[Vision2020] Social Security Time Lime

[David M. Budge]

Donovan,

You put up a good argument filled with reasoning of conventional 
wisdom.  Conventional wisdom, however, has inherent flaws, of which I 
will address one at a time.

First, let's begin with the personal.  I am not abjectly against the 
redistribution of wealth.  Having said that, perhaps my innocent 
daughter was reflecting my general disdain for government.  I can assure 
you, however, that I do not talk about political philosophy with her as 
eight year-olds tend to care less about politics, the tax structure, and 
the balance between efficiency and equity.  But we'll get to that 
later.  I was so struck by her comments because of their naive 
innocence, not because I was a proud "indoctrinater" of a malleable 
mind.  Directionally, however, I agree with her broader notion.

Secondly, one must be cautious in confusing Libertarians with 
libertarians, as one can be catholic in  faith while being a Protestant, 
if you get my drift.  I am a small "l" libertarian, and I reject the 
radicalism of the Libertarian party on pragmatic grounds.  The party 
attracts more anarchists than it does libertarians and political parties 
are not ideologically pure. Let's take an example:

Libertarian Party members would suggest that property rights are supreme 
over community interests.  You are correct in that assumption.  But, the 
notable godfathers of libertarian economics, Ludwig Von Misses, 
Freidreich Hayek, and Milton Freidman all acknowledge the existance of 
"pubic goods" such as air, water, defense, roads etc. Accordingly, in 
the extreme, a Libertarian would say "this is my land and I'll construct 
a nuclear reactor on it if I choose" while a libertarian ideologue would 
"Hell you are, that will potentially infringe upon my liberty."  
Accordingly, libertarians can take strong environmental stands without 
violating the tenets of libertarianism.  Ownership is important, but it 
does not usurp anyone's liberty.

So now that we have a bit of context, let me address your (with all due 
respect) somewhat screedy diatribe.

You said: "First, they assume that everything is somebody's stuff (money 
or wealth) regardless of how they got it. "

Not so, we've already addressed the issue of "public goods."  Also, 
libertarians would impose the full burden of remedy on anyone who would 
cause damage to such goods.  If you ruin my community's water, you must 
remedy it. Obviously, there is debate on the definition of "damage" and 
the ensuing disputes need to be addressed in the "common law" constructs 
of society, also a libertarian tenet. Additonally, if wealth is gained 
through means that infringe on anyone's liberties, such as theft or 
fraud, libertarians would demand justice both in the form of 
compensation as well as punishment.  Ergo, libertarians are not economic 
anarchists and well understand the need for government and the rule of law.

Addressing your concern on the exploitation of workers.  Indeed there 
have been abuses, but capitalism portends the better trade-off between 
equity and efficiency than do engineered economies.  I trust, by your 
writing, that you have studied Trotsky and Marx but I would recommend 
(if for nothing else to give you grounds to argue your point better) 
reading "The Road To Serfdom" by Hayek if you have not.   I'm not 
insisting that capitalism is a panacea and, although I can empirically 
prove that socialism fails, it defies logic to say: if socialism is 
wrong capitalism is right.  The failure of test A has no bering on the 
outcome of test B. There may be a third way but I have yet to find it. 
Yet, we can argue shades of gray all day long and we'll end up at the 
starting point I'm afraid. The extent of socialism in our society will 
remain debatable through time.  I would suggest that, regarding the 
redistribution of wealth, we do find cause for supporting those who 
cannot support themselves such as the infirm and the insane.  It may be 
construed that certain people qualify as "public goods" (if that's not 
too coarse) and thus need appropriate husbandry.  I have a related post 
on my blog at http://davebudge.com/index.php?p=137 to prove that I'm not 
a heartless ratbastard capitalist. I invite you to both read it and 
comment on it if you care to.

Next you say: "...most taxes go to benefit the rich, not the poor or 
those that don't have wealth."
Your logic falls flat.  The rich and the middle class (or as W would say 
- the ownership society) pay almost all of the taxes.  One can argue 
then that the level of benefit from government services is somewhat 
egalitarian.  If you use more, you pay more.  This, however, is a red 
herring too in many ways.  The social safety net in our current system 
benefits the the middle class much more than the rich.  Fully one third 
of the federal budget goes to non-descretionary entitlements though 
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and federal pensions.  The 
recipient's of these programs are the 13% of population  over age 65.  
Those who are poor,  about 11% of seniors, constitute 1% of the total 
population.  Seniors' households own fully 60'% of the national wealth. 
Our scheme of redistribution places the burden on citizens owning 40% of 
the wealth transferring assets to those owning 60% of the wealth.  It's 
mind boggling and defies both core objectives of libertarians and 
progressives. If the objective is to redistribute wealth from the rich 
to the poor, we're doing a damn poor job of it. In this inefficiency I 
have to agree with my daughter; that's stealing.

Next you say: "Libertarians forget that the purpose of a society is to 
exist, grow, and have the highest quality of life possible for as many 
people as possible in the society." I direct you back to Hayek and also 
Friedman's "Economics and Freedom" and tell me if you still hold this 
belief.  Society benefits in the absence of intrusive government - all 
of us.  But that is not to say that government has no role and this is a 
poor venue to argue economic theory.

An issue you didn't bring up, and I'm surprised as the topic is usually 
a hot button for progressives, is corporate welfare.  The current 
rantings in libertarian think tanks, like the Cato Institution and the 
libertarian uber-publication Reason Magazine (http://www/reason.com), 
spend almost as much time criticizing the federal government for 
corporate welfare as they do arguing about the deleterious effects of 
over-regulation.  You may find it interesting in that respect.  You will 
also find that the vast majority of libertarians are against the war in 
Iraq, pro gay marriage, against the wasteful war on drugs, against the 
patriot act and ardent defenders of gun rights.   I have many nuanced 
differences with pure libertarian ideologues, but I agree more with 
libertarians than I do with either republicans, democrats, or 
progressives (note the lack of capitalization.) 

Lastly, I love a good argument, but I find when the starting point is a 
broad brush stereotype I become verbose and often times strident.  I 
have accomplished the former here.  This, however, came about by your 
unabashed willingness to pigeonhole me and other libertarians into a 
stereotype that is wrong both factually and perceptibly. 

I like the discussion and encourage more. I promise to keep the 
hyperbole to a minimum.

A  relevant quotes to close:

"Man's fatal flaw is taking what he thinks to be correct as the truth." 
- anonymous


Dave Budge