Comments on Searching for Natural Moral Principles- JUSTICE, 3rd Component of Goodness

Go to The Golden Rule Needs Some Iron - Add a comment - Go to Searching for Natural Moral Principles- JUSTICE, 3rd Component of Goodness

Well a good place to start would have been not returning 1.3 trillion dollars in tax funds to wealthy people.  But what's done is done.  We can start to safeguard the future by not making these plutocratic cuts permanent.

Your calculations ignore the benefit of investment that comes with giving people these things -- we would not just put money in.  In time, we would get a lot of money out of it.  Healthy people with homes (and other salutary things like education and training) are good for a nation's economy.  Investing in them now can pay dividends later, to borrow capitalist-speak. 

As for the how-will-they-spend-it? issue, I favor a paternalistic approach that would allow public funds to be spent only on the things for which they were allocated.  Need housing?  Here's a housing voucher.  Food?  Here's a food voucher -- no beer and no cigarettes (see what sacrifices I'd be willing to make?!).  Milton Friedman would want to punch me in the nose, but that's probably what it would have to be.

Yes, taking care of those who fall behind in the market economy -- and get caught in major catch-22s to make it ever-more-difficult to get out of poverty -- does cost a lot of money.  If we can come up with 500 billion dollars a year in military spending, we could at least come up with that much for keeping people out of poverty.  If I saw our government doing that and it still were not enough, I wouldn't blast the government for not doing anything because it would at least be putting funds where they belong and doing what it could do. 

What bothers me about this administration is that, on social-economic policy, it isn't even trying to do the right thing.  If it were up to them, people would be on their own -- unless of course they were corporate bosses who underwrite political campaigns.  Gore Vidal calls this socialism for the rich, free market for everyone else.  I'd always be more inclined to let the strong and wealthy weather the hazards of the free market and protect everyone else, assuring the former group that they would get the same protection should they ever fall on hard times.  I'd never confiscate the bulk of someone's wealth, but I will always ask them to give some of it back to the country that gave them so much. 

posted by Dyl_Pickle on June 5, 2005 at 7:54 PM | link to this | reply

So how much money are we talking about

In 2001, the government decided that there were 33 million people living in poverty in America. Let us reduce the number to a third of that, to allow for families of 3 persons each (two parents and a child, or a single parent and two children).

So, to give 11 million families a grant in land, goods, or money of $25,000 each, we would have to somehow come up with 275 TRILLION DOLLARS in new tax money. So my calculator tells me. This would seem to be impractical, to say the least.

For a somewhat different and refreshing view on poverty, you may want to look at this great article by my favorite black (Negro, Colored, African American, or American Who Happens To Have Dark Skin) commentator, Walter E. Williams. He is what the Mighty Holy Warrior on Blogit wishes he could be.

posted by GoldenMean on May 22, 2005 at 12:32 AM | link to this | reply

40 acres and a mule

That concept originated about 200 years ago, when the government needed to encourage people to settle a vast frontier of uninhabited land (uninhabited except for those pesky Indians).

Today, there are no more vast frontiers, and land is not a cheap commodity to be offered as an incentive for pioneers. But I understand what you mean. So let us update this concept of yours.

Apparently you are suggesting that we should give every poor person in this country a small piece of land (let us say a small lot in a subdivision valued at about $15,000), and a car (let us say a small economy car valued at about $10,000). This would require a lump sum payment of about $25,000 to every "poor" person in America.

While I am an enthusiastic supporter of the ownership of land, and the freedom of transportation, I wonder how this generous endowment to every poor citizen (and non-citizen?) of America would be paid for? It may require a doubling or tripling of the current tax rates. That could bankrupt most businesses and individuals in this country. Our economy could be ruined.

And I wonder how the poor people of America would use this generous grant of about $25,000 each in land, goods, or money? Would they wisely safeguard it? Would they wisely invest it? Or would they piss it off in a few days or months, in a glorious spending spree? Would they use it to pay off reckless debts, incurred previously in impulsive sessions of spending or gambling?

Who knows? It would be entirely up to them how to spend this generous endowment. Are you willing to bet the economic livlihood of your country on the wisdom of poor people? Sorry, but I am not willing to do that.

Are you sure you want to endorse this very generous social program, to require that every poor person be "GIVEN SOMETHING TO START WITH??"

posted by GoldenMean on May 21, 2005 at 11:11 PM | link to this | reply

I agree that the poor are no more or less deserving than the rich, and that's why I think public policy should treat them the same, by giving them the same property-rights protections.  For those who lack property at the start and also lack means of acquiring it, that does require they be given something to start with, something like the classic "40 acres and a mule."

posted by Dyl_Pickle on May 21, 2005 at 7:33 PM | link to this | reply

and to finish the thought

Determining just who is "deserving" and who is not, is the core of the problem of welfare.

posted by GoldenMean on May 20, 2005 at 9:57 AM | link to this | reply

DV

As to justice, I agree with your concept of proportionality.In this post, I dedicated a few paragraphs to that, going from verbal engagement of inappropriate behavior, to all-out war, illustrating the extremes of proper human justice. When we use too much force to oppose an evil act, like shooting an unarmed person who is trespassing, then we have committed an unjust and evil act ourselves.

In your comment, you paint an image of millions of "deserving" people who are too poor to afford health insurance, but not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid. But what is keeping them from improving their own economic situation, over a lifetime? Nothing is keeping them from doing that, except their own moral character. The level where a person starts on the ladder of life is not up to them, it is a matter of birth.

BUT, whether they sink, rise or stay at the same level is largely up to them, and that is the measure of their true worth.

Poor people are no more or less "deserving" than rich people, but that should be the criteria as to whether we present them with piles of our own hard-earned money.

posted by GoldenMean on May 20, 2005 at 4:51 AM | link to this | reply

Oh, see I was being dense. 

As to justice, I'm thinking there should be included something about proportionality.  The greater the threat, the more severe the defensive response.  In the extreme case of a lethal threat, of course, lethal defense is appropriate; but people should refrain from shooting an unarmed person who is trespassing, for example. 

I'm thinking of specific ways of addressing your objections about taking advantage of welfare.  You were right that what I described did not sufficiently protect against abuse.  What I'm thinking of is a system that would employ case workers to visit a welfare recipient at home and evaluate his/her degree of need, say, every six months. 

The recipient would have to provide, within a certain time period, evidence of a serious job search or acquisition -- applications filled out, training programs enrolled in, pay receipts, references, etc. 

The other thing is that, whereas much aid is directed at the poorest of the poor, those with no job, I would make eligible for limited benefits people who were working but still poor -- if anything they would get more generosity. 

I think it's wrong that millions of people are too poor to afford health insurance but not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid.  There shouldn't be these giant-ass loopholes that leave so many deserving people without things they need. 

I'm sure there are other feasible ideas.  These fit into my concept of social justice, which I know is a loaded phrase because people associate it with socialist ideas.  But nothing likely to happen in America would put most wealth in the state's hands. 

The most radical we got, as far as I know, was FDR, and even then it wasn't socialism; not only would we not, in today's political culture, get to socialism, we wouldn't even get to FDR.  While there is so much suspicion, in some cases irrationally great, of the welfare state in any form, there is so much leeway given the market and corporations.  

It's one thing to think markets are generally good and efficient; it's quite another to think they are so perfect or near-perfect that they leave no gap between what they achieve and what universal prosperity requires.  Markets aren't God.  I know you know this already, but it's not enough to acknowledge it in theory; this fact must be accomodated in our social contract.   

posted by Dyl_Pickle on May 18, 2005 at 6:41 PM | link to this | reply

Dylan

I am not meeting anyone in San Francisco, Rove just means I will be there in literary form. But I will enjoy the thought of being there, because I visited San Fran once on vacation and liked it.

posted by GoldenMean on May 17, 2005 at 6:42 PM | link to this | reply

Roves,

I was hoping you would suggest a meeting with Golden Mean.  In a similar situation, I might jump on the opportunity to meet a blogger person-to-person. 

posted by Dyl_Pickle on May 17, 2005 at 6:13 PM | link to this | reply

too much! well, i'm starting late. i think i'll print this series out and read it at leisure in San Francisco this week. that's right, good old San fran, europe west. its really just a big city like any other but on a more unique piece of ground. people forget that it happens to be a major financial center. anyway, you'll be there too so i hope you'll enjoy your stay :)

posted by rovesciato on May 16, 2005 at 11:43 PM | link to this | reply

DV

When I referred to the poison Kool-Aid, I certainly did not have you in mind! You are an original thinker, who happens to agree more with the liberal agenda than I do. I think we understand each other's philosophical position very well. But philosophy has a way of becoming detached from reality, if we do not keep it anchored to specific real-world problems.

One problem is that many unethical people will take advantage of your willingness to commit large amounts of money and property to the "disadvantaged." Welfare fraud is widespread, with people basically stealing money they are not entitled to.

Others, without committing fraud, have an unfortunate attitude of "entitlement", that they are entitled to be supported, because of all the "unfairness" or "injustice" they have been subjected to. The extreme example of this is the demand of reparations paid to blacks for slavery (which ended 140 years ago). More common is an amazing attitude that others should be responsible to them, but they do not have to be responsible in return.

For example, I recently had a part-time worker who had a very good attitude at work. He was genuinely respectful, courteous, and willing to work late if necessary. He was a young black man, but I don't know if that had anything to do with the situation. The trouble was, on Thursday or Friday, he would agree to come to work on Monday morning, so I would plan the work accordingly. Then on Monday he would not show up or call, and my work schedule was fouled up. I could not complete jobs that I had promised to my customers by a certain time. When he called Tuesday or Wednesday, he always had an excuse that he thought should be accepted as a valid reason for his absence and failure to communicate. Once he had to help someone move over the weekend, and was stuck out of town. Once his brother borrowed his car and didn't bring it back on time. Once he was pulled over by the police, who discovered he was wanted for failure to pay child support. I told him the trouble it caused me, and he said he was sorry and it wouldn't happen again. This happened 4 or 5 times before I told him I couldn't use him anymore. He was very persistent, giving me the impression that he thought I was being unfair, and that he was almost "entitled" to work for me. I told him I would give him a good reference if he needed one to get another job, but that I could not use him anymore.

From his comments on the job, he and his older brother were still living with their mother. It was apparent that he and his family were taking advantage of every welfare program that they could. This explained his lack of commitment of coming to work for me, for he wanted to work only when they ran out of welfare money. So they were not using welfare to improve their situation, but only to maintain a comfortable sort of poverty.

I fear that this attitude is probably the norm among welfare recipients, and I don't see anything in your position to prevent such abuse.

posted by GoldenMean on May 16, 2005 at 9:39 PM | link to this | reply

Correction:

Last paragraph: "...should not be held solely responsible..."

posted by Dyl_Pickle on May 15, 2005 at 12:03 PM | link to this | reply

Golden Mean:

I shall also post this in my blog, since it turned out so long:

You asked:

"Do you drink the poison Kool-Aid of the popular liberal propaganda concerning “justice”?? Should we rely on government to define justice for us, and accept the laws that our politicians pass on taxes, abortion, immigration, welfare, health care, the possession of guns? Or do you think for yourself and realize that justice is something that we should enforce in our own lives, on an individual basis, as our own moral authority, but subject to the approval of our neighbors? Do you support the supreme power of the ethical individual, or the corrupt power of the unethical collective?"

I had to chuckle when I read this, being reminded of my religion professor freshman year of college who impugned such questions for being "leading." He would never answer a leading question. He would insist on changing the terms so that the question did not provide its own answer. So I will change the terms of the first question thus:

Instead of "Do you drink the poison Kool-Aid...", I will ask, "Do you accept that justice requires a more equitable distribution of society's resources, to be enforced through democratically-elected lawmakers?" No, I do not drink the poison Kool-Aid, but I do think that vast disparities in wealth make it much harder -- in some cases prohibitively so -- for those on the economic bottom to achieve basic security and prosperity, let alone advancement. It is not so much that it is unfair -- unfair is when one person is smarter or stronger or better-looking than someone else who tries just as hard. Obviously there is no way to cancel these "unfair" advantages; we just accept that life is not always fair, and show compassion to, and treat with respect, those who face unfairness.

But the way in which resources -- natural and man-made -- are distributed is different. Who says a forest, or a plain, or a mountain belongs to one person by virtue of his ability to buy it? If he is to buy it, there must be some legal arrangement that sets the price of his purchase and authorizes that purchase -- whether from a private owner or the state. The law is not, thus, neutral in this person's acquisition of this property; the law necessarily determines that he may do so (or that he may not). It is through government that we protect private property; those of privilege, whether they inherit or acquire it, depend on many legal arrangements to secure their wealth. They get, therefore, help from the government in securing their economic status.

Viewing things this way, it becomes easier to accept those supposedly coercive and redistributionist welfare-state measures that guarantee, say, health, educational and housing services to those who cannot afford the market price for these things. While some people inherit wealth from their parents, or land a good job, or work really hard for long hours and manage to afford their bills these ways, a substantial number of people lack these privileges, do not get the benefit of inheritance or the luck of landing a good job (whether a person gets a good job does depend on factors outside a person's immediate control -- the state of the economy, etc.) or try to work but fall ill or are disabled and cannot make ends meet.

The compassion you endorse, the love, would provide such people with support. But liberalism does define justice more broadly, more, well, liberally, in saying that not only do people have a moral duty to care for those put at a disadvantage by social factors, but that such disadvantaged people should be considered to have a right to basic subsistence, regardless of whether they are healthy or sick, strong or weak, sharp or dumb, independently wealthy or inheritors of poverty and mediocrity, whether the market has a good job to offer them or not. Obviously, only a rich country can guarantee such subsistence; and that we are a rich enough country to do so is not in doubt. The social commitment to basic subsistence, especially when subjected to reasonable means-testing and work requirements, amounts to small fraction of our GDP and requires a tax burden that, falling disproportionately on those whose standard of living is not dramatically affected by said burden, seems well worth the cost.

The liberal view of justice asserts that there is a rational basis for the presumption of some degree of public ownership -- that is, that each person is entitled to some property or property-earning means regardless of his present economic condition. It also asserts -- with plenty of justification -- that private wealth is due to a lot more than an individual's own effort. It is due to a combination of the individual's effort and a lot of things that are well beyond his immediate control -- the state of the economy, the natural resources of the country, the strength and productivity of the labor force, the effectiveness of the state in keeping the country secure and enforcing private contracts, and other things. Yes, a person's success is due in large part to what he does -- but it's also due to a lot of stuff that other people did for him. He does not get to claim, therefore, every dollar of his wealth as exclusively his own.

Let me also posit another argument: if it is indeed the case that every person has a right to pursue happiness (but not necessarily to achieve it), then must it not also be the case that society has a duty to provide for everyone, particularly those less able, the basic means of pursuing happiness? Clearly some people, quite a few, actually, lack such means, and not necessarily by their own fault. I reiterate that a person's means depend on his intelligence or lack thereof, his physical prowess or lack thereof, his education or lack thereof (and if the state does not provide education, there's absolutely no guarantee he will be able to afford to get one on his own, thus causing him -- coercing him, if you will -- to lack the resources to pursue happiness, a pretty nasty catch-22), his ability to find a good job or lack thereof.

It seems to me quite rational that if a person is not solely responsible for his being in poverty, he should not be help solely responsible for coming out of it; similarly, that since no one is solely responsible for the wealth he does earn (he depends on all those things which other people create and sustain, as well as natural resources), that no one is solely entitled to the wealth that accumulates in his accounts. That is, wealth and poverty are, to a significant degree (but NOT to a total degree, hence the fatal flaws of communism and socialism), the result of social factors, and must be mitigated socially, people working together through the government they freely elect, thus not one that imposes on people, as you imply, burdens that the people had no role in accepting.

posted by Dyl_Pickle on May 15, 2005 at 11:59 AM | link to this | reply