Storify by Swaraj India

Against statism, socialism, centralization

On taxes, coercion, night-watchman central government, federalism, and my normative takes regarding size, scope, design of government.

Swaraj India @swaraj_india
One last hint: even if many are risk-averse, that does not ipso facto mean pro-welfare state. There is a huge market out there: insurance.
Fri, Aug 03 2012 12:15:16
Reply Retweet Favorite
Swaraj India @swaraj_india
State govts will get money through our taxes. And that is better than sending all to Delhi. Let states compete for top capital and labor.
Fri, Aug 03 2012 12:11:17
Reply Retweet Favorite
Swaraj India @swaraj_india
I have read Rawls in detail. Original position is flawed. How does Rawls know people would be risk-averse & pro-welfare state behind "veil"?
Fri, Aug 03 2012 12:08:41
Reply Retweet Favorite
Swaraj India @swaraj_india
But if you still think the central government is best instrument of social improvement, then please feel free to send extra money to Delhi.
Fri, Aug 03 2012 12:06:56
Reply Retweet Favorite
Swaraj India @swaraj_india
With the central government taxing us much less - directly and through inflation - we will have more to do via states, charity, businesses.
Fri, Aug 03 2012 12:02:19
Reply Retweet Favorite
Swaraj India @swaraj_india
Funding education/healthcare is redistribution, but I support it at the state level. The center should contribute minor, not major, share.
Fri, Aug 03 2012 11:59:42
Reply Retweet Favorite
Swaraj India @swaraj_india
If 51 % of people choose to vote for redistribution, then that does not mean the other 49 % are now voluntarily paying higher taxes does it?
Fri, Aug 03 2012 11:55:47
Reply Retweet Favorite
Swaraj India @swaraj_india
Taxes are important for a civilized state, as a wise man noted. But they still represent coercion, especially when used for redistribution.
Fri, Aug 03 2012 11:53:52
Reply Retweet Favorite
Swaraj India @swaraj_india
Coming from philosophy to policy, I support state governments funding basic education, healthcare etc, with minimal funding by the Center.
Fri, Aug 03 2012 11:51:24
Reply Retweet Favorite
Swaraj India @swaraj_india
My reason to support a minimalist state is not positivist, but normative - protection of life,property. But coercion still remains coercion.
Fri, Aug 03 2012 11:34:13
Reply Retweet Favorite
Swaraj India @swaraj_india
Taxes to create the minimalist, night-watchman state at the federal/central level increases welfare, but that is not reason to support it.
Fri, Aug 03 2012 11:33:01
Reply Retweet Favorite
Swaraj India @swaraj_india
First, give people protection of their lives, property from others. Then at lower govt levels maybe redistribute (citizens can move around).
Fri, Aug 03 2012 11:31:57
Reply Retweet Favorite
Swaraj India @swaraj_india
"Equality of opportunity" is a classic motherhood-applepie phrase that most of us have used, but it is intellectually nonsensical.
Fri, Aug 03 2012 11:10:53
Reply Retweet Favorite
Swaraj India @swaraj_india
A minimalist state's first duty is to prevent internal and external attacks. Any domestic violence - caste, communal - needs to be repulsed.
Fri, Aug 03 2012 11:09:18
Reply Retweet Favorite
Swaraj India @swaraj_india
Taxes for public goods OK - to prevent violence, basic infra, enforce contracts. Line unclear yes, but forced redistribution morally wrong.
Fri, Aug 03 2012 11:05:24
Reply Retweet Favorite
Swaraj India @swaraj_india
Taxation only for redistribution is tantamount to being forced to work for somebody else. i.e. partial slavery. Coercion is the problem.
Fri, Aug 03 2012 10:56:58
Reply Retweet Favorite
Swaraj India @swaraj_india
Socialism does not work. But more importantly it is immoral.
Fri, Aug 03 2012 10:44:40
Reply Retweet Favorite