-
Romney’s Education Choice
October 13, 2012 | 0 comments
-
Mediscared Silly
September 8, 2012 | 0 comments
-
How to Replace Obamacare
August 23, 2012 | 29 comments
-
The Moral Case Against Serfdom
August 1, 2012 | 19 comments
-
Medicaid Freedom of Choice
June 2, 2012 | 0 comments
Feature
The Poverty of Equality
Fairness requires that President Obama read up on his Kurt Vonnegut.
The year was 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren’t only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General.
So began Kurt Vonnegut’s 1961 short story “Harrison Bergeron.” In that brave new world, the government forced each individual to wear “handicaps” to offset any advantage he had, so everyone could be truly and fully equal. Beautiful people had to wear ugly masks to hide their good looks. The strong had to wear compensating weights to slow them down. Graceful dancers were burdened with bags of bird shot. Those with above-average intelligence had to wear government transmitters in their ears that would emit sharp noises every 20 seconds, shattering their thoughts “to keep them…from taking unfair advantage of their brains.”
But Harrison Bergeron, who was far above average in everything, was a special problem. Vonnegut explained, “Nobody had ever borne heavier handicaps.… Instead of a little ear radio for a mental handicap, he wore a tremendous pair of earphones, and spectacles with thick wavy lenses.” To offset his strength, “Scrap metal was hung all over him,” to the point that the seven-foot-tall Harrison “looked like a walking junkyard.”
The youthful Harrison did not accept these burdens easily, so he had been jailed. But with his myriad advantages and talents, he had broken out. An announcement on TV explained the threat: “He is a genius and an athlete…and should be regarded as extremely dangerous.”
Harrison broke into a TV studio, which was broadcasting the performance of a troupe of dancing ballerinas. On national television, he illegally cast off each one of his handicaps. Then he did the same for one of the ballerinas, and then the orchestra, which he commanded to play. To shockingly beautiful chords, Harrison and the ballerina began to dance.
Not only were the laws of the land abandoned, but the laws of gravity and the laws of motion as well.…The studio ceiling was thirty feet high, but each leap brought the dancers nearer to it. It became their obvious intention to kiss the ceiling. They kissed it. And then, neutralizing gravity with love and pure will, they remained suspended in air inches below the ceiling, and they kissed each other for a long, long time.
SOCIAL SAFETY NETS that provide basic help for the needy to prevent human suffering are easily justifiable on moral grounds. Nearly everyone supports them to prevent severe hardship among those disabled, widowed, orphaned, or even just temporarily down on their luck. In modern and wealthy societies like ours, there is broad voter consent to such policies, which ensure people do not suffer deprivation of the necessities of life: food, shelter, and clothing. This recognizes we have a moral obligation to help our fellow man. It’s always an open question how much of that should fall to private charity and how much should be done through government taxation. That said, the truth is, such safety nets, if focused on the truly needy and designed to rely on modern markets and incentives, would not be costly compared to the immense wealth of our society.
But once such policies are established, going further—taking from some by force of law what they have produced and consequently earned, and giving to others merely to make incomes and wealth more equal—is not justifiable. Vonnegut’s story helps explain why.
First, achieving true and comprehensive equality would require violating personal liberty, as the talented and capable must be prevented from using their advantages to get ahead. Under this philosophy, the most productive must be treated punitively through high tax rates simply because they used their abilities to produce more than others. What we have just described is a progressive tax system. Work and produce a little bit, and we take 10 percent. Work and produce more, and we take 20 percent, and so on. Some societies take as much as 90 percent of the marginal output, as the U.S. did after World War II.
In a society where men and women are angels who always put the welfare of others ahead of their own, this system—from each according to his ability, to each according to his need—might even work. High tax rates wouldn’t have any negative consequences because everyone would work for everyone else’s benefit. Society would be like one, large commune, with everyone working for the common good. The ambitious, hard worker would get the same pay as the one who sleeps in and lives a lazy lifestyle. Output would be high, and we would have almost complete equality of outcome.
The problem, of course, is that men are not angels. We are driven by self-interest-not entirely, of course, but enough that giving everyone an equal share despite unequal contributions would severely deter work incentives. This is why in all those societies that have tried to enforce the more extreme vision of mandatory equality, totalitarian governments and poverty have emerged. And, by the way, in practice these societies are not very equal either. Richer and freer countries tend to have smaller income disparities than poorer and less free nations.
Moreover, as Vonnegut’s story illustrates, inequalities of wealth and income are not the only important differences in society. If equality is truly a moral obligation, then inequalities of beauty, intelligence, strength, grace, talent, etc. logically all should be leveled as well. That would require some rather heavy-handed government intervention. It is not fair that LeBron James has a 40-inch vertical leap, and we have a 4-inch vertical leap (combined). It is not fair that some have high IQs, and others are below average. It is not fair that Christie Brinkley is beautiful, that some people are born with photographic memories, that one person gets cancer and the next one doesn’t. We Americans were born in a land of opportunity and wealth, while billions around the world are born into poverty and squalor. We won the ultimate lottery of life just by being born in this great and rich country. Where is the justice in that?
THE GOAL OF A SOCIETY should not and cannot be to make people equal in outcomes, an impossibility given the individual attributes with which we were each endowed by our creator. It is the opposite of justice and fairness to try to equalize outcomes based on those attributes. It is not fair to the beautiful to force them to wear ugly masks. It is not fair to the strong to punish them by holding them down with excess weights. It is not fair to the graceful and athletic to deprive them of their talents. In the same way, it is not fair to the productive, the risk taking, or the hard working, to deprive them of what they have produced, merely to make them equal to others who have worked less, taken less risk, and produced less.
As Vonnegut’s story shows, putting social limits on the success people are allowed to achieve with their own talents and abilities makes everyone worse off, because it deprives society of the benefits of their brilliance and beauty and skill and talent. The fact that Bill Gates and Steve Jobs made billions of dollars in income—more than some whole societies make—has on paper made America more unequal. But is the middle class better or worse off for Microsoft and Apple products? Should we curse the invention of the personal computer, which is now in nearly every home in America, simply because it made these men unthinkably wealthy? Since hundreds of millions of people buy their products willingly, it would seem self-evident that Mr. Gates and Mr. Jobs generated a better world for everyone, not just for themselves.
Finally, this vision of equality as a social goal, with equal incomes and wealth for all, is severely counterproductive economically, and so makes for a poor society as well. Pursuing such a vision would require very high marginal tax rates on anyone with above-average production, income, and wealth, which theory and experience show leads to decreased production. As we saw in our discussion of tax policy above, the less people are allowed to keep of what they produce, the less they will produce.
About the Author
Stephen Moore is a member of the Wall Street Journal editorial board.
About the Author
Peter Ferrara is Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy at the Heartland Institute, General Counsel of the American Civil Rights Union, Senior Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, and Senior Policy Advisor on Entitlements and Budget Policy at the National Tax Limitation Foundation. He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under President George H.W. Bush.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (65) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Stephen Moore
More Articles by Peter Ferrara
More Articles From Feature
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/04/09/the-poverty-of-equality
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Wincing at Cumberbatch
- The Great Train Robbery
- The Continuing Crisis
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.9.12 @ 7:53AM
A great read!
I remember reading Vonnegut's short story in high school in the late 60's. I doubt if any high school will allow anyone to read it now.
Ironically, Vonnegut was a dyed in the wool liberal who smoked Pall Malls.
Bob| 4.9.12 @ 11:31AM
That's how his story was so accurate.
Alan Brooks| 4.9.12 @ 10:08PM
"Ironically, Vonnegut was a dyed in the wool liberal who smoked Pall Mall"
Which is why he was chosen for this piece: Orwell wasn't exactly WFB, you know. Ben Franklin liked to cat around. I told that to a dumkopf Midwestern German-American, and he replied "that was when he was younger"
DUH! what, an old guy in the 1700s could take cialis?
Budd Kopman | 4.9.12 @ 8:04AM
I fail to understand why the authors equate 'angelic' behavior with collectivism, and then go on to say that humans are not angels (i.e. 'fallen') and 'driven by self-interest'.
Human beings are first and foremost individuals, and striving to do the best for oneself (and those one cares about), while not actively harming others, is the best societal arrangement that has been tried.
Equating collectivist perfection with the angels is falling right in line 'Marxist' thinking.
Bob| 4.9.12 @ 11:30AM
I recommend you familiarize yourself with this line:
If men were angels, no government would be necessary.
Budd Kopman| 4.9.12 @ 1:21PM
Of course, I agree with the main argument of the article.
However, with this sentence:
In a society where men and women are angels who always put the welfare of others ahead of their own, this system—from each according to his ability, to each according to his need—might even work.
the authors implied that putting the welfare of others ahead of oneself is 'angelic behavior' (and thus "good").
Man's history is littered with attempts at self-perfection, of changing our inherent nature in a way to become more 'perfect'. (See John Passmore's "The Perfectibility of Man')
And thus lies tyranny.
Bob| 4.9.12 @ 1:49PM
As we know angels in the western Christian tradition, they do put everyone ahead of themselves. They defer to God and God loves humans, so the angels put others, humans, before themselves.
However, I agree that the author could have said more to make it absolutely clear that such a system can never work in our world. Indeed, it never has.
The use of the phrase "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need", followed by the phrase "might even work", bothers me as well, and that thinking seduces otherwise sane people to believe in this insanity.
Roy| 4.9.12 @ 11:22PM
Right. Even a saint would very likely prefer to cultivate his own plot, which he could then use for the benefit of others as HE saw that benefit - not as Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi see it.
If anybody disagrees, they should really stop selfishly donating to charity and start selflessly giving the money to the federal government.
old white guy| 4.9.12 @ 12:10PM
when the individual is not free the collective is not free.
Alan Brooks| 4.9.12 @ 10:10PM
"while not actively harming others"
Actively? libertopians are actively harming philosophy, to start with.
Laine| 4.16.12 @ 1:44PM
Agree with Mr. Kopman. Those able-bodied people who do little or nothing, thus creating their own "need" are no angels. Neither are people (Democrats) who encourage this kind of unnecessary dependency that is harmful to the productive in the short run but even harmful to the drones in the long run. Long dependent populations such as Canadian Natives are killing themselves at a high rate of substance abuse and outright suicide. This is what happens to people who do not earn self respect or the respect of others by earning their own living, no matter how humble. Collectivism is statanic, not angelic, and the so-called "good intentions" of libs (very suspect since they refuse to look at their crappy results) have paved the road to personal hell for those they claim to be helping and economic hell for the rest of us. Libs love power and spreading dependency gets them the same power pushers have over addicts. Dems distributing other people's money are not the angelic beings they claim to be, but control freaks and their sheep. The only true angels are producers who VOLUNTARILY share some of their wealth with the less fortunate, (not the merely lazy). That used to be called charity.
Budd Kopman| 4.9.12 @ 8:07AM
Make that last line end: with 'Marxist' thinking.
chuck| 4.9.12 @ 8:54AM
I had always pictured Janet Reno as the United States Handicapper General.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.9.12 @ 8:58AM
Burning people to death without consequence goes beyond handicapping.
chuck| 4.9.12 @ 11:56AM
I guess you don't know how the story ends.
Pick up "Welcome to the Monkey House". It's a collection of Vonnegut's short stories.
Bill| 4.9.12 @ 9:14AM
Last 200 years, Blacks have contributed three things: poverty, crime, and AIDS. Majority of them are uneducated, unemployed, and seek welfare. American would be better off without those Blacks. The proof is what we see what's going on in America last three years under Obama.
Pete| 4.9.12 @ 11:12AM
Bill cut out the racism.
Bill| 4.9.12 @ 12:52PM
They are facts.
Bill| 4.9.12 @ 12:52PM
They are facts.
Bob| 4.9.12 @ 11:28AM
I remember when AIDS was blamed on gay men. Is it the blacks' fault now?
You have to understand something, that blacks have not "contributed" these things. Rather, they have been confined to poverty and crime because it is politically expedient for whichever group of people benefits from it. Whichever group it has been has identified itself as belonging to the Democrat Party for the past 200 years. Democrats in the South insisted that slavery be allowed. Democrats in the South intimidated blacks for over a hundred years after slavery was abolished. Democrats today force blacks to languish in poor economic conditions so that they can remain on the welfare rolls and continue to vote Democrat out of fear that their welfare checks will stop coming in. And the blacks that are successful of their own hard work are demonized by Democrats. Look at how thoroughly Herman Cain was destroyed by the mainstream media, and how Clarence Thomas is routinely villainized by liberals.
You need to look beyond the color of their skin to the real problem, and like so many problems in our society today, the real problem is caused by Democrats and progressives.
Bob| 4.9.12 @ 1:44PM
They can't "invent" AIDS.
spike59| 4.10.12 @ 7:56AM
you REALLY didn't expect anything resembling 'intelligence' from Bill, did you? that's like expecting Clint to somehow start making sense
vtwin| 4.9.12 @ 2:35PM
Bill, do you think that a hundred years of "legal" discrimination after several hundred years of slavery might have some bearing on the dysfunctionality in the black community?
Calvin| 4.9.12 @ 3:59PM
Actually they survived that amazingly well. They had their big difficulty surviving the white liberal. There is nothing worse in the world than the liberal trying to help. Their college educated friends do very well but the target of their aid is in peril. We are all in peril.
One if by land...| 4.9.12 @ 5:10PM
no vtwin it doesn't. Taking their pride with government handouts has kept them back. Besides the fact that they will never feel truly frre in the country that once held them as slaves. I took that from Jefferson by the way.
One if by land...| 4.9.12 @ 5:10PM
free*
idalily| 4.9.12 @ 10:19PM
Many blacks are still on the plantation, and many of other races and nationalities have joined them. This plantation is called Welfare, and sadly, slavery is once again legal.
Laine| 4.16.12 @ 1:59PM
Blacks were pulling even with whites economically in the 1960's much closer in time to the slavery and racism you proffer as the excuse for their community's present dysfunctionality. Their families were largely intact as well. What slavery and racism did not do, LBJ and Dem Welfare policies managed to do: shatter the black family and increase every measure of pathology in the black community that preys on itself and whites now. Incidentally, there are millions of people who have suffered gulag imprisonment and torture worse than black slavery who managed to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps in one generation of liberty because they had no liberal "help" (since libs approved of their communist oppressors). It is lib breeding of dependency under the guise of benefaction that is the toxin.
One if by land...| 4.9.12 @ 5:08PM
Read your last sentence Bill.
biomedlives| 4.12.12 @ 6:21PM
Though I am white, I would have voted for Colin Powell, if he had run for President, over GWB or any other opponent
I agree with Pete - cut out the racism.
SGB| 4.9.12 @ 10:26AM
While the general thrust of the author's argument is bang on, the one thing they neglect to discuss is corruption. Those who corrupt the government system are able to benefit with little unique talent (such as the pro athlete) or any meaningful work or production. This is the crime of the ruling classes. Whether it is government officials using their time in office to enrich themselves (or afterward), or it is business types using insider contact to skew the game in their favour, it has the same effect. For the game to be "fair" or "equal" the same rules do need to apply to all.
Pete| 4.9.12 @ 11:11AM
Spock: " Equal? Like two slaves under the same whip?"
"WOLVERINE" in training| 4.9.12 @ 11:15AM
obozo cannot read beyond what's on
his teleprompter
cicero| 4.9.12 @ 12:13PM
The fascinating thing about the current state of our history is that those who inssist on equality of outcome are those in charge of government. Those whom I like to refer to as the "aristocracy of the beaurocracy" beat the drum for "equality", while making sure that their programs undermine the ability of the citizens to achieve equality under the law. As the government grows ever larger, the power and wealth of this country concentrates in the hands of a few, and just below that, in the hands of the beaurocracy. You need only look at the disparity in the ability to accumulate the wealth you work for, as opposed to that accumulated by the governing class to see the problem. They rig the laws, and the tax policies so their supporters in the economic halls of power, who fund their ability to maintain their positions, can accumulate billions, so they can happily gain their millions, and economic security. This is all at the expense of the working middle class. The only way to reverse this is to cut the size and scope of government. If the Republicans gain control of Washington, and do not abolish half of the existing beaurocracy, all hope will be lost. America will fade away. The next administration has to abolish at least half of the acrinimic beaurocratic agencies at once. The reason for thier establishment in the first place ceases to exist, if it ever did. As I told an gathering in about 1974, the greatest danger facing this country is the advent of government by fiat. It is now here in full force, and must be abolished if we hope to retain our liberties.
Laine| 4.16.12 @ 2:09PM
"the power and wealth of this country concentrates in the hands of a few, and just below that, in the hands of the bureaucracy. You need only look at the disparity in the ability to accumulate the wealth you work for, as opposed to that accumulated by the governing class to see the problem. They rig the laws, and the tax policies".
Cicero, you have put your finger on the problem that keeps growing and would undermine even the second coming of a Reagan as it did the first coming - a vast permanent unionized government class that with a few crony capitalists enriches itself and grows its power at the expense of a diminishing private sector middle class. Taxpayers who can barely make ends meet by working long past pensionable age are on the hook for government retirees drawing cushy pensions starting in their 50's. This is slave labor. No one man, no one President can reverse this Leviathan unless conservatives mobilize themselves in the streets demanding change, not once, not twice but creating the same kind of incessant din that lefties do.
Petronius| 4.9.12 @ 12:32PM
A friend in the UK tried to come up with Politically Correct Chess. The pawns were all pensioners or on the dole and could complain about anything, so the rules became debatable. The king was neither allowed to move or say anything. The queen had arbitrary power as do the major cabinet officers in Her Majesty's Government. Bishops are not clerics but advocates for the underclass who cry on their shoulders. The knights are local council functionaries who administer the PC solutions and outcomes of each move by the pawns after receiving directives from above. And the rooks are community centers where the losing pawns go when knocked off the board. It beats playing gin with a deck that's all deuces. Better yet, try bridge with all jokers. I'm waiting for Monopoly with rent control and mortgages through Fannie and Freddie with an option for the Fed to add an inflation factor. Are we having fun yet?
All this happens for two reasons. Our national prosperity as a whole has allowed do gooders with too much time on their hands to saddle the producers with the burden of subsidizing not only the infirmities of the injured, but the character deficiencies of the losers too. The break point is long passed. And the ignorant, indolent, and incompetent, are only too happy to oblige.
Rich H| 4.10.12 @ 1:13AM
I had a slightly different approach to an egalitarian game of chess: All the chess pieces contain a shot glass filled with liquor. Every time you capture one of your opponent's pieces you must immediately drink that piece's contents.
Capturing pieces results in a self-handicapping result.
topeka| 4.14.12 @ 9:26AM
Good idea,
but all you really need to illustrate the current situation is to select a player arbitrarily by a die roll and call him Govt or Govt's Crony - and he gets his money directly from the bank.
And the bank immediately charges the other player/s a percentage for whatever the bank gives to the Govt
- if that's not close enough to wake a fool up - he will never wake up.
jdmeth| 4.9.12 @ 1:37PM
If high taxes on high incomes cause high earners to work less wouldn't that mean that some high paying work would available to those unemployed? Sounds like a plan to me.
If not sharing in the profits caused the Chinese communist farm workers to not produce enough food how did the Confederate South feed itself with slave labor? The problem was managers were not held accountable. If managers will lose their positions if their workers do not produce the managers will make sure each worker is getting his job done. It's human nature to slack off. Self employed people are more motivated to work but hired or even slave workers will produce with the right inducements, say being fired or with slaves, the whip.
Trinacria| 4.9.12 @ 4:07PM
"If high taxes on high incomes cause high earners to work less wouldn't that mean that some high paying work would available to those unemployed? Sounds like a plan to me."
JDM-
You've failed to recognize the fundamental flaw in this argument; namely, the assumption that the unemployed have comparable skills to the high earners they'd be replacing. As the authors of this article pointed out, wages equal the marginal productivity of labor. If the worker's output is unique, the value (wages) will be higher; if the unemployed worker had a skill that was unique and commanded value in the marketplace, he wouldn't be unemployed in the first place. Assuming that any unemployed worker can be plugged into any high earner's position and deliver the same value is a fallacy of the first order.
jdmeth| 4.10.12 @ 1:28AM
You don't take the janitor and putn him in the CEO's office. Everyone just moves up one slot. Many collage graduates are taking jobs away from waiters, these people could do reasonable well in most any position. At some point you have made enough money. I never made over fifty thousand a year in my life but my house, land and cars are paid for. At sixty I haven't worked in over two years. I had no debt but no savings either. My wife works part time and we still put food on the table.
People work 70-80 hours a week pulling every dollar they can from a job. With proper guidance an apprentice could take a share of those hours and learn a business and make some money.
Many successful people think they are unique and no one can do their job. I knew a man hoe worked an a plant engineer at a paper plant. When I ask him what he did he said it was to complicated and i wouldn't understand. I ran a million dollar operation with 15 employees so a said "try me". He said the plant owners would tell him they were buying new paper making machines and he was to oversee installing them and making them run. I said "O, you measure the dimensions of the machines and the inflow and out flow requirements, have the millwrights bolt them in and the electricians wire them, have the manufacture train operators and start production". I could some of the air going out of him and the said "yeah, that's about it".
I know several wealthy individuals who drive their motor coaches to some resort and tell each other how sharp they are. After a month they comeback and the people left working have every thing working smoothly. Most of the skill is in the deals made, how much can I cheat on the order and not get caught. Or my drinking buddy can do this, no need to see if that new guy could supply me this time.
Business deals run on alcohol, a nondrinker will not fit in.
The global free trade race to the bottom will have the top 0.01% living in well defended compounds and the rest of us working for the planetary minimum wage of about 5 dollars a day.
Trinacria| 4.10.12 @ 2:42PM
"At some point you have made enough money."
And who, pray tell, is to be the judge of what constitutes "enough"? If it is your contention that it is the exclusive domain of the individual to define what constitutes enough (given the individual's unique circumstances, goals, values, obligations, etc.), then we can shake hands and agree. If, however, you're suggesting that there is a universal threshold that can (and should) be established by some entity other than the individual and, even more radically, that individuals who exceed that threshold should be penalized for doing so, then I would suggest that you might profitably consider the merits of relocating to the lovely Republic of China and giving that type of system a go. I rather suspect you'd be less enthusiastic after a year or two of practical experience...
Mistral| 4.9.12 @ 1:41PM
The only people who are not equal are the elite governing dynasties. The EU has more than its fair share of them.
vtwin| 4.9.12 @ 2:16PM
Ah, the village idiot (Stephen Moore ) and the Dick Army’s chief tax propagandist (Peter Ferrara) team up to convince the endlessly gullible American Spectator readers, all 57 of us, that nothing ails the nation that another round of tax cuts for the rich can’t fix.
Calvin| 4.9.12 @ 4:02PM
You have screwed things up again. 57 is the number of states President O has visited. Tax tax tax like those shining example of fiscal responsibility, California, New York and Illinois. No thanks.
Trinacria| 4.9.12 @ 4:15PM
VTWIN,
I read and re-read the article and failed to find any suggestion by either Mr. Moore or Mr. Ferrara that there is no present ailment facing the nation that couldn't be addressed by tax cuts for the "rich". In fact, one could make a stronger case that the article supports raising taxes on the poor, as it would have the dual effect of:
a) leveling the playing field (everyone pays the same percentage)
b) incentivizing, rather than disincentivizing, success
idalily| 4.9.12 @ 10:20PM
vtwin, so the poor are hiring people? Who knew?
kwan| 4.9.12 @ 3:14PM
The left's call for equality (financial) is in reality leftist codespeak for the eradication of the Constitution and freedom and the implementation of an authoritarian government that controls all economic activity. For where there is freedom of economic activity financial inequality will always result. But as we have all seen with the various communist regimes that arose in different countries during the twentieth century, the citizens of those countries inevitably ended up being "equally" poor and "equally" without freedom. The suckers, saps, lobotomized morons, and village idiots that bought into the lefts promise of a Marxist Utopia became the victims of a massive swindle.
Von Mises Jr.| 4.9.12 @ 4:25PM
I love Vonnegut's great books. But ironically, he was apparently a Michael Moore-like liberal.
Amazing that he actually wrote several works that portrayed life in socialist "Utopia" as hell.
"Cat's Cradle" depicts socialist dictators and their foil "Bonkonon." Another has two autistic or retarded twins who become genius when the put their heads together. Sort of like how liberals see government.
WalkingHorse | 4.9.12 @ 5:51PM
The movie version of Vonnegut's short story, "2081" is less than 30 minutes long, and well done.
Oldefarte| 4.9.12 @ 6:27PM
There is no EQUALITY of result, only or origin. The Biblical story of two individuals each given 10 talents [one buries his, while the other uses his] is key. Government and man's law rightfully should equate the playing field [Brown vs Bd of Ed etc and various anti-discrimination laws etc] so that each has an equal opportunity. The road to success varies in degrees of difficulty for everyone. Not everyone is born with Bill Gates' or Donald Trump's opportunities in life and therefore has to work harder than these two for success, but if one initially disadvantaged by birth becomes educated and works hard, success will come to that person to some degree. For government to forcibly mandate equal results by wealth redistribution is corruption of the highest order. Government does thus for selfish political purposes by corrupt politicians. They bestow governmental benefits on the downtrodden and quid-pro-quo demand their votes as payment for same. Do not worship a false god or religion......vote Republican on 11/4/12!!!!!!!
Pat| 4.9.12 @ 8:13PM
OK, we get it: “each of us is unique, just like everyone else”. And the other strange paradox of our wealthy society is that we all supposedly agreed to help the needy, and the disadvantaged, and the 49% who don’t pay income taxes but then somehow that plan always failed to work out as we intended – every single time. Take the once great city of Detroit for example – now completely bankrupt. For decades, hard-working waitresses in Atlanta and tire salesmen in Lompoc have generously contributed their tax dollars to help revive Detroit. Several billions poured into a city which can’t afford to turn on its streetlights this coming evening.
Over 40 square miles of the Motor City are presently deserted, even the crack dealers have moved on. Wild animals have now come to graze in abandoned yards with rusting swing sets where children once played. Some remaining residents have started vegetable gardens in these so-called “vacant lots” – and they have many vacant lots to choose from. The City Fathers, and arguably the City Mothers as well, sigh with regret over the lost property taxes represented by empty block after empty block of formerly thriving neighborhoods.
But back in the late 60’s, Detroit faced a brave new world where our government agreed to help out and the residents vowed to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. A vibrant, wealthy city would emerge if only the poor were “helped” and Lyndon Johnson would see his Great Society brought to technicolor reality in Detroit. We believed in the Great Society dream, it didn’t work out, but we still continue to believe. What’s wrong with our heads – even Vonnegut didn’t know.
jdmeth| 4.10.12 @ 1:51AM
The cities would have been helped if the workers there could have continued to manufacture every car, television, radio, washing machine and each new device that sells by the millions developed by American companies.
The Roman empire lasted over a thousand years by dooingn the same thing year after year. When the started putting new foreign citizens in charge who weren't loyal to Roman civilization and not trained in the Roman way the system collapsed. Today's immigrant citizens don't want to be Americans. They just want to be their ethnic selves without the ethnic bullies where they came from. The current administration wants to build a new nation with this disparage mix of individuals with no nationalistic pride, except some for the "old country".
Rich H| 4.10.12 @ 1:02AM
Thank you Messrs Moore and Ferrara for a saying what is so true yet too seldom said. Egalitarianism hurts the poor.
Marx's "From each...to each..." maxim is an impossibility because the two principles are mutually exclusive. A world where this edict was followed to its logical conclusion would produce an abundance of rock stars, poets and artists, but would contain extremely few plumbers, garbage men or nursing home attendants.
jdmeth| 4.10.12 @ 2:06AM
You people must have never hired workers to do nasty jobs. You have supervisors to make sure each one is producing. Place people of comparable ability together. Then each worker does the same amount of work. Treat people fairly. Even animals recognize when they are not being treated fairly. Slackers get fired, if someones only ability is to eat they can work as a food taster. Set goals. Finishing a task makes work rewarding, even if you start a new task ten minutes later
Trinacria| 4.10.12 @ 2:54PM
With respect, finishing a task makes work rewarding to simpletons; high achievers rarely find fulfillment in the simple completion of a task. Work is rewarding when it is profitable and results in the attainment of meaningful goals.
How utterly insulting to suggest that the worker bees can be controlled by giving them simple tasks to complete. This is precisely the mentality that drives the liberal agenda - pat the poor dumb citizens on the head and give them some token job to keep them busy, rather than challenging them to achieve, arming them with the tools to succeed, and then charging them with the responsibility for doing so.
Polly| 4.11.12 @ 3:56PM
Excellent article. Should be required reading for ALL
high school and college kids.
Big D| 4.12.12 @ 2:15PM
But...If the O campaign paid any attention to this article (unlikely), what would they say?
"Typical conservative hyperbole designed to mis-represent the true good intentions of the administration who has brought so many excellent things to ordinary middle class people beset by corporate greed and the Bush recession."
While this article is a good thought provoker for those inclined to accept reality, to others what is needed is specific information about the harm O has wrought, in simple--yet demonstrably accurate and truthful--terms.
John Symons| 4.12.12 @ 2:22PM
Glad I dug out the story and read it before I finished the article, SPOILERS!:)
Chuck| 4.14.12 @ 1:22PM
The premise of this article is beyond ridiculous, stoking the fears of some people that any non-conservative government is going to demand that everyone be exactly equal in every personal and financial attribute to everyone else, rendering us a society of human drones.
That is not the equality liberals are striving for. Liberals demand equality before the law--that should be a non-starter for everyone. But liberals also ask that gross systemic inequalities that are naturally perpetuated through the generations be addressed so all people have a fair playing field on which to ply their talents. If people still fail on that playing field--if they fail because they didn't work hard enough, or create enough value to maintain their positions--then that failure is on them. But talented people working hard but still failing only because they do not have inherited wealth, live in the wrong neighborhoods or have certain ethnic attributes should not be tolerated by a society, represented by its government, that needs strong achievement from all segments to grow this country's economic prospects.
This is not a wrong-headed demand to equalize the wealth of everyone, because that is a ridiculous demand to begin with on its face, and no level of government intervention could ever effectively achieve that anyway. It's about equalizing the playing field, and giving the talent a chance to be recognized, regardless of the background of the people involved.
Ferruccio Fortini| 4.15.12 @ 3:37PM
"it is wrong to even speak of the "distribution" of income and wealth": it's perfectly correct to speak of the "distribution" of ANY metric -- it's a fundamental term in descriptive statistics! "The distribution of children weights at birth" does NOT imply that weight is taken away from some kids and glued onto others -- it's a simple but important way to summarize the measurements. For the use of the word specifically in economic statistics, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_(economics) . Cheez...
Rockerbabe| 4.17.12 @ 4:26PM
This article is just a bunch of words signifying absolutely nothing. The writer seems to imply that in the good old USA, fairness and equality, while laudable goals, would "ruin" it for all those talented folks, who got where they are by talent as well as merit. Poppycock! Nothing could be further from the truth!
Merit, is not in play in this country, except on the smallest of scales. Talent isn't either, except in some professions, but not in most. Education can and does make a difference, but is often not the only factor. Gender often palys a large part as to pay, respect, benefits, etc. Just take a look at the public school teachers and the war that the GOP has been waging against them.
Our country is riddles with overt religious, societal and government mandated inequality and unfairness. Afterall, it took the 19th amendment to give women the vote. It took the 20th amendment to give Native Americans the vote in their own land! And, there hasn't been one treaty that the US government signed, that the white citizens of the country didn't break, ignore or commit fraud against the Indians. It took the civil rights laws to enforce the 13th and 14th amendments on behalf of citizens of color. It took numerous laws to get so many institutions in this country to open their doors to education for women and people of color. It has taken a sustained effort to get equal pay and benefits for equal work for women.
It took several SCOTUS opinions to overturn laws that restricted women's ability to control their own health and very survival! And, were are still fighting that battle! It has taken numerous laws to get parity for women and girls in sports in public taxpayer schools!
So please, take your chicken little comments and put them someplace other than on the net; you are embarrasing yourself with your foaming at the mouth about fairness.