{"items": [{"author": "Allison", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103741579182942078941", "anchor": "gp-1320789218529", "service": "gp", "text": "Comparing thievery and taxation makes me think of Robin Hood, which might be one of the exceptions mentioned in [1]. It also shows anecdotally that taxation can be bad if abused.\n
\n
\nI generally find outcome-based arguments more compelling, but sometimes think in terms of rights; it depends on the context. I think that the rights approach is more emotional and the outcome more logical.", "timestamp": 1320789218}, {"author": "Phillip", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/198980673510737?comment_id=199016853507119", "anchor": "fb-199016853507119", "service": "fb", "text": "Jeff, I would say that even for Libertarians taxation is theft is hyperbole (though I am confident some of the more extreme of them do believe that). The more fundamental issue is private property rights. The government (all of the following applies to the US, with other countries your mileage will vary) needs to make a case that passes constitutional muster to impose taxes. Since there is a clause to provide for the common defense, it is pretty clear that taxes for Defense were intended. Just as it is pretty clear that paying for a Federal church is pretty much a non-starter. Separately I would like to suggest that all theft (taking of someone's property, without consent) is always wrong. That doesn't mean the thief shouldn't steal in terms of the out come, but that in a civil society you can't have a slippery slope of justifying some theft and punishing other theft. The reason is that man is rationalizing creature, not a rational creature (that may be Mark Twain, it is certainly not my original thought). The moment you say it may be ok in some cases, you open a flood gate of rationalizing, and you effectively no longer have property rights. Thieves, and if they're caught, judges and juries will decide if you have the superior right to property. No one can pan or invest on that basis.", "timestamp": "1320792791"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1320794859731", "service": "gp", "text": "@allison\n \"taxation can be bad if abused\"\n
\n
\nCertainly not arguing with that.\n
\n
\n\"I think that the rights approach is more emotional and the outcome more logical.\"\n
\n
\nMaybe, though there are some pretty logical/philosophical rights oriented people, for example nozick (who I haven't read).", "timestamp": 1320794859}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/198980673510737?comment_id=199029416839196", "anchor": "fb-199029416839196", "service": "fb", "text": "@Phillip: your argument that theft is always wrong appears to be based on the harmful effects of allowing it even in some cases. Which means I can put you in the \"outcomes oriented\" box. Because I'm currently excited about my shiny boxes. (I also live in this box. It's a nice box.)", "timestamp": "1320794972"}, {"author": "David German", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/111229345142780712481", "anchor": "gp-1320798814251", "service": "gp", "text": "I'm not sold on the distinction. Is there anyone with political opinions, whether those opinions involve rights or not, who does not also believe those opinions produce the best feasible outcome (plus or minus acknowledged uncertainty about some opinions)?", "timestamp": 1320798814}, {"author": "Josh", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/118273920476267337216", "anchor": "gp-1320799307944", "service": "gp", "text": "I was thinking about this recently, although I was phrasing it in my head as more about \"rules\" vs \"results\". When you evaluate a proposed new law or policy, do you think to yourself \"is this a good and fair law\", or do you think \"will this law have good results\"?\n
\n
\nI think the latter is pernicious, because it's too easy to conflate \"good results\" with \"provide advantages to people I like\", and to say that principles like fairness and equality and so on don't really matter, as long as the results are good for people I like (and too bad if they're bad for people I don't like).\n
\n
\nPeople of all political stripes are guilty of this. Well, except perhaps for utilitarian pragmatists, who openly endorse the idea that the only thing that matters is results. :^)", "timestamp": 1320799307}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1320799743741", "service": "gp", "text": "\"except perhaps for utilitarian pragmatists, who openly endorse the idea that the only thing that matters is results\"\n
\n
\n:: whistles idly ::", "timestamp": 1320799743}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1320800666423", "service": "gp", "text": "@David German\n \"Is there anyone with political opinions, whether those opinions involve rights or not, who does not also believe those opinions produce the best feasible outcome\"\n
\n
\nPossibly not. I don't know. Is there evidence that could convince you that the rights on which you base your political opinions are not actually suited for this purpose?", "timestamp": 1320800666}, {"author": "David German", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/111229345142780712481", "anchor": "gp-1320801600244", "service": "gp", "text": "@Jeff Kaufman\n Certainly.", "timestamp": 1320801600}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1320801919559", "service": "gp", "text": "@David German\n then I would put you in the \"outcomes\" group. You might be correct that no one goes in the \"rights\" group. Anyone think they belong in the \"rights\" group?", "timestamp": 1320801919}, {"author": "Josh", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/118273920476267337216", "anchor": "gp-1320802504591", "service": "gp", "text": "So here's a thing: One of the ways that people typically evaluate outcomes is in terms of changes from the current situation, and in particular in terms of how those changes affect the people that they most care about. I think one can easily believe that a rule change would be a good thing, even if it produced a \"bad outcome\" in the limited sense of \"makes things worse than they are right now for someone I care about\" -- presumably because they think that it produces a good outcome in some other (perhaps more long-term) sense.\n
\n
\nTo pick a particular example: If the US eliminated the tax deduction for mortgage interest, that would be a \"bad outcome\" for me, personally, as a homeowner. But I think it's still the right thing to do, because it's a better rule; partly \"on principle\", but I hold those principles because I believe that they produce good outcomes. Even if the immediate change is bad for me personally.\n
\n
\nSo, I don't think anyone really says \"I believe that this rule is a good rule, completely irrespective of what effect it has\", because how else would you evaluate the rule other than by its effects? But you can think of its effects in a lot of contexts and timescales and so on.", "timestamp": 1320802504}, {"author": "Todd", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/112947709146257842066", "anchor": "gp-1320802539448", "service": "gp", "text": "\"There are probably exceptions, but I can't think of any where the prospective thief has enough information to know that their case is exceptional.\"\n
\n
\nI am nearly starved to death. I break into Bill Gates' kitchen and steal some food. Permissible? If not, why not, from an outcomes-based standpoint?", "timestamp": 1320802539}, {"author": "David German", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/111229345142780712481", "anchor": "gp-1320802629148", "service": "gp", "text": "@Jeff Kaufman\n I didn't claim that no one is in the \"rights group\". I claimed that everyone is \"outcomes-based\", and people may care about various purported rights (positive or negative) independently of that.\n
\n
\nEDIT: \"independently\" is not quite the word I want. \"orthogonally\"?", "timestamp": 1320802629}, {"author": "Allison", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103741579182942078941", "anchor": "gp-1320803569161", "service": "gp", "text": "Everyone has a vision of how they want the world to be (outcome). \"Rights\" are used describe a morality--to explaining why a given outcome is good or bad. And there are other descriptors of morality that have nothing to do with rights.\n
\n
\n@David German\n Is this in line with what you're saying?", "timestamp": 1320803569}, {"author": "David German", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/111229345142780712481", "anchor": "gp-1320804497075", "service": "gp", "text": "@allison\n Yep. I'd only add that rights and other moral positions serve not only to justify the desired outcome, but also as guidelines for advancing it.", "timestamp": 1320804497}, {"author": "Allison", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103741579182942078941", "anchor": "gp-1320804696072", "service": "gp", "text": "@David German\n makes sense to me!", "timestamp": 1320804696}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1320808000976", "service": "gp", "text": "@David German\n '''everyone is \"outcomes-based\", and people may care about various purported rights (positive or negative) independently of that.'''\n
\n
\nThinking more about people who are not outcomes based, I think quakers (or other pacifists) might be an example. If you believe that people have a right to live and it is always wrong to kill people, then even if you are convinced that in this situation (say, genocide prevention) killing would have better outcomes you would still not kill. This is part of why I am no longer a pacifist. (I do think that killing only very rarely if ever has better outcomes, but I no longer believe I should reject options just because they involve killing people.)", "timestamp": 1320808000}, {"author": "BDan", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/198980673510737?comment_id=199111353497669", "anchor": "fb-199111353497669", "service": "fb", "text": "The quote (\"Man is not a rational animal; he is a rationalizing animal\") is by Robert A. Heinlein, actually.
And I know a few libertarians who really do take the \"taxation is theft\" viewpoint.", "timestamp": "1320808214"}, {"author": "Phillip", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/198980673510737?comment_id=199166206825517", "anchor": "fb-199166206825517", "service": "fb", "text": "Bdan, yes I see that it is Heinlein both in fact and in spirit.", "timestamp": "1320820867"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1320839396304", "service": "gp", "text": "@Josh\n '''If the US eliminated the tax deduction for mortgage interest, that would be a \"bad outcome\" for me, personally, as a homeowner. But I think it's still the right thing to do, because it's a better rule; partly \"on principle\", but I hold those principles because I believe that they produce good outcomes. Even if the immediate change is bad for me personally.'''\n
\n
\nI don't think we're using \"good/bad outcome\" the same way. With the way I'm trying to use it, because you believe that it would actually be a good thing overall to eliminate this tax deduction, you expect it to have a \"good outcome\".", "timestamp": 1320839396}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1320841641440", "service": "gp", "text": "@Todd\n \"I am nearly starved to death. I break into Bill Gates' kitchen and steal some food. Permissible? If not, why not, from an outcomes-based standpoint?\"\n
\n
\nBill Gates is probably not a good example here, because dissuading him from continuing to give away lots of money would have bad outcomes. Your argument still applies if we take some other very rich person who does not engage in philanthropy.\n
\n
\nThere are probably other options for you person than theft. You could go to a soup kitchen, dumpster dive at grocery stores, or possibly even go to the emergency room. For thought experiment purposes, though, we should probably be assuming you really have no other options.\n
\n
\nWe're trying to balance the harm caused by the theft against the harm of you starving to death. Starving to death is pretty bad, so a first look at outcomes would say that the rich person is hurt far less than you gain. You're only gaining one meal, though, which probably lasts at most two days, so the benefit isn't \"you live another 60 years\" but \"you live another two days\". That brings the harm of starvation down a lot. The negative effects of the theft are also greater than the cost of the food you take. It's unpleasant to be robbed, and perhaps the experience causes this person to tell their friends and they all install expensive security systems, which is basically wasted money.\n
\n
\nI think neither of these is an overwhelmingly better outcome, but the stealing probably wins. If you think this is not a better outcome, though, I could be convinced either way.\n
\n
\nThis doesn't mean that you shouldn't be punished if caught, though, because this isn't the sort of exception we can put into law very well.", "timestamp": 1320841641}, {"author": "Todd", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/112947709146257842066", "anchor": "gp-1320870150553", "service": "gp", "text": "Doesn't the fact that we don't think we can carve out those kinds of exceptions mean that to some extent, we do prioritize rules over outcomes? If it was really all about outcomes, a court would run the sort of analysis you just did, rather than sticking to the rule book. Would it be preferable if courts did that? I don't think so, though I'm not sure what percentage of my objection stems from my lack of confidence in people to make appropriate case by case judgments, as opposed to the right of Bill Gates (or whomever) not to be stolen from. ", "timestamp": 1320870150}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1320873310285", "service": "gp", "text": "@Todd\n This is kind of roundabout, but I'm not sure that having a court try to maximize outcomes directly would do a good job of actually getting good outcomes. Instead I think we're likely to get better outcomes by finding rules that in practice perform better. If there's a conflict between observed outcomes and rules that we previously thought we're good, though, I'm on the side of the observations.", "timestamp": 1320873310}, {"author": "Todd", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/112947709146257842066", "anchor": "gp-1320873760720", "service": "gp", "text": "The other intuition I want to poke at regards rights that we generally regard as more fundamental then property rights. Suppose you were in a situation in which you could shoot an innocent person in the head in order to save a million people $10,000 worth of harm (and it's not important that you actually physically do it yourself, I'm not angling at that kind of intuition). By any reasonable economic calculus, the life of one person isn't worth $10 billion. But would that make it okay to take their life? Or do their rights supersede such considerations?\n
\n
\nAlso, if it helps,assume that these million people are going to get a lot of mileage out of that money. In fact, you could even just posit that it's going to save all of their lives, through acquisition of medicine or something.", "timestamp": 1320873760}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1320874684166", "service": "gp", "text": "@Todd\n We're balancing shooting one innocent person in the head against saving a million lives? It goes against my moral intuitions, but I think we have to shoot the person. This reminds me of conscription: some unlucky innocent people are sacrificed for the good of a much larger number.", "timestamp": 1320874684}, {"author": "Todd", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/112947709146257842066", "anchor": "gp-1320874948455", "service": "gp", "text": "Ok, if you're willing to bite the bullet on that, then I think you're correct in saying your stance is outcomes-based. But I suspect many people would not bite the bullet, and as such that David's contention that everyone is outcomes-based is either incorrect or needs more information/clarification.", "timestamp": 1320874948}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1320875876787", "service": "gp", "text": "@Todd\n we could ask \n@David German\n what he thinks about the murder of innocents.", "timestamp": 1320875876}, {"author": "Todd", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/112947709146257842066", "anchor": "gp-1320876733867", "service": "gp", "text": "... lol", "timestamp": 1320876733}, {"author": "David German", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/111229345142780712481", "anchor": "gp-1320886926880", "service": "gp", "text": "@Todd\n \n@Jeff Kaufman\n \n
\n
\n\"This doesn't mean that you shouldn't be punished if caught, though, because this isn't the sort of exception we can put into law very well.\"\n
\n
\n\"If it was really all about outcomes, a court would run the sort of analysis you just did...\"\n
\n
\nI believe the legalese you're looking for is \"mitigating circumstances\". Details vary from state to state, but judges and juries certainly are directed to consider them. \n(EDIT: prosecutors too.)\n I think that's appropriate and necessary. The same right may have been violated to the same extent in two different cases, but the effective administration of justice doesn't necessarily call for the same penalty in both.", "timestamp": 1320886926}, {"author": "Todd", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/112947709146257842066", "anchor": "gp-1320887111834", "service": "gp", "text": "What about the murder of innocents =P", "timestamp": 1320887111}, {"author": "David German", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/111229345142780712481", "anchor": "gp-1320887833853", "service": "gp", "text": "@Todd\n \n@Jeff Kaufman\n (again)\n
\n
\nI think a person's moral principles, and sense of best feasible outcome, are pretty well calibrated for reality. They're not well calibrated for an alternate physics where murdering one person to save a million from certain death is plausible. I agree that many people would find the adjustment difficult, not because they don't care about outcomes, but because it's too alien that \"don't murder people\" is no longer a moral principle that produces good outcomes.", "timestamp": 1320887833}, {"author": "Todd", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/112947709146257842066", "anchor": "gp-1320890064046", "service": "gp", "text": "I take it you would agree with Jeff about killing them, then.\n
\n
\nYour implication seems to be that the scenario is a somewhat pointless exercise, because it's so far fetched. But it does at least establish that even for our strongest rules, there's a line in the sand somewhere (at least, assuming you are saying what I think you are). That line may turn out to be a lot closer then what's illustrated in this scenario (for example, what about just having it save two people?). Or, for someone who doesn't think there's a line, it establishes that outcomes aren't supreme. Since I think that there are those who would hold that there is no line (like the Quakers, as Jeff mentioned), I would definitely say there are people who are not outcome-based, contrary to what you were saying earlier.\n
\n
\nAdmittedly, it's hard to pin that down because what constitutes a good outcome is slippery- taking the Quaker example, or other religiously motivated ones, that person could argue based on their beliefs that following the rules strictly did result in better outcomes due to non-measurable effects.", "timestamp": 1320890064}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1320894384199", "service": "gp", "text": "Reading some suggests that philosophy people have names for these approaches. They call outcomes people \"consequentialists\" and rules/rights people \"deontologists\".", "timestamp": 1320894384}, {"author": "Frederic", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/118156077148469167305", "anchor": "gp-1321397072669", "service": "gp", "text": "I'd like to see a post from you on Kelo v New London", "timestamp": 1321397072}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1329000912862", "service": "gp", "text": "@Todd\n Crossing thread's, 3.6 in \nhttp://www.raikoth.net/libertarian.html\n addresses the \"is it ok for poor people to steal from rich people\", at least in part.", "timestamp": 1329000912}]}