He seems to start out ok
The country is divided when different people take different sides in a debate. The country is really divided when different people are having entirely different debates. That’s what’s happening on economic policy.
Many people on the left are having a one-sided debate about how to deal with a cyclical downturn. The main argument you hear from these cyclicalists is that the economy is operating well below capacity. . .
Other people — some on the left but mostly in the center and on the right — look at the cyclicalists and shrug. It’s not that they are necessarily wrong to bash excessive austerity. They’re simply failing to address the core issues.
I don’t know that its useful to reinforce an already seemingly foolish partisan divide here, but the notion that there is crosstalk between the structs and the cycs seems like something that could have merit.
Yet, then he seems to impose an even greater degree of false-dichotomization than those in blogosphere.
Unlike the cyclicalists, we structuralists do not believe that the level of government spending is the main factor in determining how fast an economy grows. If that were true, then Greece, Britain and France would have the best economies on earth. (The so-called European austerity is partly mythical.) We believe that the creativity, skill and productivity of the work force matter most, and the openness of the system they inhabit.
If I am not a card-carry Cyclicalist then I am not sure who is, yet I don’t believe that government spending is the main factor in how fast an economy grows. Scott Sumner may be the leading pure money Cyc and I am sure he would laugh at this idea.
Even Delong, Summers and Krugman who clearly advocate more government consumption and investment and emphasize the long run dangers of hysteresis wouldn’t say that.
Brooks goes on
Structuralists face a tension: How much should you reduce the pain the unemployed are feeling now, and how much should you devote your resources to long-term reform? There has to be balance. For my taste, the Germans are a bit too willing to impose short-term pain on the diverse national economies in Europe. But they are absolutely right to insist on the sort of structural reforms they themselves passed in the 1990s.
What exactly is the limited resource that one is budgeting here? The time and attention of policy makers? If this is such a major issue then why not have the Fed and Treasury focus on stabilization, while whatever reforms folks have in mind are hashed out by the rest of the government?
In any case I don’t see why these aren’t complementary goals, generally speaking. I can comprehend the German Government’s position that a crisis is a terrible thing to waste and this is a good opportunity for some arm twisting.
I think its foolish and self-defeating but its comprehensible. Yet, here in the US what is the tradeoff? I don’t exactly know what reforms Brooks, Tyler Cowen and the rest have in mind but its not immediately clear why they are easier in an environment of high unemployment.
Especially if you are looking for Alex Tabarrok type investments in basic research, it seems clear that this is going to be a much easier sell in an environment with higher revenues and lower unemployment insurance payments.
Brooks end with this
Make no mistake, the old economic and welfare state model is unsustainable. The cyclicalists want to preserve the status quo, but structural change is coming.
Its obviously not clear to me that this is true. Even in our basic projections the only part of the welfare state that is “unsustainable” is health care, but its simply “unsustainable” anyway. That is, one way or another excess expenditure growth in health care will come to an end. This is simply a mathematical necessity.
Not, as always that the truth of this mathematical conjecture says nothing about how it will come to an end. If health care ate the whole economy then the nominal rate of economic growth would either speed up to equal health care expenditure growth or the Fed would wind up curbing health care spending by curbing total spending.
Even still suppose you want to reform the welfare state. Both theory and experience suggest that this is going to be easier when unemployment is low rather than when it is high.
33 comments
Comments feed for this article
Friday ~ May 11th, 2012 at 8:22 am
rjs
your mistake was reading Brooks in the 1st place…he has a long record of ignorance…everything he writes should be dismissed out of hand…
Friday ~ May 11th, 2012 at 9:38 pm
Benny Lava
This exactly!
Friday ~ May 11th, 2012 at 10:02 am
Eli
For what it’s worth, I don’t think very many structuralists I know are opposed to something like Sumnerian NGDP targeting. We just don’t think it will fix everything. There are very real AS and public choice problems in the macroeconomy, and of course there are public choice reasons why we have not adopted NGDP targeting.
Friday ~ May 11th, 2012 at 3:23 pm
Morgan Warstler
And Sumner’s policy is acceptable as a “go first” thing:
1. because it forces govt. to shrink
2. but you have to get the full monty switch over.
Friday ~ May 11th, 2012 at 10:06 am
Becky Hargrove
“The only part of the welfare state that is ‘unsustainable’ is health care.” Massive reform is not the way to go right now. There are too many elements of our lives that are rapidly shifting, and massive reform would not ‘take’ in real productive terms, without better options that have been explored and readily understood at local levels. One way to look at that is what the news said about the Mayan calendar last night. Believe it or not one in ten people believe the world ends in 2012! (not sure I believe that figure) The Mayans are now telling them, no that wasn’t the point – the point was a shift in other things. Is it any wonder so many people are willing to trash so many of the resources of the present?
So try little controlled experiments at local levels, which if they don’t work, quickly change strategies, perimeters (and check how people FEEL) and remind people that they are not stuck in the routines everyone tries. Many fields of knowledge could work together in these applied efforts that also bring back ’employment’ to possibly 80 percent of the population. The ‘unsustainable’ part of healthcare is our first truly important attempt at recreating knowledge wealth, in time based instead of money based terms. Once people figure out how they can create much more with less, this method of wealth (re)creation can be added to other parts of our lives which should never have been attached to the whims of money in the first place. It is fine for knowledge to be attached to money at the ‘crest of the wave’ where it transforms society (when we’re lucky, beyond the margins). But knowledge in the ocean itself needs to be used by all of humanity.
Friday ~ May 11th, 2012 at 10:56 am
teageegeepea
I’m with rjs. Most people, such as Brooks, know very little about economics. There is really no reason to devote any time to their economic expertise, or lack thereof.
Friday ~ May 11th, 2012 at 1:31 pm
Lord
I assume he believes people are set in their ways and will refuse to change unless forced to but then the problem is change in what manner. He seems to think this appears from its own accord regardless of conditions and ameliorating them will just turn them back to their old ways preventing it despite all evidence to the contrary.
Friday ~ May 11th, 2012 at 2:07 pm
Morgan Warstler
Patently falsed:
“If I am not a card-carry Cyclicalist then I am not sure who is, yet I don’t believe that government spending is the main factor in how fast an economy grows. Scott Sumner may be the leading pure money Cyc and I am sure he would laugh at this idea.”
Which is why, Karl says this next:
“Even Delong, Summers and Krugman who clearly advocate more government consumption and investment and emphasize the long run dangers of hysteresis wouldn’t say that.”
Then Karl plays dumb:
“I don’t exactly know what reforms Brooks, Tyler Cowen and the rest have in mind but its not immediately clear why they are easier in an environment of high unemployment.”
Let’s start with my Guaranteed Income plan, which Sumner supports.. I’m sure I’d get Tyler too… who cares about Brooks.
But since Karl will not even mention my genius GI plan, here are other policies that are easier to achieve in tight economy:
1. End Davis Bacon
2. Right to work laws
3. Ending minimum wage
4. Energy policy
5. Cutting public employees
Karl, the reason this is immediately clear, is because BUSINESSMEN WANT THEM.
When times are good, BUSINESSMEN do not worry about structural reform, they don’t.
And no, Karl if you disagree with whats best for Businessmen, your opinion doesn’t count. We’re more likely to belive you are really self-dealing when you say that.
Friday ~ May 11th, 2012 at 5:24 pm
Becky Hargrove
Morgan,
Why in blazes are you so strongly attached to the idea of specific tribe for long term solutions?
Friday ~ May 11th, 2012 at 6:07 pm
Morgan Warstler
Becky, forget labels, I refuse to pretend that what matters isn’t productivity gains.
The public sector cannot / will not deliver them unless forced to… public employees right now, the 22M of them, have to LOSE, so that the country can grow.
The current system will not be allowed to stand.
The public sector has grown almost $500B per year in slaries over inflation since 1998. During that time they have delivered no more than 1% productivity gains.
That’s not a tribe thing, that’s just a natural fact as clear as math.
Karl INTENTIONALLY doesn’t look at this.
The question is WHY?
Friday ~ May 11th, 2012 at 4:12 pm
Lord
So the country has to suffer to advance political agendas. Sounds about right to me.
Saturday ~ May 12th, 2012 at 10:29 am
Lord
Which leaves the question of how the rest of us should deal with economic terrorism, surrender to it or defeat it. Negotiate but refuse to acquiesce and work to defeat it seems the only rational path.
Friday ~ May 11th, 2012 at 5:46 pm
curtd59
Argh.
Karl, why can’t you seem to grasp this argument is political?
I’m not convinced that you even understand that what his argument **IS**. He’s asking how to solve the problem of political discord. You’re response indirectly states that political discord is acceptable if it achieves your ends.
His argument (and that of conservatives) is that discord can be achieved by abandoning universalism (oppression of conservatives) and letting conservatives have their own communities – ostracizing those that that don’t adopt their norms.
The libertarian argument is that voluntary exchanges are acceptable but not thefts. The progressive argument is that thefts are justified.
THERE IS NO COMMUNITY OF COMMON INTEREST. THERE IS NO “WE”. The source of discord is FORCIBLE ‘WE’.
Sowell is right. Conservatives can understand liberals, but liberals are cognitively incapable of understanding conservatives.
Friday ~ May 11th, 2012 at 6:29 pm
curtd59
“this discord” -> “and end to this discord”
Friday ~ May 11th, 2012 at 9:38 pm
Benny Lava
Clearly the reciprocal is true as you are unable to understand Karl’s position. Or Brooks’ either, apparently. But then again if you are part of a cult then you probably communicate in a different way than the rest of us.
Friday ~ May 11th, 2012 at 9:57 pm
Morgan Warstler
Benny, you are a tard. Full bore. And its stuff like this that gives me pleasure in watching your futile hopes and dreams smashed on rocks of reality.
Benny, the logic is this simple, if a large gorup of individuals refuse to recognize “we” – you are screwed. More so, if they have a bunch of property. So you either mount a raiding party and take what you think you deserve, or you stand on the corner, in your pre-approved ‘free speech area” and you drone on in lamentations.
OR you admit…
Karl DOESN’T answer. He’s afraid of direct confrontation. He’s not a fighter who takes all comers. He’s not an intellect that swings for the fences.
Actually ANSWERING your opposition, when you are in the weaker position… taking the fight to them is smart.
And even here in Karl’s home, he hides from the hegemony he rails against.
And you think your noise helps Benny? That’s why you are losing.
Friday ~ May 11th, 2012 at 10:05 pm
curtd59
@Benny.
Was there supposed to be an argument in there somewhere? What? No? Ok, that’s what I thought.
See Haidt. Lakoff. Sowell. On why liberals don’t understand conservatives, but conservatives understand liberals. And my position, stated above, is that Karl is confusing a temporal economic argument with an inter-temporal political argument.
Saturday ~ May 12th, 2012 at 10:40 am
Lord
The progressive argument is all democratic exchanges are voluntary, if they weren’t the other party would withdraw. Theft only exists in the mind of those who insist exchange but only on their terms when the truth is they are insisting on stealing from the rest of us. There is a ‘we’. It may not be a rational consistent ‘we’, but there is power in ‘we’, and dues in belonging to ‘we’.
Saturday ~ May 12th, 2012 at 11:53 am
curtd59
@Lord,
Thank you for proving my point. Democracy is violence. Unless both membership and secession are voluntary, then the party cannot withdraw.
The conservatives would be very happy with secession. The libertarians advocate it as the only solution to escape systematic theft by the left. The only people that don’t advocate it are the left. Because the left advocates theft. And because the left is by definition a criminal organization.
Saturday ~ May 12th, 2012 at 12:09 pm
Lord
Libertarians deny the ‘we’ to justify their theft. Membership and secession are voluntary but costly and a price few are willing to pay. Libertarians fantasize about benefits of belonging without being willing to pay the costs of doing so. When they see something they want but are unwilling to pay for they decry theft and slavery because they define as involuntary as not getting their way. On this both conservatives and liberals alike are more realistic, and while they take different negotiating tactics, face different problems, and have different goals, both insist on ‘we’. No, conservatives aren’t about to secede for they know the costs are greater than the benefits. They learned that the hard way, through civil war.
Monday ~ May 14th, 2012 at 11:10 am
Morgan Warstler
Lord, I have a question, what kind of system so you think we’d have if EVERYONE had to pay 20% sales tax and that’s it?
If the elderly knew they needed to be taken care of by friends and family in old age fromt he very beginning of their lives, would they live life differently?
How differently? I don’t want your dystopian nightmare (I can imagine that), I just want to see if you are able to put yourself into a mindset, and say out loud what you would do – as yourself – in such a world.
Can you actually do it??
Saturday ~ May 12th, 2012 at 9:54 am
Becky Hargrove
Karl,
Please please please no more tribal posts. We would do more good standing out by the roadside wearing signs for world peace.
Saturday ~ May 12th, 2012 at 11:53 am
curtd59
@Becky
So, you’d rather advocate theft in private, than in public? 🙂
Monday ~ May 14th, 2012 at 6:31 pm
Th
My problem with the Brooks column is that he doesn’t follow his own logic. He identifies 3 big structural problems: 1) well run global businesses make lots of money without needing very many employees, 2) we aren’t investing enough in preparing future employees, 3) legacy industries use their political power to advantage themselves over new industries.
If #1 is true (I think so) then why is #2 the solution? If you want to train the next generation of cutting edge entrepreneurs, then say that instead of “We believe that the creativity, skill and productivity of the work force matter most…” If #1 leads to the gutting of the middle class, why isn’t #3 part of the solution? Conversely, why not use the gains from these global superstars to enrich us all by allowing more less-productive pursuits like education, health care, the arts, etc.?
My biggest gripe is that if the biggest problems are that global companies are super productive requiring very few workers and we are too slow to get there, doesn’t this make the welfare state far more sustainable? What isn’t sustainable is for the middle class to fall into poverty while a few super-rich control all the wealth. And what exactly were the structural changes Germany made? Shorter work weeks with job sharing and 5 weeks vacation with cradle to grave government benefits? Or is it having such high taxes the people have very little purchasing power so they export much of their production? Brooks doesn’t say. I’m not sure he even knows.
Monday ~ May 14th, 2012 at 11:25 pm
curtd59
Because the people who work hard and take risks will resent the people who don’t. It’s not complicated. It’s called reciprocity. What the only way humans will tolerate redistribution is when they obtain status and power in exchange, even if the power they have is merely the power to establish norms. The most important of which is education: which establishes norms.
Or perhaps you haven’t been paying attention to the north/south problem in europe? 🙂
One cannot say on the one hand that the emotional desire for equality is innate and therefore mandatory without also confirming the emotional desire for reciprocity which is also mandatory.
Brook’s logic is an expression of unfairness. It is unfair to extract profits from producers without giving anything in return. That unfairness leads to discord.
Tuesday ~ May 15th, 2012 at 8:42 am
Morgan Warstler
Germany reduced regulations, and cut taxes on producers, they became more like those Cowboy Americans.
Curt makes a very good point it would do well for ALL of MB’s readers to really grapple with it:
Beggars cannot be choosers.
If you REALLY want the wealth transfer, you need to admit that the cultural norms being controlled by the status holders.
And the folks paying the freight, they will very likely give up the real coin, as long as in trade THEY have the real power in return, they gain the real status.
Perhaps it is best to answer this question: If you HAVE TO let the ones paying the bills write the cultural norms in return for their wealth being passed around, do you still want the wealth transfer to happen?
Tuesday ~ May 15th, 2012 at 11:47 am
Th
“Brook’s logic is an expression of unfairness. It is unfair to extract profits from producers without giving anything in return. That unfairness leads to discord.” This is my point. Brooks says the new economy will leave a lower percentage of gains in the hands of the producers (the workers who are actually producing things). These gains will go to the owners/stockholders. Having higher quality producers or advantaging more profit extracting businesses over more shared profit businesses doesn’t solve his structural problem.
“Beggars cannot be choosers” History disagrees with you. Lots of wealthy people believed that right up until they were relieved of their property and heads. Or they could just elect nationalizing socialists like in South America.
“they became more like those Cowboy Americans” but no where close to where we already are. A German steel executive told me the biggest difference was that German company managers didn’t have to face American stockholder demands for short term profits irregardless of long range viability. That sounds structural.
Tuesday ~ May 15th, 2012 at 12:01 pm
Morgan Warstler
This is the reality you face:
1. The top 35% or so not only own their homes, and all their guns, and pay all the taxes, and vote all the time.
2. The bottom 65% are not really producing much of anything. See Karls ZMP worker. They are incredibly low productivity workers. As an example the bottom 10%, don’t even work at all.
Why this sucks for you:
1. The bottom 65% can’t raise up and topple the top 35%, even if they wanted to.
2. It’s the cowboyness of the US that makes us so much richer than the rest of the world. And even a big majority of your 65% believes that.
The mistake you make is in 99% vs. 1%. I’m able to use the top 34% to go after the 1% (blue state elites, Fortune 1000 managements, etc)
But you want the gravy to go to the 65%, it can’t / won’t.
The top 1/3 THEY are the hegemony. THEY say “beggars can’t be choosers” and you can’t relieve them of their heads.
Tuesday ~ May 15th, 2012 at 1:51 pm
curtd59
RE: “the workers who are actually producing things”
So please provide data on who is producing something. Isn’t that the problem. They’re not producing anything? Because the only way we know whether something is wasted or created is productivity: the profit per hour gained from the actions of the network of people involved in creating it. So, if american workers are unemployable, then are they not failing to produce?
RE: :These gains will go to the owners/stockholders. ”
This is false. Businesses run at very low profit margins. Many under 2%, many under 4%, most under 10%, very few over ten percent. Very few companies issue substantial dividends because of double taxation. Yet salaries in established companies, and the benefits in those companies are high. So the majority of profit is captured by the talented people in those companies. Employee cost is the majority of cost in any company, and information worker costs represent almost the entirety of most company budgets. (I know, because I built few of those companies, and provided various services to some of the largest.)
RE: “HIstory agrees”
Yes, history agrees that the healthy, intelligent, wealthy and less impulsive, can ally to purchase the support of the middle in order to control the locust like consumption of the overbreeding underclasses. You’re right. You’re also wrong that the proletariat ever do anything. It’s the middle class that writes the tomes, makes the arguments, and struggles to rotate into positions of power. And those revolutions that were conducted were those that the middle class manipulated the proles more successfully than the existing upper class manipulated the proles. HOwever, it is quite easy for the upper middle and upper classes to manipulate the proles. That’s history’s lesson. I mean, why should we producers not simply enslave you non-producers if you’re going to use government to enslave us?
ANOTHER THOUGHT
Now, the issue here is who is acting and who is producing. And if you say that the overly fertile, unproductive class, who envies consumption they cannot experience, and that is only unavailable to them because they are unproductive, is due something for some reason, then what action is it that they take that warrants redistribution?
You see, you gave us the answer above. You threatened the producers. So, all the non-productive people do, is refrain from stealing. That’s your argument. It’s not that they produce its that they want compensation for not stealing. Right? Isn’t that your argument? If they are either unemployed, or underemployed, or consuming less than they desire to consume, and they’re measurably unproductive, and they consume services, and they consume taxes provided by the productive tax paying clases, then the only thing they are exchanging with the productive classes is that they are withholding their violence? I mean. That’s the argument you made, isn’t it?
for a very short period, when we converted agrarian self production and consumption to industrial consumer market production and consumption, the lower classes were interesting because they could both produce and consume basics that were not previously available. the question becomes, whether the underclasses will now be able to produce anything, or whether they are just a dead weight that damages the earth’s ecosystem with their consumption. Right?
Aren’t we doing damage to the earth, to our home, by all this excessive breeding by underclasses, and the excessive consumption created by all this excess population? If so, then why are we polluting the world with useless unproductive people.
(OMG. I had fun writing that. Now, I have to pull my tongue out of my cheek with a pair of pliers. lol.)
Tuesday ~ May 15th, 2012 at 6:42 pm
curtd59
I mean, so, we can either exchange the fruits of production by voluntary actions, or we can put guns against the heads of producers in order to support the breeding of non-producers. If we put guns at the head of producers in order to extract from them what they will not give up involuntarily, then that is just theft, extortion, and violence. If we attempt to justify that theft and violence, there must be some action that the thieves are seeking recompense for. So either we are paying off the thieves to leave us alone, or we are the victim of the thieves who steal from us using violence. Or we are the victims of the thieves who threaten to steal from us by violence that which they will not trade.
The question the libertarian asks, is ‘what will you give me in exchange?’ The question the socialist asks (whether he be left or right socialist) is “how can I get something for nothing?” The conservatives wants payment by status recognition and the adherence to norms. The libertarians wants payment of some kind, preferably monetary. The socialist simply wants to steal without paying either in money or in status and norms. This is why the left is by definition a criminal organization that operates under the threat of violence.
Wednesday ~ May 16th, 2012 at 1:39 pm
Th
Interesting. I am actually a retired businessman who had a normal payroll of 60 or so employees. My employees made me millions and I tried to make sure they were well compensated for their efforts. I was not trying to advocate anything other than be coherent in your arguments. If you think per capita income will increase, the welfare state is more sustainable. Choosing to go down that road or not is a political, not an economic issue. If you think the businesses of the future will need few workers, spending lots of money educating workers seems a waste of resources. If you think old line, less productive businesses are hindering the development of new ones, name the sectors of the economy that should no longer be tax advantaged (Brooks can look at the tax code and see who gets the bennies).
Mentioning historical precedent and advocacy are two different things. The Iraqi Sunnis had money, guns and an army. Now? The welfare state was meant to buy off the masses to accept the vagaries of free enterprise. If you advocate repeal you may want to think about the replace part. My son learned that, “It’s not fair” wasn’t a winning argument when he was about 6. And that goes for Obama as well. Curt is right about the efficacy of buying people off. But, how many magazine covers does Jamie Dimon have to be on before he stops whining about not being respected?
And, really guys – eugenics? I thought my dad was the only one willing to say that out loud and he is 85 and very cranky.
Wednesday ~ May 16th, 2012 at 2:01 pm
Morgan Warstler
I view economics through a pretty simple Micro lens. Hell, deep down, I don’t think Macro exists. Once there is only one currency, or even every country agree to “free trade” we’re all pegged. Just make sure a political class doesn’t control the printing, and Macro isn’t a science, it is theft or taxes.
To me, the atomic is scarce. The digital is limitless. As such anything that can be replicated for free, or nearly free should and ought to be so that every human has access to a copy if they want it. If we could copy oil, food etc. there would be no property laws.
I argue you can’t actually “own” the digital because it demeans the imperative function of owning the atomic.
I think an economics thought of this way really helps to figure out which oxen ought to gored RIGHT NOW and how fast… Education, healthcare, government itself… these are the fields that we should be changing policy to rely first on digital, and then only the atomic afterwards. The foundation of each should be information created and shared freely, and then when you actually need the atomic ofr a live human’s time… we have a cost associated.
Again, the atomic is still truly scarce, even once we get 3D printers humming along.
Also, we can 100% get behind taxing land as primary form of revenue for the government, I have no problem with attempting to MAXIMIZE the taxes we extract from people who want to own dirt.
Owning land is just the most opulent from of consumption. It requires what are essentially military industrial complexes to protect it – so tax the shit out of it.
After that, when we have reduced the costs of delivering the essential public goods around a digital platform, we have figured out the cost of adding int he atomic and required human time, we know how much consumption we have to tax.
My point is that pure libertarians and greedy bastards alike can all get behind a policy that effectively makes a competitive game not out of promising voters things, but out of delivering the goods the voters are promised for less and less time from the producers.
This is the the real point. Time is money. And it is one thing to insist that the less fortunate deserve enough of the producers time to survive.
But dammit, the system should be constructed to use the least amount of their time as possible.
Think of this as the Bob Dobbs approach to libertarian thought, I want the people who do the work to get as much slack as humanly possible for themselves.
And the people who don’t produce to give up 40 hours of slack every week just because.
Wednesday ~ May 16th, 2012 at 3:04 pm
curtd59
Well said.
Property is a necessity caused by scarcity, and functions as a store of time. Money is a form of property that makes scarce objects, production plans, and time itself commensurable. The division of labor is a production cycle, with some of us working on each of the short, medium and long term. And we lend money across the perpetual set of production cycles both within and between generations.
Although trademarks are a protection against fraud, patents and copyrights create artificial scarcity in order to subsidize industries at the expense of consumers.
The Keynesians want to expand government jobs for the same reason, so that they can create an artificial scarcity that subsidizes political adherence to their ideology. It’s a cheap way to buy obedience. What would education cost without the department of ed? What would power cost without the department of energy?
Land is necessary in order to create a monopoly of violence that allows a government to create a set of property rights and laws to enforce them, and the taxes with which to hold that land so that they may be able to enforce those laws that describe property rights , and therefore exclude alternative definitions of property rights. As such we often confuse ourselves that we create laws, but we create laws in order to create property rights — from the prohibition of them under communism, to the centralization of them under socialism, to the lending of them under democratic socialism, to the individual ownership of them under libertarianism, to the abandonment of them under anarchic thievery. As such land necessitates taxes, because any composition of the institution of property necessitates land and laws by which to exclude other compositions of property, and there is a cost to prohibiting those alternative compositions of property.
Humans will tolerate charity, because it the minimum insurance payment that is necessarily reciprocal. They will teach a man to fish but not feed him fish. Because teaching a man to fish is the cheapest way of paying for the insurance that he will not become a dead weight on all of us. But they will not indefinitely tolerate cheating, free-riding, or theft of their effort and time.
The left’s argument is that we should subsidize the reproduction of the dependent classes and do it joyfully, while they call us names and deride us for wanting them to pull their weight at minimum cost to us.