Hacker News Reader

Comment by BeetleB | Hacker News Reader

Your comment seems to imply that the people in favor of income redistribution are the ones that think that way.

But so do those who are against redistribution. I've yet to meet a person who was against redistribution, as well as against certain benefits they get from tax money (police force, etc).

Taxpayer provided services is income redistribution. Some people's incomes are being used to provide other people services.

Everyone wants free shit. That's why your comment is a bit of a non-statement. It's similar to saying "Everyone likes food". Or "Everyone likes money." It doesn't explain anything.

View on HN

I think it's a stretch to say that tax payer funded services and social welfare programs are the same thing. The taxes I pay to fund my local police force and fire department directly benefit me. Their services keep me safe. Taxes I pay for social welfare programs do not necessarily benefit me. They benefit the recipient of the money. This is what is commonly thought of as income redistribution. You can make the argument that I'm effectively paying for an insurance policy, or that by supporting the recipients I am supporting the economy which in the end supports me, but the relationship is not nearly as direct.

>I think it's a stretch to say that tax payer funded services and social welfare programs are the same thing.

And I think your stretching your definitions to suit your level of income redistribution.

The conversation of how much and what type does need to occur. I just wish everyone realized that it is income redistribution. Your level of what your comfortable with is simply different from others.

>You can make the argument that I'm effectively paying for an insurance policy, or that by supporting the recipients I am supporting the economy which in the end supports me, but the relationship is not nearly as direct.

It is not very direct with fire and police, either. With both of them, it is effectively an insurance policy. If you benefited from the police, it is not clear you contributed in taxes as much as is needed to get that benefit. And I'm sure you would not advocate a system where you get only as much police benefit as what you put in.

> I've yet to meet a person who was against redistribution, as well as against certain benefits they get from tax money (police force, etc).

I've met plenty. There are those who relish the opportunity for free market alternatives to public police forces.

>I've met plenty. There are those who relish the opportunity for free market alternatives to public police forces.

You've met them for police forces. But have you met any that are against all taxpayer supported services?

The big one being: No military?

Other than that: No transportation services (road maintenance, etc). I've met people who quickly say they want that privatized and voluntarily paid for, but when I really make them think about it, they change their mind quickly. There are always places they want to drive to that they do not want to pay for.

And even if you have met such a person, they really are a minority of people in the group who are against wealth redistribution.

"No military" was an actual thing in the United States prior to WWII. See any good bio. of Eisenhower for details

> "No military" was an actual thing in the United States prior to WWII.

No, it wasn't. A minimal peacetime army and, for most of its history, a substantial navy -- with reliance on that navy, the oceans, sheer size to provide depth, and the fact that only a small number of countries had land borders to provide mobilization time for the army in time of need was a thing for the US prior to WWII.

> See any good bio. of Eisenhower for details

Any bio of Eisenhower (or any non-fiction work more generally) that claims the US had no military prior to WWII is, ipso facto, not a good one.

There was a vastly reduced military in the interwar period. Not literally "no military". This goes back to the American Revolution. Not having a standing army was really of key importance in the US from the Founding.

I would have thought the reference to Eisenhower's bio. would be enough to show that there was some army.

The Navy varied dependent on who was in charge.

> There was a vastly reduced military in the interwar period.

Sure, but its not even approximately the same as no military (and its much more true of the Army than the Navy, except, IIRC, for two periods -- from the end of the revolution to 1794 when there was little (and, from 1785, no) Navy, and about a decade somewhere around 1870-1880 when there was a very small Navy.

From just before the turn of the 20th Century onward, the US at no point didn't have a world class Navy.

Agreed. "A moat the size of two oceans" and all that. Thanks for clarifying things.

We've had a navy since 1775.

> We've had a navy since 1775.

That's the tradition, but its not entirely true; the Continental Navy was formed in 1775, but disbanded 10 years later in 1785, and it was nearly another decade before the US Navy was formed in 1794.

Thanks for the fact correction (seriously).

In any case, anything in the 18th century is well before Eisenhower... ;)

I hope my explanations to the others helps to clarify what I mean. I omitted needful words :)

We have indeed.

I didn't mean literally "no military" but we've had extreme drawdowns after every conflict . By "no military" in scare quotes I mean that there was an aversion to a standing army dating back to the Revolution. I was ( apparently overly simplistically) identifying that as a principle. The Legislature literally did not want the Executive to use the standing army as a political tool.

Obviously, the inventory ... lag of ships means that we'd have larger navies in some peacetime intervals than others. We only had permanent forces after the advent of the Cold War.

So the poster child for this might be David D. Friedman.

First of all, he uses this as a thought experiment and a sort of alternate method of constructing a model.

Second, it sort of assumes a frictionless universe in which there is much weaker national/tribal/city-state affiliation.

It's a good thing to know about, but I'm skeptical that actual humans as they currently are can handle it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com