I was looking at the Marginal Revolution site today and stumbled across an interesting little post (and subsequent discussion) by economist Tyler Cowen on Robert Nozick's famous "Wilt Chamberlain" argument around tolerable wealth and taxation.
For the uninitiated, Nozick's line was that if people were prepared to pay to see Wilt play, then he was entitled to higher compensation because of his demonstrably superior ability. Nozick used Chamberlain as a real-life example to demonstrate that non-entitlement theories of justice (most pointedly, that of John Rawls) were inherently unjust.
Now, as my earlier stated interest in both the Young Hegalians and the Frankfurt School probably indicate, I obviously take some issue with Nozick's assumptions. Broadly identifying myself as a 'reconstructed' social democrat (with a pragmatic streak), I found myself locking horns on numerous occasion with my favourite undergrad lecturer. Now, despite our philosophical differences, he went on to act as my Honours supervisor and [first] PhD supervisor, and was an unabashed fan of Nozick, and probably wouldn't have been too out of place amongst the alumnus of the Chicago School. He always thought that the Chamberlain argument was a trump that no-one could match. I disagreed then, and still do.
Anyway, having not ventured into the philosophical conundrum of the most appropriate levels of taxation for an age, it both made me a little nostalgic ove past arguments (I don't knock around with many economists these days), and reminded me that people are still arguing the point. From my own perspective though, the notion that the best (and only) fair level of tax is 0% is both illogical and immoral, and never cease to be amazed at the amount of people who are willing to risk foolishness to advocate it.
For the uninitiated, Nozick's line was that if people were prepared to pay to see Wilt play, then he was entitled to higher compensation because of his demonstrably superior ability. Nozick used Chamberlain as a real-life example to demonstrate that non-entitlement theories of justice (most pointedly, that of John Rawls) were inherently unjust.
Now, as my earlier stated interest in both the Young Hegalians and the Frankfurt School probably indicate, I obviously take some issue with Nozick's assumptions. Broadly identifying myself as a 'reconstructed' social democrat (with a pragmatic streak), I found myself locking horns on numerous occasion with my favourite undergrad lecturer. Now, despite our philosophical differences, he went on to act as my Honours supervisor and [first] PhD supervisor, and was an unabashed fan of Nozick, and probably wouldn't have been too out of place amongst the alumnus of the Chicago School. He always thought that the Chamberlain argument was a trump that no-one could match. I disagreed then, and still do.
Anyway, having not ventured into the philosophical conundrum of the most appropriate levels of taxation for an age, it both made me a little nostalgic ove past arguments (I don't knock around with many economists these days), and reminded me that people are still arguing the point. From my own perspective though, the notion that the best (and only) fair level of tax is 0% is both illogical and immoral, and never cease to be amazed at the amount of people who are willing to risk foolishness to advocate it.
Comments