Taxation and conscription

Of course, conscription is not just a bugaboo for libertarians. See Bryan Caplan’s “Distributive Justice in a Pure Service Economy” (http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/service) for the thought experiment.

“Only anarcho-capitalists believe in zero taxes, but they wouldn’t require conscription because they don’t believe in having any kind of state military.”

David Friedman can find situations where he would be for a draft, and he is an anarcho-capitalist.

[i]For example, we might make a contract saying “If Bill paints John’s house by June 15, John pays Bill $1000 (wage). If Bill doesn’t paint John’s house by June 15, Bill pays John $2000 (penalty).” Nowhere in this “complete” contract does it say that John has a right to Bill’s labour, just Bill’s property.

So property is different from labour; one you can contract away, one you can’t. This isn’t terribly controversial, is it? More complicated, sure, but not controversial.[/i]

Forgive me for being the class dunce, but I don’t understand how this works for services.

What property is Bill exchanging with John? Paint, yes, but that’s not sufficient. If he just gives John an unopened tin of paint, he’s not going to get paid.

And what about a more intangible service like answering the telephone? What property is being exchanged there?

I understand and agree with the prohibition on specific performance as a remedy for breach of contract. But that doesn’t mean that labour isn’t being exchanged if Bill paints John’s house – it is.

Right but Bill (Carone)’s point in that illustration, if I understood it correctly, was that nothing in the contract obliges Bill to perform any labor — it simply obliges him to pay a penalty in property, if the labor is not performed. It is difficult to imagine a contract which did oblige one party to perform labor — unless the “penalty” section of the contract was to put the contractor into some kind of forced servitude.

Robin, sorry that I was unclear.

You are right; “exchange of property rights” is incorrect; I will in future say “transfer of property rights,” allowing for the one-way transfers that do occur in service contracts (perhaps a legal theory type could talk about consideration at this point).

In this theory of contract, a contract specifies property rights (a.k.a. title) to be exchanged or transferred according to states of the world.

– If Bill paints the house, Bill gets title to $1000 in John’s bank account.
– If Bill doesn’t paint the house, John gets title to $2000 in Bill’s bank account.

That is all the contract says.

You can’t write a contract that gives John title to Bill’s labour, only Bill’s property. Therefore, this theory of contract seems to indicate a significant difference between the two.

“But that doesn’t mean that labour isn’t being exchanged if Bill paints John’s house – it is.”

That isn’t what the contract is saying, and it isn’t what anyone agreed to. In no way does John get title to Bill’s labor (in this theory of contract). It is illustrative to think of exchanging property for labor, but that isn’t really what happens.

Am I making more sense?

Jeremy,

“unless the “penalty” section of the contract was to put the contractor into some kind of forced servitude.”

This theory of contract, as I understand it, only allows transfer of title, which does not include forced servitude. It could include e.g. the right to all income earned over, say, $10,000 for the rest of your life, which would be similar to forced servitude in some ways, different in others.

John,

Sorry I misinterpreted your post; I read it as claiming more than it did. I worry that people will get the wrong idea about libertarian arguments.

While Bill Carone may be correct that current US contract law will not enforce claims on labor, I suspect that in the past and internationally contracts have enforced claims on labor. Seaman’s articles, for example. And of course, there is disagreement among libertarians about whether such contracts should be enforceable in libertaria, where you well might have “voluntary” slavery contracts.

The basic reason Nozickian libertarianism can be ignored by most people is that we accept that rights are human creations: legal fictions. That’s one of the important lessons of the legal realists of the early 20th century. Thus, we create the rights we prefer. When presented with the real-world problem of taxation versus conscription, the answer lies in what we prefer rather than some apriori mumbo jumbo.

If you want to see how wierd libertarianism is, check out my
Critiques Of Libertarianism
http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html

“The basic reason Nozickian libertarianism can be ignored by most people is that we accept that rights are human creations: legal fictions. That’s one of the important lessons of the legal realists of the early 20th century.”

Wow. One of the most important lessons of the legal realists was a complete repudiation of the Declaration of Independence?

“since most libertarians envisage a minimal state with no real taxing powers but a continuing responsibility for defence”

Most libertarians of the minarchist variety envisage a state that does have real taxing powers, but extremely limited latitude in what it is permitted to use those taxes for. Taxes for defense is kosher; taxes for giving free money to people is not.

But most libertarians of whatever variety will agree that taxing people to pay other people to fight is vastly preferable to forcing people to fight.

Whoops: I meant legal positivism, not legal realism.

Bill: David Friedman’s response is well written, but not well thought out. One day I’ll have to post my response. As for torturing children, many parents think it’s their right. Belief in invisible rights is like belief in souls (as far as I’m concerned) and that explains why people disagree about what they actually are.

Ken: you need look no farther than the US Constitution for “repudiation” of the Declaration Of Independence: it is a philosophically austere document that doesn’t invoke invisible deities or rights. Indeed, it in no way grants the DOI any legal validity.

Mike,

“David Friedman’s response is well written, but not well thought out.”

I would suggest people read both and come to their own conclusions; Mike may be a little biased :-). Neither are that long or that hard to read.

I find Friedman’s response quite persuasive, and I find Friedman’s writing quite a bit more “well thought out” that Mike’s on their respective websites.

“As for torturing children, many parents think it’s their right.”

But most people disagree (especially for my particularly gruesome description of what I meant by “torture”). Again, there are good arguments for your position, but don’t pretend that “most people” agree with it, and therefore they don’t need to consider libertarianism.

In fact, most people disagree with your position, and therefore you can be safely “ignored by most people”, according to your own argument, right?

Bill Carone: It seems to me that your point about service versus property in the case of legal action is true, but vacuous. I cannot think of a case where a court would order someone to perform services, in your painter example, or my recording artist example. The few exceptions, such as requiring people to close a contracted sale do not contradict your point, either, as they do not involve performance of anything other than a ministerial (another semi-technical legal term) service.

As to conscription, I think it is yet another example of the libertarian goal of distancing themselves from the rest of the public, in a typical fit of solipsism.

My remark about the badly-written Ayn Rand books was apparently clear.

Mike,

“it’s small wonder that many libertarians find it persuasive.”

I’m not a libertarian; it’s a hobby. Most anti-libertarians I read didn’t seem to actually understand or address the strongest of libertarian arguments; like you, they restrict themselves to the weaker arguments, then say that nobody should listen to any of them. This is false and deceptive.

If you are going to argue against something, you should argue against the strongest possible form it can take.

Now your FAQ states up front that it isn’t trying to make good arguments, just give debating tips; rhetoric is apparently more important than substance.

But once you start saying things like “you don’t need to understand or even think about the arguments on the other side” you need more substance.

“A turning stomach does not indicate natural rights.”

I know. As I said twice before, there are arguments for the position that “gruesomely torturing children isn’t really wrong; it’s just an arbitrary fiction.”

You seemed to claim that most people agreed with claims like that, therefore they can ignore libertarian arguments rather than spend time thinking about what is wrong with them. Your premise is false, so your argument is invalid; do you disagree?

“First, he tries to dictate his preferred meaning of utopian, so that my usage would be wrong.”

What is your definition of utopian? Impractical? Impossibly ideal? Very remote in some sense? These are what I get from a dictionary.

You state that libertarianism is utopian because it hasn’t happened. I can’t think of a definition of “utopian” that makes your statement both (1) valid, and (2) useful.

If you simply mean “utopian” as “hasn’t happened yet,” then your statement is valid, but useless (and deceptive for people who use dictionary definitions for “utopia”). It doesn’t add anything to the argument, unless deception is your purpose.

If it means any of my above suggestions, then it is invalid; the fact that something hasn’t happened doesn’t mean it is impossibly ideal or impractical, or even remote (Friedman’s point).

“Second, when I claim that government is the foremost defender of our rights, he trots out a number of favorite libertarian factoids, but nowhere identifies an alternative foremost defender.”

1) Yes he does; he says private law enforcement has been “foremost” in two particular time periods, and has done better in those times that government systems do in our time (18th century England, Saga Iceland).

Your claim that he “nowhere identifies an alternative foremost defender” is therefore false, even if you don’t believe England or Iceland are valid examples.

2) The “libertarian factoids” (ah, framing :-) show the damage government does alongside the defense; Friedman probably is trying to argue that to be a foremost defender of rights, you should probably not violate more than you defend.

For example, do you think that slaveowners are the foremost defenders of their slaves rights? After all, although they violate many more rights than they protect, no one else protects any of the slaves’ rights at all.

A suggestion: If you don’t have time to completely respond to Friedman’s response, perhaps you could put a partial response on your website, so the discussion between you two can continue.

Mike,

“Bill, I’m not going to debate here extensively,”

Fair enough. I do hope you write a response to Friedman, even if it is only a partial response due to time constraints.

“Of course no libertarian would support conscription.”

Again, David Friedman would support conscription under particular circumstances. I linked to him above.

“So it is hard to see how his attempt to engage in an intellectual debate consitute ‘propaganda’.”

I don’t understand this either; when I attempted to show the invalidity of Mike’s arguments, he said I was propagandizing for the libertarians. Given that I am not a libertarian (and wasn’t making arguments for libertarianism, just showing where his arguments went wrong), I found it quite puzzling.

Mike,

“And why wouldn’t that definition apply to libertarians or sympathizers of their views?”

It doesn’t apply to me; I am neither. I know too much to be convinced by simple libertarian arguments, and I know too little to engage the complicated ones. So I have to remain pretty much unaligned.

Throughout this whole discussion, I have argued that, although you have said many things that may be true, you are also saying many false, invalid, useless, and confusing things:

1) Most people believe in legal positivism – false (torturing children example).

2) Most people can ignore Nozickian libertarianism because most people believe in legal positivism – invalid (false premise).

3) David Friedman never provided an alternative “foremost defender of our rights” – false (he provided two: neither convinces you, but they are there).

4) Libertarianism is utopian since it hasn’t ever happened (given utopian means impractical or impossible) – invalid (just because something hasn’t happened yet doesn’t mean it is impossible or impractical).

5) Libertarianism is utopian since it hasn’t ever happened (given utopian means hasn’t ever happened) – useless (doesn’t say anything) and confusing (to people who know the more typical definitions of “utopian” and think you are actually making argument 4 above).

(Note I changed “deceptive” to “confusing” since my choice clearly was, well, confusing :-)

Given these false, invalid, useless, and confusing things you say, you haven’t provided me with much evidence that your arguments are more well-thought out than Friedman’s, another claim you make.

You have responded, it seems, quite personally and insultingly, calling me careless, calling me a propagandist, and saying I am attacking you.

“I love the way you guys are attempting to change the discussion to an ad-hominem attack on me through my word usage.”

Saying that I am puzzled by your behavior is not an ad-hominem attack. Perhaps you could explain it to me: why is it that you respond to “Your argument is wrong, isn’t it?” with “You must be a careless libertarian propagandist attacking me,” instead of “You misunderstood my argument,” or “You are misinterpreting my use of the word ‘propaganda.'”?

As for your word usage, it is confusing, no? For example, my understanding is that “utopian” and “propaganda” are both mostly used in negative ways, and using either word to describe your opponent in a non-negative way is easy to misunderstand.