Bart Campolo comes out in favor of Higher Gas Taxes

[Da Lone-Warrior]

It's all part of getting serious on the war on Terrorism and the problem of carbon dioxide emissions....

http://bartcampolo.blogspot.com/2006/05/attention-fellow-gas-hogs.html

[SteveF]

I have no idea who Bart Campolo is, but I come out in favour of higher petrol prices too.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

I have no idea who Bart Campolo is, but I come out in favour of higher petrol prices too.

Bart Campolo is the son of the (in)famous Italian-American Christian Sociologist and Speaker and author, Tony Campolo (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=DELA,DELA:2006-02,DELA:en&q=%22Tony+Campolo%22).

Bart (http://www.google.com/search?hs=tbQ&hl=en&lr=&rls=DELA%2CDELA%3A2006-02%2CDELA%3Aen&q=%22Bart+Campolo%22) is also a well known speaker, who has recently moved to Ohio to be involved with inner city ministry and political activism there.

dlw

[sc_q_jayce]

Bart Campolo is the son of the (in)famous Italian-American Christian Sociologist and Speaker and author, Tony Campolo (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=DELA,DELA:2006-02,DELA:en&q=%22Tony+Campolo%22).

Bart (http://www.google.com/search?hs=tbQ&hl=en&lr=&rls=DELA%2CDELA%3A2006-02%2CDELA%3Aen&q=%22Bart+Campolo%22) is also a well known speaker, who has recently moved to Ohio to be involved with inner city ministry and political activism there.

dlw
Indeed he is a well known speaker! He spoke at our fellowship once. A very strong message (which focused on getting people intererested in MissionYear). He was the founder of MissionYear, as well.

Anyway, the message is interesting and worthy of consideration at the very least. Though I am no expert in economics, I'd like to see more about this.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

I'm guessing it's going to come into play in the coming election...

Bart was a guest speaker at a weekend retreat I went to when I was in high school. I got to know him personally and have been interested/influenced by his family ever since...
dlw

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Reed Hundt (http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/29539) from TPM Cafe has clipped out for us the most important part of a column by NYTIMES editorial writer, Tom Friedman.

"I call it the "First Law of Petropolitics," and it posits the following: The price of oil and the pace of freedom always move in opposite directions in petro-ist states."

Now, if we tax oil then the Elasticity of Demand will go up, since E=dQ/dP*P/Q and a higher P and lower Q will tend outweight any change in dQ/dP. As such, the profit-maximizing price of oil, after taking into account the impact of the tax on the quantity demanded into account, will be lower
prices for producers and therein a higher pace of liberalization, meaning the gov't will tend to serve more people's interests....

dlw

[micah4]

Now, if we tax oil then the Elasticity of Demand will go up, since E=dQ/dP*P/Q and a higher P and lower Q will tend outweight any change in dQ/dP. As such, the profit-maximizing price of oil, after taking into account the impact of the tax on the quantity demanded into account, will be lower
prices for producers and therein a higher pace of liberalization, meaning the gov't will tend to serve more people's interests....


Just out of curiosity, how many years of schooling did it take for you to learn that the government serves more people's interests by forcing them to do things they wouldn't do voluntarily?

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Just out of curiosity, how many years of schooling did it take for you to learn that the government serves more people's interests by forcing them to do things they wouldn't do voluntarily?

when I was 17, I took my first course in Economics and learned the above formula and the concept of externality (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=RNWE,RNWE:2004-51,RNWE:en&defl=en&q=define:Externality&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title).

Unfortunately, there have long been negative externalities from oil that we have been ignoring out of greed and what I like to call hyper-individualism.

Heck, if we'd not been so preoccupied with keeping oil prices down, we wouldn't have regime-changed Iran back in 1953, when the Nationalist Mossadegh wanted to charge more for oil and share the wealth in a more egalitarian manner than the Shah we propped up ever did....
dlw

[micah4]

when I was 17, I took my first course in Economics and learned the above formula and the concept of externality (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=RNWE,RNWE:2004-51,RNWE:en&defl=en&q=define:Externality&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title).


So, at a time when virtually the whole country is making a big stink about gas prices being too high, DLW comes along and says the government will serve more people's interests by taking even more of their money every time they go to the pumps.

So, I guess the vast majority of people who feel that their interests would be better served by lower gas prices just don't have a handle on what their interests really are.

Somehow a 17 year old DLW gained an insight from an introductory economics course which gives him amazing powers to judge for other people what their interests are better than they themselves can, and now he's on a crusade to get the government to make them act in their own best interests, whether they see it that way or not.

I would have thought that by this time the dramatic failure of the Soviet Union's experiment in central planning would have served as at least some warning that a bunch of egg headed economists trying to use the arm of government to coerce markets actually don't do a better job of serving people's interests than do people who are simply able to act on their interests in a free manner; but apparently this hasn't made much of an impression on academia.

[Timothy Leary]

This reminds me of a Winston Churchill quote...


We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.--Winston Churchill

[micah4]

This reminds me of a Winston Churchill quote...


We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.--Winston Churchill

I guess Churchill didn't realize that when there are negative externalities, the elasticity of demand changes with the ratio of P/Q*dq/dp, which demonstrates that it's in the man's best interest to pull much harder on the bucket's handle.

I don't mean to disparage the value of economic theory and analysis; I'm sure it's a useful science when employed to the right ends. And I'm sure DLW that you're a very intelligent person who has a motivation to do right, and I appreciate the awareness and concern you demonstrate, certainly much above the average american, and even the average christian.

But when somebody tells me that it serves everyone's interests better that they not be free, I'm doubtful that their analysis is on spot.

I can't help but think that those who feel the need to force others to "act in their own best interests" are demonstrating a sort of intellectual arrogance, perhaps not consciously; but how should one feel when they are approached with restraints, with somebody telling them that it's for their own good? This is the position of a mother or father to a child, to tell them that they must be forced to do X, Y, or Z for their own good. You must be forced to pay an extra $2 per gallon, for your own good. We must take 15% of your earnings, because we're able to take care for your retirement better than you are able to. This we accept with children because we know that the a parent has wisdom that small children lack.

But for an adult to approach another this way- much less to approach the vast majority of society- and tell them that they must be restrained from doing x, or forced to do x, y, or z "for their own good"- what kind of claim is this? Is this not setting one's self up in a "father knows best" role? Intelligent people do not have to be forced to do things for their own good. How is it that politicians or economists (or hollywood actors, for that matter) conclude that they have a special gift of knowing what is good for John Smith better than John Smith himself knows? That John Smith, like a small child, shouldn't be allowed to decide for himself what's in his best interest?

Perhaps this is true in the case of psychopaths or the mentally handicapped, but to make this sort of claim against the vast majority of society seems to me to put an awful lot of confidence that your own opinion of what is good for people is superior to their own analysis of what is good for themselves. And to merely hold such a high estimation of one's knowledge is one thing, but then to assert that one's opinion ought to be enforced on those who disagree for their own good- well, yeah that certainly seems a bit arrogant to me.

I would think that there must be better ways to use the science of economics to benefit people than deciding what they ought to be forced to do "for their own good".

[Da Lone-Warrior]

This reminds me of a Winston Churchill quote...


We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.--Winston Churchill

And what is the context of that Quote?

The issue isn't prosperity, but discipline and stewardship of the natural resources, as well as protections against the corruption caused in oil producing areas from great wealth....

Prosperity ultimately comes from God and is rightly shared with others who are less fortunate. Taxes are a policy instrument by which this can be done.
dlw

[Da Lone-Warrior]

So, at a time when virtually the whole country is making a big stink about gas prices being too high, DLW comes along and says the government will serve more people's interests by taking even more of their money every time they go to the pumps.

So, I guess the vast majority of people who feel that their interests would be better served by lower gas prices just don't have a handle on what their interests really are.

Or they may be too preoccupied with the short-run and have a blind faith that technology will get us out of the mess caused by the finite amount of oil resources that our planet has...

Somehow a 17 year old DLW gained an insight from an introductory economics course which gives him amazing powers to judge for other people what their interests are better than they themselves can, and now he's on a crusade to get the government to make them act in their own best interests, whether they see it that way or not.

I can't make the gov't do anything on my own. I can only appeal to people's reason and care for the future to make them realize that just demanding lower gas/oil prices in the short term isn't going to deal with the real problem...

I would have thought that by this time the dramatic failure of the Soviet Union's experiment in central planning would have served as at least some warning that a bunch of egg headed economists trying to use the arm of government to coerce markets actually don't do a better job of serving people's interests than do people who are simply able to act on their interests in a free manner; but apparently this hasn't made much of an impression on academia.

What is the connection between changing the rules of the game so as to restrain our gas/oil consumption and the short and longterm harms caused therein with the command and control of the economy in the USSR?

I'm not going to dialogue with you, if you just spout wild associations...

dlw

[micah4]

Or they may be too preoccupied with the short-run and have a blind faith that technology will get us out of the mess caused by the finite amount of oil resources that our planet has...


Or they may disagree with your analysis, which I'm inclined to believe is less certain than you feel it is. And then you're the one appealing to the use of force to interfere in otherwise free markets, so it would be silly to not consider the uncertainty of the scenario motivating your appeal to government intervention.


I can't make the gov't do anything on my own.


The way you speak, it's obvious that you wish you could, and that you most likely would if you had the power to. Every post I see of yours is an appeal for a government tax on this or that, or an appeal for a government wealth or income redistribution program. Don't kid me that you're not on here advocating for government intervention.


I can only appeal to people's reason and care for the future to make them realize that just demanding lower gas/oil prices in the short term isn't going to deal with the real problem...


If your appeal to peoples reason is solid and convincing, then they'll do the things you advocate voluntarily because they're convinced of the same things you are. In truth; anybody, anywhere, can pay more for gasoline anytime they like. If your reasoning is sound and you're only appealing to people's reason, then what's the need for government intervention you keep appealing to? This would only be necessary if people find your appeal to reason unconvincing. Do you just believe that you're smarter than everybody else, and they should do made to do what you believe is right whether they agree with you or not?

Tell me, are you paying extra for gas right now? If you're convinced it's a great idea- when you go put a gallon of gas in your tank, do you take an extra two or three dollars for each gallon, and set it aside to send in to uncle sam? No? Why not? if you think this is such a wise thing to do, what's stopping you from doing it right now? You and all the people whose reason you've appealed to are free to pay as much tax on gas as you want to at any time you feel the need to. No federal, state, or local government is going to refuse your money.


What is the connection between changing the rules of the game so as to restrain our gas/oil consumption and the short and longterm harms caused therein with the command and control of the economy in the USSR?


The connection is that you put your personal analysis of the scenario above the analysis of everybody else in the market and advocate that people should be commanded and controlled to behave in the way you've concluded they ought to, and not in the way they've concluded they ought to. They must be manipulated or restrained from engaging in free trade. Using a different phraseology- "Changing the Rules of the Game" vs. "Command and Control of the Economy" doesn't mean you're talking about anything different, or distinguish the essential similarity of the underlying motives and mechanisms- the use of government force to interfere with men's economic activity, and impose the view of whatever group has political power of what the "right way" for them to act is over and above every individual's personal analysis of how they should rightly act.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Or they may disagree with your analysis, which I'm inclined to believe is less certain than you feel it is. And then you're the one appealing to the use of force to interfere in otherwise free markets, so it would be silly to not consider the uncertainty of the scenario motivating your appeal to government intervention.

Right, the problem of peak oil, oil money going to states that support radical forms of Islam/terrorism, corruption caused by oil wealth concentration, and excessive carbon-dioxide emissions are all things I'm just spinning towards the most worstest possible case scenario possible.

Markets are not ever free. Fallen human nature always requires that there be legal institutions that help us to resolve the conflicts that inevitably come up in the course of exchange.

These regulations require gov't finances, which require taxes of some sort and so the question is what sorts of taxes will be most effective for the problems that we face as a nation.

The way you speak, it's obvious that you wish you could, and that you most likely would if you had the power to. Every post I see of yours is an appeal for a government tax on this or that, or an appeal for a government wealth or income redistribution program. Don't kid me that you're not on here advocating for government intervention.

I'm advocating for reforms of the existing "interventions" by the gov't in the markets that govern our economic relations.

And, yes, I'd like a different system. One that encouraged us all to be better stewards of our resources and reduced the ability of advertising to get us to buy stuff. I'd like to see us do more to help people in the 2/3rds world.

If your appeal to peoples reason is solid and convincing, then they'll do the things you advocate voluntarily because they're convinced of the same things you are.

In truth, we all fall short and so does voluntarism for dealing with serious problems like addiction to foreign oil.

There is a free-rider problem that requires gov't action to force everyone to seek to alter their consumption patterns or seek more oil/gas efficiency.

In truth; anybody, anywhere, can pay more for gasoline anytime they like. If your reasoning is sound and you're only appealing to people's reason, then what's the need for government intervention you keep appealing to? This would only be necessary if people find your appeal to reason unconvincing. Do you just believe that you're smarter than everybody else, and they should do made to do what you believe is right whether they agree with you or not?

It's not a matter of me being smarter, but rather a matter of training, and the fact that our tendency to focus on short run difficulties caused by higher gas prices makes us lose sight of the bigger picture and problems at stake in the matter.

Tell me, are you paying extra for gas right now? If you're convinced it's a great idea- when you go put a gallon of gas in your tank, do you take an extra two or three dollars for each gallon, and set it aside to send in to uncle sam? No? Why not? if you think this is such a wise thing to do, what's stopping you from doing it right now? You and all the people whose reason you've appealed to are free to pay as much tax on gas as you want to at any time you feel the need to. No federal, state, or local government is going to refuse your money.

This is an inane line of reasoning. One person doing that is not going to accomplish anything significant. It only puts a dent on the problem when everyone has to do it.

The connection is that you put your personal analysis of the scenario above the analysis of everybody else in the market and advocate that people should be commanded and controlled to behave in the way you've concluded they ought to, and not in the way they've concluded they ought to.

Your free market dogmatism does not deserve the label analysis.

Everyone will need to pay more for the gas they use, but they'll have the freedom to decide how much gas they use and to seek ways to avoid having to use it so much.

All economic systems require some social control from the state. Capitalism has a less is more approach that focuses on the rules of the game, not trying to guarantee certain economic outcomes.

The rules of the game include the system of finance.

They must be manipulated or restrained from engaging in free trade. Using a different phraseology- "Changing the Rules of the Game" vs. "Command and Control of the Economy" doesn't mean you're talking about anything different, or distinguish the essential similarity of the underlying motives and mechanisms- the use of government force to interfere with men's economic activity, and impose the view of whatever group has political power of what the "right way" for them to act is over and above every individual's personal analysis of how they should rightly act.

You are an idiot if you think that a dollar or two more in taxes on gas/oil is tantamount to returning to a Soviet Union style Communist economic system.

Talk to the hand, if you're that deluded.

dlw

[micah4]

Right, the problem of peak oil, oil money going to states that support radical forms of Islam/terrorism, corruption caused by oil wealth concentration, and excessive carbon-dioxide emissions are all things I'm just spinning towards the most worstest possible case scenario possible.


Oil dollars going to support terrorist states is a problem in my opinion also- it's too bad that safer forms of energy such as nuclear power have been blocked from development. Shoot; France, the bastion of liberalism that it is, meets eighty percent of their energy needs with nuclear power.

As for peak oil, even the various proponents of this theory can't decide when the peak will be (or was); they've been constantly pushing the peak time forward since the 70's, and now some advocates are still pushing the peak time forward, others put it in the past; yeah, it's an exact science alright. No question about it. Yes, we'll run out of access to easy cheap oil in time, but we've still got massive reserves of coal, and as easy light crude from the Middle east dwindles and becomes more expensive, other reserves which aren't even accounted for by the peak oil crowd become economically feasible; the Alberta tar sands in canada hold more oil in reserve than Saudi Arabia. Heck, some folks aren't even convinced the "fossil oil" theory is correct, but that our oil reserves come from abiogenic resources. As for "excessive carbon-dioxide" emissions; I'm sure you know the question of how much carbon dioxide is excessive is hotly disputed- you can't pretend this is a given.

There's anything but 100% certainty in the scenarios you believe in, and the market reflects that uncertainty. The term "speculation" arises because any belief, like yours, regarding the future of some market, is speculative.

If the bulk of experts, economists like you and those smarter than yourself even, all agreed that oil is artificially cheap, and we ought to be paying $5.00 a gallon for gas, then commodities traders would buy up gasoline and oil futures until the price of these commodities rose to where there was no more profit to be made, i.e., until gasoline did cost nearly $5.00 a gallon. You and all your liberal buddies could do this yourselves if you wanted, and the market would even reward you for correcting this imbalance and helping us determine the optimum price of these commodities. The reason these markets don't do this, taking into consideration all factors that will affect future prices, such as "peak oil", is that the market doesn't agree with you that these are sure things, which is why gasoline prices are lower than you and mr. campolo believe they ought to be. The prices reflect the best estimation of the thousands of market participants as to what the price of these commodities ought to be. But DLW knows better than the thousands of other experts in the market I guess, and his conclusions ought to be enforced by the government by raising commodity prices through taxation, over the conclusions of so many others. Big Kahunas.


Markets are not ever free.


What a load of bunk! Is this a mantra your liberal econ profs taught you? I have some orange trees, my neighbor has some apple trees. We agree to exchange one bushel of apples for one bushel of oranges. How is this market not free? Markets only stop being free when the government steps in and says things like, "sorry, but if you're going to exchange apples and oranges like that, then each of you need to send us twenty dollars in legal tender paper, which you you can get by taking out a loan at your local federal reserve bank"; or, "excuse me, but we must take two apples and two oranges from each of you in order to provide our basic fruit guarantee to everybody".



Fallen human nature always requires that there be legal institutions that help us to resolve the conflicts that inevitably come up in the course of exchange.


Fallen human nature is the exact reason to prefer freedom over authoritarian control. Fallen human nature is most dangerous where it has a monopoly on the use of force. You do know where that is, don't you?


These regulations require gov't finances, which require taxes of some sort and so the question is what sorts of taxes will be most effective for the problems that we face as a nation.


Now you're shifting the middle to introduce a completely different function and motivation for taxation. You don't devote any significant portion of your words around here to talk about taxes to support the basic function of "resolv the conflicts that inevitably come up in the course of exchange"- these functions could be payed for if we cut the current levels of taxation ninety percent, there's certainly no need for new taxes to support these functions. No, you go on and on about grand wealth redistribution programs and taxing gasoline just for the express purpose of reducing consumption because that's what you think people ought to do. Neither of these things have squat to do with the proper role of government in enforcing contracts and providing courts of equity, etc. to "resolve conflicts" in free exchange. They have to do with hoping to use the arm of government to impose your views of social utopia. It's a shallow and obvious bait and switch to turn around the proper roles of government such as providing courts of equity and providing for national defense and use that to justify taxing anything anywhere for whatever social experiment you think is a swell idea.



There is a free-rider problem that requires gov't action to force everyone to seek to alter their consumption patterns or seek more oil/gas efficiency.


At least the free riders are free. I'd rather have them as a problem than the problem of an intrusive, corrupt, and clumsy government forcibly burdening every person on the basis of speculation that finally turns out to have been wrong in the first place.


It's not a matter of me being smarter, but rather a matter of training,


So as I said, it's a form of intellectual elitism where you believe that you're better able to judge what is in somebody else's best interest than they are themselves- in this case on account of your "training". Whether you believe that it's your intelligence or that it's your training that qualifies you, you seem to feel that you're qualified above everybody else to judge their interests better than they're able to themselves, and that you're qualified to treat the majority of folks around you as little children that you have to nanny and get the government to restrain them lest they hurt themselves because they don't know what's best for them. Oh, and never mind the fact that there are hundreds or thousands of other economists with as much or more brains and training as you driving the operation of the markets.


This is an inane line of reasoning. One person doing that is not going to accomplish anything significant. It only puts a dent on the problem when everyone has to do it.


Don't you wish it was an "inane line of reasoning". You can't tell me that 100% of people paying two bucks more per gallon is going to make difference, but that say, 33% of people paying two bucks more per gallon isn't going to. If you could get one third of the country following your advice, it would be a giant step towards accomplishing your objectives. But guess what? Not even one third of the country is signing up with you to pay and extra two or three dollars per gallon for gas. But you have the audacity to stand up and claim that the government will "serve the interests of more people" by imposing this tax on gasoline. Who are these "more people"? Where are you going to account them? It's obviously not even a third of the population, you're outnumbered at least two to one (and that's hugely generous; I doubt you could get 1% of the country to sign up with you). So how is it conceiveably possible that the government serves the interests of "more people" when at least two thirds of them wouldn't want what the government would be doing? What you really mean to say is "the government would serve what [i]I, dlw, believe the interests of people ought to be". What an egomaniac.



Your free market dogmatism does not deserve the label analysis.


Well, I'm just one of those simple folk who thinks he knows his own interests better than some beaureacrat in washington does; so I don't care whether in your opinion my views deserve any label whatsoever (though your presentations seem to offer little better). I'm not the one here advocating using the government to force my views on you, so if my free market dogmatism doesn't suit you, then you're free to take it or leave it.


You are an idiot if you think that a dollar or two more in taxes on gas/oil is tantamount to returning to a Soviet Union style Communist economic system.


Well it's a good job you're working tirelessly to help those idiots like me who aren't qualified to make their own economic decisions because they don't have your fancy training. You're an idiot if you think the principles aren't the same and the difference is anything other than a matter of degree. (And as if a dollar or two tax on gas is the only political social engineering you advocate.)

[Timothy Leary]

And what is the context of that Quote?

To be honest, I don't know - and don't care. This probably sounds quite rude, but I don't mean it to be so.

The issue isn't prosperity, but discipline and stewardship of the natural resources, as well as protections against the corruption caused in oil producing areas from great wealth....

Discipline does not come from coercion. True discipline can only come from within.

Prosperity ultimately comes from God and is rightly shared with others who are less fortunate.

Perhaps to the former part of the statement, and agreed on the latter part of that statement.

Taxes are a policy instrument by which this can be done.

No, that is called theft. When you are taking someone's property (regardless of the intentions), you are stealing. If you hire someone to do it for you (whether it is the government, or otherwise) - it is still stealing. Ever heard of "Thou Shalt Not Steal"?

[Da Lone-Warrior]

To be honest, I don't know - and don't care. This probably sounds quite rude, but I don't mean it to be so.


Well, I'm sure you must be familiar with how bible verses can be taken out of context, the same is true for other stuff.

Discipline does not come from coercion. True discipline can only come from within.


First and 2nd sentence reflect an idealism that fails to deal with the fallenness of human nature.

No, that is called theft. When you are taking someone's property (regardless of the intentions), you are stealing. If you hire someone to do it for you (whether it is the government, or otherwise) - it is still stealing. Ever heard of "Thou Shalt Not Steal"?

Ever hear of "Thou shalt not Kill?" Did it stop the Israelites from having the death penalty or engaging in military actions? No. There likewise is some need for interpretation of "Thou shall not Kill". Any change in property rights or the tax-code helps some interest at the expense of another.

Private property is not an absolute. It is a human institution that is necessary because of the fallenness of human nature and because of how it facilitates the decentralization of decision-making.

As such, one cannot view all changes in the rules of the game as theft, though there is wisdom in the need to balance concerns about income and wealth-inequalities with the need not to hinder wealth creation.

dlw

[micah4]

What is this about "private property is not an absolute"? I don't have a clue what it means for private property [rights?] to be "absolute".

I do know, however, what it means for them to be "objective". It means that they aren't created, destroyed, or altered by the whims of government fiat.

The "absolute" property rights you keep bringing up, if you can articulate what that means, I think will turn out to be a straw man.

[Timothy Leary]

Ever hear of "Thou shalt not Kill?" Did it stop the Israelites from having the death penalty or engaging in military actions? No. There likewise is some need for interpretation of "Thou shall not Kill". Any change in property rights or the tax-code helps some interest at the expense of another.

Actually, there is no command that says "Thou Shalt Not Kill". That is a slight mistranslation. It is more correctly translated as "Thou Shalt Not Murder". Ancient Israel had the death penalty because it was explicitly commanded to them. No where, however, were they commanded to steal via taxation for some form of welfare. The opposite was true - Thou Shalt Not Steal, Do not Covet, etc.

Yes, it is true that there were certain commands regarding charity. The forgiving of debts every seven years, the release of indentured servants, etc. - but the Israelites as a whole were not required to force each other to comply with those. Rather, God dealt with the violators on an individual basis, and forbid the addition of laws (that could do the same things you are proposing). Unless there was a direct victim - for example: rape, theft, or murder - God was the one who punished the criminal, not society. See my friend Mira's article on this subject at:

http://www.mirah.dds.nl/lectures/Liberty.html
(http://www.mirah.dds.nl/lectures/Liberty.html)
Private property is not an absolute. It is a human institution that is necessary because of the fallenness of human nature and because of how it facilitates the decentralization of decision-making.

It is not private property if it is not absolute. If you are allowed to pillage and steal my property, so long as the majority of the people go along with it, then there is no justice.

An old teacher of mine once wrote:

"...place no value in the interpretations of the majority or the customs of the forefathers. On the contrary, Scripture teaches us: "Do not go after the majority to do evil" (Exodus 23:2). The prophets also warn us against following in the errant footsteps of the ancestors, as it is written: "be not like your fathers... who acted treacherously against YHWH" (2Chronicles 20:7), and again: "they shall not be as their fathers, a stubborn and rebellious generation" (Psalms 78:8). The same warning applies to the laws invented out of men's hearts, which the prophets call the "commandment of men learned by rote" (Isaiah 29:13)."

http://www.karaite-korner.org/main.shtml (http://www.karaite-korner.org/main.shtml)

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Actually, there is no command that says "Thou Shalt Not Kill". That is a slight mistranslation. It is more correctly translated as "Thou Shalt Not Murder". Ancient Israel had the death penalty because it was explicitly commanded to them. No where, however, were they commanded to steal via taxation for some form of welfare. The opposite was true - Thou Shalt Not Steal, Do not Covet, etc.

Aye, but just as not every kill is a murder, so is not every change in law that has an economic redistributive effect stealing. They also had laws that promulgated more egalitarian redistribution of wealth in Israel.

And so we simply cannot point to the thou shalt not steal command as decrying making the tax code more progressive or for forcing people to reduce behavior that has serious negative externalities.

Yes, it is true that there were certain commands regarding charity. The forgiving of debts every seven years, the release of indentured servants, etc. - but the Israelites as a whole were not required to force each other to comply with those. Rather, God dealt with the violators on an individual basis, and forbid the addition of laws (that could do the same things you are proposing). Unless there was a direct victim - for example: rape, theft, or murder - God was the one who punished the criminal, not society. See my friend Mira's article on this subject at:

That sounds pretty speculative. They had hierarchy in Israel, just like we do now....

It is not private property if it is not absolute. If you are allowed to pillage and steal my property, so long as the majority of the people go along with it, then there is no justice.

Nope. You are making the flaw of teh excluded middle. All private property rights are still subject to rule of law, including the specific form of the tax code, which is not given to us once and for all, but is something we work out and can reform.

An old teacher of mine once wrote:

"...place no value in the interpretations of the majority or the customs of the forefathers. On the contrary, Scripture teaches us: "Do not go after the majority to do evil" (Exodus 23:2). The prophets also warn us against following in the errant footsteps of the ancestors, as it is written: "be not like your fathers... who acted treacherously against YHWH" (2Chronicles 20:7), and again: "they shall not be as their fathers, a stubborn and rebellious generation" (Psalms 78:8). The same warning applies to the laws invented out of men's hearts, which the prophets call the "commandment of men learned by rote" (Isaiah 29:13)."

http://www.karaite-korner.org/main.shtml (http://www.karaite-korner.org/main.shtml)

Gee, that sounds swell, except it fails to specify how one distinguishes what is invented out of men's hearts and what laws are transcendentally given to us....

The fact of the matter is that the laws of our gov't, including the tax-code, are socially-constructed institutions. They have value and we should honor them, but we can and shd participate in their ongoing reformulation apart from our individual self-interests as a critical part of how we try to love our neighbors as ourselves.

dlw

[Da Lone-Warrior]

I just made some calculations of the impact of a 2 dollar increase in the gas price on gasoline consumption.

Lets say the price of gas is 3 dollars. If we were to raise the price to 5 dollars by virtue of a tax, how much would that reduce our gas consumption in the short run, percentage wise? We can guesstimate this by assuming realistically that the responsiveness in gas-usage is limited. We can assume the elasticity of demand, or responsiveness of the quantity consumed to a price change, is around .2. This implies that a ten percent increase in gas price would result in a 2% decrease in the quantity consumed.

Well, using a formula that is more robust for large changes in price(the arc-elasticity), the 2 dollar increase in gas price would reduce the quantity demanded by 10.6%. If the elasticity were higher, say .3, the quantity demanded would be reduced by 16.2%.

Although, lets say that the price charged us drops to 2.5 dollars then the tax is imposed that would only raise the price of gas to 4.5. In this case the same effects of the tax would be a reduction of quantity demanded by 9 or 13.8 percent.

So we're talking about maybe reducing the gasoline consumption of the US by around 10 percent in the short-run, though in the long-run we'd probably see more serious changes in the US with many people moving back to urban areas where they can get around better without a car and so the response would be stronger.

But in the short-run, the bulk of the impact would be a serious increase in costs for many USAmericans. I think this would have to be mitigated by virtue of income transfers for the tax to be politically-feasible, though I think there would also have to be appeals to patriotism(this is a key part of the war on Terrorism) and stewardship and with the transfers focused more on helping lower-income folks. This is because we ought to be using the funds collected from the tax to pay for extensive research on the longterm development of alternative energy sources.

dlw

[kawaika]

I think it would be better to first get a good public transportation system in place then raise the taxes on gas.

If you just raise the taxes on gas, something that everyone needs, you won't necessarily cut down on consumption--unless, of course, some people are too poor to buy enough gas. The rich will still flaunt their wealth by driving hummers, etc. while the poor will be the only ones to suffer.

Just raising the taxes won't mean that suddenly car companies will produce cars with better gas milage.

I could be missing something though...

[micah4]

I think it would be better to first get a good public transportation system in place then raise the taxes on gas.

If you just raise the taxes on gas, something that everyone needs, you won't necessarily cut down on consumption--unless, of course, some people are too poor to buy enough gas. The rich will still flaunt their wealth by driving hummers, etc. while the poor will be the only ones to suffer.


That's why DLW insists that we'd have to add more wealth redistribution programs for the gas tax to be "feasible". He knows that once you start jamming government's wooden shoes in the cogs of one market's machinery, you have to go and jam a shoe or two in another piece of machinery to compensate, which of course causes more imbalance which requires yet another shoe in some other market's machinery. Eventually you're left with nothing but a bunch of markets that don't work because they've all got shoes in their cogs, and DLW is happy because now everybody is equally dis-benefited by universally compromised and broken markets.

[Anthem]

Raising gas taxes could work without any kind of wealth redistribution program. Just slap the tax on there and let the market sort itself out. Alternative fuels would become more competitive with gas. demand for high mileage cars would go up. It wouldnt help any on the new petroleum exploration front, but if the goal is to reduce US consumption of gasoline, that doesnt matter.
it would hurt, but if the tax level was properly managed, it could work.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

I think it would be better to first get a good public transportation system in place then raise the taxes on gas.

If you just raise the taxes on gas, something that everyone needs, you won't necessarily cut down on consumption--unless, of course, some people are too poor to buy enough gas. The rich will still flaunt their wealth by driving hummers, etc. while the poor will be the only ones to suffer.

Just raising the taxes won't mean that suddenly car companies will produce cars with better gas milage.

I could be missing something though...

I think local gov'ts would respond with public transportation systems promptly if we were to raise the tax. We'd probably also need to phase it in over a year.

dlw

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Raising gas taxes could work without any kind of wealth redistribution program. Just slap the tax on there and let the market sort itself out. Alternative fuels would become more competitive with gas. demand for high mileage cars would go up. It wouldnt help any on the new petroleum exploration front, but if the goal is to reduce US consumption of gasoline, that doesnt matter.
it would hurt, but if the tax level was properly managed, it could work.

I think that given the amount of money people pay for oil-related products taht the tax on oil(which is more critical than gas) would have a significant eeconomic affect on people, particularly those outside urban areas.

And that's why there needs to be a carrot to help people accept the stick. Otherwise, short-sighted individuals won't buy it. It's not a coincidence that politicians love to talk about doing stuff to keep gas prices low, it really plays well with the masses, but in the end, it's the blind leading the blind.

dlw

[Keith Johnson]

I think that given the amount of money people pay for oil-related products taht the tax on oil(which is more critical than gas) would have a significant eeconomic affect on people, particularly those outside urban areas.

And that's why there needs to be a carrot to help people accept the stick. Otherwise, short-sighted individuals won't buy it. It's not a coincidence that politicians love to talk about doing stuff to keep gas prices low, it really plays well with the masses, but in the end, it's the blind leading the blind.

dlw

I've wondered if fairly stiff revenue neutral "gas tax + more or less equally distributed tax credit" might work. This way there'd be an incentive to reduce consumption but the working class wouldn't see their overal incomes drastically reduced by higher gas costs.

your friend
Keith

[Keith Johnson]

Raising gas taxes could work without any kind of wealth redistribution program. Just slap the tax on there and let the market sort itself out. Alternative fuels would become more competitive with gas. demand for high mileage cars would go up. It wouldnt help any on the new petroleum exploration front, but if the goal is to reduce US consumption of gasoline, that doesnt matter.
it would hurt, but if the tax level was properly managed, it could work.

In economics, what works depends on how you define success. A stiff gas tax would drastically reduce the living standars of the non-rich, much more than it'd effect the rich. That's not fair and it's also not politically feasible; people are already pretty angry about high gas prices as it is. Something that might decrease consumption while NOT hurting the working class would be to take the increased gas tax revenue and give each family let's say $1000 toward their increased costs. This way they have an incentive to save gas but their income won't go down.

your friend
Keith

[Da Lone-Warrior]

I've wondered if fairly stiff revenue neutral "gas tax + more or less equally distributed tax credit" might work. This way there'd be an incentive to reduce consumption but the working class wouldn't see their overal incomes drastically reduced by higher gas costs.

your friend
Keith

I think it wd need to be oil tax+ tax credit+revenue for long-term energy alternative research wd be preferable. There's no reason to target gasoline to the exclusion of other oil-dependent stuff if the key problem is reducing our dependency.

I think it needs to be framed as a critical part of the War on Terrorism and key for environmental reasons. I thinke the equally distributed tax credit would be key to ensure that the poorest would be the least hurt.

Though, I think the transfer could be adjusted by region and location(urban or suburban or rural) based on the average amount someone pays for gas/oil taxes.

dlw

[Timothy Leary]

Aye, but just as not every kill is a murder, so is not every change in law that has an economic redistributive effect stealing.

It is stealing if you take what is mine and give it to another.

They also had laws that promulgated more egalitarian redistribution of wealth in Israel.

Which were not enforced by the state, but by God. They were done by a voluntary basis by those following the Torah.

And so we simply cannot point to the thou shalt not steal command as decrying making the tax code more progressive or for forcing people to reduce behavior that has serious negative externalities.

Yes we can. We can also point do "do not covet". What is mine, is mine. If you take it from me without my consent, you are a theif.

That sounds pretty speculative. They had hierarchy in Israel, just like we do now....

Did you read the article?

Nope. You are making the flaw of teh excluded middle. All private property rights are still subject to rule of law, including the specific form of the tax code, which is not given to us once and for all, but is something we work out and can reform.

No, such things were imposed on us. It is not "private" if you are being dictated what you can and cannot do on your own property.

Gee, that sounds swell, except it fails to specify how one distinguishes what is invented out of men's hearts and what laws are transcendentally given to us....

You're bringing the Karaite out of me now...

Ever read the Torah?

There is a passage that states very clearly "Do not add anything to what I am commanding you, and do not decrease from them" (Devarim/Deuteronomy 4:2)

In other words, the only laws that God authorized are already in the Torah. All manmade laws are condemned by him.

The fact of the matter is that the laws of our gov't, including the tax-code, are socially-constructed institutions.

The National Socialist Party of German was also a socially-constructed institution, and Hitler was a democratically elected leader. So what?

They have value and we should honor them

I will not honor any law that forces someone do to do something against their will. Wrong is Wrong.

but we can and shd participate in their ongoing reformulation apart from our individual self-interests as a critical part of how we try to love our neighbors as ourselves.

Or we could do even better, and simply get rid of the laws which coerce our neighbors into doing things they do not want to do.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

It is stealing if you take what is mine and give it to another.


What is yours is not ultimately yours. You only hold it in stewardship. This is the basis for gov'tal right to regulate all private property and levy taxes.

Which were not enforced by the state, but by God. They were done by a voluntary basis by those following the Torah.

It wasn't necessarily always voluntary.

Yes we can. We can also point do "do not covet". What is mine, is mine. If you take it from me without my consent, you are a theif.



nope, what is yours is due to our tragic flawed histories. Our holdings of private property, our earnings ability stem from our pasts and what has been bequeathed us ultimately from God.

It is only theft if it is taken apart from the official gov'tal processes for redetermining the rules that govern us all.


No, such things were imposed on us. It is not "private" if you are being dictated what you can and cannot do on your own property.


It is inevitable that there are restrictions on what we can do with our "private property". The dichotomy you are proposing is not so clear-cut...
[/quote]

I'm sorry I don't have time to respond to the rest.

The fact of the matter is that your notion of private property is too idealistic and not sustainable and neglects the fact that our holdings of private property are ultimately in stewardship from God and by the forbearance of the state.

dlw

[Timothy Leary]

This is the basis for gov'tal right to regulate all private property and levy taxes.

And what proof is there that the government has any right to do such a thing? (Answer: None)

[Da Lone-Warrior]

The B-I-B-L-E, it sets up the victory. It justifies the use of the Sword of the State to reduce human sinfulness and it commands us to pay our taxes.

That sinfulness does include economic exploitation that can be reduced through some redistributional measures, as well as regulations that serve to make us steward the EArth's resources better with a less steep discount rate applied to their future enjoyment values....

dlw
But we're just going back and forth, so I will bid adieu to this dialogue with you.

dlw

[Timothy Leary]

It justifies the use of the Sword of the State to reduce human sinfulness

BCV? (Book, Chapter, Verse?)

and it commands us to pay our taxes.

BCV?

That sinfulness does include economic exploitation

BCV?

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Try reading Romans 12-13 carefully and see how Paul counsels against rebellion, but doesn't say anything against the possibility of peacefully swaying the way the Sword of the State is (mis)used.

dlw