NY the least-free state in the US

Originally posted by normbenign
Sorry but your individualism isn't. High levels of taxation aren't required to leave you free to pursue your life.

You say taxation prevents dependence on parents or charity. How is better to be dependent on government? Where in human history has government been more honest, more efficient, more compassionate than family or charity?

That isn't t ...[text shortened]... mises in Zimbabwe. In the end the promises are always more than can possibly be delivered.

In what sense am I dependent on my government? They're not making me do anything I don't want to do.

Anyways, government is in fact much more efficient than civil society. Proof: the USA.

The simple question on liberty is who should be free to choose how to spend your money?

So your definition of freedom is that shallow. I define "freedom" to be having as many choices as possible in deciding the course of your life. You define "freedom" as rich people getting luxury goods they don't need at the cost of things they do care about (like the increased crime they suffer from, and the damage income inequality does to the economy).

And why do you keep bringing up Zimbabwe? Dictatorships have nothing to do with my position, stop bringing up that straw man.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
So your definition of freedom is that shallow. I define "freedom" to be having as many choices as possible in deciding the course of your life. You define "freedom" as rich people getting luxury goods they don't need at the cost of things they do care about (like the increased crime they suffer from, and the damage income inequality does to the economy).

Who are you to determine what people need and what they don't?

Freedom is also about allowing people to allocate their own resources as they see fit. Of course some level of taxation, and even some level of wealth redistribution, is necessary in any society. But to pretend that wealth redistribution doesn't impact freedom doesn't make sense.

If people care about crime then they're free to vote in politicians who promise to fight crime in the manner they they approve of. If people want income equality, then they should vote in politicians who will strive to accomplish that. It's part of the social contract. You vote for people who will do what you think is necessary to strike the balance that you feel appropriate between personal freedom and the greater good.

But, let's not pretend that no personal freedom is impacted when the government takes your resources for the greater good. and, let's not pretend that you have the moral authority to determine which "luxury goods" should be accessible to which people.

Originally posted by sh76
Who are you to determine what people need and what they don't?

Freedom is also about allowing people to allocate their own resources as they see fit. Of course some level of taxation, and even some level of wealth redistribution, is necessary in any society. But to pretend that wealth redistribution doesn't impact freedom doesn't make sense.

If people car ...[text shortened]... moral authority to determine which "luxury goods" should be accessible to which people.

Sure, if people really want low taxes and low freedom, who am I to say they shouldn't? I'm just saying it will produce a less prosperous society.

But to pretend that wealth redistribution doesn't impact freedom doesn't make sense.

Like you rightly say, there is a certain optimum, a point at which raising taxes further would in fact impede freedom. The point of debate is where this optimum lies.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Sure, if people really want low taxes and low freedom, who am I to say they shouldn't? I'm just saying it will produce a less prosperous society.

[b]But to pretend that wealth redistribution doesn't impact freedom doesn't make sense.

Like you rightly say, there is a certain optimum, a point at which raising taxes further would in fact impede freedom. The point of debate is where this optimum lies.[/b]

We basically agree then. Although, I'm sure we don't agree on where that line should be drawn.


This is a minor nitpick, but I think the first dollar of taxes impedes freedom. It's just that some level of impeding freedom is simply necessary for society's interests as a whole.

Originally posted by sh76
We basically agree then. Although, I'm sure we don't agree on where that line should be drawn.


This is a minor nitpick, but I think the first dollar of taxes impedes freedom. It's just that some level of impeding freedom is simply necessary for society's interests as a whole.

Yes - I just think access to health care and education for all is in the interests of society and adds to freedom.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
In what sense am I dependent on my government? They're not making me do anything I don't want to do.

Anyways, government is in fact much more efficient than civil society. Proof: the USA.

[b]The simple question on liberty is who should be free to choose how to spend your money?

So your definition of freedom is that shallow. I define ...[text shortened]... abwe? Dictatorships have nothing to do with my position, stop bringing up that straw man.[/b]

I said nothing about rich or poor. Class and wealth have nothing to do with liberty. Evey man ought to be free to keep the product of his labor, and use it according to his will, not the dictates of either a dictator, an oligarchy, or an elected legislature.

"Anyways, government is in fact much more efficient than civil society. Proof: the USA."

This proves nothing. If anything 'civil society' and capitalism outperformed all of the oligarchies of the past and Marxism of the present.

I keep bringing up Zimbabwe because Robert Mugabe promised the same utopian stuff every socialist/Marxist does, and he just happened to fail most rapidly than the others.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Sure, if people really want low taxes and low freedom, who am I to say they shouldn't? I'm just saying it will produce a less prosperous society.

[b]But to pretend that wealth redistribution doesn't impact freedom doesn't make sense.

Like you rightly say, there is a certain optimum, a point at which raising taxes further would in fact impede freedom. The point of debate is where this optimum lies.[/b]

Are you arguing that a society can tax its way to prosperity?

Please, I want to see how this works?

Originally posted by sh76
We basically agree then. Although, I'm sure we don't agree on where that line should be drawn.


This is a minor nitpick, but I think the first dollar of taxes impedes freedom. It's just that some level of impeding freedom is simply necessary for society's interests as a whole.

"This is a minor nitpick, but I think the first dollar of taxes impedes freedom. It's just that some level of impeding freedom is simply necessary for society's interests as a whole."

Not minor, but really the nub of the matter. Some government is required. Anarchy is chaotic, and individual rights fall prey to the predatory. As Jefferson wrote in the DOI, governments are formed to protect liberty.

You are absolutely correct that the "first dollar of taxes impedes freedom", and that also applies as well to legislative limitations. As government and taxation grow liberty is impaired somewhat exponentially.

Jefferson wrote, I believe rightly, "The government which governs least governs best." When factions arise among the people, and are able to take via government the productive labor of others the economic position of the taker, and the taken from are irrelavent. Government becomes the agent of one group against another.

The philosophy which permits this is collectivism. The language of the collectivist is tricky, for he defines freedom as a lack of responsibility, as opposed to the liberty to deal with responsibility by any legal means, and the necessity to do so. For the collectivist/Statist, freedom is not worrying about education, unemployment, retirement, health care, because government has "freed" you of that responsibility. This works well as long as someone else's freedom is confiscated to improve yours. Socialism/collectivism is liberating until it is your money and liberty that is being taken.

Originally posted by normbenign
"This is a minor nitpick, but I think the first dollar of taxes impedes freedom. It's just that some level of impeding freedom is simply necessary for society's interests as a whole."

Not minor, but really the nub of the matter. Some government is required. Anarchy is chaotic, and individual rights fall prey to the predatory. As Jefferson wrote in t ...[text shortened]... sm/collectivism is liberating until it is your money and liberty that is being taken.

You know what really impedes freedom?

Death from starvation and/or treatable illnesses.

Originally posted by normbenign
The language of the collectivist is tricky, for he defines freedom as a lack of responsibility, as opposed to the liberty to deal with responsibility by any legal means, and the necessity to do so. For the collectivist/Statist, freedom is not worrying about education, unemployment, retirement, health care, because government has "freed" you of that responsibility.

That impeccably American artist Norman Rockwell painted the "Four Freedoms" - Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Worship, Freedom from Want, and Freedom From Fear. Two negative rights, two positive rights. Of course Rockwell was drawing on a speech by Franklin Roosevelt, who I don't imagine is the most popular figure with all the libertarians on this site. But I think most developed modern societies have tended to agree that there needs to be a balance between positive and negative rights.

In response to normbenign's distinction between freedom as "liberty" to deal with problems" and "lack of responsibility", the position adopted by old-fashioned liberals and by social democrats (less ideologically loaded terms than "collectivists" ) is based in a simple, rational acknowledgement of the fact that, in reality, people are not 100% responsible for their own success and failure in life. Chance events, starting from the accident of birth into a rich or poor or happy or unhappy family, continuing through the many lucky breaks or unlucky accidents which shape human experience, are substantially responsible for ultimate outcomes. That's the fact which makes liberalism and social democracy rational responses to the conditions of human existence; while libertarianism is based on a beguiling philosophical error.

Originally posted by normbenign
Some government is required. Anarchy is chaotic, and individual rights fall prey to the predatory. As Jefferson wrote in the DOI, governments are formed to protect liberty... Jefferson wrote, I believe rightly, "The government which governs least governs best."

So if "some government is required", then it becomes a matter of debate as to how much. The government that governs least might be underperforming, even by libertarian standards, if it's insufficiently zealous is establishing mechanisms to protect individual rights. Of course, those of us who think the function of government is to protect individuals from the vicissitudes of chance will want a government that governs somewhat more.

Originally posted by Teinosuke
So if "some government is required", then it becomes a matter of debate as to how much. The government that governs least might be underperforming, even by libertarian standards, if it's insufficiently zealous is establishing mechanisms to protect individual rights. Of course, those of us who think the function of government is to protect individuals from the vicissitudes of chance will want a government that governs somewhat more.

In a free society you are free to join what ever collective you like i.e. the free health care collective or the free education collective, just that you would not be able to force those ideals on others. There is no such thing as positive and negative rights, a 'right' is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others. This can never be defined as either 'positive' or 'negative'.

Originally posted by Wajoma
In a free society you are free to join what ever collective you like i.e. the free health care collective or the free education collective, just that you would not be able to force those ideals on others. There is no such thing as positive and negative rights, a 'right' is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others. This can never be defined as either 'positive' or 'negative'.

That's one definition of a right, albeit a politically loaded one designed to support a particular set of ideals. You know, of course, very well what the philosophical distinction is between positive and negative rights, and it's curious to argue that there's "no such thing" as a philosophical distinction - the distinction exists in though, although you could argue that you disagree with the distinction and wouldn't want it practically applied.

I would want to argue, hopefully with less political bias, that a right is simply something that is legally or constitutionally guaranteed. So in the United States, one has the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights and Constitution. in Europe, one has those rights set down according to the different constitutions or to legislation in the various member status, and according to European law. In Cuba, one has the right to free health care, education and housing, but not to freedom of speech.

This definition of a right is politically neutral, practical and usable. It dispenses with fantasies about "natural rights" - nature gives us none; rights are creations of human beings, codified by law. We can then proceed to argue about what rights it's desirable to have constitutionally and legally guaranteed.

Originally posted by Teinosuke
That's one definition of a right, albeit a politically loaded one designed to support a particular set of ideals. You know, of course, very well what the philosophical distinction is between positive and negative rights, and it's curious to argue that there's "no such thing" as a philosophical distinction - the distinction exists in though, although you co ...[text shortened]... argue about what rights it's desirable to have constitutionally and legally guaranteed.

It is the only possible definition.

We've been over it a hundred times here at RHP but I don't mind doing it again because it's easy and I'm lazy.

Health care can never be a defined a right (as one example of a so called positive right, or is it negative, or then again maybe a neutral right)

I invite you to offer a definition of the "health care right". Who get's it, on what basis, and by what right someones ability to care for themselves in a way that they choose is to be limited so as that health care can be directed to another who has been reckless with their own health.

So one argument against these positive/negative/alternating current rights is that they are indefinable, therefore, as mentiones in my previous post, it is 'impossible' to define a right in such a way.

Originally posted by Wajoma
It is the only possible definition.

We've been over it a hundred times here at RHP but I don't mind doing it again because it's easy and I'm lazy.

Health care can never be a defined a right (as one example of a so called positive right, or is it negative, or then again maybe a neutral right)

I invite you to offer a definition of the "health care ri ...[text shortened]... , as mentiones in my previous post, it is 'impossible' to define a right in such a way.

As I said, my definition of a right is, anything that is constitutionally or legally guaranteed. There are literally thousands of possible rights that could be so guaranteed, but until they are so guaranteed, they are not rights. Once they are so guaranteed, they become rights.

Here's one possible definition of the right to health care. Everyone gets it, whenever they are ill, for whatever reason. The morally acceptable and indeed the practically necessary level of taxation is whatever is sufficient to guarantee this right to all.

Here's another possible definition. Life-threatening conditions only are covered by the right to health care. It is expected that citizens provide for the cure or treatment of less severe conditions from their own pockets. The acceptable tax pressure is the smaller one needed to guarantee this right to those who need it.

Here's another possible definition. Those who have enough money to cover, in full or in part, the costs of their own treatment, do so. Those who don't, receive government subsidy from tax revenue - which again would be somewhat smaller.

Here's a fourth possibility. Health care is available for free to those who suffer illness through no fault of their own. Those who have behaved "recklessly" - to use your word - have to pay. Again, tax pressure would then be somewhat smaller.

My point is that none of these definitions are absolute, but all of them are plausible and defineable, and all of them can be codified in law. If there's ambiguity, then one needs further clarification; ie, if in a society governed according to my second definition the question should arise as to what degree of illness constitutes "life-threatening", then a new provision is introduced to clarify the matter. Once it's codified, it becomes a right.

In other words, all possible rights are definable, if one works hard enough to define them, and the mere clarity and elegance of the libertarian definition of rights does not suffice to prove that it's either the only possible definition, or the most desireable. Realistically, all rights exist only in so far as they are enforceable, and the enforcer is always the state, since only the state can be sure of having the power to defend the individual against his fellow citizens. So if you happen to live in a country which strongly respects the individual citizen's right to own property, you are as much in debt to the state as if you live in a country which guarantees you the right to health care and education.

Incidentally, I find it distasteful that your defence of libertarian values in conducted by emotively evoking to the injustice of directing healthcare to "another who has been reckless with their own health". You can't possibly believe that the only people who fall ill are people who have brought it upon themselves. If we rephrase the relevant sentence so that it reads "someone's ability to care for themselves is to be limited so as to direct health care to another who, through no fault of his or her own, has fallen ill", then we might be approaching the reality of the situation.