"I have yet to come across a single source which has disproven the fact that the military is a public good."
Then you need to read more sources.
"Let me take one of the most obvious examples to prove my point: nuclear weapons. Because the United States has several thousand nuclear weapons and the ability to deploy those weapons anywhere in the world, no nation state will launch attack the United States with nuclear weapons, for fear of retaliation. It doesn’t matter who you are or what you have done- if you are occupying space in the North American you are benefitting from this deterrence. Furthermore, the fact that someone in Seattle is being protected by this deterrence does not lessen its utility to someone in New York, or Chicago, or anywhere else in the nation. This combination of non-rivalness and non-excludability is the definition of a public good."
Since I must lead you in connecting the dots, I'll simply explain that there are two fallacies with your specific example: you're assuming an equal degree of benefit (if it exists at all) even if there is equal desire, and a military force is hardly non-rivalrous.
You said "North American" and so were talking about the continent, but I'll be gentle and not talk about the Northwest Territories or Yucatan Peninsula. Does someone living in Moab, Utah, have the same degree of protection as I, who lives in a metropolitan area that has now been targetted twice by terrorists? I'd like to see you argue that.
Darn, targetted twice. Out the window goes your nonsensical idea that nukes are "deterrent," huh.
A military force is a finite resource. Nuclear weapons may be numerous but are still only a small part of U.S. military spending, so your example hardly justifies the military as a public good. Here I'll necessarily put aside the issue of whether its proper, and speak of how things are happening in the present United States. When the National Guard is deployed to Iraq, that takes away from its domestic presence that could have been used to help in a hurricane aftermath.
But the best point comes from Frederic Bastiat, my patron saint, who debunked the concept of "public good" over a century before it originated. If you'd sit down for an evening and read "What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen," you might actually understand the concept that government can spend money only by taking an equal amount of money away from the economy -- which means government spending is only a shift in the economy, and cannot generate an increase in the economy. Thus a public good that seems purely non-rivalrous is in fact depriving the rest of an economy from whatever private goods it would have otherwise produced.
So to insist that something is a "public good" by simplistic definitions does not take into account that while I am forced to pay for it, I am being deprived of "private goods" I'd have instead preferred. Clear enough?
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at September 23, 2008 10:18 AMAll of this is getting repetitive and more than a little confused as to who said what, but what really perplexes me is this idea:
Yet once you cast your vote you have signed the social contract; you have agreed to stick to the decision of the majority- even if it is wrong headed.
Of course, the easiest way around this is to simply not vote. But if one refuses to vote, one has no claim to either the protection or the services provided by the elected government to its citizens.
From where did this idea originate, tg?
Are you implying that it is in some de facto way a reality in this country, or anywhere in the world for that matter?
Do you not take pause at the notion that the "elected government" is the given and that individual Americans must "sign the social contract" in order to attain the Constitutional guarantees of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?" (Yes I know that's the Declaration and not the Constitution but the latter would not exist without the former.)
Even if the fantasy you describe were somehow the "law of the land" what recourse does a man have when his neighbor decides that he needs your good plow horse (or tractor) more than you do and comes to take it from you? What you're describing is quite simply - anarchy.
I'm not trying to perpetuate an extended and vociferous debate here, I just want to know where you came up with this idea and to the extent you think it is real, or even good, why on Earth you do?
Posted by: johngalt at September 23, 2008 3:40 PMWell mates, I think that this discussion is growing a bit long. As such, I will offer my final statement here and then invite Perry to weigh in with the last word.
Perry said: “Still a load of manure. You know that it isn't going to happen, don't you? The whole idea of "American democracy" is for a majority to laugh in my face when I say "Leave me alone," because they need *my* taxes for their lives.”
But it is what should happen. In truth, I agree with you when you say that it is wrong for a group of “mobsters” to declare themselves a government and take away your property. Simply put, they have no authority to do so.
On the other hand, those mobsters do have the authority to declare themselves a government and take away their own property. This is political theory 101- the people cede their autonomy to the government (or to representatives in the government) every time they cast a ballot.
This is where you get it wrong Perry. Voting is not a statement of opposition. If you want to express your opposition to something, grab a picket. If you want to be part of the decision making process of the government of the United States, you vote.
Implicit in voting is recognition that your preferred policy might not be enacted. But, in the action of voting, you recognize that the outcome of the vote will become law.
John Galt brings up an interesting point when he ask: “Do you not take pause at the notion that the "elected government" is the given and that individual Americans must "sign the social contract" in order to attain the Constitutional guarantees of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?"”
No, I don’t. The way I see it, the constitution does not guarantee us our life, liberty, our pursuit of happiness. No document cast by human hands can give us these rights. They are God-given, non- negotiation able elements of human existence. The constitution does not guarantee these rights- it simply recognizes them.
Perhaps I should clarify on exactly what I meant: If one refuses to pay taxes, or to do jury duty, or to work with the census bureau, then that man should not cede his autonomy to the government (i.e. vote), and the government should not expect him to do any of the said things. Likewise, he should not expect any of the benefits the state actually gives to its citizens- education, public transport, law enforcement, and the like.
I think that sums up my position on the relation between man and state pretty well. As always, feel free to pick this apart as you will.
But before I leave, I would like to make another point in regards to public goods:
1. For something to be a public good, it does not need to have an equal degree of benefit to everyone. Rather, it needs to be non-excludable, which in the case of nuclear deterrence, it is. You CAN’T exclude a person from the benefits of nuclear deterrence if they are living in the United States. (And I am pretty sure an ICBM strike in Canada and Mexico might just set off MAD as well, but that is an unrelated point.)
2. Nope, you debunked nuttin’. If we were talking about terrorist strikes, you would have. Yet seeing as I specified the attack as being a strike originating from a nation-state you can’t use terrorists to break this apart.
3. For the moment (and maybe for quite a bit longer- once I have finished reading What is Seen and What is Not Seen I will probably know for sure) Mr. Bastiat has beaten me. However, the thought has occurred to me that a public good is not made public because its production didn’t involve the consumption of private resources. After all, a fireworks display can be produced by private enterprise, but once the show begins, the actual lights and booms are both non-excludable and non-rival, even if the chemicals that are used to make the fireworks are neither.
@Perry, Joh Galt, & jk,
Posted by: T. Greer at September 24, 2008 2:59 PMThanks for an interesting discussion.
~T. Greer
"Well mates, I think that this discussion is growing a bit long. As such, I will offer my final statement here and then invite Perry to weigh in with the last word."
No discussion is too long if you're interested in *truth*.
"But it is what should happen. In truth, I agree with you when you say that it is wrong for a group of “mobsters” to declare themselves a government and take away your property. Simply put, they have no authority to do so."
Read this: http://eidelblog.blogspot.com/2007/02/for-i-speak-now-in-parables.html. Copy and paste the URL, without the period at the end.
"On the other hand, those mobsters do have the authority to declare themselves a government and take away their own property. This is political theory 101- the people cede their autonomy to the government (or to representatives in the government) every time they cast a ballot."
As you say, that's theory. In practice, it doesn't happen. So again, I'd like to hear your explanation of how I can have my neighbors leave me alone, other than shooting every last one who tries to declare himself a partial sovereign over what is mine and mine alone.
"This is where you get it wrong Perry. Voting is not a statement of opposition. If you want to express your opposition to something, grab a picket. If you want to be part of the decision making process of the government of the United States, you vote."
Wrong again. The only time I've voted for a presidential candidate was in 1996, for Harry Browne. It was in part support for him, but also a statement of opposition for Clinton and Dole.
It's very simple logic: to vote for something is to vote against all other choices. In 1996, I voted for someone who wanted government to leave me alone, so there's no reason whatsoever that my vote was submitting myself to whatever majority turned out.
"Implicit in voting is recognition that your preferred policy might not be enacted. But, in the action of voting, you recognize that the outcome of the vote will become law."
Which is entirely the point of voting against something, as futile as it may be: you hope there will be just enough, a plurality if your jurisdiction allows, on *your* side so that you'll win. But once more, this is the fallacy of democracy: there's no protection for individual rights, because whatever the majority says, goes. Didn't you ever read the Federalist Papers?
"No, I don’t. The way I see it, the constitution does not guarantee us our life, liberty, our pursuit of happiness. No document cast by human hands can give us these rights. They are God-given, non- negotiation able elements of human existence. The constitution does not guarantee these rights- it simply recognizes them."
Actually, no. What do you suppose the Ninth Amendment is about, specifying rights not enumerated in the previous Amendments?
The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to, in fact, *guarantee* that the federal government (and later construed to extend to the several States' governments) would not infringe upon the rights of the states and the people.
"Perhaps I should clarify on exactly what I meant: If one refuses to pay taxes, or to do jury duty, or to work with the census bureau, then that man should not cede his autonomy to the government (i.e. vote), and the government should not expect him to do any of the said things. Likewise, he should not expect any of the benefits the state actually gives to its citizens- education, public transport, law enforcement, and the like."
Which sounds good to me, but we all know that's not going to happen in the real world, where my neighbors can't have public education, public transport, law enforcement, and the like, without picking my pocket more than they pay in.
"1. For something to be a public good, it does not need to have an equal degree of benefit to everyone. Rather, it needs to be non-excludable, which in the case of nuclear deterrence, it is. You CAN’T exclude a person from the benefits of nuclear deterrence if they are living in the United States. (And I am pretty sure an ICBM strike in Canada and Mexico might just set off MAD as well, but that is an unrelated point.)"
Which is entirely a problem with your (and most people's) simplistic notion of a public good: the assumption of equal benefit for everyone. There IS no equal benefit (value). Someone in a small Great Plains would need hardly any of this "deterrent," if any at all, compared to someone like me that lives near a major city. The point is that Joe Redneck might not be "excludable" from the benefit, but to him there's no benefit at all. Whether or not your "public good" exists makes no difference to him.
"2. Nope, you debunked nuttin’. If we were talking about terrorist strikes, you would have. Yet seeing as I specified the attack as being a strike originating from a nation-state you can’t use terrorists to break this apart."
Actually, seeing as I talked about the U.S. *military* as a whole, you yourself couldn't reduce things in the beginning to ICBMs and what-not.
"3. For the moment (and maybe for quite a bit longer- once I have finished reading What is Seen and What is Not Seen I will probably know for sure) Mr. Bastiat has beaten me. However, the thought has occurred to me that a public good is not made public because its production didn’t involve the consumption of private resources. After all, a fireworks display can be produced by private enterprise, but once the show begins, the actual lights and booms are both non-excludable and non-rival, even if the chemicals that are used to make the fireworks are neither."
Again, this is a problem with the usual (simplistic) concept of a public good: you fail to consider that the existence of a government-created public good comes only by depriving people of private goods. You can talk about "who benefits" all you want, but that's only part of the picture. Learn to examine the whole instead of just part. It's just like the fallacy of "crowding out": it assumes the U.S. economy is a closed box which cannot accept outside supplies of loanable funds, when we know in the real world that isn't true.
Well, you're at least reading Bastiat, which along with my replies here is a start on your real economics education.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at September 24, 2008 3:59 PM | What do you think? [16]