(Update: Sandefur has seen fit to comment on the post below .. and he makes a good point. More later.)
For the last day or two, Mr. Sandefur (a lawyer) and Mr. St. Pierre (a Software Engineer) have been using their blogs to argue about libertarianism. This is not unusual for Sandefur, whose blog makes it clear that he is a staunch libertarian. Their argument centers on one of the key injustices that libertarians propose to fix: the theft implicit in paying for social programs with tax dollars.
Theft, you say? Yes, Mr. Sandefur rightly asserts. If the taxee does not agree to be taxed, taxation is theft. To enforce this point, let's suppose that while I'm walking home from work today, a robber leaps out from behind a garbage can.
He screams, "Give me all your money!"
"No," I say.
"Give me all your money, or I'll shoot you."
"OK," I say, and hand over my money.
Satisfied, the robber takes my money and leaves.
I continue my walk home, and soon an IRS agent approaches me. Crap. I missed the filing deadline.
"Pay your taxes," he says.
"No," I say.
"Pay your taxes or you're going to jail," he says.
"I'm not going to jail," I say.
"If you don't cooperate, I'll shoot you," he says.
"I didn't know that IRS agents got guns," I say.
"This is Texas," he says. "Everybody has a gun."
"Good point," I say, and write him a check.
Satisfied, the IRS agent takes my money and leaves.
Of course, the workings of government are a bit more convoluted than this. In particular, the fact that citizens vote for their representatives means that they have some input into how much they are taxed and what these revenues are used for. Also, there's the consideration that some of the taxes will be used for "public goods": things that all citizens derive benefits from (and, some might argue, derive those benefits in proportion to the amount of money that they put into the system). But if I'm in the minority, or if the system isn't working, and I decline to pay my taxes, the government has the option to come after me using force. I don't see how you can avoid equating this with robbery. Therefore, we shouldn't tax people because we might end up spending it on things they wouldn't approve of. Right?
Let's look at the other side of the argument.
First, let's suppose that both Sandefur and St. Pierre are correct in asserting that people are "greedy little beasts."
Second, let's suppose that at some level, life is a battle for resources. A resource is anything that can be used to fulfill a need or desire.
Third, let's observe that all resources can be used to get more resources. Examples: food, shelter, wit, knowledge, money, property, family connections, physical strength.
Fourth, let's notice that the people who are best suited to get resources are the people who already have resources.
If this is an accurate picture of the world, then it seems obvious that over time, the balance of resources will shift toward the people who begin with the most resources. And once people get into the well of No Resources, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to get out. Allowing this sort of oppression, I think, is morally unacceptable. Hence our dilemma.
And it's a textbook ethical dilemma: you're wrong if you steal from the rich, and you're wrong if you allow the rich to oppress the poor. So what should we do? I think we have to accept guilt on both sides and try to split the middle.
A government that allows resources to flow as they will avoids the problem of "theft" discussed earlier, but it would also result in a dramatically unbalanced distribution of resources. A government that enforced an equal distribution of resources ... well, it sounds fair, but communism just doesn't seem to work.
What seems to work? A government that allows an unequal distribution of resources, but occasionally steals from the (undeserving) rich and gives to the (equally undeserving) poor.
So instead of arguing about stealing and oppression, I'd like St. Pierre and Sandefur to suggest where a line might be drawn. How much stealing from the rich is too much? How much oppression of the poor?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Terrific statement and analysis, Matthew.
Another way to put this is that America has gone a long way toward turning "free markets" and "capitalism" into an ideology.
Call me a pragmatist, because I think every ideology is an idiot-ology. It's a complex, changing world. And absolutely and for sure, whenever things get dramatically out of balance and you end up with the very rich/priviledged on the one hand, and the poor on the other, without much in the middle, the result, sooner or later, is bloodshed.
I say the best idea is to keep things in balance before they get to that point, without trying to be a "purist." Because things do balance out, one way or another. Human beings don't accept being treated like dirt by other human beings.
Matt, what an utterly complex and mind-tripping connundrum you have propsed. I will be thinking on this one for quite awhile.
I always have to ask myself, who is suffering? The rich because they have to pay more tax? Or the poor either way. Either way, whether we tax the rich more or allow the economic divide to grow, the poor will still suffer and the rich will be just freakin' fine.
I'm not sure if I care whether the rich are sacked.
Life of Brian (can I assume Sandufer?) makes an excellent point. One I never thought that I would agree with.
No doubt the welfare program is in need of dire repair and many people take advantage of the system. The best question proposed above is what is the desired outcome of a welfare program? Could I propose that the desired goal is to provide the poor with a means to better their life. In a society where those in poverty are not aided by the government then you have a society where all the power and control lie in the hands of the ones with the money. Someone in poverty has absolutely no chance or hope of ever bettering their station in life unless they are given the "hand-up" by someone. Can we really expect the people with the money and power to just willingly give it up.
That is the best thing about America. If our country was founded on anything it is the idea that monetary status at birth does not have to dictate the rest of one's life. They can be bettered because of the fact that we aren't going to allow you to starve to death. Sure, people will abuse the system, so maybe we need another system, but let's not say "it's my money, every little bit should stay with me." It's not really your money anyway, especially if you are believer in the Judeo-Christian God. Which most American's do. Particularly the American's who want to do away with welfare.
It seems to me, however, that Sandefur fails to recognize that he has been given certain privileges which, I would guess, have put him in a better position to own that house and have that job where he uses his brain.
I've been learning about the fact that white people have, since the end of WWII, been able to store their wealth in the ownership of their own homes, which was made possible for many of them through certain GI Bills. This same privilege, however, was largely denied to black men who had fought for our country in the war.
So Mr. Sandefur has a leg up already just because he is white.
He might also have been given some advantages that many welfare recipients are not, including a supportive family, being taught the value of education, someone to pay (or help with) his college tuition, etc.
After eight months in the inner city, I am learning that where you start makes a huge impact on where you end up.
Should he have to pay for the fact that he is white and (perhaps) has a supportive family? Should HE bear the punishment for our fathers' racism and the prejudice inherently built into the systems at work in our country? No. But neither should he blame welfare recipients for not being in the same position as he. And perhaps he would understand this a little better if he had started in a different place.
The fact is, the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer. This isn't a viable long term trend.
I'm much less worried by the potential abuse of welfare than by the tattered "safety net." Compare Medicare benefits to what they were forty years ago, or what it costs a chronically ill American out of pocket today as compared to the sixties, or the standard of living the minimum wage gets you today compared with the last time it was raised.
And now we have an administration devoted to doing away with Social Security. That's what "privatization" is: doing away with a guaranteed minimum benefit for people. As if this administration doesn't know full well that Americans don't have the best track record in the world for saving money on our own. But they figure government has better things to spend our money on than the well being of ordinary Americans.
If WWII was "The Greatest Generation," the Baby Boomers may well be known to history as "The Greediest Generation." There seems to be an overall trend that when we get rich, we find the best thing that we can then do with our money is devise ways to get richer.
The widening gap of rich and poor, in this nation and worldwide, is way more dangerous than whatever proportion of people on welfare like receiving it.
PM
www.spiritualdiablog.blogspot.com
Post a Comment