Egalitarianism is in vogue in Western policy. From progressive tax rates to caps on executive pay, people like to see some sort of injustice in the fact that there are rich people and poor people. I will not here talk about the societal and economic ramifications of such policies (these have been well dealt with by Mises, among others), or justify income disparity morally: the fallacy of equating justice with equality of income or outcome has been long since exploded by Robert Nozick and others (cf. the Wilt Chamberlain argument, for example). Instead, I will look at the moral and philosophical presuppositions that are necessary to an egalitarian worldview.
The egalitarian tends to justify leveling and redistributive policies on the basis of equal humanity. All men are created equal, they say, so why ought so much inequality prevail in our world? Their arguments may be wrapped in complex sophisms like arguments from marginal utility (for example John Stewart Mill), but ultimately all coherent and general arguments for income leveling (excluding place-particular arguments where inequality may be engendering political unrest, for example) must have recourse to the equal humanity of all men. Any consequentialist argument is necessarily fallacious, for redistribution and leveling in a market society are always and necessarily detrimental to overall productivity (Edit: See comments for clarification).
What this philosophy does, in so many compassionate-sounding words, is disparage the intrinsic worth of a man to the worth of his paycheck. They see it as an affront to the dignity of the janitor that the CEO makes so much more. In doing this they must completely deny any supereconomic worth that a man may have. Not only does this completely disregard any conception of the metaphysical, it says that certain men have the authority to determine the human worth of other men. Though their goal is to remove that authority from those who currently wield it, by saying this authority exists, they in reality desire to arrogate it to themselves, as if they could reign benevolently as philosopher kings. For if such an office of the determination of the worth of other men exists, it cannot go unfilled.
In doing this, they throw away the very cornerstone of modern society: equality before the law. Equality before the law requires that men have no authority to determine the intrinsic worth of another. By giving men this authority, whether wielded by capitalists or by themselves, suddenly the law is allowed to give preferential treatment to one individual over another: we regress to feudal and monarchial law, the only difference being that instead of the rich being favored, the indigent are favored. Indeed if men have an intrinsic supereconomic worth which men have not the authority nor the means to know, what legs are there left for egalitarian policies to stand on?
In addition to the question of intrinsic worth, the question of identity is also relevant to egalitarian philosophy. Its answer is equally stultifying.
if I meet someone new and ask him to tell me about himself, he’ll probably start off by telling me where he works and what he does for a living. This is a fine, if indirect, way of getting to know who he is, assuming his occupation is indicative of his interests and passions: that’s what I want to know when I ask that question. The problem arises when the egalitarians assume some sort of right to a job – and a high paying one, at that. This engenders a mindset which sees a job as something external given to you, probably but not necessarily related to your passions. This is true alienation of labor (I’m going to appropriate that term, since it’s much more appropriate in this sense than in the one in which Marx meant it): the more force we apply to egalitarian impulses as a society, the more we replace passion with duty; the less choice one gets; the less room there is for ambition. Europe is incredibly socially languid for exactly this reason: egalitarian philosophy has castrated economic ambition, and where Americans look for satisfaction in their jobs, Europeans look for security and stability.
In an egalitarian society, when I meet the new guy and he tells me where he works, his answer is now completely irrelevant to my question: what he does has no bearing on who he is. Or rather, had no bearing, for he comes to accept the egalitarian premise and defines his worth and identity based on what he does, or, based on what he has been told to do. This would be despair, except that people come to think of it as normal.
Let us not then affront the human dignity of the poor by collectivizing the responsibility for their well-being. Instead if we have any care at all, the responsibility is ours as individuals to give, not as a society to expropriate from the rich, as if we could absolve ourselves of responsibility that way.
1
Michael Hughes says: Sep 29, 2009 at 0:00“Any consequentialist argument is necessarily fallacious, for redistribution and leveling in a market society are always and necessarily detrimental to overall productivity.”
This is such a dangerous statement, which, while perhaps true in one sense, is also fundamentally deranged.
Under your conceptualization of a high-functioning society, we should be using the feudal system, for goodness sake. Serfs and lords, right? It ignores human dignity, even if you apparently think the opposite is true. You’re making grand, sweeping generalizations (which is what philosophy is all about, really), without truly considering their implications. If you want to make your argument actually persuasive, instead of just clamoring noise, then you have articulate what role government should have, not just what role it shouldn’t. (Forgive the poor structure of the preceding sentence; it’s late.)
You’re clearly a quality thinker, but beware of championing absolutes. “Always” and “necessarily” are dangerous words to toss around in such a cavalier manner, especially when talking about social and economic philosophy. The entire United States system of governance is based off of the fact that there are very few absolutes when it comes to human nature and government interaction, which is why we have an amendable Constitution and an expansive judiciary. Because the other main option would be tyranny.
2
thrica says: Sep 29, 2009 at 0:20I made the statement about productivity so general in the interest of keeping the note short. Honestly, one could write hundreds of pages exploding economic fallacies (and such have been written). Human Action is probably one of the most extensive and rigorous, if you care to read it, and incidentally it also deals with questions of human nature.
In very short, redistribution and demand-side leveling hurt overall productivity because it perverts the incentives towards production, and tinkering with the supply side disarranges price data and causes malinvestment. Mostly unintended consequences of the intended policy.
I’m not sure what you mean about the feudal system – that wasn’t a productive system at all, nor was it any semblance of a market system. I don’t see how that fits at all within a conceptualization of a high-functioning society.
Also, there’s not a necessary dichotomy between an expansive judiciary and tyranny: freedom works, and for the most part the flexibility of the constitution has served to impinge upon that.
3
Michael Hughes says: Sep 29, 2009 at 1:40I was making the point that by ignoring government’s role in a functioning society/marketplace, you’ve left the reader to assume that you think that any action taken to exert control over the marketplace leads to a fall in productivity.However, in the absence of the government, mankind essentially falls into a form a feudal hierarchy, where might is right, and you can only own the land and labor you can control, leading to fiefdoms and tyranny. As you so adroitly point out, yes, it is a horribly inefficient system. It is, however, what occurs in the absence of a governing body which guarantees certain individual rights, as well as implements regulations for leveling and redistributing funds within the system.
The argument that arises, then, is to what extent should those regulations be implemented, not whether or not there should be any at all. To suggest that there shouldn’t be any at all, however, to me, is obtuse in the extreme, as it ignores human history almost completely.
Also, as a side note, I’m not sure what you meant when you said “freedom works”. Freedom is an ethereal concept, it doesn’t exist outside of a framework, or context, rather. It can’t “worK”, as it can’t perform an action. It’s just an abstract thought. I think I’m simply misunderstanding you.
4
thrica says: Sep 29, 2009 at 8:40Ok, I see what you’re getting at. By freedom I don’t mean anarchy, but a government which limits its restrictive activity to the protection of private property and the enforcement of contracts.
5
Lance Newman says: Sep 29, 2009 at 13:03Equal rights? Well, if someone has the authority to take YOUR money and give it someone else, contrary to what YOU wish to do with YOUR money, then I guess that would make someone more equal than you.
6
Matt Cavedon says: Sep 29, 2009 at 23:231. Feudalism was only possible because of government land-grants and monopolies. To say that free markets devolve into them is rather anachronistic. That said, I’d probably still support more legal restrictions on monopolies than the good Mr. Harwick for precisely such a reason.
2. Harwick and Hughes are both right, in a sense. Redistribution always produces inefficiencies when they are levied on non-monopolistic gains, to be sure. That said, raw production and total efficiency ought to take a back seat to basic human need. Redistribution for its own sake is wrong; redistribution for the sake of meeting basic human needs is a reasonable use of the economy. A purely laissez-faire economy that does not fulfill basic human needs is no economy worth having, nor are the riches that come from it truly the best use of resources.
Lance – rights can be violated. Rights are only worthwhile insofar as they serve humanity. Let’s not be so dogmatic about any right that we are unwilling to violate it for the sake of a human.
7
Michael Hughes says: Sep 29, 2009 at 23:34Thanks Matt, even-tempered and fair-minded as always.
8
thrica says: Sep 29, 2009 at 23:58>”A purely laissez-faire economy that does not fulfill basic human needs is no economy worth having, nor are the riches that come from it truly the best use of resources.”
I don’t have any problem with redistribution or charity as such – I’m no Randian – as long as it’s voluntary. The problem is when we collectivize responsibility: even if it’s done for basic human need (most welfare proponents would say that it is, which also raises the question of how we define basic human need. Absolutely based on calories? Relative to the surrounding society as a percentage of the median? These questions are of great import in defining poverty worldwide – a multitude of these definitions is used for various purposes, and none of them is airtight), it still arrogates to certain people a moral authority which is not properly vested in humans.
The point being, I don’t believe in laissez-faire because I believe people’s needs will always be met (even though there is a strong case to be made here with regard to charity which has been squelched by the public sector); I believe in it because I believe that no man has the knowledge or the benevolence to be granted the authority to fiddle with the outcomes of voluntary transactions.
9
Lance Newman says: Sep 30, 2009 at 0:05Matt-so by your logic, violating property rights to fund universal health care would be justified. After all, give just a little bit more in taxes would help cover the 46 million uninsured Americans.
10
Michael Hughes says: Sep 30, 2009 at 0:48“(even though there is a strong case to be made here with regard to charity which has been squelched by the public sector)”
Not to be rude, but there is absolutely no case to be made in that vein. None whatsoever. It’s completely spurious. There is no historical precedent to back up a claim of this nature.
Also, because I think we’ve been dancing around the issue to some extent, how do you define laissez-faire anyway? My reading of your suggestion, which I took to what I considered its logical extension, was based off of the presupposition that you don’t agree with government interference in private citizens lives at all. But up to and including what, exactly? A police force that protects from what crimes? What about a nation’s borders? International relations? Economic policy is necessarily entwined with these other areas of governance.
The point being that one of the few absolutes I can accept is that the absence of a system of regulation is chaos, not order. The nature of that regulation must in turn have checks and balances. Our system of governance is not broken, even if you think it oversteps its bounds in some of its policy decisions (a sentiment I would agree with on a number of issues).
11
thrica says: Sep 30, 2009 at 1:20There is absolutely evidence that individualism drives charity, and conversely, that collectivism squelches it.
http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm
“Arthur C. Brooks finds that … those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others.”
Society has to be founded on the rule of law which is backed by force, I agree – but all laws must have recourse to fundamental principles, else they are arbitrary, and that’s no way to run a society. Laws for the sake of having laws are worth nothing. The absolutely necessary principles which I’m sure we agree on are property rights and the enforcement of contracts. I would also add the provision of public goods (roads, etc.). Let me ask you then, what additional principles of regulation would you propose?
12
Michael Hughes says: Sep 30, 2009 at 15:41I find it deeply ironic that the best interviewer on television hosts a comedy show on a cable network, but here’s a constructive, civil conversation between him and Ron Paul concerning some of the same issues we’re discussing here.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/99183/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-ron-paul#s-p1-st-i1
13
Matt Cavedon says: Sep 30, 2009 at 22:04Lance – yes, I would. My greatest argument against the proposals out there now is that they fall into the trap of bureaucracy and centralized government decision-making. Subsidizing the poor to purchase their own health insurance from private providers in a free market sounds entirely reasonable to me. I would not support any right or any system, on its own merits, if its own merits were not in the best interests of the entirety of humanity. I strongly support limited government and free markets because they tend to, better than the alternatives. This is not always the case.
Harwick – no, I can’t make anything airtight. But I know that humans need food, shelter, medicine, and education to have any chance at flourishing. So let’s start there and debate the means to achieving that end. As I just wrote, I’ll wholeheartedly support the most market-oriented and decentralized ways to do it, because that’s what’ll work.
Michael – the absence of regulation does not always lead to chaos. Indeed, the presence of regulation, which is always imperfect like any other human endeavor, may create more chaos (see: Freddie Mac, Sarbanes-Oxley restrictions leading to bizarre financial products, CAFE standards leading to the creation of the SUV). As you wisely note, absolutes are difficult creatures to befriend.
14
Lance Newman says: Sep 30, 2009 at 22:11Matt, I agree that giving the poor money so they could enter the market to purchase insurance on their own would be better than having the government decide which insurance plan works best. The freedom to choose that would accompany the subsidization of the poor would spur greater competition, and hence, lower prices and improve quality. Plus, the plans that would thrive would actually reflect consumer sentiment, rather than the sentiment of some bureaucrat.
However, I find it kind of hard to listen to you say that you strongly support free markets and limited government when you’re in favor of the government spending billions to cover the uninsured. It seems a little too beltway for me. Also, how does someone else’s misfortune make them entitled to my property?
15
Matt Cavedon says: Sep 30, 2009 at 22:19Free markets are not inherently dependent on a small government. Transfers outside of the marketplace are consistent with free markets. I want a world with no public health insurance plans. No public mortgage corporations. No federal coordination of education. No federal drug wars. No globe-spanning military. No federal housing projects. No corporate welfare. No trade restrictions unrelated to national security. Many fewer regulations on labor and business.
That is limited government.
What entitles you to your property? Property exists to serve human needs, because delegating resources helps us to live and flourish. It isn’t an absolute right on par with the right to live and flourish.
16
Lance Newman says: Sep 30, 2009 at 22:26All of those things are more limited than what we have now. But, at the end of the day, the gov would still be spending billions to cover the uninsured.
Well, since I worked for something, I believe I’m entitled to it. Seems reasonable to me… keeping the fruits of one’s labor. Property does exist to serve human needs, but why should I be forced to serve someone else? That doesn’t seem fair to me. Delegating resources can be done voluntarily. There doesn’t need to be a massive state apparatus to delegate resources.
17
Matt Cavedon says: Sep 30, 2009 at 22:34Oh that we would live in a world in which every poor person had people, family, churches, philanthropists seeking them out when they were in dire need. But we do not. Much though I appreciate keeping as many of the fruits of my labor as I can so that I may spend them as I please, and much though I expect that the government either organize its aid to the poor in an intelligent manner or let me do so freely, no one has the right to yachts and barrels of champagne while a child starves or an old woman freezes. No one has the right to gamble their life savings away while veterans sleep on the streets. No one has the right to plasma LCD televisions while anyone is sent away from the hospital for lack of money.
That we permit such things anyway is not because of a right to property; it is because we rightly doubt whether too much government may either breed more dependency than it cures destitution and whether the government’s stopping us from eating fast food would actually save a human. Granting that it would, we ought to let government stop us from total indulgence. Losing even a third of everyone’s income to support the poor, defend the nation, establish and protect liberties, and enforce justice is a price any civilized humans ought to be willing to pay.
18
Lance Newman says: Sep 30, 2009 at 22:43So, are you implying that if someone isn’t willing to surrender a third of their income to the government, that they’re “uncivilized?” Well, what if I don’t agree with the way the government is spending my money? I know if sounds kind of cruel, but what if someone doesn’t want to give money to help the poor? It’s kind of selfish, I know, but in America you have the right to be selfish.
19
thrica says: Sep 30, 2009 at 23:04Matt, I’ll grant that the things you listed are necessary for human flourishing. Still, as soon as you institute forcible charity, the question becomes, -how much- food? -how much- education? -how much- shelter? The act of force necessitates specific and universal answers to these questions which have no specific and universal answer, or a spontaneous-order process at which we arrive at the answer. The first will never be possible. Can you construct a political system allowing for the second?
As long as we’re talking about rights, what gives a man the right to flourish? Why does that right take precedence over property rights?
I entirely agree that rights are to serve people. Not only do property rights not present us with such insoluble problems, I believe history has shown that property rights serve man better than flourishing rights.
20
Lance Newman says: Sep 30, 2009 at 23:17Also, I couldn’t help but notice that you included “establish and protect civil liberties” in that post. Do you think that the government gives us our rights? And, if I don’t want to donate to this myriad of programs, yet, am still required by law too. Doesn’t that violate my liberties? Seems like a contradiction.
21
Matt Cavedon says: Oct 01, 2009 at 14:11Lance – yes, that is uncivilized. You can disagree and advocate change reasonably, but you do not have the right to be selfish more than someone else has the right to live. The same argument applies to abortion, or to shooting a clearly unarmed robber. Those are uncivilized behaviors.
The government doesn’t give us our natural rights to live and to flourish as social beings with the potential for reasoned action and virtue, but it certainly protects them and establishes other essential civil rights, like speech and property in order to honor those basic aspects of human nature. What is liberty, and where does it start? It is more than the absence of power; it is the ability to fulfill your potential as a human and to do good. Liberty and license, rights and indulgence for the sake of indulgence are four very different things.
Harwick – you’re right that we can never agree how much. That’s why we need democratic mechanisms and political discourse, to argue about it. We cannot have a consensus or spontaneous answer, but that doesn’t negate the moral obligation to establish a political order the enables everyone to live.
The right to flourish takes precedence over the right to property because flourishing is the end that property exists for. It is the aspect of human nature that the civil institution of property exists to serve. It is a priori and absolute.
22
Lance Newman says: Oct 01, 2009 at 14:20Matt, it’s okay for you to think that it’s uncivilized, you’re certainly entitle to your opinion. In my opinion, it’s rather selfish too. However, I have no right to force my opinions on someone else. I have no right to make up someone’s mind for them about this or any other topic.
But, please clarify that term “reasonable.” It seems pretty vague and subjective to me. Reasonable can vary from person to person. What you might think of reasonable may certainly differ from what I think is reasonable. For example, I don’t think violating property rights to fund health care is reasonable. Why doesn’t that way of advocating change get consideration?
“The government doesn’t give us our natural rights to live and to flourish as social beings with the potential for reasoned action and virtue, but it certainly protects them and establishes other essential civil rights, like speech and property in order to honor those basic aspects of human nature.”
Well, freedom of expression is a very essential liberty that the government should protect, wouldn’t you agree? People can choose to express themselves in many different ways- speech, writing, spending and so on. How you spend your money expresses certain things about you. If the gov takes one third of income, contrary to what I wish to do with my money, well isn’t the gov violating both my right to property and my right to expression?
23
Matt Cavedon says: Oct 01, 2009 at 14:32Lance, you could extend the argument of subjectivity as far as you’d like. What makes it wrong to kill a hobo with no family or friends? You may think it’s uncivilized, but there are no living victims, right? In the absence of absolute rules about how our liberties should be limited, anything goes. After all, what makes consent and freedom itself so precious?
Freedom of expression is pretty important, as is the right to property. But you must express yourself when people could die as a result of you refraining from doing so; that’s why innocent bystanders are sometimes guilty of assisting in the commission of a crime. The right to expression, then, is not absolute, and the government can mandate expression in certain cases when it is deemed absolutely necessary. The same applies to the use of property, a right though it may be.
Perhaps, rather than framing of all this as rights that can occasionally be violated, a general presumption of liberty in the absence of a compelling reason for that liberty’s restriction is a better framework. But perhaps that is for another day.
24
thrica says: Oct 01, 2009 at 14:49>”The right to flourish takes precedence over the right to property because flourishing is the end that property exists for.”
That doesn’t solve the problem that flourishing rights require delimitations that don’t exist. They cannot be discovered or created by a democratic process – that presupposes that it can be known by someone, and that we can recognize the correct answer if someone has it. A spontaneous order process is the only way we can have sustainable welfare, and so far as I can imagine, there can be no such process for delimiting welfare benefits.
The obligation is individual, not corporate.
The virtue of property rights is that it is easily and qualitatively definable (in most cases) – that is, it requires no arbitrary quantitative thresholds, and it is completely general. A flourishing right is not conducive to the rule of law for exactly this reason – because somebody gets to decide something which nobody has the authority to decide.
25
Lance Newman says: Oct 01, 2009 at 15:11Killing a person who is a hobo with no friends and family is just as bad as killing someone who is a popular millionaire. The person’s social status is irrelevant. What matters is the violation of property rights. Killing someone violates that person’s right to life.
Also, “necessary” is another vague and subjective term. Who gets to decide what “necessary” is? A politician? How come a politician gets to decide and not us? And if a situation becomes so necessary, wouldn’t most rational people know what’s best for them and do the right thing on their own?
26
Matt Cavedon says: Oct 01, 2009 at 15:54Why do you say that the right to live falls under property rights? That seems to be a conflation of the human person with ownership of property.
I get what you are both saying about the difficulties of defining what is necessary, and how much of it. I would prefer, though, to resolve that issue through democratic deliberation, rather than throwing in the towel altogether. The same is true of what rights we have, no? We have no, I repeat no, absolute rights: property rights end before the right to own a missile, speech rights end before the right to call for someone’s death, religious rights end before human sacrifice. No, it isn’t always clear-cut and easy. But that’s life as social beings.
Again, rather than seeing inviolable rights that we actually want to be able to violate as needed, try to think of a general presumption of liberty that can be overridden as needed, as determined by reliable political institutions.
27
thrica says: Oct 01, 2009 at 16:21You’ve missed my point: democratic deliberation -can’t- resolve the issue. If you give the authority to give a good amount welfare, you’ve given the authority to give a bad amount of welfare. Finding the right amount democratically is not a difficulty, it’s an impossibility.
It seems the “general liberty” conception is throwing in the towel much more than an “inviolable rights” conception. Instead of looking for clear-cut, general, and qualitative boundaries, you’ve resorted to a soup of arbitration. Are there clear-cut, general, and qualitative principles to guide when liberty can be overridden? If not, you’ve thrown out the rule of law and all social order.
It isn’t always easy to find these principles and boundaries, but that’s life as social beings.
28
Lance Newman says: Oct 01, 2009 at 16:29Why have political institutions make these decisions for us? Can’t we just make them on our own? I mean, it’s not like we’re too stupid to run our own lives. We know what’s best for us. You can’t possibly tell me that someone who works for the government knows what’s best for me better than I know what’s best for me.
29
Matt Cavedon says: Oct 02, 2009 at 0:53Switching over to a presumption of general liberty means that a) limiting liberties becomes reasonable, as opposed to having theoretical “rights” that are worthless, and/but b) the burden is no longer on would-be limiters of liberty to show that they have a compelling reason to do so, instead of encouraging them to do loopholes to prove that they aren’t exactly violating a right, as they do now.
Democratic deliberation and political processes cannot perfectly determine an ideal answer to the question of what is necessary because there is no perfect answer. But at least granting the political authority the power to take resources and allocate them based on need allows us to have these discussions. Lance is right that I cannot tell him what to do, but he also cannot stop a person he has never met from starving to death tonight. As you’re rightly concerned about, the government does have the reach to find anyone. Let’s put that to decent use.
30
thrica says: Oct 02, 2009 at 11:04You assume that these limiters of liberty ought to be doing what they’re doing. Why shouldn’t the burden be on them? If you can get the same result looking for loopholes, you’ve probably got poorly defined rights, which would be worthless. The solution isn’t to scrap those rights; it’s to define them better.
Lance’s responsibility, to use your example, is not to a starving guy in California – it’s to the starving guy down the street. Just because he hasn’t met all starving guys in the world is not a justification to collectivize the responsibility for them.