Government should not bring about ‘good’ through coercive methods
Blake Gilson
As the Republican National Convention came to a close last week, Americans got a picture of colliding ideologies between the junior senator from Illinois and the senator from Arizona – that is, if you looked close enough. While party ideologies seem to be drifting ever closer together, if you read between the lines there are signs of the age-old great debate about the function of government.
In John McCain’s acceptance speech, he said, "We believe in low taxes, spending discipline and open markets. We believe in rewarding hard work and risk takers and letting people keep the fruits of their labor…. Reducing government spending and getting rid of failed programs will let you keep more of your own money to save, spend and invest as you see fit."
In contrast, Barack Obama said, "(McCain)’s subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy – give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down…. They call this the Ownership Society, but what it really means is – you’re on your own. Out of work? Tough luck. No health care? The market will fix it. Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps – even if you don’t have boots. You’re on your own."
Underpinning these passages is a question of legitimacy of individual rights in relation to government. McCain exclaimed a more-or-less adulterated version of classical liberalism, an ideology that stresses that markets maximize welfare best when left free of governmental control; individuals derive rights from their nature, and a fundamental right is the right to property.
Obama disagrees. No "respect of property rights" or the "fruits of one’s labor" will be found in his transcript. This is because supporters of the expansive welfare state must turn against property rights.
Obama’s characterization of this philosophy includes giving more to the rich. Who is giving what to whom? Believe it or not, the collective America does not own wealth or property. The abstract America does not divide its wealth among members of society by giving some to the rich or some to the poor. Society, this big floating concept, cannot own anything. Individuals own property and individuals create wealth.
To spread wealth is to take wealth from some members of society and give it to other members. What is the state’s means of doing this? On what power can it achieve this action? The answer is staring all of us in the face – it is the state’s monopoly of the use of aggressive coercion.
Are the poorest of the poor left on their own in the cold in a society where property rights are respected? Yes, if you deem that the only means of helping the poor is the coercive nature of welfarism. Yes, if you deem voluntary charity as lacking in virtue. Yes, if you think only in political terms and always look for government solutions of social ills.
It doesn’t have to be this way. We can seek solutions outside the political establishment. We can help out neighbors without relying on the state’s monopoly of coercion. We can make the world a better place without forcing people to do good. These solutions will not be found by any political leaders, these solutions will be found by yourself and others working freely together hand-in-hand.
Gilson, a business sophomore, can be reached via [email protected]
Conservatives only seek to enrich themselves; there must be a better way
Abdul Khan
We spend money. That is all there is to it. A fiscal conservative would never have endangered the entire U.S. economy by waging a war on a foreign nation and borrowing money from a potential future rival. Our war costs money. Despite the fact that we still have Wiis and Xboxes, we are in a financial crisis. The import taxes on those goods are going to the people who financed your home. Is this making sense yet?
The American taxpayer, under the actions and policies of the current administration, are giving massive amounts of aid to private mortgage providers: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Bear Sternsand others. Heck, even JPMorgan Chase is having problems.
In 1984 the American taxpayer had to bailout Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Co. to the tune of $4.5 billion. And from 1986 to 1995, U.S. taxpayers footed $24 billion for savings and loans. The same thing happened under the Ronald Reagan Administration.
Now it is clear that because the poor are taxed – as a matter of fact, here in Texas we have a regressive tax system that ensures the poor carry the bulk of the burden – the relative wealth of the poor is distributed to the rich. Despite the fact that most large companies use cheap tricks, giving capital gains to their children or grandparents to avoid paying their share, some rich people do pay enough taxes to help fund entitlement programs.
This is the clash. Does it make more sense to give the tax money to the industry with the hope that a free market will provide fair opportunity to all members of society? This also includes paying a wage people can live on in a respectable manner. This assumes that the idea of welfare falls on the shoulders of employers.
If we allow free markets to set labor prices they will inevitably pay as little as possible in order to maximize profits, which are shared among an oligarchy. This increases class division between haves and have-nots – History 101, as it has happened many times before. This is our American Tale of Two Cities.
What does our government do? This is the question we should be asking ourselves. The simple truth is that what our current government has to deal with is unprecedented in world history. There is the liberal desire to give every citizen health care, but truthfully, one is hard pressed to say a crackhead is entitled to it.
However, when a man puts in an honest 40 or 50 hours of work a week and he is injured in his life outside of work, his being given the same treatment as a crackhead is deplorable. We have some strange issues to deal with because in America everyone has a voice. The tax policies of the past have not worked. This is obvious. The tax policies of the future are in our hands. When the liberal philosophy, the conservative philosophy and all other philosophies fail you, maybe it is time to think for yourself. This is the time when politicians are so confused. All you have to do is vote. Let your voice be heard. Nov. 4 is coming.
Khan, a political science and history junior, can be reached via [email protected]
