Comparative Fiscal Federalism: Comparing the European Court of Justice and the U.S. Supreme Court's Tax Jurisprudence (Eucotax Series on European Taxation)

Book Description

In a capitalist economy, taxes are the most important instrument by which the political system puts into practice a conception of economic and distributive justice. Taxes arouse strong passions, fueled not only by conflicts of economic self-interest, but by conflicting ideas of fairness. Taking as a guiding principle the conventional nature of private property, Murphy and Nagel show how taxes can only be evaluated as part of the overall system of property rights that they help to create. Justice or injustice in taxation, they argue, can only mean justice or injustice in the system of property rights and entitlements that result from a particular regime. Taking up ethical issues about individual liberty, interpersonal obligation, and both collective and personal responsibility, Murphy and Nagel force us to reconsider how our tax policy shapes our system of property rights.

Customer Reviews:

I disagree with the argument, but the book is fairly solid.......2006-03-16

Nagel and Murphy have missed an important point in not recognizing that although property rights are conventional, Nozick gives a very convinving ontology of property rights that is compatible with the Lockean tradition. In other words, though property rights as they exist are conventional, they arise from the state of nature in a manner such that government enforcement is not an inherent quality of them. Hence, in arguing that individuals do not wholly own the fruits of their labor due to the fact that the possession of such fruits is enabled by government enforcement of property rights, Nagel and Murphy are clearly missing why Nozick comes to hold the entitlement view of property.

With all of this said, this is a pretty good book overall. It is one thing to disagree with the authors and their argument, it's another to outrightly discredit each of them as individuals. Previous reviewers that oversimplify what Murphy and Nagel are doing here seemingly either do not understand the complexities of these issues, or do not have the intellectual honesty and/or curiosity to consider something that is prima facie opposed to their opinion. To question the academic credibility of the authors is simply ignorant, as both are highly reputable and regarded, and to assert that the authors "seem unaware of the Lockean tradition" is dubious, since Locke is clearly mentioned and farily represented in the book.

What a waste of ink.......2003-05-06

The short version of this dopey book is this: Without Uncle Sam to protect your stuff you'd probably get mugged without hope of getting it back. Therefore you dont actually own it. I think most mafia dons think along these lines.
In another context, the money sitting in your banks safe doesn't actually belong to you. It belongs to the security guard who keeps it from getting stolen.
John Locke is spinning in his grave. The Sophists are laughing their butts off.

Tax Equity and the State of Nature.......2003-02-01

In the Myth of Ownership, Murphy and Nagel attempt to invert the baseline for determining tax fairness. Instead of using the more or less pure market distribution of social welfare as the baseline from which to discuss the equity of the existing tax scheme (Should we tax the wealthy more? Should we tax capital gains? Is taxation of dividends equitable to those receiving dividends?), the authors believe it is more appropriate to proceed from another baseline. Their preferred baseline can be, in my view, formulated succinctly by reference to Ronald Dworkin's claim regarding the nature of a just state, i.e. that the 'sovereign virtue' of the state is equal concern for the fate of all citizens. Thus, in Murphy's and Nagel's view, any discussion of tax fairness must begin with this imperative, the fate of all citizens, and must keep it in mind where there is any serious discussion of tax equity since such discussions are really discussion of economic and social justice.

In the authors' view, to proceed from the baseline of market distributions of social welfare - - which most people agree would allow serious and troubling social outcomes - - is to utilize a market-centric conception of social justice. As all citizens are first that, i.e. citizens, all have a stake in the social compact and all must be the equal concern of the governing organs of the state. Thus, all have a right to live lives free of poverty and the inequalities allowed by pure market outcomes.

Those tax commentators proceeding from the market baseline are those whom the authors call 'unreflective libertarians.' They are those who believe that they first owneth, and the government taketh away, and that their claims to ownership of their incomes and assets do not require government validation. The authors argue, conversely, that the only ownership we have is what government considers permissible (after taking Dworkin's maxim into account).

Murphy and Nagel argue that ownership, since only legitimized by government, is almost completely dependent upon government. To justify their position they invoke Hobbes and they assert that the 'state of nature' prior to the formation of government was a Hobbesian war of all against all. Thus, government, and robust government at that, performs more than a regulative role but is the condition sine qua non for the possibility of ownership, property rights, wealth and even civility.

While one might have sympathy for where Murphy and Nagel want to take us, their utilization of Hobbes to demonstrate the near heirophanic role of government is precisely what leads to many of their critics' charges of statism. Their argument could have proceeded without such strong claims (assertions, really) about human nature and government. Many conservatives would argue that government does not only NOT provide OF ITSELF the conditions for the possibility of ownership and property, they would argue that government at times impedes those conditions in unfair and inappropriate ways. As well, there are those who would argue that the authors' assessment of human nature is too dark, although convenient to their argument that it is government, and not social actors, that creates the legitimacy for claims of ownership and property rights, etc. Many would point out, in fact, that 'constitutional conventions' precede constitutions and thus that legitimacy flows from the people and the people's moral deliberations and not from government per se (Where, in fact, does non-despotic government obtain its legitimacy but from the people?).

The argument in the Myth of Ownership rests upon philosophical pillars that are unhelpful to its case and which lead to conclusions that are both philosophically problematic and politically fatal in a Western context, and so its central argument fails. Few would disagree with the claim that wealth and ownership are helped along by governmental frameworks, some safeguards against unjust seizures etc. But, I would have to reject Myth's statism, it's dark view of human nature, and so I come away disappointed at what promised to be a rubber-meets-the-road philosophical essay. It would have been a better book if the authors grounded the legitimacy of ownership and property rights claims in the moral imagination of human beings, rather than in Leviathan.

Superficial.......2002-10-26

I was very disappointed and wrote to the authors without reply (to date). They seem unaware of the Lockean tradition and its handling by writers such as Henry George (who wrote far more clearly than they over 100 years ago).

The entitlements approach to justice is more in tune with the common law and history than the idea of collectivist "creation" of "rights", "offences" or "social mortgages".

As Pitt the Elder observed, taxation and the common law are strangers (which is why taxation statutes reeived a strict construction against the Crown).

I could go on but why? If this sort of stuff gets published I should have a go myself!

Is Vertical Equity Really Dead?.......2002-08-17

The main thrust of Murphy & Nagel's claim is that pre-tax income cannot be a moral base for the measurement of the fairness of taxation. Their claim is that the ultimate social justice of the entire economic system is the only proper end, of which taxation is a part, thus taxation and the equity thereof cannot be measured in a vaccum, rather only against the resulting end.

It would seem however that Murphy & Nagel make their claim too strong in that they claim that pre-tax income (and vertical equity) cannot be utilized as even a factor in the measurement. Unfortunately for their theory, pre-tax income is a fact of the market economy and the positive law surrounding such economy. Thus, if we are to ignore everyone's pre-tax income, the only possible result is that all after-tax income must come out equal. To claim any other result must come through the application of a judgment as to vertical equity.

It would seem that their claim would be far more sound if it were limited to saying that vertical equity may only be utilized as a means to achievement of the end of social justice. Murphy & Nagel, however, want to make their claim stronger so as to be able to discount the tax equity argument entirely. Ultimately such an argument must fail due to the reality of pre-tax income, but it is still a very interesting and well written book.

Average customer rating:
Critics of Henry George - Volume 1 (Studies in Economic Reform and Social Justice)

Manufacturer: Blackwell Publishing Limited
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

Economic History | Economics | Business & Investing | Subjects | Books
Theory | Economics | Business & Investing | Subjects | Books
General | Popular Economics | Business & Investing | Subjects | Books
General | Business & Investing | Subjects | Books
ASIN: 1405118245

Book Description

Since its publication in 1979, Critics of Henry George has achieved an international reputation as by far the most comprehensive review and analysis of the objections leveled against Henry George's American classic, Progress and Poverty. George's 19th century classic argument for land reform produced an army of critics including Alfred Marshall, J. B. Clark, F. A. Walker and in the 20th century, Edwin Cannan, Murray Rothbard and Mark Blaug. In recent years Georgist insights have been gaining ground in economics on a variety of fronts especially in the areas of the economics of location and public finance. Now, more than a century after George and 25 years after the first edition of the Critics of Henry George, the Critics has been expanded, revised and enlarged by Dr. Robert Andelson. The Andelson revision will include a revised last chapter evaluating Georgism as it was interpreted by its critics.

Average customer rating:

Tax Justice: The Ongoing Debate

Manufacturer: Urban Inst Pr
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

Public Finance | Economics | Business & Investing | Subjects | Books

General | Business & Investing | Subjects | Books
Similar Items:

ASIN: 0877667071

Book Description

In the 50 years since the publication of Walter Blum and Harry Kalvin's classic "The Uneasy Case for Progressive Taxation," the debate among tax experts has drifted from frank discussion of distributive justice--whether the tax system should be used to address income inequality--towards the less unsettling ideas associated with horizontal equity--which holds that taxpayers with the same income should pay the same amount of taxes. Still, tax justice has remained a prominent fixture of the political debate, as evidenced by vigorous discussion of the "fairness" of recent tax bills, and the longevity of "flat tax" proposals. This volume explores the ongoing debate, offering perspectives on tax justice from nine leading experts. The contributions include historical evaluations of the U.S. tax system, theoretical explorations of distributive justice, and analyses of tax justice issues in contemporary policy debates. Together, they offer fresh insight into this politically potent subject. Contributors include Richard A Musgrave, Dennis J. Ventry Jr., W. Elliot Brownlee, Carolyn C. Jones, Daniel Shaviro, Barbara Fried, David Brunori, Joan M. Youngman, and C. Eugene Steuerle.

History: Fiction or Science? Dating methods as offered by mathematical statistics. Eclipses and zodiacs. Chronology Vol.I

Average customer rating:

Calculations are only as good as your numbers
Pants on fire?
Accepted History & Chronology Must Be Changed.
Very Interesting
History as Science Fiction

History: Fiction or Science? Dating methods as offered by mathematical statistics. Eclipses and zodiacs. Chronology Vol.I
Anatoly Fomenko
Manufacturer: Delamere Resources
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

Controversial Knowledge | Religious Studies | Religion & Spirituality | Subjects | Books

General | Christianity | Religion & Spirituality | Subjects | Books

Alexander Technique | Exercise & Fitness | Health, Mind & Body | Subjects | Books
Similar Items:

ASIN: 2913621074
Release Date: 2007-03-19

Product Description

History: Fiction or Science? is the most explosive tractate on history ever written - however, every theory it contains, no matter how unorthodox, is backed by solid scientific data. The book is well-illustrated, contains over 446 graphs and illustrations, copies of ancient manuscripts, and countless facts attesting to the falsity of the chronology used nowadays, which never cease to amaze the reader. Eminent mathematician proves that: Jesus Christ was born in 1153 and crucified in 1186 The Old Testament refers to mediaeval events. Apocalypse was written after 1486. Does this sound uncanny? This version of events is substantiated by hard facts and logic - validated by new astronomical research and statistical analysis of ancient sources - to a greater extent than everything you may have read and heard about history before. The dominating historical discourse in its current state was essentially crafted in the XVI century from a rather contradictory jumble of sources such as innumerable copies of ancient Latin and Greek manuscripts whose originals had vanished in the Dark Ages and the allegedly irrefutable proof offered by late mediaeval astronomers, resting upon the power of ecclesial authorities. Nearly all of its components are blatantly untrue! For some of us, it shall possibly be quite disturbing to see the magnificent edifice of classical history to turn into an ominous simulacrum brooding over the snake pit of mediaeval politics. Twice so, in fact: the first seeing the legendary millenarian dust on the ancient marble turn into a mere layer of dirt - one that meticulous unprejudiced research can eventually remove. The second, and greater, attack of unease comes with the awareness of just how many areas of human knowledge still trust the three elephants of the consensual chronology to support them. Nothing can remedy that except for an individual chronological revolution happening in the minds of a large enough number of people.

Customer Reviews:

Calculations are only as good as your numbers.......2007-08-03

Yes, we can all agree that mainstream history is nearly 100% BS due to politics, economics, ego, problems with dating techniques, and various conspiracies. Agreed. But, I've been researching the distinct possibility that human history (in terms of civilizations) are much more ancient than we've been told, so coming across this book was very interesting to me. I wondered how Fomenko could be wrong (if at all) because he is very persuasive in his presentations. Then it dawned on me. If at previous times in prehistory, due to the various catastrophies that are well documented (comets, asteroids, planetary disruptions, plasma discharge, pole reversals, etc) the Earth was in a different position in relation to the sun, different tilt on its axis, different orbit, different rotation (in terms of velocity and DIRECTION), and the continents were in different positions, then would this not cause the ancients to see the sky (constellations) differently? In other words, is Fomenko making erronious assumptions about the physics of the Earth in pre-history, which then corrupt his data with regards to dating the relevant astrology? The last event to seriously disrupt our planet occured roughly 3500 years ago, according to other good researchers, so is it possible Fomenko has been confused by this? The vastly different physics of our planet in the not so distant past may explain this confusion, which is not to say the "mainstream" version of history is correct; on the contrary. I am not an expert in these fields, but wanted to see if this idea could spark discussion.

Pants on fire?.......2007-07-19

Will people ever read before spamming? Yes, Jesuits could not rewrite world history alone, they had help. Anyway, Dr Prof Acad A.Fomenko does not point to jesuits as the driving force of world wide history manipulation in published volumes 1,2,3;, actually he barely mentions the poor devils. Check it with 'Search inside' feature, please. China is rarely mentioned either, in fact, Dr Fomenko is completely eurocentric. Right, his theory contradicts all mainstream schools of history, because in their actual state they are all built on blatantly erroneus chronology. You don't need a mysterious cabal (conspiracy) to falsify history, the falsification is its modus operandi. It is inherent to history(ians) to falsify (distort) events, as it is inherent to humans to boast as it is inherent to power (authority) to legimize itself by referrring to glorious past made to its own order. Dr Prof Fomenko and team have identified scores of instances of such manipulation in Russian, European, etc.. history, and delivered valid statistical proof thereof. His own 'reconstruction' is completely another story. Forget c14 as a valid method of dating. W.Libby has initially discovered a brilliant method of INDEPENDENT dating. Too bad, c14 method has become a joke after a forced marrige with dendrochronology with consensual chronological scale inbuilt. Radiocarbon method can't stand blind tests, but is so very productive as a rubberstamp.

Accepted History & Chronology Must Be Changed. .......2007-04-09

There is no doubt that history as most know it is a sham, & institution's version of History both University & Church is fradulent & inaccurate. Everything was established with an agenda, The real "Dark Ages" are now when we have access to incredible amounts of information past authorities & more important 'common folk' didn't have but our institutions & educators are slow to evolve because of what has ignorantly & arrogantly been taught for too long. This is on many subjects not just Chronology.

For anyone to question "Why would a Mathematician have anything credible to say of History?" The answer is from Dr. Fomenko's preface in the book: "It would be worthwhile to remind the reader that in the XVI-XVII century Chronology was considered to be a subdivision of Mathematics." These volumes could possibly be some of the most important works to date & should be read by everyone with an interest in History, especially professors & educators who have a duty to the public. I have read both books & must say that 'Chronology 1' has some very eye opening & revolutionary information. Even if these volumes are part true the implications are profound & opens the doors to further investigations & questions which must be done. I speak several different lanquages & must say the logic Dr. Fomenko uses with "inflection" of words & words being read from left to right in one region & right to left in another then written backwards, the removal of vowels & get down to basics of words, or different cities & locations having the same name etc. is correct. Vowel usage has always been optional & varied, actually complicating linquistics & study. The first thing one has to understand is that words never had a fixed spelling in history like we do now, the spelling of words was mutable & regional, as well as names & titles of people were vast, varied & changed, NOTHING WAS FIXED or understood linear. Matters of Life & Death as well as financial profiteering yesterday & today were & are made with ignorant, illogical & conspiratorial views of history & reality, it's time people get closer to the Truth & society collectively grow up.

Very Interesting.......2007-03-07

It is a good proposal and I believe it will mature into something even better in the future. I think it deserves to be read.

History as Science Fiction.......2007-01-10

Anatoly Fomenko has written a very intriguing book, full of pictures, charts, and computer 'proof' of his thesis: backwards of AD900 we don't really know what happened or when. Between AD900 and AD1600 there is more certainty, but there is still a lot of fuzzy ground, and things don't get reliable until we get past the 1600's where the printing press made it very difficult for the perpetrators of this timeline manipulation to change anything that had been committed to print. The Dark Ages did not happen. Books were burned for a reason. One organization has doubled the actual length of its existence by expanding the real chronology. Read why.

I had always wondered why Christ died about AD33 and yet men waited until the 11th century to form the Knights Templar, the Cathars, etc and go after the Holy Land by force. Why the 1000 year gap? Turns out there wasn't more than a 10-12 year gap and he proves it using astronomy. This also implies that the planet is not as old as we have been told, and current Christian and other creationist scientists are already championing that idea without being aware of Fomenko's book. The two groups, creationist scientists and the Russian mathematical analysts corroborate each other. Fascinating.

Of course, all this flies in the face of what we have been told traditionally is the 'proper' chronology of western civilization, and most readers will experience 'cognitive dissonance' in reading this book. It means that our history going backwards from AD1600 becomes progressively more incorrect and unreliable until it cannot be trusted at all... in the space of 700-800 years.

Naturally, the curious, open-minded reader will want to know WHO did this, WHY, and did any of the events we think of as really ancient ever happen?
Dr. Fomenko is a respected scientist/mathematician at Moscow State University who has already answered these questions to the satisfaction of his initially skeptical colleagues. Most of them are now believers, a few still refuse to believe (the usual diehards), and of course the western press has ignored Fomenko's work -- for obvious reasons when you read the book. The ones who perpetrated this chronology ruse have a lot to answer for. They are still with us. That's why this book is a well-kept secret.

I gave the book a 4-star rating because I was unable to check out some of his claims; those I checked were as he said. But if even 1/3 of his claims are true, this punches a big hole in what we think is our history, the meaning of western civilization, our educational process (for repeating the ruse as gospel), and the trustworthiness of the organization that perpetrated this ruse, well-intentioned or not.

This book relates to current research into a Young Earth paradigm, to John Keel's discoveries about our planet, and Fr Malachi Martin's insights (in his now out-of-print books). We are indeed sheep who are manipulated and kept ignorant -- for a reason. While knowing what these men have to say may be the "booby prize" (as in: 'what can you do with this knowledge?'), it will provide interesting reading. Didn't someone say: "...and the Truth will set you free."?? For you to judge if this book contains the truth.

Critics of Henry George - Volume 2 (Studies in Economic Reform and Social Justice)

Average customer rating:

Critics of Henry George - Volume 2 (Studies in Economic Reform and Social Justice)

Manufacturer: Blackwell Publishing Limited
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

Economic History | Economics | Business & Investing | Subjects | Books

Theory | Economics | Business & Investing | Subjects | Books

General | Popular Economics | Business & Investing | Subjects | Books

General | Business & Investing | Subjects | Books

All Titles | Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007 | Stores | Books
ASIN: 1405118296

Book Description

Since its publication in 1979, Critics of Henry George has achieved an international reputation as by far the most comprehensive review and analysis of the objections leveled against Henry George's American classic, Progress and Poverty. George's 19th century classic argument for land reform produced an army of critics including Alfred Marshall, J. B. Clark, F. A. Walker and in the 20th century, Edwin Cannan, Murray Rothbard and Mark Blaug. In recent years Georgist insights have been gaining ground in economics on a variety of fronts especially in the areas of the economics of location and public finance. Now, more than a century after George and 25 years after the first edition of the Critics of Henry George, the Critics has been expanded, revised and enlarged by Robert Andelson. The Andelson revision will include a revised last chapter evaluating Georgism as it was interpreted by its critics.

Average customer rating:

Also read "In Our Hands"
great, smart work that could change America..
Brilliant and Flawed
A truly novel idea
An interesting - and new - idea. But, oh, the side effects!

The Stakeholder Society
Bruce Ackerman , and Anne Alstott
Manufacturer: Yale University Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover

Public Finance | Economics | Business & Investing | Subjects | Books

Theory | Economics | Business & Investing | Subjects | Books

Debt & Deficits | Economics | Business & Investing | Subjects | Books

Public Affairs & Administration | Government | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

General | Politics | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

U.S. | Politics | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

General | Law | Subjects | Books

General | Law | Professional & Technical | Subjects | Books

All Titles | Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007 | Stores | Books
Similar Items:

ASIN: 0300078269

Amazon.com

The main obstacle that many young people face in building their future is a lack of initial resources. Now here's a radical idea--what if every United States citizen with a high school diploma was guaranteed, on their 21st birthday, $80,000, no strings attached? Bruce Ackerman and Anne Alstott believe it's a doable scheme to ensure that every American will get "a fair share of the nation's resources as they accept the full responsibilities of adult life." The Stakeholder Society lays out the basic principles of their plan and rebuts potential objections. No, it's not a gift--you have to pay it back, if you can, towards the end of your life. Yes, some people will use their stake unwisely--but the authors argue that freedom is better served by having the opportunity to make mistakes than by never getting a chance to move forward. They are also careful to point out that, ultimately, the stakeholder system is not so much a full frontal assault on poverty as it is a citizen-building program, helping people feel like a valued part of U.S. society and making it easier for them to contribute to that society's success. "If America drifts away from the promise of equal opportunity," the authors warn, "it is not because practical steps are unavailable, but because we have lost our way." Whether The Stakeholder Society contains those "practical steps" is a matter that should be considered very attentively by policymakers and all citizens concerned with the fate of the United States in the 21st century. --Ron Hogan

Book Description

Must we resign ourselves to a growing chasm between rich and poor? Bruce Ackerman and Anne Alstott propose an innovative alternative in this thought-provoking book: an eighty thousand dollar grant for every qualifying young adult. The authors analyze this plan from many perspectives and argue that such a citizen's stake would open the way to a society that is more democratic, productive, and free.

Customer Reviews:

Also read "In Our Hands".......2006-06-25

I recently read Charles Murray's "In Our Hands."
A reviewer of it suggested "The Stakeholder Society" as an
alternative drastic change. I recommend both books to anyone
that considers reading either.

At the risk of oversimplifying, here are the proposals.
"The Stakeholder Society" recommends a one time cash payment
of $80,000 as citizens turn 21, financed by a wealth tax.
"In Our Hands" recommends an annual cash payment to all adult
citizens financed by the elimination of all other transfer
payments.

Both books have lots of detail to explain how and why to
implement their proposal. Both admit that some details will
have to be worked out based on experience, and both identify
some potential weaknesses of their proposal.

The biggest problem with "The Stakeholder Society" is the
observation that leads to the proposal. Since there is an
unequal distribution of wealth, there must be an unequal
opportunity to accumulate wealth. If the stake increases
the disparity in wealth, the same arguments can be used to
increase the stake and the corresponding wealth tax. If the
stake decreases the disparity, but does not eliminate it,
the same arguments can be used to increase the stake and the
corresponding wealth tax.

Those that favor equal outcomes will favor "The Stakeholder
Society." Those that think there is a large degree of
opportunity for most will favor "In Our Hands." Both books
are worth considering carefully, but not worth worrying about.
The authors of both admit there is no chance of either scheme
being implemented any time soon.

Most ratings of books with political implications are based
on agreement or disagreement with the conclusion. This one
is based on the presentation of the arguments.

great, smart work that could change America.........2005-04-20

Bruce Ackerman and Anne Alstott have written a great book on how to realize the American Dream. "The Stakeholder Society" tells us how we can practically achieve true equality, so that America will have many that will have many more productive citizens, while ensuring that women have a true equal footing with men. It is a complex idea, but written simply enough so most of the Stakeholder plan could be understood by the average American. This book ought to be read by all politicans, and then maybe we'd have true economic prosperity.

Brilliant and Flawed.......2003-03-09

In an outstanding new book called the Stake holder society, Bruce Ackerman and Anne Alstott propose having the government give every American $80,000 in their early twenties. This would be funded by a two percent tax on wealth above $80,000. They also suggest a privilege tax on those who have had financially privileged childhoods. These proposals are carefully thought out and well motivated by the idea of giving some substance to our common empty talk of "equality of opportunity."

Ackerman and Alstott dismiss a number of other approaches, such as funding education better or raising minimum wages as too small and/or actually harmful and/or politically difficult. Unhappily, I'm inclined to think that their proposals are just as politically difficult.

And I have a quibble with the digs scattered through this book against "utilitarians," who are never named. As in all American ethical arguments, the example used is that of Nazi Germany, where Jews were one percent of the population. "[I]s it so clear," the authors ask, "that the average Jew suffered NINETY-NINE times as much as the average Aryan gained from his feelings of racial superiority?"

One response to this is that feelings like those often involve hatred, which, being unpleasant, is not a gain at all. But, even accepting that there was a gain for many racists, the trade-off is not necessary. The racists could have felt superior without killing anyone, an action which, if completed, would have deprived them of the allegedly beneficial presence of people they perceived as inferiors.

More importantly, these numbers (one and ninety-nine units of pleasure or suffering) do not mean anything. We could give a vivid description of the concentration camps and then ask "Isn't it abundantly clear that the average Jew suffered at least ninety-nine times as much as the average Aryan gained from his feelings of racial superiority?" The case for this "calculation" is exactly as good as for its opposite.

The value of utilitarianism lies not in calculations (calculations which Ackerman and Alstott accept while trying to dismiss) but in placing the well-being of people above adherence to any rule. Utilitarianism ought to be an ally of anyone who recognizes the harm done by devotion to certain rights and freedoms, such as the freedom to engage in unfair and cruel labor practices, the "right to work", and the faith that people have what they "deserve."

And don't get me started on the way readers of Foucault tend to characterize Bentham...

I've encountered two arguments against the Stake holder society. The first, which is well addressed in the book, is that some people would waste their $80,000. I agree with the authors that relatively few would waste their money, and that many would be much better off than they are now. I find that people who make this criticism are not themselves suggesting an alternative remedy to the drastic disparity in wealth in America, and are not even aware of it. In many cases, they profess a belief that there is no hunger in this country, that people only suffer if they don't work, and that everyone has a chance to make it.

The second argument I've encountered is that charity must be done "privately," that is, without the government. In some cases, advocates of private charity support huge organizations known for as much corruption and inefficiency as any government, real or imagined. In other cases, they support only one-on-one charity without any intervening (or skilled, organized, or powerful) agency. Often in supporting these charities, government -haters make clear that they do know that hunger exists in America, if not that people working 60 hours a week can qualify for food stamps (temporarily, of course).

Sometimes supporters of private charity argue that the way to help is to teach entrepreneurism, apparently oblivious to the pertinent absence of capital. Other times they argue for simply giving fish instead of fishing skills. After all, this is good for the giver, and the poor will always be with us.

Why do private and public charity need to be in conflict? I give some tiny amounts to organizations and to people I meet on the street, and I simultaneously argue for living wage laws, campaign finance reform, an end to corporate welfare and waste on weapons, spies, highways, and subsidies for cutters of national forests. I will now argue for a Stake holder society without feeling any conflict with dropping some canned food in a basket or helping build Habitat for Humanity houses.

If private charity were doing the job, no one would propose government charity (and vice versa). And a lot of what is proposed amounts to government neutrality. Many of our taxes are regressive. Our services are unevenly distributed, notably in education. And we have the money. Just yesterday (May 6, 1999) we threw an extra $13 billion at the Pentagon. That kind of money could end many debates over education by providing better schools in poor counties and cities. Our cities routinely give huge tax-breaks to companies that move to certain areas promising jobs that no one ever bothers to make sure are actually provided. These funds could be better spent.

And isn't it important that the top one percent of wealthy people in the U.S. could end poverty and still live like emperors? Need I be selfish and hypocritical and out-of-line to mention this fact. I don't think so. I cannot myself reach into my pocket and end poverty. I would if I could. By all means, let's have lots of private charity and local assistance. But let's think bigger than that too.

A truly novel idea.......1999-08-24

The idea at first sounds crazy, but trying to figure out why will force you to examine many of your own opinions--and perhaps ultimately to reach a different conclusion than your first.

An interesting - and new - idea. But, oh, the side effects!.......1999-05-17

It was winter; the ants' store of grain had gotten wet and they were laying it out to dry. A hungry cicada asked them for something to eat. "Why didn't you gather food in the summer, like us?" one of the worker ants asked. "I didn't have time," it replied; "I was busy making sweet music." The worker laughed at it. "Very well," it said; "since you sang in the summer, you must dance in the winter."

A few ants of the drone caste heard what the worker said and were morally outraged. They convinced their brother drones to force the colony to share its grain with the cicada and all its relatives. "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs," they said. For several years the drones ran the colony in the new, moral, way. The cicadas and the ants all nearly starved to death. Equally.

The drones of another colony, who agreed with the moral claim of the cicadas, pondered the sad fate of first colony. "The worker was right; the cicada made its own choices and had no moral claim on the ants' store of grain," they said. "But not everyone gets a fair start. To fix this, we will give everyone a share of the grain at the beginning of the summer, not at the end. Then at the end of the summer everyone will pay back the share he or she got at the beginning, plus interest. And those who do well and have extra grain will pay back extra to make up for those who don't have enough."

Book Description

Inquisition is not just about the trial of Sun Myung Moon; it puts on trial our judicial system in the context of religious liberties. --Christianity Today

Customer Reviews:

A Mel Brooks production..........2006-05-31

I first met Moon's disciples in Hyde Park in London early in 1974. they walked around with their glossy smiles, pushing literature that said, "Watergate: Forgive, Forget, Unite." I pointed out to them that I'm an American, but wondered, "Why are you pushing such literature in the UK? Sorry, maybe you didn't know this, but Nixon [Watergate] is American, not British." They continued with their zombie smiles and removed the microphone boom from my mouth, from which they were, I guess, hoping for something to make them feel good.

That evening I wrote to my older brother and suggested he might want to start a movement called, simply, "Hang Moon."

No, neither he nor I were part of the vast, racist conspiracy to persecute the po' po', Korean (CIA-funded) evangelist--errrrr, Savior.

That someone could write this sort of nonsense is one of the less desirable aspects of a free press. In a free society--certainly one freer than the one the new Savior represents--one could be prosecuted for this kind of balderdash.

Well, I must admit, I've read few volumes from the publisher of this laughable screed. I know now that, not only will I NEVER read anything from then again, but I'll discourage anyone from doing so.

Reality.......2006-01-22

I'm a part of the church depicted here, and unlike the sarcastic review made by another "member", I'm here to represent the truth. Members of the Unification Church were not kidnapped, brainwashed, or anything of the like. The members are encouraged to visit their family and live normal lives. I have plenty of friends--church and non-church--, keep in touch with my grandmother, maintain a 5.0 GPA, I don't take drugs, I don't lie or cheat or steal. And my family is not a hermit group with no minds of our own. I'm sick of the way people see us this way.
No other religion has been persecuted as much as mine, except for early Christianity. Now look at the religion that dominates--pretty close parallels to Rev. Moon's church, huh?
This book has, gratefully, expressed the truth behind America's legal system and the unfair trials of Rev. Sun Myung Moon. I'm glad to see a person who isn't afraid to write the truth and reality.

Sherwood's Deforestation of The Enemies of God.......2004-10-09

I met Mr. & Mrs. God in the sixties. I was just a lowly, dirty hippie, smoking dope and wasting my life, when members of Mooms family pulled me off of the streets of Berkeley and gave me the opportunity to travel around the country, sleeping on the floor of dirty vans and working 20 hours a day for no wages selling flowers and trinkets to help build the celestial media & real-estate kingdom for Father.

They showed me that the love of my earthly family was a deception and thankfully I never had to see them again. For a while I got tearful letters from my mother who pretended to love me and worry about me, but I was assured that it was a pack of lies and that my mom & dad were actually working for Satan.

I was also relieved of all of the horrible pressures of dating as I met my wife at our wedding at Madison Square Garden. She doesn't speak English, but I think she kind of likes me. We are helping to populate the world with true children of Moon's love.

I was never more proud than when members of Congress crowned Father king of the universe at a Senate office building. Soon thanks to the truth reported by Father's Washington Times and our members of Congress, we'll be able to overturn the devil's work on the separation of church and state and we'll all be the beneficieries of Fathers wise theocratic rule.

Thank you for a great book Carlton, great is your reward in heaven.

Absorbing and sobering.......2002-10-18

A shocking example of how easily prejudice can run roughshod over fairness and basic decency. This account of a contemporary witchhunt reads like a novel. Its clear that Moon's real sin was being Asian, grabbing the loyalty of a lot of middle class white kids, preaching interpretations different from conventional Christianity and being a little too fired up about God, anti-communism and chastity for people's taste. This vividly chronicles how Moon was railroaded into jail. A little too detailed in parts, but good reading.

THE TRUTH AT LAST.......1999-06-27

If you want to read the in-depth racist and religious biases of prosecutors in the US, read this book. Their oppression of Rev. Moon was appauling. Although I do not subscribe to Rev. Moon's teachings, I was disturbed by the Gestapo tactics of the federal prosecutors of this book.

Book Description

IN SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH > From New York State/Federal Courts -to- California State/Federal Courts -to- the United States Supreme Court in Washington D.C. -- "DISILLUSIONED: Justice versus Reality" describes a non-attorney's remarkable 20-year journey through the bizarre and scary world of the American legal system.

Books:

Books Index

Books Home

Recommended Books