Some excerpts:
What is the fundamental cause of poverty? The Class Oppression view, which is expressed by the first comment quoted above, is that rich people extract and hoard wealth, leaving everyone else poorer. The Pathology view, which is expressed by the second comment, is that poverty is part of a pathology.
Neither of these comments came from a libertarian. The first comment seems to reflect the common perception that what libertarians actually believe is the Class Oppression view, and that we are looking for ways to justify continued class oppression. Instead, my position is much closer to the Pathology view, and that leaves open the question of how well or how poorly government programs work to ameliorate the pathology of poverty.
I think that the Class Oppression view has some very deep-seated emotional appeal. I trace this back to the Biblical story of the Exodus, which centers on an oppressive Pharaoh whose riches are built on the backs of Jewish slaves.
As a description of reality today, I think that the Class Oppression view has some problems. As a thought experiment, what do you think would happen in America if we were to take the wealthiest 20 percent of our population and exile them -- er, us. As part of this exile, we would have to leave all our physical possessions and financial assets behind. Suppose that the 50 million of us are given a country of our own with enough space but no other tangible resources.
If you really believe the Class Oppression view, then you would think that without the 50 million hoarder-oppressors, everyone else would be better off, and in their new country the hoarder-oppressors would be in poverty. Instead, my guess is that in twenty years, American poverty would be worse. Meanwhile, in their new country, the hoarder-oppressors would be debating the problem of illegal immigration from other countries, including America.
Something resembling this thought-experiment has been occasionally tried with ethnic Chinese in parts of Asia or Jews in various countries. I believe that the lesson is that expelling wealthy groups tends to leave others worse off, not better off.
...
Government has a mixed record in alleviating poverty. The GI bill seems to me to have been a success. Welfare seems to have been a failure -- by creating a culture of entitlement for unwed mothers, it exacerbated the very problem that it was supposed to cure. Social Security probably was a positive program when it began, but by now I believe it causes too much hardship for people of working age relative to the hardship that it relieves for the retired, and this tendency is going to get worse with each passing decade.
If the tendency of government were to expand on its successes and cut back on its failures, then I probably would not remain a libertarian. Imagine politicians saying, "Gosh, the GI bill worked, but for the children who need it most, public schools fail. So let's make K-12 education more like the GI bill, and switch from government-provided schools to vouchers."
Unfortunately, that thought-experiment has no basis in reality. Instead, politicians have been captured by the teachers' unions. Where I live, the teachers' union is by far the most powerful political force. No one has any hope of being elected to the school board or the County Council without first receiving the endorsement of the teacher's union's political action committee.
If the woman who found San Francisco public schools unsatisfactory for her child wants me to contribute to a fund that provides vouchers to parents like her, I am open to that concept. But if she thinks that getting me to pay more in taxes is going to help those San Francisco public schools serve students better, I am sorry, but I have to differ.
...
When people care about their own children, there is bound to be some inequality. A friend of ours has worked in his parents' store since his early teens, and he probably has averaged over 80 hours a week working in the store for the past 30 years. Now he stands to inherit the store. If you want to create a society where that store instead becomes the property of the state, perhaps your society would be more egalitarian. But it will also be very unfree and very, very poor. And in practice, societies where the state controls wealth tend to have plenty of inequality -- it's just that the winners have skill sets more suited to political maneuvering than business entrepreneurship.
...
Charitable organizations are better suited to dealing with the pathology of poverty. When people get checks from the government, they tend to think of this as an entitlement. They are getting money in exchange for doing nothing. They learn that this is how you get money -- you take it from others. Taking money from others is what criminals do. Productive people get money from other people by exchanging something of value.
Charities are in a position to demand something of value from their clients, even if that "something" is nothing more than a human "Thank you." Charities are also in a position to set the terms under which their clients receive aid and to cut off clients who fail to comply with those terms.
Charities can be flexible in how they handle individuals. One person may need transportation to a job. Another person may need drug rehabilitation. With hands-on involvement and with flexibility, charitable organizations are more likely to discover solutions to the pathologies of poverty.
Charitable organizations are flawed, to be sure. On average, I think that profitable companies are better managed than nonprofits. But every organization has its flaws, and charitable organizations are less flawed than government alternatives.
In fact, I think that one of the factors that inhibits the effectiveness of NGO's is that many of them are dependent on government grants for support. This forces the NGO to put much of its effort into satisfying the bureaucrats who provide the funding. That requires resources and skill sets that have nothing to do with solving the problems of people in need.
...
My proposal (which I suspect is not original) is that, on top of the current deduction for charitable contributions, we create a large charitable exemption, of, say $20,000. That would mean that you could donate up to $20,000 and have that amount taken off your taxes. Thus, the after-tax cost of your donation would be zero. For people whose annual tax obligation is less than $20,000, the income tax would essentially be optional. You could pay your taxes, or you could give an equivalent amount to charity.
His last idea could never be implemented, of course. Government bureaucracies are not actually in the business of solving social problems. Nor are the liberal voters who support them. Both are actually in the business of justifying themselves. If it comes down to a choice of actually solving the problems more effectively versus holding onto power and a government paycheck/pension (or maintaining not-lifting-a-finger, be-generous-with-your-neighbor's-money liberal self-righteousness), well, isn't it perfectly obvious which will win?
No comments:
Post a Comment