The Wealth Will Be Spread, Joe

I think this is the most sensible thing I have ever heard or read from Will. But libertarianism is anti-redistribution, or am I mistaken? If it is, where does this put libertarianism in relation to "democratic politics"? Is it possible that Will believes libertarianism is/should be a preference that recognizes other legitimate values and priorities in public decision-making, rather than a hard and fast principle that suffers betrayal when not followed in total obeisance? And if it is that, does this not open the tent of libertarianism up to many who have been excluded thus far due to a demonstrated lack of fealty, despite their temperamental sympathy, because they in general see the world as one with competing positive and negative values, and have seen no reason to deny all but one just for acceptance into the ranks of the faithful?

But GU, the point is that it is in the nature of the state to 'move money around'.

Even in a minimalist state, there is some basic requirements for spending on projects that will never be needed by everyone. A levy to support a fire department moves a little bit of utility from everyone and turns it into a lot of utility for a very few people when their house catches fire.

The question is not the fact of the redistribution. The question is how we decide who gets what and who gives what. It's the old Marxist saw, 'From each according to his ability, to each according to their need.", only a libertarian might argue that 'needs' are really very narrow. As much as you might believe that B is getting that money 'for no good reason', our democratic system disagrees.

So equal incomes (adjusting for need) is the moral result then?
If not equal incomes then implicitly you are recognising the earner has a higher claim to the money than others.

I said:

"...so that government can waste it on spending that usually reduces liberty or redistributes it from the general citizenry to the politically-connected or both" & "...taking money from A and giving it to B, for no good reason, really does suck." (emphasis added)

I was implying that most of the stuff the federal government spends money on is a waste of money. Notice this is not the same as "all government redistribution is illegitimate." The leap from "corporate welfare & needless military spending sucks" to "WE SHOULDN'T HAVE STATE FUNDED FIRE DEPARTEMENTS!!!11!" is huge, and nothing about my carefully worded retort implied such a leap.

It's the old Marxist saw, 'From each according to his ability, to each according to their need."'

This way is a bad idea, to avoid moral hazard you have to have from each according to his work (some function of effort and ability and results) and to each according to his work.

Hmmm. I don't think I've ever seen a refutation of Marx that relies on the labor theory of value. Good times!

3% tax increase on the most wealthy, which is really just a roll-back of the bush tax cuts, is no socialism. Why do some middle-class oppose this? McCain also said today he would support another stimulus package (another check).. so again, how is that not socialism according to Palin's definition? Of course if they sent me a check I sure would cash it. Calling any of this socialism is the pot calling the kettle black.

"3% tax increase on the most wealthy, which is really just a roll-back of the bush tax cuts, is no socialism. "

The socialism is the increased tax credits for people who already don't pay taxes, thus creating a net wealth transfer.

3% tax increase on the most wealthy, which is really just a roll-back of the bush tax cuts, is no socialism. Why do some middle-class oppose this?

Hmmm, why would anyone be against needlessly taking money from people so that government can waste it on spending that usually reduces liberty or redistributes it from the general citizenry to the politically-connected or both? As fewer and fewer people pay for all of this federal excess, more and more people will mindlessly support it, because it is not hitting their wallet.

Making federal taxes more broad-based might have the effect of making people realize that taking money from A and giving it to B, for no good reason, really does suck.

GU, why do you rely on pre-tax income to decide what belongs to whom? As far as I can see, there is no reason to suppose that this accounting figure will correspond, any more than post-tax entitlements, to the property rights which people had in the state of nature.

If I go to work why isn't the money paid for my services mine? What has state of nature got to do with it at all?
If you say the money is not mine then you are saying it is everyones, but why would that follow. And does it mean everyone in you city, state, country, continent or the world?

Pablo, your reply is a puzzling. My point was that much of the stuff that the federal government spends money on is a waste--it is neutral or detrimental to welfare. This was a consequentialist point about: (1) the government wasting taxpayer's money and (2) how we can expect more waste when only a small percentage of the electorate pays for the government's spending. Nowhere did I invoke any sort of first-principle musings about the nature of property rights. I don't really know how else to respond to your question.

GU, your talk about "taking money from people" made me assume that you, like most libertarians, believed that people have moral rights over themselves and (bits of) the world, and that wealth redistribution is objectionable because it deprives people of goods to which they are morally entitled. But regardless of whether I was right in making this assumption, the objection I raised retains its force: why do you assign any moral significance to pre-tax as opposed to post-tax income? What makes this particular accounting figure so special?

"if you're sniffing around for socialism, why not try Gov. Sarah Palin's Alaska, where every year the state pays residents equal shares of state-owned oil revenues?"

Don't construe this as a defense of Palin by any stretch but the existence of public goods doesn't strike me as antithetical to capitalism. This reminds me of Henry George and geo-rent, as advocated by Fred Foldvary. I'd love to hear your thoughts on that.

Daniel,
I'm a bit confused as to what the public good is here. I can see how if the state owns something and provides it to residents (or sells it and gives residents the money), that might fit (more or less) the technical definition of "public good". But to me, it seems like "public good" is a useful concept only when we're talking about goods where it's inherently difficult to exclude (as opposed to where they just happen not to exclude). It seems like the point of the concept is to point to places where it's hard for the market to exist and so state action is required; talking about places where the state's action per se causes the market absence seems to obscure the issue.

Am I just misunderstanding?

I was mostly making a roundabout pitch for Henry George / Fred Foldvary's proposal of melding libertarian principles with public ownership of all natural resources, land in particular. Instead of the socially inefficient and perhaps morally problematic practice of expropriating a fraction of wealth people create, let the government charge people fair market value for the natural resources they use.

I don't understand why this idea isn't talked about more by people like Will.