Also this is a ridiculous example. This is never what the State does. It steals billions of dollars to bomb starving children.
Pictures here (somewhat shocking):
That’s not a philosophical argument.
I don’t support it, but some Austrian economists do support welfare assistance.
From Hayek’s Road To Serfdom:
“Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance - where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks - the case for the state’s helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong”
It sounds like some serfdom is OK in Hayek’s view.
Pictures here (somewhat shocking):
Actually, the DU thing is a myth and those pictures are falsified from other, unrelated, issues. It was cooked up by anti-nuclear loonies in a typical ‘for teh children’ tactic. Most of these are at Depleted Cranium, a blog about bad science: See Depleted Uranium and Opposing Wars are Different Issues, Anti-DU Activists: Who’s Reall Evil?, here, here, here, here, here (Skeptoid Podcast), here, here (on the images) and here (another on the images). Here he eats deple
Nonetheless, they are a gang of murderers.
Hayek was trying to appeal to social democrats. He was opposed to welfare on consequentialist grounds, both in terms of economics and government expansion/control it involved.
No one knows how to spend your money the way you spend it yourself.
There is a huge difference between charity and Taxation.
Encouraging people to fail in they’re own lives and punishing those who succeed is not healthy for any economy, certainly not in the long run.
I believe in welfare, I believe that I should help others. I believe to an extent it’s my obligation.
This is a “virtue” I choose to practice because I enjoy it, I can also find other individuals who want to practice it and there you go.
It should be a choice, nothing else.
It’s amazing, you see there are millions of people who complain that someone else should help the poor, why don’t they do it?
^^ what Drew said.
You’re exactly correct. Bill Gates is such a bad person for keeping all of his money.
no… Hayek was attracted to some welfare reforms… such as the basic income guarantee policy… “I have always said that I am in favor of a minimum income for every person in the country.” from Hayek on Hayek: An Autobiographical Dialogue by F. A. Hayek
“I have always said that I am in favor of a minimum income for every person in the country.” - Hayek
Yes, clearly Hayek was in favor of government welfare assistance (and thus taxation).
I’m guessing Mises, especially Rothbard, and maybe Hazlitt would be opposed to that.
Austrian Economics is wertfrei, so I guess Hayek could be an Austrian, but it sounds like he’s not a classical liberal like the others. That’s probably why he got the central bank award and not the other economists.
IT’S COERCIVE THEFT. IF YOU DON’T PAY, U.S. MARSHALLS WILL SHOW UP TO YOUR HOUSE WITH SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPONS AND PUT A LEIN ON YOUR HOUSE.
Tell what is moral about that?
I can’t believe someone seriously has to ask what’s immoral about stealing. What’s next? Are slave owners really that bad? I mean they do give their slaves and their family shelter. It should be expected for the slave to do something in return.
Yes
Austrian economics is value-free so it has no position on the morality of taxation. Taxation falls within the larger rubric of “praxeology” but outside the specialized domain of “catallactics” (voluntary exchange) on which most Austrian economic thought is focused.
That said, taxation is immoral for the same reason that stealing is immoral. Your motives for stealing - i.e. to give to the needy - are irrelevant. Until recently, the taxing authority rarely even bothered to justify taxation, it was just a naked exercise of power. The Johnny-come-lately arguments of “socialism” and “welfare” are transparently self-serving ex post justifications for the ancient practice of annuitized tribute now called “taxes.”
Clayton -
Here’s a notable example of how insidious taxation is. I read this in Charles Adams’s book on the subject (For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization). Under the Egyptian system of taxation, the Pharaoh’s tax accountants would actually make random inspections of Egyptian dwellings and would fine people for tax offenses such as using oil drippings from their own cooking rather than the “approved” (and taxed) oil drippings sold by merchants. The analogies to the more sophisticated and supposedly “enlightened” modern practices of economic tariffs and “consumer protection” regulations should be readily apparent.
Insofar as the Prince truly cares for the well-being of his subjects, he only cares for the same reasons that a rancher cares for the welfare of his cattle - to be fattened and slaughtered. I find it almost comical that people are shocked at the idea that taxes are immoral, except that it’s so sad.
Clayton -
Bravo! This is an important point that is always overlooked by the intellectual accomplices to State plunder (socialists). Taking money from Bill Gates will not feed anyone. The same amount of food that exists today will exist tomorrow. Only through capital investment and productive use of scarce resources can the amount of food produced be increased.
I have proposed what I believe to be the only truly fair system of taxation here:
"Flat, wealth tax performed in the manner of a lottery. Basically, the government draws a bunch of names from a hat. Then, the government raids the properties of the hapless victims whose names it drew from the hat and takes X% of all the wealth they can find. No penalties for tax evasion, so it would be catch-as-catch-can.
Most citizens would not have to pay taxes most of the time. This would be a massive boost to the economy since the economic distortions created by taxation are probably more costly to the economy than the actual revenues lost. If the government starts getting too greedy, people will take more pains to hide their wealth better, reducing the government’s effective revenues.
It’s not a pretty system, but it’s at least honest about what taxation is and it would manage to free most economic activity from taxation most of the time. Because of the random nature of taxation, there would be no systematic effect on the economy so being a victim of taxation would be more like suffering a natural disaster or random criminal violence than central-planning."
Clayton -
It’s ok to pay for what you use.
Two (and a half) questions for the OP:
-
Do you think Bill Gates owes anything to people due to the wealth he created? If so, ho much do you think he owes other people, and who do you think gets to decide this amount?
-
Why is this child starving in the first place? And, yes, it does matter.
Hayek is very much a classical liberal. He even created ( or help create) classical liberal think-tanks like Mont Pelerin Society with Mises, Friedman and others. Hazlitt is one of my favorite economists but he seems sympathetic on the topic of taxes. “A certain amount of taxes is of course indispensable to carry on essential government functions. Reasonable taxes for this purpose need not hurt production much. The kind of government services then supplied in return, which among other things safeguard production itself, more than compensate for this.” Economics in One Lesson, page 20.
I do not know if he actually meant that statement though because Hazlitt has said before that he threw in some mainstream statements so he could get the book published. But according to his book, Hazlitt was not much critical on ‘‘reasonable taxes’’, only on taxes that hurt production. I assume he did not mean the ‘‘reasonable taxes’’ thing because he does not go into detail on what those ‘reasonable taxes’’ were…
He doesn’t owe anything to anyone. Unless everyone who made him rich give him back the product they bought from him lol.
Although, I admit this software monopoly is ridiculous. 300$ for a operating system is outragin, Lack of competition does that, and linux isn’t much yet. I tried linux Ubuntu with beryll and quite frankly I prefer Windows XP.