Homo Mensura

Does a decent definition of humanism elude us as Jennifer Hancock claimed? Different people mean different things by humanism.

I define humanism as an idea that human is the measure of all things as put forth by Protagoras. I mean it as an epistemological, ontological, ethical and political view that one does not seek answers from a higher authority. That definition excludes belief in gods.

I define humanism more broadly than Stephen Law did because I would include all forms of Marxism like Stalin and Mao in humanism provided that they actually believed in Marxism and were not just psychopaths who used it as a tool.

Contrary to Stephen Law, I also consider humanism a speciesist idea because the etymology refers to human beings.

Tulojen uudelleenjakaminen valtion politiikkana ei kiihdytä talouskasvua

IMF julkaisi tutkimuksen, jossa väitettiin tulojen uudelleen jaon olevan hyväksi talouskasvulle. I M F S T A F F D I S C U S S I O N N O T E 
SDN/14/02 Redistribution, Inequality, and Growth  Jonathan D. Ostry, Andrew Berg, and Charalambos G. Tsangarides Talouselämä-lehdessä referoitiin tutkimusta. Tuossa tutkimuksessa tehtiin yksinkertaisia korrelaatioita tulojen uudelleenjaon ja talouskasvun välillä. Siinä ei otettu huomioon, että paljon tuloja uudelleen jakavat maat ovat muuten vapaampia. Talouden vapaus kiihdyttää talouskasvua toisten tutkimusten mukaan. Valtion suorittama tulojen uudelleenjako vaatii tyypillisesti verotusta, joka hidastaa talouskasvua. Myös valtion pakottamat yksityishenkilöiden keskinäiset tulonsiirrot hidastavat talouskasvua, koska niillä on kustannuksensa. Tulonsiirron uhrit esimerkiksi muuttavat ulkomaille tai heidän työkykynsä tai -motivaationsa heikkenee. Oikea tapa tutkia tulojen uudelleenjakoa olisi faktorianalyysi, jossa otettaisiin talouden yleinen vapaus huomioon.

Tulot ovat jakautuneet epätasaisesti epävapaissa maissa, joissa talouskasvukin on hidasta epävapauden takia. Vapaassa markkinataloudessa markkinatulot ovat jakautuneet melko tasaisesti, koska työttömyyttä ja etuoikeuksia on vähän. Vapaassa markkinataloudessa valtion harjoittamaa tulojen tasaamista ei siis juurikaan tarvita.

Individual liberty is humanism

As I said, some libertarians are explicit ethical egoists and few big-government progressives are. But that does not mean that libertarians would be less humanistic. It does not even mean that big-government progressives would not be really egoists: they just motivate their egoism by appealing to humanism. Egoism has several meanings and ethical egoism is not necessarily similar to common usage. Ethical egoism is humanism because the egos are humans. Big-government progressives claim that suppression of individual liberty is humanism but I disagree.

Big-government progressives cherish a myth that free markets lead to a lot of predation. They do not even understand that free markets are not unregulated in the sense of lack of any regulation. Conflation of free markets and the law of the jungle is a common theme in big-government rhetoric. Free markets necessarily include regulation that protects human rights to freedom. Big-government progressives refuse to believe that such freedom would be enough and want to impose a lot of regulation that is poorly motivated. Big government means predation by government and its cronies.

http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Im-open-arguments-that-reconcile-4085072.S.5842626245115797508?qid=1b5ca894-5687-425d-b2b9-8c1bc68f2567&trk=groups_most_popular-0-b-ttl&goback=%2Egmp_4085072

Libertarianism is humanism because it is about human liberation and freedom

There are libertarians like I who consider themselves progressives. What is at odds with libertarianism is big-government progressivism. Jennifer Hancock said in her blog post that she is almost in agreement with naive anarchists, so maybe she should be considered a libertarian as well.

Some libertarians are explicitly egoists but they usually define egoism in a positive way contrary to usual usage. You should not write libertarianism out of humanism because of some explicit egoist ethics that is worth consideration.

Big-government progressives are egoists, too, but they do not admit it and therefore their ideology has a propaganda advantage but no real advantage as far as humanism is considered. They want things and are usually not sorry for the pain they cause with their imperialistic politics.

Libertarianism is humanism because it is about human liberation and freedom. I see no reason why only big-government progressivism should be considered humanism.

http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Im-open-arguments-that-reconcile-4085072.S.5842626245115797508?qid=9b59f5ad-36e5-4444-89fc-397995ba2277&trk=groups_most_popular-0-b-ttl&goback=%2Egmp_4085072

Libertarianism Is Humanism

I find Jen Hancock's assertion that libertarianism is rarely compatible with humanism puzzling. Libertarianism has significant ethical theories of social contract. Contractarian libertarians and other contractarians disagree on the content of the social contract. Libertarianism is individualistic but I do not know anyone who opposes helping people in need. But taxation is another matter: it can be seen as a selfish imposition of the will of the ruling class on its subjects. If economics had proven taxation beneficial to all, that would be another matter, but taxation is always harmful to many people. Humanism is compatible with strict individualism that forbids sacrificing anyone even if that is not what all libertarians believe in. The welfare state has roots in Christian paternalistic ethics, so it could be argued that humanism is more compatible with libertarianism than with welfare statism. Economics supports the view that taxation is very harmful in the long term.

Taxation Is Negation of Human Rights

Even if most people may not know it, taxation is negation of human rights. Human rights conventions and constitutions may assert private property rights but do not affirm private property rights as far as taxation is concerned. Would you expect feudal lords to abdicate and grant their subjects full human rights? You should not expect human rights conventions and constitutions to include the abdication of the feudal lords who authored them either. The United States constitution was written by actual slaveholders who did not want to free their slaves. Taxation is oppression because it violates the private property rights of the taxpayers exactly like slaveholders do. I do not love constitutions and human rights conventions because they perpetuate the fiction that feudal lordship is necessary for good governance and human rights. Constitutions assert the right of the feudal lords to tax but that is not the end of the argument. I challenge the right of the feudal lords to tax as violating private property rights.

http://proudtobeafilthyliberalscum.com/2014/02/12/libertarians-jumping-on-the-im-a-victim-bandwagon/

The Right To Vote Oneself To the Taxpayers' Money

Socialists and most liberals believe in the right to vote oneself to the taxpayers' money. The holy commonwealth is a commons of all citizens and residents and their property. When everything is a commons, it is called communism. And you are not even allowed to oppose it without being frowned on because it is a civic religion. I do not accept the right of the voting populace to dictate my life. The right to vote is not sacred to me. If rights could be better preserved by restricting the aggressors' right to vote, I would be all for it.

Tying the right to vote to tax-paying is no sacrilege to me. It is not ideal but it could be an improvement. The English history can be argued to have had a better government than the present. But it would be ideal to remove aggression instead of tinkering with the right to vote.

http://proudtobeafilthyliberalscum.com/2014/02/14/the-1-would-like-for-you-filthy-commoners-to-stop-voting-now-please/