To pick one specific realm: anywhere from 0% to 100% of a person's income could be allocated for redistribution to even things out.
For me, it is also important to know how exactly that money will be used. I wouldn't mind paying 50% or more of my income if I believed that they will be used for causes I consider good (if their use resembled my extrapolated volition). In a perfect situation, it would be equivalent to me and every other member of society giving half of their income to the best causes, except that each of us does not have to do the related research alone.
On the other hand, if I believe that the money is wasted, then even 10% of my income would be too much. Money can be wasted by stealing, by spending on projects that rationally don't make sense, and even worse, by spending on actively harmful projects. In my opinion my country is probably more close to this end of the scale, so paying 50% of my income (tax + mandatory insurance) is rather painful.
So the position from 0% to 100% does not reflect the most important parts. In a rational society I would be willing to give up more, and on the other hand I think a rational society would either cost less, or it would accomplish much better projects.
Without information how exactly the money will be use, one can consistently argue only for 0% or 100%, because those extremes do not depend on details. But for me, those details are very important.
Without information how exactly the money will be use, one can consistently argue only for 0% or 100%, because those extremes do not depend on details.
Even if I'm uncertain about how the money would be used, my expected utility as a function of redistribution could still peak somewhere between 0% and 100%.
[see 'Update' below]
I know discussions of actual applied politics are to be avoided. I don't want to start one.
But I thought LessWrong people might be a source for where the best arguments have been made for libertarianism in the economic sense (not why you should stay out of people's bedrooms). Even better, arguments for some degree of socialism in the same place would be nice. It seems there is a natural continuum. To pick one specific realm: anywhere from 0% to 100% of a person's income could be allocated for redistribution to even things out. Where to put that number will inevitably be a matter of grubby politics (won't it?). But still, arguments for why we should have a low number or a high number must involve some basic disagreements which could be (hopefully) separated into different values, different estimated probabilities, and different attempts to apply a rational analysis.
The world is dripping with partisan analyses along these lines (with "warfare" rules). Where are the best ones that avoid that failing?
I considered posting this under "dumb questions" but I judged that it's not really a question about LessWrong per se.
Update: Thank you to all who took the time to reply. Perhaps I'm learning about how some would start applying consequentialism to a real-life problem. I expected people to point me to discussions about what's right and what's fair -- which is what I'd expect in most other forums. But I guess here my responders so far are taking this to be a sort of question for technocrats who can work out the utility. So my next question will be about consequentialism once I've thought about it a little more.