What Is The Limit to Personal Freedom?

[Jimmy]

A few of you have used the word responsibility. I do not disagree, but I would chose the word consequences. As I look at the world the way it stands today, I would conclude that human beings have a great deal of difficulty understanding the consequences of their actions, the consequences of their personal freedoms.

Consider this:

1. We are currently in a mass extinction of species that will be equal to the great mass extinctions of the past when all is said and done.

2. The population has doubled in one lifetime for the first time ever. It will soon double twice in one lifetime. That of course is also for the first time. Short of massive catastrophes, there is no sign of any great abatement.

3. Wealthier nations are living unsustainable lifestyles. That means we cannot go on forever living like that, yet we do continue to live that way with very little regard for the future.

4. Climate change threatens the very existence of life on the planet. Humans are responsible for the rapid rate of change that we are currently facing. Yet they have elected people in America who call climate change a hoax. And they are more concerned with gratification today than with protecting the earth for tomorrow.

Personal freedom is looking more and more to me like a wonderful failure.

[[deleted user]]

Why wonderful? We may not survive but the world will in one form or another. If the dinosaurs disappeared in a short time frame, maybe that will be our "fate."

Another form of "black plague" may be right around the corner. Climate change threatens some species more than others. I wonder how the plants will eventually adapt to all the extra carbon dioxide in the air.

I guess the limit to personal freedom is the death of the human race.

[Everyman]

Jimmy wrote: "Climate change threatens the very existence of life on the planet. "

I agree with several of the points in your post, and am equally concerned with the global population explosion (though I have no idea what we can do about it other than wait for nature to take care of itself with its usual responses of famines and plagues).

But this statement about global warming threatening the very existence of life on the planet I cannot agree with. It may threaten a few of the current forms of life, and may make certain areas of the globe less easily habitable by humans, but the planet has gone through much greater changes than even the most dire predictions of global warming envision, and life has gone on. The earth naturally cycles between warm and cold periods -- where I life was once under hundreds or thousands of feet of ice, and if we hadn't had global warming then, many of the cities in the US and elsewhere in the world wouldn't exist. (I point out that when I grew up in the 1960s and 1970s the popular scientific press was filled with dire warnings of the coming ice age. Oops!)

As lovers of philosophy, we should also be lovers of truth. It is irresponsible, completely unjustified statements like the above that make it so difficult to discuss this significant issue in a way consistent with the fundamental dictate of philosophy, which is to follow truth wherever it takes us, and no further.

The globe may indeed be warming (though there are studies that show that over the past few years it has actually been cooling, the arrival of a strong La Nina in the South Pacific shows that cooling of the ocean is still part of the natural processes, and if the Indonesian volcanoes keep erupting as some expect they will have a considerable cooling effect). But even assuming that global warming is happening, and that it will be as bad as the worst predictions, it is simply silly to say things like life may come to an end, the planet will be destroyed, and other hyperbolic dire predictions. Yes, there will be disruptions to life as we know it, though whether or not on the scale of, say, the "Black Death" is hard to know. Yes, some parts of the globe will become less friendly to human habitation (and others will become more so). Those are all fair to say. But statements like it "threatens the very existence of life on the planet," or headlines such as "Death of a Planet" need to be rejected out of hand by any who, as we here are supposed to be, are lovers of truth.

BTW, I do agree with the statement made that "Wealthier nations are living unsustainable lifestyles." Not that I intend to change my lifestyle significantly in the few years remaining to me. But I regret that I am unlikely to be able to pass this lifestyle on to my grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

[Everyman]

Glen wrote: "Why wonderful? We may not survive but the world will in one form or another. If the dinosaurs disappeared in a short time frame, maybe that will be our "fate."

Another form of "black plague" ma..."

I should have read your reply before writing mine. You are absolutely right, both the world and life will survive anything we can do to it (even all out nuclear war; studies have shown that there are species which will survive even that, though humans may not, or may only in pockets of people reverting to the hunter-gatherer lifestyle which was the human lifestyle less than a blink of an eye in the past in global time).

[R.a.]

> 2° rise in the oceans and well . . . you know . . . after the "domino effect," we won't have to worry about any life on the planet. So, to focus on humans is, well, absurd . . .

I have no doubt we haven't any 'free will,' here. Humans will do . . . what they do . . .

[Everyman]

R.a. wrote: "> 2° rise in the oceans and well . . . you know . . . after the "domino effect," we won't have to worry about any life on the planet. "

Happened to run across part of the History (I think, maybe it was Discovery channel, I was eating lunch at the time and not paying too much attention) series The Universe, and they were talking about the development of life in the early period of the planet. At that time, a) there was no oxygen, and b) the temperatures wee much, much higher than they are today, yet life emerged. There is a form of microbe which likes high temperatures and extreme carbon dioxide and methane, which is what the planet had early on. So life is not only capable of existing, but of coming into existence under such conditions. The microbes learned to take in carbon dioxide and exude oxygen, which is what created the oxygen atmosphere in which we eventually developed.

They also mentioned that the thermal pools in Yellowstone park were for a long time thought to be sterile, but it was discovered that they in fact teeming with life (teeming was their word). So this form of life would be quite happy with oceans that were many, many degrees warmer than they are now.

Then there are the forms of life down at the thermal vents in the bottom of the ocean floor who again live in temperatures vastly higher than any in today's oceans.

Bottom line is that life can adapt to pretty much anything this planet is likely to go through no matter what we do to it. (Oil spills? They kill some life, but other life forms come in who find the oil spills a delightful form of nutrition. Nuclear radiation? Even at levels hundreds of times doses that are fatal to humans, there are insects which could care less.)

The idea that anything we could do could destroy life on the planet is incredibly huberistic. We don't begin to have such power, even if we were to try.

[R.a.]

Everyman wrote: ". . .The idea that anything we could do could destroy life on the planet is incredibly huberistic. We don't begin to have such power, even if we were to try."

Hmmmm. Well yes. Check. Microbes. Protozoa, etc.

Yet, should we take Gaia's resiliency for granted—or as a constant? Shouldn't we try to seek balance? Not only for ourselves but for other creatures/living beings?

A distinction: "Life" vs. "All life."

All life: As above—protozoa, small pox, etc. The whole 'stew.'

Class: Some Life, i.e., all the many and diverse 'higher ordered' multi-cellular organisms with which we are acquainted.

With regard to the latter, we most certainly can destroy whole types of life on the planet.

—the many under the Hiroshima bomb;
—whole 'classes' of individuals—with Nazi Germany;
—small pox (or, at least it was believed until the discovery);
—a species of tiger, at present.

Ye ole "life finds a way ..." comes to pass—yes.

Yet, shouldn't we aim higher? This becomes a moral philosophical question which will evoke ultimately this question regarding personal freedom.

[Tyler]

Well, in regard to global warming, here's a question: Do we in the present owe anything to future generations?

Or, to put it another way, do people who aren't born yet put restrictions on our personal liberty in the present?

[R.a.]

Absolutely.

Reasoning: Humans seem to be unique (or at least one of the few creatures of the planet) in the ability to project / point into a (long-term) future.

Just that ability yields limit—even if only psychologically.

[Everyman]

Tyler wrote: "Well, in regard to global warming, here's a question: Do we in the present owe anything to future generations?

Or, to put it another way, do people who aren't born yet put restrictions on our ..."

That's an excellent question. Emotionally, the answer has always been yes for most people; most people want to give their children good lives.

But philosophically, is there any logical reason to think this? Is there any logical reason, any Spock reason, to limit ourselves for the sake of others who can't benefit us?

In the present, we give up some personal freedoms for the sake of what we think of as a better or more secure life for ourselves -- I give up the freedom to conk you over the head in exchange either for you not conking me over the head, or others standing in for me and punishing you if you try. But that's giving up some freedom for some benefit for me. That makes sense. But does it make sense for me to give up some freedom so that somebody who won't even be born by the time I die can have a better life??

[Everyman]

R.a. wrote: "Yet, shouldn't we aim higher? This becomes a moral philosophical question which will evoke ultimately this question regarding personal freedom. "

That expands the discussion beyond what I originally responded to, which was the declarative statement that "Climate change threatens the very existence of life on the planet." I held then, and hold now, that this is utter nonsense.

Your question is a quite different one.

[R.a.]

Hi Everyman,

What can I say?

I think I conceded earlier the point regarding the all inclusive class . . .

Oh well . . .

[Tyler]

Hi Everyman --

But philosophically, is there any logical reason to think this? Is there any logical reason, any Spock reason, to limit ourselves for the sake of others who can't benefit us? [...] does it make sense for me to give up some freedom so that somebody who won't even be born by the time I die can have a better life??

Exactly, and several problems get in the way of trying to do the right thing. It's hard enough for people to see a duty to other people even in the present.

Plus, the long-term nature of global warming allows lots of rationalization and genuine confusion. Will it really be that bad? Even if it is, the biggest contributor to the problem is people, and the obvious response would be to impose birth control world-wide by way of a long-term solution.

But birth control is controversial in the contries that are adding population fastest, so we look to technology and international conventions to do the trick. But what's more practical for the time being, the development of space reflectors that can shield us from a fraction of the sun's energy or pressure on developing countries to limit popluation?

I think political pressure will work faster than scientific advances, but what's missing now is the political will to raise the issue of overpopulation as a cause of climate change.

[R.a.]

A slightly different track: Is 'peak oil' a 'fever' as well?

Have I been misinformed?

[Tyler]

Here is a letter to Science magazine concerning the status of global warming, written by members of the U.S. Academy of Sciences:

http://www.pacinst.org/climate/climat...



As to the "peak oil" concern a few years ago, that went away temporarily due to decrease in demand since the last recession began. But as far as I know, we still are in or approaching a peak oil period.

Even if that's so, the economic system is adaptive and will find ways to adapt or work around the problem. Things that look like crises for one generation often give way to advancing technology or changes in behavior by the next generation.

Patrice points out that something is amiss in the idea of humans having "sinned" against nature, the earth or whatever, or having somehow overreached with respect to the environment. Perhaps pundits who express their concern this way should consider the effects of their language.

But even taking language into account, the long-term degradation of the environment by human activity persists in different ways and leads to philosophical problems. One of them is whether we have an obligation to future generations. Everyman says the logic beholding us to future people we don't know doesn't hold up: future persons cannot limit our freedoms now.

Then there's government, whose interests are more objective because it (ideally) acts on behalf of everyone collectively. If a government sees an obligation, it can act over the long term, either with respect to oil supplies, CO2 emissions or any other problem.

Now the question is whether governments can impose regulations (that limit activity in some way) in the present for some future benefit. Although no logic obligates me in the present to some person X in the future, a government can and does do that in my place. The question now is under what circumstances a government can act to limit the actions of individuals.

[Everyman]

There is a broad question of whether, assuming it is actually the case that by reducing my lifestyle (turning down my heat, driving less or driving a smaller and less comfortable car, etc.) I will be improving life for others, I have any moral obligation to do so.

But that's a broad question. Here's the narrower application of the same question. You are dining in a fancy restaurant. You see the delicious hot bread in the bread basket and reach for another piece which you will enjoy but don't need. As you reach, you see outside the window a child who is clearly underfed and would benefit much more from eating this bread and butter than you would. Do you eat the bread, or do you take it out to the child to eat? Isn't that really the same moral question?

[Everyman]

Patrice wrote: "I think the real question is not if it's moral for you to give what you have away. But is it moral for you to go to the next person's table and take their bread to give to the child?

I think the..."

I put the question badly. Is there a moral obligation to take the bread out to the child? If you remain at your table and either eat the bread or let it be taken back to the kitchen uneaten, leaving the child hungry when you could easily have fed at at no cost to yourself and only minimal inconvenience, are you acting immorally?

[R.a.]

"I think we just know, in our guts (literally) what we have to do in the situation."

Ahhh. Thumos! —> Homer. Yes!

[Tyler]

Hi Everyman --

Do you eat the bread, or do you take it out to the child to eat? Isn't that really the same moral question?

I think it's two questions. To ask what you personally would do is different from asking what your government should do.

Individual action is often ineffective compared to a government's acting. There quickly comes a point where, no matter how charitable you are, you and those who share your attitudes cannot solve the problem. In a case like that, only government action will work.

Also, government action is one step removed from the moral or virtuous actions normally associated with individual acts. It is collective action, ideally on behalf of the citizens it represents. This difference makes it trickier to decide what your government, as opposed to you yourself, ought to do.

So when you act individually, defending what you do is a straightforward matter of personal values. But when you demand that the government act, the collective nature of the enterprise means that your reasons for the demand require a more objective justification.

[Tyler]

Hi Patrice --

"I think the real question is not if it's moral for you to give what you have away. But is it moral for you to go to the next person's table and take their bread to give to the child?

"I think there is also sometimes an assumption that it's a zero sum game. I don't think so. With the right incentives there can be enough for everyone. More is more. The real enemy is "want" not "surplus


All government action redistributes wealth somehow. If you add incentives, you're telling the government to redistribute taxes in such-and-such a way, just as if it had set up a welfare scheme.

I'll agree that economic development hasn't been a zero-sum game for awhile. But the degree of poverty remains fairly constant, so the extra wealth isn't going to alleviate it. Why this is the case can only be the topic of a thread on economics, but we don't have that thread yet.

But it's clear that with the policies governments pursue in an environment of global capitalism, no amount of added wealth will reduce poverty past a certain point. Why not? Your statement makes perfect sense: Eventually there should be enough wealth to go around.

The government clearly acts on behalf of some segments of society, but not all. This, I think, is why trickle-down has been frustrated. The question, then, is what philosophical stance a government might act from to act on behalf of everyone, not just particular interest groups. The more immediate question is whether a government must act on behalf of all its citizens in the first place.

[Tyler]

Hi Patrice --

I'm not sure that "all government action redistributes wealth somehow". Certainly that should not be the goal.
I believe "redistributing wealth" is a nice way of saying "stealing".

I would be hard-pressed to think of any government activity, especially spending, that doesn't redistribute wealth from one segment of society to another.

To think of that as stealing is a good way infuriate taxpayers, but simply calling it that it doesn't actually change what governments do. If nobody saw a need to somehow redistribute wealth, we could indeed do nicely without government. But almost everyone along the entire political spectrum has something they want government to do -- everything from welfare for the poor to financial favors for banks and breaks for big business.

[[deleted user]]

In my liftime, the USA wealthy have a larger part of the pie than when I was young. I'm now 65. It is sort of a paradox as government initially protected the interests of the class owning property. With the increased affluence of USA and Canada in the 1950's, many more working class people became land owners. What I see in USA, in particular, is the reduction in the size of the middle class.

The government protects me from "bad guys" taking my house or my money because they have more physical or financial power than I have. The function of goverment is not to redistribute income but to ensure that the citizen is not completely dominated by vested interests of powerful people. Otherwise,the whole economy could be controlled by international corporations who do not necessarily have any moral obligation to the country or the people of a country. Greed combined with power corrupts.

To some extent the government still protects the wealthy people who can live anywhere in the world. On the other hand, social engineering doesn't work. Allowing people who could not afford home ownership to be given mortgages has created a financial mess in USA. Unfortunately the average tax payer rather than the rich paid the biggest price. They do not have tax shelters in the one of the tax havens of the world.

The Canada Pension Plan is self supporting (they figure it will be viable for the next 75 years without increases in contributions). It woulld not exist if it was not for government. They are considering increasing the amount of annual contributions by the individual to allow people with no private pension plan to conribute more. The fund is invested in equities as well as more secure forms of income production. It is not a redistribution of income but allows individuals to have a pension plan that is very diversified and properly managed. That is a positive government program. We have other programs that do not work so well but we still have the situation of more wealth in fewer hands. It's just not as obvious as we have a larger social net.

I think USA has a unique problem all previous world powers had. How do you stay the police man of the world without the military causing less funds being availabe for domestic functions?

[[deleted user]]

It makes you wonder about private pension plans. My personal pension plan is also about 70% equities and therefore I put my other investments in safer income production and assets. We did not have the serious housing bubble in Canada because our banks were much more conservative because of government regulations. The plan is large enough that it did not have to sell equities at low prices although there were some losses.

It's odd that we are more socialistic than the USA and less so than Europe but are more conservative in banking and financial markets. They figure over half the stock in the Dow Jones is owned by pension plans. So much for a the traditional capitalists controlling the stock market.

The Canada Pension Plan is a success story which did not get any press in the other Western democracies. The government allowed the plan to invest more closely to other private corporations. It proved a smart move.

However ,we have our own socialistic ideas about provinces versus provinces. Many Americans would wonder about some parts of our constitution. We have equalization payments among the provinces to ensure no province falls too far behind. The "have" provinces through federal income tax give some to the "have not" provinces. The working mechanism can be controversial. To change it would require changes to the constitution. No easy matter. It sometimes creates odd situations. After two terms of a NDP (socialist) government, British Columbia became a have not province with Vancouver still having the highest real estate prices in the country. After a few years of a Liberal (actually a coalition of conservatives and liberals) govt. we are again a "have" province. Because of the more socialistic Quebec they are a "have not" province which annoys the other provinces but thats politics. In my opinions,it is a significant reason why Quebec is still in Canada. Personally, I think it is a useful policy for psychological, economic, and political reasons. It is a method of comparing one provinces performace over another one. It is also a way of assessing the performance of any specific provincial government. British Columbian's were embarrassed to become a "have not" province with our size and advantages. On the other hand,for the first time ever Newfoundland has become a "have" province because of oil and hydro power. It was a large lift for the people of the province. Saskatchewan has also become a "have" province" in the last few years. For the first time in history Ontario became a "have not" province. It was a "wakeup call" to the most powerful province in the country. The program to some extent ensures that one part of the country cannot dominate the the country's agenda.

I'm somewhat off topic but it's difficult for a Canadian to understand how Americans can feel their individualism is being threatened when they live in the counrty with probably the least government control of the western democracies. Your idea of liberalism is completely different from that of Canada.

[Tyler]

Hi Glen --

... it's difficult for a Canadian to understand how Americans can feel their individualism is being threatened when they live in the counrty with probably the least government control of the western democracies.

I think our media has a lot to do with it. Cut on any radio or tv program, and that seems to be the message you get in one way or another.

If there's anything to the perceived threat to freedom, I think it has indirectly to do with the relative absence of government here, not its presence. But that's a little off-topic.

Your idea of liberalism is completely different from that of Canada.

Glen, if I remember this correctly from discussions with other Canadians, we actually do use the word differently. Here it has to do with politics, and in Canada it has more to do with economics. Does that sound right?

[Tyler]

Hi Patrice --

I think paying for the government to defend us, build roads, etc. is not the same as "redistributing wealth". If I am poor or rich and want your money, it is not government's obligation to "steal" it from one to give to the other.

You're saying the idea that "Taxation is theft" is sound. But if that's true, the money is stolen, no matter whether the government spends it on something you like or not.

In the case of road-building, the government redistributes the wealth from taxpayers to the companies that build the roads. The people who benefit from the free use of the roads are not necessarily the ones who paid for them. Not all taxpayers drive cars, for example. Everything the government does will redistribute wealth somehow.

Even if that weren't the case, the government, according to the idea that "Taxes are theft," is still using stolen money. When I first heard it said that all taxation is theft, I also thought it was a compelling idea. But I don't know how anyone can consistently maintain that position.

[[deleted user]]

Basically liberalism to me is "individual liberty", "democratic representative government", and "free markets". I think Americans and Canadians would agree so far. Both countries also have mixed economies (private and govenment).

In the 1960's we had a minority Liberal government under Lester Pearson. The NDP (democratic socialist) party held the balance of power. The left wing forces in the Liberal party were strong. That is when medicare, Canada Pension Plan, and better funding for education came in. When USA was dealing with their civil rights issues and the Vietnam war, Canada was making significant changes in the balance between private and public functions.

It was basically a more socialistic liberalism. We never had a Joseph McCarthy who scared Americans against any form of socialism. Democratic socialism is not communism. Trudeau, who followed Pearson, admired Scandinavian policies, and did not agree with Ronald Reagan or M. Thatcher economic theories. No economic theory explained stagflation. The country became more like Europe in economic policies.

Premier Tommy Douglas in Saskatchewan introduced medicare provincially for economic as well as social reasons. His experiment with a million people worked (after physician strikes , etc) and the nation followed.

Health care in our country is a mixed economy (e.g. private community pharmacies) but unfortunately there were few limitations of what would be covered in hospitals which are funded by government. What techinally can be done will be done with no consideration of ethics or cost. Politicians all over the world do not know how to tell the public their expectations are way out of line. Medicare was brought in to prevent an illness from financially destroying an individual. Our system will become more private at the production end but not at the insurance or regulatory end. Economics is the biggest driver of the system. USA spend a great deal more and does not cover the people as well. You have the best but you also have more at the other end. Life expectancy and other indicators point to that.

I will give you an example why Canadians are not afraid of social programs. They will try them if they don't work they will get rid of them. We have had only three (about 12 years) of a socialist governemnt in B.C. since I could vote and I'm 65. In 1972, the first socialist government introduced the Insurance Corporation of B.C. for automobile insurance. Not perfect but much easier to settle car claims and overall much less cost to the consumer. In fact the drive safe progarm etc comes out of the corporations profit. All the other government's of the last forty years have tried to get rid of it but can't do it because it will cost the average consumer more money. The last government had another committee ( I'm not sure how many we've had) headed by one of their own and came to the same conclusion.

It can happen in reverse. We had the British Columbia railway which was publicly funded to connect the northeast of the province with the southwest. It took years to build but never made any money. No private railway would touch it because it was too long (about 800 miles). Only a small part of the centre of the line made any money. The federal government was having the same problem with the Canadian National Railway. Too many miles across northern Ontario (a thousand miles) with little freight. The line couldn't be built without government at the turn of the 20th century. They sold the railway to private interests (American I think) and they connected it to New Orleans. They now have a line from northern B.C. which is much closer to Asia that goes all the way to the southern states and the east coast. Because the line is so big (one of the biggest in N.A.) they bought the B.C. rail from our governement as a second route connecting Vancouver to the rest of the continent. They only could be built with the help of public funding but it took private enterprise to see and develop the potential.of the lines.

We have more government regulations and intrusion into the market economy because we often lack economy of scale or to ensure essential industries to our well being are kept in Canadian hands. E.G. telecummunications related to military and other essential domestic indutries.

It a nutshell , we have a more social liberalism than USA, partially created by the economics of a small country in a huge body. The Liberal party has been in federal power most of the 20th century.

I hope that answered your question. Sorry it's so long.

[[deleted user]]

Tyler - I forgot the BCR went to Fort Nelson and had a couple of spurlines making over 1400 miles of main line. Also private automobile insurance is available in B.C. but there are very few takers.

[Everyman]

Tyler wrote: "
I would be hard-pressed to think of any government activity, especially spending, that doesn't redistribute wealth from one segment of society to another. "

I think it depends on how you define redistribute.

The common usage, I think, is to take money from one person or group and give it to another person or group to spend as they choose. Food stamps are a classic example.

But many government activities are not of this type. I think, for example, of fire departments. Yes, they do in one sense redistribute tax dollars to firemen, but that isn't the general usage of redistribution, any more than when I buy a computer at Best Buy I am considered to be engaging in redistributing my money to Best Buy employees, Lenovo employees and shareholders, etc.

In one sense, any economic activity is redistribution of income. But that makes term essentially meaningless, or at least useless.

I don't consider the criminal court system to be redistributing income. Nor the police. Nor the border patrol. Nor road and bridge maintenance. Nor New York City's construction of a new water tunnel.

Do you consider these to be redistributive activities by your definition or usage of the term?

[Everyman]

Tyler wrote: "The people who benefit from the free use of the roads are not necessarily the ones who paid for them. Not all taxpayers drive cars, for example. "

No. But virtually everyone benefits from the road if they eat any food at all that was brought to them by road, if they get any mail, if they buy any computers or clothing. Almost everything a modern American consumes was brought to them at some point by road. Surely you can consider that a benefit, even if they don't actually drive themselves?

[Tyler]

Hi Everyman --

In one sense, any economic activity is redistribution of income. But that makes term essentially meaningless...

I agree. That's why talk of redistributing wealth boils down to rhetoric for a conservative audience. It sounds great, just like Patrice's "Taxation is theft," but it's a trivial statement.



I don't consider the criminal court system to be redistributing income. Nor the police. Nor the border patrol. Nor road and bridge maintenance. Nor New York City's construction of a new water tunnel. Do you consider these to be redistributive activities by your definition or usage of the term?

Yes, I do. Money is going from one place to another in each case. But this just shows why the statement is trivial. We can't pick and choose government activites we like and call them one thing, and the ones we don't like something else. That would make the application of the concept inconsistent.


Almost everything a modern American consumes was brought to them at some point by road.Surely you can consider that a benefit, even if they don't actually drive themselves?

Sure it's a benefit. But that doesn't mean the benefit is distributed fairly, or that the taxes were collected fairly.

[Everyman]

Tyler wrote: "Hi Everyman --

In one sense, any economic activity is redistribution of income. But that makes term essentially meaningless...

I agree. That's why talk of redistributing wealth boils down to ..."

Well, I don't think it's a trivial statement, just one that needs clarification.

When I buy a book, I am redistributing wealth, BUT I am doing it as a matter of personal choice. When government takes my money to do it, it's not a matter of choice, but of compulsion (backed up ultimately by guns and prisons, Mao was right in the end).

When government takes my money to build a road, it is at least being used for an ostensibly general public benefit. I may not benefit from the road personally, though as I noted in most cases I do because eventually some good I want to buy will travel over to that road to a store where I can buy it, but I can certainly use it if I want to, and it will be used by a significant number of people. That is a form of redistribution of wealth, but not the sort that the term as used by both conservatives and liberals, the former generally condemning, the latter generally praising.

When government takes my money to give directly to another person where there is no public benefit, and where I cannot use the money or anything it buys, that is another form of redistribution of wealth. It is directly moving it from my pocket to another individual's pocket without my having any option (as I do with the purchase of a book) and without having any right to benefit from the use the money is put to (as I do from the building of a road).

This is a very different form of redistribution than the former two, and it is the one implied by almost all users of the phrase "redistribution of wealth."

Of course, you know all this, but let's be sure we lay it out so we're all aware that your suggestion that the term is trivial because it applies to any economic activity at all quite intentionally distorts the implied meaning that virtually all users of the term intend.

Whether one thinks that sort of redistribution is good or bad is, of course, a different question. But at least we should be clear what we're talking about.

[Tyler]

Hi Everyman --

... let's be sure we lay it out so we're all aware that your suggestion that the term is trivial because it applies to any economic activity at all quite intentionally distorts the implied meaning that virtually all users of the term intend.

You cannot say that I'm intentionally distorting the issue without explaining how you know what I'm thinking. You're supposing my intent from the idea that "virtually all users" of the term intend it a certain other way, and anyone who disagrees is distorting the concept.

But my point concerns consistency. People cannot, as I pointed out, twist a concept to their personal leanings, no matter how many other people agree. The definition of the concept is independent of popular vote. It remains that all spending redistributes wealth somehow. There is no way to avoid that fact. The only thing to do is to argue from it.

In light of that, your argument then follows that there are impersonal ways of spending government money that benefit you, and which you support, and other ways that benefit particular individuals, ways which you don't support. Your objection is that you don't benefit from the latter type of spending.

Your argument depends upon a distinction between the two kinds of spending, but I don't see how the distinction can be justified. Government spending is by definition for the public good, not private benefit. I can think of categories of spending I'd consider suspect myself, but the public good is independent of my wishes.

Even if we look at it more impersonally, it's not at all clear that welfare spending doesn't benefit you, even if the money goes to particular individuals. Further, it has to be considered that we are all citizens, and that even the neediest among us has a moral claim to government assistance as long as the individual is the basis of a political system.

Any objection to social spending appears inconsistent in the absence of objections to corporate subsidies. I would be interested in hearing a theory that justifies a wealth redistribution of 2.4 trillion dollars to banks that contribute nothing to economic growth or social progress, while arguing over other programs that do at least circulate money directly into the national economy.

[Everyman]

Tyler wrote: "Hi Everyman --

...You cannot say that I'm intentionally distorting the issue without explaining how you know what I'm thinking. "

Fair enough. I was basing my comments in part on your saying "I would be hard-pressed to think of any government activity, especially spending, that doesn't redistribute wealth from one segment of society to another" [post 179] and "In the case of road-building, the government redistributes the wealth from taxpayers to the companies that build the roads" [post 185].

I don't think you'll find Patrice or any of the political thinkers who use the term "redistributing wealth" to be intending to include spending on roads, defense, border security, etc. That's the basis on which I contended that when you take her phrase (and that of many conservative politicians) complaining about government redistribution of wealth and apply it to road building and essentially any other government activity, I think you were intentionally distorting the issue she was intending to raise.

I may have misconstrued your position, but it's fair of you to have asked me to explain, so there's the explanation.

[Everyman]

Tyler wrote: "It remains that all spending redistributes wealth somehow."

As I noted before, this is technically true. But I hope you can agree that it is not the way that Patrice or others who complain about the evil of government redistribution of wealth are talking about.

For example, in theory, if you start with the most liberal person in America as your baseline, all of us are by comparison right winters, and if start with the most conservative, all of us are left wingers. So depending on where you stand, it can be justifiable to say that all of us are both left wingers and right wingers. But that's not the way the terms are commonly understood.

[Tyler]

Hi Everyman --

As you point out, a political sliding scale can justify any definition. Yet a “commonly understood” definition won’t get around that problem. Let’s say --

P1. Redistribution of wealth means government transfers to individuals.
P2. Government transfers to individuals are evil.
===
C.>>Therefore, redistribution of wealth is evil.

There is no way to refute this because the reasoning is circular. The conclusion C is embedded in the premises. The argument itself is valid, but it is unsound.. The same circularity would occur no matter what our politics. If we take the liberal notion of redistribution of wealth as meaning the transfer of wealth from the middle to the upper class, that argument would be equally unsound. It preaches to the choir. But don’t we want arguments to convince people who don’t already agree?

To say that all government spending redistributes wealth speaks to the reasoning itself, not the politics of the people involved. The all-inclusiveness is neutral, the broadest construal of the idea of redistribution. As such, it subsumes whatever liberals or conservatives can say about wealth transfer, without itself falling anywhere along the political spectrum.

A more persuasive argument is possible. So what I’m saying is that, if some people think government welfare payments are wrong, the inclusive definition would put their argument on a sound basis. An argument would be stronger if it avoids trying to restrict the concept of redistribution of wealth and concentrates instead on distinguishing among different kinds of wealth transfers.

Thus, when I said that the fact that all government activity redistributes wealth was trivial, it was the neutrality of this concept that I should have emphasized. It would not be a trivial definition by any means if it were employed in conjunction with propositions that evaluate the worth of various kinds of wealth transfers in order to build an argument against welfare payments.

[Everyman]

Tyler wrote: "Hi Everyman --

As you point out, a political sliding scale can justify any definition. Yet a “commonly understood” definition won’t get around that problem. Let’s say --

P1. Redistribution o..."

I don't agree that it's circular. The first is simply a definition. Here's how I'm using this term. The second is an opinion that a certain thing is bad. It may be a tautology, but it's a fine syllogism:

A = B (Redistribution of Wealth = Government redistributing wealth from haves to have nots)
B = C (Government redistributing wealth from haves to have nots is evil)
Therefore A = C (Redistribution of wealth is evil)

Nothing illogical about that.

[Tyler]

Structured that way, would would it take to disprove that argument?

[Rob the Obscure]

Tyler wrote: "Structured that way, would would it take to disprove that argument?"

You can't disprove the argument, because the argument is not based on anything objectively verifiable. Rather, it is based on a value judgment in the form of an opinion. Epistemologically, the argument is both incontrovertible and also of little use (for that very reason).

Someone thinks that moving money from the rich to the poor is a bad thing. Well, so what? Someone else thinks its a good thing. Well, so what?

To "disprove" the argument you would have to convert the syllogism (not to mention increase the sophistication) with reference to something verifiable, e.g. build in an economic premise, founded on actual a posteriori results, and then measure the results against the argument.

I can tell you, following Russell's "teapot", that I believe the universe was created by an intelligent spirit in the form of a celestial golden retriever. (Note - "Dog" is simply "God" in reverse.) I can make that argument and provide reasons why I believe it is so. Moreover,my position on the matter is incontrovertible, and simultaneously, useless.

[Tyler]

The fact that the argument isn't falisfiable is evidence that it's circular, due to the nature of the definition. But this I don't understand:


Moreover,my position on the matter is incontrovertible, and simultaneously, useless.

Why would you be satisfied with your position if you could improve it? While I'm open to your idea on the matter, I don't think a value judgment is mere opinion unless it's detached from contingent reality.


To "disprove" the argument you would have to convert the syllogism (not to mention increase the sophistication) with reference to something verifiable

Then why not do that? This is what accepting that all (as opposed to certain kinds of) government spending redistributes wealth does. That is a statement of fact, not an opinion.

[Rob the Obscure]

Tyler wrote: "The fact that the argument isn't falisfiable is evidence that it's circular, due to the nature of the definition. But this I don't understand:


Moreover,my position on the matter is incontrove..."

Actually, I don't think so. I agree that "circular" arguments are not falsifiable because they assume the premise in their conclusion. However, I don't think that is exactly what is going on in this argument...I agree with Everyman on that count.

IN this case, as I was trying to say, the argument is not falsiable because, by its nature, it can't be tested. There is nothing to test but personal viewpoint on value, which is inherently subjective (see Zen and The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance). That lack of anything objectively testable is what makes the argument unfalsifiable - not the fact that it is begging the question.

I don't understand your question above: Why would you be satisfied with your position if you could improve it? Who said I was satisfied? I merely said that my position on the celestial golden retriever as the creator of the universe was incontrovertible...I also said it was useless. It is useless precisely because it can't be verified, and therefore will never be anything other than a personal viewpoint regarding the creation of the universe. A value judgement that can not be verified is detached from reality. My position on the golden retriever could indeed be improved upon - it could relate to something objective! It can be improved upon greatly...but it can not be disproved.

To "disprove" the argument you would have to convert the syllogism (not to mention increase the sophistication) with reference to something verifiable

Then why not do that? This is what accepting that all (as opposed to certain kinds of) government spending redistributes wealth does. That is a statement of fact, not an opinion.

Here, here! I completely agree. And I suggest doing just that before any more debate, so that the debate could be meaningful. To this point, because of what I explained above, it can't be meaningful.

To do that conversion, one would have to lay out the characteristics that make redistribution of wealth a good thing, operationally define them (CRITICAL step), and then devise and agree on a plan for measurement and then analysis.

[Tyler]

Hi Robert --

Who said I was satisfied?

Sorry, I confused your remarks there with Everyman's. I'll answer in another post.

[Tyler]

Hi Robert --

You and Everyman are saying that a definition cannot make the argument circular. I'm saying that a definition used as a premise does. Am I mistaken about the status of definitions that appear as premises? I either haven't seen or have overlooked any protocol saying definitions used this way don't count toward an assessment of the overall argument.

I said in post 195 that I thought the syllogism was valid but unsound. If it's actually sound, then the restricted definition used in it would be true, and any other definition of redistribution false. But I don't think that's what Everyman is claiming, and that's why I suggested a definition that subsumes any category indifferently.

There cannot be more than one true definition. If the restricted definition is true, the syllogism would be both valid and sound. It would stand in no need of further evidence. The truth of the definition would be evidence enough. That is what I dispute.


There is nothing to test but personal viewpoint on value, which is inherently subjective

I don't precisely agree, not because there aren't a multiplicity of personal views, but because some views might have an objective basis.


A value judgement that can not be verified is detached from reality.

I agree, but I don't yet know how Everyman verifies his moral judgments -- that is, by reference to what criteria.

And I suggest doing just that before any more debate, so that the debate could be meaningful. To this point, because of what I explained above, it can't be meaningful.

I made a similar point in post 195. Again, I'm not sure what Everyman's position on the various definitions is, so I don't want to put words in his mouth.

[Everyman]

Robert wrote: "Tyler wrote: "Structured that way, would would it take to disprove that argument?"

You can't disprove the argument, because the argument is not based on anything objectively verifiable. Rather..."

Entirely correct. But the fact that one of the terms of the syllogism is based on opinion doesn't invalidate it as a logical syllogism.

[Rob the Obscure]

Tyler wrote: "Hi Robert --

You and Everyman are saying that a definition cannot make the argument circular. I'm saying that a definition used as a premise does. Am I mistaken about the status of definitions ..."

Good point...let me clarify. I agree that the argument is guilty of the logical fallacy of petitio principii. As you say, technically the definition of this fallacy in logic is when the proposition to be proven is assumed in the premise...and that is what is going on here. The proposition to be proven in this case is that the redistribution of wealth is a bad thing. To set up the argument to define government transfers as redistribution, then in P2 to just opine that these transfers are evil, and then conclude syllogistically by saying that government transfers are evil, is a circular argument. I agree.

My point was really this: the core reason that the argument is unsound goes beyond the fact that it is circular reasoning. For me, the most important reason it is unsound is because it is not a useful argument. It is not a useful argument because it can not be verified or falsified. That to me is the most important problem with it...just like my celestial golden retriever argument.

I approach most problems that way, and from that epistemological foundation. If there is no way to falsify an argument based on objective criteria, then it may be intellectually interesting but it is of little use.

[Tyler]

Hi Everyman --

Entirely correct. But the fact that one of the terms of the syllogism is based on opinion doesn't invalidate it as a logical syllogism.

Saying that gets us to Robert's ending point:

Someone thinks that moving money from the rich to the poor is a bad thing. Well, so what? Someone else thinks its a good thing. Well, so what?

I've already said such an argument is valid, if that's what you mean by logical. But it remains unsound. It is viciously circular unless there's some reason independent of bare assertion to think that the restricted definition of wealth redistribution is the true one.

I'm surprised you would be content to rest the argument on an unsound footing which could easily be fixed, unless you subscribe to some form of moral nihilism. But I don't know what your starting principles are for moral reasoning, so my lack of understanding makes it hard to say much more than I already have.

[Tyler]

Hi Robert --

For me, the most important reason it is unsound is because it is not a useful argument.

As it stands, it's a rationalization rather than a reason. As such, it doesn't convince people who don't already accept a specially tailored definition of wealth redistribution. It won't be of use in that respect.

[Rob the Obscure]

Tyler wrote: "As it stands, it's a rationalization rather than a reason. As such, it doesn't convince people who don't already accept a specially tailored definition of wealth redistribution. It won't be of use in that respect."

How does that syllogism amount to a "rationalization"? I don't really see how it rationalizes anything. It simply states an opinion.

[Tyler]

Hi Robert --

It rationalizes if one tries to extrapolate anything from it, or so it appears to me.

[Rob the Obscure]

Tyler wrote: "Hi Robert --

It rationalizes if one tries to extrapolate anything from it, or so it appears to me."

ra·tion·al·ize/ˈraSHənlˌīz/Verb
1. Attempt to explain or justify (one's own or another's behavior or attitude) with logical, plausible reasons

Are we on the same page, my friend? (smile)

[Tyler]

I've been thinking lately of how common expressions in English might convert to something more logical. Commonly, if you tell someone "You're rationalizing", you mean they're reaching somehow. So I thought maybe that usage would convert to something like unsoundness in argumentation.

That contrasts with the common usage of "That begs the question ...", by which people ordinarily mean that leads to a further question. People don't mean anything logical even though that started out as a principle of argumentation.

Anyhow, the dictionary definition is correct, and the other usage might be thought of as secondary, or slang.