I hung out with my brother and Bernardo tonight and realized that Bernardo and I have fundamentally different views of liberty. To paraphrase him, he thinks that our rights as humans derive from a Rousseau-ian "social contract" that depends solely on whatever agreements a majority makes within itself. I, on the other hand, believe that we each individually have inalienable rights that supersede any the desires of any majority, even if it's everyone else in the world against me alone.
I think this ode to tax havens will serve as a concrete example of our differing perspectives. I agree with the writer, Johnathan Pearce, and I expect Bernardo will take the communitarian position.
The difficulty that even any pro-freemarketeer politicians - if there are many - have in defending tax havens is defending the right of people to essentially flee from an oppressive but still-democratic regime. In chatting to people on this issue and reading the commentary, a lot of people make the assumption that wealth is collectively owned if enough voters wish it so and that therefore no-one has the right to flee from the looting intentions of such voters. In other words, non-domiciled residents who want to get away from the British taxman are not being good, democratic citizens by shirking their 'responsibilities'.At its core, what this issue throws up, beyond the practical issues of how tax rates hurt economies, is a broader issue of the obligations, if any, that an individual has to his fellow citizens. If one believes the classical liberal idea that governments exist to serve the individual and not the other way round, that individuals have no apriori obligations to others, then the crackdown on tax-avoiders should be seen as the power grab that it is.
Another issue, of course, is this: democracy and liberty are not the same thing, a point that has been remarked at this blog many times before. For sure, democracy may - may - be the least-worst way to kick out a government and replace it with a hopefully better one, but the idea that freedom comes from letting 51% of the electorate steal from 49% of the electorate has precious little to do with liberty. The right to own property and enjoy its fruits unmolested is as important as freedom of speech or the right to self defence. Tax havens rile communitarians precisely because they are a standing reproach to the looters who use democratic mandates to justify their depredations. They act as a brake on the power of governments with a temporary majority in a democratic assembly every bit as powerful as other checks and balances such as independent courts and upper chambers.
The "classic liberal" ideas expressed in that second paragraph are utterly foreign to modern "liberals" -- leftists -- who rarely hesitate to advocate the use of coercive power for the accomplishment of their desired ends.
I haven't studied the issues much, but the only objection I see to tax havens is that they're essentially free riders. It's easy to have super-low taxes if you don't have to pay for your own army or navy. But then, I would rather bring that problem up with France, Britain, and Germany before fussing over Lichtenstein or the Bahamas.
How can the government fulfill its obligation towards the individuals it serves if it cannot collect taxes? It can't. So while an individual might not be obligated to his government a priori, it's easy to see that his derived obligations include paying an amount of tax.
I'm see myself as fairly (classically) liberal, but I'm not so liberal that I believe that people have no obligations towards each other. As to this case, I personally feel that where an individual has flourished in the environment of his host nation and has accumulated significant wealth there, it's in fairly bad taste for him to avoid properly contributing to that environment. A recent UK example is lewis hamilton, a young F1 driver. He's got out the first year he's made anything. I think it unlikely that any of the haven countries would have been suitable for him as he developed his sport.
btw Britain spends around 3% gdp on defense, America around 4%. How is that free riding? Granted, we're not a superpower, but as a small country should we try to be?
I think people's views on liberty are essentially shaped on their core beliefs of religion or non-religion. Of course atheists will perceive liberty as subjective to whichever majority is in power because they have no moral or other type of grounding to tell them otherwise. The concept of liberty and freedom are wholly derived, in my opinion, from one's view of a God figure, or lack thereof.
You believe that we as individuals have certain inalienable rights because you do believe in a higher Moral Power. You believe we as humans were created by God in His image and to ultimately serve Him. You also believe that God gave us these rights. The view that we were created on purpose and for a purpose shape your deeper viwe of liberty than just a social contract. (Me too, obviously) But Bernardo does not believe in a God figure, so he sees himself as just some random evolutionary coincidence. If you saw yourself as just a mistake by nature, then you, too, would view liberty and freedom quite differently.
"Of course atheists will perceive liberty as subjective to whichever majority is in power because they have no moral or other type of grounding to tell them otherwise."
And you would be factually incorrect. There are many different non-god-based philosophies which have *objective* views of morality because they have objective views of reality. Although I am not a Randian myself, Objectivism is one of the best known recent examples. I am a Pancritical Rationalists and my critical preference is for moral theories (and all morality is a theory) which have a basis in objective reality (which is also why I don't do The God Thing, BTW).
"The concept of liberty and freedom are wholly derived, in my opinion, from one's view of a God figure, or lack thereof."
With all due respect, that is simply not supportable as a generality.
mauyr: You prompted me to do some research on the question of military expenditures in the US and Europe. You're right that the UK current spends about 3% of GDP. Most of Europe is at similar levels, with the notable exception of Germany. But that is fairly recent. Five to ten years ago and before, the gap was much larger, and so the Europeans still have a long ways to go to catch up in terms of actual military effectiveness. But your basic point was right. My data were out of date.
And that's wonderful news. I would love to see us pull out of all those obsolete Cold War bases in Europe.
Perry: You might want to distinguish moral philosophies that claim to have immovable moral values from moral philosophies in which the moral values do not actually move, or at least move less than others. Nearly everyone believes that their moral perspective is objective, but it's an empirical question to determine whether they're right. And I think the evidence supports the claim that the more stable moral systems posit a source of moral authority that is separate from the moral actor. That external source of moral authority doesn't necessarily have to be God, but it usually is.
"Nearly everyone believes that their moral perspective is objective"
Far from it. Many moral philosophies are enthusiastically subjective (i.e. the whole platonic strand in my view) and make no bones about it. In fact as many epistemological approaches deny the very existence of objective anything.
"but it's an empirical question to determine whether they're right."
Not really, it is an exercise in critical rationality. You do not empirically get to an objective epistemology. Feel free to try but I suspect you will fall at the first fence. Do an experiment to PROVE you exist and are not in fact a non-corporeal virtual reality program running in an alien computer :-)
"And I think the evidence supports the claim that the more stable moral systems posit a source of moral authority that is separate from the moral actor."
I agree! It is called 'the objective nature of reality'. That is quite a separate thing from a moral actor. And the reason I describe morality as a theory is that although reality may be objective (i.e. my critical preference is the theory that reality exists in an objective sense (i.e. existence exists) and the world not in truth a delusion in my own head), however our understanding of it is always conjectural (i.e. our understanding of *everything* is a theory), so if follows that our understanding of morality is also a theory.
"That external source of moral authority doesn't necessarily have to be God, but it usually is."
I do not think that 'God' is the best theory (for anything really), so I prefer to form preferences for theories on the basis of notions of reality and critical rationality (to my mind God is a purely psychological artifice). But maybe that is another discussion :-)
The problem with moral philosophies that are movable is that they are vulnerable to perversion. The problem with moral philosophies that are immovable is that they are immune to improvement.
The Darwinist suggestion is that an emergent ethics can arise from the parameters of our environment: given that we are social creatures, at once in competition and in cooperation, certain aspects of any working ethical system are inevitable. Seen that way, you could say that even Rousseau's social contract recognises an external morality (ie, simply reality).
Rousseau is not appealing to me -- for political purposes, I'm happier to entertain the idea of inalienable rights.
Perry: First, I said it was my opinion. You, on the other hand, make a knowledge claim that atheists can have moral objectivity. From what basis? From your response, it sounds as if you claim to know everything, which is quite astounding. I am really very interested to see what you base your moral beliefs on, in all sincerity. Do you believe humankind is the source of morality? If you do, than nature itself would have to somehow create morality. And, you can't get something from nothing, i.e., a non-sentient being such as a rock or a tree can't determine morality. So I am curious as to where you get your moral basis from.