Cheer Up, You'll Be 1.5625 Percent Free!
Here is an excerpt from the latest on straightlinelogic. Clicking the link will take you to the archive, and just click the article "Cheer Up, You'll be 1.5625 Percent Free!". The excerpt:
With this history in mind, put a hand to your ear and you’ll detect another alarming drumbeat. The most basic of human rights—the right to produce and provide for one’s self—was swept away by the income tax, initially advertised as a nominal toll on only the very wealthiest. We know how that went. It has become the iron hand in the pocket of every productive American, and the IRS is probably the most feared government agency. If the income tax is morally repugnant, what does that make wealth taxes, or taxes on assets that have already been taxed?
The camel’s nose is well under the tent—inheritance taxes are wealth taxes. The International Monetary Fund has quietly suggested new wealth taxes as a source of revenue for all those insolvent European governments. New York’s mayor has proposed a mansion tax to fund low income housing. Wealth taxes dovetail perfectly with statists’ brand new, tiresomely old issue: the gap between the rich and poor. It is a shocking truth that under capitalism, some people get rich while others remain poor, reflecting differences in productive ability. It is also true that capitalism gives poor people their best opportunity to get rich, or at least join the middle class, and has eliminated more poverty than redistribution ever has or ever will. (Redistribution creates poverty. Visit egalitarian paradises Venezuela or North Korea if you doubt it.)
With this history in mind, put a hand to your ear and you’ll detect another alarming drumbeat. The most basic of human rights—the right to produce and provide for one’s self—was swept away by the income tax, initially advertised as a nominal toll on only the very wealthiest. We know how that went. It has become the iron hand in the pocket of every productive American, and the IRS is probably the most feared government agency. If the income tax is morally repugnant, what does that make wealth taxes, or taxes on assets that have already been taxed?
The camel’s nose is well under the tent—inheritance taxes are wealth taxes. The International Monetary Fund has quietly suggested new wealth taxes as a source of revenue for all those insolvent European governments. New York’s mayor has proposed a mansion tax to fund low income housing. Wealth taxes dovetail perfectly with statists’ brand new, tiresomely old issue: the gap between the rich and poor. It is a shocking truth that under capitalism, some people get rich while others remain poor, reflecting differences in productive ability. It is also true that capitalism gives poor people their best opportunity to get rich, or at least join the middle class, and has eliminated more poverty than redistribution ever has or ever will. (Redistribution creates poverty. Visit egalitarian paradises Venezuela or North Korea if you doubt it.)
Friedrich August von Hayek
Here is a less abstract paper on the difference between Rand and Hayek from Harry Binswanger
http://capitalismmagazine.com/2012/09/de...
I think Hayek is part of the reason we such a schizophrenic personality on the part of libertarians and Austrians and why they do not understand that patents/copyrights are property rights.
I can appreciate that. While Rand supported Von Mises and not Hayek, we can still find some disagreement with Von Mises too. Having said that: The reason I appreciate and still support Hayek, is his general appeal, ardent support for free markets and persuasive arguments against government interference. He comes from a different philosophical base, but comes to most of the same conclusions and thus his arguments are complimentary. There is no equal to "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal", but I appreciate multiple perspectives and also find much value in other economists like Milton Friedman also, though I do not agree with him 100% either...
In the Binswanger article the statement regarding the Hayek position-“In a way, this is an argument from ignorance: the planners can’t know enough to issue the right decrees. In its simpler form, it’s the argument that you can’t force a person to do what’s best for him because only he can know what’s best for him, which is an argument one often hears from conservatives.” I find it a bit more nuanced. I see the implication, but wonder if it is explicit. I am considering force and understanding separately. The significance to me, is that of course the planners should not even try to use force; They have no right it is true, but it is also true that they can’t know everything and therefore are not able to predict the invisible hand of the market; that it is more powerful and elusive than any planner whose hubris might incline him to believe he knows better. The article admits, “I realize that Hayek is speaking of economic knowledge, knowledge of how to coordinate production and exchange under a vast division of labor, which is indeed something no single mind or small set of minds can deal with.” This is a powerful reality that eludes our social engineers. This concept (if taken only at face value and not reading more into it) should be hammered into the politicos, bureaucrats and public psyche. If only this concept were more universal we would find ourselves in a much better place.
I concur that the objectivist perspective, epistemology and metaphysics are superior and clearer.
Thank you for the links. They are most valued. I have saved them to my files.
Regards,
O.A.
Yes, I think Hayek's point about prices being information that cannot be recreated is true. More importantly, no one can think for anyone else and attempting to do so not only fails but negates the person's means of survival.
However, I think Hayek's point is to the side of that, which is more clearly expressed in David Kelley's paper. Hayek is in agreement with Kant and his ilk that reason is limited fundamentally and cannot be trusted - that reality cannot be known. I think that is why he makes this statement on distributive justice.
Funny that you bring up Milton Friedman. I have had a couple of discussions where I thought Friedman stood for something and then I look it up (because my son disagreed) and he did not - at least at the end of his life. For instance, I thought Friedman was for a Central Bank (The Fed) and then I find out his statement is taken out of context. Or that he was for anti-trust laws, but he clearly changed his mind as he got older. I do not agree with everything he said, but on economic points I think he came closer to Rand than Hayek did.
No argument here. Except that I wish Hayek were still alive so we could interrogate him and get an explicit comment regarding his position on ability to know reality. He is probably more effective when arguing with those of a Kantian persuasion. :) It takes all kinds...
Always a pleasure exchanging views.
Regards,
O.A.
Have a great day,
O.A.