How is the State different from a gang of bandits?

[joel]

But this is far different from the theft in the allegorical neighborhood. No one is stealing money from people against their will. In this scenario, it would be more akin to the neighbor, who provides service to all the community, taking a small fraction of the money that is used to buy goods that are excessive anyway.

That's theft. I cannot morally go around forcing people to pay for my supposed service. (BTW, Is my service really so poor and undesirable that no one would willingly pay for it?) It's still me wielding force against people who want to engage in an exchange between themselves without interference from me--without me seizing some of their stuff. My doing this to them would be immoral. My neighbors would probably defend themselves against me with force, and would be right to do so, even locking me up if they had no other choice.

But even if we don't want to call it theft, fine. It is still immoral--an act of aggression, no matter what we decide to call it. Remember this thread's question is not just about taxes or theft.

(Remember, I am playing Devils advocate here. I don't buy this line either,

Understood.

[joel]

This will be my last post on this topic in this thread. I don't want to distract too far from the central question of this thread. You may have the last word if you wish, or branch off a new thread.

again, same assumtion about consumer. Although because this consumer has such deep pockets, anything less than a $1000 mark up is not noticed...

Well, that depends on the relative elasticities. For a logical possibility, it might not even have anything to do with the consumer. It might just be that the supply is just extremely inelastic.

First of all, the possible decrease in quantity is only an additional factor. The above numerical examples could occur even with very little drop in quantity. Even if so, the point still remains that the tax falls more heavily on the suppliers (and thus workers).

In fact, if we suppose that the demand is pretty elastic, the amount of the drop in quantity depends on the supply side (how elastic). If the supply were perfectly inelastic, then there would be zero drop in quantity, but the suppliers would also bear the full cost of the tax. (The price would drop to $90,000, the tax would be $10,000, so there would be no difference to the buyer, who would still pay $100,000.)

If the supply is more elastic, then it shifts more of the tax-per-unit to the buyer, but then the quantity drops farther, and so they get hit that way.

And remember, the reason the demand is so elastic is because we are specifically talking about luxury items--things the buyer can easily do without. Buying it or not buying it makes little difference to them, so smaller changes in price cause larger changes in the quantity demanded. For example, they will simply buy some other item instead of this one. A small change in price will make them quickly switch to the next-best alternative.

Good, I'm glad you can see the inequality in the system.

Yes, that was my original point (that the burden of a luxury tax is paid more by the poor than the rich). Can you see it?

I'm glad you can see that the luxury item is already being produced at minimum wage.

It may or may not be. Depends. I was explaining what would happen in that case.

It goes to show that the consumer is already paying too little for the product if the margins are so small that they are the first to suffer.

But the margins (that is, profits) always tend to zero. This is economic law. Are you now complaining that profits are too small--that they tend toward zero?

Yes of course I am, it's a luxury good, this is where huge profits are generally made.

There is no reason why that would be true. This would cause entrepreneurs to shift en masse from other lines of production to the production of luxury goods. Why would I invest in bread making if I could make a much bigger rate of return making luxury items? But such a shift bids up the factors of production of the luxury items, and increases the quantity of luxury goods supplied, and thus pushes down their price. This increase of cost prices and decrease of sales prices quickly will reduce (and tend to make zero) the profits to be made there.

On the other hand, the same shift will mean less demand for the factors of other lines of production (say bread making). The price of bread-making goods and services thus will drop. The supply of bread will also drop, pushing the price of bread up. Thus the difference between the price and costs of bread increase, meaning it is more profitable.

For these reasons, the rate of return of investment tends toward equalizing in all the different lines of production. And the profits everywhere tend toward zero.

Don't let the fact that the price of a yacht is greater than the price of a loaf of bread deceive you into thinking that that means that the profits (rate of return) of yacht-making is greater than that of bread-making.

Especially if the company owns the patent

I agree patents are bad. We should abolish patents. They are nothing but government enforced monopolies.

...or the resource source of that good.

Yes, there could conceivably be a sole owner of one of the factors of production necessary for production of that good. Here are some considerations in this case.

1) This is not practically possible in an unhampered market except in the case of some rare natural resource (e.g., diamonds). (Most monopolies are artificially created by the government.) But a monopoly benefits from their monopoly position only by restricting supply (to push prices up) below what it might have been in the case of competition which would have expanded supply and pushed down the price. (They restrict supply to the point where marginal cost no longer exceeds marginal revenue.) But surely restricting supply of a rare natural resource isn't a terrible thing?

2) We are specifically dealing with luxury goods, which means the demand is elastic. This means that a monopoly cannot get much gain in price from restricting supply. The monopoly price won't be much higher than the "competitive price." (Marginal cost will quickly meet marginal revenue.)

If profits 'tend to zero' then I assume this is because there is unrelenting competition, and the consumer has been primed to pay the least they possible can for it.

Yes, the essential competition is (1) the competition among consumers, and (2) the competition for capital. These are related. And then, yes, all else being equal, the consumer will want to pay the lowest price possible. Anything else would be uneconomical.

Really, the demand from the consumer for value for money, unrelenting competition to get it there, and the need for the owner of production to make a good 'profit' is what's causing the low level workers to take the burden.

On the contrary. The competition of producers to meet consumer demand pushes real wages upward. In an unhampered market, profit making by entrepreneurs ultimately benefits their employees first (the first step is to bid for labor). And when profits tend toward zero, it means the benefit to the entrepreneurs is lost and shifted to the factors of production, especially labor. The employees tend to end up benefitted the most and are benefitted earlier than the entrepreneurs.

On a side note: Do you know what, I wouldn't mind paying a little more for products, if I knew it meant the production worker were being paid the extra.

Better yet, start a business and pay your employees what you want. By paying more you could bid labor away from those firms who are under-paying. If you are right they are currently underpaid, you will benefit the workers by higher wages, benefit the consumers by better availability of goods, and benefit yourself with some profits. (If, on the other hand, you are wrong then you'll pay for it yourself. It will essentially be a gift from you to them (above and beyond the value of their productivity). And there's nothing wrong with that if that's what you think is best.)

[Zarathustra]

This will be my last post on this topic in this thread. I don't want to distract too far from the central question of this thread. You may have the last word if you wish, or branch off a new thread.

Yes, this is somewhat off topic. Thank for your response, it is interesting. I do of course, want the last word:

Yes, that was my original point (that the burden of a luxury tax is paid more by the poor than the rich). Can you see it?

I was talking about the system in general, rather than the system with the addition of a tax.

But the margins (that is, profits) always tend to zero. This is economic law. Are you now complaining that profits are too small--that they tend toward zero?

No, I'm simply questioning what conditions change for the worker over the owners of production, as the profits tend towards zero. You suggested they [the worker] would be the first to suffer. Though I did not understand that the owners of production had already decided that they were to make no profit. I.e., I assumed their intake stayed relatively stable as they cut all possible costs. As this is within their power, I wondered why they would not take that avenue. You suggest that is because:

On the contrary. The competition of producers to meet consumer demand pushes real wages upward. In an unhampered market, profit making by entrepreneurs ultimately benefits their employees first (the first step is to bid for labor). And when profits tend toward zero, it means the benefit to the entrepreneurs is lost and shifted to the factors of production, especially labor. The employees tend to end up benefitted the most and are benefitted earlier than the entrepreneurs.

This of course depends to the labour pool. You assume it is constricted, I assume that it is not. if there is plenty of cheap labour about, the 'bid' can be small as the poor are willing to work (they can't eat their shoes to survive). This is more a reference to the unskilled working poor. The company the employs the lowest paid workers has an advantage over the employers paying their workers more. Those other employers follow suit to survive; we [those that disagree with the principles behind unrestricted Laissez-faire capitalism] are thankful for government regulated minimum wage.

Better yet, start a business and pay your employees what you want. By paying more you could bid labor away from those firms who are under-paying. If you are right they are currently underpaid, you will benefit the workers by higher wages, benefit the consumers by better availability of goods, and benefit yourself with some profits. (If, on the other hand, you are wrong then you'll pay for it yourself. It will essentially be a gift from you to them (above and beyond the value of their productivity). And there's nothing wrong with that if that's what you think is best.)

The point was that the consumer is underpaying for goods, if the goods do not deliver the company any profit unless their workers are paid the minimum wage (most companies, as a sociopathic entity, are out to make maximum profit). This is made worse if the company makes a huge profit (yes, this really does happen), while they pay their workers the minimum wage because of excess in the labour market. Not whether I would be a conscientious employer.

[joel]

Yes, this is somewhat off topic. Thank for your response, it is interesting. I do of course, want the last word:

Okay, I couldn't resist. I split it off. See my reply here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...98#post2837798

[technomage]

or What is the difference between taxes and theft/robbery?

In brief, legal authority: more accurately, the authority of law.

All societies form laws--many, but not all, societies codify those laws. The laws of a society are part and parcel of what holds the society together, and whether the laws are formally codified or informal arrangements and customs, they still exist.

[joel]

In brief, legal authority: more accurately, the authority of law.

That is totally begging the question--circular reasoning.

"It's different because 'the government' (or 'Society') declares it to be different." That only pushes the question back: what is "the government"? Why am I not "the government"? And thus the sticking point: What makes the "the government" different such that its decrees are "laws" with "authority", and mine are not? that if I (or anyone else) does the same thing it is immoral?

You are assuming the very thing you want to prove.

All societies form laws--many, but not all, societies codify those laws.

"Society" is not an entity. "Society" does not act. People (some of the people) form laws and enforce them on other people.

The laws of a society are part and parcel of what holds the society together,

A good argument can be made that the strongest thing holding society together is the division of labor--and thus individual self-interest, not any collective central decision-making. (And then we get back to natural law, as opposed to laws "formed by Society.")

[technomage]

That is totally begging the question--circular reasoning.

No, Joel: it is the way the real world works. I understand that the real world is different from your pleasant little fantasy world, but please don't let such differences kill your Rand-ish pipe dream.

Memo to me: Anarchists, Christ-Mythers, YECs, Objectivists: don't take these people off ignore, the stupidity may be catching.

[joel]

No, Joel: it is the way the real world works. I understand that the real world is different from your pleasant little fantasy world, but please don't let such differences kill your Rand-ish pipe dream.

The question of this thread is not pertaining to what happens in the world. People in fact act both morally or immorally. Yes, unfortunately, that is how the world works. I'm not disputing that. My question is about the morality (of the actions in the real world, not in a fantasy world). That what you suggest is logically contradictory. If it is true and obvious that the same action is moral in the one case and immoral in another, then surely you can explain the difference. Surely you can point out my logical error. Then I can stand corrected, and we can agree.

[Alien]

First let me say that I have never seen the show, but I gather that Tony runs the mafia or mafia-like organization.

He's the leader of part of the Mafia, in one locality. I'll digress briefly to say that it is (was, the show is finished) interesting to observe that though breaking most moral rules as accepted by society in general, they (the mafiosi) observe their own form of morality, within the group. For example, loyalty to one's superiors is considered to be moral and rigidly enforced.

I think I addressed this in an earlier post. It is not immoral for "the State" to use force in defense and restitution against thieves and murderers and the like (assuming that it has the delegated power to do so). But this is not a problem with the question of this thread because individuals inherently have this right (of self-defense) and may delegate it to a group or firm or organization. My question pertains only to things that are immoral for everyone else to do, and I'm asking what makes "the State" exempt. I never said there should be no government(s) at all. Generally it is advantageous to create one or more voluntary associations to provide for common defense.

Hah, an example of something that is moral for the State and immoral for an individual. It is moral for the State to execute a murderer (substitute imprisonment if you like) but not for an individual to do so. I don't mean killing in self defense, but simply going out and killing someone whom you know to be a murderer. No matter how much evidence you may have as to that person's guilt, you should not kill him (or lock him up in your basement), and you would be subject to trial for murder if you did. the State however, may do so (subject to due process of course).

The same could be said about churches. Yet there are lots of churches doing well, as well as various other voluntary organizations. People want defense and are willing to pay for it.

Churches are used, by and large, by those who pay for them, and there is no benefit accruing to those (outside the membership) who don't pay. Are you OK with paying for the defense of those who won't or can't pay? "No" seems to be the emphatic answer from some on this thread when it comes to paying for assistance for the poor. And I'm not talking about forced payment, the attitude seems to be that they somehow don't deserve it, so they shouldn't have it (a non sequitur to me, but whatever).

Are you describing North Korea?

I was thinking of (in your libertarian world), maybe, Detroit?

The answer depends on the situation. If we are talking about the people of a region the size of, say, New York creating this defense association, then they may very well to decide to defend everyone in the whole region. The poor people, though not paying, would be covered too.

"[M]ay very well ...".That's not very comforting. And how could it be otherwise? If they decided not to defend the non-payers, how could that be arranged? And wouldn't you have the same thing in microcosm? Would everyone agree to your libertarian way fo doing things? Would some want a return to central government withing your area? Would you be denying their right to be governed as they wish?

On the other hand, if you are talking about another region dominated by bandits, then that's like considering a hostile foreign land. We would want our local defense to defend us against both domestic and foreign aggressors.

Yes, obviously.

The question of whether we should (or even have the right to) liberate the oppressed innocent citizens of such a foreign land--that's another question for another thread.

Interesting.

Hopefully my comments above have now done that?

Somewhat, yes. I still don't think it would work, but you didn't expect to convince me, did you?

But it is maybe beyond my original question. I'm not really trying to argue pragmatics here. I'm just asking about logical consistency. Maybe the alternative suggestions would be practical, or maybe there is another alternative that would be more practical, or maybe even no alternative would "work."

OK.

If we were talking only about the question of this thread, my answer "works" because it is logically consistent: there is no difference. There is then no troublesome logical question to be solved. But if we go with a "State" that does things that would be immoral for anyone else to do, then we do have to address the apparent logical inconsistency. Or admit that it is immoral and try to assuage our consciences some other way.

I think you have had so much difficulty in getting people to address the original question because it's impossible to disagree with. Of course a moral principle applies equally to a group as to an individual. The principle in both cases (the State and the individual) has to be equivalent though, and that's typically how people have chosen to address it. I've also pointed out that moral principles can conflict.

Better in what sense? Not better in the moral sense. "Works" in what sense?

In the pragmatic sense that it delivers something morally desirable. Example: A mentally ill person is shooting wildly into a crowd. He has already killed ten people and is in no danger of running out of ammunition. A policeman shoots him, saving maybe fifty lives. Assume there was no alternative that would have not resulted in more innocent deaths. It is immoral to kill someone who has no responsibility for his actions, but the overall result is moral (innocent lives are saved).

The "greater good" eh? Nightmarish evils have been done in the name of the greater good.

Yes, but I never said, or meant, the greater good. I'm trying to address your question at a moral level. Redistributing wealth does not necessarily mean any kind of greater good, though there are usually more poor people than rich people. The morality would be the same if there were only one poor person and everyone refused to help him. If I (the dictator in this case, I guess) forcibly took some money from some of the rich to give to him. In this case, the moral principle that it is wrong for someone to be in need when others have plenty overrides the moral principle that people should not be deprived of their property without their permission. (Please assume, for the sake of argument, that both principles are indeed moral).

(Have you read the Harry Potter books by any chance? One of the themes there is the evil of "the greater good".)

I have all the Harry potter books and have read them more than once. I'm not sure what you are referring to here.

Whose greater good? If it is a net cost to someone, let's call her Alice, then why are other people and not Alice part of (and partakers of) the greater good?

I think it depends on how much it costs Alice and how much others benefit. There is a point where I would not want to hurt Alice to benefit others. Example: If all cancer could be cured by submitting Alice, against her will, to torturous medical experiments that would eventually kill her, would it be moral to do so? In my opinion, no. On the other hand, if Alice is a billionaire would I take away some of her wealth to help others? Yes, and I'm not going to lose sleep over it. Extreme examples both, and it's not always easy to make the decision.

In your scenario above, you are considering what you ("we"?, which we?) should decide to do with the lives of other people. I'd question the underlying premise of this: What gives you the moral right to interfere in such ways with other people's lives? You are trying to decide what is more important (to you?) about other people's lives. Such a decision won't be unanimous, and so you'd be back to a group of people ruling over others. But why is that moral? I think your greater good proposal is based on that faulty premise. Furthermore, if it is moral to take the fruits of their labor of these other people against their will, then surely it would be equally moral to simply engage in forced labor directly. But hopefully we agree that slavery is immoral. But that is what your premise suggests. It suggests that you (or the mysterious "we") have rights to this other person's person--that is, that we (at least in part) own him/her. That we can decide what we may do to him. But I reject slavery. Why should some people own other people even in part?

If we are talking about redistribution of wealth, then it couldn't go to the extreme of slavery, as that would be simply reversing the current situation (the rich would now be poor and we'd have to enslave the formally poor to give to the formally poor, and so on).

Here's why i think it would be moral. It is, in my opinion, immoral that some people in a society should have more than they could reasonably use in a dozen lifetimes while others lack the basic necessities. The correction of that situation, again in my opinion, is a greater good than allowing people to have unfettered rights to their own property. I would say that if it could somehow be accomplished without force (say by adjusting the rules under which people may acquire wealth) then that would be preferable, but if force is the only way then so be it. (Please note I'm talking about the force of law within a democratic process, not revolution).

Another way to look at it (and tie it back to the original question) is that it is immoral for an individual to steal from his neighbor to help the poor (for the greater good!). So why would it become not-immoral just because a larger group does it? Who is the mysterious deciding "we" such that they are somehow exempt?

That's been answered in many ways (social contract, whatever). I have to say though that I'm not totally convinced that it is always wrong for the individual. Was Robin Hood (in the legend) immoral?

I can see where the greater-good concept comes from. Indeed, it is good to give up a lesser value for a greater value (e.g., personally sacrificing present pleasures for future, greater values). But this is true on an individual basis (i.e., the lesser value that you "sacrifice" is your own). There is no grounds to make decisions over other people's lives and values unless you already assume that you have special moral authority over them--that you own them.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if everyone behaved unselfishly? We would only need minimal government, there would be nobody in need, no wars, no crime ... Unfortunately, that isn't so, and there are people in need and there are selfish rich (and not so rich) people who only want to hang on to what they have. What some people have decided to do about that infringes on some peoples' self determination, yes. Which is the greater evil?

Yes, a structured society. But there is nothing about it that logically necessitates coercive maintenance of the the structure. Probably the strongest societal "structure" is the division of labor, and this results in amazing order/organization by individual planners, without a central planner. Individuals have an incentive to engage in and maintain the structure of the division of labor. It is mutually beneficial. Individuals voluntarily engage in it because they are better off doing so. The only force we need to maintain it is defense of property rights (including self-ownership) from anyone else. The only (individual) freedom we need to override is infringing the rights of others. And self-defense is already moral (and the act being defended against is immoral/unjust), so there is no logical conflict there.

Maybe so, but I have no basis for knowing if it would happen that way (maybe you have an example of a society that functioned with no central government and delivered all that you say?). On the other hand, I see many countries that operate on more or less socialist principles and seem to provide a reasonable quality of life to most of their citizens. Pardon me for choosing the latter.

You seem to be discounting decentralized/spontaneous order, and assuming that there will be no organization without central planning.

Do you have an example?

(Again, this is a pragmatic discussion, which may or may not be related to the main question of this thread.)

I've tried to focus more on the moral aspect this time.

[joel]

Hah, an example of something that is moral for the State and immoral for an individual. It is moral for the State to execute a murderer (substitute imprisonment if you like) but not for an individual to do so. I don't mean killing in self defense, but simply going out and killing someone whom you know to be a murderer. No matter how much evidence you may have as to that person's guilt, you should not kill him (or lock him up in your basement), and you would be subject to trial for murder if you did. the State however, may do so (subject to due process of course).

This is assuming that the death penalty is ever moral.
But okay, let's assume for the sake of argument that some acts of aggression are so heinous that the culprit deserves the retribution of death.

Now, who can morally carry out the sentence, which in and of itself we have supposed to be the morally right thing to be done? Which person or person(s) can morally do it?

You answer that the State and no one else can. For that to make logical sense, there must be a difference. Thus this thread asks: What makes the government (the group of individuals who happen to be in control of the State apparatus) different than any other group of people such that it is moral for them and immoral for others? That question (the question of this thread) you have not yet answered.

We might compare this to the "state of nature". That is, what if this case arose prior to there being a State? If you are right that only a state can execute, then we would be in a moral paradox: morality demands that the criminal must be executed, and that no one may morally carry it out. How do we get out of this paradox?

One way out may be that the morality of the execution originates with the victim. That the victim originates and thus ultimately has the right to carry out the execution. Again, as with defense, people may voluntarily organize and delegate this natural power to the organization. One practical reason for doing this is the recognition that a victim (or agents,relatives,friends of the victim) are more prone to bias and rash judgement or overreaction in the heat of passion.

Also there is the fact that there is a dispute of sorts. If the culprit confesses and submits to the punishment, then the above problem is not a problem at all. The problem (and paradox) arise only if the culprit disputes his guilt or the sentence. Thus we tend to voluntarily submit such matters to a (hopefully) unbiased third party to judge the dispute. Again this is a reason to voluntarily delegate moral powers to such a judge or jury, even if the ultimate right of execution belongs with the victim (or victim's agent or next of kin or whatever).

Churches are used, by and large, by those who pay for them, and there is no benefit accruing to those (outside the membership) who don't pay. Are you OK with paying for the defense of those who won't or can't pay? "No" seems to be the emphatic answer from some on this thread when it comes to paying for assistance for the poor. And I'm not talking about forced payment, the attitude seems to be that they somehow don't deserve it, so they shouldn't have it (a non sequitur to me, but whatever).

I thought of a better answer to your previous question: what about the free-riders. That is, we start off with I and 8 neighbors organizing and paying for defense, and then some others realise they could stop paying and still enjoy some of the benefit of the defense provided by the others, so they stop. So my better answer is this: if we are worried about some people switching to free riders, we may draft a contract when we first organize, so each participant is pledged to continue paying (say for some number of years). When the contract period is up we may decide whether we want to renew it. Presumably we would also allow others to join our organization who wish to.

To answer your present question: I give charitably to the poor. It is morally right to help those who cannot help themselves, and to give gifts to others. I only oppose the forcing of others to give. (Forced morality is not moral (for them or us).)

"[M]ay very well ...".That's not very comforting.

For example. The residents of a city block may organize to provide defense. Most probably they would set up a defense of the whole block, even if one guy refused to be part of it or was too poor to afford an equal share of the cost.

Would some want a return to central government withing your area?

What you mean is, "would some want to do (or want some people to do) things that are immoral for anyone to do?"

Would you be denying their right to be governed as they wish?

No, anyone can voluntarily submit to whomever they want. What they do not have the right to do is aggress against others. They can choose to submit to someone else's whims. They cannot morally impose (say anti-sodomy laws) upon others.


I have to go. I will have to respond to the rest of your post another time.

[joel]

Here is the response to the rest of your post. (Moderators, you may merge my two posts if necessary.)

I think you have had so much difficulty in getting people to address the original question because it's impossible to disagree with.

Yes, I think so. At the moment, I could not be anything but a libertarian, because anything else seems to me to be irrational and immoral.

I've also pointed out that moral principles can conflict.

Um, no. That would mean you have made a mistake in one of your premises. You'd need to check and correct your premises. You cannot both have a moral license to do something and not have that moral license to do it (at the same time and in the same sense). That's a logical contradiction which cannot exist.

In the pragmatic sense that it delivers something morally desirable. Example: A mentally ill person is shooting wildly into a crowd. He has already killed ten people and is in no danger of running out of ammunition. A policeman shoots him, saving maybe fifty lives. Assume there was no alternative that would have not resulted in more innocent deaths. It is immoral to kill someone who has no responsibility for his actions, but the overall result is moral (innocent lives are saved).

"It is immoral to kill someone who has no responsibility for his actions"
Hm. I would say: perhaps in retribution, but not in defense. An act of aggression is an act of aggression, whether the person doing it realizes or not.

Yes, but I never said, or meant, the greater good. I'm trying to address your question at a moral level. Redistributing wealth does not necessarily mean any kind of greater good, though there are usually more poor people than rich people. The morality would be the same if there were only one poor person and everyone refused to help him. If I (the dictator in this case, I guess) forcibly took some money from some of the rich to give to him. In this case, the moral principle that it is wrong for someone to be in need when others have plenty overrides the moral principle that people should not be deprived of their property without their permission. (Please assume, for the sake of argument, that both principles are indeed moral).

[
Perhaps, but that isn't a sufficient condition. Remember that "X is immoral" does not imply that we can morally use force against X. (Likewise "X is moral" does not imply that we can morally use force to compel X.)

And again, the question of the thread comes up again. Unless a difference between "the state" and all other persons and groups is identified, then we would have to assume that "'the state' can morally force redistribution" implies that other groups or individuals can too (e.g., such that they could have delegated that moral power to "the State"). But I disagree with that.

I have all the Harry potter books and have read them more than once. I'm not sure what you are referring to here.

Really? I'm not sure how you could have missed it. I don't want to give spoilers for those who haven't yet read them, but it was a major theme in the final book, especially as we learn more of Dumbledore's past.

I think it depends on how much it costs Alice and how much others benefit.

I happen to think that such utilitarianism cannot be defended. There is no such thing as an interpersonal comparison of utility.

If we are talking about redistribution of wealth, then it couldn't go to the extreme of slavery

Here's another disagreement. You seem to be treating the matter as a difference in degree, and dismissing the kind--the nature of the action. Partial slavery: enslaving someone for, say one day out of the year, doesn't make it moral. It's still slavery.

as that would be simply reversing the current situation (the rich would now be poor and we'd have to enslave the formally poor to give to the formally poor, and so on).

Yes, indeed. Starting to see the illogical nature of it?

Here's why i think it would be moral. It is, in my opinion, immoral that some people in a society should have more than they could reasonably use in a dozen lifetimes while others lack the basic necessities.

First of all, even if it is immoral, that's not a sufficient condition. "X is immoral" does not imply that we can morally use force against X.

Secondly, I think this is a typical reaction for someone who has not studied economics, who has not thought through such things. One reason I disagree with what you say is the nature of such wealth in reality. In the real world such wealth is typically held in the form of capital. But that means it is a refraining from consumption. Holding capital has an opportunity cost. Holding a huge amount of capital has a huge opportunity cost.
Suppose an extreme case where a capitalist lives a very modest life--spends very little (almost nothing) on himself--while amassing an enormous fortune in capital. Such a person would be among the greatest benefactors of their fellow man the world has ever seen. The act of creating and holding capital that you don't use is only as a pure service to your fellow man (as consumers). Such has benefited mankind more than all the direct charitable giving has done. To seize this capital and hand it over to others for their present consumption could be considered not just a crime against this one person but against humanity--causing the seed corn to be eaten.

But this is digressing from the question of the thread. You are still left needing to answer, "Who has the right to do this redistribution, and why them and no one else?"

I would say that if it could somehow be accomplished without force (say by adjusting the rules under which people may acquire wealth) then that would be preferable, but if force is the only way then so be it. (Please note I'm talking about the force of law within a democratic process, not revolution).

Yes, it can be morally praiseworthy to do it apart from force. But that means voluntary--private charity, and using persuation to convince others to do so. I'm not sure what you mean by "adjusting the rules". You mean the rules that the government enforces--with force? That would still be "with force."

And your willingness to use the Sword. Such a violent person.
And, this perhaps ties this into the question of this thread: how is revolution different? Why is one better than the other? What if the democratic voters are in the wrong--immoral, and the revolutionaries are fighting to stop their injustice? Democratic process does not imply morality. Why would it (and no other person or group) be exempt from moral law?

That [the central question of this thread] been answered in many ways (social contract, whatever).

But only via circular reasoning. No one has given an answer (other than "there is no differenc") without engaging in circular reasoning--assuming the very thing they are trying to prove.

I have to say though that I'm not totally convinced that it is always wrong for the individual. Was Robin Hood (in the legend) immoral?

No, but the oversimplistic analysis ("steal from the rich to give to the poo") is immoral, and does not really apply. Robin Hood was not noble for stealing from the rich. He was noble for recovering and returning stolen property. Others had made themselves rich by stealing from the poor. Robin Hood's action was enacting justice, not an act of theft. The property he took did not rightfully belong to the rich, but to the poor who had previously earned/created it.

Secondly, we might note that specifically Robin Hood was fighting against the government (Prince John) which was unjustly taxing the people. (And one that had unjustly usurped power.) If anything, it seems that Robin Hood is on my side of the argument, considering those taxes as theft.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if everyone behaved unselfishly? We would only need minimal government, there would be nobody in need, no wars, no crime ... Unfortunately, that isn't so, and there are people in need and there are selfish rich (and not so rich) people who only want to hang on to what they have. What some people have decided to do about that infringes on some peoples' self determination, yes. Which is the greater evil?

To answer your first question: Depends on how you define it.
But then you are making various mistakes. I never said defense was immoral. Defense against (e.g.) war and crime is appropriate. I addressed the "unselfish" rich above. And I would not approve something because it is a lesser evil. All evil should be rejected.

And if people are so "selfish", then surely the government (composed of people) will be too. Again, what makes "the government" so special?--different from all other persons or groups, such that they are exempt from morality or logic?

Maybe so, but I have no basis for knowing if it would happen that way (maybe you have an example of a society that functioned with no central government and delivered all that you say?).

Historically, when government has been small or simply failed to defend the division of labor from violence, society did not collapse. People did not invent government and then invent a structured society. Rather, government emerged from structured society. The division of labor and self interest is a very strong bond. The structure of society today continues to exist in spite of the government's violence to it, not because of it. (Most of today's governments' actions are strongly anti-social.)

On the other hand, I see many countries that operate on more or less socialist principles and seem to provide a reasonable quality of life to most of their citizens.

Depends. There are European countries that appear more socialistic than the U.S. at first but turn out to be freer than the U.S. in other respects. The productivity and standards of living are high only because of freedom, in spite of socialist-leaning policies.

Do you have an example?

All around you. Check out the essay "I, Pensil" for a start ( http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html ) "not a single person on the face of this earth knows how to make [a pensil]." The complex division of labor arises spontaneously, without central direction. (In fact, it would be literally impossible to achieve the same by central direction.) For further reading, consider the writings of (Nobel laureat) economist F. A. Hayek.

[joel]

Since the discussion has died down a bit, I thought I would go back through the thread and compile a list of all the suggested answers to this thread's question:

1. There is no difference
2. Divine right (of kings)
3. The (mythical and undefined) "social contract"
4. Consent of (some of) the governed (i.e., majority will, people can vote, you can leave)
5. It's an exchange of goods (this would apply to taxes, but not, say, to minimum wage laws, so it's not really an answer to the question in the general case)
6. Related to (5), some "greater good" overrides the immoral act (necessary evil)
7. "The government" announces itself to be different
8. Because it's "the government"!
9. Tradition (e.g, this group has been doing this for so long it has become no longer immoral)

If I have missed any, please remind me.

As I believe I have shown, each one of those except for the first (and perhaps the second) is either not actually a difference or is circular reasoning. Any further thoughts?

[joel]

I just read John Locke's Two Treatises on Government. Here is his take on the questions of this thread.

As I said, most of the suggestions in this thread have been begging the question: assuming there is legitimate power to do certain "governmental" acts without showing why someone (rather than anyone else has that moral authority). Locke in the first treatise points out that this is worthless:

"I am never the less at liberty still, till it appears who is the person that hath right to my obedience; since, if there be no marks to know him by, and distinguish him that hath right to rule from other men, it may be myself, as well as any other. And therefore, though submission to government be every one's duty, yet since that signifies nothing but submitting to the direction and laws of such men as have authority to command...
"...and a man can never be obliged in conscience to submit to any power, unless he can be satisfied who is the person who has a right to exercise that power over him. If this were not so, there would be no distinction between pirates and lawful princes...Men too might as often and as innocently change their governors, as they do their physicians, if the person cannot be known who has a right to direct me, and whose prescriptions I am bound to follow."
(chapter 9, my emphasis http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php...22&layout=html )

So, Locke raised the same question I did in this thread. We have to know what is the distinction between the two (if any). In the Second Treatise he argues based on there being no difference between unjust acts of a government and "robbers and pirates" (in Chapters 16 and 19).

Then in Chapter 8 of the Second Treatise, Lock gives his answer to the question: consent of the governed. But by this he does not mean "the consent of the majority" or the consent of some "general will" or any such nonsense. He means the consent of every individual. Locke argues that no individual can be put out of their "state of nature" "and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent." (my emphasis). A group of people who consent to form a government can do so, but they cannot justly subject others to the same government without their consent. A group of people who so join in common defense "injures not the freedom of the rest; they are left as they were in the liberty of the state of nature."

He also considers: if people form a government and consent to subject themselves to it, what about their children born under them? Are they automatically subjects of the same government? No, a child reaching the age of reason is not bound by a government he is "born under" because one "cannot, by any compact whatsoever, bind his children or posterity".

"It is plain then, by the practice of governments themselves, as well as by the law of right reason, that a child is born a subject of no country or government....til he comes to age of discretion; and then he is a freeman, at liberty what government he will put himself under."

Or to not put himself under any government at all (i.e., to remain in the "state of nature").

I believe Locke errs in a few paragraphs where he discusses what he thinks is tacit consent to be a temporary subject, but his conclusions that I have quoted here are sound. And he does acknowledge that mere submitting to laws or enjoying privileges and protection is not consent.

Locke seems to agree with what I was saying that it makes no sense that a government has the right to do what no other person or group has the right to do. On the contrary, governments have moral authority only because everyone under it voluntarily consented to delegate power to it. And no person can delegate moral power they do not already have or one they cannot give. An individual does not have the right to arbitrarily take what is another's without their consent, thus they cannot delegate such a power to the government, so the government cannot have such a right. In fact, the protection of property is necessarily the function of governments. So a government "cannot take from any man any part of his property without his own consent: for the preservation of property being the end of government."

Another limit to powers delegated are unalienable rights--rights that cannot be transferred. For example your right to life cannot be transferred, and so the government cannot be delegated the power to enslave. "[F]or a man, not having the power of his own life, cannot, by compact, or his own consent, enslave himself to any one, nor put himself under the absolute, arbitrary power of another."

Another limit is that we know people do what they prefer, and so an individual would not put themselves into a state worse than (say) the state of nature.

From the above limitations Lock concludes with what serves as an axiom for libertarians: the non-aggression principle. "Force is to be opposed to nothing, but to unjust and unlawful force." A person "may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another." And thus the only legitimate purpose of government (and the "fundamental rule of society") is to protect people's property (and he defines property as "life, liberty, and estate").

And again, this requires the consent of each individual in order for that person to be obliged to obey any government.

So, if we take all this back to the hypothetical of me and my 9 neighbors, if 6 of us consent to join together to form a system of 'taxation', we have no authority to tax the other 4 who do not consent. We 6 would form our own government, and to "tax" the other 4 would be theft. We would be no better (probably worse) than robbers and pirates if we were to force the other four to be subject to our government.

[Challenger Grim]

So, if we take all this back to the hypothetical of me and my 9 neighbors, if 6 of us consent to join together to form a system of 'taxation', we have no authority to tax the other 4 who do not consent. We 6 would form our own government, and to "tax" the other 4 would be theft. We would be no better (probably worse) than robbers and pirates if we were to force the other four to be subject to our government.

I believe that was Jonah Goldberg's point on the beauty of federalism. And I do think the wisdom with federalism and democracy is the application of market forces on governments while trying to avoid some of the worst excesses of the market.

[Challenger Grim]

Since the discussion has died down a bit, I thought I would go back through the thread and compile a list of all the suggested answers to this thread's question:

1. There is no difference
2. Divine right (of kings)
3. The (mythical and undefined) "social contract"
4. Consent of (some of) the governed (i.e., majority will, people can vote, you can leave)
5. It's an exchange of goods (this would apply to taxes, but not, say, to minimum wage laws, so it's not really an answer to the question in the general case)
6. Related to (5), some "greater good" overrides the immoral act (necessary evil)
7. "The government" announces itself to be different
8. Because it's "the government"!
9. Tradition (e.g, this group has been doing this for so long it has become no longer immoral)

If I have missed any, please remind me.

As I believe I have shown, each one of those except for the first (and perhaps the second) is either not actually a difference or is circular reasoning. Any further thoughts?

I think this is the best place to put this (though if you can find a better board, LMK Joel because I think this is something to talk about with libertarians).

In some ways, I suppose we can say that government is the gang of bandits that "won" and got to be in charge. Democracy is at least an attempt to put a leash on that gang.

The real question is... so? As this chilling article from Derb points out.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...Q3YWUwYmM2NTA=

It seems that the natural inclination of humans is toward authoritarianism. That no libertarian society can survive past a few generations.