In a message dated 12/2/02 2:10:37 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << Alypius Skinner wrote
So the real > question is whether the optimal balance would be one of no public > redistribution or some public redistribution. If there were no public > redistribution, there would be no need for a state, yet if a state did not > exist, one would soon emerge because the stateless society would be so > obviously suboptimal for an economy beyond the level of the hunter gatherer. [...] I would > certainly argue that the current level of public redistribution is above the > optimum rather than below it--probably well above. But I would not argue > that the optimum is zero public redistribution. > > Of course, this question of whether we should have an inherently > redistributionist public sector is a different question than whether the > public sector should micromanage the private sector. > But this argument does not sound like "striking a balance between compassion for our fellow man and maintaining the incentives for temptation-prone people" as you first put it. But more like finding the optimal balance for the sake of our own self interest - however narrowly defined. Either way, I still cannot the logical argumnet why striking this balance is done more optimal using force, than voluntarily [btw: I do not disagree that something resembling states as we know them will emerge from a stateless society - but I do disagree that they necessarily must be based on cohersion - this I believe follows directly from your argument that some form of state is in everybodys (save very few) self interest]. - jacob braestrup - jacob >> Yes, it strikes me as odd that anyone would seek to measure my compassion by my willingness to use the government's monopoly (or in the American case, quasi-monopoly) on the legitimized use of force to transfer income earned by Jacob and Alypius to some third party. While there may be perfectly non-redistributive means of funding that monopoly, inadvertantly redistributing a tiny fraction of incomes by funding a tiny government with minimal taxes differs profoundly from using large, deliberately redistributive taxes to fund massive, deliberately redistributive social welfare and corporate protectionist programs. David Levenstam
