Liberty and Society

Welcome friends!

I don’t know how I got on the subject, probably the recent Christmas holiday and the annual rite of posing and gesturing for the good of all mankind, but I was just thinking how liberals tend to feel various social ills are best addressed through purposeful government action and conservatives (of the conscientious sort who actually think about such things) tend to feel these issues are more appropriately addressed through private charity.  A common argument one tends to hear on the conservative side is that the big advantage of their preferred approach is that it’s voluntary.  If one wants to help other people one is free to do so but no one is forced to part with his or her hard earned cash or let’s just say cash at the behest of some no good do-gooder.  In contrast the government policy approach favored by liberals generally involves the government’s power of taxation and hence ultimately its monopoly on the legal use of force and thus constitutes an affront to freedom and personal liberty.  Superficially it may seem they’re onto something.  Voluntary seems good.  Being forced to do anything seems bad.  But like much of the rest of conservative ideology upon deeper consideration the argument turns out to be a bit too simplistic.  Some other issues going on.  Big issues that get to the core of civilized society and democracy.  Not the sort of things people should really leave unsaid.  Let me explain what I’m talking about.

The first problem I have with the conservative take on this issue is that it seems a little lopsided or unbalanced in some way.  The private charity approach certainly seems consistent with the freedom of potential donors who can decide to give or not give as the mood suits them.  But this increase in freedom relative to the tax and spend approach seems to me counterbalanced by a commensurate decrease in freedom on the part of those on the receiving end.  Under a proper government program to address whatever social problems we’re talking about these people would be legally entitled to whatever it was and would be free to claim what would then be rightfully theirs.  Under a charitable regime they would of course not be entitled to anything in particular.  They would arrive hat in hand begging for alms.  Not really the same freedom-wise I wouldn’t think.  If we’re going to look at the net impact on freedom considering both groups of people I’d have to say I’m just not really sure.  One may think some people don’t really deserve more freedom so the calculation is really beside the point.  That’s fine with me.  We can discuss it.  But in that case let’s not present abstract freedom as an independent objective or consideration.  Let’s just say we’re interested in distributional systems.

Another problem with the private charity approach is that it appears to me a little sneaky or underhanded in some way.  We’ve set up together as a society through our political system our legal and economic institutions or if not set them up in the sense of bringing them into being then at least agreed together to modify them or not and to abide by them and so on.  However, if we’re talking about addressing some perceived social ills the way we’ve set things up apparently has left a little something to be desired.  It’s not a big deal.  It’s not unexpected.  Hard to think of everything and to create a system that handles everything.  I suppose no society yet created is perfect and can carry on indefinitely without some remedial work now and then to keep it running more or less smoothly.  My point is simply that when I see people who make out very well indeed in our society accepting and supporting the system to the extent it works to their benefit but balking when it comes time to address the inevitable issues and imperfections associated with that system manifested typically in the suffering or relative want of their fellow citizens it looks to me like people shirking their duty to society.  It’s rather like eating a nice dinner and skipping out on the bill.  It’s fine to say I’ll only pay if I decide to volunteer a little something on the way out but in that case one shouldn’t be too surprised if the restaurant falls into disrepair or even ceases to exist one day.

And of course there is something inherently odd about setting up an economic system based primarily on monetary incentives and self interest and then trying to address social ills using a system that depends on people acting against those incentives at least in the short term.  Under a charitable system arguably good people who express their concern for others in a practical way by which I mean giving people money will lose out relative to those who choose to express a haughty disregard for the welfare of their fellows.  Sounds like a recipe to let problems go unsolved to me.  Sometimes people are willing to do things if we do them together and everyone pitches in but balk when they discover they’ll be doing all the hard lifting while their compatriots sit on the sidelines under very fancy canopies indeed cheering them on.  

A rather more fundamental issue is that I’m not at all convinced taxation really qualifies as any great assault on one’s liberty.  Goes with living in a human society.  Things need doing and it’s not really all going to be done through the magic of the marketplace.  But of course it depends on the form of government we’re talking about doesn’t it?  If we’re talking about monarchism or fascism or what have you then I suppose taxation might be rather arbitrary and arguably an assault on one’s liberty.  This is where the idea of democracy comes in.  We vote on things and then we abide by them whether that’s what we’ve personally voted for or not or in extreme cases we abide by them as much as we’re able within the bounds of our perceived moral duty because, well, that’s just the way society works.  One wouldn’t have a very effective society if everyone does only what they choose to do from one moment to the next.  Some places have tried that approach.  In practice it tends to lead to what I believe is known technically as a dysfunctional hellhole.  And in this context as well I’m struck by the distinctive imbalance inherent in much of conservative ideology.  Although often up in arms over the government’s use of force as it applies to enforcing the tax code conservatives rarely express concerns over the government’s use of force in other contexts such as for example enforcing our system of property rights.

Of course this imbalance really gets to the heart of the whole issue I suppose.  It has nothing to do with freedom or liberty and everything to do with haves and have nots.  Conservatives are enamored of the institutions surrounding the market and our current property arrangements.  They perceive no social ills under such a regime and nor do they care to receive the opinion of their fellow citizens delivered via the democratic political system.  In a sense they’ve become too cool for school.  It leads to that particular form of egotism by which conservatives imagine themselves a law unto themselves or in some cases the beneficiary of laws not made by their fellows but delivered from the cosmos by the forces of nature or helpful deities of one sort or another.  It’s the mindset that leads many conservatives to speak of government beyond that required to express and enforce the market institutions they find so attractive as a great evil with no apparent concern over what form that dark force may take be it democracy or fascism or communism.  Indeed many conservatives tend to use the terms interchangeably.  What they fail to appreciate is that the very system they excoriate as infringing upon their precious liberties is the system we used to set up and maintain the system of property rights and contracts they so adore but that others may find the source of suffering and want and injustice.  It’s a system of thought predicated on egoism and a defective and incomplete anti-social moral philosophy that results in selective perception expressed in peculiarly unbalanced reasoning in which government legitimacy and individual rights and duties appear and disappear like will-o’-the-wisps depending on one’s vantage point.  

We should all fight against conservatism and reaffirm our commitment to society, democracy, and the solving of social ills through purposeful co-ordinated collective action.  It’s time we gave up the ancient deist pipe dream of an invisible hand leading society to morally optimal results with no more effort on our part than assiduous attention to our own selfish wants and desires.  No mysterious providence guides markets to mutually desirable and salutary results.  Markets do what they do.  Some of it good for some.  Possibly even most of it good for most.  However, under any reasonable system of moral ethics the market will be seen to allow some issues to remain unsolved.  We should recognize those issues and take steps to address them to make our system work for everyone.

New Year 2018

Welcome friends!

Happy New Year everyone!  Woo hoo!  2018!  Oh I’ve got a very good feeling about this year!  Well OK not really but hey let’s show a little optimism shall we?  My goodness we’re only a few days in.  Too early to get all mopey and depressed just yet.  Last year was …. well …. maybe not the best the old USA has ever seen.  And huge or as I suppose some might say yuge challenges for the country lie ahead.  The next three years are going to be tough that’s for sure but of course they will inevitably be a heck of a lot tougher for some than for others.  Indeed some Americans are making out very well indeed.  We’re not all in it together by any means.  I read an article recently that noted the richest one percent of Americans now hold forty percent of the nation’s total wealth, a greater share than at any time in the past fifty years and significantly more than the bottom ninety percent, which currently lay claim to about twenty percent of the nation’s total wealth.  And of course with President Trump and the Republican Party in charge the share going to the wealthy elite is set to rise dramatically in the short term due to their recent top heavy changes to the tax code and in the near future by the elimination or drastic reduction of the public programs and resources hitherto devoted to helping out the less fortunate that will be necessitated by their top heavy changes to the tax code. Well, either that or we’ll have a rather notable increase in our national debt.  Seems like an auspicious time to think about the future wouldn’t you say?

First let me just quickly review the article that got me going this week.  Lots of fun statistics.  I already gave the one about the richest one percent of Americans claiming forty percent of the total wealth.  Did I mention the top twenty percent hold a full ninety percent of the wealth?  Well they do.  Also fun to compare the USA to other developed countries.  Our closest competitor in the inequality game must be Germany where the top one percent own about twenty-five percent of the wealth.  I say competitor but honestly they’re a rather distant second aren’t they?  The fat cats are getting only about half what they get here in the USA.  In terms of inequality at least the USA is Number One!  In the UK and France the top one percent claim a relatively modest eighteen percent of the wealth and in Canada sixteen percent.  And how about little Finland where the League of Fancy Pants only manages a measly twelve percent?  Got to love Finland.  I think I read they do their traffic tickets based on a graduated scale according to the wealth of the malefactor as a gesture toward making tickets equally onerous to people at different wealth levels.  Can one imagine the USA ever doing anything like that?

I’m sure I’ve mentioned before that our respectable national wealth statistics can give foreigners a rather inaccurate idea of life here in the USA.  I know I’ve discussed in previous posts articles that have pointed out the median American (by which I mean in this instance residents of the USA) by wealth, that is, that hypothetical person with the characteristic that exactly fifty percent of Americans have greater wealth and fifty percent less, is rather worse off than the median resident by wealth of many or dare I say most developed countries.  In other words the person in the middle of our wealth scale is basically tanking compared to his or her counterpart in most other developed countries.  You can see the same phenomenon by looking at the share of wealth claimed by the richest percentiles.  But numbers can be so impersonal can’t they?  Let me just lay it out in words.  The USA is a county in which some people live like kings and many many others live like paupers.  Don’t make the mistake of thinking of it as roughly similar to other developed nations in the EU or elsewhere.  Think more along the lines of Czarist Russia or Medieval Europe or colonial Haiti and you’ll be closer to the mark.  Basically a vast sea of poor, ignorant, unemployed, frequently violent, quite often drug addled and basically forgotten people surrounding a few shining gated communities of successful greedy self infatuated jerks lolling on couches and divans with guns under the pillows.

But you know what’s even more comical?  The funny ideas about distributions many Americans apparently hide away in the dark recesses of their confused minds.  Another humorous bit from the article I was just discussing involved a little survey conducted in 2010 by some researchers who asked a random sample of 5,500 Americans what sort of wealth distribution they thought would be reasonable or justified.  As one might expect it came out to nothing at all like what we actually have.  They had in mind the top twenty percent might be getting thirty-two percent of the wealth with the bottom twenty percent claiming about eleven percent. Rather different from the reality wouldn’t you say?  Ninety percent of wealth to the top twenty percent and a resounding negative one percent for the bottom twenty percent?  Yes, on average that benighted lower wealth group actually has negative net worth.  Ouch.  So if many Americans think the distribution we actually have is so different from the one they feel might be justified does that mean they’re prepared to stand up and do something about it?  No.  Not at all.  They’ll elect Republicans all but guaranteed to make the real distribution of wealth diverge ever more from what these Americans say they would find justified.  And they’ll do it again and again and again.  Why do they do that?  Hmm.  Interesting question.  I have a few ideas.

First, many Americans just don’t like to talk about money and in particular distributions of income or wealth.  It’s awkward.  It’s uncomfortable.  Addressing it would require people to come together and discuss their values and so on and we’re just not very good at it.  We’re fine touting our own values or even talking with other people who share our values.  We’re just not very good talking with people holding other values.  It’s most likely a function of the fact that most Americans view their values as delicate little hot house flowers more akin to religious sentiment of the etherial swoony sort than intellectual propositions.  Values for most Americans are meant to be protected from scrutiny and potential criticism not brought out into the light of open debate.

Second, many Americans and in particular conservative Americans believe the free market allocates wealth, wages, and just in general goods and services in the ethically correct and optimal way and that consequently whatever level of inequality falls out of such a system must be both equitable and appropriate.  Liberals ted to compare the results of real world markets to results they would find ethically justifiable or optimal on other bases but conservatives do things the other way round.  They are enamored of the ethical principles expressed in the mechanics of free markets and are more likely to adjust their thinking about what results are ethical and appropriate based on what happens in a market system.  When one comes at the issue from this perspective fretting about inequality and the share of wealth going to different bits of the population is irrelevant and really rather unethical since changing it would require one to change what happens in a market system.  According to this view it’s really irrelevant if for example most Americans end up dying on the street because if that’s what falls out of the market then that’s what should happen.  If some people are destined to die they should get on with it and reduce the surplus population.

Third, many Americans and in particular conservative Americans hold the rather fanciful belief that market systems tend naturally to spread wealth about rather than concentrate it.  This is the view expressed in so-called  “trickle down” economics in which resources allocated to wealthy people are understood to help the less fortunate as well.  I would argue this is pretty much the opposite of what real markets do.  Indeed, one of the notable features of market systems I would say is that it’s a lot easier to make money if one already has money.  In other words, the natural result of a market system is most likely an ever increasing concentration of wealth.  Anyway that’s how it has seemed to me during my fleeting lifetime.  We tax income from working at a much higher rate than we tax income from investments.  Now that I’m older and investments contribute relatively more to my total income than when I was younger I’m finding it relatively much easier to make a buck.  And that’s just one example.  Many rich people have money simply fall into their laps as their wealthy parents pass on to that great country club in the sky.  Before that happy day if they find they need to prepare for actual work they can afford the best education and can undertake the sort of activities like unpaid internships and so on that poor students may find untenable.  As adults they can relocate easily, have no messy financial commitments to struggling relatives, can afford to take risks, can easily find the money for any ventures they might care to try, will always have plenty of second chances, can take their time to find the fields and areas in which they excel, and are likely to have friends and relations with well paying positions who can help them along.  How different is their experience of life from that of the poor in this country.  How simple for them to prosper where others struggle.  And so the share of wealth going to the already wealthy rises year after year.  Why would it do anything else?  Certainly nothing inherent in a market system.

So on it goes.  Here in the USA the wealthy elite have relentlessly increased their stranglehold on all facets of American life including most notably our national politics.  The man and woman in the street or many of them anyway go along with it hoping forlornly and impotently for better days just around the corner, their thinking and imaginations manipulated by both the confused and the unscrupulous in academia and our burgeoning infotainment and propaganda industries.  Living vicariously.  Watching the rich cavort on TV.  Hunkered in their little houses, the lucky ones anyway, surrounded by the precious guns they trust will defend them against their increasingly poor and desperate neighbors who they fear may fall upon them at any moment like the proverbial rats in a sewer.  Taking drugs to ease the pain.  And how will it end I wonder? Well, let’s not think about that right now shall we?  It’s not the time to think about endings but about beginnings.  It’s a new year!  Let’s all dream a happy dream!  Let’s say we liberals rally and defeat conservatism and that the little guys and gals learn to stand up for themselves against Mr. and Mrs. Moneybags.  Let’s say we reaffirm the power of democracy to give voice to the economically weak and to serve as a counterpoint to the market power of the wealthy.  Let’s say we strengthen our national government instead of weakening and shrinking it.  Let’s say we reduce the influence of big money in politics rather than increasing it.  Let’s say philosophers and maybe even some economists begin to get real and people finally start to understand some of the real issues involved in social ethics including the weakness and implausibility of the ethical components of so-called welfare economic theory.  Let’s say they start to look seriously and critically at market systems to understand both their strengths and weaknesses rather than being content to contemplate them in starry eyed wonder.  The future can be beautiful for all of us.  We can make it happen if we try.

References

The richest 1 percent now owns more of the country’s wealth than at any time in the past 50 years.  Christopher Ingraham.  December 6, 2017.  The Washington Post.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/12/06/the-richest-1-percent-now-owns-more-of-the-countrys-wealth-than-at-any-time-in-the-past-50-years/?hpid=hp_regional-hp-cards_rhp-card-business-technology%3Ahomepage%2Fcard&utm_term=.68f307c45f59.