True Equality, Social Justice part 6

The last post concerned equal outcomes which is often confused with equal opportunity. For clarity one must often discern which one is meant, even within a single sentence.

At issue is the fact that freedom and liberty will naturally result in wealth disparity.  This introduces an extremely emotional component, with feelings of unfairness.  The fact is however that populations are made up of diverse individuals.  Some will try with varying success, some will try and fail, and some will just go surfing.

Another problem with the notion of “equal opportunity”, some complain, is that all are not born into equal circumstances which are wide ranging, most of which are out of a given person’s control.  Still,  in recent American history most of these circumstances, mixed with hard work, ethics, motivations and wisdom, (which are free to all) would have landed a person somewhere in what we call the middle class.  

But the goal of equal opportunity only seeks to provide equality to whatever circumstances a person brings to the table.  While it grasps that not all begin on equal footing, it also grasps the limitations of mortal man.  In 1961, the satirist Kurt Vonnegut illustrated this dilemma in a short story about a Harrison Bergeron.  Bergeron, so the story goes, had an unfair advantage because he was highly intelligent.  This was unfair so he was forced to wear an earpiece that randomly emitted loud noises to interrupt his thought processes.  

The arts provide another poignant  illustration of outcomes vs. opportunity.  The rock group, Rush, produced a song¹ called The Trees ² in which the maples were upset with the oaks because the oaks hogged the sunlight. Equal outcome was finally enforced by “hatchet, ax, and saw”.

In the end, this discussion concerning outcomes vs. opportunity raises an important question for those who judge equality by outcome:  If what one does doesn’t ultimately matter, what does it ultimately matter what one does?

________________________________

Note 1. “The Trees”

There is unrest in the forest
There is trouble with the trees
For the maples want more sunlight
And the oaks ignore their pleas

The trouble with the maples
(And they’re quite convinced they’re right)
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light
But the oaks can’t help their feelings
If they like the way they’re made
And they wonder why the maples
Can’t be happy in their shadeThere is trouble in the forest
And the creatures all have fled
As the maples scream ‘Oppression!’
And the oaks just shake their headsSo the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights
‘The oaks are just too greedy
We will make them give us light’
Now there’s no more oak oppression
For they passed a noble law
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe and saw

Note 2

Economically, Putting Money In The Bank Is Like Spending It, Only Better.

How can saving money be the same as spending it?  What? Do you think the banker just hides your savings in a big vault until you want it back?  In a normal and healthy economy your money would be put to use doing things like building stuff, or digging and exploring for new resources, or all sorts of things like that. It would in fact be working just as if you had spent it. What you are putting in the bank, you see, represents value: which is your work.  But rather than consume the fruits of your labor right away, you forego that satisfaction and save.  This means that the currency that represents something of value, your labor, is used for other enterprises.  Those other enterprises involve profits, of which you get a little, (interest) the banker gets a little, (interest) and the one who borrowed it gets a little. (profit)

Don’t be an economic moron. Take the time to watch this short video to understand how we are all much better off with a true banking system, and not just a spigot with a money printer at the other end.

_________________________________________

Hat tip:  Austrian Economics Addict

The Egalitarian Pipe Dream, Social Justice part 5

Two conflicting economic goals involving “equality” are often confused.  One is of equal outcome (which I will discuss today) and the other is equal opportunity.

The vague ideas upon which “Social Justice” are constructed all involve, in one form or another, the goal of equal outcome.  The dreams of such “justice” envision a world that functions much like a global commune in which the outcome for every inhabitant’s effort is the same in terms of resources.  In this global commune, rich and poor would be blights of the past.

But entertaining such visions is just one of the luxuries enjoyed by affluent societies.  Prosperity allows the affluent to dream of their Utopia without having to actually engage the harsh realities of man’s existence such as the true condition of man himself.  But the harshest reality is the means by which a diverse group of people, with diverse ideas of happiness, goals, strengths and weaknesses must be oppressed to effect equal outcome. It necessarily requires the loss of freedom, and of the concept of private property; two things which the advocates for social justice unfortunately take for granted.  It also requires a heavy handed and totalitarian government in order to ensure and enforce the “fair” allocation of resources; a government, by the way, which historically has always exempted itself.

In reality the equitable distribution of resources is not much more than a feel-good idea that is a source of meaning and purpose for those who advocate for it.    Bright people sit in their comfy homes and faculty lounges discussing it as an abstract thing that will not touch them.  But the reality of it is by no means abstract, for history is replete with ruinous and nightmarish examples of real attempts of “social justice”.

Social Justice part 4, Justice Or Corruption?

Justice is justice, right? Well maybe not. The concept of justice must be attached to a universal standard of right and wrong, for something cannot be right for one person and wrong for another. I cannot, for example, be excused from stealing Bob’s apples simply because stealing apples is not wrong… for me.

Of course we know that stealing is wrong, if for no other reason than we don’t like returning to our car to find a hole where our stereo used to be. So rather than violate our own conscience, we legalize the raid of Bob’s orchard by having the government steal us an apple under the guise of social justice. But is that really any more just than stealing them ourselves? If it is, then there is no ultimate justice, social or otherwise, and the same majority that can be persuaded to violate Bob can be persuaded to violate you. This is called “corruption”.

As it turns out, you see, Bob is no fool. While he knows that you can’t fight City Hall, he also knows that a City Hall elected by a corrupt society can be enlisted to fight for him, for the price of a few apples. So Bob develops a plan of his own:

1. He claims to be for the social justice of free apples and campaigns for the one who promises to steal his.
2. Not only does he sell more apples because the people like to buy from Bob because he’s for social justice,
3. with the influence gained from helping his man get elected, he has his apples exempted from confiscation, and,
4. he promotes burdensome regulations on orchards to make it almost impossible for competition to enter the marketplace, which,
5. allows him to charge more for his apples.

And he knows that a corrupt society will never discern the corruption behind their “free” apples.

______________________________

” The two enemies of the people are criminals and Government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second doesn’t become the legalized version of the first”.   Thomas Jefferson

See also:

This great article by Urbansaving, and:

“Don’t Tread On My Private Property”

Hey! Politicians Are People Too

There seems to be a foundational premise that undergirds the notion of social-justice that there are people out there somewhere who have somehow risen above the human condition.  But this is not true.  One need only peek behind the veil of pious, social-justice rhetoric to see the blatant hypocrisy of its loudest champions.  This raises a question, or it should.  If this “justice” were truly their passion, should they not be leading by example?  How can someone like, say, the millionaire Michael Moore, be for social justice while living such a socially unjust life? The truth be realized, these millionaires want to impose on others a morality that they themselves have failed to achieve.

Of all that the American founders understood when they set this grand experiment in motion, their keen grasp of man’s propensity for evil might have been their greatest asset.  And this asset led them to limit the power, not only of the government, but of the majority also.  While they realized that government must exist, ^* they did not envision government as a benevolent god-like entity.  No, they saw government as people who suffer from the same afflictions of arrogance and selfishness that plagues the rest of mankind; especially those who seek, and then are lent, the reins of power.  

Some see government as naturally benevolent because politicians are freed from the motivation of profit.  Such  is a naive and gullible view.  Politicians have plenty to profit politically by making popular promises today while strapping future generations with the bill.   Meanwhile, for the “benevolent” politician, power is a great source of wealth, luxury and ease.  One need only observe politicians, both the ones they love and hate, to see this.

Sadly, and much to even my own dismay, government is not a god-like entity that can usher in social justice, and this is especially true when it is elected by a constituency that rejects the very existence of moral absolutes.  No, the government is a collection of flawed politicians with their own aspirations and venal motivations, because, in the end, politicians are people too.

Notes:____________________

* James Madison:   “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”

In Honor Of Earthday, 13 Worst Earthday Predictions

Predictions made circa 1970 by the world’s brightest and smartest:

1. “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” — Harvard biologist George Wald

2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.” — Washington University biologist Barry Commoner

3. “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.” — New York Times editorial

4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” — Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich

5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born… [By 1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.” — Paul Ehrlich

6 “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” — Denis Hayes, Chief organizer for Earth Day

7. “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions…. By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.” — North Texas State University professor Peter Gunter

8. “In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution… by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.” — Life magazine

9. “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.” — Ecologist Kenneth Watt

10. “Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” — Paul Ehrlich

11. “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate… that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, ‘Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, ‘I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’” — Ecologist Kenneth Watt

12. “[One] theory assumes that the earth’s cloud cover will continue to thicken as more dust, fumes, and water vapor are belched into the atmosphere by industrial smokestacks and jet planes. Screened from the sun’s heat, the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born.” — Newsweek magazine

13. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” — Kenneth Watt

From Freedomworks:

Don’t Confuse Economics With Pizzas

One of the flawed premises of “Social Justice” is that it approaches economics like a pizza.  Think of a pizza equally sliced 6 ways and set before 6 children. We would rightly expect that each child would get one slice.  That would be fair.

This is simple, at least as it pertains to pizza equality.  There is nothing abstract about it.  In this idea, “fair” is definable.  If any one child gets more than his “fair” share,  someone else will have to do with less, and we all know that that just wouldn’t be just.

These children then grow up and the same ideas of “equality” remain intact and are then applied to complex economic systems.  We look around and see all kinds of unfairness because it would appear that life has given a few people very large slices and the rest only slivers.

But the world’s economy is not a pizza magically set before us by some cosmic parental hand.  And any person whom we select to play the cosmic paternal role is not only incapable of baking up the world’s economy in his kitchen, he does not have the omniscience to cut it into “fair” slices.  That’s because “fair”  means different things to different people at different times.  Even in the example of the  six children above we must make assumptions like: they all like pizza, there are no alternatives, they are all hungry, and so on.

It is easy to critique what is by comparing it to what is not based on an ambiguous and undefinable standard like “social justice”.  But it is much more difficult to clearly define what ought to be.  Wisdom would suggest that if we set out to abandon what is, on the basis of what is not, we ought also to clearly understand what ought to be in universally accepted and understood terms… don’t you think?