Progressives and the Politics of Envy

For a Liberty Fund conference on "The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality," I've been reading selections from Envy: A Theory of Social Behaviour (1966) by sociologist Helmut Schoeck. Schoeck cites a 1954 article from The Economist which asks the intriguing question:

Would it be a hardship, or an injustice, if, while everybody had plenty, some people had more than plenty? If £3,000 a year, say, were the minimum income, would it be monstrous if some people had £30,000, or £300,000?

The egalitarians apparently think it would be monstrous. Ask them why, and they reply with that noble bromide "social justice." But this is merely a politician's periphrasis for "envy." Social justice is a semantic fraud from the same stable as People's Democracy. It means that when everybody has plenty it is right to hate people who have more.

Now lots of people in the past have proposed establishing a guaranteed minimum income in the United States including President Richard Nixon. Economics Nobelist Milton Friedman suggested a negative income tax which would have operated somewhat like today's Earned Income Tax Credit.

So just as a thought experiment--setting aside the very real problems of work disincentives, administration, and tax rates--here's the question: If every individual American was guaranteed an income of $40,000 annually (indexed perpetually for inflation), would it be a hardship or an injustice if some Americans earned $400,000, or $4 million, or $400 million per year?

Discuss.

Comments

Lamar | August 24, 2007, 2:55pm | #

"setting aside the very real problems of work disincentives, administration, and tax rates"

And that $40,000 is worth $40,000 in today's money? Is it $40,000 in NYC or Cuzzinfugger, GA? I think I'd be peachy if everybody had an income well above the poverty line.

Warren | August 24, 2007, 2:55pm | #

It would be an injustice if every individual American was guaranteed an income.

Lost_In_Translation | August 24, 2007, 2:56pm | #

Why does my little economics angel on my shoulder appear to be collapsing in apoplexy?

If I know one thing though, some people will always be poor. They'll have alot of "stuff", but they'll always be poor. Its a mentality for some.

mk | August 24, 2007, 2:56pm | #

We may need to import some of these egalitarians over here before this discussion picks up any heat.

robc | August 24, 2007, 2:57pm | #

What Warren said. If you dont product $40k worth of work, you dont deserve $40k worth of pay.

Kwix | August 24, 2007, 2:59pm | #

Lamar,
I think the real injustice here is that anybody lives in Cuzzinfugger, GA. I thought they had all immigrated over the border to West Cuzzinfugger, AL.

Christopher Monnier | August 24, 2007, 2:59pm | #

Wouldn't this have the same affect on the cost of living as subsidized college loans have on the cost of education? In other words, as soon as everyone is guaranteed $40,000 per year, wouldn't stuff suddenly cost much more, thereby making $40,000 a year no longer non-poor?

CFisher | August 24, 2007, 3:01pm | #

Well, for one, it wouldn't work.

But even if it did, I would guarantee that people would still be complaining that the rich weren't paying their fair share whenever they wanted some new government program and didn't have a way to pay for it.

Robc | August 24, 2007, 3:01pm | #

CM,

Exactly, but notice Bailey said it was indexed to inflation, so next year it goes up, causing more inflation, so it goes up, causing more inflation, so it goes up....

Winning situation right there.

(I do think it converges, ignoring regular inflation, but its still not pretty)

Dan T. | August 24, 2007, 3:01pm | #

If every individual American was guaranteed an income of $40,000 annually (indexed perpetually for inflation), would it be a hardship or an injustice if some Americans earned $400,000 per year, or $4 million, or $400 million per year?

Consider that money is about more than your ability to buy stuff - it's also about the power you have over others.

So let's just say that if you're the $40,000 guy you're not likely to win any disputes with the $400 million guy no matter how legitimate your complaint is. In fact, the $400 million guys might get together and rescind your guarante to $40,000...

Also, remember that price is affected high-end buyers. If you're the $40k living in a town full of $40k guys, you'll have a lot more buying power than if you're the same guy living in a town of $4 million guys. This is why things are more expensive in NYC than they are in Pig's Knuckle, Arkansas.

JW | August 24, 2007, 3:01pm | #

If you dont product $40k worth of work, you dont deserve $40k worth of pay.

But, but, but, that's not fair.

Everytime I read about income "inequality" all I can think about are my kids bitching about how the other one got exactly 3 grams more of chocolcate pudding then they did.

Yep. Same dynamic at work.

Warren | August 24, 2007, 3:02pm | #

The real question here is, would it be unfair/unjust if one person made $40,001? Then your talking about an Orwellian dystopia where everyone must dress in the same close, and cut their hair alike.

Otherwise it's just as you say, pure spite and envy that causes one man to look at another and say I want what you have, therefore you must give it to me. It's a despicable dictum.

Dan T. | August 24, 2007, 3:02pm | #

Er, "...affected by high-end buyers..."

stoneymonster | August 24, 2007, 3:02pm | #

If $40,000.00 is the minimum with no restrictions, doesn't that just reset the "zero"-point of the economy? Isn't this like potentials in physics, where it's not so important what a particular potential value is so much as the potential difference between two values?

TLB | August 24, 2007, 3:06pm | #

The issue is not just that those earning "$400 million per year" would have more goodies; they'd have more power and could make sure that everyone else would do what they wanted them to do, one way or another.

Todd | August 24, 2007, 3:10pm | #

I think people are focusing on the number too much. The hypothetical is essentially: ignoring for purposes of discussion the fact that this would be impossible to implement, would it be a hardship or injustice if nearly everyone had a decent, comfortable, middle class life if some were still able to be much richer.

Hardship? No. If everyone has plenty, there is no hardship. From this standoint, someone who makes minimum wage has life better than a king 1000 years ago (in terms of food quality, air conditioning, TV, education, etc.)

Injustice? No. Fairness can't be based on outcome alone, isolated from the "shoulds" of life that define "justice" in the first place. By itself, there is no unfairness of some having more than others.

Dan T. | August 24, 2007, 3:13pm | #

Here's another thought experiment. Which of these two societies are likely to be more libertarian (in terms of people being able to enjoy and exercise personal freedom and rights): one where wealth and income are basically distributed evenly, or one where the majority of wealth is controlled by a handful of individuals?

Ron Bailey | August 24, 2007, 3:17pm | #

All: Is enforcing equality the unstated point of welfare politics?

Dan T. | August 24, 2007, 3:19pm | #

All: Is enforcing equality the unstated point of welfare politics?

I'd say the unstated point of welfare politics is to bribe the poor so they won't rise up against us.

Todd | August 24, 2007, 3:20pm | #

Dan T.:

It depends. How did everything get so equal in the one society and so unequal in the other. Libertarianism is not about the distribution of income or even about outcomes at all. It's about the process and individual rights. I don't think the Khmer Rouge was very libertarian, even though they achieved income equality.

Rich Ard | August 24, 2007, 3:21pm | #

Which of these two societies are likely to be more libertarian (in terms of people being able to enjoy and exercise personal freedom and rights)

I don't think that's answerable without defining the methods by which that income is distributed. If the even distribution is a matter of a powerful group doling out dollars, there has to be a commensurate control - loss of freedom - in place to make same possible.

joe | August 24, 2007, 3:23pm | #

Unequal incomes is not a problem. Poverty is a problem, lack of opportunity is a problem, and the unequal political clout and access that wealth can create is a problem.

Only the latter can plausibly be addressed via levelling, and even then, there are better ways.

On the other hand, growing economic inequality can certainly be a symptom of other problems.

So it's not the wealth discrepancies by themselves that the vast majority of progressives are worried about, but the implications of growing inequality on a society that values a level playing field and the widest possible spread of opportunity.

With the exception of a fringe of self-proclaimed communists, the mere fact of varying levels of wealth is not generally viewed as a problem among progressives. As much as some people like to pretend otherwise.

whiskeyjuvenile | August 24, 2007, 3:23pm | #

dollars are imaginary anyway so who cares how many anyone has. all that matters is how many bullets you have for when the revolution comes.

forget the gold standard, what we need is a lead standard.

Nephilium | August 24, 2007, 3:24pm | #

Robc: Sounds just like the Minimum Wage Amendment stuck into the Ohio Constitution last election...

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/ElectionsVoter/results2006.aspx?Section=2319

You just need to read the first two lines to see the part about tying the minimum wage increases to the CPI.

Nephilium

Rich Ard | August 24, 2007, 3:24pm | #

Is enforcing equality the unstated point of welfare politics?

Implied: that there is a cabal of welfare policy wonks who are in charge of all things welfare. Conspiracies are too complicated to last.

Rich Ard | August 24, 2007, 3:25pm | #

forget the gold standard, what we need is a lead standard.

Let me know when you start shooting. Bluster bluster bluster.

joe | August 24, 2007, 3:26pm | #

Ron Bailey | August 24, 2007, 3:17pm | #

All: Is enforcing equality the unstated point of welfare politics?

Have you ever actually SEEN the number printed on a monthy Social Security check?

No, enforces equality is not even remotely a part of the western liberal project.

mnuez | August 24, 2007, 3:29pm | #

Yes. It would be an injustice and it would require remedy - and were it not remedied, all sorts of personal and social illnesses would ensue. It is, after all, the exact situation we all face today.



There is no such thing as 'economic growth' (except in matters relating to availability of food as well as better health) when one segment of society is wealthy, by that very definition, another segments is living in poverty.



This is true in worlds where the wealthy are those with subsistence housing as it would be true in a future where even the impoverished all have iphones and laptops.



Capitalism is a zero sum game.



(And unfortunately i'm being paged so I gotta leave for now - damn.)



mnuez

www.mnuez.blogspot.com

Ron Bailey | August 24, 2007, 3:30pm | #

Dan T. & joe: So your answer is, yes, it would be a hardship and an injustice?

Trollaphile | August 24, 2007, 3:31pm | #

Some people, no matter how good their lives are will complain everyday. Rich or poor it dosen't matter. Contentment is largely in your head.

Lost_In_Translation | August 24, 2007, 3:31pm | #

If we're talking Star Trek like equality where the cost of raw goods has been reduced to essentially 0, then fine, everyone can have pretty much any lifestyle they desire and everybody's equal. As long as materials have value, there will be ultra haves and ultra have nots, relative to the advancement of society. Its the efficiency of society that raises the base lifestyle of those in society. It's been that way through every society on the planet and no matter how we play with the numbers, that's how it will be forever.

Tommy_Grand | August 24, 2007, 3:33pm | #

Todd is right. The point of this hypothetical is to isolate an element ("justice") of the equation. So, presuming the given circumstances were possible and sustainable, the only potential injustice arises when you consider where and how to obtain the 40K for each person. No injustice arises directly from the fact that some have more or earn more, unless they obtained said by unjust means.

The just way to obtain the 40K for each person would be voluntary donations from the rich. To get one's share, I presume, he or she would agree to perform work. If one refused to work: no money. If one were unable to work: euthanasia.

joe | August 24, 2007, 3:40pm | #

Rich Ard raises an essential point:

I don't think that's answerable without defining the methods by which that income is distributed.

It is sloppy, lazy thinking on the left to assume that all inequalities in wealth result from some crime that needs to be redressed.

It is sloppy, lazy thinking on the right to assume that all inequalities, or concern about problems related to inequality, have no merit and are based on envy.

Dan T. | August 24, 2007, 3:41pm | #

Dan T. & joe: So your answer is, yes, it would be a hardship and an injustice?

I'll say that economic inequality is not necessarily an injustice and hardship in and of itself, but its a situation that almost inevitibly leads to injustice and hardship.

joe | August 24, 2007, 3:43pm | #

Dan T. & joe: So your answer is, yes, it would be a hardship and an injustice?

Define "it."

I explained what I thought would be a hardship and an injustice, and what I did not.

gorgonzola's foil | August 24, 2007, 3:44pm | #

mnuez,

unless you're making a statistical distribution definition of poverty, ie "impoverished" = member of lowest quartile of income, assets, or purchasing power parity distribution, I don't get it. What's the functional definition of poverty to you?

joe | August 24, 2007, 3:45pm | #

Dan T.,

I don't think Mr. Bailey is interested in such distinction.

Either you believe that there are absolutely no actual, legitimate problems that are remotely related to economic inequality, or you think it is a hardship and and injustice for the poorest person in America to earn $100k while someone else earns $110k.

carrick | August 24, 2007, 3:48pm | #

equal opportunity is not a guarentee of equal outcome

equal rights is not a guarentee of equal opportunity

Ron Bailey | August 24, 2007, 3:49pm | #

it = income inequality when every person is guaranteed an income which is close to today's median family income.

Rich Ard | August 24, 2007, 3:49pm | #

I think the question's silly, to be honest. There's no Kantian, objective definition of equality - we're going to answer this differently than would a guy living under a bridge, or on a garbage heap.

Rich Ard | August 24, 2007, 3:51pm | #

it = income inequality when every person is guaranteed an income which is close to today's median family income.

Find a country which has a median family income below a starvation wage and compare it to ours - don't see a lot of people starving to death here. Is our income inequality an injustice when viewed by someone burying babies behind grass huts?

de stijl | August 24, 2007, 3:52pm | #

I'd rather discuss the politics of ooo feeling good.

Ron Bailey | August 24, 2007, 3:55pm | #

carrick: Absolutely correct. What I was trying to get at with the query was the relative importance people put on income inequality per se.

hale | August 24, 2007, 3:55pm | #

Lost_In_Translation nailed it.

I don't know if this is what you meant, but -- I agree with that so totally that I think the development of efficiency-improving technologies is basically the fastest route to actual "social justice" at this stage in civilization.

swillfredo pareto | August 24, 2007, 3:55pm | #

I assume that it is no coincidence that the current U.S. per capita GDP is very close to $40,000. Given that reality and the fact that income distribution is already a profoundly one-tailed curve, it would require some serious strongarming to ensure that everyone got $40,000. The period of time between enactment of that policy and the point at which the people who keep the average so high (Bill Gates etc) stop being productive could not be observed with the naked eye.

There is no such thing as 'economic growth'...Capitalism is a zero sum game.

Wow...just wow. Despite generations of evidence to the contrary people still think this?

Ron Bailey | August 24, 2007, 3:58pm | #

Rich Ard: I'm confused--$40,000 is median U.S. family income. Why bring up dead babies in poor countries in this particular thought experiment?

Ron Bailey | August 24, 2007, 4:00pm | #

Edward: Many more poor and middle class people vote than do rich ones.

Surely you are not saying that incomes must be equalized until everyone has the same amount of "power"? Or are you?

carrick | August 24, 2007, 4:01pm | #

It's not a question of envy; it's a question of power. In a capitalist economy, money is power. Somebody earning $400,000 a year has a lot more influence and power than somebody earning $40,000 a year. How can we ensure that the rich don't dominate the political system and exploit it for their own benefit?

If the rich use the political system to cause direct harm to other individuals, they should be thrown in jail.

Short of that, collective society does not have the right to prevent the accumulation of wealth and power into the hands of the rich.

So I argue that your question is inherently flawed and irrelevant.

carrick | August 24, 2007, 4:04pm | #

A better answer is that if the government has no power other than to resolve disputes and protect the natural rights of individuals, then there would be no power for the rich to exploit.

Trollaphile | August 24, 2007, 4:04pm | #

"I'd rather discuss the politics of ooo feeling good."

ou mean legalized prostitution?

Paul | August 24, 2007, 4:06pm | #

I think I'd be peachy if everybody had an income well above the poverty line.

Lamar, then the lowest earers, regardless of their income would become the poverty line. Econ 101.

If everyone in the country earned $40,00 (or more), then $40k would be an "unlivable wage".

stephen the goldberger | August 24, 2007, 4:09pm | #

Envy certainly is a part of it, but as things are stated there would probably be resentment based on how those people accrued their massive wealth and how they use their influence.

Look at paris hilton. Some people despise her because they are jealous, some people despise her because she has no talent and is just inheriting a massive fortune while we slave away for our peanuts.

carrick | August 24, 2007, 4:12pm | #

Look at paris hilton. Some people despise her because they are jealous, some people despise her because she has no talent and is just inheriting a massive fortune while we slave away for our peanuts.

We are all free to despise MS Hilton for a wide variety of valid reasons. However, none of us has a right to expect the state to take her unearned wealth from her to distribute it to the needy.

Geotpf | August 24, 2007, 4:16pm | #

No.

Look, in a very rich nation such as America, a very strong argument can be made that the very rich and pretty rich should be required to give up some of thier money (via progressive taxation and government programs for the poor) to allow the very poor to move up to at least "adequate". But that doesn't mean any attempt should be made to make the rich only "adequate" themselves.

There becomes a point where additional income does not better one's lifestyle, a point where additional money is just stuff on a bank ledger instead of something needed to spend on personal material goods. That is, somebody who makes a hundred million a year has a lifestyle no better than somebody who makes ten million a year, and not much better than somebody who makes one million a year. Requiring higher levels of taxation from such people, to feed the hungry or whatever, is not a bad thing.

Of course, I'm sure this point of view will not be shared by many here.

carrick | August 24, 2007, 4:20pm | #

Look, in a very rich nation such as America, a very strong argument can be made that the very rich and pretty rich should be required to give up some of thier money (via progressive taxation and government programs for the poor) . . .

Uh no, absolutely not. The state cannot force people to be "good" and to help the needy.

Taxation should be limited to funding the legitimate operations of the state. Nothing more, nothing less.

Sean | August 24, 2007, 4:21pm | #

ROBOTS!

Geotpf | August 24, 2007, 4:23pm | #

Paul said:

"If everyone in the country earned $40,00 (or more), then $40k would be an "unlivable wage"."

That's not true at all. Imagine a world where a Star Trek-style replicator existed. That is, where making material goods was basically free. In such a world, there would be no poverty-at all.

That is to say, if there is an abudance of resources and capital and talent, it is possible for everybody in a country (or even the entire planet) to at least have an "adequate" standard of living. It is not neccessary for there to be very poor people for there to be very rich ones.

matthew hogan | August 24, 2007, 4:27pm | #

"Some people despise her because they are jealous, some people despise her because she has no talent and is just inheriting a massive fortune while we slave away for our peanuts."

In other words, some people despise her because a) they are jealous, or b) they are, um, jealous.

Geotpf | August 24, 2007, 4:30pm | #

carrick-So you are in favor of people starving to death in a rich country if the rich people aren't willing to give to charities?

libertreee | August 24, 2007, 4:31pm | #

How can we ensure that the rich don't dominate the political system and exploit it for their own benefit?-Edward

The only way is to eliminate or greatly weaken the political system.

That should be the goal of libertarians in the 21 Century.

Geotpf | August 24, 2007, 4:37pm | #

libertreee-Um, how the heck are you going to do that, unless you do away with Democracy and institute a King who enforces Libertarian policies by fiat?

carrick | August 24, 2007, 4:39pm | #

carrick-So you are in favor of people starving to death in a rich country if the rich people aren't willing to give to charities?

See, this is a prime example of progressive insanity.

You assume that the only way to feed the unfortunate is for all rich people to contribute some similar percentage of their wealth to charity or have that money taken from them by the state.

All that is necessary is for some percentage of the population (including the rich, the middle class, and the near poor) to willing donate to good causes to provide sustenance for those that can't take care of themselves and support for those suffering temporary troubles.

The problem in a voluntary system arises when a majority of the not-poor believe the poor are poor because they deserve it. That is not a problem that needs to be solved by government extraction of tax dollars from the whole population.

Dan T. | August 24, 2007, 4:41pm | #

If the rich use the political system to cause direct harm to other individuals, they should be thrown in jail.


Of course they "should" be, but who is going to do it?


Short of that, collective society does not have the right to prevent the accumulation of wealth and power into the hands of the rich.

I think this statement sums up what I see as being the main problem with libertarian philosophy.

I don't think you can simultaneously support the right of people to horde as much power as possible and then complain when they use that power to oppress others.

hale | August 24, 2007, 4:42pm | #

"Some people despise her because they are jealous, some people despise her because she has no talent and is just inheriting a massive fortune while we slave away for our peanuts."

I didn't despise her because she's inheriting a massive fortune. I despised her because, not satisfied with that outcome, she actually had a show that taunted people who do have to have jobs. I always got the impression The Simple Life's "rich girl can't hack it" premise was a veneer for a pretty crass hostility towards working people (the same way that sitcoms frequently center on a character who is "stupid" or frequently a mouthpiece for despicable ideas, but is nevertheless portrayed as sympathetic).

That's neither here nor there, though. And anyway, I don't think I ever despised Ms. Hilton herself, since I don't know her, so much as the media phenomenon she was at the center of.

joshua corning | August 24, 2007, 4:42pm | #

If every individual American was guaranteed an income of $40,000 annually (indexed perpetually for inflation), would it be a hardship or an injustice if some Americans earned $400,000, or $4 million, or $400 million per year?

Right now it would cause hyper inflation and a collapse of the economy....20 years from now we will have robots and it would work out just fine.

robc | August 24, 2007, 4:49pm | #

So you are in favor of people starving to death in a rich country if the rich people aren't willing to give to charities?

Why does it make a difference if the people starving are in a rich country or a poor one?

I dont accept the 2nd part of the question, since rich people are willing to give to charity.

Geotpf | August 24, 2007, 4:56pm | #

carrick-Ok, let's change my question very slightly:

So you are in favor of people starving to death in a rich country if the people aren't willing to give to charities?

(I obmitted the second "rich" in the sentence.)

The question is still valid-especially when the poor people in question are children, the eldery, the ill, or the handicapped (which is where most "welfare"-type programs are concentrated these days anyways). That is, if you can't take of yourself, and you don't have a family who is able to take care of you, the government should, and to pay for that, other people should be taxes, especially those who are rich or very rich.

Now, as for pure welfare grants to those who are able to work but choose not to, that's quite a bit different.

There's an in-between as well, which is people who are able and willing to work, but are not able to find work, or are not able to find work that pays well enough to have an "adequate" standard of living. I would be in favor of government assistance here, but being against this would be less...cruel...than being against giving starving kids government assistance.

Kenobi | August 24, 2007, 5:00pm | #

So you are in favor of people starving to death in a rich country if the people aren't willing to give to charities?

What about the farmers? Why is the focus always on the money, and not the people who provide the actual food?

It all seems rather ex post facto to say that the government should collect money from rich people and give it to poor people in the event that they might starve. Working from the ground up, I would expect someone to advocate a government owned farm to distribute food to people down on their luck.

Why is this not the case

Geotpf | August 24, 2007, 5:03pm | #

Kenobi-Well, in the past, there was the whole "government cheese"-type surplus food, although that has been reduced by a lot recently. Of course, that was tied to farm subsidies, which is one form of welfare I am very much against.

Fluffy | August 24, 2007, 5:04pm | #

"libertreee-Um, how the heck are you going to do that, unless you do away with Democracy and institute a King who enforces Libertarian policies by fiat?"

Um, we already have such a "king". His name is the Constitution. Large majorities support various restrictions on free speech, and those majorities get to suck it because King Constitution says Go Fuck Yourself.

This implies that all we need to do is tweak the Constitution. Unfortunately, the only available mechanisms to do that at the moment are democratic or indirectly democratic. This does not necessarily mean that all is lost, however, because if you can succeed in putting over your "tweaks" during a crisis or some other momentary situation where you have the political advantage, you can then laugh in the face of democracy the rest of the time.

Fluffy | August 24, 2007, 5:07pm | #

"carrick-So you are in favor of people starving to death in a rich country if the rich people aren't willing to give to charities?"

It's not purely a matter of what I favor. I favor plenty of food and miniature Americans flags for all. It's a matter of what I'm willing to use state violence to attain. I am perfectly willing to use state violence to stop murderers, rapists and thieves from continuing their rampages. I'm less enthused about using state violence to compel people to pay to ameliorate hunger they didn't create.

SIV | August 24, 2007, 5:08pm | #

Is the 40k indexed to deflation as well?
Or are we to assume a permanent managed inflationary economy like we have now?

Doctor Duck | August 24, 2007, 5:13pm | #

if the government has no power other than to resolve disputes and protect the natural rights of individuals, then there would be no power for the rich to exploit.

So, economic power would cease to exist? Why, I could buy and sell you!

Captain Awesome | August 24, 2007, 5:17pm | #

Let's assume away government in both of these societies. An ancient endowment was set up with robots as executors. These robots are able to provide everyone on the planet with the comforts of a $40,000 per year income stream with no individual effort put forward. A man dies (of natural causes) and his pool of robot servants begin delivering their services to his wife. Now everyone has an unearned income stream of $40,000 and this woman receives $80,000 worth of service every year through no effort of her own. Is to world less just due to her receiving of twice what everyone else gets?

Kenobi | August 24, 2007, 5:17pm | #

Dan T. said,

"Short of that, collective society does not have the right to prevent the accumulation of wealth and power into the hands of the rich."

I think this statement sums up what I see as being the main problem with libertarian philosophy.

I don't think you can simultaneously support the right of people to horde as much power as possible and then complain when they use that power to oppress others.

The problem with your problem is that your "solutions" to the hoarding of "power" (exactly what am I exercising over someone else by having something?) involve extending real, violent power over others--which is precisely what political entrepeneurs and rent seekers use to oppress others. Halliburton waging a war and then stealing overcharging itself would not only be irrational, it would be well beyond its means.

lj | August 24, 2007, 5:43pm | #

This wouldnt work, nothing works. people are more concerned about what they want than what they need. too bad people do not think in terms of NEED, then HAVE, then WANT.
every person NEEDS a home, food and clothing (because of weather). we HAVE enough in this entire world to shelter, feed and clothe everyone. everyone in this world WANTS a home, food and shelter......so why isnt this happening?
oh yeah, you and i are different, we are not all people, and what you want and need i dont want and need.....
oh yeah and its a capitalist world where everyone wants to be the best.

carrick | August 24, 2007, 5:47pm | #

The question is still valid-especially when the poor people in question are children,

Where are the parents?

the eldery,

Where are the children?

the ill, or the handicapped

Where are the families, the friends, the neighbors?

That is, if you can't take of yourself, and you don't have a family who is able to take care of you,

How does this happen? How does someone have no one to help them? I personally believe that many people abandon their personal responsibilities to help the needy because the "government" will take care of the problem.

the government should, . . .

The government is extraordinarily bad at dealing with individual people.

other people should be taxes, especially those who are rich or very rich.

People who care so much, like yourself, should be willing to carry the burden.

Brandybuck | August 24, 2007, 5:54pm | #

People who think that money is power are a strange lot. The only millionaires/billionaires that have power over me happen to be the folks in congress. Barack Obama has far far more power over me than Bill Gates does.

What a cheap price tag these people put on their rights, that they think they would be powerless to resist selling them to the first millionaire flash some green.

The problem is not the money. The problem is government selling political power and privilege on the open market.

Fluffy | August 24, 2007, 5:58pm | #

Edward:

50% of libertarianism is the desire to adjust things so that money can't buy political influence that will be of any interest to it.

In a libertarian world, there are in fact ways in which the 4 richest guys in my town could try to "assume a position of economic power" over me. They could try to buy so much property that my movement is restricted. They could try to pressure everyone in town to refuse to do business with me or employ me. But these things would only take them so far, and there would be very little they could do to me if I already owned property, had some savings, had friends in the community or the ability to produce a good or service people really wanted, etc.

On the other hand, under our current, non-libertarian system, the four richest guys in my town can fucking destroy me if they choose, with comparatively little effort. If I own property, via their political proxies they can get the town to seize it by eminent domain. If I have savings, their proxies can get those frozen by the state or federal government by associating me with unpopular political figures or with figures associated with the drug trade, or they can pore over my old tax returns to find ways to punish me for prior economic activity. If I have the ability to offer a good or service people want or need, they can use a state licensing regime to bar my entry into that field, or can use zoning laws to make sure I can't produce any goods. With some time to think about it I could come up with many more ways to cause mischief using the powers the state has assumed in the last century. The rich have infinitely more ability to fuck with you under our current system.

jh | August 24, 2007, 6:08pm | #

If you gave everyone $40K, taken from taxes, the economy would collapse, because most people would quit their jobs. Oh, and some folks would start pumping out kids to add another $40K apiece to their household income. There wouldn't be enough money being actually earned by people producing stuff to come up with the taxes to pay for the $40K handout, and the confiscatory taxes and the obvious endgame would cause the best and brightest to flee the upcoming socialist nonworkers paradise.

I could go on, but this sort of welfare state would collapse mighty quickly, no matter how you tried to tweak the premises.

Neu Mejican | August 24, 2007, 6:10pm | #

Fluffy,

So what if you don't own property, have no savings, are new in town, and don't have a valuable skill or product?

Do the four rich guys have any power over you?

jh | August 24, 2007, 6:17pm | #

With the exception of a fringe of self-proclaimed communists, the mere fact of varying levels of wealth is not generally viewed as a problem among progressives. As much as some people like to pretend otherwise.

joe wins the Delusional and Completely Unsupported by the Facts Comment of the Thread!

Of course most progressives hate varying levels of wealth -- when those varying levels are earned by people who aren't closet socialists. Listen to any liberal politician talk about "windfall profits" (i.e., "earnings") or rage about CEO compensation, and tell me they don't have a problem with income differences, even if the income differences fell on a normal bell-shaped curve of distributions.

Eric the .5b | August 24, 2007, 6:21pm | #

If every individual American was guaranteed an income of $40,000 annually (indexed perpetually for inflation)

Would that include children, or just adults?

Paul | August 24, 2007, 6:26pm | #

That's not true at all. Imagine a world where a Star Trek-style replicator existed. That is, where making material goods was basically free. In such a world, there would be no poverty-at all.

Geotpf:

Or, I have an idea, instead of imagining a Star Trek-style world, we could imagine the world in which we actually live. And in that world, if the minimum wage were $40,000 a year, then the poverty line is $40,000 a year. Show me an inflational model that doesn't bear that out, and you have an argument. Bringing Captain Kirk into the discussion does nothing for your argument.

Paul | August 24, 2007, 6:32pm | #

Surely you're not contending that money doesn't buy political influence, are you?

Why would he? Afterall, we got the money out of politics already. Next issue...

stephen the goldberger | August 24, 2007, 6:38pm | #

Paul-

you're judging poverty by relative wealth instead of objective measures like resources. If everyone has food, water, shelter, security, then how are they impoverished? The point of the star trek analogy was to point out poverty deals with limited ammounts of scarce goods. But what if those ammounts are no longer limited?

As to paris hilton my 2nd comment was designed to point out that some people hate her because they feel she doesn't contribute as much to society as they do and yet she is improperly rewarded, that is different than envy which is essentially desiring that lifestyle for yourself.

Paul | August 24, 2007, 6:51pm | #

The point of the star trek analogy was to point out poverty deals with limited ammounts of scarce goods. But what if those ammounts are no longer limited?

*sigh*

Ok, people, gather 'round, and listen very, very carefully.

A long long time ago, on this very planet, there was a time when very very few people had any material goods. As the world became more industrialised, more and more poor people (in these industrialized nations) have access to more and more material "wealth". Now, I'm not going to go into a dissertation on the difference between money and wealth, because then you'll have to sign up for my 200 level class.

Anyhoo...

There are very poor people, in this country, right now, as we speak who have 1: enough to eat (see obesity crisis amongst nations poor) 2: probably drive a car, 3: might even own a cell phone. Yet, they are, by all reasonable accounts, poor. I see and work around them every single day.

The point that's being horribly missed, stephen the goldberger is that poverty IS based on relative wealth, and nothing else.

In the ancient world that I described above, who is poor amongst a group of people that live in mud huts, have no medical care, and move nomadically with the rains and herds? Who is poor where cars haven't yet been invented, and the only mode of transport is by foot, or animal? It's the guy who doesn't have a mud hut, that's poor. It's the guy who doesn't have a pack animal, that's poor. It's the guy who only has a pack animal, but doesn't have a covered wagon, that's poor.

So, to abandon this subject of nano-technology machines, Star Trek, and distant galaxies and turn this battleship around back to the subject of a $40,000 minimum wage for all citizens, the guy who only has $40,000 is poor. The guy who has $400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 is rich.

But if you insist on making analogies with literary flights of fancy (see: Star Trek), read a book called "The Diamond Age" by Neal Stephenson where such devices existed. Guess what: his made-up world was full of poor people. I tend to think that Neal Stephenson had a more realistic picture of what life would be like if you could push a button and could make a "free" widget.

Paul | August 24, 2007, 6:58pm | #

You call this happiness? Surrounded by toadying lackeys and paid sycophants? Living with a love-goddess sex-bomb model megastar? You call this contentment? You know, I stand here now and I look at the two of us, and I ask one simple question: Who is the rich man? You, with your fifty-eight houses, your private island in the Bahamas, your multi-billion pound business empire; or me, with... with... with what, I've got. It's you isn't it? Yes it's all very clear to me now. You -- richer and happier. --Rimmer, Red Dwarf

carrick | August 24, 2007, 7:08pm | #

So what if you don't own property, have no savings, are new in town, and don't have a valuable skill or product?

Do the four rich guys have any power over you?

You mean besides refusing to sell you anything or give you a job. If they "pressure" others to refuse to sell you stuff or give you a job, then they would be clearly harming you which would make they subject to civil or criminal prosecution.

Paul | August 24, 2007, 7:15pm | #

I'm sure Reason will be happy for the self-reference... there's a space-time continuum joke for you trekkies here, somewhere. Anyway, an interesting article on how wealth is no longer defined by "stuff", or "material goods".

http://www.reason.com/news/show/120764.html

Neu Mejican | August 24, 2007, 7:28pm | #

Carrick,

To continue down the analogy path...

I have no savings, can't find a house, don't have friends, and I am gonna take these guys to court? Who will have the better lawyer? Who will be better able to leverage the limited power the government has in our hypothetical Minarchy?

Would this Minarchy have a law that said the rich guys couldn't negotiate services with the rest of the town and pay for a general shunning? Would that be a crime?

What if this Minarchy had fewer guns and resources than the four rich guys. Could they get away with hiring thugs to beat me up? How would the Minarchy enforce rules against a better funded coalition within its midst?

joe | August 24, 2007, 7:38pm | #

Mr. Bailey,

I do not believe that income inequality per se is either an injustice or a hardship.

I believe that poverty is an injustice and a hardship. I believe that unequal opportunity is an injustice. I believe that unequal access to and influence over government is an injustice. I believe that the latter two thingsd I just mentioned are very likely to lead to hardship for people holding the short end of the stick, and that the liklihood of that happening increases once wealth inequality grows beyond a certain level.

But no, income inequality per se - the fact that Bill Gates can buy a Maserati and I can't - is neither an injustice nor a hardship.

joe | August 24, 2007, 7:48pm | #

Did Bill Gates and a number of other billionaires put together a political organization dedicated to promoting the Inheretance Tax because they were envious of somebody?

It sure feels good to tell yourself that disagreeing with you about politics can only demonstrate your opponents' personality flaws, but if you do it too much, you grow hair on your palms.

joe | August 24, 2007, 7:52pm | #

jh writes, Of course most progressives hate varying levels of wealth -- when those varying levels are earned by people who aren't closet socialists. Listen to any liberal politician talk about "windfall profits" (i.e., "earnings") or rage about CEO compensation, and tell me they don't have a problem with income differences, even if the income differences fell on a normal bell-shaped curve of distributions.

So in other words, you know that progressives' concern about concentration of wealth stems from a desire to see absolute equality. And you know this, because they express concerns about the concentration of wealth.

I know this game!

That guy says that George Bush made a mistake invading Iraq.

Yeah, but don't listen to him. He's a delusional Bush-hater.

How do you know that he's a delusional Bush-hater?

Didn't you hear? He says that George Bush made a mistake invading Iraq.

joe | August 24, 2007, 7:54pm | #

Fluffy,

The problem with trying to solve the problem of wealth buying political influence by limiting the influence of politics is that you can't put a limited government in a magical limited-government-de-growing-machine. If they wealthy maintain their power to influence the government, they will change the government in a way that allows them to use it for their ends. And they will continue to be able to do this, because of the power their wealth buys them.

joe | August 24, 2007, 7:56pm | #

carick,

In what world does being unable to buy, sell, or work not harm a person?

Fluffy | August 24, 2007, 8:08pm | #

"So what if you don't own property, have no savings, are new in town, and don't have a valuable skill or product?

Do the four rich guys have any power over you?"

The proper question is STILL whether they would have MORE or LESS "power" in a libertarian system, or a system where political leaders routinely intervene in economic affairs.

The 4 rich guys can attempt to convince everyone in town to blackball me from employment. It's harder to do that if the labor market is free and I can undercut the other laborers in town to get my foot in the door if that's necessary. It's harder to do that if the market for goods and services is free and I can turn my car into a taxi without buying a medallion, or start a dog grooming business without a license, or start a child care business without a license. It's much, much easier to simply dominate local politics to close all these avenues off to me than it is to do it with pure economic power.

And you can continue to handicap the person in the example by making them too incompetent to do any of the things I mentioned, or any similar things. But at that point I have to say - if you're so completely fucked up that you have nothing to contribute to anyone anywhere, how exactly are you EXPECTING to not be in a position of dependence? It's not the rich guys that have "power" over you then, it's your own lameness.

Joe -

The Constitution did a pretty good job for a while, before the two Roosevelts fucked it over. And it could be improved. The striking thing about the history of the scandals that marked, say, the Grant administration is how extremely petty they are compared to the systemic rent-seeking we see today in, for example, all real estate development nationwide.

And if my failure to buy your labor is a "harm" I'm imposing on you, why isn't your failure to buy my product a "harm" you're imposing on me?

Lamar | August 24, 2007, 8:12pm | #

"Lamar, then the lowest earers, regardless of their income would become the poverty line. Econ 101."

I was under the impression that this thought experiment controlled for this concept, i.e., the only "poverty" would be a relative poverty, not an inability to put food in the table.

joe | August 24, 2007, 8:14pm | #

Fluffy,

You ought to read up on the blackballing of labor activists in industrial towns during the glorious free market era of the mid-to-late 1800s. Yes, they can do that, and the concentration of wealth of that era, and the ability of those with concentrated wealth to collude unimpeded by government, made it easier for them to do so.

And if my failure to buy your labor is a "harm" I'm imposing on you, why isn't your failure to buy my product a "harm" you're imposing on me?

I suppose it could be, if my business was so essential to your economic well-being that you would be unable to keep a roof over your head without it.

Rick Barton | August 24, 2007, 8:19pm | #

Ron:

If every individual American was guaranteed an income of $40,000 annually (indexed perpetually for inflation), would it be a hardship or an injustice if some Americans earned $400,000, or $4 million, or $400 million per year?

Certainly not a hardship cuz it's indexed for cost inflation. So even if half the folks in the country were making $4 million, which would mean higher prices, there would be no hardship possible.

The only injustices would be 1) That folks are guaranteed $40,000 of other folks money. 2) If, and to the degree that, the folks making the larger sums got it thru involuntary (government or crime) means.

carrick | August 24, 2007, 8:21pm | #

In what world does being unable to buy, sell, or work not harm a person?

You have a short attention span joe. I said that if the 4 rich guys pressured all the other residents of the town to prevent you from buying, selling, or working that they should be prosecuted.

Whereas if the individually decide not to do business with you they are not harming you.

carrick | August 24, 2007, 8:32pm | #

So to summarize:

You are a homeless, penniless, bastard with little to no marketable skills.

You move to a new town hoping for a change of luck.

You have no right to expect the town council will tax the four richest guys in town to provide you with food and shelter.

You have no right to expect the town council to force the four richest guys in town to do business with you if they don't want to.

You do have a right to expect that the town council will prevent the four richest guys in town from interfering with your attempts to do business with the other residents of the town.

In short, you can expect that the role of government is to prevent any individual from interfering with you exercising your rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. However, you do not have a right to expect government to help you catch up if you born at the wrong time or in the wrong place or to the wrong parents or whatever.

Rick Barton | August 24, 2007, 8:34pm | #

Neu Mejican:

So what if you don't own property, have no savings, are new in town, and don't have a valuable skill or product?

So how was the person getting along in the old location? Whatever, government or crime are not ethical recourses! Charity is fair cuz it's voluntary.

Government welfare programs tend to harm prosperity cuz they sap capital. Government welfare also harms the ethical fiber of the recipients cuz they get the idea that they somehow have a "right" to other folks' money, rather than having to depend on the voluntary patronage in some form or other to make money.

Mr. Nice Guy | August 24, 2007, 8:35pm | #

I think most progressives hate inequality. But I think most people hate it too, especially when they feel it is not "deserved." And most people actually do feel that the inequality they meet with was achieved through some unfair means (and not without some reason, I mean even libertarians would acknowledge how many use rent seeking tricks to get rich "unfairly"). But if they actually thought that guy x worked twice as hard as guy y I don't think most people would be too upset with the former making twice as much.
I thought most serious progressives had made their peace with inequality per se after Rawls acknowldged that incentives are conducive to the greater good and that you can't have incentives without some inequality. But many still feel, and I think quite rightly here, that income and wealth largely translate into how many options a person has in life (what a person is "free" to do, in a positive sense [I know, I know, many libertarians only recognize negative or "freedom from"]) and that a guy with a million dollars has a lot more life choices available to him than a guy who makes $40,000. Now the Rawlsian would point out, is that fair? I mean, lets say the former guy made more because of his free choice to work 100 hours a week and the other guy freely chose to loaf. Anyone who thinks that is unfair strikes me as odd. But let's now say the rich guy is rich because his parents were and he had obvious advantages the other guy did not. I think anyone who finds that distribution fair to be odd. In the middle are situations like this: what if the rich guy is rich because he was born smarter, or with a better singing voice. Does this stroke of fate warrant him having twenty times the life choices of the other guy? I mean, you can't choose your IQ or singing ability, and to some degree you cannot even improve them (read the Bell Curve).

Mr. Nice Guy | August 24, 2007, 8:42pm | #

"Government welfare also harms the ethical fiber of the recipients cuz they get the idea that they somehow have a "right" to other folks' money, rather than having to depend on the voluntary patronage in some form or other to make money.
Rick, do you really think that? Having to depend on the voluntary patronage of others not only does not strike me as any more conducive to creating moral fiber than the government dole (the former tends to bread incredible shame, trapped dependency and low self-esteem), but also puts some folks into a position to abuse people who depend on them for the charity (which often forces a person to choose between their dignity and feeding their kids).
I agree wholeheartedly that a feeling of entitlement is not good for anyone, and that certain scamps have worked to try to foster in many groups a sense of entitlement to government (read: other people's) money. But voluntary charity has plenty of moral fiber deflating tendencies as well, and in addition it is not as "rationalized" by public law traditions and the anonymity.

carrick | August 24, 2007, 9:00pm | #

But let's now say the rich guy is rich because his parents were and he had obvious advantages the other guy did not.

So what!

I think anyone who finds that distribution fair to be odd.

Life isn't fair. Fair has nothing to do it. The role of government is not to undo the unfairness of life. Any effort by the government to resolve one unfairness will only create a new unfairness. And this new unfairness is not the result of random bad luck, but is the result of intentional actions by the state.

The role of government must be limited to enforcing the rules, where the rules are created to minimize conflict between free individual pursuing there own lives, liberties, and happiness.

joe | August 24, 2007, 9:05pm | #

Fluffy,

The Constitution did a pretty good job for a while, before the two Roosevelts fucked it over.

Bull. Let me take you back to the glorious, pre-Roosevelt free market capitalist utopia of the 1870s. In one notable Supreme Court ruling, the Court held that homeowners whose houses were destroyed by the tunnelling of the mining companies who owned sub-surface mineral rights did not have a legal recourse to recover damages, and that state laws that created such a recourse were infringing on the property rights of the mine owners.

In another notable case from the same period, the Court ruled that a factory which was dumping so much soot on a neighboring apartment house that its residents were getting sick and its owner was unable to rent the rooms could not sue for trespass, because doing so would - you guessed it - violate the property rights of the factory owners.

So yes, even with a government system which pledged allegiance to property rights uber alles, the rich were still able to bring the government to bear to push people around.

joe | August 24, 2007, 9:08pm | #

I said that if the 4 rich guys pressured all the other residents of the town to prevent you from buying, selling, or working that they should be prosecuted.

Whereas if the individually decide not to do business with you they are not harming you.

So if I'm homeless, penniless, and unable to secure a job, no harm no foul, as long as I can't prove that the employers shutting me out were collaborating.

No, that's not fair. You aren't saying that I haven't been harmed. You're just saying you don't give a crap.

One side of this argument about harms is discussing people, and whether they are being hurt. The other side is using overly-cute weasel words to define away the harm those people are suffering.

joe | August 24, 2007, 9:09pm | #

You have no right to expect the town council will tax the four richest guys in town to provide you with food and shelter.

You have no right to expect the town council to force the four richest guys in town to do business with you if they don't want to.

You do have a right to expect that the town council will prevent the four richest guys in town from interfering with your attempts to do business with the other residents of the town.

Thus sayethe carrick, the Giver of Law and the Definer of Rights, as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end, amen.

Fluffy | August 24, 2007, 9:11pm | #

"I suppose it could be, if my business was so essential to your economic well-being that you would be unable to keep a roof over your head without it."

Joe, do you realize how asinine that is?

That would mean that if you had a really, really shitty business that made a shoddy product and gave terrible service, and I was your only customer, and because of your lame business habits you could never get another customer, I'd be "harming" you if I stopped being your customer. But if you had a great business with a great product and great service and could get plenty of customers, I would not be "harming" you if I stopped being your customer. So I'm a bad, power-abusing rich guy precisely to the degree that you're a piece of dung who doesn't deserve my business. That CAN'T be right.

"I think anyone who finds that distribution fair to be odd."

The right of the loafing guy to have the money isn't an issue. If his parents earned it, it's theirs and it's fair that it's theirs. Once it's theirs, they can use it for whatever purpose they want, and it stays fair. If they give it to their worthless loafer son, it stays fair. If they give it to charity or use it to support the arts or stray dogs or to fight global warming, all of that is fair too.

jh | August 24, 2007, 9:13pm | #

You ought to read up on the blackballing of labor activists in industrial towns during the glorious free market era of the mid-to-late 1800s.

Yeah, joe, I can't imagine why an employer would not want to employ a statist agitator who would try to get everyone to join a labor union and encourage them to go on strike, and maybe vote in politicians who would put all sorts of restrictions on the ability of employers to freely negotiate wages and working conditions. Seems like those agitators would be valuable employees that all the employers in town would scramble over themselves to hire. The agitators had every right under those circumstances to complain about being "blackballed", thus preventing the otherwise inevitable bidding war from developing for their valuable services. :p

joe | August 24, 2007, 9:13pm | #

The role of government is not to undo the unfairness of life.

This is the Word of Our Lord.

Thanks be to Mises.

You don't care about fairness as a moral imperitive? I don't care about noninterference in economic activity as a moral imperitive.

We appear to be at a stalemate. Competing sets of values. See you at the ballot box.

Fluffy | August 24, 2007, 9:15pm | #

"One side of this argument about harms is discussing people, and whether they are being hurt. The other side is using overly-cute weasel words to define away the harm those people are suffering."

When you use harm as a verb, it's an active verb. As in "Fluffy harmed Joe." That means that if you're born with no arms and no legs and no eyes and no ears and the brain of a lizard, and can't support yourself as a result, I'm not "harming" you if I don't support you, because I didn't DO any of that shit to you.

I won't dispute that you're suffering if you're hungry and can't get a job. What I'm disputing is whether I FUCKING DID IT TO YOU. But that doesn't matter to you, because you've stated before, over and over, that justice doesn't matter to you.

joe | August 24, 2007, 9:17pm | #

Fluffy,

That CAN'T be right.

No, it's not right. Who said all harms were wrong? Who said all harms need to be redressed? I run a lousy business, you take your business elsewhere, I've been harmed.

You're defining harm as something a bad person does that's bad; it's a harm based on the moral standing of the act and the person committing it.

I'm not. I'm defining harm from the standpoint of the person being harmed.

At this point, I'd hope you'd realize that when something I write strikes you funny, it's not because I'm stupid, but because we aren't sympatico in our values systems and ways of seeing the world.

joe | August 24, 2007, 9:20pm | #

Yeah, joe, I can't imagine why an employer would not want to...

First of all, I'd change the subject, too, if I was trying to argue that employers didn't have immense amounts of power in the pre-modern, laissez-faire Gilded Age society. I'd probably try to change it to why what the powerful employers wanted was unimpeachably right.

Second, oh, ok, if it's what the most wealthy people in town wanted, then I guess that's ok, then. Great ethical system you've got there.

joe | August 24, 2007, 9:23pm | #

Fluffy,

I don't think that people who are suffering can be cast aside by muttering "Not my problem." They are human beings and entitled to decent treatment from every single one of us.

I care about justice a hell of a lot more than you - I just don't define it as "I got mine, screw you buddy."

joe | August 24, 2007, 9:26pm | #

Fluffy,

We don't collect taxes to help the poor to punish people who pay taxes. We don't collect taxes to help the poor to save the souls of taxpayers.

We collect taxes to help the poor to - wait for it - HELP THE POOR.

Aw, did you have to get the cloth seats instead of leather, so that a few dumb kids you don't even know can live in apartments that don't have peeling lead paint? That's the price you pay for living in a civilized society. Those kids could easily be you.

Fluffy | August 24, 2007, 9:27pm | #

"You're defining harm as something a bad person does that's bad; it's a harm based on the moral standing of the act and the person committing it."

Uh - yeah. In the context of this thread we've been using the word "harm" in the sense of a harm that is actionable and requires redress. So were you when you jumped in to the whole "harm" question:

"So if I'm homeless, penniless, and unable to secure a job, no harm no foul, as long as I can't prove that the employers shutting me out were collaborating."

But if now you're saying, "Hey, I include cloudy days in my definition of harm and I'm not saying all harms need to be redressed," then fine. We'll set aside and ignore the harms that don't need to be redressed, since they, you know, don't need to be redressed.

jh | August 24, 2007, 9:33pm | #

So in other words, you know that progressives' concern about concentration of wealth stems from a desire to see absolute equality. And you know this, because they express concerns about the concentration of wealth.

No, joe, I know this because I've sat through committee hearings where statist liberals said they wanted everyone to get equal pay for unequal job descriptions and unequal work loads. Not everyone is as coy as you about their dreams of a socialist workers paradise. Not all statists are quite this clueless about economics, but a fair chunk are.

But nice strawman attempt with the bit about "absolute equality".

jh | August 24, 2007, 9:46pm | #

Thought I'd translate joespeak for y'all:

We collect taxes use thugs with guns to rob others, keep some for ourselves, and give some of the swag to politically powerful groups to help the poor less wealthy to - wait for it - HELP THE POOR POLITICALLY ADVANTAGED CLASSES STEAL.

Aw, did you have to get the cloth seats instead of leather, so that a few dumb kids you don't even know can live in apartments that don't have peeling lead paint? steal from you? That's the price you pay for living in a civilized society kleptocracy defended by statists feigning compassion.

carrick | August 24, 2007, 9:46pm | #

Thus sayethe carrick, the Giver of Law and the Definer of Rights, as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end, amen.

No joe, it was a pretty straightforward description of libertarian philosophy which I know you don't give a rat's ass for. So why do you come here?

You don't care about fairness as a moral imperitive?

I didn't say that, I said it was not the role of government to address unfairness. It is the role of free individuals to address the unfairness in life. You do comprehend the concept of individual responsibility don't you?

I don't care about noninterference in economic activity as a moral imperitive.

You have made this point ad nauseum.

We appear to be at a stalemate.

I wasn't trying to convince you, that would be a pointless exercise.

Competing sets of values.

Most definitely.

See you at the ballot box.

As it should be.

Fluffy | August 24, 2007, 9:47pm | #

"I care about justice a hell of a lot more than you - I just don't define it as 'I got mine, screw you buddy.'"

No, you define it as forcing people not responsible for harms to redress those harms.

You define it as forcing people to ameliorate "suffering", even if they weren't the ones who created it.

This is EXACTLY as if [not even just analogous, but identical to] setting up a system of criminal justice where you can bring any random person in off the street and punish them for any crime.

You know what? The stereo I bought from Best Buy doesn't work. I've been harmed and I'm out 400 bucks. Now, I could bring the stereo back to Best Buy and get my money back, but I think you should pay me my 400 bucks instead, Joe. Because I've been harmed here and it doesn't matter who's actually responsible. I'm a real person and I've suffered a real harm and if you say it's not your fault those are just pretty words you're using to hide from my harm.

Mr Nice Guy | August 24, 2007, 9:52pm | #

Carrick, we might be equivocating here. You of course believe that government should be policing fairness, you even say "The role of government must be limited to enforcing the rules." So you recognize a set of behaviors that would be "unfair" that government should prevent or address. If I bopped you on the head and took your property I bet you'd think government could come and rectify this unfairness.
Now you might want to claim that inequality resulting from one guy taking something from another is morally different than ineuqality resulting from one guy being given a ton by his dad and another being shafted by his. I mean, that first guy didn;t ask to get bopped on the head and robbed, but you know, the other guy did not ask to have a crappy day (and the rich guy did not do anything to deserve the rich dad). So I'm not convinced that the inherited millionaire is not an unfair one. I might go as far with you to say that it may be one of the unfair situations that government should probably stay out of trying to fix (for example Selma Hayeks refusal to let me ball her till she walks funny).

"If they give it to their worthless loafer son, it stays fair." Fluffy, I'm gonna have to call for a reason to justify that assertion, because it strikes me as not only odd, but that it would strike most people as odd. Not odd that a person should have the right to leave whatever inheritance they rightly make to whoever. But wrong that guy x is twenty times richer simply because of who his daddy was. He did nothing to "deserve" to have a rich daddy, hence he did nothing to "deserve" to have his daddy's largesse. Sure, he was plainly lucky, but luck don't usually=deserve in most people's moral calculus.

Imagine you are in a soap box derby, where each contestant will be pushed by his father. You line up with your average sized, hard working father, and your opponent lines up with Lou Ferrigno in his early days pushing. He creams you because his dad pushed waaay harder. Now of course these things happen, life's not always fair, yadayda. But was that race between you two fair in any way? Heck, if the race had been between the two fathers that would be more likely fair (unless we want to talk of Lou's luckily superior genetics or, ahem, enhancement). But the pushes were unequal, they were arbitrary (in the sense that each person did not get the push the "deserved" relative to their efforts, desire, etc.) and therfore unfair under any conceptual understanding of that word I'm familiar with...

joe | August 24, 2007, 9:55pm | #

Fluffy,

I was not defining harm in terms of the moral status of the person who did the harm. Not in that quote, not ever. You just read into it. Heck, I think society should help people who get mauled by bears, and I ain't got nuffin against bears.

Once again, we don't collect taxes to help poor people because we think that taxpayers have done anything wrong. You're conflating quite a bit under the term "actionable." I don't want to take put anyone in jail becasue people are poor, anymore than I want to put pepole in jail because an old road is bumpy. Nonetheless, the government should take action.

joe | August 24, 2007, 9:57pm | #

jh,

Socialist workers' paradise? And then you follow that up by accusing me of a strawman argument?

Good night.

Fluffy | August 24, 2007, 10:02pm | #

"Imagine you are in a soap box derby, where each contestant will be pushed by his father. You line up with your average sized, hard working father, and your opponent lines up with Lou Ferrigno in his early days pushing. He creams you because his dad pushed waaay harder. Now of course these things happen, life's not always fair, yadayda. But was that race between you two fair in any way?"

But that race isn't between the two of you. It's between the four of you.

Saying it's unfair that the other kid has Lou Ferrigno as a dad is like saying that Kevin Millar should give his World Series ring back, because he sucks and the only reason he has a ring is because the other guys on his team were good.

"Not odd that a person should have the right to leave whatever inheritance they rightly make to whoever. But wrong that guy x is twenty times richer simply because of who his daddy was."

These statements are mutually exclusive. If the first sentence is true, the second can't be. If the first is true, the only person who gets to decide if guy X "deserv