Comments (8)

• Barry Loberfeld

  From "What About the Poor?":

  For defenders of the Constitution, the free market, and individual liberty, no single issue has thus far proved more defeating -- on both the intellectual and electoral battlefields -- than that of poverty. It has handed one unearned (and by no means inevitable) victory after another to the unconstitutional statism of collectivist liberals.
  

  The conquest of poverty (to borrow the title of Henry Hazlitt's classic) requires just two weapons: wealth and compassion. So the only real question is: Who can better provide these -- civil society ("the market") or the political state? The answer as it regards wealth has now been settled: "[C]apitalism has won," conceded left-aligned economic historian Robert Heilbroner in 1989. "Socialism," conversely, "has been a great tragedy this century." Paul Samuelson's famous textbook a few years later deemed state production the "failed model." It is a society of free people, not coercive government, that produces wealth. And yet, most bizarrely, liberals still believe it is that government, not those people, that possesses the compassion necessary to redistribute some of that wealth to those who find themselves in need of aid (a percentage of any population).
  

  Society will starve the poor, but the State won't. How did it come to that? Mostly from the premise If government doesn't do it, it doesn't get done. But if we followed that consistently, we'd wind up right back with the "failed model" of socialist state planning of production and everything else, e.g., Stalin and Ceausescu's prohibition of abortion or the Chinese Communists' imposition of (even late-term) abortion. It is a premise refuted by an insight from an American Founder. We know Madison and his politics of limited government, we know Jefferson and his morality of individual rights, but we often forget Paine and his philosophy of the primacy of society over the State:

  A great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government. It had its origin in the principles of society and the natural constitution of man. It existed prior to government, and would exist if the formality of government was abolished. The mutual dependence and reciprocal interest which man has upon man, and all parts of a civilized community upon each other, create that great chain of connection which holds it together. The landholder, the farmer, the manufacturer, the merchant, the tradesman, and every occupation, prospers by the aid which each receives from the other, and from the whole. Common interest regulates their concerns, and forms their laws; and the laws which common usage ordains, have a greater influence than the laws of government. In fine, society performs for itself almost every thing which is ascribed to government.

  
  

  We don't need state charities for the same reason we don't need state churches, state families, or state anything else, i.e., we don't need state socialism because we already have civil society. Government, organized armed force, exists only to provide governance -- basically, defense against the violent criminal element (domestic and foreign, e.g., bin Laden). Condemning limited government for not performing the functions of the charity, the church, the family, the firm, the school, and the other organs of the body politic is like condemning the skeleton for not performing the functions of the brain, the heart, the stomach, the liver, the lungs, and the other organs of the body proper. Freedom is the framework that secures all other virtues.

  READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE
  

  
  

  Published: March 26, 2009 9:57 AM

• Michael A. Clem

  Good article. Barry, I read your article, and I don't completely agree with the conclusion. I will agree to the extent that welfare for the poor should not be a major libertarian issue, that stressing corporate welfare would indeed be more effective, but I don't think anybody can reliably say what particular order these things should be handled, since one area tends to affect other areas.
  
  Finally, in response to both articles, is a failure to recognize the irrationality involved. The status quo is a largely irrational response chosen or at least accepted by most people, and thus, it is unlikely that reasoned, logical arguments will make headway with most people, although hopefully some people will be persuaded by them.
  
  Instead, it is much more likely that people will be persuaded by non-logical arguments, social and cultural changes (and the related peer pressure involved), the popular arts (movies, music, etc), as well as sales and advertising techniques.
  
  I'm not saying that we should abandon logical argumentation--it's our principled base or foundation to work from--merely that we need to recognize and embrace social change in broader, more creative terms.
  

  Published: March 26, 2009 10:15 AM

• greg

  As I am sitting here, a question came to mind, am I free? I know the govenment is expanding the money supply, bailing out institutions that should have failed and I see my taxes increasing in the very near future.

  So with everything coming down around me, I came to the conclusion that I am in fact free. All these other actions the government is taking is just cost. The cost of doing business in the US. So when I plan my next project, I just plug these cost in. Basically, I love paying taxes because if I pay taxes, my income statement shows me I am making money.

  It is not freedom from government spending and programs that will advance our society. It is however, freedom of thought that increases productivity that will advance real wealth.

  Published: March 26, 2009 10:41 AM

• Larry N. Martin

  When an armed robber points a gun at you and demands your wallet, are you free? Certainly! You are free to do as he says or to resist him and take your chances on being hurt or killed. Does this "freedom" mean that he hasn't used coercion on you? Of course he's using coercion, and the result of his coercion is to limit your choices. A gun, as dangerous as it is, is still a limited means of force, so he doesn't have absolute control over you. Nonetheless, I don't think many people would think the choices the gunman offers constitute "freedom", any more than the restricting choices governments offer constitute freedom. So, Greg, you may think you're free, but those "costs of doing business" are still restrictions on your freedom, even if it's only a matter of degree.

  Published: March 26, 2009 11:01 AM

• Menckenite

  greg,

  I changed the words just a bit. I hope you don't mind..

  As I am sitting here, a question came to mind, am I healthy? I know the cancer is expanding, killing off the bad parts of my anatomy that should have failed and I see my health increasing in the very near future.

  So with everything bad failing inside me, I came to the conclusion that I am in fact healthy. All these actions the cancer is taking is taking is just cost. The cost of having cancer in my body. So when I plan my next activity (that I may not be able to perform because I lost some vital parts), I just plug these cost in. Basically, I love paying the cost of the cancer because if I pay the costs, my health shows me the results.

  It is not freedom from cancer spreading and its causes that will advance my health. It is however, freedom of thought that my activity may increase that will advance real health.
  

  Published: March 26, 2009 12:40 PM

• Gil

  From the last three posts I'd hazard the guess that greg is more free than L.N. Martin and Menckenite. You are free if you can live free and deal with the obstacles in life. A free person, using Menckenite's analogy, is someone who finds out what their health status and deals with it. An unfree person believes they're healthy as they don't 'feel sick' or know they are sick but pretend otherwise. Or to put it another way - you are unfree if you wait for someone else's permission to tell your you're 'free' or are waiting for some sort of miracle whereby the obstacles of life just happen to disapper.

  Published: March 27, 2009 1:03 AM

• Michael A. Clem

  Gil, I'm not sure that's a fair comment. Just because one recognizes there are obstructions and deals with them doesn't mean the obstructions don't exist. Take the armed robber example. Even if you successfully fight off the armed robber without being killed or injured, you still had to go through an unnecessary risk, and that's assuming you ARE successful. Is the person who takes the risk and gets hurt or killed free?
  
  Likewise with say, opening a business and dealing with the necessary licensing, tax, and other regulatory issues. Metaphysical freedom may indeed be the case of taking issues and succesfully dealing with them, but poltical freedom has to do with the actual obstructions created by other people, specifically governments, regardless of how well you deal with them.

  Published: March 27, 2009 2:54 PM

• AC

  Personally, I like making money without having to pay taxes, because it means I made even more money. Part of which I can reinvest into increased production, thereby helping my fellow man even more than the day before.

  Consider if you will, what it would do if in the future we increase food production and distribution so greatly that food costs become nil. If we could double food production while retaining the same costs, the prices of food fall dramatically. Far fetched you say?

  Data for my following illustration was gleaned from the following US gov't website http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/ag101/demographics.html.

  Consider that in 1890 we had an average of 1 farm worker per 27.5 acres of ground, and in 1990 it was 1 farm worker per 740 acres. That is a 27 fold increase in the productivity of 1 farm worker. And in addition to that, total amount of food produced has increased. In 1890, I'm sure some would've thought it hardly possible that in 100 years we would decrease the number of farm workers by a factor of 27 and also increase the total amount of food produced. Never before in the history of humanity had such an achievement been accomplished.

  Producing increasing amounts of goods/services with greater efficiency (or for lower costs) helps the poor and everyone else. Remove the scarcity of products by several orders of magnitude and you will have helped society immensely. Now that's the way to help the poor and create wealth.

  Furthermore, you can only give of what you have. Too bad your freedom is partially compromised if you don't "give" to the gov't.

  Published: March 27, 2009 3:58 PM