Wednesday, December 22, 2010

George Ought to Help



This is a typical argument of those who are against government programs that help the needy. It feels right and it seems to make sense. After all, isn't it my money that I worked hard for? And if it is, shouldn't I be able to decide what I do with it and help others only when and if that is what I decide to do?

Unfortunately, the argument is incomplete. It implies that one earns what they earn entirely on their own... that the accumulation of wealth is based solely on the talents and work of the individual. Let's add some other variables to the argument.

Let's say that Otis is blessed with incredible genetics. He has an off the chart IQ. He lives in a place where there are no public schools and dad dies in a mining accident when he is 7. At that point, in a country with no safety nets, Otis must go to work in the mines to help support the family. That his IQ is 40 points higher than that of the guy who owns the mine is irrelevant. The owner gets the profits and he dies of black lung disease at a young age.

How about Fred... he invents a new doohickey. He is pretty sure that he can come up with capital to put together a manufacturing facility to make the doohickeys but the roads and the railroads have fallen apart do to lack of government investment and he cannot get the doohickeys to market. The company fails.

Jack got a hold of one of the doohickeys and was mighty impressed. Off he goes to some other developing country and copies it, with much cheaper labor and lower quality materials. He makes a killing.

How bout Marianne... She worked hard all of her life. The company she worked for made tons of money for the owners and stock holders. She was proud of her contribution. She made a reasonable salary... but not enough to invest any significant amount for the future. She retired and was doing OK... then she got sick. She didn't have health insurance - too old and her health was poor so the cost was prohibitive. The children of the owners, who just inherited their wealth, lived in ease in gated mansions, while she made choices between heat, food, and the medicines she needed.

And James... grew up in a very poor neighborhood in a decaying city. The schools spent more energy on discipline than teaching. He didn't know anyone with two parents in the household. Half of the men he knew were either in jail or recently released. Few had legitimate jobs. When he began to skip school in 7th grade and sell drugs on the corner, nobody was surprised. His brother Bob tried to learn in school but it was difficult. He spent as much time watching his back as studying. When he graduated, he was able to get into a local college but he was so far behind the other students, he couldn't catch up and flunked out.

Steve comes from a middle class family. He went through a good school system, paid for with government funds and got a job working for a good company. They rely on a workforce that is well educated provided via the public schools. It is not possible for their employees to live with walking distance of their offices and factories so they rely on a good system of roads for people to travel to work. The monetary system is relatively stable so they can make plans for months or years in advance. They have good police and fire services to keep their capital safe. Steve's bosses are smart enough to know that the business depends on the input of all of the workers at each level and that without the infrastructure the government provides, they could make no profit at all.

And finally there is George. He is likable, smart enough, and able to keep up without working too hard. Indeed, he is a "C" student and spends a lot of time partying. He lives in the best neighborhood and is going to a top rated school. When he graduate, he gets into an Ivy League school, not because of his grades or even sports, but because of his last name. He goes to school with the sons and daughters of other powerful people and when they all graduate, they all move into positions of power and wealth.

All of that is to say that the system is not fair. Nobody makes it or fails entirely on their own. I would argue that those who benefit most from the system - like George and to a lesser but still significant extent Steve - should pay the most to maintain the system. I would even argue that the system requires some to be outside of it. Ask any Chamber of Commerce how they would feel about total employment and they will quickly tell you that someone has to be out of a job or the system would fail.

Bottom line when someone tells you that the government is stealing money they made from them, tell them to go and make that money without any of the supports that come from the government.

In a day or two I'll address another piece of the puzzle... Human generosity vs. human sin. Then, I'll get to who is better at providing for basic needs, government or for profit business.

7 comments:

bitbutter said...

"I would argue that those who benefit most from the system - like George and to a lesser but still significant extent Steve - should pay the most to maintain the system"

Perhaps they should. And perhaps George should help. But this is distinct from the main question of the video: is it morally acceptable to threaten violence against peaceful people? What do you think?

(Incidentally, the wealthy already do do more than the less wealthy to support the system in one sense (at least to the extent that they are able to enjoy their wealth): they exchange more with others through trade. Every trade is a non-zero sum game, which builds the economy)

"Bottom line when someone tells you that the government is stealing money they made from them, tell them to go and make that money without any of the supports that come from the government."

No, please don't.

1. It doesn't address the complaint. Either theft is acceptable, or its not. I thought Christians traditionally took a dim view of it.

2. It's a very weak response anyway because the government impedes as well as supports, you don't know which it does more, because (for instance) you can't survey all the small businesses that have never come into existence because of barriers to entry erected by the state, they're invisible of course.

The areas where the gov does seem to support civil life are also often the areas where state coercion is being used to prevent private, voluntary, alternatives from emerging.

Roads, fire services, law courts etc have all been successfully provided privately, we don't need a coercive monopoly to do these things for us--and we certainly don't need to be thankful when this monopoly uses violence to suppress competition.

roy said...

bitbutter,

thanks for leaving a comment.

I guess the first place I would disagree is whether or not a theft is taking place at all. I would argue instead that a transaction has taken place. George has received benefits and is refusing to pay for them.

2nd, I would argue that there are many services that cannot adequately be provided privately including roads, fire services, etc. And there are a lot more I'd add. Remember when the health reform discussions were going around, one of the arguments against a government provided single-payer option was that the for profit companies would not be able to compete against it. Any for profit business has as its first priority, making money. They may provide a wonderful product or service - and many do - but the first priority is to make a profit. All you have to do is watch what happens when that is no longer possible - the product or service disappears. And every dollar that is designated as profit is a dollar that is not being allocated for that essential service or product.

roy said...

I'm working through Malcolm Gladwell's book Outliers. I think it has a lot to say about the philosophical underpinnings for this discussion.

bitbutter said...

"I would argue instead that a transaction has taken place. George has received benefits and is refusing to pay for them."

We can call it extortion if you prefer.

"George has received benefits"

Any 'benefits' George has received from the entity coercing him were not requested by him. Since he didn't ask for these 'benefits', he is under no obligation to pay for them. Similarly I deliver a car to you that you didn't order, I have no legitimate claim on you for the price of that car.

"I would argue that there are many services that cannot adequately be provided privately including roads, fire services, etc. And there are a lot more I'd add."

If you're curious to know how we can be confident that private enterprises can do a better job of roads than can the state (at least in the US), read the following PDF: https://mises.org/journals/jls/3_2/3_2_7.pdf

"Remember when the health reform discussions were going around, one of the arguments against a government provided single-payer option was that the for profit companies would not be able to compete against it."

I'm not sure what your point is here. Massive subsidies paid for by extortion will tend to destroy the most marginal of unsubsidised businesses in the effected industy. Competition is diminished, with the inevitable effect of prices being are higher and quality lower than they otherwise would be.

ljp93105 said...

We live in a society where there is a historical agreement to do certain things in common, through our government. If you'd prefer for yourself and your children to live in a society without a government, you might consider moving to a place without an effective government; may I suggest North-Eastern Pakistan ?

The libertarian fantasy of a paradise with no taxes is just that - a fantasy. I don't think such a structure is compatible with a civilization much beyond the early middle ages.

roy said...

or Somalia

bitbutter said...

@Roy The standard of living in Somalia has improved since the collapse of the state there, so you might want to stop using that as an example:

Here's the relevant report if you're interested: http://namcub.accela-labs.com/pdf/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf (PDF)

'Like it or leave' replies, along the lines of ljp93105's comment, presuppose that the state has a legitimate ownership claim over the land who's inhabitants it taxes. That's an unwarranted assumption.

Since the land a state claims to own was possessed through the threat of force, I don't recognise it as legitimate.

Anyone wanting to formulate a theory of property rights that legitimises the land claims of state (but simultaneously withholds legitimacy from the predatory land grabs of smaller criminal gangs) has very a difficult job ahead of them.