книги на заметку: "Myth of Ownership"

The Myth of Ownership: Taxes and Justice by Liam B. Murphy and Thomas Nagel

In a capitalist economy, taxes are the most important instrument by which the political system puts into practice a conception of economic and distributive justice. Taxes arouse strong passions, fueled not only by conflicts of economic self-interest, but by conflicting ideas of fairness. Taking as a guiding principle the conventional nature of private property, Murphy and Nagel show how taxes can only be evaluated as part of the overall system of property rights that they help to create. Justice or injustice in taxation, they argue, can only mean justice or injustice in the system of property rights and entitlements that result from a particular regime. Taking up ethical issues about individual liberty, interpersonal obligation, and both collective and personal responsibility, Murphy and Nagel force us to reconsider how our tax policy shapes our system of property rights.

a date with IKEA (Anja Rand)

Чудесное: IKEA торгует ковриками с милым названием Anja Rand. И недорого: всего 15 фунтов стерлингов. Libertarianazis, rejoice!

(по ссылке из Boing Boing)

Ярбух фюр психоаналитик унд психопатологик

А всё-таки, убеждённые либертарианцы -- забавный народ. Особенно когда облекают свои глубочайшие мысли в письменную форму. Ярбух фюр психоаналитик унд психопаталогик, ага.

Вот, скажем, известная книга A Theory of Justice Джона Ролза -- представляет собой подробное изложение теории социальной справедливости (перераспределения доходов) в рамках социал-демократической политфилософии. Ролз предлагает решение следующей задачи: требуется построить схему перераспределения таким образом, чтобы (а) соблюсти некие нормы социальной справедливости и (б) максимально сохранить рыночную экономику. Вполне себе стандартная социал-демократическая (в американском политлексиконе -- либеральная) программа, ничего особенного. Но вот одна из рецензий на эту книгу, пятая сверху (я рыдал, рыдал; самые вкусные места выделены):

Apparently the difference between a criminal act (theft) and moral redistribution of income is 1) who you steal from (stealing from the wealthy, of course, is moral -- according to Rawls and Bolsheviks), and 2) who receives the loot (the non-wealthy makes it moral), and 3) who commits the act (the state/society, of course also makes theft moral; example - taxation), and 4) your intentions (redistribution of income). To look at this another way, if your neighbor breaks into your house and steals your money, that's a crime (unless your neighbor is poor -- which would then be moral and Justice, according to Rawls' formula). If the community comes into your house and steals from you, it's legal and moral Justice, again, according to Rawls. Because, according to Rawls, if, before you were born, you were to vote with everyone on how physical world society should be structured, you'd vote to have the state guarantee that everyone was equal, or they would be compensated somehow for being born (unjustly) less-equal. How? By compensating those with less by stealing from those with more. So those with more would be like oh, say ... a milk-cow who gets milked to serve those with less. So those with more would become a resource, or state-owned slaves to those with less ... because "society" (the Robin Hoods and Rawls of the world) deemed this as moral Justice. Rawls does not take into account those who are willing to take on risk, entrepreneurs, students of life who work to earn an "A" vs. students who earn an "F". He points out that many people are born into difficult situations through no fault of their own. True. But that does not implicate those within society who are born into better situations as the cause, nor are those who are born into better situations responsible for making up the difference. Forcing the "wealthier" ones to be accountable for the unfairness within life and pay the bill isn't Justice or moral. It would simply be an unjust law. Some people see Rawls' theory as a blueprint for a future generation utopia (like the Bolsheviks envisioned Marxism). I see it as an insane blueprint for slavery, and a powerful dis-incentive for earning personal reward and merit. In a sense, this book is an argument against the individual. It sees the world through a blurred lense where the author only recognizes masses of people -- he doesn't recognize any individuals (unless they were born as victims). Curious. How do you experience life ... as a group-mind (an oxymoron if there ever was one), a collective? Or as a unique, isolated, independent, individual? There should be societal incentives to help each other. Okay. But when it is forced (theft of property always implies force), it is no longer an issue of morality or justice -- it's simply a law. Without personal choice being involved there is no morality as an issue, by definition. Transforming advantaged individuals into mules forced to carry the burdens of the world is a definition of justice for whom?

Рецензия сия изобилует в точности всеми сентенциями, с завидным постоянством произносимыми нашими дорогими жежешными либертарианцами. Самое ж забавное здесь вот что: если вы кликнете на имя рецензента, то узнаете о нём следующее:

Professional programmer/software developer (C++, C#, Java), and wanna-be screenwriter.

Поняли? Профессиональный программист! Wanna-be screenwriter! Надо полагать, начнёт с монументальной экранизации Atlas Shrugged. С Томом Хэнксом в главной роли, ага.

Всё-таки мне не даёт покоя эта положительная корреляция между работой программистом и пещерным либертарианством, согласно которому нет никаких принципиальных различий между большевиками, фашистами и социал-демократами. Нет для них абсолютно никакой разницы между Лениным, Сталиным, Муссолини, Гитлером, Рузвельтом и Кейнсом. Почему оно так? Как говорится, we won't name any names, но невольно возникают ассоциации с рядом персонажей здесь, в ЖЖ. Вы знаете, о ком я.

P.S. What the fuck is C#? Looks evil to me...