Redistribution of Wealth.
From the standpoint of one looking for economic and political stability, it is not a good thing that there is such a tremendous spread in wealth. A large, independent, middle class is indisputably the basis for a stable and moderate society.
That being said, income redistribution is an insupportable evil. Why would I say such a thing, if indeed it would be better for wealth to be spread more equally. My reasons are hardly simple, but let us touch them briefly.
In the first part, a redistribution of wealth requires a sacrifice of political liberty and equality in exchange for a possibility of greater social equality. Men are not equal under the law when the law is specifically constructed to take from some to give to others.
Next, government stepping in as the arbiter of financial support weakens the role of the family and community. Where caring for your elderly parents, your children, and day to day needs, used to be an action of the family and the community, it is now shunted off as a burden of the state, with the result that communities and families play a much lesser role in caring for one another.
Further, the machinations of government act as a barrier to the creation of wealth. Do not take my word alone on this; it is clearly demonstrated in Gwartney, Holcombe and Lawson's "The Scope of Government and the Wealth of Nations," which surveys the correlation between the interference of governments in the economy and economic growth over a 36 year period.
The answer is not to force the rich to give up their goods. This attitude alone is exacerbating the problem, by placing the goods of economic choice over the good of political equality under the law. Greed is a product of our society; a society that measures a man by his material success.
Yes, material success is good, but a rich bastard is still a bastard, and a good portion of the best men I know are poor; they are also thoughtful and as virtuous as I can expect of my fellow men.
The same people who are infuriated that many of the wealthy live epicurean lifestyles are the same people who oppose the traditions, mores, and social restrictions which would discourage selfish wanton behavior. When a libertine preaches absolute freedom and radical individualism, why does he look for others to take responsibility where he does not?
That is the ultimate casualty. Tocqueville knew it would come. We are a nation of radical individuals, each feeling a general good will for his fellow Americans, but never touching them in any real way. Even our families must be shunted aside, because their demands restrict our individual freedom. Do not bother us with the problems of our extended family; we are responsible for ourselves alone, and material freedom and social equality are not just a civic religion; they are our Gods.
That being said, income redistribution is an insupportable evil. Why would I say such a thing, if indeed it would be better for wealth to be spread more equally. My reasons are hardly simple, but let us touch them briefly.
In the first part, a redistribution of wealth requires a sacrifice of political liberty and equality in exchange for a possibility of greater social equality. Men are not equal under the law when the law is specifically constructed to take from some to give to others.
Next, government stepping in as the arbiter of financial support weakens the role of the family and community. Where caring for your elderly parents, your children, and day to day needs, used to be an action of the family and the community, it is now shunted off as a burden of the state, with the result that communities and families play a much lesser role in caring for one another.
Further, the machinations of government act as a barrier to the creation of wealth. Do not take my word alone on this; it is clearly demonstrated in Gwartney, Holcombe and Lawson's "The Scope of Government and the Wealth of Nations," which surveys the correlation between the interference of governments in the economy and economic growth over a 36 year period.
The answer is not to force the rich to give up their goods. This attitude alone is exacerbating the problem, by placing the goods of economic choice over the good of political equality under the law. Greed is a product of our society; a society that measures a man by his material success.
Yes, material success is good, but a rich bastard is still a bastard, and a good portion of the best men I know are poor; they are also thoughtful and as virtuous as I can expect of my fellow men.
The same people who are infuriated that many of the wealthy live epicurean lifestyles are the same people who oppose the traditions, mores, and social restrictions which would discourage selfish wanton behavior. When a libertine preaches absolute freedom and radical individualism, why does he look for others to take responsibility where he does not?
That is the ultimate casualty. Tocqueville knew it would come. We are a nation of radical individuals, each feeling a general good will for his fellow Americans, but never touching them in any real way. Even our families must be shunted aside, because their demands restrict our individual freedom. Do not bother us with the problems of our extended family; we are responsible for ourselves alone, and material freedom and social equality are not just a civic religion; they are our Gods.
Comments
Post a Comment