Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site psuvax1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!burdvax!psuvax1!berman
From: berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Politics and Ethics--Socialism, Libertarianism, and Capitalism
Message-ID: <1963@psuvax1.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 15-Jan-86 21:52:49 EST
Article-I.D.: psuvax1.1963
Posted: Wed Jan 15 21:52:49 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 18-Jan-86 17:45:03 EST
References: <1547@hound.UUCP> <4340047@csd2.UUCP>
Organization: Pennsylvania State Univ.
Lines: 96

> >> >Is human work worth only as much as it is paid?
> 
> >> How do you define "worth?"
> 
> >I was asking a question!
> 
> And I was asking you to clarify your question because I did not fully
> understand it.
> 
> >> >Is the value of a human equal to the sum of wages he/she collected?
> 
> >> "Value" to whom?  There is no such thing as objective value.
> 
> >Then OK, we both agree: we are free to redefine the value of work
> >is such a way that the difference between compensation/profit
> >and the "actual" worth will be equal to a tax, this way taxing
> >does not take away any contribution from an individual.
> 
> Hold on there.  I don't agree to that.  I merely said that value is subjective.
> If value is subjective, then what does "actual worth" mean?
> 
> >Piotr Berman
> 
> Mike Sykora

I am disputing the following libertarian tenet: whatever wealth an 
individual acquired by its own direct labor and indirect labor 
(transactions with other individual) is solely his/her: only this
individual has the right to dispose this wealth.  Sounds very well,
additionally allows to draw the following conclusion: any form of
tax is a theft (as a disposition of wealth by other person than the
owner).

My objection was that when market is involved, the connection between
labor and reward is not strightforward.  In an extreme example,
gambling with small stakes takes the same effort as gambling large
stakes.  The absolute risk is larger in the latter case, but this is
not a meassure of effort.  The personal risk may be larger in the first
case: small gambler may risk his all livelyhood, while the high-roller
risks his pocket money.  Substitute managing capital for gambling and
the same conclusions follow.

Then we (both me and Sykora) are coming to the conclusion that it is
impossible to find "objective meassures" of the worth of labor.
Two persons may study with equal dilligence, but due to the shift in
the market, by the time they finish their education the market value
of their skills may differ, the fortunate one could have better
forsight, but he could also have been more lucky.

At this juncture I am making a conclusion which a libertarian refuses
to make: since the moral justification for ownership of wealth is the 
labor which allowed to gather this wealth, and the value of this labor
is subjective (to a degree, not totally), the concept of ownership
is also subjective, and so are the priviledges of ownership (the full
discretion in disposing the wealth).  Thus it may be fully justified 
that a majority defines some limitation on this discretion (you dispose
60% as you see fit, we dispose 40%), even if it is contrary to the
wish of some.

It may be disputable whether the constaints on ownership imposed by
majority are fair, economically efficient etc., but they do not
constitute theft, but rather a convention what the ownership is.
It may be debatable what this convention should be, but because of 
the inherently subjective nature of the "worth of labor" (i.e. the
proportion of monetary reward which "morally" should be left to
the free disposition by an individual), this must be a convention.

As it is pointed in the last paragraph, this convention has a moral
nature.  Thus it should not be changed to freely: morality has sense
only if it is stable during lifetimes of individuals.  Thus the basic
tenets of such a convention belong to constitution, as opposed to
a law which may be changed easily and frequently.  For the same reason,
even small changes should not be undertaken to lightly.  

As a final conclusion, theft is not a did which may be defined in
absolute (i.e. invariant) terms, but in terms of a convention.

A libertarian will point at this moment that by the same token the
liberty would be a convention.  Where then can we draw a line between,
say, our founding fathers and Hitler?  They claim that without ironclad
rules, which are not subjects to changable conventions, we exist on
a slippery slope.  Thus the morality, law etc. should be based on
the objectively developed ethical system.  (The system, since only
one may be developed objectively.)

However, as an atheist, I claim that ethics based on a religion, however
usefull, is based on an illusion.  Similarly, my logical education
suggest that "rational ethics" is similarly based on an illusion of
objectivity.  Thus we should use our reason not to find ironclad rules
(futile), but to find some forsight.  Would I forsee that the current
system is bound to evolve into totalitarianism, I would vote libertarian.
Would I forsee that almost everybody would be better of without a
minimal wage, I would advocate its repeal.  However, my prediction
is different.

Piotr Berman