Re: A Short Review of *Hard Heads, Soft Hearts*
--- david friedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "My point was that, while the first cause, considered alone, leads to the conventional conclusion that we can increase utility by transferring from rich to poor, the second leads to the opposite conclusion." Oh, okay. My bad. Sorry about that. -jsh __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: A Short Review of *Hard Heads, Soft Hearts*
--- david friedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "My point is that moral worthiness isn't being predicated of the newborn infant or fertilized ovum but of the adult that it turned into. Whatever the reasons are that I am cruel and dishonest, cruel and dishonest people deserve to have bad things happen to them. That, at least, is a moral intuition that many people find convincing." Well put. I'm not an existentialist, but I do agree to at least some extent that we make our own moral choices. My point is merely that, since some of who we become is the product of things outside of our control, even hard-hearted* policies should have a soft edge. -jsh *I don't like the term "hard-hearted." It reminds me of PETA: c'mon! Is anybody really for the UNethical treatment of animals? Or do we just have different standards of ethical? __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: A Short Review of *Hard Heads, Soft Hearts*
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: "'As Machiavelli pointed out, no one is willing to admit the debt that they incure to those who choose option #1. -jsh' What debt is that?" Exactly. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: Bottle Deposits
john hull wrote: > I have nothing economic to offer, but only the > observation that the effects of having bottle deposits > have been striking. I recall as a kid that litter in > the form of bottles and cans was ubiquitous, now > returnable are rarely seen as litter. Bottles that > don't have deposits associated with them, such as > bottled water, I see not infrequently on the ground. In California, I have no idea where to turn my bottles in. (Haven't noticed whether the distribution of litter has changed; the deposit law came in two or three years after I moved here.) Where are you? -- Anton Sherwood, http://www.ogre.nu/
Re: A Short Review of *Hard Heads, Soft Hearts*
In a message dated 12/2/02 4:03:15 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << --- Alypius Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "But what if this ugly guy isn't rich--oh! You mean pecuniary benefits taken from *other* people--purely through voluntary donations of course. After all, you consider force to be (morally?) "bad." I'm just looking for some consistency here." That's funny. I'm assuming that I don't really need to justify why I feel there is a difference between taxation & sexual slavery. -jsh >> Actually it would be interesting to hear someone delinate a clear distinction between taxation on money and taxation in kind.
Re: A Short Review of *Hard Heads, Soft Hearts*
In a message dated 12/2/02 3:58:43 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << --- Grey Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "(1)you can choose to be homeless, take no jobs nor responsibility, and peacefully beg from others who, "if it's voluntary", can give to you (or not) with no moral problems. (This includes living with parents or other loved ones, from whom receipt of resources isn't quite begging from strangers.) (2) You can become a thief, and take other's property by force/ fraud/ in secret -- illegally, until you get caught & punished." As Machiavelli pointed out, no one is willing to admit the debt that they incure to those who choose option #1. -jsh >> What debt is that? Perhaps I can start begging as a way of increasing my contribution to society. DBL
Re: A Short Review of *Hard Heads, Soft Hearts*
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
Re: A Short Review of *Hard Heads, Soft Hearts*
--- david friedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "Suppose we instead assume that everyone has the same ability to convert leisure into income" I'm not disputing the logic. The assumption does seem awfully unrealistic. So does the assumption needed to make the more conventional version of the argument rigorous--that people all have the same ability to convert income into utility (i.e. the same utility function). Presumably, differences in income reflect in part differences in ability to convert leisure into income, in part differences in ability to convert income into utility. My point was that, while the first cause, considered alone, leads to the conventional conclusion that we can increase utility by transferring from rich to poor, the second leads to the opposite conclusion. -- David Friedman Professor of Law Santa Clara University [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
Re: A Short Review of *Hard Heads, Soft Hearts*
jsh writes In the first quoted paragraph, you say that at least some of what determines how well a person can contribute is associated with luck and forces beyond that person's control. In the second, you imply that these outcomes of chance are analogous to a small bet between two consenting adults. I don't see the analogy. The fall of the coin is the result of "luck and forces beyond that person's control." That demonstrates that, in at least some cases, we consider such outcomes relevant to what someone is entitled to get. To say that the person one becomes determines what this person deserves is reasonable, but not as an absolute. The person one becomes is a product of myriad factors, many of which are outside said person's control. Suppose that a person is born into a family of Philistines--truly ignorant buffons and semi-literate at best. Odds are that this person will not enjoy the same fruits as a more-or-less identical person born into a family of doctors, judges, and industrialists. To say that the first person deserves less and the latter more smacks of punishing a child for the crimes of a parent. It certainly doesn't sound like like consenting adults making a small bet on the flip of a coin. I agree that the person one becomes is a result of factors at least some of which, arguably all of which, are outside of one's control. My point is that moral worthiness isn't being predicated of the newborn infant or fertilized ovum but of the adult that it turned into. Whatever the reasons are that I am cruel and dishonest, cruel and dishonest people deserve to have bad things happen to them. That, at least, is a moral intuition that many people find convincing. -- David Friedman Professor of Law Santa Clara University [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
Re: A Short Review of *Hard Heads, Soft Hearts*
>> --- david friedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> "Suppose we instead assume that everyone has the same >> ability to convert leisure into income" > > The assumption does seem awfully unrealistic. > -jsh It has its limitations, but workers are quite able to control their amount of leisure on several margins: 1) the numbers of hours worked, for those with the option of overtime or else simply doing more work for the same pay, or shifting to part-time work. 2) having, or not, a second, third, etc., job, including consulting. 3) using sick leave 4) retiring earlier or later 5) being, or not, a second or third family member with a job 6) moving closer to work and spending less time commuting 7) spending more time and resources to reduce taxation (less leisure, more income) 8) students postponing their first employment to indulge in travel or graduate school. Fred Foldvary = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A Short Review of *Hard Heads, Soft Hearts*
--- david friedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "One strong moral intuition, although not the only one, is that you deserve what you create--that people who make a large contribution to the society deserve a large reward. How large a contribution you make depends on a variety of factors, none of which the hypothetical disembodied identity that represents you stripped of all genetic and environmental characteristics "deserves" to have, some of which are characteristics of that identity with genetics added, some of that with genetics and environment added, and some pure luck. ... If you find this way of thinking of it entirely implausible, consider Nozick's example of two men, each of whom is entitled to is current assets by whatever the morally correct rule may be, who bet a dollar on the flip of a coin. Nobody will say that one of them deserved to win the bet. Yet most of us would say that the one who wins the bet is entitled to have the dollar. And if the previous distribution was just, and just distributions cannot depend on morally irrelevant criteria such as luck, that means that we have just approved a move away from a just distribution." In the first quoted paragraph, you say that at least some of what determines how well a person can contribute is associated with luck and forces beyond that person's control. In the second, you imply that these outcomes of chance are analogous to a small bet between two consenting adults. I don't see the analogy. To say that the person one becomes determines what this person deserves is reasonable, but not as an absolute. The person one becomes is a product of myriad factors, many of which are outside said person's control. Suppose that a person is born into a family of Philistines--truly ignorant buffons and semi-literate at best. Odds are that this person will not enjoy the same fruits as a more-or-less identical person born into a family of doctors, judges, and industrialists. To say that the first person deserves less and the latter more smacks of punishing a child for the crimes of a parent. It certainly doesn't sound like like consenting adults making a small bet on the flip of a coin. -jsh = "...for no one admits that he incurs an obligation to another merely because that other has done him no wrong." -Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy, Discourse 16. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: A Short Review of *Hard Heads, Soft Hearts*
--- john hull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > why this preoccupation with wealth / income? One reason is that income can buy other things. For example, beauty is unequally distributed, but much of beauty is created rather than natural; the wealth can afford better hair stylists, have plastic surgery, avoid physically risky occupations, etc. With more money, the poor can bathe, get haircuts, wear better clothes, etc., and look better. Even love is better with money; one can go out more often, get better dates, etc. Money is also more easily redistributed than physical attributes. Moreover, government does try to reduce the benefits of better talent and better ability by taxing it so that it is less rewarding. Fred Foldvary = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A Short Review of *Hard Heads, Soft Hearts*
--- david friedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "Suppose we instead assume that everyone has the same ability to convert leisure into income" I'm not disputing the logic. The assumption does seem awfully unrealistic. All zygotes are created equal, except the ones with the wrong number of chromosones (oh, and maybe not some with nasty genetic predispositions), but the family one comes into along with a host of factors beyond one's control do play a role in affecting who one becomes, including the ability to convert leisure into income. -jsh __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: A Short Review of *Hard Heads, Soft Hearts*
--- Jacob W Braestrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "'John Hull wrote:...' Assuming you are not just joking, this implies that things such as "ability to atract mates" should be taken into account when redistributing income today." Mostly joking. I was more concerned with the idea that forcing marriage on people was the only way to level the playing field for mates. It does seem that fincanial security & luxury goods really can "sweeten the deal," at least for some people. That's not to say that such a program would be practical. However, ugly people do get shafted in life. If that could be reasonably accounted for as a component in a redistribution scheme that met the approval of the polity, then I probably wouldn't oppose it. "...it would be unfair to take money from a rich, ugly man (or woman)..." They'd just pay less in taxes than a rich, beautiful person. -jsh __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: A Short Review of *Hard Heads, Soft Hearts*
--- Alypius Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "But what if this ugly guy isn't rich--oh! You mean pecuniary benefits taken from *other* people--purely through voluntary donations of course. After all, you consider force to be (morally?) "bad." I'm just looking for some consistency here." That's funny. I'm assuming that I don't really need to justify why I feel there is a difference between taxation & sexual slavery. -jsh > > > > John Hull wrote: > > > > --- Jacob W Braestrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "Would we ever say: "Uhhh, this guy is ugly and no > > good, bad mannered and ill tempered - but, it's no > > fault of his own, and he REALLY doesn't enjoy the > > competition for sexual partner forced upon him by > > society, so why don't we just force this beautiful > > girl to have sex with him"" > > > > Um, no. Force would be bad. You could sweeten > the > > deal for her, however, using perhaps pecuinary > > benefits to level the field. > > But what if this ugly guy isn't rich--oh! You mean > pecuniary benefits taken > from *other* people--purely through voluntary > donations of course. After > all, you consider force to be (morally?) "bad." > I'm just looking for some > consistency here. > > But what happens if there aren't enough people who > are willing to donate? > > ~Alypius Skinner > > __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
RE: A Short Review of *Hard Heads, Soft Hearts*
--- Grey Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "(1)you can choose to be homeless, take no jobs nor responsibility, and peacefully beg from others who, "if it's voluntary", can give to you (or not) with no moral problems. (This includes living with parents or other loved ones, from whom receipt of resources isn't quite begging from strangers.) (2) You can become a thief, and take other's property by force/ fraud/ in secret -- illegally, until you get caught & punished." As Machiavelli pointed out, no one is willing to admit the debt that they incure to those who choose option #1. -jsh = "...for no one admits that he incurs an obligation to another merely because that other has done him no wrong." -Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy, Discourse 16. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: A Short Review of *Hard Heads, Soft Hearts*
--- Jacob W Braestrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "My point with the example is this: when there are so many things in life that are blatantly "unfairly" (if you believe in equality) distributed among us, [1]why this preoccupation with wealth / income - [2]especially when it is conceeded that effeorts to redistribute existing income / wealth will inevitably reduce future income / wealth." 1: My guess: Because wealth & income are relatively easy to measure objectively, as opposed to "mate satisfaction." So it is an easy proxy. It seems to be a fairly good one, too, since money is a numeraire good. 2: Does the logic/math of the 2nd Fund. Welfare Thm. imply that lump-sum redistribution, so that a more "favorable" market outcome obtains, necessarily lowers output? Optimization is still a calculus problem after all. -jsh __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: A Short Review of *Hard Heads, Soft Hearts*
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
Off Topic
I won't be replying to anyone for a while, because my twin boys were born on Saturday! For the whole story, go to: http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/caplantwins.htm -- Prof. Bryan Caplan Department of Economics George Mason University http://www.bcaplan.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] "He wrote a letter, but did not post it because he felt that no one would have understood what he wanted to say, and besides it was not necessary that anyone but himself should understand it." Leo Tolstoy, *The Cossacks*
Re: A Short Review of *Hard Heads, Soft Hearts*
--- Alypius Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.< > ~Alypius Skinner If this is indeed obvious, please provide the explanation, because the obviousness is not evident to me. > For example, when the bloated west Roman state collapsed in western > Europe, the life of the average peasant probably improved, but trade also > collapsed, which made society in the aggregate poorer. If the vast majority of the population were peasants, and their lives improved on average, how could society be poorer? Fred Foldvary = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
