Charles Davis (here's some more traffic, buddy) notes that Radley Balko, who, I agree, is a highly commendable and admirable writer on civil liberties, is also basically nuts when it comes to understanding how taxes work, who pays them, and what they pay for. But this is only symptomatic of the bigger problem with libertarianism, which ever seeks to return to the foundational principles that led inexorably to the militarized system of state capital in which we now find ourselves. Libertarianism looks at the mess we're in and says we need to seek its better beginnings in a constitutionally limited government and constrained social compact and so on, which is sort of like hopping in the time machine in order to relight the fuse on the stick of dynamite that keeps blowing you up. The problem with the American experiment, as we self-flatteringly call it, is not that it failed to fulfill its promise but rather that it promised us this gaudy empire all along. The founders, not for nothing, had their eyes on Rome.
30 comments:
Like Bob Black said, you can't want what the State wants and not want the State. Realizing this nudged me further from traditional libertarianism into whatever the fuck people call me now.
Libertarians are island peoples stuck on the mainland. When a libertarian proposes the repeal of the graduated income tax or unfettered access to assault rifles, just start humming Aloha 'Oe and watch the mood change.
And by "inexorable" argument the political scene in North America in 1400AD led to Sarah Palin, so therefore anarchy sux.
Say what you will about the militarized system of state capiral (or copiral in Balko's case), at least it's all trippy and hypnotic as it sucks you down into the abyss. And I still say making the distinction "minarchist" is important, though I concede when talkin bout Reason it's understood that you're not dealing with anarchists here.
Thanks, bro.
Balko is not nuts. Your buddy Davis's argument is just wrong. Money is fungible. The tax incomes of USG are not separate. There is no "lockbox". It is all one big and incredibly tangled business. So the notion that the regressive taxes pay for welfare while income taxes pay for wars, the military and other discretionary spending is just wrong.
As for your analogy about what libertarians think: they think they can go back and this time, not light the fuse. I'll agree this is wrong, but it isn't nuts either. And in any case, the question is not "can we prevent the modern red-giant state for all time", but "can we prevent it for a while?". And for that, I think the Constitution would serve adequately.
Leonard,
Is your assertion that money, the generic category, is fungible, or that all specific, historic and legally created currencies are "naturally" so?
The distinction matters, don't you think?
The former. Although the latter is also true, it being implied by the former.
I don't see that the distinction matters. Both are true.
The former is an ideal, and therefore neither true nor false.
The latter is patently false. Some currencies are protected. Some are not. Since currency is a creature of law and custom, the assumption of a perfect fungibility rests on an assumption of the universality of laws.
Demonstrate this, please.
A defunct currency might also still exist (a Nantucket shell, as an example). It is still a currency.
Try establishing that it's perfectly substitutable for the equivalent contemporary value in dollars, kindly.
Dear Leonard,
Whether FICA taxes pay for wars or Social Security is beside the point, which is that poor people already pay a hell of a lot of taxes for the very little they get back from the federal government.
Yours,
Charles
Dude, fungibility is not meant as some sort of universal exchangeability. It means that one unit of a currency, no matter what sort of money it is, is the same as another unit. (Here is m-w for you pedants.) Thus, for example, a "dollar" gained via the Social Security payroll tax is the same thing -- literally identical -- to a dollar gained via income tax.
Now, in practice many forms of money are not completely ideal. In certain forms it is not completely fungible. I.e., it is possible for a gold coin to be worn down, and thus it might trade at a discount. However, fiat currencies are generally close to the ideal. Having no inherent value themselves, they really are identically valued. This is particularly true in electronic form, which is what the US Treasury uses.
Leonard,
Please don't try to Moldbug me, eh?
I know what question I asked you. You're trying to skate around it now, which says everything that needs to be said about the larger Austrian idealism.
Leonard's right, within a very narrow range. If Congress decided tomorrow to start paying for Medicare payouts using income tax rather than payroll taxes, they could. (Well, maybe not tomorrow; maybe a week; POLITICS IS THE ART OF THE POSSIBLE GUYZ)
Unfortunately, that range in which he's correct is so narrow as to be largely irrelevant (as Charlie outlines above). The notion that poor people have some power that rich people lack in this country is (A) laughable and (B) a notion that Leonard has espoused before, unblinking and unapologetic.
Charles, your new point is at least arguable. However, your new point is a different point than your old point.
That said, I disagree with your new point. It's true that the federal government has lots of beneficiaries besides the poor. Corporate welfare in many forms, big wars, the banking sector, etc. It's also true that the working poor get screwed pretty hard. But they are by no means the only poor. In terms of the ratio of what they pay in to what they get, the non-working poor do the best.
I don't exactly share Balko's assessment, in any case. To my mind the question is whether we have now, or will, a majority of people who gain more in government spending (in any forms, including their own salary), than they pay in taxes. That is, while Balko seems to only be worried about the poor outvoting the rich, I am worried about the poorest poor and some of the rich as well as a good chunk of the professional middle class outvoting everyone else.
Jack, you may know what question you asked, but evidently I still don't. I still see no distinction in your disjunction, and I rather doubt anyone else here does either. You'll just have to try harder. I do take the comparison to Moldy as a compliment.
What nony @12:45 said.
Leonard,
Are all specific, historic and legally created currencies "naturally" fungible? That was the question I asked. I doubt it's confusing for "everyone."
It's a fairly simple question.
Jack, yes, all money is fungible. (By its nature, if that's what your scare-quoted "naturally" means -- you have not defined it.) The use of money as a unit of account (which implies its fungibility) is a primary function of money.
You can find this in any text on money. In order for something to be money -- or a least, a good money -- it must be fungible.
Now, it is true that there are many historical curiousities. Men have resorted to odd sorts of money in exceptional circumstances, and some of these monies were not as nearly-perfectly fungible as the dollar. For example, in WWII POW camps, cigarettes were used as money. Obviously, cigarettes can vary in their physical qualities.
So, in that sense, your "all" is too strong. There have existed exceptional monies which were not nearly perfectly fungible.
I still see no relevance here to the discussion of taxation in the USA. The fiat dollar is nearly perfectly fungible.
Leonard,
I made the same argument here that I made, twice, at my own site: the poor already pay taxes for the things that nominally benefit them. Whether their FICA taxes literally go into a lockbox or to Lockheed Martin is irrelevant to the point that they do, in fact, pay for the bulk of the "services" they receive.
As for the notion that, "In terms of the ratio of what they pay in to what they get, the non-working poor do the best," well . . . I'd say go out and meet an unemployed poor person. Personally, I'd argue that people like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs -- the wealthy elite -- are getting a lot better return on their dollar than someone on food stamps, what with their mansions built with state-granted monopoly profits and all. And the fact that the non-working poor are not working isn't exactly unrelated to the services the state provides its partners in corporate America.
WHEN DID YOU STOP BEATING YOUR CURRENCY?!??
Leonard,
A dollar is only technically fungible with any other dollar, because of law. That is not a natural condition of the currency. It's only exchangeable as a function of force - the state's force.
The same state could use law and force to declare that liabilities and debits were not exchangeable with receipts. In fact, that's what it does do regularly, by declaring that expenses accrued by state actors are not or cannot be absorbed by those actors, but are instead to be obtained by a fiat transfer of value without a transfer of the unit of value.
"they think they can go back and this time, not light the fuse. I'll agree this is wrong, but it isn't nuts either."
Are we in the 18th Century? Have you read the Federalist Papers? Put down the pipe, bro.
CAPTAIN, THERE BE WHALES HERE!
I don't get it. If the poor are so politically powerful, why are they still poor?
I believe Sarah Palin once said "fungible".
Charles Davis says:
conservatism for pot heads
I don't believe such an experience is possible with pot. Isn't this like "chocolate fudge cake for anorexics"?
your critic took pains to note that, you know, you're one of the best in your field. I hope I'm someday personally attacked like that.
You all saw it! He was totally wearing a short skirt and makeup. He had it coming.
Leonard:
And for that, I think the Constitution would serve adequately.
What if your country doesn't have a constitution? Can we borrow yours for a while, since you're not using it?
The use of money as a unit of account (which implies its fungibility) is a primary function of money.
More like unit of unaccount.
Professor:
POLITICS IS THE ART OF THE POSSIBLE GUYZ
Nope. POLITICS IS THE POSSIBLE OF THE ART. Thinkboutit.
ErgoDan:
If the poor are so politically powerful, why are they still poor?
Duh. Obviously because the poor were once all rich, but were dispossessed by the rich, who were then all poor, because they were dispossessed by those who were poor, who became rich, but are now all poor. Democracy is a roller-coaster, social mobility is near infinite, and government efficiency is measured in expropriations per femtosecond.
This even happens during birth. Doctors seize babies. Babies seize doctors. Only in America.
If not libertarianism, what?
I'm not convinced that power concentrating progressivism is a necessarily consequence of libertarianishnessism.
man, people are hung up on whose dollars are oppressing us when.
If not libertarianism, what?
Are you familiar with this blogger "IOZ"? He talks about this "anarchy" thing a lot.
libertarianism is you rebooting a computer...FOREVER! Or is that the broken Windows fallacy?
o my than there will be trouble with this libertarian anarchism
Post a Comment