There is much in Deirdre McCloskey’s new book, How Liberalism Works.* As I’ve written in a previous post, this work is more about _politics_ and liberalism than McCloskey’s previous works. While McCloskey talks with her distinctive “Aunt Deirdre” voice, aiming at articulating a liberalism which is different than the “childish” libertarianism’s, or the anarchist’s, or the small government kind’s, she is not mincing words.
Consider, this, which is her challenge to all those who, perhaps because they live under relatively decent governments (say in Sweden or Minnesota), tend to assume that government is nothing but a benevolent servant of the People. I suggest we call it, now on, “Deirdre’s test”:
To test your belief that the government is your own (good) will generalized, and to test in particular your disbelief in the centrality of coercion in government, I suggest an experiment on April 15 of not paying your US income taxes – perhaps giving voluntarily a few contributions in strict proportion to the share of the government’s budget you judge to be effective and ethical. Whether you tend toward left or right on the conventional spectrum, you will have plenty of corrupting items in mind NOT to give to. The new fighter jet that doesn’t work. The corporate subsidy that does.
Then try resisting arrest. Then try escaping from prison. Then tri resisting re-arrest. After release, if ever, you will note the contrast with the non-policy, non-police arenas of commerce or persuasion. Try buying an iPhone rather than a Samsung. Nothing happens. Try not agreeing with McCloskey. Ditto. You will observe a sharp difference from your experience with the entity possessing the monopoly of coercion, even in Goetborg or St. Paul.
READER COMMENTS
Daniel Klein
Nov 19 2019 at 2:06pm
I think, however, that the dispute is over the initiation of coercion, which turns on the configuration of ownership.
nobody.really
Nov 19 2019 at 8:09pm
I don’t dispute the idea that governments–including fairly benign governments–employ coercion. That said, I have a friend who made a bit of a name for himself by ending up in court for having not paid taxes for YEARS (I was astonished to learn how much he earned), and as far as I know he is still a free man. A less wealthy man, sure, but not in prison.
ProPublica (among others) have done exposes about how the Republicans have gutted the IRS’s budget. The ProPublica article has a nice graph showing the decline in investigations of people who file no tax returns.
Mark Z
Nov 19 2019 at 11:31pm
It’s interesting that they claim this is great for “corporations and the wealthy” but people who don’t file tax returns tend to be poorer rather than wealthier. The revenue-maximizing response to a reduction in the number of audits one can do would most likely be to impose a higher threshold of expected income needed to warrant an audit or investigation. I’d expect the effect then to be make the effective tax rate more progressive, not less.
nobody.really
Nov 20 2019 at 1:42am
This is an interesting strategic question. Yes,the IRS may feel inclined to focus on large targets first. But large targets also have large numbers of lawyers on retainer, and the expense of the litigation may offset the expected returns to the treasury.
In contrast, the IRS might recover more funds with a scattershot approach: Use computers to identify anomalies in tax returns, and then send a form letter informing the taxpayers of the anomaly and that they can file amended returns (with some penalty) by a given date. Middle-class taxpayers–especially taxpayers who feel that they may have shaded the truth in their filings–may be inclined to simply pony up the money rather than risk an audit.
Robert EV
Nov 19 2019 at 10:49pm
Try avoiding having a cell phone at all (as a typical American). Then get back to me.
Historically social coercion has been every bit as coercive as governmental coercion.
Jon Murphy
Nov 20 2019 at 7:07am
No. The two aren’t even remotely comparable. If I don’t have a cellphone, no one is going to arrest or kill me.
My grandmother doesn’t have a cellphone and she is still a free woman.
“Social pressure” is not the same as a literal gun in your face
Thaomas
Nov 20 2019 at 9:35am
Liberals have always been aware of the inherent trade off of liberty and governance and the tendency of state power to be abused whether it’s GWB’s torturing of prisoners or DJT’s family separation policy So, no, government is not always the servant of my good will. Does that stipulated fact [let me further stipulate that capitalism is better sort of socio-economic system than socialism] imply that ACA should be expended or repealed? Should we tax income or consumption, progressively or regressively or neither? Should we try to raise the incomes of low wage workers with minimum wages, with an EITC, other wise, or not at all?
Fred_in_PA
Nov 20 2019 at 11:52am
Perhaps you meant “expend”; but I suspect you meant “expand” and your spellchecker didn’t catch it. Yes?
Thaomas
Nov 21 2019 at 8:54am
Thanks. A “care-checker” does not exist.
Ricardo
Nov 20 2019 at 3:23pm
If we restrict ourselves to those who accept that some degree of coercion will be required, then presumably those people would reach a consensus on the maximum amount, and the answers to your questions would follow.
Personally I think Nozick got it right, so the answers are “repealed,” “neither,” and “no.”
Rob Rawlings
Nov 21 2019 at 11:00am
I do not find this line of reasoning very compelling.
Even a stateless society would allow coercion in defense of property rights and one could imagine a anarcho-communist using a similar line of argument against a anarcho-capitalist society ( ‘just try setting up a commune on Bill Gates land and see how long you stay out of trouble’). Not obvious whether the coercion is ‘monopoly’ or not makes much difference when you are on the receiving end.
And of course many state enthusiasts see tax as merely the state taking what it is legitimately owed and the use of coercion to enforce collection justified.
nobody.really
Nov 25 2019 at 4:44pm
Reinhold Niebuhr (1892-1971) American theologian and clergyman, Moral Man and Immoral Society (1932) (emphasis added).
Comments are closed.