The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

Feature

The Poverty of Equality

By & from the April 2012 issue

Fairness requires that President Obama read up on his Kurt Vonnegut.

(Page 2 of 2)

A good and just tax system should be designed to make the poor rich, not the rich poor. The preoccupation with equality reverses these two objectives, such as when Barack Obama says we should raise the capital gains rate even if it doesn’t increase government revenue, for “the purpose of fairness.” How is an outcome that hurts everyone fair?

IT’S EASY TO THINK of other unfavorable results of this fairness fetish. Under the social justice of equal income and wealth for all, investment would make no sense. People invest only to earn returns, which means more income. Anyone who invests more would have a higher income, which would be expropriated to the extent it was above the average. But anyone who invests less and thus has a below-average income would be rewarded with a grant from the government to ensure equality. So, again, the only rational strategy would be to avoid all investment.

China is one good recent example. During the era of communism in the 1940s, '50s, and '60s, when all land was cultivated for the “common good” and food was evenly distributed to all, regardless of how much one worked, China produced way too little food, and many millions of people, including children, starved to death. But then, starting in the 1980s, agricultural reforms began to emerge that allowed farmers to take a small plot of land and keep the food they grew. An amazing thing happened. Production of food on these very small tracts surged multiples higher than the output on the communal lands. The Chinese farmers saw output double and even triple from the previous arrangement where all food was put in a communal pot. Private ownership of the farms led to a green revolution, and China quickly became a food exporter.

Was this because the Chinese people are selfish and don’t care about their fellow man? No, Chinese culture is no more selfish than any other. It’s just that we as human beings are hardwired to put our own well-being and that of our kids above that of the fellow we don’t even know. The human pursuit of happiness begins for most by taking care of themselves and their families. That is deeply ingrained into our cores.

We would add that the alternative course of demanding equality of opportunity can (and almost always does in practice) lead to the subordination of other values, such as personal liberty. As one example, the talented almost always want to leave societies where their talents are suppressed. Think of North Korea, or Cuba, or East Germany after World War II. These regimes quickly discovered that to keep their nations from economic collapse, they had to enforce tight restrictions on emigration and international travel to avoid losing their most productive citizens. And it wasn’t just the best and brightest who wanted to leave. Many average citizens wanted to flee from economically stagnant, poor societies. So the governments had to restrict everyone from leaving and impose on the liberty of all. This is where the Berlin Wall came from. It was not a wall to keep invaders out. It was to keep citizens captive.

BUT DOESN’T THE DECLARATION of Independence itself say “All men are created equal,” and isn’t equality a fundamental American ideal? Yes, but these expressions invoke a concept of equality different from the social justice concept of equal incomes and wealth for all.

The original and traditionally American concept of equality is “equality under the law.” That means the same rules apply to all, not the same results. Baseball is a fair game because the same rules apply to all players.

Equality of rules protects the property of all, which encourages saving, investment, and work, because all are assured protection for the fruits of their labor. Equality of rules ensures that all enjoy the same freedom of contract, which empowers them to maximize value and production, and plan investment knowing they can rely on their agreed contractual rights. Equality of rules provides a framework in which all are free to pursue their individual visions of happiness to the maximum extent.

Within this framework of equal rules for all, the outcome of the market in terms of income and wealth is fair, for two fundamental reasons. The first is that people basically earn in the market the value of what they produce. Economists say more formally that wages equal the marginal productivity of labor. That encompasses both the quantity and rarity of each worker’s output. If the worker’s output is unique, that output will be worth more, to the extent that people value it, because only he can produce it. James Patterson has gotten rich writing mystery novels that readers buy because they derive happiness from his thrillers and are captivated by his plots. Every one of us can sing, but Katy Perry has a string of number-one hits that young people all over the world want to listen to over and over.

Alex Rodriguez and LeBron James each make a lot more money than any teacher, or any doctor. In a broad social sense, what teachers and doctors do is worth much more than what professional athletes do. Sure, not everyone can teach, and fewer still can practice medicine. But only Alex Rodriguez and LeBron James can do what they do, which entertains millions at the stadium, on the radio, on television, and in the paper the next morning. Each fan is willing to pay a little in return for their unique performances. What they get is not unfair. They earn it, through talent and hard work.

THIS IS WHY it is wrong to even speak of the “distribution” of income and wealth. Income and wealth are not distributed. Income and wealth are created, and in a fair society they come into the world attached to the rightful owner that produced them. As the late Harvard philosopher Robert Nozick wrote, “Whoever makes something, having bought or contracted for all other held resources used in the process…is entitled to it. The situation is not one of something’s getting made, and there being an open question of who is to get it.” If income and wealth are not attached to the owner that produced them, they tend not to be created at all.

Moreover, what is produced is not taken from anyone else. It is created by the worker, the earner, and does not come at the expense of others. The economy is not a fixed pie with slices handed out by Barack Obama. Each worker expands the pie and creates his own slices.

A society that puts equality ahead of freedom and prosperity will be in the end an unhappy one. As we have seen throughout history, high tax rates, high welfare benefits, and collectivist outcomes lead to deprivation and poverty. We want a fair society where everyone can realize his fullest human potential. And yes, that means some—Bill Gates, Michael Jordan, Tom Cruise, Albert Pujols, Lady Gaga, and Sergey Brin—will get a lot richer than others. There is no injustice in that.

We left until now the thrilling ending of Mr. Vonnegut’s story. Just at the moment when Harrison Bergeron and the ballet dancer were wowing the audience with their expertise and breathtaking talent, as the orchestra was breaking into shockingly beautiful chords, and as the crowd’s cheering reached a crescendo of joy and admiration, at that very moment, in barged the Handicapper General, Diana Moon Glampers. With a double-barreled shotgun, she shot the two lawbreakers dead to the floor, and equality was restored.

Page:   12

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) |

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.

More Articles by Stephen Moore

More Articles by Peter Ferrara

More Articles From Feature

Revenge of the Fruitcakes

June 17, 2013 | Peter Hitchens

The IRS Mess

June 14, 2013 | James Bovard

How Not To Buy a Fighter

June 13, 2013 | Jed Babbin

The Thatcher Legacy

June 6, 2013 | Daniel Mandel

The Watergate Triangle

May 31, 2013 | Richard Wheeler

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/04/09/the-poverty-of-equality

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Green Flags, Yellow Flags, and Black Flags

John Tabin|54 comments

Barack’s Brave New World Blarney

George Neumayr|46 comments

There’s Something About Cambridge

Daniel J. Flynn|29 comments

Obama’s Unaffordable Act

Peter Ferrara|70 comments

Celebrating Our Lady of Paris

Joseph A. Harriss|9 comments

Charter Schooling? Why Not Charter Housing?

Wayne Woodman|17 comments

Cash for Organs?

Eric Boehm|20 comments

Back in the Fray

Kyle Peterson|102 comments

The Spectacle Blog

James Gandolfini, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 9:13PM

An Alternate History of the Syrian Civil War

John Tabin | 6:13PM

Peter Wehner Responds

Jeffrey Lord | 5:39PM

CBO Gives Ammunition to Immigration Reform Supporters

Jordan Gonzalez | 5:28PM

Obama Addresses Nuclear Reduction, Climate Change

Claire Healey | 5:07PM

Elbert Guillory: ‘Why I Am a Republican’

Patrick Ryan | 10:13AM

The One Party State

F.H. Buckley | 9:47AM

Cummings Accused of Subverting IRS Investigation

Jeffrey Lord | 6:20AM

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal

Jeffrey Lord | 6.18.13

Foreign Policy as Farce

Jed Babbin | 6.17.13

The Biggest Fool of All

Doug Bandow | 6.17.13

Can Liturgical Music Be Saved?

Patrick O'Hannigan | 6.17.13

Revenge of the Fruitcakes

Peter Hitchens | 6.17.13

Obama's Climate of Intimidation

Matthew Sheffield | 6.18.13

Obama's Unaffordable Act

Peter Ferrara | 6.19.13

Whither Suburbia?

Steven Greenhut | 6.18.13

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.