Henry Hazlitt draws attention to the forgotten sin that leads to economic decline: Envy. Any attempt to equalize wealth or income by forced redistribution must only tend to destroy wealth and income, he writes. Historically the best the would-be equalizers have ever succeeded in doing is to equalize downward. This has even been caustically described as their intention. FULL ARTICLE
Source link: http://blog.mises.org/4288/on-appeasing-envy/
On Appeasing Envy
Previous post: Listen to MU05!
Next post: The Full Set of Shirts
{ 8 comments }
Here’s one to stir the pot. I also see similarities to the present race relations situation (specifically, affirmative action).
“A government that pays social blackmail will precipitate the very consequences that it fears.”
Anyone in Canada can see how this still applies. The so-called “Adscam” fiasco, which Chretien claims was needed to stave off support for Quebec sepatrism is now contributing more than ever, to rising levels of support for Quebec separtism.
A hundred million defrauded tax dollars, used to make a problem worse. Top shelf.
Always enlightening to read the views of Henry Hazlitt.
Harry
Fascinating analysis! A friend who taugh sociology described something similar to me years ago. He told me that sociologists had confirmed that revolutions don’t happen when things are bad and getting worse, but when they are good and getting better. His explanation for this phenomenon is that people’s expectations rush ahead of reality. When things are getting better, they expect far more than reality can deliver. Since contentment is a function of expectations, unrealistic expectations make people miserable.
Yes, very interesting. An Iranian friend of mine always wonders why, when his parents’ generation had everything (compared to today and what was before then), they went and threw it all away in the Islamic Revolution; today, they have nothing and the former firebrands cower and try to hold on to the (shrinking) little they’ve got while most young people try to work within, not necessarily against, the oppressive system that slowly degrades everything. Perhaps part of the explanation is here.
Roger M writes that “revolutions don’t happen when things are bad and getting worse, but when they are good and getting better” while Roger Godby illustrates this for Iran. The French Revolution was also an excellent example. Yet, there are also cases such as the American Revolution, which followed “a long train of Abuses and Usurpations”. The continuation of the war by Russia was causal to her revolution of 1917, not because things were getting better but because conditions became unsustainable. We understand the existence of righteous indignation, by experience and common sense, where increasing mistreatment incites us to fight back.
Let us recall that the title of the article under discussion is “On Appeasing Envy.” When the motivation is to take what belongs to others, attacks will occur when things are getting better, for there is more opportunity. Conversely, when the motivation is to defend or protect, attacks will occur when there is harsh treatment. The revolt in the Warsaw ghetto in 1943 is illustrative, where those people were going to die anyway. Thus the issue is not revolution per se, but the motive involved. Nor is it simply a matter of whether the motive is aggressive (as with envy) or defensive (as with persecution) for it can be a combination, as it was in Russia. In sum, *the analysis of revolutions should begin by ascertaining the motives and beliefs of the populace, rather than by describing the material conditions under which they occur*.
“Any attempt to equalize wealth or income by forced redistribution must only tend to destroy wealth and income.”
The comment above troubles me. Is it only acceptable to redistrubute wealth from the people (citizens) into the caufers of the rich in the form of influence, tax breaks, favors and other such perks. What makes it ok to GIVE money to those who are already wealthy on the backs of the poor and not ok to give it to those who are poor. I am already aware that the poor tend to not invest the money but is there any more. Besides, why would the wealthy want to share the knowledge. It seams to me that these wealthy people are only wealthy because they have been able to ride the con of convincing an entire planet that little pieces of depreciating paper are worth time and effort (labor). Somebody enlighten me!
Hi Zeke:
It is in fact NOT at all acceptable to forcibly redistribute wealth from the people, the citizens, the week or the poor into the coffers of the rich in any form of coercive state activity.
The fact is that forced redistribution of wealth is a crime and results in anything from theft of the rich to the theft of the poor and everything in between. When the ethics of the people are so pathetic as to accept a “soak the rich” proposal, there is no limit to where this degradation will lead and so theft from the poor to hand over to the rich and influential should not be a surprising result.
The truth is, the more the state intervenes in the market, the more frequently will it occur that the rich and powerful, via the state, will oppress the poor. To the extent that the free market prevails, it will also be true that those who are financially successful will have contributed even a great deal more to the material well-being of his fellow men. One need only absorb the lessons in a few chapters of Human Action to begin to grasp at this profound fact of economics.
Comments on this entry are closed.