I don’t find find this argument all too compelling. Who pays for the government’s ability to protect the wealthy? In absence of a government, why wouldn’t the wealthy pay someone else to protect their wealth?
That said I completely agree with the last sentence and I think taxation is very reasonable. Deciding that taxation is theft and therefore always wrong, is after all the worst argument in the world.
I don’t mean to argue for libertarianism, but I do want advocates of socialism to be mindful of how they plan to enforce it.
We all pay for the government’s ability to protect the wealthy by yielding to the government its monopoly on the legitimate use of force. In a “state of nature” most of those with the skills or luck to accumulate wealth would either enjoy it fleetingly or pay significantly higher costs for its retention than taxes under governments. If a system of law and order enables the lucky to be so much better off regarding their wealth, it strikes me as quite fair that the unlucky should share in the benefits of society as well.
I understand we may not be as far apart on policy, but this is why I bristle at the “necessary evil” framing of taxation.
We all pay for a government to ensure internal safety in general, from which everyone benefits. Everyone benefits from general safety and having these conditions to determine in a non-violent way who succeeds and who doesn’t.
And being wealthy is a good thing! “The wealthy” should never be the enemy. Many wealthy people have contributed so much value to their society that rational people would vote on how much to pay them for their contribution; their current wealth is precisely what they should get, given what they contributed. The only problematic wealth is the one that was achieved by unlawful means (in which you don’t need redistribution but law enforcement and taking back money that wasn’t acquired in a way anyone would agree with!). And who should be thought as the outgroup are rent-seekers independent of their current wealth.
I agree. I do not view the wealthy in general as an “enemy.”
I agree that the accumulation of wealth often corresponds with the production of social value. It is interesting that you bring up the issue of rent-seeking as a problem but not that a lot of “rent-seeking” is perfectly legal and is often a component of accumulation of wealth even where part of it would be attributable to socially valuable production.
For instance, I am an attorney who (among other matters) litigates personal injuries and worker’s compensation claims. There is a component of general social value that is produced through my activity: aiding in the resolution of disputes and serving as a helpful piece of a functioning legal system. However, there is also a “rent-seeking” component of my job, I am looking to transfer wealth or prevent the transferring of wealth from an opponent to my client. The degree of my compensation, or the ability of me to accumulate wealth, corresponds more strongly to my rent-seeking ability than that of my ability to generate general social value (because I am paid by my clients on the basis of being able to resolve disputes on more favorable terms for them, not by the judicial system generally). Thus, in relation to my social value created, I (or rather, the firm that I work for) is likely overcompensated. The same is true in many other extremely lucrative industries, such as finance.
I don’t find find this argument all too compelling. Who pays for the government’s ability to protect the wealthy? In absence of a government, why wouldn’t the wealthy pay someone else to protect their wealth?
That said I completely agree with the last sentence and I think taxation is very reasonable. Deciding that taxation is theft and therefore always wrong, is after all the worst argument in the world.
I don’t mean to argue for libertarianism, but I do want advocates of socialism to be mindful of how they plan to enforce it.
We all pay for the government’s ability to protect the wealthy by yielding to the government its monopoly on the legitimate use of force. In a “state of nature” most of those with the skills or luck to accumulate wealth would either enjoy it fleetingly or pay significantly higher costs for its retention than taxes under governments. If a system of law and order enables the lucky to be so much better off regarding their wealth, it strikes me as quite fair that the unlucky should share in the benefits of society as well.
I understand we may not be as far apart on policy, but this is why I bristle at the “necessary evil” framing of taxation.
We all pay for a government to ensure internal safety in general, from which everyone benefits. Everyone benefits from general safety and having these conditions to determine in a non-violent way who succeeds and who doesn’t.
And being wealthy is a good thing! “The wealthy” should never be the enemy. Many wealthy people have contributed so much value to their society that rational people would vote on how much to pay them for their contribution; their current wealth is precisely what they should get, given what they contributed.
The only problematic wealth is the one that was achieved by unlawful means (in which you don’t need redistribution but law enforcement and taking back money that wasn’t acquired in a way anyone would agree with!).
And who should be thought as the outgroup are rent-seekers independent of their current wealth.
https://preview.redd.it/miemgnhsvut71.jpg?auto=webp&s=f1588d524f52635e41ce99110bb71bdb94d02a1e
I agree. I do not view the wealthy in general as an “enemy.”
I agree that the accumulation of wealth often corresponds with the production of social value. It is interesting that you bring up the issue of rent-seeking as a problem but not that a lot of “rent-seeking” is perfectly legal and is often a component of accumulation of wealth even where part of it would be attributable to socially valuable production.
For instance, I am an attorney who (among other matters) litigates personal injuries and worker’s compensation claims. There is a component of general social value that is produced through my activity: aiding in the resolution of disputes and serving as a helpful piece of a functioning legal system. However, there is also a “rent-seeking” component of my job, I am looking to transfer wealth or prevent the transferring of wealth from an opponent to my client. The degree of my compensation, or the ability of me to accumulate wealth, corresponds more strongly to my rent-seeking ability than that of my ability to generate general social value (because I am paid by my clients on the basis of being able to resolve disputes on more favorable terms for them, not by the judicial system generally). Thus, in relation to my social value created, I (or rather, the firm that I work for) is likely overcompensated. The same is true in many other extremely lucrative industries, such as finance.