I recently read a very interesting quote that goes something like this:
"If your neighbor came over and pointed a gun at you and demanded food for another neighbor in need, we would consider this criminal and immoral. So why is it O.K. for a million people with guns (in the form of a government) to do the same?"
This quote embodies half of the Libertarian ideal. So, why is it O.K. for a government to do this? First, the quote is misleading. It expects you to take the point of view of the person having the gun pointed at them. But let's take a different point of view. That of the person pointing the gun. Let me paint you the picture.
My friend, through no fault of his own, falls on hard times. So hard that he's going to starve to death. I'd share my food with him, but I'm not well off enough to feed 2 people. But I have a gun. And I know of a person who has enough food to feed 10 people. I would not consider it morally wrong to go to that person and demand food for my friend. Perhaps this is the difference between the Libertarian and me: The Libertarian would consider it morally wrong to do this. Now, I'd try to pay the person back eventually, but if I couldn't, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.
So, I argue, it is O.K. for a person to do this. But a person might encounter many problems, the rich person might have a gun himself, and this could result in a loss of life really easily. Moreover, there is the problem that the person becomes judge, jury, and executioner (after all, how do I really know my friend is starving through no fault of his own). This is one thing that the government can do better than a private person. Now the scope to which the government is allowed to perform this transfer of wealth is a more difficult question. But the transfer of wealth is a duty of the government.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I would like to counter this argument by simply stating that I would lose sleep if I took food from a wealthy person at gunpoint, regardless of who the food was for. I would not lose sleep due to the action of taking the food because as George stated, the person is fairly well off. However, being wealthy does not require a lack of innocence. The reason I would lose sleep is because I forced an innocent person to do something potentially against their will.
If I targeted someone who I deemed as criminal or highly immoral then I might not lose sleep from taking food from them at gunpoint. I also feel I am better at judging the morality of individuals than a bureaucratically-driven government.
So, presumably, you are stealing from the rich person so that your poor friend doesn't suffer or die. What do you do then if the rich guy refuses to give you the food? Are you going to shoot him or beat him up? That pretty much defeats your purpose.
Also, when you give the government the power to transfer wealth, how do you know they won't just transfer from the poor to the rich? Or from only certain rich people to certain poor people?
And when you transfer wealth you remove the incentive to take risk. Sorry, there's a whole lot of ways to refute your position. F. A. Hayek's The Road to Serfdom explains most of them, so I'd suggest you take a look at it - it's a good survey-look at the case for liberty.
Possibly there are ways to refute my argument, but the ways you listed don't work. What would I do if he refused to give me the food? Probably give up, but that's the main reason I think the government should do it for me. The government carries more authority and can pull this off without a hitch usually.
How do I know the government will transfer money they way I want it to? Well, this question fails on general principles. How do I know the government will attempt to prevent the murders I want them to? Unless you're suggesting that government shouldn't exist at all, that argument also fails. There need to be ways for the citizens to control the government, if there aren't, well, it's a bad situation all around regardless of whether the government has the power to transfer wealth.
And yes, it's true that when you transfer wealth you remove the incentive to take risk. But I am not arguing for a completely egalitarian society where everyone has the same amount of money. I have not attempted to state the extent to which the government should transfer wealth, I merely said that it's a legitimate exercise of its power. I think that there needs to be some sort of middle ground of wealth transfer.
"I have not attempted to state the extent to which the government should transfer wealth, I merely said that it's a legitimate exercise of its power. I think that there needs to be some sort of middle ground of wealth transfer."
I don't quite understand this. Could you explain what you mean by "legitimate exercise of its power" and how this doesn't require some understanding of "extent". What is this power? Where does it come from? How can it be taken away?
-Nog
I mean that it is a legitimate exercise of power just like preventing murders is a legitimate exercise of its power. I don't mean that it doesn't require some understanding of extent, but I do not know what the proper extent would be. And my guess is no one does. This is only something that can be found out through some experimentation. How much wealth is needed to be transferred to prevent riots? How much causes people to stop taking risks and thus ends up doing more harm than good? The power would probably manifest itself in the form of taxation. The rich get taxed more, and the qualifying poor get help from the government.
As to your last two questions, once again, these are not relevant. These questions argue against the existence of government in the first place. The power would be granted to the government and taken away from it the same way all other powers are.
My biggest problem with our government redistributing wealth is the way in which they do it. They do it through hidden taxes and combining it with services they provide. If you want to debate redistributing wealth, fine, but at least separate it from other issues. We should at least be aware of what our government is doing and not have them try to mask socialism as capitalism.
Post a Comment